UMR’s Accreditation Self-Study

The Value of Accreditation  Institutional Reputation  Standard of Quality  Vehicle for Self Improvement  Transferability of Student Credit Hours/Acceptance to Grad Schools  Student Access to Financial Aid (In FY 05 UMR students received $18 million in Federal Title IV financial aid.)

UMR NCA/HLC Status Current Accreditation Status: Accredited (since 1913) Current Accreditation Status: Accredited (since 1913) Last Comprehensive Evaluation: 1998 – 1999 Last Comprehensive Evaluation: 1998 – 1999 Next Comprehensive Evaluation: 2008 – 2009 Next Comprehensive Evaluation: 2008 – 2009

Accreditation Process & Requirements Have Changed  New criteria effective  UMR is among the first wave of institutions to be evaluated using the new criteria  Previous self-studies were snapshots of the previous 10 years  Now, we must show how UMR is poised for the future  Experience from 1998 self-study and site visit, while helpful, can not be duplicated

What is Required for Accreditation?  This Self-Study is the most comprehensive approach to continual improvement and strategic planning in UMR’s history  Documentation will reflect the entire campus’ (all departments, committees, groups, etc.) perspective on key themes:  Future Oriented  Learning-Focused  Connected  Distinctive

UMR Steering Committee Jerry Bayless, Interim Chair, Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering Harvest L. Collier, Vice Provost, Office of Undergrad & Graduate Studies Caroline Fisher, Dean & Dept. Chair, School of Mgmt. & Info Systems Ralph E. Flori Jr, Asst. Dean of Engineering, Dept. of Interdisciplinary Engineering Amy M. Gillman, Asst. to the Vice Provost, Office of Undergrad & Graduate Studies Jay Goff, Dean Enrollment Management Larry Gragg, Professor & Dept. Chair History & Political Science Eddie Grover-Bisker, Project Coordinator Wayne Huebner, Professor & Dept. Chair Materials Science & Engineering Emily Petersen, Acting Director, Institutional Research & Assessment Jinny Ryle, Executive Staff Assistant II, Office of the Provost Lee W. Saperstein, Professor, Mining & Nuclear Engineering Robert W. Schwartz, Professor, Materials Science & Engineering Laura Stoll, Registrar Henry Wiebe, Dean, School of Extended Learning

What Will UMR Be Required to DO? Five Accreditation Criteria:  Mission and Integrity  Preparing for the Future  Student Learning and Effective Teaching  Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge  Engagement and Service Effective

Organization of the Self Study Report  Five major Criteria Headings  Each has three Elements:  Statement  Core Components (21 Total)  Examples of Evidence All examples should be integrated with the UMR Strategic Plan

Example Criterion Criterion 3: Student Learning and Effective Teaching The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission. Core Component 3a: The organization’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible. Core Component 3b: The organization values and supports effective teaching. Core Component 3c: The organization creates effective learning environments. Core Component 3d: The organization’s learning resources support student learning and effective teaching.

How Will the Self Study Be Conducted?  Requests for information will be made to the department chairs, directors, committees and groups.  Electronic responses will be submitted electronically and available on the UMR accreditation website.

How Will the Self Study Be Conducted?  Each Department will provide examples under each criterion and at least one example for each core component under each criterion where applicable.  Examples should provide connections to the UMR mission and strategic plan. (How is what you do related to UMR’s mission and strategic plan?)

How Will the Self Study Be Conducted?  From the responses collected, the steering committee will complete the self-study report  The report will demonstrate UMR’s capacity to perform as an institution of higher education in addressing its mission.

Examples should Emphasize: Activities (What does your unit/division do to meet the criteria?) Activities (What does your unit/division do to meet the criteria?) Processes used to assess and evaluate the activities (How do you assess?) Processes used to assess and evaluate the activities (How do you assess?) Analysis of the assessment information (What did you find out?) Analysis of the assessment information (What did you find out?) Feedback loop to improve (What did you change as a result of the assessment?) Feedback loop to improve (What did you change as a result of the assessment?) What happened as a result of the change? What happened as a result of the change? How are you continuing to use assessment to improve? How are you continuing to use assessment to improve? Can you document that you use this data for improvement of your unit/division? Can you document that you use this data for improvement of your unit/division? Strengths? Opportunities for improvement? Strengths? Opportunities for improvement?

Reaccreditation Timeline Spring 2006 – Self-Study Steering Committee Appointed Spring 2006 – Self-Study Steering Committee Appointed Spring 2007 – Data Collection Spring 2007 – Data Collection Fall 2007 – Analyze Data & Prepare Draft Self-Study Report Fall 2007 – Analyze Data & Prepare Draft Self-Study Report Spring 2008 – Final Self-Study Report Spring 2008 – Final Self-Study Report Spring 2009 – Evaluation Visit Spring 2009 – Evaluation Visit

Self-Study Evidence Collection Workshops Workshop A: 12-2 January 11, 2007 Workshop B: 12-2 January 17, 2007 Overview & Evidence Collection Timeline Overview & Evidence Collection Timeline Overview of Criteria & Core Components Overview of Criteria & Core Components Template Introduction Template Introduction Example Criterion 3 Input Example Criterion 3 Input Pilot Example Review Pilot Example Review

Questions