HLC Self-Study Steering Committee
Minutes
April 21, 2007
9:30 a.m.
Ada’s Deli, Chicago IL
The members of the steering committee met after the HLC Self-Study workshop in Chicago and took turns sharing information presented at the various panels during the workshop.
Lee Ann Brewer began by sharing what she’d learned about making the site team comfortable during the site visit. Interior design students should be involved in helping decorate the room, and the college should provide real desks, a conference table, and snacks. It was suggested that the steering committee contact Jennifer McMann for help recruiting students. Pam Kannady suggested using one of the rooms in the Southeast Campus Student Union for the site team. Currently, the plan is to clean up rooms on building three at Southeast Campus. Lee Ann also mentioned having materials available and well-organized for the site team and making sure that the resource room could be available for continued use by the college.
Randy Dominguez discussed one panel that used a movie theme to help bring attention to the self-study process and to make it fun. Each department created its own portfolio of information for the steering committee to examine during the self-study. He mentioned that Blackboard has an e-portfolio feature that would be useful if different departments at TCC created portfolios and that the portfolios could be valuable beyond the self-study. Lynn asked if it was too late to ask different departments to create a portfolio and wondered who would issue an edict for completing this task.
Gary Hunt reported that the workshop had been extremely helpful and stated that he wished the steering committee could have attended earlier in the process. One of the panels he attended discussed the importance of writing evaluative rather than simply descriptive reports and the need to present data alongside the issues being discussed, whether the issues are positive or negative. He also mentioned that the self-study document could be used for continuous improvement and as a good starting point for the next self-study.
Amanda Blackman also attended a panel on evaluative writing during which the panelists showed participants how to put both a negative and a positive spin on evidence. This panel emphasized the need to explain how the college is overcoming problems discovered during the self-study process and how we learn from what we find. She also shared suggestions presented at a panel on using Microsoft word, including the suggestion to avoid different styles as different subcommittees are writing the document. Randy suggested all subcommittees write their reports in word pad since it does not allow for any formatting. Amanda pointed out that Word allows the user to create footnotes that can be converted into endnotes, which can be used to show all of the different resources that the subcommittee examined to write the reports.
Dorothy Minor had attended the same panels as Amanda and emphasized the many features Microsoft word provides to make writing the report easier. For instance, Microsoft allows use to create hyperlinks so that all referenced materials can be linked the final document.
Marvin Cooke had listed the “neglected items” related to criterion 4 mentioned during the morning session. He is going to share these with his committee. Several others said they had listed the neglected items for all of the criteria. Staff development is one neglected item that Marvin wants to make sure his subcommittee addresses. He also asked how the subcommittee co-chairs should approach volunteers if they submit problematic reports. Since it is the responsibility of the subcommittee co-chairs to ensure that the reports they submit are accurate and well-done, they may need to send drafts back to the volunteers or revise the drafts themselves.
The issue of how to make sure all people read the self-study report came up and several people offered suggestions they had heard during the workshop. One suggestion is to have a “read in” that is open to all members of the college. Sticky notes would be provided and people could read sections of the report related to their areas, adding notes as necessary for clarification. Marvin said he had asked the librarians to read his draft that focused on the LRC, but not all of them had read the draft. The committee agreed we need to make sure plenty of people read the report so no one is surprised.
One of the panels Mary Milikin attended discussed using the strategic plan to organize the self-study. The strategic plan, mission, and other planning documents should be aligned. [Escalator analogy?] Provosts should have planning documents relevant to the self-study. The administrative units assessments would also be relevant.
Sharon Wright asked if the steering committee co-chairs were going to provide templates for writing their reports. Although subcommittees should organize their reports around the core components as presented in the Handbook, specific information about formatting would make drafting the final report easier. Sharon also wondered which criterion should deal with general education, and how we will handle duplication in the reports. Lynn pointed out that different subcommittees will be looking at the same area but through the lens of their criterion and core components. Finally, Sharon shared ideas for getting people involved, such as having town meetings and offering prizes. Students are more likely to show up if food is provided.
Carol Carr’s panels included one that suggested creating an executive summary of the self-study report or “Cliff’s Notes” so that it is easy for people to learn the overall conclusions and issues addressed in the self-study. Other means of promoting awareness include t-shirts with the college’s mission statement or the first three words of the mission statement and banners. Carol said one panel pointed out that 20% of people in a college complete the majority of work associated with the self-study.
Mary Walker reiterated the need to make people aware the self-study is taking place. She mentioned involving everyone, from groundskeepers to upper administration. The work of the different subcommittees will be like pieces of a puzzle but the pieces might not always connect. The panels she attended emphasized staying focused on the mission and colleting and sharing information regularly through the steering committee.
Pam Kannady had attended panels on resource rooms. One college indexed all information in every way the site team might want to see it (alphabetically, by criteria, etc.). Some members of the site team might want hard copies of documents, so we should make sure they are available in the on-site resource room. Information should be backed up on CDs or flash drives. Randy pointed out that our resource room may be unique in having a key word search for all documents.
Jennifer Smith learned that the examples of evidence provided in The Handbook should not be seen as a checklist; each college should examine data specific to the institution. She also suggested that the template Criterion 3 created could have another column indicating whether evidence was electronic or hard copy. One of the panels she attended discussed using a scavenger hunt for the outside community to see whether people could locate specific materials. She also heard suggestions to get people involved such as having them answer questions on a quiz that would qualify them to win prizes. Good parking spaces would be a valued prize on Southeast Campus. Jennifer also pointed out that one college provided stipends for the staff members who take on the additional work involved in self-study.
Lynn Green wondered if there would be a way to condense our mission statement to three or four words to create more awareness of the mission by printing it on t-shirts or cards. One of the panels she attended shared strategies for having students complete class assignments related to the self-study. Journalism, marketing and interior design classes, for example, could complete class projects to assist with the self-study. The students had budgets to create PR and other materials. The Tulsa Achieves cohort could complete a self-study project as part of their required service hours.
Other ideas from the workshop included creating a 3-ring binder self-study report that is easy for the team to look at; sharing the HLC conference papers with other steering committee members and volunteers; inviting Paul Johnson to our next meeting so that he can offer advice based on his work with AQIP; inviting Cheryl Marrs to attend subcommittee meetings to share her expertise as a site evaluator; and creating a handout, based on HLC documents, identifying specific items that the site team expects to see.
The steering committee will review these minutes prior to the next meeting, which is scheduled for April 27. The steering committee co-chairs will send a reminder and an agenda.
1