Research Study of Internal Review Processes for the New SACS Principles of Accreditation

1. SACS/COC Annual Meeting, December 4-7, 2004, Atlanta, Georgia Research Study of Internal Review Processes for the New SACS Principles of Accreditation Ms. Phuong T. T. Nguyen, Dr. Diane E. Oliver, & Dr. T. Gilmour Reeve Texas Tech University

2. Presenters and Moderator • Presenters • Phuong T. T. Nguyen: Doctoral Candidate (ABD) in the College of Education, Higher Education Program at Texas Tech University (TTU) • Diane Oliver, Ph.D: Deputy Director of the Vietnam Center, TTU • Moderator • T. Gilmour Reeve, Ph.D: Director of Strategic Planning, President’s Office, TTU

3. Panelists • Dr. Gary Elbow, Texas Tech University • Dr. Ruth Feiock, Florida State University • Dr. Teresa A. Summers, Louisiana State University System

4. Format PRESENTATION • Purpose and Significance • Methodology and Data Collection • Findings and Recommendations PANEL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

5. Purpose and Significance • To examine the internal review processes used by selected higher education institutions (HEIs) to carry out the SACS new Principles of Accreditation • Because the model is new, lessons learned are potentially useful to other HEIs

6. Methodology and Data Collection • Philosophical lens was postpositivism The same phenomenon is perceived differently by different people • Qualitative and exploratory research design • Data collection from public documents and phone interviews

7. Time Line Leadership Team Task Planning and Implementation for the Compliance Certification Task Planning and Implementation for the QEP Communication Technical Support Culture of Assessment Findings & Recommendations

8. Time Line Recommendations • Develop both external & internal time lines • Track formative assessments • Allow ample time

9. Time Line Leadership Team Recommendations • When appointing the SACS liaison, consider current SACS guidelines and the best skill sets • Institutional leadership support for the SACS liaison (e.g., resources, release time, etc.) • Selected Leadership Team members assume responsibility for the writing • Train Leadership Team members

10. Time Line Leadership Team Task Planning & Implementation for the Compliance Certification (CC) Recommendations • Keep the CC Team small; Select key players • Design standardized data collection forms • Consider the audience’s potential lack of knowledge regarding the institution

11. Task Planning & Implementation for the QEP Recommendations • Select a chair who is a respected faculty member, knowledgeable of the institution, experienced in planning & assessment, resourceful, and a good writer • Solicit faculty involvement and broad based participation • Limit the QEP scope so that progress can be demonstrated within five years, and develop clear success criteria

12. Task Planning and Implementation for the QEP Communication Recommendations • Provide background information on the new SACS processes • Regularly update the leadership • Include leadership’s assistants on e-mails • Provide regular communication within the working teams • Have the Compliance Certification and QEP processes open to comments

13. Task Planning and Implementation for the QEP Communication Technical Support Recommendations • Involve early technical support to: • Design a user-friendly website • Facilitate interactive online communication • Track tasks and time lines • Have a technical support person on-call 24 hours during off-site review

14. Task Planning and Implementation for the QEP Communication Technical Support Culture of Assessment Recommendations • Establish professional regular assessments through standing bodies • specifically charged with assessment responsibilities • help units with developing tools for enhancing quality

15. Panel Discussion • Moderator • Dr. T. Gilmour Reeve, Texas Tech University • Panelists • Dr. Gary Elbow, Texas Tech University • Dr. Ruth Feiock, Florida State University • Dr. Teresa A. Summers, Louisiana State University System

16. Thank you!