1
Evaluator Workshop Spring Visits 2010
Tuesday, January12, 2010
Please join the audio portion of this training: 866-740-1260, Access Code: 7489001
ReadyTalk Help Desk: 800.843.9166 International Help: 303.209.1600
2
AnnouncementsThis presentation and the accompanying materials are available for download from:
http://www.wascsenior.org/evaltrainingSpring2010
For assistance with Voice and Web connections please contact:
ReadyTalk Help Desk, 800.843.9166 International Help: 303.209.1600
Please mute your microphone if you are not speakingIf you have Questions- please enter them into the Chat window
3
WASC Evaluator WorkshopSpring Visits 2010
4
Workshop Outcomes
• Know how to prepare for and conduct an effective visit and produce a useful, high-quality team report
• Be prepared to make sound judgments about institutions under the Standards
• Be familiar with resources that support your work on a team
5
Agenda
• Context for the Visit/Accreditation• Preparing for the Visit• Conducting the Visit• Developing Team Recommendations• Writing the Team Report
6
Context for Accreditation and Visits
• The Continuing Evolution of the WASC Process and Standards
• The Accountability Movement– Retaining Peer Review
• The Impact of the Economy• Ongoing Efforts to Refine and Improve
7
Recent Changes in the Institutional Review Process and
Standards • Implement 2009 changes to Institutional Review Process re:
Student Success, Program Review and EE Sustainability• Implement 2009 changes to CFRs• Clarify the scope of the CPR visit to review the “infrastructure”
for assessment of student learning• Examine Program Review and Program-Level Student
Learning in a systematic way• Allow teams more time together on visits
Tools: Table A (RB pg. 41); Table B (RB pg. 47)
8
Covering the Impact of the Financial Recession on Institutions
Questions to ask the institution:
• How has the financial recession affected your institution?
• How has your institution responded?• What plans are in place in case the current state
of affairs becomes permanent?
9
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.
10
THE THREE-STAGE REVIEW PROCESS
11
THE THREE-STAGE REVIEW PROCESS
1. Institutional Proposal2. Capacity and Preparatory
Review3. Educational Effectiveness
Review
12
TIMELINE FOR THREE-STAGE REVIEW PROCESS
Submitted 2Years beforeCPR review
Capacity And Preparatory
Review
18-24months toprepare for
EER(or less for
Candidacy orInitial Accreditation)
EducationalEffectiveness
Review
Extendedperiod oftime tosustain
Initiatives(7-10 years)
Proposal
13
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-REVIEW
• The heart of accreditation• Built upon an effective internal process of
– Evaluation– Reflection– Recommendations– Plans for Action
14
Stage 1THE INSTITUTIONAL
PROPOSAL
15
THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL
• Guides the entire accreditation review process• Connects institution’s context and priorities with
the Standards of Accreditation• Provides primary basis for both institution self-
review and team evaluation• Allows alignment of accreditation activities to
institutional strategic plan and key areas chosen for improvement
• Can be comprehensive or theme-based
16
THE LETTER OF INTENT
• Submitted by institutions seeking Candidacy or Initial Accreditation, the LOI serves the same purpose as the proposal
• Includes suggestions from Eligibility approval letter
• Submitted to assigned WASC Liaison, one year in advance of CPR
17
Stage 2 THE CAPACITY AND
PREPARATORY REVIEW
18
PURPOSE OF CAPACITY AND PREPARATORY REVIEW
• Review and verify the information in the institutional presentation (report and data)
• Evaluate key institutional resources, structures, processes in light of Standards
• Evaluate institution’s infrastructure to support student and institutional learning
• Assess institution’s preparedness to undertake Educational Effectiveness Review
19
Stage 3THE EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
20
PURPOSE OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
• Assess the effectiveness of the institution in learning (student and organizational)
• Invite sustained engagement by the institution on the extent to which it fulfills its educational objectives
• Enable the Commission to make a judgment about extent to which institution fills the Core Commitments
21
THE TWO CORE COMMITMENTS
22
CORE COMMITMENT 1
“The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures to fulfill its purposes.”
23
CORE COMMITMENT 2“The institution evidences clear and appropriate educational objectives and design at the institutional and program level. The institution employs processes of review, including the collection and use of data, that ensure delivery of program and learner accomplishments at a level of performance appropriate for the degree or certificate awarded.”
24
THE FOUR STANDARDS
Tool: Standards at a Glance, RB p. 37
25
STANDARD 1:Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives
• Institutional Purposes• Integrity
26
STANDARD 2:Achieving Educational Objectives
Through Core Functions
• Teaching and Learning• Scholarship and Creative Activity
• Support for Student Learning
27
STANDARD 3:Developing and Applying Resources
and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability
• Faculty and Staff• Fiscal, Physical, Information
Resources• Organizational Structures & Decision
Making Processes
28
STANDARD 4:Creating an Organization Committed to
Learning and Improvement
• Strategic Thinking and Planning• Commitment to Learning and
Improvement
29
Expectations for Two Reviews
Capacity and Preparatory
• Preparatory = readiness for the Educational Effectiveness Review
• Capacity = purposes, integrity, stability, resources, structures, policies, processes
Educational Effectiveness
• Demonstrating student learning
• Demonstrating institutional learning
• Demonstrating evidence-based decision-making
Tool: Expectations for Two Reviews (RB pg. 20)
30
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.
31
Preparing for the Visit(Visit Guide, Part II, pp. 29-52)
32
Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members and Staff
• Role of Team Chair (RB pg. 193)• Role of Team Assistant Chair (RB pg. 195)• Role of assigned WASC staff liaison (VG
pg. 7)• Team assignments
Tool: Section 9 (Tips, Roles and Advice, RB p 189)
33
Timeline For CPR/EER Reviews
12 weeks 2 months
Institution mails report to team and
WASC
Team holds conference
call
Site visit held and team report
written
Institution responds to
errors of fact in team report
Institution responds to final team
report
Commission acts at
February or June meeting
Tool: CPR or EER Timeline (VG, pg. 29)
34
Pre-visit Preparation
• Read all the documents from WASC– Standards, CFRs, policies, visit guide, rubrics– Background documents re: institution and purpose of
the visit, including Proposal and/or last action letter/team report
• Read the institutional report• Review the data portfolio and exhibits
– What to look for and highlight?
35
Reviewing the Exhibits
• Enrollment data– Headcounts and FTE
• Graduation data• Faculty data• Key financial indicators• Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators• Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key
Performance Indicators
Tool: How to Review WASC Data Exhibits (RB pg. 61)
36
Reading the Report• Has the institution done what it said it would
do in its Proposal?• Has it collected and analyzed data effectively?• Are its conclusions supported by evidence?• Are there serious problems or potential areas
of noncompliance?• Does the report contain recommendations for
further institutional action?• Has the institution addressed previous
concerns?
37
Worksheet for Team Conference Call
• Organizes team’s evaluation of institutional materials
• Helps team make preliminary evaluation under the Standards
• Provides basis for team to work toward consensus
• Submitted in advance of call
Tool: CPR Conference Call Worksheet (VG pg. 42)EER Conference Call Worksheet (VG pg. 47)SV Conference Call Worksheet (SVG pr. 70)
38
• Evaluates quality of institutional report and alignment with Proposal and previous action letter(s)
• Identifies areas of good practice, improvement, and further inquiry
• Identifies issues, strategies, evidence needed• Identifies persons and entities to be interviewed • Makes or refines team assignments• Plans visit logistics
Team Conference Call
39
Off-Campus Sites and Distance Education Programs(special requirement for some visits)
Prior to Visit: Sites will be identified and assignments made• Review substantive change action letters to determine if issues have
been identified• Develop plan for the review of the programs and/or sites
During Visit• Interview faculty, administrators and students• Evaluate facilities OR online infrastructure• Observe classes• Document visit and findings in appendix • Discuss important findings with team for inclusion in report, as
appropriate
Tools: Protocols (RB pg. 157, RB pg. 162) Forms (RB pg. 55, RB pg. 58)
40
Compliance Audit (special requirement for some visits)
• Required for:– Institutions seeking Candidacy and Initial
Accreditation– Some institutions under sanction
• Additional report submitted by institution in advance of the visit—with links to documents
Tool: Compliance Audit Checklist (RB, pg. 51)
41
Determining Strategy for CPR Visit
• What evidence is provided to show capacity and readiness for EE?
• Why was it chosen?• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence?• What other evidence do you want to review to
evaluate capacity and preparation for EE?• Do any issues arise with regard to the
Standards?• Meetings: format/methodologies
42
Determining Strategy for EER Visit
• What evidence is provided to show EE?• Why was it chosen?• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence?• What other evidence do you want to see to
evaluate effectiveness?• Do any issues arise with regard to the
Standards?• Meetings: format/methodologies
43
Drafting in Advance of the Visit• Assistant Chairs draft outline of team report and
Section I• Team members draft outline or text for which
they are responsible, using institution’s report and data portfolio, with space for additional evidence, analysis and conclusions
Tool: Team Reports (VG pg. 54)
44
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.
45
Conducting the Visit
46
Team Executive Session
• Discuss preliminary findings• Identify major issues for exploration• Refine lines of inquiry• Confirm team assignments• Discuss use of tools and rubrics• Review draft team report• Discuss options for confidential team recommendation• Review schedule
47
Visit Schedule
• Executive sessions and debriefings with team only
• Meetings and interviews with key individuals and groups
• Open meetings with students, faculty and staff• Document review • Time for drafting report sections• Final exit meeting
Tool: CPR/EER Sample Visit Schedule (VG, pg. 40; SV, pg. 68)
48
Confidential Email Account• Set up by WASC as extension of open meetings• Checked by Assistant Chair during visit• Important emails shared with team and
investigated• Comments included in team report only if the
institution has a chance to address them
Tool: Sample Notification re: Confidential Email Account (RB, pg. 151)
49
Approaches Used on Visits
• Document review• Interviews and meetings
– Mini-questionnaires– Techniques for small and large meetings– Fishbowl exercises
• Audits
Plan visit methodologies in advance as part of schedule.
50
Tips for Good Interviews
• Decide on a protocol for interview• Prepare questions and lines of inquiry in
advance • Ask questions that elicit information, stimulate
discussion, or require judgment• Avoid interrogation, leading questions, or
loaded language• Avoid consultation, giving solutions, or talking
about your institution• Let them do the talking
51
Alternative Forms of Interview
• Fishbowl• Brainstorm/free discussion on a salient topic• Go-round• Bundling• Audit
52
Evaluating Program Review and Student Learning
on EER Visits
Tool: Suggested Approaches for Evaluating Program Review (RB, pg. 156)
EER Toolkit
53
Rubrics: Assessment of Student Learning
1. Academic Program Learning Outcomes2. Use of Portfolios in Assessing Program
Outcomes3. Use of Capstones in Assessing Program
Outcomes4. Integration of Student Learning
Assessment into Program Review5. General Education Assessment Process
Tool: Assessment Related Rubrics (VG, pp. 77-88)
Program Learning Outcome Rubric
54
Educational Effectiveness Framework
• Use with team to evaluate institution’s “place” • Use language of rubric to describe the institution
in the report• Ask the institution to evaluate itself and discuss• Confer with team toward end of visit to mark a
copy of the EEF • Submit the marked EEF confidentially to WASC
Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework (RB, pp. 160-161)
55
The Exit Meeting• Team chair communicates commendations and
key recommendations that will be included in report
• Chair may ask team members to participate• The meeting is not a dialog, discussion or
debate
56
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.
57
Developing Team Recommendations
58
Two Kinds of Recommendations
• Team recommendations at the end of team report, delivered at the exit meeting
• Confidential Team Recommendation to the Commission for action
Tools: Commission Decisions on Institutions (Visit Guide pg. 89; SV Guide pg. Append. F) Commission and Team Decision Matrix (RB pg. 177)
59
Team Report Recommendations
Should be:• Overarching and important• Supported by evidence • Linked clearly to Standards and CFRs• Supported by text in the report
- Distinguish recommendations from suggestions and observations embedded in the report
Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework (RB pg. 160)
60
Producing Effective Team Reports
61
Report Preparation Logistics
• Follow report template
• Start writing before the visit
• Complete your sections on site and give to Assistant Chair for editing together
Tool: Team Report Templates (VG, pg. 55; SV Guide, Appen. K)
CPR Team Report
62
Using Evidence in Team Reports
• Use qualitative and quantitative evidence • Select evidence carefully and purposefully• Connect evidence to an assertion or question • Analyze information; do not just set forth data• Let evidence suggest improvements• Use evidence that speaks to the institution’s
themes and the team's questions
63
Citing Standards and CFRs
• Team judgments must be linked to specific Standards and CFRs
• CFRs must be cited in reports • Standards and CFRs form the basis for
Commission decisions• Standards and CFRs provide a context for
continuous quality improvement
64
What is an effective team report?
Reflects a thorough assessment of the institution’s capacity, preparation, and/or effectiveness
Is evidence basedCites the Standards and CFRsProvides the basis for a sound and supportable
Commission decision Identifies important areas for institution to
address
65
New requirements in the Institutional Review Process
• Institutions will cover the following in their reports:– Student Success (at CPR and EER)– Program Review (at EER)– Sustainability of EE (at EER)
• Teams should address in the team report
Tool: Table B (RB pg. 47)
66
Tips for Writing Team Reports• Consider multiple audiences: institution,
Commission, and next team• Know your areas of responsibility, including length
and depth of your section• Start writing before you arrive on campus• Address priorities and goals set by the institution• Address Commission’s concerns (last action letter)• Make commendations, but don’t overdo it• Use praise that doesn’t send wrong or mixed signal
67
More Tips on Team Reports….
• Be sure to check facts • Support findings and recommendations with
evidence --and tie them to CFRs• Ensure evidence is sound and valid• Distinguish recommendations from suggestions
or observations• Use formal language and tone (e.g., not
“we/they”)• Don’t mention personnel by name• Don’t prescribe solutions
68
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.
69
After the Visit
70
What happens next?
• Assistant Chair prepares draft for Chair, team and staff review; changes as needed
• Chair sends to institution for corrections of fact
• Chair finalizes draft and submits to WASC• Chair sends Confidential Team
Recommendation and completed EEF to WASC
• WASC sends report to institution
71
Then…
• Staff prepares draft action letter, which is reviewed by team Chair
• Commission Panel reads report and documentation including institution’s written response, meets with institutional representatives at Commission meeting
• Panel makes recommendation to Commission, and Commission acts
• Staff finalizes draft action letter on behalf of Commission
72
Also after the visit….
• Team members send reimbursement forms to WASC within 30 days– Hotel arranged and paid directly by institution– Travel / food reimbursed – Rental car must be approved in advance by WASC
staff– Spouse or assistant costs not covered– See policy for more details
• Team members should not have any contact with the institution – About the visit OR– Consult with the institution for one year
73
The Team’s Impact
• Peer review is the foundation of accreditation. • The team report forms the basis for the
Commission action and its letter.• The team report and action letter inform the
work of the institution for years to come.• Why were you chosen for a team?
74
Resources for Teams
• Appendices of Visit Guide
• Team Materials and Institutional Report mailed 10-12 weeks in advance of visit
• WASC Website: www.wascsenior.org
• WASC Email Advisory (sent prior to visit)
• WASC Staff
75
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.
76
Thank youfor your service to the
region
77
Announcements
The materials presented during this webinar and a recording of this session will be posted at: http://www.wascsenior.org/evaltrainingSpring2010
