Understanding SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Process

2. Agenda • Overview of SACS reaffirmation of accreditation process • What has been done to prepare • Organizing for SACS reaffirmation of accreditation process • Recommended course syllabus components • Summer 2005 Readings

3. Overview of the Reaffirmation of Accreditation Process

4. SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation: Goal • Continuous Quality Enhancement • “The concept of quality enhancement is at the heart of the Commission’s philosophy of accreditation . . • Although evaluation of an institution’s educational quality and its effectiveness in achieving its mission is a difficult task . . . , an institution is expected to document quality and effectiveness in all its major aspects”(SACS, 2001/2004, p. 5)

5. What is Quality? • The higher education community accepts student achievement of expected learning outcomes as the key indicator of quality (AAC&U, 2004, p.1; Ewell/CHEA, 2002; Massy, 2003; Ratcliff, 1997; SACS, 2001/2004; Tagg, 2003) • Whereas “quality” was once defined in terms of inputs and resources – what the institution has—it’s now defined in terms of processes and outcomes—what the institution does with what it has” (Wergin, 2005, p. 36)

6. How New “Principles” Differ from Old “Criteria”? • “Must” and “Should” statements are gone • Emphasis in Principles is placed on more subjective analysis of best practices • Determination of compliance is frequently more subjective with Principles • Responsibility is with institution to “make its case” with regard to compliance

7. Challenges Presented by New Process • Principles are less specific than Criteria • Professional judgment, benchmarking and best practices • Evidence • “Pattern of evidence” • Multiple indicators • SACS expectations are constantly raising

8. New Elements in Reaffirmation of Accreditation Process • Compliance Certification • Reviews by Off-Site and On-Site Review Committees and SACS Commission on Colleges • Electronic Communication of Information • Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

9. What Has Been Done to Prepare for SACS Reaffirmation

10. What Has Been Done To Prepare • Disseminated SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Information • Opening and Closing Faculty Conferences • Institutional Effectiveness Information Sessions • Presentations to Schools and Divisions

11. What Has Been Done To Prepare (Cont’d) • Began addressing common problem areas identified by SACS 2004 cohort reviewers such as • Coherence of curriculum / CR 2.7, CS 3.5, 3.6 (curriculum mapping and alignment) • Institutional effectiveness and assessment / CR 2.5, CS 3.3, 3.4.1 (program assessment reports) • Faculty qualifications / CS 3.7.1 (faculty qualifications / course outcomes matrix)

12. Faculty Qualifications: What Has Been Learned from 2004 SACS Cohort • The following need more attention: • Faculty Rosters • Justifications linking faculty qualifications and course outcomes • Institution needs to authenticate degrees • Institution needs to have international credentials evaluated for comparability (Benberg, Clark, & Weed (2004, December). Faculty qualifications: Presenting the case. SACS Professional Development Session.)

13. Faculty Qualifications: Representative SACS 2004 Cohort Reviewers’ Comments • “The institution did not sufficiently document and justify the qualifications and competencies of certain faculty for their teaching assignments.” • “The Committee recommends that the institution document and/or provide justification for the qualifications of all faculty members.” • “For a large number of faculty whose preparation does not meet the credential guidelines of this standard, the justifications for exceptions in the institution’s Faculty Credentials Database are very general.”

14. How Do We Prepare? (Cont’d) • Issued campus call for QEP pre-proposals • Collected Compliance Certifications, QEPs, and Focused Reports from SACS 2004 and 2005 institutional cohorts • Developed NSU organizational structure for the reaffirmation of accreditation process

15. Organizational Structure • Leadership Team • Compliance Certification Committee • Quality Enhancement Plan Committee • Reaffirmation of Accreditation Website Committee

16. Leadership Team: Purpose • Lead NSU in the process of reaffirmation of its accreditation by SACS • Ensure the integrity of the institutional assessment of compliance with all SACS Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards, including developing a viable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) • Align the reaffirmation of accreditation activities with the implementation of 2004-2009 NSU Strategic Plan

17. Leadership Team • Marie V. McDemmond, President • Elsie M. Barnes, Vice President for Academic Affairs and SACS Liaison • Kevin Appleton, Vice President for Finance and Business • Nuria M. Cuevas, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs • Margaret G. Massey, Associate Vice President for Technology • Alexei G. Matveev, Associate Director of Institutional Effectiveness • Amelia Ross-Hammond, Faculty Representative • Terricita E. Sass, Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management • Patrice C. Smith, Faculty Representative • Sandra Williamson-Ashe, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs

18. Compliance Certification Committee The purpose of the Compliance Certification Committee is to manage the institutional review process and to document compliance with the SACS Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, and Federal Requirements.

19. Compliance Certification Review Teams 1. Educational Programs 2. Faculty 3. Governance, Planning, and Administration 4. Student Affairs and Student Support Services 5. Library, Technology and Learning Resources 6. Institutional Effectiveness 7. Finance, Business, and Physical Facilities

20. Quality Enhancement Plan Committee The purpose of the Quality Enhancement Plan Committee is to design a viable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that will result in significant improvements in the quality of student learning at Norfolk State University.

21. QEP Committee Membership • Elsie Barnes, Co-chair • Charles Ford, Co-chair • Reddy Dondetti • Page Laws • Amelia Ross-Hammond • Terry Stokes • Carrie Snead • TBA, Content Team Leader • SGA President

22. Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Teams • Student Learning Outcomes Team (Pre-Planning) • Content Team (Research) • Planning and Implementation Team

23. Amelia Ross-Hammond, Team Leader Norma Brumage Raj Chaudhury Curtis Greaves Desi Hacker Lynne Harrison B. Angela Holley Ron Jones Michael Parker Annie Perkins Jannie Robinson Carrie Waites Twanya Brown Dwyane Littlejohn Aja Frederick QEP Student Learning Outcomes Team

24. Website Committee The purpose of the Website Committee is to design and maintain an interactive and user-friendly web-based "Accreditation and Quality Enhancement Portal."

25. Website Committee Membership • Margaret Massey, Co-chair • Alison Davis-Tariq, Co-chair • Danny Adams • Misti Goodson • Debbie Jones • Tommy Lee • Courtney Mitchell • LaVoris Pace • Chris Tompkins

26. Recommended Course Syllabus Components

27. Recommended Course Syllabus Components: Purpose • Facilitate student learning “The syllabus provides a document by which faculty members define learning outcomes for students and the methods by which those outcomes will be realized.” (Habanek, 2005, p. 62)

28. Recommended Course Syllabus Components: Purpose (Cont’d) • Facilitate student learning (Cont’d) "Focusing on learning rather than teaching requires a shift from an overview of what you as the instructor will cover to consideration of what your students need to be successful learners . . . . Your syllabus is your first opportunity to introduce the learning-centered paradigm to your students and to describe for them the role and responsibilities they will have in your class." (Diamond, 1997, p. ix; Grunert, 1997)

29. Recommended Course Syllabus Components: Purpose (Cont’d) • Facilitate student learning (Cont’d) Nurture curious, informed, and intentional learners who are developing self-awareness about • the reason for study • the learning process itself, and • how education is used (AAC&U, 2002)

30. Recommended Course Syllabus Components: Purpose (Cont’d) • Facilitate student learning (Cont’d) Empower students to learn • Describe where and how the course fits in the curriculum • Model professional thinking and writing • Provide tips on study, self-management, and self-assessment skills (Grunert, 1997; Parkes & Harris, 2002)

31. Recommended Course Syllabus Components: Purpose (Cont’d) • Serve as an agreement • Make clear what the class and university rules, policies, and procedures are • Communicate expectations • Make an explicit agreement on faculty and students’ roles and responsibilities (Parkes & Harris, 2002)

32. Recommended Course Syllabus Components: Purpose (Cont’d) • Provide a permanent record • Document what is covered in a course • At what level, scope and depth, and • For what credit • Facilitate transfer agreements • Facilitate evaluation of individual instructors and programs • Comply with disciplinary accreditation requirements (Parkes & Harris, 2002)

33. Recommended Course Syllabus Components: Purpose (Cont’d) • Facilitate presentation of the evidence of compliance with SACS • Core Requirement 2.7 • Comprehensive standard 3.4.1 • Comprehensive standard 3.4.10 • Comprehensive standard 3.6.1-2 • Facilitate presentation of the evidence of compliance with the SCHEV-mandated development and assessment of the six core competencies

34. Recommended Course Syllabus Components 1. Semester and Year 2. Course number, title, credit hours 3. Class meetings 4. Instructor contact information (office hours, office location, office telephone number, e-mail address, department telephone number and location) 5. Course description, Prerequisites, Co-requisites (as written in the NSU Catalog) 6. Course Rationale

35. Recommended Course Syllabus Components (Cont’d) 7. Course goalsand measurable intended student learning outcomes • The major goals to be achieved by students taking this course are …. • By the end of the course, students will • Know / understand • Be able to do …, and • Value …

36. Recommended Course Syllabus Components (Cont’d) 8. Course materials / required texts / supplemental readings 9. Primary method(s) of instruction 10. Course outline / calendar

37. Recommended Course Syllabus Components (Cont’d) 11. Related University-Wide and Course-Specific Requirements • Writing competency • Information technology literacy • Quantitative reasoning • Scientific reasoning • Oral communication • Critical thinking • Other

38. Recommended Course Syllabus Components (Cont’d) 12. Evaluation / Assessment methods 13. Grading Standards / Evaluation Criteria 14. Academic Integrity Standards

39. Recommended Course Syllabus Components (Cont’d) 15. Blackboard Instructions (if applicable) 16. ADA Statement 17. University Assessment Statement 18. Available Academic Support Services (optional) 19. Tips for Success (optional)

40. Summer 2005 Readings ENSURING THAT STUDENTS LEARN

41. Learning-Centered University “To those outside the academic realm, the concept of a learning-centered college seems to be redundant. Why wouldn’t a college be learning-centered? That’s the question asked most often. Although it’s true that all institutions of higher education exist as mechanisms for teaching and learning, it’s rare to find a college that actually focuses on doing whatever it takes to ensure that students learn.” (McPhail, 2004)

42. Summer 2005 Readings • The purpose of the readings for Summer 2005 is to: • draw campus attention to student learning outcomes as the focus of the new SACS reaffirmation of accreditation, and • emphasize the importance of using assessment results for continuous quality enhancement.

43. Summer 2005 Readings (Cont’d) • The readings also will prepare faculty and staff to: • participate in a comprehensive SACS compliance certification readiness audit in 2005-2006, • participate in developing NSU’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), • participate in reviewing the general education core, and • develop a comprehensive assessment plan for the general education core.

44. Summer 2005 Readings (Cont’d) • Association of American Colleges & Universities (2004). Our Students’ Best Work: A Framework of Accountability Worthy of Our Mission • Bresciani, M.J., Zelna, C.L., & Anderson, J.A. (2004). Introduction to the Importance of Assessing Student Learning and Development • Gaff, J. (2004). What Is a Generally Educated Person? • National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and American College Personnel Association (2004). Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the Learning Experience

45. Summer 2005 Readings (Cont’d) • Smith, P. (2004). FutureThink: Quality in the Learning Age • Tagg, J. (2003). The Golden Rule • Summaries of Professional Development Sessions, 2004 SACS Annual Meeting

46. Summer 2005 Readings (Cont’d) • Electronic files -- www.nsu.edu/iea • Password: nsu • Hard copies -- Lyman Beecher Brooks Library (reserve)