1 / 26

Dr. Marlene Rosenbaum, Fairleigh Dickinson University

Building a Learning Community to Assure Quality through the Accreditation Process: Collaboration between Community Colleges, Public and Private Higher Education Institutions. Dr. Marlene Rosenbaum, Fairleigh Dickinson University Dr. Heather Pfleger, Gwynedd Mercy College.

gray-gould
Download Presentation

Dr. Marlene Rosenbaum, Fairleigh Dickinson University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Building a Learning Community to Assure Quality through the Accreditation Process: Collaboration between Community Colleges, Public and Private Higher Education Institutions Dr. Marlene Rosenbaum, Fairleigh Dickinson University Dr. Heather Pfleger, Gwynedd Mercy College

  2. Session Learning Outcomes • Appreciate value of meeting with colleagues • Gain specific strategies to assist you in forming a consortium • Learn how to conduct successful meetings • Create a “learning community” expanding your knowledge of LOA • Provide opportunities for research and grants

  3. Conceptual Framework What is the thinking behind establishing a consortium? Why is it worth doing?

  4. How idea evolved: • Experiences with the N. J. TEAC Consortium • The Middle States Conference—the Washington group’s experience • The NY/NJ Consortium meeting—we learned that geography played a role.

  5. Why we thought consortium was a good idea: • Overcome isolation when working on LOA • Facilitate sharing of effective strategies & assist with solving common problems • Learn from each other.

  6. Organizational Framework Who, what, when, where?

  7. Getting started • Initial meeting— set agenda, keep room to allow for member discussion • Focus on constructive issues: how often to meet, where to meet, length of meetings, who will facilitate • Important: do not make this overwhelming time commitment

  8. Who are members? • Assessment personnel, institutional research personnel, & staff representing information technology • Both faculty and staff

  9. Membership continued • Colleges, universities, and community colleges • Private and public institutions • Membership is fluid

  10. How to move forward? • Membership decides meeting topics, dates & times & agendas • Members take responsibility for different roles within the Consortium • Keep formal minutes

  11. Rotate meeting location, once pattern established. • Logistics—who pays for meeting space, food? Our model—the host school pays.

  12. Several expectations are realized Benefits of Participation

  13. What we discovered out about our Consortium: • Meeting with colleagues facing similar issues and concerns – very valuable!!! • Sense of isolation diminished • Learn useful strategies from other colleges and universities re: LOA

  14. Get good ideas to avoid pitfalls • Able to focus on specific topics—data management systems, general education assessment where there is a felt need.

  15. Future Potential Benefits • Use information and data generated for research projects. • Explore the possibilities of using qualitative research to inform decisions made on assessment practices. • Share with new faculty the possibilities for research re: LOA. • Work with colleagues in the collaborative on grants that support LOA.

  16. Technology: an important tool • Directory with e-mail addresses. • Began with Google; switched to Sakai. • Postings regarding conferences, articles, etc. • Blog set up for member discussions. • Minutes uploaded for reference.

  17. Screen shot of minutes in Sakai

  18. The consortium provides support with Middle States Requirements • The PRR—specific recommendations from members. • Sharing of strategies to address Self-Study preparations • Gaining insight into Middle States evaluators’ perspectives. • Discussion of current MSCHE policies

  19. What we did not anticipate gaining Unexpected Benefits

  20. Evolution into a Learning Community Opportunity to keep current re: Middle States policies Expanding efforts to professional organizations Enriching each other as a result of diverse institutions collaborating

  21. Our suggestions Replicating the Consortium

  22. Recommendations • Keep things simple & manageable • Spread the workload • Be flexible & value membership input • Encourage members to take ownership • Make good use of their time • Feed them, and they will come

  23. Discussion and Q & A

  24. We are happy to take your questions

  25. For more information:Dr. Marlene Rosenbaum rosenbau@fdu.eduDr. Heather Lee Pflegerpfleger.h@gmc.edu

More Related