1 / 18

WASC Accreditation Process

WASC Accreditation Process. DUE Managers Meeting December 2, 2009 Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker. Accreditation. Mandated by the Federal government Required for receipt of student Federal financial aid funds Regional accreditation agencies

kisha
Download Presentation

WASC Accreditation Process

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. WASC Accreditation Process DUE Managers Meeting December 2, 2009 Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker

  2. Accreditation • Mandated by the Federal government • Required for receipt of student Federal financial aid funds • Regional accreditation agencies • WASC = Western Association of Schools and Colleges (California and Hawaii) • Senior commission: All UC’s, CSU’s and Independents • 10-year review cycle

  3. What’s new? • Expanded timeline • 2007 through 2012 • Three stages of review • Institutional proposal , submitted Nov 1, 2009 • Capacity and Preparatory Review, site visit in 2011 • Educational Effectiveness Review, site visit in 2012 • Ensure linkages among the three stages • Primary focus is demonstrating educational effectiveness • institution establishes its own educational objectives and methods for assessing attainment of those objectives

  4. Why assessment? • Accountability • Demonstrating the value of higher education to the public • Paradigm shift in educational practices • From teaching to learning • Based on research in the cognitive sciences • Assessment promotes learning • Institutional improvement, not just resources • Federal requirements for accreditation agencies • Standards must address success with respect to student achievement in relation to its mission

  5. WASC Institutional Proposal • Response to the most recent WASC review • Self-review under the WASC Standards* • Themes selected for the review* • Work plan through 2012 • Required data exhibits* • Steering Committee – co leaders: Michael Clark and Sharon Salinger

  6. Review Under the Standards • Standard 1: Institutional Mission and Values • Standard 2: Educational Objectives • Standard 3: Resources and Organizational Structures • Standard 4: Learning Organization • Reviewed by: • Leadership Academy • Academic Senate, Student Affairs, Libraries • Staff Assembly, ASUCI, AGS, Alumni Association

  7. Educational Objectives:Criteria for Review • Educational objectives are clearly recognized throughout the institution and are consistent with stated purposes. The institution develops indicators for the achievement of its purposes and educational objectives at the institutional, program and course levels. The institution has a system of measuring student achievement, in terms of retention, completion and student learning. The institution makes public data on student achievement at the institutional and degree level, in a manner determined by the institution. (CFR 1.1)

  8. CFR’s continued • All degrees – undergraduate and graduate – awarded by the institution are clearly defined in terms of entry-level requirements and levels of student achievement necessary for graduation that represent more than simply an accumulation of courses or credits. (CFR 2.2) • The institution’s expectations for learning and student attainment are developed and widely shared among its members, including faculty, students, staff, and where appropriate, external stakeholders. The institution’s faculty takes collective responsibility for establishing, reviewing, fostering, and demonstrating the attainment of these expectations. (CFR 2.3)

  9. More CFR’s • All programs offered by the institution are subject to systematic program review. The program review process includes analyses of the achievement of the program’s learning objectives and outcomes, program retention and completion… (CFR 2.7) • Consistent with its purposes, the institution develops and assesses its co-curricular programs. (CFR 2.11)

  10. Themes for the Review • Selected by UCI • Theme 1: Student Learning in the Major • Theme 2: General Education • Theme 3: Academic Program Review • All themes related to educational objectives and assessment

  11. Student Learning in the Major • Goal: To create and sustain a campus culture of assessment in which faculty are engaged in identifying important learning outcomes for undergraduate majors, assessing the degree to which student achieve those outcomes, and using the results to improve the program • Outcomes: • Establish needed infrastructure (University Assessment Committee, assessment grants, online assessment management system) • Demonstrate that assessment lead to program improvements and better student learning

  12. General Education • Goal: To complete implementation of revised GE requirements and to incorporate student learning outcomes and evidence of student learning into the review process • Outcomes: • Insure alignment between GE learning outcomes and course learning outcomes • Reinstate regular review of GE categories using assessment of student learning outcomes (example: UD and LD Writing Assessment)

  13. Academic Program Review • Goal: To revise criteria used in program review to include evidence on the degree to which student achieve stated learning outcomes for each major being reviewed • Outcomes: • Academic Senate will adopt new policies and procedures for academic program review process • Develop a formal method for determining the effectiveness of the Academic Program Review process

  14. Required Data Exhibits • Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators • For program outcomes at three levels: institutional, general education and degrees • Information required • Have formal learning outcomes been developed? • Where will these learning outcomes be published? • Other than GPA, what evidence is used to determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? • Who interprets the evidence? What is the process? • How have the findings been used? • Date of last program review for this degree program.

  15. How are we evaluated by WASC? • WASC Rubrics • Student learning outcomes and assessment plans for every program, and demonstrated use of the results for the improvement of programs • Portfolios for assessing student learning outcomes • Capstones for assessing student learning outcomes • Program Review process

  16. External Reviews • Sharon’s experiences as an external reviewer • Scoring rubric for reviewers • Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Proposals

  17. Costs for WASC Accreditation

  18. Additional Information WASC Website http://www.wascsenior.org/ UCI’s Accreditation Website http:// www.accreditation.uci.edu/ UCI’s Assessment Website http://www.assessment.uci.edu/

More Related