1. Key Elements of the Self Study Process
NEASC
Key Elements of the Self Study Process

2. The basics of accreditation: How does it work?
WHAT YOU’LL HEAR AT THIS SESSION
The basics of accreditation: How does it work?
Changes to Process and Current Issues
Areas of Emphasis from our Last Review
Review of the schedule
Q&A
Time to meet with your standards members
Goal – by May ID information needs

3. HOW DOES IT WORK? WHAT ARE THE BASICS OF ACCREDITATION?

5. ACCREDITATION = STANDARDS + MISSION
Standards of higher education community
Mission of the institution +
evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence

6. DIMENSIONS OF SELF-REGULATION
Institutions agree to:
be held accountable to a set of standards determined by the group
abide by the standards “even when no one is looking”
be reviewed by peers to demonstrate accountability

7. WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION?
An articulation by the higher education community of what a college or university must do in order to deserve the public trust
Quality assurance
Quality improvement
A framework for institutional development and self-evaluation
candor candor candor candor candor candor candor candor

8. DEVELOPMENT OF ACCREDITATION IN THE U.S.
Input
Are there enough books in the library?
…………………………………….
Are the faculty well qualified?
Is the curriculum appropriate?
………………………………………..

9. DEVELOPMENT OF ACCREDITATION IN THE U.S.
Input Process
Are there enough books in the library?
Are students using the books?
…………………………………….
Is there good instructional practice?
Do students get practice and feedback?
Are the faculty well qualified?
Is the curriculum appropriate?
………………………………………..

10. DEVELOPMENT OF ACCREDITATION IN THE U.S.
Input Process Outcome
Are students gaining skills of information literacy?
Are there enough books in the library?
Are students using the books?
…………………………………….
Is there good instructional practice?
Do students get practice and feedback?
Are the faculty well qualified?
Is the curriculum appropriate?
Are students achieving the learning outcomes of the program and institution?
………………………………………..

11. MISSION-DRIVEN STANDARDS
Mission and Purposes
Planning and Evaluation
Organization and Governance
The Academic Program
Students
Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship
Institutional Resources
Educational Effectiveness
Integrity, Transparency, and Public Disclosure

12. AREN’T THE STANDARDS VAGUE?
A Sample of Public, Independent, and For-Profit Institutions
Harvard University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
College of the Atlantic Berklee College of Music
Hartford Seminary University of New Hampshire
Bay State College Community College of Vermont
Wellesley College Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
Boston Architectural College Bates College
U.S. Naval War College Hult International Business School
Maine Maritime Academy Rhode Island College
Johnson & Wales University American University in Bulgaria
Goodwin College Conway School of Landscape Design
New England College of Business and Finance
Vermont College of Fine Arts

13. INSTITUTIONAL SELF-STUDY
Product: The Self-Study Report: 100 pages plus forms
Process: Studying the institution against the standards
How do we meet the standards?
How well do we meet the standards?
What are our plans for improvement?
Strengthen the culture of inquiry
Using evidence
Community reflecting together

14. 3-PART FORMAT DESCRIPTION: what do we do?
Succinct!
APPRAISAL: how well do we do it?
Analysis of strengths, concerns
PROJECTION: what do we commit to do?
Specific plans to address challenges

15. WHAT STORY DOES THE DATA TELL?
ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE
WHAT STORY DOES THE DATA TELL?
Not just numbers, but how you interpret them
Not just what you did, but what you learned from what you did
How you used findings to improve (CLOSING THE LOOP)
Process – what we DID
Ex: administered survey
Findings – what we LEARNED
Ex: faculty and student concerns about advising
Results – what we CHANGED
Ex: new student orientation, recognition for advisors

16. EVIDENCE & ANALYSIS Evidence Analysis
“There are 754,700 volumes in the library.”
“This is a 20% increase in 5 years and puts us at the median of our peers.”
“It was not clear that students are expected to use increasingly sophisticated sources of information.”
“A syllabus study shows that students in 65% of their classes have assignments that require them to use information resources.”

17. TEAM VISIT Who are they? What do they do? What are their roles?
What do they produce?
6-10 trained faculty and administrators
Peer and aspirant institutions
No conflict of interest
3-day campus visit, meetings
Review evidence on-site
Visit a sample of off-campus locations
Open meetings
Validate self-study
“Eyes and ears” of Commission
Exit report of principal findings
Team report
Confidential recommendation

18. OUR WORK BEGINS

19. RESULTS FROM TEN-YEAR SELF-STUDY AND VISIT, 2008
Self-study accepted
Accreditation continued
Submit interim report in 2011, address highlighted concerns
Submit fifth-year interim report in 2013, address highlighted concerns

20. CONCERNS RAISED IN 2008 SELF-STUDY
Assessment of student learning
Fully implement systematic and broad-based process/schedule
Use results to inform CCSU/public about how students learn
Demonstrate that CCSU is improving learning experiences for students
CCSU has developed a strong policy on assessment, implemented mechanisms to collect information
However, current information is uneven and incomplete

21. CONCERNS RAISED IN 2008 SELF-STUDY
Implement a systematic and regular review cycle for all academic programs
Include input from external reviewers
Include programs not externally accredited
Part-time faculty
Document the qualifications and preparation of faculty
Document teaching effectiveness
Evaluate all courses, including those taught by PT faculty
Regularly review PT faculty qualifications

22. CONCERNS RAISED IN 2008 SELF-STUDY
Academic advising
Quality is inconsistent
Resources have been reduced
Develop comprehensive strategy to insure effective advising
Meet students’ needs for information and advice
Suggestion: Improve communication and collaboration between IT and Academic Affairs

23. REQUIRED INTERIM REPORT, 2011
Address 5 Areas of Emphasis:
Implement a systematic , broad-based program of student learning assessment using the results for improvement
Strengthen the University's capacity to collect, analyze and use data in decision-making
Review all academic programs on a regular cycle
Assure the effectiveness of academic advising
Assure that part-time faculty are appropriately qualified and implement effective procedures for their evaluation

24. REQUIRED INTERIM FIFTH-YEAR REPORT, 2013
Address 5 Areas of Emphasis, again:
Implement a systematic , broad-based program of student learning assessment using the results for improvement
Strengthen the University's capacity to collect, analyze and use data in decision-making
Review all academic programs on a regular cycle
Assure the effectiveness of academic advising
Assure that part-time faculty are appropriately qualified and implement effective procedures for their evaluation

25. RESULTS FROM FIFTH-YEAR
INTERIM REPORT
Self-study accepted
4 of 5 Areas of Emphasis satisfied
Submit ten-year report in 2018
Include one Area of Emphasis

26. RESULTS FROM FIFTH-YEAR REPORT
Required Area of Emphasis:
Give emphasis to the institution's success in implementing its new general education/core curriculum, including an approach to the assessment of student learning outcomes in the core
Particular emphasis to 2016 Standards
4.15
4.16

27. STANDARD 4.15
By the time of graduation, UG students successfully demonstrate competence in:
Written and oral communication in English
Scientific and quantitative reasoning
Critical analysis and logical thinking
Capability for continuing learning & information literacy
Knowledge & understanding of scientific, historical, and social phenomena
Knowledge & appreciation of the aesthetic and ethical dimensions of humankind

28. STANDARD 4.16 General Education requirement is coherent, substantive
Embodies the institution’s definition of an educated person
Prepares students for the world in which they live
GenEd requirement informs the
Design of GenEd courses
Provides criteria for evaluation
Assessment of what students learn

29. HANDOUTS… Feedback from NEASC Reviewers
Concern & Standard to Address in: (reference is to NEASC standard, version 2011)
2011 Standard
10-Year Self-study Letter December 23, 2008
Comments from NEASC Reviewers
Page
2011
2013
2018
1 - Mission and Purpose
Increased emphasis on scholarship and creativity in context of high teaching loads – CCSU runs the risk of mission creep 4
2 - Planning and Evaluation
Not clear that resource allocation supports planning priorities efficiently and effectively 5
2.4, 2.5, 2.6
2.4
Data collection relative to student achievement of educational outcomes – the record is mixed, particularly in A&S
Facilities, Finance, and Institutional Advancement have no review processes in place other than the strategic plan 6
CCSU monitors effectiveness of its planning and evaluation via the accountability report to DHE

30. APPROACHING THE STANDARD
6.3  The preparation and qualifications of all faculty and academic staff are appropriate to the nature of their assignments.  Qualifications are measured by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials.

31. TIME FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.