1 / 34

NCA Accreditation Leadership Team

NCA Accreditation Leadership Team. Fall 2008 Meeting September 26, 2008. The NCA Team. Co-Chairs: Dr. Jack Maynard and Dr. Virgil Sheets NCA Liaison: Dr. Ed Kinley NCA Co-Coordinators: Dr. Susan Powers & Dr. Nancy Rogers NCA Administrative Fellow: Dr. Robert Guell

Download Presentation

NCA Accreditation Leadership Team

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.


Presentation Transcript

  1. NCA Accreditation Leadership Team Fall 2008 Meeting September 26, 2008

  2. The NCA Team • Co-Chairs: Dr. Jack Maynard and Dr. Virgil Sheets • NCA Liaison: Dr. Ed Kinley • NCA Co-Coordinators: Dr. Susan Powers & Dr. Nancy Rogers • NCA Administrative Fellow: Dr. Robert Guell • NCA Administrative Assistant: Ms. Rebecca Stinnett

  3. Status of 2010 Visit

  4. NCA Survey • Faculty/Staff/EAP survey • Goes through middle of October • Completed to date: 103 Faculty, 180 Staff • Student Survey • Goes through end of October • Completed to date: 141 students

  5. Progress on Self-Study • Data Packs on NCA site • Information collected by Criterion Committees • Requests reviewed by Data Committee • Documents found, scanned, and linked http://irt2.indstate.edu/nca2010/index.cfm?fuseaction=data.dataMain

  6. Criterion Committees

  7. Criterion 1 Mission & Integrity

  8. Criterion 1 • 1a - The organization's mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization's commitments • 1b - In its mission documents, the organization recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater society it serves. • 1c - Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the organization. • 1d - The organization's governance and administrative structure promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission. • 1e - The organization upholds and protects its integrity.

  9. Strengths • Recently revised mission and values statements were developed through an open process that incorporated input from all University stakeholders and the Board of Trustees. • Increase in percentages of students and faculty who identify themselves as ethnic minority. • The fraction of ISU students from underrepresented groups exceeds those at all other public, four-year degree-granting institutions in the State. • The University’s 2004 strategic plan articulates three initiatives (experiential learning, community engagement, and distinctive programs) that have since been implemented and have broad support.

  10. Weakness • University does not have a comprehensive policy to deal with student problems and complaints. • University needs to substantiate its claims (e.g., how do we know that goals of campus constituencies are aligned with the mission statement?). • The challenge is to not simply present data, but to analyze the related situation and conditions and determine if the data is telling the real story, e.g., diversity where we feel the data does not tell the entire story.

  11. Linkage to Special Emphasis • Faculty involvement in Community Engagement and Experiential Learning • Faculty awards and recognition in Community Engagement • Departmental and College Mission Statements • Promising Scholars program • Distinctive Programs

  12. Criterion 2 Preparing for the Future

  13. Criterion 2 • 2a: The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends. • 2b: The organization’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future. • 2c: The organization’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement. • 2d: All levels of planning align with the organization’s mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.

  14. Our Strengths • Review of academic programs • Investment in technology to enhance learning • Emphasis on international programs • Investment in Programs of Promise • Support for Community Engagement

  15. Weakness • Lack of ethnic diversity in faculty • Additional strategic planning is needed for academic programs and enrollment • Divisions and departments need to develop strategic plans with goals and timelines for achieving goals that align with overall University strategic planning efforts. • Training opportunities for staff

  16. Linkage to Special Emphasis • Resources for Community Engagement • Identification from academic and administrative units regarding the amount of departmental resources devoted to Community Engagement efforts. • Student Involvement in Community Engagement • What incentives might be needed to encourage participation by students

  17. Criterion 3 Student Learning and Effective Teaching

  18. Criterion 3 • 3a: The organization’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible. • 3b: The organization values and supports effective teaching. • 3c: The organization creates effective learning environments. • 3d: The organization’s learning resources support student learning and effective teaching.

  19. Our Strengths • A number of processes have been in place over the years to implementation. We have a number of programs that have done outstanding work with SOA. Examples include: Nursing, Education, Athletic Training, Social Work (all accredited); Criminology, Economics, History, Math, Philosophy (non-accredited). • Strong support for creating effective learning environments (evidence of technology classrooms, laptop initiative, CIRT, supports and rewards for teaching, student support resources, faculty professional development)

  20. Weaknesses • We still have programs with no/limited SOA • 64% have presented plans • 47% have provided summaries • Large gaps in Arts & Sciences and Technology • Isolated gaps in Business • A few gaps in NHHS, Education • We know more about “plans” and less about actual data • Organization’s approach to aspects of Criterion 3 are disjointed and not holistic • Multiple approaches to plans and reporting • No over-arching examination

  21. Linkage to Special Emphasis • Student involvement & curriculum • Data: SOA plan analysis (academic and student affairs) • Faculty Involvement • Data: Professional Development data, faculty vita/Digital Measures

  22. Criterion 4 Acquisition, Discovery, & the Application of Knowledge

  23. Criterion 4 4a: The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning. 4b: The organization demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs. 4c: The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society. 4d: The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly.

  24. Our Strengths • Numerous programs in place and processes to capture much of the information needed for Criterion 4. • Actions: Awards, Programs of Distinction, Promising Scholars, Support for Professional Development, UG/Grad Research Support, and Conferences and Events • Integration into Educational Programs: UG/Grad Research Showcase, Apprentice Programs, and Internships • Support for Responsible Use of Knowledge: Internal Compliance Committees and Review, New Faculty Orientation, On-Line and Face-to-Face Training, Mentoring Through Faculty/Student Research, Technology Guide, Service and Engagement Activities (Alternative Spring Break, Habitat for Humanity, American Democracy Project), Code of Student Conduct, New Academic Integrity Policy

  25. Weaknesses • Assessment of the Usefulness of Its Curricula • We do have some tools that we use effectively to assess outcomes (e.g., NSSE and General Ed Competencies) • We probably have other tools that are gathering this information, but the information isn’t being collected or reported in a systematic way.

  26. Linkage to Special Emphasis • Much of what we do to support the Acquisition, Discovery, and the Application of Knowledge happens in the context of Community Engagement and Experiential Learning (e.g., UG/Grad Research, Conferences and Events, Apprentice Programs and Internships, Service and Engagement Activities).

  27. Criterion 5 Engagement and Service

  28. Criterion 5 • 5a: The organization learns from its constituencies and serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations. • 5b: The organization has the capacity and the commitment to engage with its identified constituencies and communities. • 5c:The organization demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service. • 5d: Internal and external constituencies value the services the organization provides.

  29. Our Strengths • ISU is a collaborative partner in a wide range of community initiatives that address economic, human services, education, environmental, health and other needs locally and beyond. • ISU has several coordinating structures including CPSCE, CBSEI and CE that are supported by the University’s base budget and external grants and contracts.

  30. Our Weaknesses • No comprehensive evaluation of external constituencies and their perceptions of the services we provide • Sustainability of community initiatives • Extent to which community engagement/service learning is integrated across the curriculum

  31. Linkage to Special Emphasis • Community Involvement • Data: Internal and external evaluations of CE/EL; 2006 Carnegie Report • Faculty/Staff Involvement • Data: communication of CE/EL priorities to internal and external audiences (i.e. ISU Markeing and Communication) • Infastructure to support CE/EL (CPSCE and coordinating structures, ISU handbook and HR policies, budget analysis)

  32. Questions and Answers

  33. How the Leadership Team Can Help • NCA Survey • Faculty Vita • November Retreat • Special Emphasis • Fill in Missing Data • Other Ideas?

  34. Open Discussion

More Related