i
Seton Hill University Self-Study Report
2011-2012
Presented to the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Fall 2011
Co-Chair Contacts: Debra Faszer-McMahon: 724-953-6302, [email protected] Joshua Sasmor: 724-830-1418, [email protected]
ii
Table of Contents Page Executive Summary and Eligibility Certification Statement
Major Findings and Recommendations 1 Eligibility Certification Statement 1
Introduction to Seton Hill University The Institution 2 Embracing Change 2 The Self Study Process 7 Proposed Outcomes 7 Committees and the Self Study Process 8 Standards 1-14
Chapter I: Embracing the Mission 12 Standard 1: Mission and Goals Chapter II: Charting the Course 28 Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Standard 3: Institutional Resources Chapter III: Celebrating Leadership 48 Standard 4: Leadership and Governance Standard 5: Administration Chapter IV: Delivering on Promises 63 Standard 6: Integrity Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention Chapter V: Creating Belonging 91 Standard 9: Student Support Services Chapter VI: Expanding Expertise 110 Standard 10: Faculty Chapter VII: Offering Depth and Breadth 130 Standard 11: Educational Offerings Standard 13: Related Educational Activities Chapter VIII: Refining the Liberal Arts 167 Standard 12: General Education Chapter IX: Assessing Performance 176 Standard 7: Institutional Assessment Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
Conclusion References Appendices
1
Executive Summary and Eligibility Certification Statement
Major Findings and Recommendations
[This executive summary will include a 1-5 page description of the major findings and
recommendations of the study. We’ll compose this after community-wide and steering
committee feedback.]
Eligibility Certification Statement
[The Certification Statement must be attached to the Executive Summary]
2
Introduction to Seton Hill University
The Institution:
Seton Hill is a Catholic liberal arts institution founded by the Sisters of Charity in 1885
and located 30 miles east of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The University follows the
tradition of Elizabeth Ann Seton, pioneer Catholic educator and the first American-born
saint. The spirit of the founders – humility, simplicity, charity, and the remembrance that
God is ever present – continues to influence the life of the University today. Seton Hill
provides a broadly based educational experience fostering intellectual, social, ethical, and
spiritual development in a student-centered community environment. The University is
committed to liberal arts education as well as to serving as a center for professional
advancement for students who seek baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate opportunities that
are of relevance to the changing needs of their careers and of society. Seton Hill
recognizes that the skills needed for success must be founded on the analytical and
critical thinking skills that the liberal arts engender and be integrated with professional
preparation. Capable citizens of a global community also need a vision informed by
spiritual and ethical values to guide them in the active transformation of their world.
Seton Hill enrolls approximately 2,100 students and serves the community as a source of
leaders in the fields of business, education, government, health care, natural sciences,
social sciences, and visual and performing arts. Seton Hill also provides cultural
resources and enrichment, and acts as a partner in economic development. The Middle
States Association of Colleges and Schools accredited Seton Hill University in 1921.
Embracing Change
Seton Hill has experienced many pivotal changes since its last reaccreditation, including
the following: moving from College to University; actively recruiting men into a fully co-
educational institution; seeing major growth in enrollments across all student populations
but especially traditional undergraduate students; adding new academic programs,
expanding athletic opportunities; developing collaborations with local, regional, and
national organizations; creating partnerships to provide medical programs on Seton Hill’s
3
campus; expanding campus facilities to meet students’ physical, intellectual and artistic
needs.
Co-educational and University
Seton Hill College became Seton Hill University in July 2002 and officially began
marketing itself as a coeducational university at this time. The changes to university and
coeducation have called for major adjustments that the University community has
embraced successfully.
Enrollment Growth and Demographics
Since the last Middle States self study, Seton Hill has noted strong fiscal improvements.
Enrollments have increased dramatically for traditional undergraduates in recent years. In
the past ten years the overall student population has grown from 1,261 students in fall of
1999 to 2,145 students in fall 2009. Seton Hill students come from diverse ethnic,
religious, and economic backgrounds. They range in age from traditional students (18-22)
to the returning student and those entering college later in life. The traditional day-
university has approximately 1,500 students. The University's adult degree program
(ADP) has an enrollment of approximately 250. Enrollment in the University’s graduate
programs is currently around 400. Traditional program undergraduate students come
from 43 states and 12 foreign countries. Seton Hill’s students are diverse, with 12%
overall and 21% of freshmen belonging to minority groups. The minority enrollment has
been between 11 and 19 percent since 1990, which is high for Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, where 96.4 percent of the population is Caucasian (U.S. Census Bureau
Statistics for 2005). Among traditional students, 33% are male and 67% are female.
New Academic Programs
Responsive to the needs of the region and its students, Seton Hill University offers over
30 undergraduate majors, eight master’s degree programs and several graduate
certificates. By providing advanced study within a liberal arts context, the University
contributes to the preparation of highly qualified professional women and men whose
education will enable them to meet the challenges of the contemporary workplace and to
4
enjoy fruitful personal and professional lives. With the initiation of graduate
programming as well as the adult degree program, Seton Hill University is at the
forefront of service to learners of all ages in southwestern Pennsylvania. It is the aim of
the University’s faculty and administration to provide each student with a complete and
fulfilling academic experience that will serve as a foundation for a lifetime of learning.
Seton Hill University's strategic plan stresses diversification of degree programs, and all
efforts to date have emphasized programs that serve the region as well as build upon the
University's well-established strengths.
Since 2002 Seton Hill has begun undergraduate majors in: Criminal Justice, Forensic
Science, Music Therapy and Sports Management. It also closed programs in Family and
Consumer Sciences (Early Childhood Studies), Management (Technical), Nursing (2+2),
and the Family Studies major. Faculty approved the initiation of two post baccalaureate
certificates in Genocide and Holocaust Studies and Orthodontics; a Master of Arts in
Inclusive Education; the changing of degree from a BS to BS/MS or MS in Physician
Assistant, MA in Counseling Psychology to the MA in Marriage and Family Therapy, an
MS to MBA in Management and MA to MFA in Writing Popular Fiction. The MA in
Instructional Design for Technology Enhanced Learning was closed. A Business
Education Teaching Certification was added. BS/DO and BS/DPharm programs were
added with the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine.
Seton Hill has judiciously and successfully expanded on-line offerings during this period.
The Genocide and Holocaust Certificate and the Inclusive Education Program are offered
fully on-line. In addition, students can take the liberal arts curriculum through on-line
study during the summer session as well as selected courses in the majors throughout the
year.
Partnering for Success
A continuous effort to serve the needs of both students and the region’s residents is part
of Seton Hill’s rich history of community involvement. Community, regional and
national partnerships continue to provide important opportunities for the university.
5
1. In the spring of 2001 Seton Hill University invited the City of Greensburg, the
Greensburg Salem School District, the Redevelopment Authority of the County of
Westmoreland, Westmoreland County, local legislators, and the Westmoreland
Cultural Trust to explore the feasibility of doing projects together to renew
downtown Greensburg. The project Seton Hill University proposed, and which
the partners embraced, was the construction of a performing arts center that would
house the University’s programs in theatre and music. The project, with its strong
community partnerships, has garnered attention and support from all levels of
government, as well as local and national foundations, corporations, alumni,
trustees, and individuals. Throughout Pennsylvania, Seton Hill’s project is being
presented as a model of the way universities can drive economic development in
communities. At the 2006 Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities
Annual Convention, Seton Hill’s project was featured as an example of the way
universities and local governments can collaborate to bring about long-term
positive change. The project will also be featured as a case study in a state manual
being prepared for Pennsylvania mayors and county commissioners.
2. In the spring of 2008, Seton Hill signed a joint agreement with the Lake Erie
College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM) that now offers medical training for
students on SHU’s campus. The agreement provides an important revenue stream
for SHU, and it also contributes to the University’s growing academic reputation
by guaranteeing acceptance into the medical school for qualifying incoming SHU
freshman.
3. In 2010 the University reaffirmed its partnership with the Diocese of Greensburg,
Pennsylvania to offer a certificate in Pastoral Ministry in conjunction with Seton
Hill University’s religious studies/theology program. In addition, the Diocese has
agreed to a long-term lease in the Bishop Connare Center that will house SHU’s
new Orthodontics certificate program.
Athletics
Collaborative endeavors, as well as becoming co-educational, have enabled Seton Hill to
recruit increased numbers of academically talented male and female undergraduate
6
students from around the nation. On average, 35% of these students choose to compete in
varsity sports. On March 8, 2006 Seton Hill announced its move to Division II of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the West Virginia Intercollegiate
Athletic Conference (WVIAC). The University completed its competition schedule with
the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletic (NAIA) American Mideast
Conference in 2006-2007 and played its first full conference regular season schedule with
the WVIAC in 2007-2008. Seton Hill’s athletic programs have produced All-Americans
in soccer and football, All-Regional volleyball and baseball players, and numerous All-
Conference Awards. Seton Hill is especially proud of its many Academic All-Americans
from each team. Seton Hill currently offers 19 varsity sports – 11 women, 8 men –
including men’s and women’s soccer, basketball, women’s tennis, women’s golf, men’s
and women’s cross country, and lacrosse; women’s field hockey, volleyball, equestrian,
and softball; men’s baseball and football. The 2006-2007 academic year marked the
inaugural year for wrestling, and men’s and women’s track and field. The result of these
changes is growing enrollment and a vibrant student body.
Expansion
With growing enrollment has also come the need for campus improvements. Thanks to
generous donor and foundation support, the University’s Achieving the Dream Campaign
has allowed Seton Hill to construct two new residence halls, renovate Saint Joseph’s
Chapel, and construct both a large Athletic Center on campus, and a Performing Arts
Center located in the middle of our local downtown community. Seton Hill has received
national foundation support from the Kresge and Teagle Foundations, among others, and
through the U.S. Department of Education Title III programs the University has been able
to add a permanent position for an Institutional Researcher within our campus
community, as well as offer innovative technological opportunities to faculty and
students. In recent years the University has invested in technology that focuses on
student learning in all academic areas. During the summer of 2009 the entire Seton Hill
computer network infrastructure was replaced with cutting edge routing and switching
equipment to build a new foundation to support the technological initiatives. The first
thing built on this new foundation was a campus wide wireless network. This network
7
gives students, faculty and staff the ability to utilize the campus network resources from
any location. With this sort of freedom also comes an added layer of security. The
university invested in new network access controls and intrusion detection systems that
protect the growing network from unauthorized access and abuse. The university’s
Internet connection was upgraded to a full gigabit fiber connection with a Level 3
Internet backbone. This service also includes a gigabit fiber link to a remote data center
in Pittsburgh. In the spring of 2011 this location will be used for off-site backups and as a
disaster recovery facility.
In the fall of 2010 Seton Hill began a new technology program, The Griffin Technology
Advantage. This program supplies all in-coming full-time first-year students with a
MacBook computer and an iPad companion device. Within four years, all SHU students
will have access to the most advanced educational technologies. As of fall 2010, all
upper-class full-time students also received an iPad to use throughout their time at Seton
Hill. This initiative has made it possible for faculty and staff to incorporate the latest
technology into curriculum and programming for all Seton Hill students.
The Self Study Process
Proposed Outcomes:
• To compose a clear, thoughtful, and successful self-study that addresses Seton
Hill’s strengths and challenges, and lays a foundation for future success and
planning.
• To demonstrate compliance with the fourteen Middle States Standards and to
achieve reaccreditation.
• To create an analysis that leads to improved student learning and engagement.
• To foster and expand a culture of self-assessment that encourages everyone to be
reflective, to collect data, and to use data analysis to guide decisions.
• To refine our vision for future direction and to communicate this vision to all
stakeholders
• To achieve full community participation in the self-study process.
8
Committees and the Self Study Process:
The self-study organization included a thirteen-person steering committee consisting of
two co-chairs, the chairs of the nine distinct working groups (one group has two co-
chairs), and the Institutional Researcher. The membership of the Steering Committee and
the Working Groups are listed below, along with titles and institutional roles. Seven
members of the steering committee are faculty members, three are administrators, and
three are professional staff. Each working group was responsible for demonstrating
compliance with particular Middle States Standard(s) as found in Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education. The working group members were appointed by the
President of the University, at the recommendation of the co-chairs of the Steering
Committee and the Provost. Each working group was chosen to represent as many of the
different campus constituencies as possible: faculty, staff, and administrators. Some
working groups were composed via sub-committees of standing University committees,
such as the Liberal Arts Committee and the Mission Effectiveness Committee. The
working groups solicited participation from students, both by role via student government
and by individuals via focus groups. For example, Standards 4 & 5 included a student
member (Student Council President); Standard 9 incorporated discussions with
representatives from the Student Government Association, and Standard 12 held
numerous focus groups with students representing various constituencies.
The work of the committees proceeded as follows: In Fall 2009, the steering committee
conducted a campus-wide survey related to the Characteristics of Excellence (Survey).
In Spring 2010, the Steering Committee chairs and their working groups developed draft
research questions based on the survey results, discussion, and SWOT analyses of the
standards in order to focus their analysis of the University. In spring, summer and fall
2010 the working groups identified documents needed for discovery and evidence, and
determined how to meet the criteria for each standard through responses to the research
questions. They completed draft reports, which were submitted by December 2010.
Meanwhile, the Steering Committee served to organize and facilitate the self-study
process. The steering committee helped refined the research questions (spring 2010),
9
reviewed regular progress reports (summer 2010 and fall 2010), reviewed drafts of
working group narratives (fall 2010), and finally hosted many community forums to
discuss feedback on each standard from diverse campus constituencies (spring 2011).
Open forums were held for each Standard, as well as for the self-study as a whole, and
community members were also invited to provide feedback via an online Self-study blog.
Individual Standards were also presented to various standing committees of the
University for discussion. A final draft of the report, including action plans and
recommendations, was created by the steering committee based on feedback from the
open forums, the online blog, and standing campus committees.
Composition of the Steering Committee:
Debra Faszer-McMahon (Co-Chair), Assistant Professor of Spanish; Joshua Sasmor (Co-
Chair), Associate Professor of Mathematics; Terry Brino-Dean, Associate Professor of
Theatre and Director of the Theatre Program; Edith Cook, Institutional Researcher;
Terrance DePasquale, Dean of Graduate and External Programs, Professor of
Education; David Droppa, Associate Professor of Social Work; Paul Edsall, Controller;
Mary Ann Gawelek, Provost and Dean of the Faculty, Professor of Psychology;
Lawrence Jesky, Associate Professor of Psychology, Faculty Athletics Representative;
Frances Leap, Associate Professor of Religious Studies/Theology; James Paharik,
Associate Professor of Sociology; Sr. Lois Sculco, Vice President for Mission and
Student Life; Charmaine Strong, Dean of Students.
Composition of the Working Groups
1. Mission and Goals: Chair: Frances Leap, Associate Professor, Religious
Studies/Theology; Committee Members: Michael Arnzen, Professor, English and
Chairperson of the Division of Humanities; Jamie Fornsaglio, Associate Professor,
Biology; Sr. Dorothy Jacko, Associate Professor, Religious Studies/Theology
Wilda Kaylor, Associate Director for the National Catholic Center for Holocaust
Education; Marcia Pratt, Associate Dean of Student Life/Director C.A.P.S.; Gerard
Sheridan, Director, Project Forward; Molly Robb Shimko, Associate Vice President for
Institutional Advancement.
10
2. Planning, Resource Allocation & Institutional Renewal, 3. Institutional Resources
Chairs: Mary Ann Gawelek, Provost and Dean of the Faculty with rank of Professor;
Paul Edsall, Controller; Committee Members: Steven Bassett, Associate Professor,
Biology; Theodore DiSanti, Associate Professor, Music; Sr. Victoria Marie Gribschaw,
Associate Professor, Family and Consumer Sciences and Chairperson of the Division of
Social Sciences; Barbara Hinkle, Vice President for Enrollment Services and Registrar
Frank Klapak, Professor, Communications and Education; Philip Komarny, Executive
Director of Computer and Information Technology; Christopher Snyder, Executive
Director for Athletic Programs
4. Leadership and Governance, 5. Administration: Chair: Sr. Lois Sculco. Vice
President for Mission and Student Life; Committee Members: Mary Ann Aug, Board of
Trustee member; Carol Billman, Director of Grants and Government Support; Katie
Fritsch: Student Government (SHGA) President; Sr. Vivien Linkhauer, Board of Trustee
member and President of the Sisters of Charity; Christine Mueseler, Vice President for
Advancement and Marketing; Darlene Sauers, Manger of Human Resources
John Spurlock, Professor, History and President (2010-2012), Faculty Senate; Marilyn
Sullivan-Cosetti, Associate Professor, Social Work and Director of Social Work and
President (2006-2010), Faculty Senate.
6. Integrity, 8. Student Admissions and Retention: Chair: Lawrence Jesky – Associate
Professor, Psychology and Faculty Athletics Representative; Committee Members:
Rebecca Baker, Manager of Communications and Web Content; Tracey Bartos, Director
of Graduate and Adult Studies; Sherri Bett, Director of Admissions; Christopher Diaz,
Associate Professor, Computer Science; Maryann Dudas, Director of Financial Aid
Keisha Jimmerson, Assistant Director of Residence Life and Director of Intercultural
Student Services; Janice Sandrick, Associate Professor, Dietetics
9. Student Support Services: Chair: Charmaine Strong, Dean of Students; Committee
Members: Robin Anke, Associate Dean of Students and Director of Residence Life;
11
Teresa Bassi-Cook, Director of Counseling, Disability and Health Services; David Brant,
Program Advisor; Bruce Ivory, Associate Athletic Director for Compliance and Internal
Affairs; Paul Mahady, Assistant Professor, Business and Coordinator of Undergraduate
Business Majors; Kimberly Pennesi, Coordinator of Writing Center; Anastasia Tircuit,
Associate Professor, Computer Science.
10. Faculty: Chair: Terry Brino-Dean, Associate Professor, Theatre and Director of the
Theatre Program; Committee Members: Kathleen Campbell, Associate Professor,
Music; Michael Cary, Professor, History/Political Science; John Cramer, Professor,
Chemistry; Lloyd Gibson, Assistant Professor, Business and Program Director, MBA
Sr. Mary Kay Neff, Associate Professor, Art and Director of the Art Program; Lee
McClain, Professor, English; Roland Warfield, Assistant Professor, Business/Accounting
11. Educational Offerings, 13. Related Educational Activities: Chair: James Paharik,
Associate Professor, Sociology and Coordinator of Human Services; Committee
Members: Kelly Clever, Public Services/ILL Librarian; DeMarquis Clarke, Assistant
Professor, Marriage and Family Therapy and Director, Clinical Training; Jayne Huston,
Director, E-Magnify; Dennis Jerz, Associate Professor, English; Sarah Livsey, Assistant
Professor, Criminal Justice; Sharon Mills, Assistant to the Vice President for Enrollment
Services and Registrar; Mary Spataro, Instructional Designer, and Instructor, Education
Michelle Walters, Director of Community Music.
12. General Education: Chair: David Droppa, Associate Professor, Social Work
Committee Members: Geoffrey Atkinson, Assistant Professor, Mathematics; Patricia
Beachley, Associate Professor, Art; Constance Beckel, Associate Registrar; Carol Brode,
Assistant Professor, Art and Director, Harlan Gallery; Michelle Chossat, Associate
Professor, French; Susan Eichenberger, Associate Professor, Sociology; Judith García-
Quismondo, Associate Professor, Spanish; Catherine Giunta, Associate Professor,
Business; Frances Leap, Associate Professor, Religious Studies/Theology; Daniel
Martino, Assistant Professor, Theology; James Paharik, Associate Professor, Sociology
and Coordinator of Human Services; Laura Patterson, Associate Professor, English and
12
Director of Undergraduate Writing Programs; Adam Pellman, Acquisitions/Cataloging
Librarian; Denise Pullen, Associate Professor, Theatre; Jaimie Steel, Assistant Dean of
Students; Maureen Vissat, Assistant Professor, Art.
7. Institutional Assessment, 14. Assessment of Student Learning: Chair: Terrance
DePasquale, Dean of Graduate and External Programs, Professor of Education;
Committee Members: Alvaro Barriga, Associate Professor, Psychology; Edith Cook,
Institutional Researcher; Dana Elmendorf, Assistant Professor, Art Therapy; Daniel
McCarty, Head Men’s Soccer Coach; Audrey Quinlan, Associate Professor, Education
and Program Director, Graduate Elementary Education; Doina Vlad, Associate Professor,
Business; Sr. Susan Yochum, Professor Chemistry and Chairperson of the Division of
Natural and Health Sciences.
Standards 1-14
Chapter I: Embracing the Mission
STANDARD 1:
Mission and Goals
Overview of the charge.
The working group for Standard 1, “Embracing the Mission,” is charged by the Middle
States Steering Committee to study and report on the mission of Seton Hill University
and statements of institutional goals. This is relevant to demonstrating compliance with
the Middle States Standard 1.
Seton Hill is a Catholic university rooted in Judeo-Christian values. In the tradition of
Elizabeth Ann Seton, we educate students to think and act critically, creatively, and
ethically as productive members of society committed to transforming the world.
- Seton Hill University Mission Statement
How has the mission informed the developments of the University in the past decade
and how does the work of the mission continue to be reflected in them?
13
The Seton Hill University mission statement underwent a formal review and revision
process in 2002 through the work of a committee whose membership included
administration, trustees, and faculty. Their work was presented to the larger University
community at a Fall Workshop; and the feedback obtained there led to a final statement
that was approved by the Board of Trustees in February 2003 (Mission Report). That
mission statement has been the foundation and guide of the University in its changes of
the past decade. It is from the mission that the strategic plans are drawn each time and it
is from the mission that the University Learning Objectives have been formulated. The
strategic plans have guided major developments of the university over the past decade,
such as moving to a fully co-educational institution, establishing an athletic program for
women and men, developing of graduate programs, renewing support for established
centers, adding certificate programs, and increasing training opportunities for faculty.
The commitment of Seton Hill to the centrality of the University mission in its daily
endeavors has been highlighted by the appointment of a Vice President for Mission and
Student Life in 2007, reinforcing the work of the Mission Effectiveness committee for 13
years (BOT minutes 6/07). The Vice President for mission and student life has served to
integrate mission across the campus and hold it front and center throughout the strategic
planning processes. Additionally, in February 2010, the University Board of Trustees
approved the establishment of a new board committee, chaired by a Sister of Charity and
charged with responsibility for the Catholic Setonian Mission and Identity of the
University (BOT Minutes 3/10).
As part of the decision to become a fully co-educational institution, Seton Hill University
chose to become part of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) at the
Division II level recognizing that its student-first approach would underscore the
University’s mission. NCAA Division II provides student-athletes with a firm path to
graduation, while cultivating key attributes – learning, balance, spirit, community, fair
play, and character – which serve student-athletes for a lifetime and align with Seton
Hill’s mission of educating students to transform the world. Student-athletes are
14
ambassadors of the Seton charism of service, completing more than 2,600 hours of
community service in 2008-09 for a variety of local organizations (Athletic Service).
In 2008 Seton Hill University took a major step in its mission to transform the world, as it
became an additional location for the nation’s largest medical school, the Lake Erie
College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM). Recognizing the looming health care crisis
that is facing southwestern Pennsylvania, fueled by an aging and underserved population,
insufficient funding, and a shortage of medical professionals, LECOM and Seton Hill
have partnered to expand medical education in the region and thereby increase the
percentage of medical school graduates who are likely to remain in the area to serve the
needs of rural communities. Seton Hill’s Board of Trustees recognized how well the
mission of LECOM aligns with that of the University and the opportunity this partnership
provided to strengthen undergraduate and graduate programs in the natural and health
sciences, as well as foster expanded strategic alignments with regional medical care
providers (PA Health Report).
Also aligned with the University’s mission to serve the underserved is Seton Hill’s
Orthodontics Program. Three years ago, the last program in the region to offer
orthodontic services for those of low income closed its operations. In addition to
educating future practitioners from across the country, the Seton Hill Orthodontics
Program serves regional patients who could otherwise not afford treatment through the
orthodontic residency program (Ortho Fact Sheet).
The passion at Seton Hill for the visual and performing arts blossomed in 2009 with the
opening of the Seton Hill University Performing Arts Center. The mission is well served
by the critical and creative work that is accomplished in world-class performance and
instructional settings, transforming the lives of students, the community of Greensburg,
the arts culture of Westmoreland county, and continuing the tradition of Catholic support
for the arts. Elizabeth Ann Seton and her husband William were both accomplished
musicians. A portrait of Elizabeth as a mother with her young son, hangs in a prominent
location at the concert hall in the new Center.
15
The tradition of Elizabeth Seton and the Sisters of Charity has been reflected historically
in Seton Hill University’s commitment to women. This commitment continues in the
work of E-Magnify, which in 2006 was named a Women’s Business Center (WBC) by
the United States Small Business Administration. This distinction as a WBC enabled
Seton Hill’s E-Magnify to add depth and breadth to its programming, with special
emphasis on socially and economically disadvantaged women, an emphasis that
underscores the Seton Hill mission (E-Magnify website; see also Standard 13 for further
details). In addition, the Women in Science program, begun in 1989, continues to offer
numerous financial scholarships for women pursuing majors in the sciences as well as
offering an annual recognition luncheon and keynote address (SHU website). These are
some of the ways in which Seton Hill continues an explicit attentiveness to its historic
commitment to women since becoming a co-educational institution. Attention to this
commitment should continue.
In partnership with the Diocese of Greensburg, in 2002 Seton Hill developed a program
to offer a Certificate in Pastoral Ministry, responding to a well recognized need for
trained laity within the Catholic Church today. The program at Seton Hill develops and
promotes competent women and men for service as lay ecclesial ministers, and also
serves as an entry point for men aspiring to serve the Church as permanent deacons. The
mission and Catholic identity of the University are clearly served by the program;
however there is no programmatic way that the Pastoral Ministry students are introduced
to the life and legacy of Elizabeth Seton. This would seem to be a natural fit and an
opportunity not to be lost (PM Fact Sheet).
The National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education (NCCHE) was founded at Seton
Hill in 1987. Through research and activities that involve faculty, staff, and students, the
NCCHE addresses the mission of the University as it is rooted in Judeo-Christian values.
The last decade has seen new efforts to strengthen and elevate the standing of the
NCCHE both at the University and in the scholarly community devoted to Holocaust
scholarship and Catholic-Jewish dialogue. In cooperation among the NCCHE, Seton
16
Hill’s graduate and international studies program, and the academic divisions, a new
program in Genocide and Holocaust Studies was developed in 2007. Both a graduate
certificate and an undergraduate minor in Genocide and Holocaust Studies are offered in
a completely online format. The newly established Ethel LeFrak Student Scholars Fund
provides support for participation in the Certificate program (Genocide Fact Sheet).
As part of the effort toward mission integration, Seton Hill established a Catholic Social
Teaching (CST) summer workshop for faculty beginning in 2005 to help foster a clear
sense of Catholic identity that is derived from the traditions and teachings of the Church.
A consultant has led the summer program that includes an intensive study of selected
documents of Catholic Social Teaching in dialogue with contemporary research in the
empirical sciences. The workshop provides an opportunity for faculty to integrate their
CST work into revised course syllabi and so to transform both classroom discourse and
campus ethos. However, assessment of the effectiveness of these course revisions still
remains a goal. Forty-six Seton Hill faculty members have participated over the years
representing a great variety of disciplines (CST Courses). The plan is to continue the
workshops alternate years, sending selected faculty members away for workshops on the
Catholic intellectual tradition in the intervening years. Without question the campus
culture has been affected by this faculty commitment. However, while the program
review process makes explicit inquiry about the integration of CST in the major, its
pervasive presence in the curriculum is not reflected in the website or other campus
publications.
How effectively does Seton Hill University communicate appropriate institution-
wide criteria for the fulfillment of its Catholic mission?
The Seton Hill Mission Statement situates the University’s Catholic mission solidly
within the Catholic intellectual tradition and the Catholic tradition’s emphasis on the
integration of faith and reason. Growing from its foundation in Judeo-Christian values
and the tradition of Elizabeth Ann Seton, the University educates students for critical,
creative and ethical thinking and action in the world. What this means at Seton Hill is
17
most fully explained by the Catholic Identity Booklet which is shared with each new
member of the community. There the vision is further elucidated, and four marks of the
University are highlighted as essential: Seton Hill is a 1) welcoming, 2) learning, 3)
celebrating, and 4) serving community. These characteristics serve as the criteria by
which the university measures the fulfillment of its mission and respond to the essential
characteristics of a Catholic university as identified by Ex Corde Ecclesiae (Catholic
Identity).
It is apparent that the Catholic mission has grounded the work of the university in its
strategic plan and the formulation of its goals, most clearly in the first goal: a campus rich
in Catholic Setonian values. The strategic plan is a highly effective way in which the
nature of the mission and the criteria to evaluate its fulfillment are communicated
throughout the University (Strategic Plan).
The recruitment of faculty and professional staff, too, is carefully structured to
communicate the nature of Seton Hill’s Catholic mission in the guidelines and procedures
that are in place for this process. Search committees are directed to select candidates
“based on their potential to contribute to the mission,” and to ask candidates to share their
understanding of the mission and how they believe they could contribute to it
(Affirmative Action). There is no comparable explicit emphasis on mission in place for
the hiring of support staff. The dedication of Seton Hill to diversity on campus, and
inactively seeking its promotion through hiring, is a central aspect of its commitment to
welcoming; an aspect which is additionally highlighted by the presence of an affirmative
action representative for every administrative, faculty, or professional staff search. Once
all new employees are on campus, they are thoroughly oriented to the Catholic mission of
the University through a half-day orientation session via case studies and materials such
as the Catholic Identity booklet. A booklet for staff in the Student Services area currently
under development details the principles of good practice in response to guidelines
published by the American Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (Best
Practices). Although mission is addressed in the adjunct orientation session, there is
18
some concern whether ongoing opportunities to deepen that familiarity are needed
(Adjunct Faculty).
Mission cards are distributed to incoming students and faculty, and framed mission
statements hang in select locations throughout the main campus and its extensions. The
formal program review process for academic programs includes inquiry about each
program’s contribution to the mission and integration of Catholic Social Teaching into
coursework (Program Review). To this date, the graduate program faculty has not taken
the opportunity to designate courses for CST, and this should be a future goal. The
Graduate program review framework would benefit from a question related to this issue,
as there have been concerns about the adequacy of graduate student orientation to the
mission and CST (Grad Review).
For prospective students and their families even a glance at the website can make the
Catholic mission of the University readily apparent. Once on campus, new students and
their families are introduced to the Catholic mission of Seton Hill through the use of the
Catholic Identity booklet. The University Student Handbook also contains the mission
statement, embodying the vision and characteristics in its policies.
The criteria for the fulfillment of our Catholic mission are clear; the mission and its
explication in the vision statement and four characteristics are clearly stated in the
Catholic Identity booklet and available on the website. This crucial combination is not
presented together as a concise statement in most other written materials both external
and internal, such as the University catalog. It is also unclear whether most members of
the Seton Hill community would recognize that all four marks are the criteria of the
Catholic mission. There is the risk that activities characterizing the nature of our
Catholic mission are not always recognized as such, in part because of the faulty
perception that Catholic and liberal arts are distinct elements. Fostering a greater
understanding of the Catholic intellectual tradition and how the work of a Catholic
university resists the separation of faith and reason is an important part of the work of the
University and its Mission Effectiveness committee.
19
How is Seton Hill University’s identity as a Liberal Arts institution evident
throughout the University?
The mission of Seton Hill University as a Liberal Arts institution is an integral expression
of its commitment to the Catholic intellectual tradition. The liberal arts universities of
the West first emerged within the Catholic intellectual tradition, a tradition that
understands the proper work of humanity as the search for truth, and understands the
search for truth, in all areas of inquiry, as profoundly religious work. The teaching of
critical, creative, and ethical modes of thought and action defines the Liberal Arts at
Seton Hill and is manifest through a wide variety of University expressions (Mission
Statement).
A major foundation and expression of this identity certainly occurs in the Liberal Arts
Curriculum (LAC) required of all undergraduate students. A careful analysis of how the
LAC supports the mission of the University was accomplished in the LAC review
process begun in 2009 (LAC Review). Care has also been taken to integrate liberal arts
into the major programs as well, with the guidance of the mission-based University
Learning Objectives. Within the disciplines, programs not only offer courses which
support both the LAC and the major, but also assess how each major program integrates
and supports the liberal arts through a formalized process of program review, every five
years (Program Review). Members of the Seton Hill faculty themselves seek to embody
the liberal arts in all their teaching and are recognized in this work through the annual
peer-nominated Liberal Arts Teaching Award at the fall Honors Convocation. The
Catholic Social Teaching summer workshop, too, is an essential way in which the liberal
arts identity of the university is manifest in the work of faculty, and integral to the
mission. Finally, all undergraduate students are required to complete a program specific
capstone assessment that also demonstrates an integration of the University learning
objectives with study in the academic major. The class of 2011 will be the first class
where this capstone assessment replaces the University portfolio requirement, thus data
for the effectiveness of this change is still forthcoming.
20
The Sisters of Charity, in conjunction with the university, sponsor the annual Sister Mary
Schmidt lecture series, which features major speakers who focus on global issues of
justice and peace. The World Affairs Forum (WAF) also provides cultural exhibitions,
films, lectures, readings, panels, and discussions, moving the dialogue beyond the
boundaries of classroom, discipline, and academic rank, to provide a forum where, true to
the Catholic mission, “every position is to be entertained and weighed in the service of
truth” (SHU Lecture by Dr. Mark Roche, 2008).
Seton Hill's Campus Ministry also manifests our liberal arts identity, relating on its
website how the University, “values the cumulative wisdom of the past, reveres human
creativity and human intellectual capacity in all of its dimensions and is mindful of the
life of the spirit.” These values are made evident through planned activities from
community service events, to interfaith dialogue opportunities, to worship services. The
fact that the current chaplain, Fr. Stephen Honeygosky, OSB, also serves as a faculty
member in the English program offers a felicitous further witness to the unity of faith and
reason.
Students explore the liberal arts identity of the university outside the classroom through
experiential learning, in clubs, activities of Student Government, and other expressions of
leadership, such as campus publications and athletics, which serve the “critical, creative,
and ethical” focus of the University mission in both form and content. From Midnight
Bingo, which generates profit for charity, to the work of the Setonian newspaper, which
invites community dialogue in its blog postings, the liberal arts spirit is evident in student
activities. The University’s collaboration with the Blackburn Center, a center for victims
of domestic violence and sexual assault, also provides an example of service in the
context of mission (see details in Standards 11 & 13).
The liberal arts identity is expressed in the athletics program through the NCAA Division
II Philosophy Statement that overtly guides practices for “Learning; Service; Passion;
Sportsmanship; Resourcefulness; and Balance.” These principles are echoed and
21
supplemented on the SHU Athletics website, adding “Accountability; Citizenship;
Commitment; Integrity; and Respect” as “core values…basic to our function as
educators.” Coaches cultivate ethical thinking by promoting sportsmanship, maintaining
standards that meet NCAA regulations, and also involving the athletic teams in
community service activities, all the while reinforcing the liberal arts mission of the
University as the source of these values (Student-Athlete Handbook).
Seton Hill’s passion for the arts reflects and serves the liberal arts identity, offering
myriad opportunities for critical and creative learning and expression for students. The
work of the visual and performing arts at Seton Hill is frequently interdisciplinary; for
example, recent theater and art productions which have drawn on cooperation with the
NCCHE, the mathematics program, and the language faculty. The attraction of the
Performing Arts Center for the community promotes the liberal arts for a broader
constituency.
Two centers sponsored by the university promote the liberal arts and reach out to the
community. The National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education supports students in
critical thinking, promoting creative response and ethical reflection through a variety of
student-oriented programming. Its engagement of multiple constituencies also provides a
model for community involvement in discussion and contemplation (NCCHE website).
E-Magnify highlights “entrepreneurs, experience, education.” Students completing the
LAC required entrepreneurial exercise often rely on E-Magnify for these projects. The
website includes forums for academic discussion about business, and emphasizes
learning from its resource library, with an ethical focus on equity issues (E-Magnify
website).
While the liberal arts identity of the institution seems thoroughly evident throughout the
University, there is concern that responsibility for this element of mission is not focused
sufficiently. The Mission Effectiveness committee has taken as its focus the Catholic and
Setonian nature of Seton Hill. A greater recognition that there is no sharp distinction
between the intellectual and religious aspect of the mission is needed, so that the
22
integration of the liberal arts identity receives comparable concentration and
accountability beyond the specific areas of the Liberal Arts Curriculum.
What programs are in place and how well do they introduce and invite faculty, staff,
students, board members, and broader community members to understand the
charism of Elizabeth Ann Seton so that her legacy remains a vibrant and palpable
presence at Seton Hill University?
Seton Hill University identifies itself as a Catholic institution in the tradition of Elizabeth
Ann Seton, the founder of the Sisters of Charity. Like many other institutions of Catholic
higher education that have been sponsored by a religious community, Seton Hill faces a
serious challenge as our founding community declines in members who are available as
an active presence on campus. However, unlike other institutions whose heritage is more
identified with a celibate founder and an ecclesial foundation, the life journey of
Elizabeth Ann Seton as a wife, mother, educator, and professed religious woman offers to
Seton Hill a unique opportunity to invite lay faculty and staff into the charism of
Elizabeth Seton in distinctive ways, a charism which is not limited to the Sisters of
Charity.
New members of the Seton Hill community are introduced to Elizabeth Ann Seton the
first time they ascend the Hill and encounter her statue in front of the Administration
Building where it serves as an immediate welcome and an identification of the Seton
charism which marks our community. The Mission Effectiveness committee has
accomplished a great deal in systematizing throughout the University a variety of
programs that weave the legacy of Elizabeth Ann Seton into the life of the University.
Of all the constituencies in the Seton Hill community, it is the students who receive the
most organized and sustained introduction to the life and legacy of Elizabeth Seton.
Beginning with their Setonian Orientation Day, continuing in several scholarships named
for Elizabeth Seton, particular Sisters of Charity, or the spirit of Caritas (Charity), and
then at the Elizabeth Seton birthday celebration on August 28th, students enter the campus
23
welcomed by the Seton spirit. During September, the Seton legacy of charity is
embodied in a Saturday of Service day of volunteer work in the community by students,
as well as faculty, staff, and board members; the day begins with a Sister sharing a brief
history of Elizabeth Seton and the Sisters of Charity. In the LA100 Connections class,
required of all first-year students, the life of Elizabeth Ann Seton is presented in a series
of five ten-minute presentations, highlighting her charism as wife, mother, and widow; as
convert, entrepreneur, and educator; as well as the founder of the Sisters of Charity who
are the founders of the University. In the spring semester each year, the Lunch with Liz
event is an invitation to the entire community to learn more about topics related to the
Sisters of Charity or the life of Elizabeth Seton. Occasionally, Campus Ministry sponsors
a day trip to the Seton Shrine in Emmitsburg, MD for the community. A variety of other
opportunities also exist for students to interact and deepen a relationship with the Sisters
of Charity at the Caritas Christi motherhouse, including visits, shared prayer, or evenings
of reflection (Campus Ministry Listing). Attendance and enthusiasm for these events are
high, and the University should continue to seek data to determine how these help
students, faculty and staff understand the charism.
New faculty members receive an introduction to Elizabeth Ann Seton as part of a
morning-long orientation to the mission and Catholic identity of the University. They are
invited to participate with students in the campus events mentioned above. Some faculty
members have pursued research related to the history of the Sisters of Charity and have
developed creative ways to incorporate the life and charism of Elizabeth Seton into
courses such as business, education, and theology. But there is no systemic approach to
provide avenues for faculty to acquire a deeper understanding of Elizabeth Ann Seton
that might be appropriate to their work at the University. A faculty retreat on the
vocation of teaching is part of the current strategic plan. Additional projects such as
reading groups that might discuss the writings of Elizabeth Seton, a regular faculty
column in the Forward reflecting on the Seton charism, or an incentive for faculty to
focus scholarship on her or the Sisters of Charity might be considered as ways to
accomplish this.
24
There are several avenues for new community members to learn about Elizabeth Ann
Seton. All employees receive an introduction to her life and charism as part of
orientation. They are also invited to the feast day of Elizabeth Ann Seton, with
continental breakfast and a brief presentation every January 4. Finally, the Lunch with
Liz program is held during the spring semester, and the entire community is invited.
Ongoing assessments of these events would help to strengthen their effectiveness.
New members of the Seton Hill University Board of Trustees are oriented to Elizabeth
Seton, the mission, and Catholic identity of the University in two parts, during their June
and October board meetings. The Vice President for Mission and Student Life facilitates
these board orientations and the orientations for new faculty, professional staff, student
life staff, and employees, as well as the Setonian Days for new students and families.
Other members of the Mission Effectiveness committee join the Vice President for
Mission and Student Life in these endeavors (Orientation Activities).
The University decided to post a picture of Elizabeth Ann Seton in the lobby of all off-
campus facilities, and to include an educational card indicating how the work of the
facility matched the sisters’ charism. At this time, there are no other programs to
systematically introduce the Greensburg community to Elizabeth Seton herself. The
Sisters of Charity are respected members of the southwest Pennsylvania community, but
their decline in active presence is not yet supplemented by an active lay presence steeped
in the Seton charism. As programs are developed to encourage faculty and staff in a
deepening perception of the Seton legacy, perhaps new ideas will be generated that can
open opportunities for the community as well. For example, while 2009 marked the
anniversary of the founding of the Sisters of Charity, 2010 marked the 200th anniversary
of the founding of Elizabeth Seton’s first school, which could also have been an
opportunity for celebration on the campus, in the diocese, and with the community.
The life and legacy of Elizabeth Ann Seton is a strong and well-communicated presence
at Seton Hill University. One area of concern remains with the University webpage.
While our identity as liberal arts is clear and thoroughly present, our mission in the
25
tradition of Elizabeth Ann Seton is murky and spotty. Elizabeth Seton greets visitors to
the Hill on the front drive, but she is buried on the web page several layers down. Nearly
all of the material pertaining to the sponsorship of the Sisters of Charity and to the life
and legacy of Elizabeth Seton are positioned on the webpage under Campus Ministry,
which is positioned under Student Life. Careful thought should be given to repositioning
some of the material referenced here. Elizabeth Seton should be featured on the home
page and direct links provided to her life and legacy as the heritage of the University; a
link that introduces and reflects upon Seton Spirituality could be developed in relation to
this; the Sisters of Charity, as the sponsoring congregation, should have a direct link
under the About Seton Hill tab.
Linked with the Setonian heritage of the University is Seton Hill’s founding mission as a
college for women. Although this identity has been modified by the recent co-
educational status, there is concern that this historic women-centered dimension to the
mission not be lost nor wither through neglect. Currently E-Magnify, the Gender Studies
minor, the women’s athletic program, and the student club Feminist Collective appear to
be the places that maintain this commitment explicitly.
Strengths:
The working group’s analysis found that Seton Hill University is strong in the area of
Mission and Goals. The 2002 revision of the mission statement included the University
community in its process and its resulting statement has been well communicated
throughout the life of the institution in both external as well as internal contexts. The
goals of the strategic plan and the University learning objectives are drawn from the
mission; they are well integrated with one another and embodied in the life of the
institution. The development of the University has been driven by the strategic plan,
which is well rooted in the mission. Yet the institution possesses the appropriate
flexibility to move outside of the plan when a good opportunity, in line with the mission,
presents itself. The creation of the position of Vice President for Mission and the
implementation of a new Board committee on mission have kept Seton Hill focused on
and guided by its mission. This is evident in the strategic plan, in the strong orientation
26
programs for all new constituencies, in the Catholic Social Teaching across the
curriculum program, and in the integration of the liberal arts into the fabric of the
University.
Challenges:
There are two general areas of challenge for the university to consider in the area of
mission and goals: First, the links between the Catholic nature of the institution and its
defining characteristics can be made more clear in both internal and external
communication. This includes the recognition that there is no sharp distinction between
the intellectual and religious aspects of the mission. Attention can be given to educate
faculty in the Catholic intellectual tradition and broaden the focus beyond social teaching.
Second, though in general, orientation to the mission is quite well done, finding
additional ways to include graduate students and to deepen the connection with mission
in graduate programs of the University can be a next step for the Mission Effectiveness
committee in the growth of its orientation plan.
Action Plans:
List of References. See Document Roadmap, Standard 1.
Appendices. None.
27
Chapter II – Charting the Course
STANDARDS 2-3:
Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal
Institutional Resources
Overview of the charge.
The working group for Standards 2 and 3, “Charting the Course” is charged by the
Middle States Steering Committee to study and report on the availability of resources
necessary to support the mission and goals of Seton Hill University and to study and
report on the University’s planning and resource allocation process. This is relevant to
demonstrating compliance with the Middle States Standards 2 and 3.
Research Questions:
1. What strategies led to the success in enrollment, financial strength, and
capital improvements over the last decade? What lessons were learned from
both the successes and failures during that time period?
There are seven key factors influencing the success of the University during 2002-
2012: strategic planning, enrollment management, fiscal stewardship, successful
fundraising, enhancement of buildings and grounds, technology improvements,
and seizing opportunities.
Strategic Planning
The success that the University has enjoyed over the past decade is directly
attributed to the strategic planning process that the administration and Board of
Trustees have employed during this time period.
Seton Hill has engaged in three strategic planning processes in the period since
the last decennial visit: 2001-2006, 2005-2010, and the current plan (2009-2012),
28
Seeking Opportunities, Achieving Excellence. (Strategic plans are on line and in
the reading room.)
With each planning process the University increased the link between the plan,
department efforts, and budget. For the first time the 2005-2010 plan
incorporated performance indicators with specified timelines, resource
implications, and responsibilities for the achievement of specific strategies by
tasks. This was continued in the 2009-2012 plan.
The goals of the current plan, Seeking Opportunities, Achieving Excellence (2009-
2012) are to create: a campus rich in catholic Setonian values; strengthened
academic recognition and focus; enhanced vibrancy as a campus community; long
term financial strength; and increased recognition and visibility as a “town and
gown” partner.
As these goals were defined, action plans and strategies were developed. During
the planning process, best estimates were established for any revenues and
expenses related to each specific goal. These estimates became the backdrop for
the annual budgeting process.
The goals from the strategic plan are incorporated into the annual budgeting
process. During this process, the senior budget administrators review the revenue
streams as well as the expense and capital budget requests. In this way, resources
are allocated to support the educational efforts, strategic plan, and facility
requirements of the University.
Seton Hill University has developed planning and improvement processes that are
clearly communicated, provide for constituent participation, incorporate the use of
assessment results, and are approved by the Board of Trustees. In each strategic
planning process all members of the community have been invited to participate
in the planning process with the University using community and higher
29
education consultants when appropriate. Overall achievement of strategic goals is
monitored closely. University administrators periodically prepare status reports
of strategic plan items within their departments that are shared among the
President’s Council, the Board of Trustees and annually with all SHU faculty and
staff. (PowerPoint presentations on annual progress, which were reported to the
Seton Hill community and Board, are available in reading room.)
Enrollment Management
A significant emphasis in each of the three strategic plans has been increasing
student enrollments. The strategies to increase enrollments included the
following:
§ Offering quality academic programs – added majors in Criminal Justice,
Forensic Science, Music Therapy and Sports Management; added a Business
Education Teaching Certificate; added a post-baccalaureate certificate in
Genocide and Holocaust Studies, a post-doctoral certificate in Orthodontics;
changed BS in Physician Assistant to BS/MS or MS in Physician Assistant,
and changed MA in Writing Popular Fiction to MFA and expanded
curriculum; added Master of Arts in Inclusive Education; eliminated Family
and Consumer Sciences – Generalist Specialization, Management – Technical,
Nursing (2+2), and Master of Education in Instructional Design for
Technology Enhanced Learning.
§ Using athletics as a major recruitment retention tool – added athletic teams in
women’s field hockey, women’s and men’s lacrosse, women’s and men’s
indoor and outdoor track and field, football, wrestling, baseball, men’s
basketball, men’s soccer, women’s and men’s cross country, and changed
equestrian from a club sport to a varsity team. Marching band, cheerleaders, a
new mascot, and dance teams were also developed to support athletics. The
University moved from NAIA to NCAA, Division II.
§ Investments in campus facilities.
30
The graph below provides the history of enrollment growth from fall 2000 to fall
2010.
Undergraduate, ADP, and Graduate enrollment for 2000-10 illustrates an
enrollment growth in traditional students, consistent student numbers in the adult
degree program and targeted increase in number of graduate students.
Fiscal Stewardship
Seton Hill also utilizes the University’s strategic plan as a guide for developing
fiscal responsibility. The administration targeted a goal of achieving an annual
3% operating margin for the institution. In an effort to establish and maintain this
3% operating margin, the University has established a financial philosophy that
refrains from utilizing resources generated from the University endowment as a
means for funding both the University’s Daily Operations and Capital
Improvements. This philosophy supports the understanding that Seton Hill is a
tuition driven institution.
The University has achieved substantial financial stability over this review period.
It has enjoyed ten consecutive years of operating surpluses and has received
unqualified opinions on its financial statements. This is a most significant
accomplishment; the reviewer will note that during the previous review period,
31
the auditors’ had issued qualified opinion letters the contents of which referenced
concern of excess expenditures over revenues.
During the ten-year period from 2001 to 2010 the University’s assets increased
from $32,997,180 to $99,546,943 representing an increase of $66,549,763 while
liabilities increased by only $20,973,343. Total net assets increased from
$21,937,524 to $67,513,944.
As a result of its financial improvement, the University ended FY 2008, 2009, and
2010 with no outstanding obligation on its operating line of credit. At the end of
the 2010 fiscal year the University had accumulated cash reserves of $4,280,254.
As a point of reference, at the end of the 2001 fiscal year the University had no
cash reserves and had outstanding obligations on its line of credit of $1,306,598.
The following table illustrates the operating results for the ten-year period 2000
through 2010 during which the University achieved an average operating margin
of 5.6%.
Unrestricted Operating Results
Fiscal Year Revenues Surplus Operating Margin
2000 $15,481,057 $384,513 2.5%
2001 $17,272,161 $756,165 4.4%
2002 $17,724,018 $55,368 0.3%
2003 $19,608,977 $42,085 0.2%
2004 $21,472,355 $668,179 3.1%
2005 $24,938,964 $985,313 4.0%
2006 $28,067,624 $798,041 2.8%
2007 $30,412,018 $1,462,489 4.8%
2008 $33,551,232 $2,665,095 7.9%
2009 $37,617,135 $4,913,831 13.1%
32
2010 $37,036,878 $2,604,783 7.0%
In fiscal year 2003 the Board of Trustees’ finance committee adopted a revised
investment policy and hired an investment firm to manage investments. The
University’s primary investment objective of the permanent endowment is to
preserve and, over time, increase the inflation-adjusted value of the investable
assets of the institution. The second investment objective is to maximize the total
rate of return on investable assets in the long run while assuming a level of risk
consistent with prudent investment practices for such funds. All funds are subject
to the same high level of prudence in policy and procedure.
The primary objective of the short-term operating funds is to maintain a high
degree of liquidity to meet short-term cash requirements or to fund capital
projects.
Appropriate investment performance indices are established against which to
measure and evaluate actual returns of the various financial assets of the
University. (Board Approved Investment Policy) These specific targets are
pursued while strictly adhering to all statutory and institutional guidelines.
Actual investment returns and the performance of each investment are measured
against specific relative indices for each of the investment pools.
It is the policy of Seton Hill University to protect and grow the value of its
investment assets. The University therefore attempts to minimize all risks
inherent to the investment process through proper diversification. The asset
allocation and spending policies seek to produce a net, inflation-adjusted, positive
return after spending.
The target asset allocation for the main endowment portfolios is 70% equity and
30% fixed income with a variation of 5% above or below these targets for each
classification. The operating account features 100% cash and equivalents and
33
fixed income allocation. This allocation reflects the high liquidity and low risk
profile of the operating account. The portfolio is invested in short-term and
intermediate-term investment grade securities.
Chart 1, Investment History 2002-2010, shows impressive financial outcomes for
investments during this period (will get update to 2010 for final report).
Successful Fundraising
From 1998 to 2010 the University successfully engaged in its Achieving the
Dream campaign. Completed in three phases, these campaigns are the most
successful campaigns in Seton Hill University’s history with $90 million raised,
including $19 million for endowment and over $24 million in restricted and
unrestricted gifts raised through the Annual Fund. Also 100 new fully funded
and named scholarships were established to provide financial aid for Seton Hill’s
growing student population.
Phase I of Achieving the Dream, a $21.5 million fund raising effort, began in
1998 and was completed in 2001 before this review period and provided the
strong foundation for the next two phases.
Phase II, the Recreation Center Campaign, initiated in 2002 and completed in
February 2005, raised over $6.9 million to construct a new recreation center on
the Seton Hill campus. Opened on April 19, 2005, the Katherine Mabis McKenna
Recreation Center provides Seton Hill with a modern center for students to build
life-long habits of fitness and wellness while serving as an important recruitment
and retention tool.
In mid-2005 the University launched Phase III, the University Center for the
Performing Arts Campaign. Campaign fund raising was focused on the
construction of a new $21.2 million Performing Arts Center located off campus in
downtown Greensburg, Pennsylvania. This project, developed by Seton Hill
34
University with its community partners, brought two of Seton Hill’s most visible
and vibrant programs – theatre and music – to a prime location near the entrance
to the University in the heart of Greensburg’s cultural district, and provided them
with dedicated and much-needed facilities.
During this time frame, Seton Hill has experienced unprecedented support. For
the first time in the history of Seton Hill, the university successfully solicited gifts
from individuals in the $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 range for a total of over
$12,000,000. Individual giving totaled over $52,000,000. National foundations
such as the Kresge Foundation, The Teagle Foundation, the George Alden Trust
(2007, 2010), The William Randolph Hearst Foundation, the Sheldon H. Solow
Art and Architecture Foundation, and the Clare Boothe Luce Program of the
Henry Luce Foundation were successfully solicited for the first time to support
new initiatives and new facilities. Foundation and corporate funding totaled over
$17.5 million. The University also received approximately $26 million in state
and federal grants including $10 million in state RCAP funding; and two Title III
Strengthening Institution federal grants from the U.S. Department of Education,
the first for $1.7 million in 2000 and the second for $1.9 million in 2008.
Table 2, Foundation Gifts 2000-2010, illustrates the foundation support received
by the University. Table 3, Annual Funds 2000-2010, restricted and unrestricted,
reflects the annual funds raised by the university.
Enhancement of Buildings and Grounds
Over the past ten years, Seton Hill University has invested more than $53,000,000
in capital improvements as reflected in Table 4, Capital Improvements. The
capital investments were invested for the growth of the university and in support
of deferred maintenance projects essential to sustain the university. Many of the
improvements were part of a “deferred maintenance plan” supported by the
administration and the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of
Trustees and incorporated into the overall University operating budget. The
construction of the McKenna Center and the Performing Arts Center were
undertaken as a result of need identified in athletics and academics. These
35
projects were analyzed and recommended by the President’s Council and then
forwarded to the Board of Trustees. Lastly, the construction of Farrell and
DeChantal Residence Halls was completed to accommodate the growth in the
residential undergraduate student body. In Summer 2010, the University invested
in the renovation of an independent building for the orthodontics program at the
Bishop Connare Campus that houses the academic program and clinic. All of
these projects have been a success and the improvements can readily be seen; e.g.,
new buildings that are complete and functioning, residence halls that are full,
technology upgrades and the restoration of older buildings.
With the University’s decision to extend the campus into the local community –
The Center for Family Therapy, Stark/James Building in Greensburg, the
Performing Arts Center in Greensburg, the Orthodontics Center in Unity
township, and the Visual Arts Center housed in Greensburg – the economic status
of the town has reaped significant positive benefit. (Economic development data
will be available in the Reading Room.)
While the University still faces challenges in funding capital improvements, the
administration is confident it can continue to make wise decisions on the timing
of addressing these issues. Deferred maintenance remains and will always be a
focus of capital improvements.
Technology Improvements
Seton Hill has made significant upgrades to the University’s technology
resources; Table 5, Technology Improvements, 2000-2010 provides these details.
The University Catalog (2010-2012) contains a description of the current
technology available to students and employees.
In 2000, Seton Hill chose to upgrade its existing POISE modules and to
selectively purchase new software modules and server computers that filled the
coverage gaps. Seton Hill continued this upgrade in 2005-06 to a relational
36
database with Jenzabar EX platform. The new EX applications are also
compatible with the web-based Course-Learning Management system and the
University’s Microsoft Dynamics business applications.
In June 2008, GriffinGate was successfully introduced across campus as Seton
Hill’s administrative and academic web portal. GriffinGate provides all members
of the Seton Hill learning community with access to relevant administrative and
academic information from one central web portal. Based on the constituents’
roles (student, faculty, advisor, and/or staff), they have access to appropriate
information.
An enhanced “University intranet” web portal, Griffin’s Lair, went live on
January 20, 2009. Adding such an intranet-based component to the available
resources expanded the University’s ability to provide information to the campus
community in a more efficient, user-friendly manner. Griffin’s Lair provides
students, faculty and staff a community portal that includes events, news, campus
directory, quick links and departmental web pages, as well as a development
platform to bridge the gap between key University database systems. It meets key
business needs with report options as well provides easy, secure access to student
information from anywhere with an internet connection. Usage data will be
available in the Reading Room.
Seton Hill University has demonstrated its commitment to significantly increase
the level of technology use in both administrative and academic systems by its
participation in The Technology Assisted Learning for Inclusionary Practice
(TALIP) grant, a federal Technology Innovation Challenge Grant; Promoting
Instruction and Learning Opportunities with Technology (PILOT), a five-year
Title III grant; and a second five-year Title III grant Integrating Outcomes-based
Assessment with Interactive and Assistive Instructional Technology to Improve
Retention. These grants have provided significant support for the purchase of
equipment, but more importantly support for the training of faculty on the use of
37
technology. Details on programs offered through these grants will be available in
the reading room.
In addition to the training provided through the federal grants, Seton Hill faculty
also have access twice a year to the Virtual Faculty Academy, a professional
development requirement for faculty who are teaching on-line courses.
Seton Hill initiated the Griffin Technology Advantage program in fall 2010. The
Griffin Technology Advantage, Seton Hill's commitment to provide students with
the best in technology and collaborative learning tools, ensures that Seton Hill
students will be uniquely suited to whatever careers they choose - even those that
have not yet been created. All first year undergraduate students at Seton Hill will
receive a 13" MacBook laptop and an iPad. All full time students (traditional,
adult degree and graduate) received an iPad. Students will have complete access
to these mobile technologies for classes as well as at all times for personal use.
Returning students with a minimum of four semesters of study remaining were
given the opportunity to opt into the program, 251 students made this decision.
As students and faculty increase their usage of the web, the University will need
to scale Internet connection accordingly. In addition, Seton Hill will need to
utilize network intrusion protection systems. It is likely that, in order to sustain
technology efforts, additional staff will be required.
Seizing Opportunities
While Seton Hill is guided by its strategic plan, it lets no opportunity go
unexplored. The administration is also able to recognize when planned major
initiatives will not come to fruition. Two case examples demonstrate the
University’s adaptability.
In the 2005-2010 strategic plan the development of partnerships with Chinese
universities for programs to be offered in China was a major planned revenue
38
source. The University invested three years of efforts in this initiative and
approximately $50,000. The model proposed was to partner with mid-level status
Chinese universities to offer Seton Hill business degrees in China taught by some
visiting faculty but mainly adjunct instructors (US business personnel working in
China). Programs were to include internships at US based firms. While
partnerships were formed with signed agreements and curriculum developed,
Seton Hill’s partners were unable to get the necessary government approvals to
offer the programs or unwilling to seek approval with the agreed-upon tuition
rates for students. While no programs were initiated, the University has
strengthened its long-term relationship with Nanjing University (now co-
sponsoring a major business conference tri-annually), has developed a strong
collaboration with Beijing Union University (student and scholar exchanges) and
recently signed a collaborative agreement with Shandong College of Politics and
Law. The administration recognizes that while we may be able to recruit some
students for US study (assuming access to visas) this will not be a major revenue
generator as originally anticipated.
In 2007 an idea for a unique partnership with Lake Erie College of Osteopathic
Medicine (LECOM) was brought forth. LECOM was interested in developing an
off campus location in southwestern Pennsylvania. While their main campus in
Erie and their branch campus in Bradenton, Florida were free standing, the
LECOM administration was interested in developing a learning facility on a
university campus. LECOM also was aware of the critical shortage of doctors in
southwestern PA. The administrations from both schools began discussions about
Seton Hill hosting a study facility for LECOM. The space needs for the program
were identified and services to be provided articulated. The financial
arrangements were worked out over a one-and-a-half year period. This
partnership will be a major source of non-tuition revenues over time.
The combination of planning, discipline, evaluation, and risk-taking clearly
combined to make Seton Hill successful during this period.
39
2. How can Seton Hill effectively evaluate strategies for the future to achieve
strength in human and financial resources?
The University administration and faculty recognized that there were many
demands for its limited operating resources in the past ten years. Two goals were
fundamental during this period: increasing student enrollments, particularly
traditional undergraduates which required facilities improvements, development
of a comprehensive athletic program and new academic majors; and achieving a
minimum annual operating margin of 3%.
With the steady increase in student enrollment and revenues from significant
partnerships, Seton Hill is in a position to address personnel issues, create annual
budgets with an expectation of a 5-7% operating margin. In doing so the
University will produce the necessary cash flow needed to fund equipment
replacement and facilities upgrades, and more aggressively manage the tuition
discount.
Human Resources
Seton Hill University’s faculty and staff are highly dedicated, qualified and hard
working individuals committed to the University mission. Maintaining Seton
Hill’s employees as a diverse, accomplished, and optimally functioning resource
is impacted by both external and internal factors.
While the University is committed to hiring faculty and staff of color this is also a
goal of most institutions of higher education and there is a limited pool of
applicants. The University is situated in a county that is lacking in cultural
diversity and this hinders our ability to recruit faculty of color. The limited
number of faculty of color also is a drawback for faculty who seek a robust group
of colleagues of color. Despite these challenges the University continues in its
efforts to diversify faculty and staff. University efforts include requiring that all
40
search committees include a member trained in addressing issues of diversity in
the hiring process. In addition, the University has a “find and hire” policy for
appropriate persons of color, although this program would benefit from additional
publicity.
Table 6, 2003-2010, Number of Full-time/Part-time Faculty, Professional,
Operational Employees illustrates a steady increase in the number of employees
in relation to the student enrollments. Chart 2, Faculty to Student Enrollment
2000-2010, Chart 3, Professional Staff to Student Enrollment 2000-2010, and
Chart 4, Operational Staff to Student Enrollment, reflect this data graphically.
This data is presented in head count as well as full-time equivalencies. This is
particularly important for faculty because a small percentage of faculty are half-
time or three-quarter time but serve all essential full-time faculty functions, such
as advising and curriculum oversight. Table 7, IPEDS reporting for faculty
2003/4 through 2010/11, reflects the faculty data by rank and tenure status. In
Chart 5, 8-year trend in FT/PT versus adjunct faculty shows that in the past two
academic years the ratio of full- and part-time faculty have increased in
comparison to the number of adjunct faculty employed. This trend will continue
since the University is in the process of expanding faculty positions as follows: 2
education, 1 dance, 1 biology, 1 physics, 1 organic chemistry, 1 criminal justice, 1
psychology, and 2 business.
While Seton Hill has made good progress in faculty hiring, attention to the need
for additional faculty will continue in the program review process. The
administration recognizes that University faculty are particularly responsive to the
need for developing pedagogical approaches that embrace the integration of
technology. This requires extensive training and development on the part of
faculty. Partnered with the increasing requirements for effective, performance-
based assessment this will continue to stretch faculty time.
41
Seton Hill has enjoyed a good faculty retention rate despite not meeting the salary
compensation goal of achieving the mean salary of peers. Table 8, Faculty Salary
Comparison, shows a five-year comparison of salaries by rank of Seton Hill with
peer schools and church related schools nationally. Table 9, Average Faculty
Salary and Benefit Comparison between Seton Hill, Peer Schools and Church
Related Schools, shows these same data on average faculty salaries with benefits.
These tables exemplify the real cost of achieving the goal of paying competitive
salaries. It also shows that since Seton Hill has primarily hired at the assistant
professor level, the salary market demand for new faculty has caused the
University to hire at moderately higher salaries with minor equity adjustments
made in rank for the following year. Since faculty members are seldom hired at
the full professor rank, no such market adjustments were made. In addition, the
number of newer faculty promoted to the professor rank has caused a greater
discrepancy from the mean.
The University will begin making salary adjustments in fiscal year 2011 at a
commitment of $100,000 annually ($75,000 for meeting mean salaries and
$25,000 for equity issues) until it achieves the projected cost of achieving the
average salary goal estimated currently at $180,005, by fiscal year 2014. The
adjustments will be made with the following prioritization: gender equity (which
was illustrated as faculty data were examined across standards), and rank equity.
Internally the administration will examine salaries by rank when median analysis
is completed to determine whether additional adjustments are needed. In addition
the University will adopt a practice of comparing faculty and staff salaries to its
peer groups on a regular schedule. This practice will help to insure that pay scales
remain equitable and competitive, particularly in relation to gender equity.
The University did not achieve its strategic goal of analyzing salaries for all
employee classifications because the financial resources were not available for
42
such a study. Staffing and salary will be reviewed as part of the department
review process.
5-7% Operating Margin
The University celebrates its success in stabilizing the institution’s finances, while
realizing that in the coming years there are critical issues that must be addressed
which will require significant dollars. Investments will need to be made in
strategic areas in order to ensure on-going growth and institutional strength.
These investments will include addressing salary and benefit deficiencies that are
illustrated in the prior section. Additionally, resources need to be committed to
facilities, equipment, furnishings, and technology in order to keep the campus
vibrant and programs updated. The faculty and administration recognize that in
order to address the challenges noted, Seton Hill needs to increase its operating
margins to 5-7% annually, and to maintain cash reserves of $8-10 million in order
to provide the funding necessary for these investments.
Seton Hill is heavily dependent on net student revenues as its major revenue
stream; it does not have the luxury of a large endowment to supplement its
operating budget. The University needs to implement strategies beyond simply
increasing student enrollment to obtain a minimum of a 5% operating margin. In
the budgeting process over the next several years the administration will attempt
to apply zero-based budgeting strategies to specific lines that could possibly be
reduced. This will allow for re-investment in targeted programs.
The University is developing a process model for evaluating new programs,
services and investments. The model will include the identification of
benchmarks when evaluating the opportunities and strategies for establishing
financial criteria. The assumptions used to develop new programs will be tested
for accuracy and reasonableness. In some cases the University may solicit the
services of professional consultants to help determine whether there is a market
for any new program or service being contemplated.
43
The University will continue to look for opportunities where it can foster its
entrepreneurial spirit, help the community, and reinvest in its educational mission.
A prime example is the University’s partnership with LECOM, which has resulted
in financial benefits, will help fulfill the needs of southwestern Pennsylvania for
more primary care physicians and create accelerated learning opportunities for
undergraduate students. Another example of such forward thinking is the
decision to create an orthodontics certificate, which will result in significant clinic
revenues annually after the first five years of implementation, provide care for
children and adults who are in financial need and offer an excellent learning
program for residents and fellows.
The University administration will continue to seek opportunities for revenue
generation that serve the mission and enhance the educational enterprise.
Currently under consideration are: the creation of a technology center as a joint
venture between Seton Hill and an outside technology firm, implementing a
federally qualified community health center partnering with EXCELA Health and
LECOM, the possibility of working with a for-profit partner to create a Café in
the proposed visual arts center, and on-going examination of partnering with
private developers on student housing in Greensburg.
Such ideas would be thoroughly evaluated, using feasibility and market studies,
projected budgets, program development, as well exploring legal and tax
implications before the University would implement the ventures. Such ideas
exemplify the administration’s entrepreneurial spirit in seeking other sources of
revenues while fulfilling its educational mission.
Simultaneously the University has developed a profitability analysis for its
academic programs. In doing so the administration can make informed decisions
on how best to allocate its resources, perhaps closing some marginal programs
and reallocating those resources to support other programs or to start new ones.
By implementing this evaluation process as part of the program review process
44
the administration will develop a record of unit improvements which will serve as
a means to further appraise the success or failure of programs over time, and will
serve as a gauge for making decisions related to the allocation of resources.
In addition, as departmental reviews are fully implemented, non-academic
departments will go through a similar analysis. The results should help the
University decide where further investments are needed to bolster student
retention and satisfaction and also decrease expenses by operating more
efficiently.
Management of the Tuition Discount
The University recognizes that it needs to effectively manage its tuition
discounting strategy. While tuition discounting has been used to successfully
increase student enrollments, the administration has had to balance tuition
discounting with deferred investment in other important University needs. Seton
Hill recognizes that the tuition discount rate is a concern and has tried several
strategies to contain the rate. To confront this issue, the University recently
engaged the services of a consultant to make recommendations to optimize the
best yield for the tuition discount dollars being offered. The goal is to reduce the
discount rate of the incoming freshman class by 1% per year over the next five to
ten years. While this has been a goal in the past, there are now clearly identified
and achievable strategies to accomplish this goal particularly when these
strategies are added to the University’s increasing recognition in the region.
The University has decided to implement the following strategies as of fall 2011:
• Base the University’s financial aid packages on a percentage of family
need, instead of the current method of basing the packages on a percentage
of tuition. Under this proposed method, a matrix would be developed that
would take into consideration both academic achievement and family
need.
45
• Establish a varying discount rate, based on market demand for the
program. This is a supply and demand strategy where students interested
in the University’s most selective programs (often those in which post
graduate salaries are considerably higher) would receive little to no
discount.
• Review of athletic scholarship aid so that there is a comprehensive
understanding of what portion of “athletic aid” is given for athletics and
what portion is for academics.
The administration will carefully monitor the effects of these strategies on an
ongoing basis and make adjustments as needed going forward.
The strategies outlined above will lead to sound institutional controls that deal
with financial, administrative, and auxiliary operations, and rational and
consistent policies to determine allocation of its assets.
Strengths:
• Strategic planning that guides the institution effectively. • Steady enrollment increases, particularly in the traditional undergraduate
program. • Strengthened financial position with balance sheet and operating margin trending
positive; recognition of non-tuition revenue opportunities, i.e., LECOM affiliation and Orthodontic Center
• Impressive fundraising, with $88 million raised from 1998 to 2010. • Significant improvement to physical plant with investments of $53,000,000
including the building of two new residence halls, the Performing Arts Center, the McKenna Center, three new athletic fields, and a field house.
• Upgrading technology to state-of-the-art quality, with implementation of the Griffin Technology Advantage program and comprehensive faculty technology training.
Weakness: • Limited number of faculty, with competitive salary issues. • Need for analysis of staffing in all academic areas, with competitive salary issues
a possible concern. • Tuition dependence. • Small endowment.
46
• Challenges to managing discount rate effectively.
47
Chapter III – Celebrating Leadership
STANDARDS 4-5:
Leadership and Governance
Administration
Overview of the charge: The working group for Standards 4-5, “Celebrating Leadership,” is charged by the
Middle States Steering Committee to study and report on the roles, the performance, and
the effectiveness of the governing bodies at Seton Hill University and the administration
at Seton Hill University. This is relevant to demonstrating compliance with the Middle
States Standards 4 and 5.
STANDARD 4 - Questions: In what ways and for what reasons have Seton Hill’s governance systems changed
over the past ten years. How appropriate were the changes and how were they
assessed? What has been the impact of these changes?
Board of Trustees: Revised in 2005, the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees of Seton Hill
University reflect changes which occurred in the Sisters of Charity governance as well as
changes suggested by the members of the Board of Trustees at that time (“Bylaws of the
Board of Trustees”). As part of the analysis of these standards, two trustee members of
the working group interviewed two members of the Sisters of Charity and two lay
Trustees (“List of Dates and Names for Impact Interviews”). The interviewers focused
on the rationale and results of the changes to the Bylaws of the Board.
Changes in the governance of the order of the Sisters of Charity of Seton Hill affected the
Sisters representation on the Seton Hill Board of Trustees. In 2002, the Sisters of Charity
moved from being a congregation with its general government based in Greensburg, PA
and a Korean Region, to a congregation with its general government based in Chicago,
IL, with two equal provinces, one based in the United States, the other in South Korea.
The United States Province sponsors Seton Hill University. The change in Bylaws
48
specifies that the Sisters who govern and speak for the United States Province are the
representatives of the congregation to the Seton Hill University Board of Trustees.
Council Trustees have the following reserved powers over the University: approval of
any changes that affect the mission, philosophy, and identity of the University; approval
of indebtedness of over three million dollars; and the oversight of the University assets in
the case of dissolution of the University.
The Sisters of Charity fill 10 seats on the Board, lay trustees fill 22. The president and
the local bishop are ex-officio members of the Board. The Board, which is self-
perpetuating nominates trustees who bring access to new individuals, corporations,
foundations and other resources to the University and provide insights into leadership and
guidance regarding capital campaigns, building projects, and new academic and athletic
programs.
Other changes in the 2005 Bylaws re-instated as standing committees: the Committee for
Building and Grounds, the Committee for Student Interests, the Committee for
Educational Policy and Faculty Interests, and the Committee for University Relations and
Development. Chairs of these committees along with the chairs of the Committee on
Trustees, the Committee for the Evaluation of the President, and the Committee for
Finance and Business Affairs comprise the Executive Committee. The creation of a new
Committee on Mission in 2010 more deeply involves Trustees in the day-to-day
responsibility for carrying out the University’s mission.
Overall, the trustees interviewed expressed positive opinions about the changes in the
Bylaws and their involvement in the growth and change in enrollment, new degree
programs, the building program, successful fundraising and heightened standing in public
awareness seen during the last ten years (“List of Dates and Names for Impact
Interviews”).
Seton Hill University and its Board of Trustees are committed to increasing the diversity
of the Board. The Committee on Trustees identifies and solicits qualified minority
49
candidates to fill open board positions. For the 2010-2011 board year, 24 of 34 members
or 71 percent of the Seton Hill University Board of Trustees are women. Minority
representation is 9 percent overall, an increase of 3 percentage points since 2003. The
University continues to work to build a Board of Trustees that reflects the diversity of our
student body.
Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative results of Trustee Survey Reports from 2010,
2009, and 2008 provides an overall assessment of the Board from a trustee’s point of
view. (“Trustee Survey Report Years 2010, 2009, 2008” and “Trustee Survey Qualitative
Responses 2010, 2009, 2008.”) Data collected and analyzed show that trustees
understand their responsibilities, are familiar with Seton Hill’s mission and recent
history, and use this knowledge when they vote on proposals before the Board. Trustees
also are careful about avoiding conflict of interest and find the Trustee orientation
program helpful.
Data on trustee giving from the Institutional Advancement database show that since
2000, trustee participation in the Annual Fund and Capital Campaigns generated over
$3.7 million in gifts. (“Trustee Giving Data, 2000-2011.”) Over the same period trustee
participation in fundraising steadily increased from 88 percent in 2001 to 100 percent in
2010.
Faculty Governance: Two members of the working committee for Middle States
Standard 4 interviewed the two past presidents of the Faculty Senate and the Senate’s
current president. The interviewers focused on the rationale and results of the changes to
the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate.
From its organization in the mid-1990s, the Faculty Senate of Seton Hill University has
undergone continual adjustment through procedural changes and revision of Bylaws
(“Bylaws of the Faculty Senate”). The most fundamental change in the Faculty Senate
organization took place in 2002 with the institution of an elected president for the Senate.
Prior to this period of time, the leadership of the Senate changed hands frequently, with
50
the chair (not called “president”) typically serving only one year. Frequent changes of
leadership led to some loss of continuity in Senate management, and frustration with this
led to the position rotating among members of an Executive Committee whose
membership represented the major Senate committees.
A review of the Faculty Senate structure that occurred in 2001-2002 led to changes to the
Bylaws (Faculty Senate Bylaws). The new Bylaws provide for the direct election of the
president by the membership of the Faculty Senate. The president serves a two-year
term, and is eligible for reelection for one additional term, chairs the Executive
Committee, presides at meetings of the Senate, and represents the Faculty Senate in the
university president’s extended cabinet. The Senate president is also a member of Dean’s
Council with responsibility for facilitating communication among governance bodies.
The rationale behind the change to an elected president was that an identified leader,
rather than a leadership team, could more effectively coordinate Faculty Senate efforts
with non-Senate constituencies. Still, the office is difficult to fill, and faculty express
concern over the workload that comes with being President of the Senate. Further
assessment of the effectiveness of the change to an elected president of the Faculty
Senate should be undertaken.
The Senate does most of its business through committee structures. Committees
established or changed over the past ten years include: the Policy Grievance committee
which generalized the work of the Rank and Tenure Grievance committee; the
Admissions committee which split from the Academic Standards committee; and the
Human Research Committee which became the Institutional Review Board. The March
2006 expansion of the membership of the Liberal Arts Committee provided for input
from additional subject area representatives. A Senate committee established in October
2005 (with the initiation of the Writing-Intensive Program) coordinates the review of the
Writing Intensive process and its attendant course syllabi. In addition, the Faculty Senate
made changes to its Executive Council, adding a member from the Academic Standards
Committee in 2008.
51
Staff and Employees: Professional staff and operational employees function primarily
through their work area. Professional staff serve on major institutional committees such
as: Assessment and Planning Council, Enrollment Council, Dean’s Council, Mission
Effectiveness Committee, and Retention Committee. However, as employee groups per
se, they do not have clear participation in the official governing structure of the
University. The University should clarify and define how professional and operational
staff participate in the governance of the University. Based on that analysis, the
University should determine the need for the development of a formal governance
structure. A voluntary organization, called the Professional Association, is open to
faculty and professional staff. While this organization is not part of the official
governance structure of the University, it provides a forum for the discussion of issues of
interest to faculty and professional staff. For operational staff whose role does not
provide personal computers, the University should remain vigilant that they have access
to such information as would be provided on Griffin’s Lair, the University’s intranet
portal which provides information of interest to the entire Seton Hill Community.
What steps can be taken to strengthen communication and engagement among
faculty, administrators, staff and student governing structures? In what ways are
the issues raised or decisions made by these structures communicated to
appropriate constituencies and then acted upon? How well do current systems
function to ensure that the perception of communication among campus
constituencies matches the reality?
Communication among all campus constituencies is vital to fulfilling the mission and
goals of Seton Hill University. The University administration strives to ensure prompt
communication of the details of decisions made at the administrative level to faculty,
students and staff. Additionally, it is important that administrators keep up to date on
campus events and issues of importance to faculty, students, and staff. Entities such as
the Dean’s Council, Graduate Advisory Council, Faculty Senate, and Student
Government play important roles in coordinating communication among various
constituencies.
52
Dean’s Council: Communication among all constituencies directly related to academics
takes place during meetings of the Dean’s Council. The Provost calls and presides over
these meetings, which take place monthly across the calendar year. Discussion at each
meeting centers on academic policies and other developments related to academics with
representatives reporting back to their offices or constituencies. Challenges related to the
actual communication of the Dean’s Council reports to the various campus constituencies
exist. Posting the minutes of Dean’s Council meetings on-line through Griffin’s Lair and
incorporating a brief discussion of the minutes into each departmental level staff meeting
would strengthen communication across campus. The Dean’s Council could then provide
clarification for any questions raised. The Faculty Senate passed a similar motion,
providing for the on-line posting of agenda items, motions and the results of votes.
Graduate Advisory Council: The Graduate Advisory Council reviews proposals for
changes in graduate program, and academic regulations before presentation to the Dean’s
Council and the Faculty Senate for approval. The Graduate Advisory Council oversees
graduate curriculum development, revision and academic policies. Council membership
includes the Dean of Graduate and External Programs (the Council chair), the Director of
Graduate and Adult Student Services, the Registrar, the Director of the Library, the Dean
of Students, Graduate Program Directors, one faculty member at large elected by the
Faculty Senate, and one graduate student. The Council monitors all graduate curricula,
approval of new courses, the addition of options within the programs, and the
recommendation to add or delete programs, or options. The Council may propose
general academic policies such as those concerning evaluation and grading. It serves as a
forum both for discussion and action, and meets at least three times each semester.
Faculty Senate and Shared Governance: The Faculty Senate struggled with issues of
shared governance during the past ten years. One concern was the process of decision-
making, which appeared to be hierarchical, with decisions made in the President’s
Council and then communicated to faculty without due regard for deliberation.
Following a change in Faculty Senate leadership in fall 2010, and encouraged by the
53
general study and discussion around the Middle States process, Senate leaders determined
to study the role of the Faculty Senate in shared governance directly, but also to embed
the issue in the wider development of the Faulty Senate’s role. The steps taken as of mid-
Fall semester 2010 include:
1. The Senate president and Executive Committee proposed, and the Senate
approved, the formation of a committee to study the bylaws of the Senate “in
comparison to standards … and other faculty senates at comparable institutions.
The committee would take into account any issues about faculty governance that
would seem to be pressing at the moment.” (“Faculty Senate Minutes,
2010.09.07.”) Following approval of the motion on October 5, 2010, selection of
the committee commenced. Committee findings and recommendations are due by
the final meeting of the Faculty Senate in academic year 2010/2011.
2. In order to ground the work of the committee, the president and Executive
Committee developed a survey based in large part on an AAUP document “Traits
of Effective Faculty Senates.” (“Faculty Senate – List of Effective Traits, 2010”
and “Faculty Senate Survey, November 2, 2010.”) Posted prior to the November
meeting of the Faculty Senate and administered during that meeting using clicker
technology the survey’s participation rate was 57%. This compares well with past
surveys, e.g. the bookstore survey, where the compliance rate was about 30%.
Results of the survey provide some reality testing for the more diffuse concerns
expressed by individuals in recent years. Several of the items on the survey reveal that
Senate members are not highly concerned with the role of the Senate in shared
governance. (“Faculty Senate Survey, November 2, 2010.”) The process of the Senate,
however, appears to be in some doubt. Fully half of survey respondents either disagree
or strongly disagree with the statement “Faculty members feel comfortable, in Senate, to
express opinions that may differ from positions held by senior faculty and/or
administrators.” The Senate continues to explore the origins of this reluctance and
examine methods to diminish it to improve the Senate as a governance body.
54
Student Government: Students voice their concerns and/or issues through the Student
Senate of Student Government (“Seton Hill Government Association [SHGA]
Constitution and Bylaws”). The Executive Board of Student Government transmits the
concerns to the Student Senate, the Student Interest Committee of the Board of Trustees,
the Retention Committee, and the Dean’s Council. The President’s Council discusses
issues/concerns raised. Following this discussion, the Vice Presidents inform appropriate
staff members to ensure that issues/concerns are resolved. Despite posting pertinent
information on the Student Government bulletin board or distributing it through flyers,
handouts, and the Griffin’s Lair website section of the main Seton Hill University
website, the need still exists for a better, more consistent method of communicating
information on the results of committee action regarding student concerns. For
traditional undergraduate students, the president of SHGA could send electronic
announcements informing students of decisions made or concerns resolved. A readily
accessible link to the Student Handbook would help preempt questions regarding
issues/concerns already addressed and for which policies already exist. The University
should also address communication gaps with graduate and adult degree program
students.
Traditional undergraduate students meet with members of the Board of Trustees at the
annual “Trustee Luncheon with Students” held immediately before a regular meeting of
the Board. At these meetings students voice concerns, raise issues, and engage trustees in
discussion about happenings at Seton Hill. The trustees report on these discussions to the
full Board at the meeting following the luncheon. The full Board makes
recommendations to the Administration on actions needed to resolve issues raised by
students. Administrators report on the recommendations for action to their respective
areas. Because space on campus is at a premium when classes are in session, setting a
convenient date and time for the luncheon is an issue. The University continues to work
to ensure that an appropriate time is set aside for trustees and students to meet at least
once per year.
55
What actions have been taken to develop a transition/succession plan? In what ways and to what extent have these actions/plans been implemented?
Seton Hill University flourishes under the transformational leadership of its President,
JoAnne W. Boyle, Ph.D. President since 1987, Dr. Boyle oversees the daily and long-
range planning of the institution (“Administrators’ Vitas”). Directly accountable to the
Board of Trustees, President Boyle leads Seton Hill in ways grounded in its Catholic
heritage and its Sisters of Charity of Seton Hill values. She provides leadership for all
Seton Hill constituencies in promoting the spiritual life, intellectual standards, and
commitment to community, diversity, and service that define Seton Hill’s unique
character. Well respected by trustees, administrators and faculty, alumni and members of
the community, she is a leader who is deeply committed to the Mission of Seton Hill
University. President Boyle guides Seton Hill toward achieving its goals while
establishing ongoing relationships with members of the academic community, especially
students.
Since the last decennial visit, President Boyle led the transition of Seton Hill College for
women to Seton Hill University a co-educational institution. Under her watch enrollment
grew from 832 in fall 1987 to 2232 in fall 2010 with a corresponding increase in the
residential population. Initiation of new undergraduate, graduate, athletic and adult
degree programs accelerated. Implementation and use of technology and other state-of-
the-art learning and administrative tools grew tremendously. Historic campus buildings
were renovated and restored. New construction on campus proliferated with two new
residence halls, a field house, athletic fields and a $6.9 million recreation center
completed since 2001. Seton Hill’s new $21.2 million Performing Arts Center located
off-campus in the heart of downtown Greensburg, Pennsylvania opened in 2009. Dr.
Boyle’s presidency represents a period of unprecedented growth in enrollment, academic
rigor, and financial stability at Seton Hill University.
President Boyle created a senior management team focused on the mission that works
efficiently and effectively to achieve strategic goals leading to institutional excellence.
Well aware of the significant financial challenges facing Seton Hill, President’s Council
56
members recognize the critical need for immediate and long-term planning. The
longevity of the team’s membership (most serving over ten years) speaks to individual
member’s commitment to the University. Their academic preparation, institutional
perspective, awareness of the challenges facing private higher education and emphasis on
academic excellence serve them well in their leadership responsibilities.
The Seton Hill University Board of Trustees Executive Compensation Committee (a
subcommittee of the Executive Committee) is consulting with a higher education
consulting firm with expertise on compensation and succession planning particularly for
small independent institutions. The Committee discussed with these consultants a plan to
provide for leadership if the President and/or the Vice Presidents were unable to fulfill
their duties and the essential elements of transition planning in the event that the
President and/or the Vice Presidents decide to retire or cannot fulfill their duties. Results
of the consultants’ work will be presented to the full Board for action and
implementation.
In what ways and for what reasons have Seton Hill staffing patterns and reporting
lines been changed within the past ten years? What has been the impact of those
changes?
In 2002, Seton Hill University transitioned from a college for women to co-educational
University status. The change to this new status, designed to increase traditional
undergraduate enrollments, recruit better prepared and academically talented students,
and increase the vitality of student life was, and continues to be, enormously successful.
The dramatic change from a women’s college to a co-ed university with growing
enrollments and increasing numbers of academic and athletic programs has led to
changes in staffing and reporting lines. While the overall number of staff in most Seton
Hill University departments grew over the last ten years, the reporting lines typically
57
remained the same (“Organizational Chart”). Most departments simply restructured
positions in order to meet the needs of the growing student population.
Over the last ten years Seton Hill’s athletic department underwent a total transformation
in both programming and staff. In 2000 Seton Hill College offered seven women’s
varsity sports and participated in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics
(NAIA); in 2010 the University offers 21 varsity sports and is a member of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II, West Virginia Intercollegiate
Athletic Conference (WVIAC). More information about the athletic changes is available
in Chapter IV, Standard 8. The number of staff in the Seton Hill athletic department went
from two full-time staff who served as coaches/administrators in 2000, to 23 full-time
staff in 2010. Due to the expansion of the athletic program and its centrality in
recruitment and retention, the Executive Director of Athletics reports to the President and
is a member of the President’s Council. Impact interviews conducted with administrators
and staff indicate that this change, along with the move to NCAA Division II, elevated
the status of Seton Hill’s athletic programs thereby enhancing the University’s ability to
recruit students and staff for the various programs. Departmental review should evaluate
the validity of the positive perceptions expressed in interviews.
In FY 2007, the Office of Career Development was renamed CareerWorks. Oversight for
CareerWorks moved from Administration and Student Life to E-Magnify the
University’s entrepreneurship program for women in business in Academic Affairs, a
change intended to better link the work of CareerWorks with academic programs. The
linkage resulted in revamping the University’s internship program and efforts continue to
develop internships of higher quality for students. A direct reporting line from the
director of CareerWorks to the director of E-Magnify is practical and uses the
entrepreneurial spirit of E-Magnify to assist in developing student internships and alumni
outreach. The change has facilitated the integration of E- Magnify with all academic
majors. While the rationale is clear and the current intellectual view is that experiential
education is a key component of a successful academic experience, operationally at Seton
Hill, the plan is still very much a “work in progress.” There is a need for greater clarity
58
in determining how CareerWorks and E-Magnify’s goals align. There is also a need for
better communication with students detailing the differing roles of CareerWorks and E-
Magnify. Future decisions should involve all important stakeholders. See Standards 11
and 13 for further details regarding these areas.
Oversight for the Office of Financial Aid moved from Enrollment Services to the Finance
Office in FY 2008. Impact interviews conducted with staff and administrators indicate
that while this was a significant change in reporting structure it did not affect operational
structure, other than to enable greater analysis by the business office of financial aid
awards related to how they affect the overall long-term financial position of the
University. The move also led to improved University cash flow (“List of Dates and
Names for Impact Interviews”).
What types of assessment are in place for the periodic review of the effectiveness of
administrative structures and procedures? What actions have been taken in
response to these assessments? In every area, how is assessment linked to the goals
of the area?
The University instituted a departmental review process beginning in 2009-10, with full
implementation in 2010-11. This review process provides important feedback on how
departmental and reporting structures are effective in fulfilling the University’s mission,
goals, and strategic initiatives. Early department reviews, with action steps taken in
response to the assessments, are available in the reading room.
Seton Hill also employs a comprehensive employee evaluation. Details of the employee
evaluation system are available in the reading room. In fiscal year 2009-10,
responsibility for the performance appraisal program moved from the Office of the Vice
President for Mission and Student Life to the Human Resources Office. Having program,
performance appraisal forms, and employee personnel files located in the same office
streamlines employee records management. The University’s Policy Manual addresses
59
the employee evaluation procedures and relevant sections are available on-line for all
employees.
Strengths:
• Seton Hill University has a well-defined and documented system of policy
development and collegial governance.
• The governance structure includes an active governing board of sufficient size
and with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its
responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the mission
of the University (“List of Current Board Members”).
• Seton Hill University’s Board of Trustees, administrators, faculty, staff and
students all participate in the governance of the University. Each constituency
understands its separate but complementary roles and responsibilities.
• The Board works effectively with the President and with the other senior
administrative officers of the University. The Board reviews presidential
performance annually. The President of Seton Hill University has the confidence
of the Board.
• Seton Hill University’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning,
research and scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the
University’s governance.
• The University’s administrative structure and organization are appropriate for the
University’s mission and size (“SHU Organization Chart”).
• All administrators have the appropriate skills, degrees and training to fulfill their
responsibilities and functions (“Administrators’ Vitas”).
• Faculty and students have input and involvement in University administration and
governance via the Faculty Senate and the Dean’s Council
• The University’s organizational chart provides clear documentation of the lines of
organization and authority and is examined annually and revised when
appropriate (“Organizational Chart”).
Challenges:
60
• Representation of minorities on the Board of Trustees reflects the overall
demographics of the area, but Seton Hill University continues to strive for
diversity.
• Shared governance, across the different stakeholders, is still elusive.
• Communication among the different governing bodies, such as the publication
and sharing of agendas and minutes, is not structured formally; however, the
posting of this information to Griffin’s Lair is under discussion (December 2010).
• The longevity of the senior management team makes the idea of replacing any of
these people a formidable exercise.
• Reviews of administrative structures and procedures are on going; they are not yet
fully integrated.
Action Plans: List of References: See Document Roadmap, Standards 4-5. Appendices. None.
61
Chapter IV – Delivering on Promises
STANDARDS 6-8:
Integrity
Student Admissions and Retention
Overview of the charge.
The working group for Standards 6 & 8, “Delivering on Promises,” is charged by the
Middle States Steering Committee to study and report on the University’s adherence to
its own ethical standards and stated policies, and to study and report on the University’s
admissions and retention processes. This is relevant to demonstrating compliance with
the Middle States Standards 6 and 8.
STANDARD 6 – Questions:
How effectively does the University communicate its stated policies as they relate to
students, faculty and staff? Based on stakeholder feedback, are there
inconsistencies, and if so, how are they being addressed?
In the past 10 years, Seton Hill University has greatly improved its methods of
communication. The improvement in communication is based on increased
documentation and advances in technology. In the past, communication of policies was
restricted to print handbooks and policy manuals that were not always easy to locate and
were difficult to keep up to date. In the past ten-years the University has made a
significant investment in technology that has resulted in more up-to-date and
comprehensive communication venues.
The University hosts a web page for community members and the public. The web page
is designed to provide comprehensive information on all aspects of the university. It is
primarily targeted to meet the information needs of the public. It is a major tool for
marketing the university and a recruitment instrument.
62
An intranet portal, Griffin’s Lair was created to provide easy access to information for all
members of the Seton Hill community. Announcements and current events are posted on
the site. The portal also provides information on departments (if they wish to post).
Institutional documents and forms are also available. Information can be updated as
needed at any time.
In addition, GriffinGate, the University’s administrative and learning management
system provides a format for course materials (in-class and on-line), advising, billing
information and course registration for all students and faculty. The registrar posts all
formal academic announcements on GriffinGate. Academic resources to support
teaching are also made available for faculty through GriffinGate.
Information posted to Griffin’s Lair and GriffinGate is password protected. It is available
24/7 but only to current members of the Seton Hill Community.
Based on a review by the working group, it appears that these new platforms afford more
efficient and effective campus-wide communication. However, information on Griffin’s
Lair and GriffinGate isn’t always organized so that it is easy to locate. One solution
would be that Griffin’s Lair be the official repository for documents and forms (based on
its “Documents” tab and “Forms” tab), even if they may appear elsewhere.
Policies are also communicated through institutional organizational structures. Students
receive information from faculty and staff; faculty receive information at faculty senate
and division meetings; professional staff receive information through departmental
meetings; members of the community receive information through the various University
committees and at least three times a year General Assemblies are held to provide
information.
There appears to be inconsistency in how information about policies is delivered to the
different segments of the SHU community. The working group found students to be best
informed about policies, followed by faculty, and lastly professional and operational
63
staff. This situation is improving with increases in availability of communication through
technology. A key example of this is the posting of the University Policy Manual to
Griffin's Lair, where it is available to all employees at all times.
All printed materials are updated on a regular basis. The Seton Hill Student Handbook
and Student Athletic Handbook are updated yearly. Hard copies of the Seton Hill Student
Handbook are provided to all new traditional undergraduate students, and all returning
students are reminded yearly that the Student Handbook is available to them on Griffin’s
Lair. The Student Athletic Handbook is provided to all student-athletes annually. The
University Catalog is revised every two years, and is available on Seton Hill’s website (in
hard copy by request). Course catalog updates are added regularly to the website. All of
these publications provide current policy information to students.
The method in which students receive information is reviewed periodically. For instance,
students previously learned about policy changes through the student handbook.
Subsequently, University administrators determined that consistent and multiple venues
for addressing policies will result in greater understanding. As such, from Setonian Days,
the first orientation for new students, until graduation, every opportunity to share
information is seized. As Seton Hill University continues to grow and the student body
changes, various means of disseminating student life information will be beneficial.
A comprehensive University Policy Manual for all employees was made available to the
University community in August 2010. Employees, faculty, professional and operational
employees can access the SHU Policy Manual by logging into Griffin’s Lair. In addition
to the information provided in the Student Handbook, students also have access to the
University Policy Manual through Griffin's Lair. Employees can also request policy
information from their immediate supervisors and through the Human Resource Office.
Changes and issues affecting institutional mission, goals, sites, programs, operations and
other material changes are disclosed accurately and in a timely manner to the institution's
community, to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and to other
64
regulatory bodies. Below, as an example, is a timeline describing the formal process of
how the Certificate in Orthodontics was developed. There is a simultaneously occurring
informal process, where the stakeholders were informed as the project progressed. This
included discussions with the relevant division faculty and presentations to Faculty
Senate, Dean’s Council and Enrollment Council.
Certificate in Orthodontics – A Case Study
In 2008 two orthodontists approached the university with a proposal to start a
freestanding graduate orthodontics program. The orthodontists, lifelong Greensburg
residents, had served in the orthodontics clinic offered through Westmoreland Hospital
until it closed in 2007, as well as clinical faculty in the University of Pittsburgh’s
orthodontics program. They proposed the orthodontics program and the Center for
Orthodontics because they believed it fit with the University’s mission and strategic goals
as well as provided a needed academic and clinical resource.
Their request was shared with the President’s Council, the Dean of Graduate and External
Programs and the Chair of the Natural and Health Sciences Division. It was determined
that the idea warranted exploration and consideration. The Provost and Dean of Graduate
and External Programs facilitated the review. This review included development of
curriculum, analysis of market – for both the academic program and patients for the
Center, academic resources (faculty, library, equipment) and financial pro formas.
The orthodontists worked with the Dean of Graduate & External Programs to prepare the
self-study application for the American Dental Association's Commission on Dental
Accreditation (CODA), a specialized accrediting body recognized by the U.S.
Department of Education.
Information on the Orthodontics program development was shared regularly throughout
the process in Dean’s Council, Graduate Council, Faculty Senate and General Assembly.
The Building and Grounds, Educational Policy and Faculty Concerns and Finance
65
Committees of the Board of Trustees were regularly updated on the program
development. The program went through the required approval process as follows:
• The Division of Natural and Health Sciences approved the Orthodontic Certificate
program on February 17, 2009.
• Graduate Council approved the Orthodontics program on February 18, 2009.
• Dean’s Council approved the Orthodontics program on February 25, 2009.
• Faculty Senate approved the Orthodontics program on March 3, 2009.
• Seton Hill's Board of Trustees approved the new Orthodontics Program on June
15, 2009.
The Initial Application for an Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthodontics Education
Program was submitted on April 9, 2009. A Response to Request for Additional Material
for the Initial Application for an Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthodontics Education
Program was sent August 13, 2009.
In fall 2009, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty confirmed in writing with Middle States
that since the Orthodontics Program is a certificate program, not a degree program, it did
not require a substantive change notice to Middle States.
The site visit for CODA was held on November 10, 2009.
Admissions, public relations and marketing materials were created by the Office of
Public Information in collaboration with the Office of Graduate and Adult Studies and
reviewed by the Dean of Graduate & External Programs, Vice President for Enrollment
Services to ensure accuracy before being finalized or released. The fact sheet and other
marketing materials were not distributed until approval for accreditation was received.
Photos used in marketing and recruitment materials are of the faculty and their patients,
appropriate releases are on file in the Office of Public Information and the Office of
Graduate and Adult Studies.
66
The approval for initial accreditation was received on February 15, 2010.
Information on the new program and an upcoming press conference was posted to Seton
Hill's website on Friday, February 26, 2010.
Seton Hill's new program was officially announced publicly and to the Seton Hill
community through a press conference held on campus March 1, where Seton Hill also
accepted a check from our area Congressman on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health
& Human Services, Health Resources & Services Administration (HHS-HRSA) in
support of the Center.
The Orthodontics Program was added to the academic and admissions sections of Seton
Hill's website in spring 2010. Information was also added to the course catalog and other
appropriate print materials.
Seton Hill sent information on the new Center to regional school nurses, dentists, local
agencies and churches in an effort to get the word out about the Center to medical
assistance patients who could use the Center's services in spring 2010.
A new website, for use by the Center and by prospective patients of the Center,
www.shusmiles.com, was created by Seton Hill and went live in the spring of 2010.
The Center opened on July 6, 2010. On July 15, Seton Hill held an Open House at the
Center for invited members of the Seton Hill and general community. On August 13,
Seton Hill held an Open House at the Center for all members of the Seton Hill
community. A feature article on the Orthodontics Program was included in the
spring/summer 2010 issue of the Forward alumni magazine. This magazine is provided to
13,000 faculty members, alumni, donors and friends of the University.
How effectively does the University address student, faculty and staff grievances,
and academic integrity and dishonesty issues?
67
Policies and procedures for addressing student grievances, disciplinary procedures and
academic integrity and dishonesty issues are documented in the Student Handbook, the
Student Athletic Handbook, the University Catalog and are available on GriffinGate.
Students also can receive information on these policies at any time through the Office of
Student Life.
For students, the Seton Hill Government Association’s Campus Life Resolution Board
addresses student social regulations infractions through a structured process described in
the Student Handbook. The University's Code of Academic Conduct, Academic Integrity
Policy, student rights in academic matters and academic grievance policies are stated in
the University Policy Manual (6.1.4). Ad hoc Academic Grievance Boards address
disputes between faculty members and students concerning academic matters.
For academic integrity infractions, the University adopted and implemented an Academic
Integrity Policy in 2005. This adopted policy was motivated by an increased awareness
of academic infractions that were occurring on campus. Prior to this time, the university
did not have standard guidelines or processes by which to address suspected violations of
academic integrity. Consequently, the objective of the Academic Integrity Policy was to
establish guidelines for academic integrity, define a process by which faculty may report
infractions, and define a system by which infractions are recorded for future reference
and repeat or serious offenses are handled by a review board for discretionary action. As
we learned during the investigation of drafting and adopting an academic integrity policy,
Seton Hill University was not unique in its academic integrity challenges; many other
colleges and universities had recently adopted or were considering adoption of their own
similar policies.
Seton Hill University’s Academic Integrity Policy is available on Griffin’s Lair as a
standalone document, and included in the 2010-2012 University Catalog and 2010-2011
Student Handbook. During the 2009-2010 academic year, the reporting form changed
68
from paper-based to an online/electronic form. The advantages of the electronic-form
include easier reporting for faculty and easier handling by administration.
The Academic Standards Committee reviews the Academic Integrity Policy for any
necessary additions or modifications at least every two years. As an example, one recent
review discovered we did not have guidelines in place for graduate students, and
subsequently the Academic Standards Committee added procedures to handle those
cases.
The Academic Standards Chair has also attended three international conferences on
Academic Integrity from 2004 to 2009. In Fall 2008, two students involved in student
government and residence life also attended. The objective of including students was to
gain perspectives and recommendations from student point-of-views to reinforce and
facilitate an environment of academic integrity. Some outcomes of involving these
students includes clarifications and additions to the Academic Integrity Policy to make it
more understandable and effective; the creation, distribution, and processing of student
surveys to gather insight on academic integrity issues and viewpoints; and ways to
introduce the importance of academic integrity to incoming students as a proactive
measure.
Grievance policies for faculty and for professional and operational employees appear in
the University Policy Manual (volumes 4.14 and 5.8, respectively). Since the adoption
of the revised grievance policy in 2006, three grievance reviews have taken place. The
grievance committee and the rank and tenure committee both offered suggestions for
procedural changes that were implemented. Further details cannot be provided because
of the confidential nature of these matters. There have been no formal grievances filed in
the past ten years for the professional and operational employees.
There have been no harassment grievances filed in the last 10 years. The University
offers an effective Harassment Prevention training program required of all full-time
69
employees. As questions or feedback are offered in training sessions, appropriate
clarifications of the policy and to the training are made.
How does a review of institutional publications and reporting reflect the priority
Seton Hill places on integrity?
The Office of Institutional Advancement strives to provide accurate, consistent
information to external audiences, including donors, friends, prospective students and the
general public at all times. Institutional Advancement marketing plans are based on
Seton Hill’s mission, and marketing campaigns such as the current “Fear Nothing But A
Closed Mind” campaign have their foundations in Seton Hill tradition. (This quote was
taken from the 1919 Seton Hill Bulletin: “If the management of Seton Hill find a way of
doing things that is better than their present method they will replace all of that method or
any part of it without scruple, for they are bound by no traditions and they fear nothing
but God’s disfavor and the closed mind.”)
Seton Hill’s current tagline, “This Way Up,” was chosen to reflect Seton Hill’s
distinctive hilltop campus and also because it is seen as a modern version of the school’s
motto “Hazard yet Forward.”
In an additional effort to represent Seton Hill accurately, Seton Hill students, faculty
and/or alumni are used as models in 90% of Seton Hill’s ads and publications that feature
models. Below are recent examples of SHU marketing projects/materials and the number
of students, faculty and alumni used in each. The reading room will contain details on
students and staff depicted in marketing and recruitment materials.
Marketing Study
In order to determine whether Seton Hill's branding and marketing efforts are providing
an accurate and distinctive impression of the university to current and prospective
students, Institutional Advancement commissioned a marketing study from a higher
education consulting agency. Seton Hill received the results of the study in August 2010.
70
The complete report, including data tables and student responses, will be available in the
reading room. Key points addressing the integrity of the university's marketing messages
are noted below:
• An online survey was launched on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 and the initial e-
mail invitation was sent to a random sample of 8,406 individuals. Two e-mail
reminders were sent before the survey was closed on Thursday, July 29, 2010.
Because messages were undeliverable to 1,095 individuals, ultimately, 7,311
people received the survey invitation from which 1,444 responded, resulting in an
overall responses rate of 19.8% (approximately 38% for current students and 14%
for prospective students).
• Students were provided with a list of approximately 50 words or phrases and
asked to choose up to five that they believed best described Seton Hill University
and/or their experiences so far at Seton Hill. Most of the words on the list were
chosen from the SHU Web site and literature. The most frequently chosen words
or phrases were Welcoming (30%), Academic Excellence (28%), Small (25%),
Opportunities (21%), and Safe (20%).
• Students were also asked to provide some feedback on what the current marketing
tagline “This Way Up” means to them in their own words. 1,250 students
responded. Without any guidance students mainly focused on general themes of
“success” and “achievement” and “moving forward” or “moving up” in life. Some
students were more specific in mentioning “achieving your goals” or “climbing
the ladder of success in your career” or succeeding in school by “enhancing
skills...”
• When students were asked to provide a word or phrase that best summarizes their
overall impression of Seton Hill University, the responses were overwhelmingly
positive. Many were overall evaluations such as “great” or “awesome,” but others
such as “small,” "beautiful,” and “welcoming” appear to comment more on the
physical and social environment on campus. “Excellence” and “challenging” are
also mentioned as perspectives of the academic programs being offered.
• Shifting away from the impressions of Seton Hill to more of an evaluation of
specific aspects of the University, students were asked to rate Seton Hill using the
71
factors that they chose as most important during their college search process.
With the exception of the options related to the faculty, which are rated slightly
higher, the largest single response for all search factors is that they are Meeting
student expectations.
In an effort to be as accurate as possible when producing marketing materials, press
releases, alumni magazines, special publications, survey responses for outside
organizations (such as U.S. News & World Report, Princeton Review, etc.), and
Seton Hill website content, the University employs an extensive review and approval
process. This involves, as appropriate, the admissions staff, registrar’s staff, the
office of public information, faculty, graduate program directors, division chairs, the
Dean of Graduate and External Programs and the Provost and Dean of the Faculty.
Information on institution-wide assessments is made available to prospective
students, including graduation, retention, and certification and licensing pass rates,
and other outcomes as appropriate to the programs offered and in accordance with
discipline accreditation and state requirements. Examples of these disclosures follow:
• Physician Assistant graduate pass rates for the Physician Assistant National
Certifying Exam (PANCE), are available on the SHU site: About the PA
program, on the Physician Assistant fact sheet, which can be found in the
Office of Graduate and Adult Studies & Office of Public Information, and on
the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants web site;
the rates are also reviewed at each informational session presented by faculty
to prospective students and again reviewed at each interview with the
prospective students.
• Information on graduates of Seton Hill's Teacher Education Program,
including Praxis pass-rate data, is included in Seton Hill's Title II Report to
the Pennsylvania Department of Education, which is available on Seton Hill's
site: Title II link.
• Graduates of the Coordinated Program in Nutrition/Dietetics are eligible to
take the national professional certification examination to earn the designation
Registered Dietitian. Representatives from the program discuss the pass rate
72
on the registration examination with prospective students and their families at
Seton Hill Open Houses and during Nutrition/Dietetics Information Sessions.
The Consumer Information section of Seton Hill's site (Consumer information; which
can easily be found by clicking on the "Consumer Information" link at the bottom of the
Seton Hill University homepage) contains information (or provides links to where the
data can be found) on accreditations, approvals, licensure, pass rates, graduate career
placement rates, and a host of other assessments.
Graduation and retention rates are also reported by the Registrar's Office, and are
available at all times on Seton Hill's website: Graduation Rates PDF (or by clicking on
Campus Services, Registrar, University Statistics, Graduation Rates)
Seton Hill University demonstrates compliance with public reporting policies as
mandated through the Federal IPEDS system and the PA Department of Education data
reporting requirements. In many national and regional surveys, we share data, but it is
often anonymous. The University has not made the decision to be completely transparent
with all of our information.
How effective are current policies or procedures to manage or avoid potential
conflicts of interest that arise with administrators, faculty, staff or board members?
The current University policy manual governing all employees was completed and posted
in August 2010. The manual describes Conflict of Interest policies for administrators,
faculty, staff and board members. Prior to the completion of the Policy Manual and its
posting, conflict of interest was addressed in all former versions of the Faculty
Handbook.
Seton Hill employees follow all policies and procedures as employees even when they
are also enrolled as students. There may be instances where policies for students on a
particular subject will differ from policies for employees on that same subject. In those
instances, employees must follow the policy as it applies to employees and may not claim
73
that they are exempt from an employee policy due to their additional status as a student.
In order to avoid conflicts of interest, employees may not seek or hold a student office,
either elected or appointed. An employee may not work on school assignments during
work hours, unless the employee has obtained special permission from the appropriate
supervisor. In cases where an employee has a work-related issue, the employee must
utilize the policies and procedures applicable to employees. Outside employment that
constitutes a conflict of interest is prohibited. Employees may not receive any income or
material gain from individuals outside the University for materials produced or services
rendered while performing their University jobs.
Conflict of interest as it applies to the Board of Trustees is addressed in the University
Bylaws of the Board of Trustees, article VII, and is also mentioned in the University
Policy Manual (3.9.2; Link).
Strengths:
• Information available to students is updated on a regular basis
• The University Policy Manual is currently up to date with an annual revision and
distribution process in place (Policy Manual, 1.7 and 4.15).
• Griffin’s Lair and GriffinGate make documents and forms available to students
and employees with easy access.
• Institutional Advancement staff make certain all data is accurate before sending it
to local and national media or any outside source.
Weaknesses:
• The Document section on Griffin’s Lair is password protected, curtailing access
for some employees.
• Information on Griffin’s Lair and GriffinGate isn’t organized so that it is easy to
locate.
• The current course catalogue is available, but past ones are not easy to locate and
are not available on Griffin’s Lair.
• All SHU policy manuals are not available for the entire SHU community to read.
74
• Institutional information listed on Seton Hill’s web site is sometimes outdated.
• Harassment Prevention Training isn’t required of adjuncts.
• Policies and procedures for addressing graduate student grievances, disciplinary
procedures and academic integrity and dishonesty issues are not documented in
the Student Handbook.
Action Plans:
Standard 8
Does Seton Hill have an effective enrollment process for all student markets,
undergraduate, adult, and graduate?
The University establishes enrollment goals through the strategic planning process and
has developed admissions processes and recruitment procedures for each of its student
markets: traditional undergraduate programs, adult degree students, transfer students,
each graduate program, and post baccalaureate certificate programs.
Enrollment trends are positive for all student groups as demonstrated in the following
table reflecting Fall Enrollment, Undergraduate, ADP, College in High School and
Graduate 2002-2010.
75
Seton Hill University has effectively recruited transfer students to the University. Over
the past ten years, transfers as a percent of new traditional undergraduate matriculants has
averaged 25%. The number of transfer students is higher than most of our peer
institutions, likely a result of interest in particular majors and articulation agreements
with community colleges The following table reflects the number transfer student and
percentage of overall undergraduate enrollment 2002-2011.
Transfer Students as a Percentage of New Matriculants
Fall N =
Spring N =
Transfers Freshmen Total Transfers Freshmen Total % Transfers
2002-‐03 63 206 269 25 9 34 29% 2003-‐04 84 230 314 31 5 36 33% 2004-‐05 83 296 379 28 3 31 27% 2005-‐06 64 335 399 17 4 21 19% 2006-‐07 83 314 397 17 6 23 24% 2007-‐08 61 322 383 32 2 34 22% 2008-‐09 70 361 431 14 9 23 19% 2009-‐10 91 299 390 30 6 36 28% 2010-‐11 108 372 480 33 7 40 27%
Average
25%
76
The university implemented key strategic initiatives during this time period to increase
selectivity and enrollments, with particular emphasis on increasing traditional
undergraduate student numbers: change from college to university (approved at the time
of the last dicentennial visit); development of a comprehensive athletic program for men
and women with NCAA, Division II, West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
membership; facilities improvements; marketing “signature programs” in the arts and the
natural and health sciences; and the development of a partnership with Lake Erie College
of Osteopathic Medicine to allow for accelerated studies leading to a doctor of
osteopathic medicine and a doctor of pharmacy.
The Undergraduate Admissions Process document describes the admissions procedures
for first year and transfer traditional students; The Adult Degree Program Admission
Process document describes the admissions procedures for ADP students; and The
Graduate Student Admission Process document describes the admission procedures for
graduate students. (Undergraduate, ADP and Graduate Admission Process Documents)
The University’s identity as a Catholic, liberal arts teaching university is presented in all
marketing materials. Through words and images in all media venues every effort is
made to convey a University commitment to its mission through engaged learning,
innovative teaching, integration of study in the liberal arts with career preparation, and
holistic development of critical, creative, and ethical thinkers.
All recruitment materials reflect attention to the University’s brand but are designed to
attract a particular student market. A listing of recruitment materials is included in the
Appendix and sample materials, including program and major fact sheets, will be
available for review in the reading room. Sample advertisements from 2007-2011 will
also be available. The reviewers are welcome to visit the Seton Hill web site, the
admission Facebook page, the admission blog, and the virtual viewbook. The virtual
77
viewbook coincided directly with the strategies and goals of the University and proved to
be very successful with an increased application rate of 19% from the prior year.
The strategic plan includes plans to advance specific programs and majors that
distinguish the University from regional competitors. The signature programs in the
visual and performing arts and natural and health sciences emerged organically as a result
of student interest, enrollment growth in specific majors, and community partnerships.
The University also made financial investments in facilities for the performing arts (with
future plans for the visual arts) and partnered with LECOM to offer medical training on
Seton Hill’s campus.
The Natural and Health Sciences Signature Degree Program includes: art therapy,
biochemistry, biology, chemistry, marriage and family therapy, medical technology,
music therapy, nutrition and dietetics, orthodontics, pharmacy, physician assistant, pre-
med, pre-osteopathic medicine, and pre-professional health. The Visual and Performing
Arts Signature Degree Program includes the following majors: art education, graphic
design, art history, studio art, fine art studio: 2D or 3D, arts administration, music, music
performance, music education, sacred music, dance, theatre arts, theatre business, music
theatre, theatre performance, and theatre design and technology.
A marketing plan was developed that included the creation of a Signature Degree
Program logo, full color fact sheets for each major, a dedicated section of Seton Hill's
website, web banners, TV commercials, billboards, print ads, and a promotional video
that is posted to Seton Hill's website and YouTube and is also used by Admissions
counselors and Alumni Relations and Development directors at events. Administration
and faculty have received much positive feedback on the campaign; however, since the
campaign is in its early implementation, no measures for success have been determined.
The University prides itself on being both planful and nimble. In Fall 2009 the faculty
approved the Griffin Technology Advantage (GTA) program that required all entering
first year students to purchase a MacBook and iPod or iPhone. The GTA was developed
78
to support the teaching and learning experience. When it became clear that the iPad
would be available for purchase, administration made the decision to have it available as
part of the GTA and to all full-time students. This was an academic decision but one that
the administration used as a crucial marketing tool for recruitment and retention. In the
Appendix an example of news articles and electronic discussions on this initiatives is
available. The University achieved a record enrollment in fall 2010 after making this
announcement, and full-time enrollment versus part-time enrollment showed a notable
improvement, particularly in the Adult Degree and Graduate programs.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Trad. PT headcount 84 88 68 61 52 Trad. FT headcount 1147 1161 1256 1276 1372 % PT 7% 7% 5% 5% 4%
ADP PT headcount 151 150 159 130 111 ADP FT headcount 120 124 116 105 147 % PT 56% 55% 58% 55% 43%
Grad PT headcount 213 222 272 208 133 Grad FT headcount 127 134 155 196 283 % PT 63% 62% 64% 51% 32%
In 2009 - 2010 the University contracted with a higher education consulting firm to
review the traditional undergraduate admissions and financial aid processes. The same
firm reviewed the graduate and adult processes in Summer and Fall 2010. These
processes were initiated as a start of the University’s department review process and
because the administration is aware of the increasing competitive market for all
programs, has particular concerns about the age demographics in our region, and wanted
to make sure our resources (financial, technological, and human capital) were being used
most effectively. The consultant’s reports will be available in the Reading Room.
As a result of the departmental review and the Middle States self-study process the
University implemented the following strategies for more effective enrollment processes
and mission-based recruitment:
1. Communication flow improvement with the students to provide more information
and interaction between the individuals and the University. The flow utilizes the
database system and technology to automate many procedures and
79
communications so that staff are not burdened with manual tasks and have more
time for personalized contact with students. This ensures and documents the
communication so that it is a steady and consistent flow that engages the student.
2. Develop data-driven decision-making processes for recruitment. Carefully
examining data will help admissions staff to determine recruitment effectiveness.
Examples of such data-driven decision-making include: use of historical data to
determine geographic territories for each counselor; establishing of monthly goals
for each counselor for number of applicants, completed applications, and deposits;
and use of a predictive model that helps to identify students that are a good fit for
the university and most likely to attend the University by assigning each
prospective student a numeric value indicating the likelihood of enrollment with
weekly updates for the entire inquiry pool.
3. Increased use of technology to collect data (e.g., iPads are used instead of inquiry
cards at recruitment fairs) and provide reports (e.g., coaches and counselors can
see what a prospective student’s progress is toward acceptance and enrollment;
graduate admissions staff and program directors can view communication with a
prospective student).
4. Creation of the Griffin Welcome Center to provide a central greeting location for
admissions visitors. This Center is responsible for greeting all prospective
students and guests, introducing them to the staff, students, and faculty with
whom they will interact while they are on campus, and assuring that they have
parking available. The staff in the Griffin Welcome Center provide a complete
visit experience for prospective students.
5. Conduct a comprehensive marketing survey (included in the Appendix) involving
current and prospective students. This provided a great deal of information that
will be used in decision-making and evaluation of processes and procedures at the
University. This survey is currently being analyzed and an action plan will be
created in response to the results.
6. Reorganization of the Graduate and Adult Studies Office which includes:
a. Emphasis of all professional staff on development of the applicant pool
and recruitment;
80
b. Emphasis on community partnerships with business and non-profits;
c. Retitling of program advisor to program counselor for staff positions;
d. Defining graduate program director’s role in marketing, recruitment and
admissions.
7. In the last ten years the University continued managing the tuition discount
strategically. In Chapter 4, the strategies for managing undergraduate tuition
discounting were presented. The Director of Graduate and Adult Studies will be
recommending a change in scholars’ discounts for the graduate programs in
Summer - Fall 2011.
8. Through the review of the undergraduate and ADP admissions processes a
number of issues needed further study
a. Determining the timing for confirming and/or revising undergraduate
admissions standards needed to be clarified;
b. The role of the undergraduate admissions committee in the review of ADP
applicants needs to be defined; and
c. The need for undergraduate admissions committee meetings (including
faculty members during the January intersession and through the summer
session.
During spring 2011 these issues will be addressed and appropriate adjustments
made.
What has been the impact of athletics on recruitment and enrollment?
As Seton Hill’s administration began to seriously address its enrollment challenges, it
became clear that being a University and marketing the institution as coeducational were
pivotal to enrollment success.
As part of the effort to become fully coeducational the University determined that it
would use the development of a comprehensive athletic program for women and men as a
key recruitment and retention strategy. Seton Hill had a long history of women’s athletic
teams, but athletics was considered a student activity and not aggressively used for
81
recruitment. From Fall 1999 through Spring 2001 the University completed a study of
what sports to consider and their associated costs. These decisions (particularly related to
when a sport would begin) were made with attention to competitive market, current
standing in NAIA, and the realization that Seton Hill employees, alumnae/i and students
were adjusting to coeducational status.
Prior to 2001, the athletic program consisted of women’s basketball, cross-country,
tennis, golf, softball, soccer, and volleyball. An equestrian team existed as a club sport.
The University maintained these athletic teams and expanded the athletic program over
the course of six years to include:
2001-2002 men’s golf and men’s soccer
2002-2003 baseball, men’s basketball, women’s and men’s cross country, women’s
field hockey, men’s tennis
2003-2004 football, women’s and men’s lacrosse
2006-2007 wrestling, women’s indoor/outdoor track; men’s outdoor track; equestrian
became a women’s varsity team
The University strategically determined that adding one or two sports annually placed
Seton Hill in the spotlight each year as new sports programs were started.
After two years of study and review by an ad hoc committee consisting of Board of
Trustees members, administrators, and faculty, Seton Hill (a longstanding member of the
NAIA) applied for membership in NCAA Division II. The University applied for
membership in 2005 and gained provisional membership in 2006 and full membership in
2008. The decision to move to NCAA was, in large part, a recruiting strategy. NCAA
gains greater attention from prospective athletes and their families, in particular as Seton
Hill had made the decision to become a coeducational institution; the administration
believed this would be a prudent strategic step. The strategy has proved quite successful,
not only in recruiting, retaining, and graduating students, but in providing increased
positive visibility in the community and in recruiting markets.
82
Table x shows the number of athletes in each entering class (2002-2010), by sport, and
the year in which the sport began. The following summary of the chart reflects student-
athlete enrollment in the period 2002-2010, female, male and overall. Student athletes
make up a considerable percentage of the overall traditional undergraduate student
enrollment.
Total Female Athletes
39 41 43 43 60 69 45 55 53 Total Female Cohort
148 142 185 149 173 194 237 179 227
% Female Athletes
26% 29% 23% 29% 35% 36% 19% 31% 23%
Total Male Athletes
37 55 64 130 110 79 75 67 79 Total Male Cohort
58 88 111 187 141 128 122 120 145
% Male Athletes
64% 63% 58% 70% 78% 62% 61% 56% 54%
Total - All Athletes
76 96 107 173 170 148 120 122 132 Total - Cohort
203 230 296 336 314 322 359 299 372
% Athletes
37% 42% 36% 51% 54% 46% 33% 41% 35%
Each year, as part of setting goals for traditional undergraduate enrollments, the Athletic
Director meets with all coaches to determine team needs to replace graduating students or
augment team strength. He then works with the Director of Admissions in setting the
numeric goals for the year. Prospective athletes are coded as “coach interest” by team, as
the coaches express an interest. Similarly, as admissions counselors hear from high
school and transfer students that they are interested in playing on a team, those leads are
submitted to the coach involved for review. Monthly reports are generated as
applications come in, showing progress toward team goals.
Seton Hill athletes persist and graduate at higher rates than the full cohort groups. The
University involves coaches at every step of recruiting, enrollment, and progress to
graduation, providing them with access to Griffin’s Lair reports on applicants, lists of
student-athletes who do not register at the scheduled times, mid-semester and other
academic alerts, and other retention efforts. The chart below shows graduation rates for
athletes and non-athletes.
4 years ending 2002 4 years ending 2003 4 years ending 2004
6 year graduation rate
6 year graduation rate
6 year graduation rate
83
Women's Sports Basketball 82% 82% 83%
Cross Country /Track 91% 100% 100% All other sports combined 63% 71% 70% ALL Female athletes 69% 76% 74% N = 98 112 140 All women 56% 57% 59% N = 545 547 605
Men's Sports Football NA NA 35%
Basketball NA 50% 40% Baseball NA 67% 71% Cross Country /Track NA 0% 17% All other sports combined 63% 65% 63% ALL Male athletes 63% 62% 57% N = 35 90 144 All men 51% 55% 51% N = 121 192 280 All athletes 68% 70% 65% N = 133 202 284 All students in cohort 55% 56% 56% N = 666 739 885
The data in this table demonstrates that a comprehensive athletic program has helped
improve student retention at the University.
The athletic program has been a positive factor in making the campus vibrant. The
additions of marching band, pep squad, dance team, cheerleaders and the Griffin mascot
have increased student activities. While no quantitative assessment measurement has
been employed, experiential reports from students and faculty have verified this
statement. However, the addition of sports teams has also posed challenges for the
faculty to manage student time away from classes. The addition of mobile technology
may aid in resolving this issue as well as an effective faculty athletics representative and
a quality relationship with coaching staff.
84
While the expansion of athletics has resulted in significant enrollment it has required
capital expense, and additional employees, and has made an impact on the tuition
discount. In addition, Seton Hill University continues its commitment to comply with
federal Title IX requirements (Gender Equity Report). Currently, our student athletes can
participate in all of the sports where interest has been expressed; we should continue to
strive to increase female participation opportunities in athletics in proportion to
enrollment rates and to expand sports programs for female students.
How do the University’s retention and graduation rates compare with similar
schools and national averages? What has the University done to improve retention
and what can be done in the future?
According to a Project of the American Enterprise Institute in 2009, Seton Hill University
appears to be performing effectively compared to national averages for similar schools.
The project reports Seton Hill University to have a 52% graduation rate over six years,
and this correlates with internal data over the past ten years presented in Table x. The
national average graduation rate over six years ranges from 39.6% to 48.6% depending
on competitiveness. This project defines “competitiveness” based on average SAT/ACT
scores and high school GPAs. Seton Hill’s graduation rate of 59% seems to be within an
acceptable range. However, when using our peer comparison group, Seton Hill’s
retention and graduation rates are somewhat behind (IPEDS reporting data from 2003-
2009 cohort).
Table x illustrates the Retention and Graduation Rates for First-Time Freshman Cohort.
Tables x –x show the retention for individual graduate programs.
Seton Hill retention challenges are magnified by the financial backgrounds of the
majority of our students. Many students need to work, often off-campus, throughout their
studies to help pay for tuition. Finances are also a primary reason students give for
leaving Seton Hill.
85
National Student Survey Engagement data has been steadily positive for student
engagement. When item responses are below average for our comparison group
immediate action steps are planned to improve the student experience. Examples of such
action steps include a yearlong faculty development on critical thinking skills, the
emphasis on improving academic advising, and increased efforts to involve faculty more
extensively in clubs and athletics.
An early alert system has been in operation for over ten years to assist in student
retention; follow-up and intervention are offered to any reported student (“Academic
Notification Reports”). In 2009, an online reporting system was implemented for faculty
that provides 24/7 access, some problems were encountered on early implementation of
the system but have been resolved.
In 2007-2008, a Crisis Intervention Team was implemented, with broad University
representation, to meet regularly to surface "students of concern" and to determine
appropriate intervention responses.
The University’s Retention Committee is charged with examining retention issues for the
undergraduate students. Committee minutes will be available in the reading room. The
committee is divided into four task forces: Data Collection, Student Life, Academic and
Finance. Seton Hill administered the CIRP in fall 2002,04,06,08 and 10; AICUP
Freshman Experience Survey in spring 2003 and 2005; the AICUP Alumni survey in fall
2004; and the AICUP Diversity Survey in spring 2006, as well as a number of surveys
prepared by the task forces. The committee uses student data from these surveys and
student reports to determine what adjustments to policy and interventions should be made
to encourage student progress at the University. The committee reviews survey data and
reports to the Student Interests Committee of the Board and sometimes at a General
Assembly. The Retention Committee has also reported to SHGA and student forums.
In addition, in 2005, the University formed an Enrollment Council that is responsible for
monitoring progress toward meeting strategic plan enrollment goals, developing action
86
plans to meet those goals, developing strategies to remove barriers to meeting those
goals, and developing enrollment projections for the future. Council minutes will be
available in the reading room.
The Director of Graduate and Adult Studies and the Director of Admissions bring forth
strategies, action plans, and suggestions for meeting enrollment goals to the Enrollment
Council for its response and support.
Council members also make proposals related to retention. Examples include, but are not
limited to, encouraging the Retention Committee’s academic task force to develop
advising guidance during the economic downturn and the reduction of per diem rate for
international students who stay on campus during the holidays.
The University received a Title III grant focused on student retention across all student
populations. Toward this end the University has fully utilized technology to improve the
student experience in both curricular and co-curricular experiences. A gaming room
(primarily geared towards traditional undergraduates) was created in 2009 to provide a
highly interactive social environment for students. Chart x, titled xx illustrates usage
over the first two years of existence.
Title III also provided funding for the ELITE training for university faculty. This
program has two foci: teaching faculty how to develop performance task assessment
designed to improve critical thinking skills and familiarizing faculty with the use of Web
2.0 tools and the use of mobile technologies to enhance learning. The Appendix contains
the evaluator’s report on this activity. In addition, assessment measures were created and
the first phase implemented evaluating the use of iPads for students and faculty. This
data will also be available for review.
Evaluation and Assessment:
Enrollment goals, retention rates, graduation rates, and application pools are all key
factors for assessment. Consistent and accurate reports reflecting current data are e-
87
mailed weekly to division chairs, program directors, staff in administrative offices, and
the President’s Council so that any need for review or change can be identified. This
effort to share data across the University has improved the sense of shared responsibility
in recruiting efforts and has strengthened the data-driven decision-making efforts in all
aspects. In particular, the consultant recommended the display of goals alongside the
data items (e.g., application completion rate) to generate interest and creative ideas to
help achieve goals.
In addition to the weekly reports, a wide array of reports are available to key admissions
and recruiting personnel via the Griffin’s Lair and through the database software. These
range from materials required from a particular student for rendering an admission
decision to the number of applications submitted electronically. These reports have
proven to be valuable as counselors are traveling to high schools and college fairs, as
decisions about ad placements or website design are made, and as academic program
reviews take place.
Strengths:
• Strong enrollment in all student markets
• Well-defined admissions process and procedures for traditional undergraduate,
adult degree program, and graduate program admissions.
• Excellent admissions staff.
• Excellent marketing and recruitment materials (print, media and web-based)
• Successful use of athletics as a recruitment and retention strategy
• Effective cross-staff working relationships between admission, financial aid, and
athletics.
Weaknesses:
• Use of data to determine admissions strategies; not fully utilizing the information
available from existing data sources and not engaging in market research to drive
decision-making.
• Use of financial aid needs to be used as a more targeted recruitment tool in all
student markets. Data not used systematically or deeply enough to drive decision-
making.
88
• Clarity of the timeline for the admissions committee’s role in setting admissions
standards must be established. The committee must meet (including faculty
members) during January term and over the summer session. The committee
must review ADP applications which are an exception to standard admissions
criteria
• Title IX requirements show a disparity between male and female athletic
opportunities.
Action Plans
List of References. See Document Roadmap, Standards 6 & 8.
Appendices. Attached.
89
Chapter V – Creating Belonging
STANDARD 9:
Student Support Services
Overview of the charge.
The working group for Standard 9, “Creating Belonging,” is charged by the Middle
States Steering Committee to study and report on the University’s student support
services, both in the context of academics and of student life. This is relevant to
demonstrating compliance with the Middle States Standard 9.
What student support services do the various student constituencies need
(traditional undergraduate, adult, graduate, students with disabilities, at-risk,
athletes, international/intercultural, minority, commuters) and are they receiving
the support? What funding, resources, and delivery of services will best meet their
needs? How successfully are students’ needs for support services communicated
and how effectively are students routed to the appropriate offices?
As the University student population has grown and become more diverse, departments
and faculty/staff related to student support and student development have responded.
Student surveys tell us that our most effective resource is the faculty and staff. Students
note that they have persisted at Seton Hill because of the relationships they have
established and the individual attention they received (“Senior Questionnaire,” “4/14/09
Retention Committee Meeting Minutes,” “4/6/09 Data Collection Task Force Minutes,”
“2/2/09 Data Collection Task Force Minutes,” and “Middle States Online Survey
December 2009”). Seton Hill is fortunate that the faculty and staff quality, consistency
and commitment to the University’s mission and identity are high. The staff members
providing the support services are creative, well trained and qualified for their respective
positions (“Professional Staff Chart,” 2010).
Paramount to a supportive environment is the safety and security of campus. In this
arena the University has significant strengths and challenges. The University Campus
90
Police Office is staffed by a 25-year veteran from the City of Greensburg Police who has
been at Seton Hill 16 years. The relationships he forged continue to support the
University’s campus today. There are two highly visible uniformed officers per shift who
develop positive relationships with the campus community. The Campus Police Chief
participates in the summer orientation programs and meets with the parents of new
students to discuss campus safety. Communication between Campus Police and the
Student Services Staff is strong. With the addition of the criminal justice major, students
have also completed internships with the Campus Police Office.
As the University has grown not only in numbers of students, but with the addition of
campus facilities in the City of Greensburg, as well as the Orthodontics Center five miles
from the main campus, there are resulting challenges with safety and security. Despite
the longevity of the Chief of Campus Police, maintaining a full-time, diverse force has
been difficult. The majority of the officers are employed full-time elsewhere because the
University wages are low (“Campus Safety/Security Salary Comparison,” 2010). The
officers do not utilize the University computer system so offices are not compatible with
each other in terms of paperwork and record keeping. In addition to a review of
competitive pay hiring strategies, training of the current officers is needed in order to take
advantage of the technology.
The overall work expectations for campus police officers may be too high. As the
University has strengthened safety practices related to hiring, the Campus Police Chief is
solely responsible for fingerprinting all new hires, as well as tracking and recording
violations, managing budgetary issues, inputting all tickets, handling parent and student
issues, and managing all office operations. A dispatcher for each shift would alleviate
this workload dilemma. In addition to human resources, the burglar alarm system needs
to be updated and, with the campus expansion, a second patrol vehicle may be needed in
case two incidents were to occur at the same time in different locations. While the
campus police offices are in a central location, additional space is needed to assure
privacy. Furthermore, it is anticipated that by June 30, 2014, that the state of
Pennsylvania will mandate that all campus police officers have certification by the
Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Training and Education, meeting the same standards
91
as all Pennsylvania municipal police officers. It is recommended that the University
continue to hire officers who meet these standards. Ultimately, this is likely to require a
wage increase for the Campus Police Officers.
Related to the safety of the campus community are the strong precautions taken by the
University to respect student privacy and protect the confidentiality of student records.
To secure data from electronic intrusion, Seton Hill has developed and implemented
rigorous password security policies for access to all campus computers and electronic
resources such as email and GriffinGate (“Computing Services: Conditions of Use
Policy”).
Student information is released in compliance with the Family Educational Rights and
Policy Act; a copy of the University policy is included on each bill sent to the students
(“Copy of Student Billing Invoice”). Any information holds requested by students are
shared with the Offices of Public Information, Dean of Students, and Registrar’s. In
addition, each new student is given the opportunity to complete an online “release of
student information” form giving University staff additional latitude to talk with
parents/guardians (“Online Release Form”). The Release of Information procedure is
also printed in the Student Handbook. The University adheres to both the spirit and the
letter of the FERPA requirements (“Student Handbook” and “Student Services Record
Retention Policy”).
Although male students have long been a part of the campus fabric, in 2002 when the
University became coeducational and began recruiting for a male athletics program, a
consultant was hired to assist student support services areas with this significant
transition (“Planning Task Force Action Plan,” June 1, 2002 and September 5, 2002).
The plan was monitored throughout the spring and summer of 2002 as the campus
prepared to welcome an influx of more students and more diversity primarily due to the
increase in male students. The University’s Retention Committee continues to function
to address the quality of campus life for all students.
The total number of athletes comprises approximately 35% of the traditional
undergraduate population. To meet the needs of the athletes as successful students, many
92
new policies, procedures and services for student athletes evolved in order to establish
student-athlete welfare and NCAA legislative policy and procedural mandates (“NCAA
Manual,” “NCAA Compliance Manual,” “Student Athlete Handbook,” and “Eligibility
Spreadsheets”).
During the 2006 – 2007 academic year, the role of Faculty Athletics Representative
(FAR) was further defined per NCAA legislation. In addition, the position of Associate
Athletic Director for Compliance was established to implement systems that provided the
student-athletes, coaches and the administration with procedures and services that
protected the integrity of the institution. The broadened scope of the role of the FAR and
the development of a compliance coordinator established services to address student
athletes’ needs, such as annual team orientation meetings and the implementation of
specific procedures for monitoring progress toward degree completion.
Opportunity for self-advocacy was established with the implementation of a Student-
Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) comprised of two student-athletes per team.
Ongoing interaction and the building of relationships across campus constituencies will
assist in overcoming the challenge of change in our community from the student-athlete
perspective. SAAC is presently applying for campus recognition through the Seton Hill
Government Association, which will position the group within the structure of campus
organizations and facilitate opportunities for interaction with other groups. In addition to
the work of SAAC, the implementation of exit interviews of athletes could provide
additional, rich information.
The University has always demonstrated a commitment to campus diversity, but with the
growing diversity of the student body, additional initiatives were implemented. It was
also evident via the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey results,
that one-half of the incoming student population was non-Catholic. Thus, in 2005, a part-
time, non-Catholic, African American Campus Minister was hired to work as part of the
Campus Ministry Team and specifically, to outreach to the African American students.
A diverse Peer Ministry Council supports the efforts of Campus Ministry to meet the
spiritual needs of all students.
93
In addition, beginning in fall 2006, all incoming first-year students are required to
participate in the University’s National Coalition Building Institute (NCBI) training
(“National Coalition Building Institute Training Manual”). Beginning fall 2010, all
athletes are required to participate in an NCAA Diversity Workshop; it is hoped that this
activity will be scheduled annually.
As part of the Affirmative Action Committee’s African-American Faculty Recruitment
Strategic Plan, the University participated in the Association of Independent College and
Universities in Pennsylvania (AICUP) Diversity Survey in 2006 which resulted in
numerous recommendations that have been implemented and continue to be reviewed
(“AICUP Diversity Survey and Improvement Plan”). Furthermore, in spring 2010, the
African-American faculty and staff participated in an interview session with a consultant
to share their experiences; compiled responses are being used to further the agenda of a
diverse, welcoming campus, a goal that must be shared across the campus. All students
should see themselves reflected in the fabric of the University faculty and staff.
A commitment to diversity is also evident in the recruitment and retention of
international students and students from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
(“Intercultural Student Enrollment 2006 – Present”). With staff turnover, there have been
many challenges. Although creative staffing initiatives have filled some of the gaps, this
issue will be addressed in an upcoming department review and is likely to require
additional resources. The University could benefit from a clear vision and plan for
international student recruitment.
To support the academic success of all students, support services are provided by the
Collegiate Academic and Personal Success (C.A.P.S.) Program that was established in
1971. The mission of the program is to promote academic and personal success through
tutoring, counseling, course instruction, study skills, and writing assistance (“C.A.P.S.
Brochure”). The services of the C.A.P.S. Program are available to many of our student
constituencies through the financial support of Seton Hill University and Student Support
Services, a grant-funded federal TRIO Program which provides assistance to students
94
who are financially disadvantaged or educationally under prepared, physically or learning
disabled, or first generation college students.
One academic support area, the Writing Center, stresses quality staffing, collaboration
across campus, and variety of services to address the needs of all constituencies of
students. Writing consultants, the Center’s student staff, are recruited through faculty in
a variety of disciplines and undergo extensive training and ongoing professional
development, including emphasis on working with special populations, such as at-risk
students, adult students, and students with disabilities, as well as connections with the
larger writing center community, primarily through conference attendance (“Writing
Center Conferences”). Outreach across campus, through presentations and the
Coordinator’s committee work, is another strength of the Writing Center (“Writing
Center Presentations/Activities”). In addition, the Writing Center compiles and creates
resources for students and faculty; these resources are provided online to reach more
students (“Write On!”). The Writing Center’s primary services, the one-to-one sessions
with students, has been increasing fairly steadily, though the numbers have fluctuated
(“Writing Center Usage Summary”). As part of Seton Hill’s assessment initiatives,
information about these sessions, reflecting students’ writing needs, has been analyzed
and shared, so others have a better understanding of the Writing Center and can help
promote its services (“Writing Center Assessment Reports”). Continuing to maintain and
increase these levels of outreach and service as the student population and diversity
grows is a challenge, however, because of the somewhat expected turnover of student
staff, and particularly with the loss of a professional staff position in 2008. The
elimination of the Assistant Coordinator position resulted in approximately 30% fewer
staff hours during the academic year. As part of the CAPS departmental review,
examination of the Writing Center staffing issues should be addressed, and the possibility
of additional staff considered.
Another academic support area that provides services based on students’ needs is the
Tutoring Center, which offers course-specific tutoring. Faculty is involved in the
95
selection and mentoring of tutors (“Tutor Request Form” and “Weekly Tutor Report”).
Delivery of tutoring services is continuously being adapted to best serve students
(“Tutoring Assessment Reports”). A tutoring schedule is developed each semester to
inform students about available tutors and their schedules, along with their contact
information; since fall 2008, this schedule has been available online through SHU’s
learning management system, GriffinGate (“Tutoring Schedules”). Tutors currently have
a group on GriffinGate to access information, and in the 2008-09 academic year, faculty
began to grant access to GriffinGate course sites. Tutoring services are delivered through
various methods: face-to-face and phone tutorials have taken place for decades, but over
the last several years, tutoring has also occurred via text messaging, instant messaging,
discussion boards, and email. Tutors’ availability during weekend and evening hours, as
well as at various locations around campus, for students’ convenience has expanded. Data
is collected weekly from tutors to show how time is being used; this information helps in
adjusting the number of hours needed (“Tutoring Center Spreadsheets”). Typically, a
tutor evaluation form is sent to students near the end of each semester; the results help
with decisions regarding hiring and training (“Tutoring Evaluation Form”). Though the
number of tutors and service hours on campus has expanded to accommodate the
growing student population, there has been little progress in addressing traveling
students, summer courses, as well as the schedules and issues for the graduate and ADP
students. The Tutoring Center continues to have only one professional staff member;
therefore supervision and training of tutors, along with monitoring of the Tutoring
Center, has become a challenge. Additionally, the departmental review should examine
the effectiveness of the tutoring programs, not just the utilization of the center.
Academic Counseling, another component of C.A.P.S., offers individual meetings with
students to address academic concerns. Since 2005, the Academic Counselor has acted as
the academic advisor for all C.A.P.S. students who have not declared a major. Beginning
in 1997, first-year traditional aged first-time college students accepted through the
C.A.P.S. program have been offered a mentor. Three developmental courses are offered
specifically to support at-risk students, though any student can take these courses. Since
1996, Mastering College Academics I, GS 098, has been required for the University’s
most academically underprepared students, the Opportunity Program students, and the
96
class typically consisted of primarily this population. However, beginning in the fall of
2007, all first-time college students of traditional age who are accepted to Seton Hill
through the C.A.P.S. program have been required to take GS098. A study following the
three years of implementing this requirement indicates this change has been successful in
helping all incoming students with academic need: C.A.P.S. students on average have
higher grade point averages (GPAs) compared to the GPAs of C.A.P.S. students of the
previous three years who did not take GS 098 (“Mastering College Academics
Comparison Data 2004-2009”). Mastering College Academics II, GS 099, offered in the
spring semester since 2005, gives continued support to students accepted through
Opportunity throughout their entire first year. The third course, Skills for Academic
Success, GS 095, is required of all current students on probation for the first time, as well
as transfer students who need some academic support. Besides covering topics that are
essential for the success of at-risk students, these classes build in components, as either
requirements or options that encourage students to use other support services (“GS 095,
098, and 099 Syllabi”). Since the Deciding Program was moved from this area to
CareerWorks in the fall of 2006, the Academic Counselor has been able to concentrate on
academic support; however, handling increasing numbers of classes and other activities is
a challenge with the same level of resources. Also, since GS 095 is required of two very
different populations, diverse in their needs and demographic makeup, making the class
relevant to both groups is difficult. Though the classes being taught by the Academic
Counselor are being assessed, another major service, meeting individually with students,
is not. Doing so would be beneficial, but again having only one professional staff person
in the Academic Counseling area makes completing more tasks a challenge. This should
be addressed in future departmental reviews.
The CAPS program is undergoing departmental review in 2011. The programs still
struggle to meet the needs of all of our students. Particular diligence must be paid to the
graduate and Adult Degree Program students, and to those students whose University
sponsored events, both athletic and academic, take them off campus throughout the
semester. Programs should consider how currently available technology may be able to
assist them in meeting these student needs. In addition, programs will benefit from more
in-depth assessment of services delivered. Historically, data was collected on many of
97
the offered programs and activities but the staff is doing a paradigm shift from “customer
satisfaction” and benchmarking (i.e., “how many students attended/participated”), to
“student learning” (“Assessment Reports” and “Summary of Assessment Activities,”
2007-2010). The University has initiated departmental reviews for all departments; the
goals and objectives of the reviews completed by the time of the visit will be identified
and these analyses will be available for the visiting team.
An early alert system has been in operation for over ten years to assist in student
retention; follow-up and intervention is offered to any reported student (“Early Alert
Reports”). In 2009, an online reporting system was implemented for faculty that
provides 24/7 access but limitations have been noted and plans for resolution continue.
And, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, a Crisis Intervention Team was implemented, with
broad University representation, to meet regularly to surface "students of concern" and to
strategize appropriate intervention responses. This is a labor-intensive process, taking up
quite a bit of time, and its effectiveness should be evaluated.
To provide quality continuation of care and easy referral for all students, in 2004 the
areas of counseling, disability services, and health services were housed together under
the supervision of a Director. To better meet students’ need for appointments and to
facilitate communication flow, an Administrative Assistant was hired to service these
three areas in January 2008.
Disability services are provided by the Director of Counseling, Disability and Health
Services and the part-time Coordinator of Disability Services, who is supported by the
Student Support Services grant. Services provided are individually derived from
documentation of disability provided by students seeking service. The ADA Faculty
Guide is distributed to all new faculty hires and is available as a downloadable document
on the Web (“ADA Faculty Guide”).
As student enrollment has increased, the need for disability-related services has also
increased. Although the number of students with disabilities has not increased, the type
and severity of presenting disability has increased, requiring a higher level of support
(“Utilization Chart”). With the growth of the athletic programs and subsequent injuries,
98
the number of students needing temporary disability services has also increased. It is
further anticipated that with the 2009 passing of the Americans with Disabilities
Reauthorization Act, which broadened the definition of who is qualified as a person with
a disability, an increase in requests for services will be realized. It must be noted that the
Coordinator of Disability Services also serves as the University’s Drug Prevention
Specialist, which is funded by the PA Liquor Control Board.
With University space at a premium, adequate testing space with distraction-free
environments are needed. It is also imperative that the University effectively
communicate the responsibilities for ADA compliance with a growing faculty population.
The Director of Counseling, Disability and Health Services, a licensed professional and
nationally board certified counselor, provides services to meet the psychological needs of
students. To provide additional staffing support, the Director has outreached to master-
level counselor interns to complete practicums/internships in the Counseling Center; a
creative solution, which has been successful, but supervision time is required.
Counseling services are also available at the University’s Center for Family Therapy.
The International Association of Counseling Services (IACS) recommends that minimum
staffing ratios be in the range of one professional staff member (excluding trainees) for
every 1000 - 1500 students (“Counselor to Student Ratios” and “International
Association of Counseling Services,” 2000). In addition to the increased demand for
psychological services resulting from the increase in enrollment, the type of presenting
problem and increasing severity of the psychological conditions demand that the
counselor devote more time per student to meet their needs for service (“Utilization
Chart”). The American College Health Survey has been administered to our students and
provides data on their behavioral health. Although response rates were low, this data is
used by various offices to inform delivery of services and programmatic interventions
(“American College Health Survey”).
Health services are provided to students by the Coordinator of Health Education/Staff
Nurse and a Physician Assistant from the contracted University Physician’s office. Prior
to 2004, the Wellness Center was staffed by a part-time registered nurse, no summer
99
services and no services to commuter students. To meet the needs of an increased student
enrollment, the Wellness Center is accessible to all students and the registered nurse is a
12-month employee.
In addition to the increased demand for health services resulting from the increase in
enrollment, the type of presenting problem and increasing severity of the health
conditions demand that the nurse and PA devote more time per student to meet their
needs for service (“Utilization Chart”). Thus, as a result of the need for direct service,
the time needed to plan and implement quality educational programming becomes
limited.
Counseling, Disability and Health Services have also outreached to the increasing veteran
student population: 11 students in 2008-09; 23 students in 2009-10; 39 students in fall
2010. In fall 2009, collaboration with CareerLinks established a veterans’ caseworker
presence on campus; office space was shared with Counseling, Disability and Health
Services. In fall 2010, the caseworker shares dedicated office space with the ROTC
program. The Director of Health Education/Staff Nurse, a veteran herself, facilitates a
support group for this population and the Director of Counseling, Disability and Health
Services, also a veteran, has participated in trainings specifically geared toward
supporting this group.
The Counseling, Disability, and Health Services area is housed on the 5th floor of the
Administration Building, a private, beautiful space, but which has many space and
service limitations. It is also difficult for some Wellness Center services to be completed
due to the lack of a private restroom.
The number of students living on campus over the past 10 years has more than doubled
from 358 in 2000 to 780 in 2010 (“Resident Student Retention Numbers - Fall Semester
to Fall Semester Comparisons”). To accommodate this growing resident population,
numerous initiatives have been implemented including building two residence halls,
policy changes, utilization of off-campus facilities, and increasing staffing. The new
halls were built on campus and utilized student input (“Furniture Fire Safety Survey” and
“Resident Student Survey”).
100
While the resident student population has significantly increased, it is believed that the
University can be more proactive by providing suitable housing options for upper-class
students. Two facilities, the Performing Arts Center (PAC) and the Visual Arts Center
(VAC), as well as the Center for Family Therapy, are located in the City of Greensburg,
and University housing options in the City are being explored. The residence life staff
should provide a comprehensive housing recommendation based on enrollment goals and
opportunities with LECOM that includes financial pro formas. In addition, the graduate
programs continue to grow, including the addition of the Lake Erie College of
Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM), and the Orthodontics Center. Seton Hill should
explore the benefits of capturing those audiences by providing apartment-style,
independent housing (“2010 Housing Proposal” and “PAC and VAC Student Forum on
Housing Initiatives”). It is also important that the University continue its commitment on
funding to upgrade and refurbish the existing residence halls.
To meet the needs of the commuter student population, the Assistant Dean of Students
serves as their advocate. Commuter Focus Groups were held in spring 2004 and 2006 to
determine what services were not offered that the commuter students wanted. As a result
of these interactions, numerous initiatives were implemented (“Commuter Student
Initiatives 2003 – 2011”).
In addition, in 2004, as the student population was growing and diversifying, a Graduate
Assistant was hired to assist both the Office of Residence Life and the Office of Student
Activities with planning and programming. However, due to the growth of both the
resident student and commuter student populations, beginning in 2006, the utilization of a
Graduate Assistant to assist the Assistant Dean of Students with planning and
implementing the student activities became dedicated to activities alone. Also, the
Offices of Residence Life and Student Activities and Commuter Life joined forces in
January 2004 to move from a part-time administrative assistant to a full-time
administrative assistant to serve both areas.
As the adult and graduate student population has steadily grown, Seton Hill University
has continually reacted to the needs of the students (“Graduate and Adult Student
101
Enrollment, 2006-2010”). A list of the services available to the graduate and adult
students is included in the University Catalogue (“2010-2012 Catalog”). Additionally,
problems and/or barriers that inhibit the student’s ability to be successful are generally
resolved by the office staff or referral is coordinated by the staff. Every effort is made to
serve the graduate and adult students well with the benefits of the services provided by
the University and the personal support from the Graduate and Adult Studies (G.A.S.)
Office. The G.A.S. Office currently is an inclusive one-stop office including but not
limited to recruitment, retention, schedule advising, registration, general financial aid and
overall student support for adult and graduate students. It is recognized, however, that
the adult and graduate student populations need attention so that all services and supports
of the University meet their needs, as well as the needs of all students. The Dean of
Students Office is presently reviewing non-academic University policies and procedures.
During the annual Student Handbook revision process (summer 2011), the Handbook will
be revised and will be a comprehensive reference for all student populations.
The Graduate Advisory Council meets regularly to advance programs, policies, and
services to meet the needs of this group of students. Although it has not been needed, it
is noted, however, that there is not an appropriate mechanism in place to provide due
process in non-academic discipline issues involving graduate students who are not
serving as graduate assistants. For most masters’ programs, there are professional ethical
standards and technical standards that would be helpful in a disciplinary situation. But, it
is suggested that the University investigate models and tailor a process appropriate to the
culture.
How effectively is student feedback about student support services solicited,
compiled and addressed?
The University is intentional in its efforts to include students on many of the University
standing committees, ad hoc committee, and task forces. Student input is solicited and
valued – from choosing furniture for a new residence hall, to the selection of a new staff
member, to endorsing a new academic course of study or major.
102
University staff works closely with the Seton Hill Government Association (SHGA) to
communicate regularly on issues and student concerns. In addition to the regularly
scheduled meetings, forums are coordinated by SHGA as the need arises. For example,
forums on campus safety/security, parking, technology, and tuition/fees have been
coordinated to hear students’ concerns and to dialogue in an open forum. An online
suggestion box is also available for student input. An office in a “high traffic” area was
designated for SHGA; each member of the Executive Board maintains weekly office
hours to be available to meet with students (“SHGA Senate Minutes and Forum
Minutes”).
The President of SHGA attends every Board of Trustee Student Interest Committee
meeting to interact with the Trustees, provide an update on student life/concerns, and
answers questions from the Trustees. Also, every member of the Board of Trustees is
invited to a “Luncheon with the Students.” There is no scripted Q&A – students meet
with the Trustees of their choice, by Board committee. Trustees then present what they
heard to the full Board at the subsequent meeting; members of the President’s Council
who attend the Trustee meetings report any concerns/feedback back to their respective
staffs for follow up.
Multiple means for resident students to express concerns or make suggestions are in
place. For example, each Resident Assistant meets with each member of the floor every
two weeks. In addition, the Office of Residence Life surveys resident students in
November and April to determine student plans. If students report that they plan to leave
the halls and/or transfer, an exit interview is conducted. Information gathered is used to
make any appropriate changes and is shared with other offices, if necessary (“Resident
Student Exit Interviews”). The resident student numbers have dropped an average of 8%
from the fall semester to the spring semester over the past 10 years. This 8% includes the
residents that left campus housing and the students who moved on to campus (“Spring
Resident Student Retention 2001 – 2011”). A strategic initiative is to reduce this attrition
from fall to spring; thus, identifying why students leave campus is imperative. Resident
Assistant (RA) performance is evaluated each November by the resident students.
Results are used to strengthen and improve the RA performance (“RA Evaluations”).
103
The Office of Student Activities routinely surveys students as to their wants/interests and
also invites students to utilize Facebook to suggest special events. And, at times, good
old-fashioned newsprint is placed in a high traffic area and student input is invited on a
particular topic; in spring 2009, students were asked, “What band would you like to see at
SHU?”
A suggestion board is maintained in Lowe Dining Hall to solicit input on food choices,
selections, quality, etc. Each card is answered by a member of the Dining Services Staff
and reposted (“Posting Samples”). In addition, the Director of Dining Services schedules
a “Dine with the Director” at least once per semester to give students an opportunity to
share concerns, requests, and likes/dislikes.
Within our diverse student populations, traditional undergraduate students spend the most
time on campus, and therefore are most often solicited regarding student services.
However, the University must remain cognizant of our other student populations whose
needs must be considered.
A Campus Life Resolution Board (CLRB), an arm of SHGA, is convened, at a student’s
request, to address issues of student discipline; an Administrative Hearing Board is
another option used in particular circumstances of student discipline (“Responsibility
Form,” “Sanction Letter with Appeal Information,” and “Student Conduct Statistics 2009
– Present”). All information on Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct are
reviewed each summer and are included in the Student Handbook (“Student Handbook”).
For matters of academic concerns, academic integrity and grievance policies are
published in the Student Handbook and University Catalog and all records are maintained
in the Provost and Dean of the Faculty’s office (“Student Handbook,” “University
Catalog” and “Academic Integrity Report”). For matters related to accommodations
made through the Office of Disability Services, grievance procedures are available online
and are discussed during individual appointments (“ADA Grievance Procedures”). The
Chief of Campus Police received all parking violation appeals; in fall 2010, an appeals
process was implemented and the information is available online (“Seton Hill University
Traffic and Parking Regulations”).
104
The University’s Anti-Harassment Policy, including resolution and grievance procedures,
is discussed with each incoming first-year student during the required, liberal arts core,
one-credit Connections classes (“Connections Syllabus”).
How effective are University processes regarding advising for academic
programming, course of study, and career preparation.
Strength of the academic advising program is that advising is considered to be a primary
component of the teaching responsibilities of all fulltime faculty members (“SHU Policy
Manual, Volume IV, Faculty Personnel Policies, Advising”).
The Professional Development Committee (PDC) of the SHU Faculty Senate was
charged by the Senate, in 2006-2007, to assess the state of academic advising and make
appropriate recommendations on the subject to the Senate. As a result of their efforts, on
April 29, 2008, the PDC provided the report, “Advising Assessment and Report to the
Faculty Senate.” At the May 5, 2009 Faculty Senate meeting, the PDC presented a
motion to revise the Annual Faculty Self-Evaluation to include a section on advising. The
motion received the approval of the Faculty Senate. Beginning with the 2009-2010
academic year, the Annual Faculty Self-Evaluation incorporates a section for assessing
advising effectiveness as part of a faculty members overall teaching evaluation.
Advising procedures are in place for traditional students, adult degree students, graduate
students, and deciding students. Contact between advisors and advisees plays a
significant role in strengthening retention, improving student satisfaction, and supporting
student academic success (“SHU Policy Manual, Volume VI, Academic Policies,
Academic Advising” and “Effective Student Advising”). However, the numbers of
advisees per faculty member varies widely (“Advisor/Student Ratios”). This situation for
some majors or programs, as evidenced by the chart, creates heavy advising expectations.
While faculty receive compensation for faculty advising beyond 60 students, this
situation is not ideal but is being addressed with the increasing number of full-time
faculty.
105
Although technology is available to support the current advising system, the most recent
data suggests that only a small fraction of advisors are using the Advising module of
Griffin Gate and the Advising Notes feature of the software (“Advising Notes Usage”).
Students also indicate they have difficulty accessing the scheduling information found on
Griffin Gate.
CareerWorks provides a separate avenue for students to receive expert advice regarding
choice of major and career preparation. An analysis of key activity data reported by
CareerWorks indicated an increase in the level of student usage relative to career and
professional preparation. For instance, the number of office contacts, a measure of
student-related activity, increased by 18% from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, the most recent
reporting year available. CareerWorks also reported an increase of 39% in the number of
scheduled campus visits by employer recruiters during the years 2003 to 2008
(“CareerWorks: On-campus Recruiting & Program Services 2007-2008” and
“CareerWorks: On-campus Recruiting & Program Services 2005-2006”).
Strengths
• It is clear from the research of this working group that Seton Hill support services
across the institution have adapted and responded to the increase in the numbers
of students as well as the diversity of the student body.
• Staff members are qualified, dedicated and creative in their problem solving
abilities.
• The academic support services area (C.A.P.S.), which is partially grant funded,
has continuously received grant renewal funding during times when government
funding is being reduced and funding is even more competitive.
Challenges
• Maintaining the safety and security of the entire campus community must be
paramount in University planning.
• As the University has grown in numbers and diversity, developing a sense of
community among the various populations becomes more difficult. And, it is
106
challenging to meet the needs of a diverse student population without appropriate
resources, staffing, staff development, and role models reflecting the make-up of
the student body.
• Although University staff continues to find creative solutions to serve students,
maintaining the quality of services with current staffing levels in some areas is a
challenge.
• As evidenced by the full-time faculty/advisee rosters, the distribution of advisees
is unmanageable in some areas if students are to receive individual advising as
opposed to scheduling.
• With the growth in the number of athletic teams as well as the number of student-
athletes, there are numerous challenges: maintenance of accurate team rosters,
follow-up educational sessions for each athlete, education of faculty and athletes
on NCAA progress toward degree rules, timely submission of registration forms
by athletes, and schedule changes issues.
• Office space and student life space remains a challenge as space is at a premium.
Providing appropriate spaces continues to be a challenge.
Action Plans:
List of References. See Document Roadmap, Standard 9.
Appendices. None.
107
Chapter VI – Expanding Expertise
STANDARD 10:
Faculty
Overview of the charge.
The working group for Standard 10, “Expanding Expertise,” is charged by the Middle
States Steering Committee to study and report on the professional qualifications of the
faculty of the University. This is relevant to demonstrating compliance with the Middle
States Standard 10.
Given Seton Hill’s student enrollment growth how should the institution determine
and develop an appropriate and effective number of full time faculty? What
criteria should be used to determine when adjunct use is preferable? How does the
ratio of adjunct to full-time faculty apply for programs where adjuncts are
necessary for programmatic excellence?
The faculty at Seton Hill are dedicated, highly qualified and as a whole demonstrate a
sustained interest in learning about and practicing high quality teaching and professional
development (Degree qualifications, IDEA Data, Faculty Development, and Professional
Growth Plans). Support for the principles of academic freedom helps ensure that
curriculum and instructional design decisions are largely in the hands of faculty qualified
to make informed choices; this allows for timely curricular, faculty, and other
programmatic changes that respond effectively to market forces and disciplinary
evolution (Program Review, New Degree, Sample Program Review, Strategic Plan 2009-
2012). The University has experienced significant enrollment growth, and at the same
time a progression of full-time faculty hires has occurred (Enrollment and Faculty).
Indeed, as Standard 2 attests, Seton Hill has made substantial financial commitments and
real progress in developing its full-time faculty, particularly in the past two years, with
many new hires as well as ten current searches in place for faculty in eight different
programmatic areas. This demonstrates that the University is aggressively seeking to
enlarge the faculty by filling these positions.
108
These endeavors are important since the institution has historically relied on a relatively
high percentage of adjuncts to carry the teaching load (Full-Time, Adjunct FTE, and
Courses Taught). The Middle States Visiting Team Report, from Seton Hill’s most
recent commission review in October 2001, specifically cited the relatively low number
of full-time faculty as an area of concern (p. 24: Concerns. 1. A ‘leanness’ of faculty.)
Real progress has been made, and the University continues to address this issue moving
forward in order to further strengthen academic programs and the University as a whole.
In the Fall of 2003, Seton Hill University had a student enrollment of 1317. To serve this
student population, Seton Hill’s faculty consisted of 59 full-time faculty, 5 full-time
equivalent (FTE) part-time faculty, and 28 FTE adjunct faculty members. This staffing
level provided an overall student to faculty ratio of 14:1. Full-time faculty members
represented 64% of all faculty. Since the fall of 2003, Seton Hill has added new
programs and increased enrollment in the existing programs. By the fall of 2009, student
enrollment had increased to 1,860, and there was a corresponding increase in the number
of faculty. The full-time faculty totaled 77, and FTE for part-time and adjunct faculty
was at 4 and 32 respectively. The Fall 2009 staffing level provided for an overall student
to faculty ratio of 16:1. Full-time faculty members represented 68% of all faculty
(Enrollment and Faculty).
Although the number and percentage of full-time faculty has increased, an analysis of the
courses taught during the 2009-2010 year disclosed that adjunct faculty, comprising 28%
of total faculty, taught 42% of all undergraduate and graduate courses (Courses Taught).
In analyzing this data, it is important to note that because the statistics are reported based
on the instructor of record, some data may misrepresent actual practices; for example,
multiple instructors are included for a single section of performance-based Music
instruction courses since many teachers work one-on-one with students under the same
course number and section. That said, most of the academic Divisions hover near the
overall 42% average (44% being the highest and 27% being the lowest in any single
Division). Courses that do not fall under the specific purview of academic programs but
which are designed primarily to serve the University’s Liberal Arts Curriculum are
109
heavily dependent on adjunct faculty. The data indicated that in 2009-2010, of 129
course offerings, 74% of the classes were taught by adjunct faculty. At the graduate
level, adjunct faculty teach 34% of all graduate courses.
Evidence on adjunct usage nation-wide is difficult to gauge since it is notoriously under-
reported. Middle States suggested in a recent brochure that the national average number
of courses taught by adjuncts is almost 50%. (Citation of brochure needed) While Seton
Hill’s percentage of courses taught by adjuncts is less than the national average cited by
Middle States, it is clear that the institution aspires to a much higher standard even
though a lack of specificity exists for accreditation. After the 2001 comprehensive
review, the Middle States evaluation team asked the institution to address this issue in the
2007 Periodic Review Report. Although progress had been made toward hiring more
full-time faculty, the commission was not content: The Middle States Periodic Review
Report, dated August 1, 2007 concluded the following: “Overall, the pattern of hiring
makes good business sense; however, the 2002 Evaluation Team saw the need for adding
faculty as pressing (even assuming minimal enrollment growth) when in fact the increase
in enrollment (62%) has far outpaced the rate of growth of full-time faculty (22%)”
(Middle States Visiting Team Report 2001). In turn, the commission asked Seton Hill to
document the implementation of a faculty hiring plan that would result in an adequate
number of full-time hires.
The University has indeed developed a plan to address this need. From the current SHU
Strategic Plan:
[...] The administration has forecast increasing faculty from 83 to 102; the increase includes faculty replacements, new program faculty, and additional faculty support as a result of the program review processes. This hiring plan would assist Seton Hill in achieving its targeted goal of limiting reliance on adjuncts to not more than 30% of the courses in any undergraduate major and 25% of the courses in any graduate program in a given academic year (22).
The “targeted goal” in relation to adjuncts comes directly out of The Seton Hill
University – Adjunct Faculty Policy, which was developed and passed by the Faculty
110
Senate in October 2003 (SHU Adjunct Policy). This policy provides guidelines as to the
usage and percentage of courses adjunct faculty should teach.
Some divisions and programs are not in compliance with the guidelines provided by the
Adjunct Faculty Policy. Still it is important to clarify that full-time faculty staffing and
the usage of adjunct faculty necessarily varies by division and program, and that adjuncts
are often a key element for programmatic excellence. Some programs, such as Music,
require a large number of faculty who can teach highly specialized skills on an
individualized basis; it would be unreasonable to expect that full-time faculty could be
hired to fulfill all of these needs. Other programs, such as Business, benefit from having
practicing professionals sharing their real world experiences in the classroom. In other
words, a percentage alone is not an adequate barometer for the “right” number of
adjuncts working in any given program; while a lower percentage of courses taught by
adjuncts is desirable by the institution in general, it is not universally the case. As such,
the appropriate balance of full-time to adjunct faculty is best evaluated at the academic
program level. Seton Hill’s existing Program Review process enables this to occur
(Program Review), as does the process for the approval for new programs of study at the
institution (New Degree). A number of recent Program self-studies have included the
need for additional full-time faculty (Sample Program Review), and the University has
responded to meet these needs. As Seton Hill University student enrollment continues to
grow, the institution should provide a methodology for programs to use in determining
the appropriate and effective number of full-time faculty. However, program excellence
should not be compromised for fear of not meeting a division or program metric.
The institution is well-served by its commitment to aggressively increase the number of
full time faculty in the areas indicated through program review and thereby reduce
overall reliance on adjuncts. While it is challenging to determine the number of full-time
faculty that would be necessary in order to best meet the University’s needs and exceed
accreditation standards, the University will continue to address this issue within the
context of program review.
111
How effectively does the institution address workload issues as these relate to the
overall health and future of Seton Hill, its students and its faculty? Are current
methods for measuring faculty workload effective? What checks and balances can
be put into place to prevent further incremental workload increases and subsequent
confusion and/or dissatisfaction with the totality of faculty roles and
responsibilities?
The faculty at Seton Hill carry a heavy workload that consists of required teaching and
service as well as obligatory research and/or creative work (Policy Manual). Seton Hill
has mirrored trends at other small private liberal arts colleges where changes in faculty
roles and responsibilities have resulted in heavier workloads. Indeed, the anecdotal
experiences of a number of senior faculty reflect a pattern of incremental increases in
workload expectations that have occurred over the past twenty years. Hiring more full-
time faculty, as discussed above, will certainly have a positive impact on overall faculty
workload. Addressing workload concerns beyond the need for additional faculty has the
potential for improved faculty morale and a higher level of faculty achievement in both
teaching and scholarship.
Workload expectations can be summarized in the following manner:
1) Teaching – 12 instructional units per semester (comparable to a 4/4 load).
2) Advising – faculty are assigned advisees through the Registrar’s office; the
number of advisees carried at any one time by a faculty member varies wildly
(Advisee Workload). It is important to note that the University has provided
teaching load reassignment or a stipend for this work for faculty who may have
more than 60 advisees.
3) Service – All faculty, as part of their program and divisional responsibilities,
develop and assess curriculum on a regular basis, including detailed program
reviews. Faculty are expected to serve on at least one major committee each
academic year (Policy Manual 4.9.7). Many faculty serve on multiple committees
but may be exempt from committee work once every four years at the discretion
of the Provost (Policy Manual). Up to six independent study courses that full-time
faculty facilitate for the benefit of students (3 for part-time) are considered service
112
(without further compensation). Faculty also serve the institution by taking on
roles as student organization advisors.
4) Scholarship/Creative Work – faculty are expected to stay current their fields and
to complete a defined body of work to be eligible for promotion and tenure.
Specifically, the University Policy Manual states the following: “As a member of
a community of scholars, each full-time faculty member is expected to engage in
scholarship, research, performance or public exhibit, or give other evidence of
educational pursuits. This scholarly atmosphere assures the proper climate for
good teaching and collegial exchange” (4.11.2).
It should be noted that the 12 instructional unit per semester load does not take into
account perceived differences in workload that may occur due to differences in academic
delivery across various disciplines. This can sometimes lead to contention around
workload issues, and the University could benefit from continuing dialogue about this
issue.
The institution has a procedure in place for the establishment of “instructional
equivalencies” through which certain non-teaching responsibilities are recognized with
instructional units that count towards the full time load of 12 units per semester (Policy
Manual). For example, program directors and Division chairs receive instructional units
for carrying out their administrative tasks. Theatre directors and designers, as well as
music ensemble conductors and gallery directors, are also provided with instructional
units, as are many others (Policy Manual). Assessment of the effectiveness of these
equivalencies occurs primarily through the program review process.
Many faculty describe Seton Hill’s institutional culture as placing more value on service
and teaching over scholarship and creative work. As a result, the heavy teaching and
service workload responsibilities felt by faculty make it challenging for many to achieve
comparable excellence and productivity in research activities. That said, Seton Hill
faculty are encouraged to pursue research and creative work. Funding for conference
participation and other professional development activities is available for all faculty, and
113
many faculty have expressed appreciation for the University’s support of academic
freedom (Faculty Development, Sabbaticals, Professional Growth Plans). Faculty report,
anecdotally, that professional development funding is quite respectable in comparison to
other institutions with a similar profile. The faculty as a whole demonstrates a great deal
of interest in pursuing scholarship and creative activities, and the institution has a number
of excellent structures in place to support professional development. The University
should continue to examine workload practices and institutional culture to seek ways to
further encourage excellence in scholarship and creative work.
One potential change in faculty workload that would be fairly straightforward to
implement would be to reduce the teaching load. Although the 4/4 load (12 instructional
units per semester) is the standard found at most small private colleges and universities,
the equivalent of a 4/3 or 3/3 teaching load is not uncommon, particularly at schools we
might describe as “aspirant” institutions (Peer Survey Results). Such a change would
require a major investment by the university in adjunct, part-time, and in some cases even
full-time faculty to cover all courses each semester. If we assumed a scenario in which
the courses no longer taught by full-time faculty were taught by adjuncts, based on the
current number of full-time faculty the reduction in workload would require an additional
$230,202 in salary and benefits for a one course a year reduction and $460,404 for a two-
course reduction (Workload Reduction Cost). The advantages of reducing the teaching
load are fairly self-evident: faculty would be freed to dedicate more time to pursuing
scholarly and creative endeavors, to improving their teaching and thereby enhancing the
student experience in the classroom, and to serving the university in other capacities as
needed. One immediate downside of such a change is that the university would need to
employ many more adjuncts and part-time faculty to teach courses no longer covered by
full-time faculty loads. This would have the negative effect of increasing the percentage
of courses taught at the university by adjuncts and eliminate the gains that have been
achieved in reducing institutional reliance on adjuncts. Review of faculty teaching
workload should be an on-going consideration. If financially viable, workload reduction
would benefit the University.
114
The University’s goal of increasing the number of full-time faculty to 102 will have a
positive overall impact on workload at least as it relates to service. With more colleagues
to shoulder responsibilities, it is reasonable to assume that the service load will be
distributed more thinly across the entire faculty. In order for this to occur, it is necessary
for the institution to continue to hire faculty who demonstrate an interest in serving the
broader Seton Hill community by participating in governance, supporting student groups,
actively mentoring and advising students, and contributing to the overall mission and
strategic plans of the University.
Regardless, the faculty should continue to take an active and vocal role in institutional
decisions that may lead to further incremental workload increases. Faculty need to
analyze current workload expectations and strategize how to balance this more
effectively. One challenge in this respect is the level of dissatisfaction with current
structures of faculty governance, an issue that is taken up further in Standards 4 & 5
(Faculty Survey 2010). Without full confidence in faculty governance, it becomes more
of a challenge to use these governance structures to address workload issues with the
administration. The current Faculty Senate leadership has taken some positive steps
towards improving the present situation. When faculty work in partnership with the
administration in order to advocate for such investments, positive progress on these
issues can occur. Also, the program review process can be utilized for faculty to look at
ways in which workload can be more equitably distributed. Improving systems of faculty
governance and developing a faculty that is more universally empowered to speak out on
contentious issues will serve to help address workload in a more significant way on a
more frequent basis.
What improvements has the University made in faculty salaries in relation to peer
institutions since 2002? How might the challenges of hiring faculty to work at Seton
Hill (liberal arts context, heavy workload, geography) be addressed through
improvements in salaries? Along with salary improvements, what other steps can
the University take in order to be competitive in attracting and retaining the highest
quality teachers/scholars/artists and encouraging more racial/ethnic diversity?
115
In the last eight years, the University has made positive steps forward in increasing
faculty salaries and overall compensation (Salary, SHU Salaries by Division, SHU
Salaries by Gender). While the average salary has increased, it is important to note that
this number is inflated by certain academic areas where, due to market realities, salaries
are higher. A number of academic areas lag behind the Seton Hill average and earn
salaries well below the average compared to colleagues at other institutions (SHU
Salaries by Division, SHU Salaries by Gender). This issue has been taken up in the last
two University strategic plans, but it is still a challenge faced by the institution.
Obviously, strong salaries are essential to Seton Hill’s ability to ensure the recruitment
and retention of a highly qualified, talented, and diverse faculty. In the 2001 Middle
States Visiting Team Report, the commission noted the fact that Seton Hill faculty
salaries were low in comparison with regional and peer institutions: “In the early 1990’s
Seton Hill had achieved its faculty salary goal to raise its ranking close to the median of
liberal arts IIB colleges in Pennsylvania. Since then, moderate salary increases in the
range of 2-4% annually have not enabled the college to stay at the median for all ranks”
(Middle States Visiting Team Report 2001). While evidence demonstrates salary
increases since 2003, these increases have still not returned Seton Hill to a level that is
competitive with peer and other like institutions.
From a perspective of remaining competitive in recruiting and retaining strong faculty,
continued improvements in salary must be made. Seton Hill salaries ranked 78th among
84 regional institutions for professors, 69th for associate professors, and 58th for assistant
professors. Seton Hill salaries have not been at or above the median since Fiscal 1998,
when salaries for Professors and Assistant Professors were above by 0.9% and 1.6%,
respectively. In standard 2/3 a plan for achieving the average salary is addressed. While
this will require an immediate influx of approximately ¼ of million dollars (with on-
going investment) this should go far in achieving these goals. A practice the University
should also consider is ensuring that a larger increase in salary accompanies advances in
rank. If practices could be established that ensured a raise in pay upon promotion based
on a percentage of current salary, this can be normed against the average salaries for each
116
rank that the institution is attempting to emulate to help ensure that Seton Hill salaries
continue at these average salary levels for the future once we initially achieve this
standard.
Internal Seton Hill data demonstrates large discrepancies in salaries between faculty in
different academic programs and divisions (SHU Salaries by Division, SHU Salaries by
Gender). Some of these differences are understandable, given the realities of the job
market (differences in supply and demand in different fields) and the need to compete
with non-educational private sector salaries in some areas. The discrepancies between
different divisions at Seton Hill are reflective of national salary data in different fields as
well (National Salary Comparison). Seeking to close these salary gaps, at least in part,
would have a number of advantages for the institution. Not only would it put salaries in
areas like the humanities, the arts, and possibly other divisions at a competitive
advantage, but it would also have the effect of raising overall average salaries at Seton
Hill in support of institutional salary goals. Since significantly higher salaries in some
areas skew the overall average, moving all salaries closer to these outliers would yield
great benefits.
Another challenge facing the institution in relation to salaries is the issue of differences
between the salaries of male and female professors. In almost all divisions at the rank of
both Associate and Assistant Professor, the average salary for male professors is higher
than that of female professors (to protect confidentiality, data on Professor salaries was
not available due to the small size of the available data set) (SHU Salaries by Gender).
This is particularly disturbing when one takes into account the additional factor of
longevity in rank. In some areas women outnumber men in terms of years of service by
more than six years; this would tend to skew the average salaries higher for women, yet
they still lag behind (Years in Rank). Seton Hill will endeavor to complete a salary
correction by gender in the near future to bring women’s salaries closer in alignment with
their male colleagues. In addition, these numbers should be further studied to determine
the reason for these differences, and conscientious efforts should be made to avoid
replicating this gender gap in the future.
117
The final area for consideration is the challenge of achieving diversity in the faculty
population. While Seton Hill’s percentage of women faculty ranks among the three
highest in comparison to peer institutions, racial-ethnic diversity among current faculty
ranks among the three lowest; racial-ethnic minorities make up only 4% of the overall
faculty (Peer Comparison). In order to address this situation SHU has increased its
efforts by including an affirmative action representative on each search committee and
actively advertising for minority candidates. The current Strategic Plan specifically
targets the need to “…aggressively recruit and hire faculty of color” (Strategic Plan 2009-
2012). Clearly, issues of race and the factors involved in attempting to attract strong
minority faculty to Seton Hill and then retain them are multi-faceted and complex. Some
factors are largely out of the institution’s control, such as the relative lack of diversity
within our local community. Supply and demand certainly dictates that the ability to hire
minority faculty may hinge in part on salary considerations, and the university should
continue to strive to make competitive salary offers to strong minority candidates. In
turn, Seton Hill should continue a process of both contemplation and consultation to
discern other barriers over which we may have control and/or discover changes that could
spur growth in this area.
How can the University continue to find ways to support faculty research/creative
work and provide the resources and tools for it to be completed? How might Seton
Hill further strengthen the linkages between scholarship, teaching, student learning,
and service so as to increase the value placed on research and scholarship? Should
the institution adjust contract expectations based on scholarship production?
As discussed above, Seton Hill faculty are encouraged to pursue research and creative
work, and funding for conference participation and other forms of professional
development is strong when measured against other comparable institutions (Faculty
Development Funds, Sabbaticals, Professional Growth Plans). The institution
acknowledges and encourages a wide range of activities as a part of scholarship,
118
including applied practice, accreditation, and the scholarship of teaching (Policy Manual,
Forward Magazine). Faculty expectations detailed in the University Policy Manual
reflect the emphasis that scholarship is essential to good teaching, and the principles of
academic freedom are articulated in ways that are supportive of faculty research and
creative work (Policy Manual). Each faculty member is required to have an active
Professional Development Plan (PDP) that includes goals and objectives for
scholarship/creative work along with teaching and service (Faculty Development Plans -
Samples). In turn, all funded professional development activities must be consistent with
each faculty member’s PDP.
Faculty as a whole demonstrate a great deal of interest in pursuing research and
professional development activities (Faculty Development Funding Awards, Sabbaticals,
Professional Growth Plans). Yet, as described above, within Seton Hill’s institutional
culture, recognition of research and creative activities does not figure as strongly within
the faculty culture. In order to address this, the University should continue to find ways
to encourage a research-oriented culture in order to better support faculty
research/creative work and provide the resources and tools for it to be completed.
Seton Hill currently provides excellent financial support for professional development
through a number of different programs. The most significant of these is Faculty
Development Fund grants that are largely used to defray expenses associated with
attending and participating in professional meetings and conferences. Support up to
$1500 per meeting is currently available to faculty who are presenting papers and up to
$1000 for faculty who are not presenting papers. An additional $500 may be requested
for international conferences (Faculty Development Funds Request). The maximum
award limit was increased from $1000 to $1500 beginning in the 2008/09 academic year.
Faculty can request funds for additional conferences beyond the first one, (although the
funding available decreases with each subsequent conference). The Provost and Dean of
the Faculty reports that over the past five years only a small number of grant requests
were denied, and in these cases the denial occurred only because the budget line for the
119
grants had been exhausted and faculty were making their second or third request for
funds.
Over the last five academic years a total of $215,000 has been awarded to faculty for
conference travel. Over this time period 36 faculty members on average have annually
received conference travel awards. Funded faculty represent approximately 46% of the
full and part-time faculty. The average total annual award per faculty member was $1182
(Faculty Development Funding Awards). A summary of travel conference data by year
since 2005 is included in the appendix.
Faculty development funds can also be awarded for special summer projects (Policy
Manual 4.10.3. Few faculty actually avail themselves of this program. Only one
professor, four associate professors, and one assistant professor each received $1000 or
less for summer projects from 2003 to 2008 (Summer Project Funding). Faculty,
particularly through the Professional Development Committee of the Faculty Senate,
should consider raising awareness of these funds and encouraging faculty to apply.
Additional important professional development opportunities for faculty have come
through access to new technologies and training. Over the past ten years, faculty have
been able to apply to participate in technology training in order to enhance their courses.
These trainings covered inclusion strategies via the TALIP grant and the PILOT grant,
and most recently, an emphasis on assessment and retention via the ELITE training
program (see section 2/3 for further details regarding these grants). As part of the Title
III ELITE training, and in coordination with the Griffin Technology Advantage Program,
faculty were eligible to receive a MacBook laptop, an iPad, and a laptop station including
a 25 inch monitor and standalone keyboard and mouse. The training allowed faculty to
explore web 2.0 and social networking technologies for enhanced pedagogy, as well as
offering faculty access to a seminar by national consultants on creating Performance
Tasks for critical thinking. This training, while still in progress, has allowed faculty to
experiment with cutting-edge technologies and bring those into their classrooms.
120
Another way Seton Hill supports faculty development is through tuition grants; the
university supports faculty, some who were hired before terminal degrees were
mandated, in their efforts to complete advanced degrees. This represents a very small
number of faculty who have received money annually through tuition support at various
academic institutions. One faculty member also received money through tuition support
for professional accreditation (Sabbaticals). The university also offers two other
programs aimed at supporting professional development: the Professional Growth Plan
offers grants between $1000 and $3500 per year for periods of two to three years, and the
Fellowship Plan provides one course release per academic year (Policy Manual). Few
faculty take advantage of these opportunities as well; there is no data on Fellowship Plans
in the last five years, and only nine faculty applied for and were granted Growth Plan
grants (Professional Growth Plans). Although a percentage of the faculty may lack the
initiative to pursue a project that could be supported by one of these plans, a bigger issue
appears to be the fact that many faculty seem unaware that these programs exist. Even
though new faculty are told about these opportunities in new faculty orientation, better
efforts can be made to inform and remind junior and senior faculty alike about funding
opportunities, and faculty should be encouraged to apply for funding through various
entities – programs, divisions, Faculty Senate, and the Academic Affairs Office. The
Professional Development Committee of the Faculty Senate can play an important role in
this regard. The promotion of these programs is necessary to sustain and grow the
scholarly and creative output of the faculty.
Finally, perhaps the most important institutional structure in place for professional
development is sabbatical leave: “Sabbaticals are intended to be a means of faculty
development, mutually beneficial to the individual faculty member, to the program or
division, and to the advancement of University goals and objectives. The sabbatical
leave allows release time from regular faculty duties for faculty to be able to engage in
research, study, writing, or other forms of professional development that will contribute
to their goals as teachers and scholars” (Policy Manual 4.10.1). Sabbatical leave for
Seton Hill faculty from 2003-2010 included four faculty who received full year sabbatical
leaves and six faculty who received single semester leave to pursue professional
121
development (Sabbaticals). This number represents a small percentage of the entire full
time eligible faculty during the past seven years. An examination should be done to
determine the reason for the low number of faculty members who apply for sabbaticals; it
may be related to workload, the burden to fellow program faculty, or the demands of the
administrative positions held; lack of interest in a sabbatical, or lack of focus on a
sabbatical plan. Faculty who represent the only full-time professor in the major or who
hold additional responsibilities such as Division or Program Director may have a more
difficult time covering their teaching, administrative, or advising responsibilities when
requesting sabbatical leave. The university does encourage all eligible faculty to consider
applying for sabbatical leave at some point in their careers. As with other funding
programs, advocacy of sabbaticals is necessary to ensure that more faculty members take
advantage of sabbatical leave and thereby enhance scholarly and creative output
university-wide.
All of the funding opportunities and programs described above represent Seton Hill’s
significant commitment to and investment in faculty professional development. While
there are a good number of outstanding faculty with strong records of publication and
creative work who have taken advantage of funding opportunities, the percentage of
faculty that utilize all forms of faculty development funds could be increased. Efforts
made by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty to encourage senior faculty to continue to
pursue professional development (such as through invited dinners for Associate
Professors and a separate event for full Professors) are on the right track. Further
administrative promotion of Professional Growth Plans, Fellowship Plans, and
Sabbaticals could also make a difference. But faculty ourselves must also take
responsibility for encouraging one another to pursue our research and creative work, and
in so doing, strengthen the linkages between scholarship, teaching, student learning, and
service. This might occur through the creation of awards (perhaps granted at the Division
level but publicly recognized in an awards convocation) to recognize especially
significant accomplishments and outstanding contributions to specific fields. Programs
and divisions could host colloquia during which faculty could give brief presentations
and then receive comments and feedback on either work in progress or on recently
122
completed work. A centrally located bulletin board might be designated to be updated
regularly to highlight an array of faculty research, writing, and creative activities.
Perhaps the Faculty Senate could create a new standing committee (apart from the
Professional Development Committee) aimed solely at creating initiatives that will build
a culture that more actively encourages and celebrates scholarship and creative work.
Given that excellence in teaching is a fundamental expectation at Seton Hill, how
might a holistic approach to the assessment of teaching be achieved? How might the
re-examination of our current student evaluation form, IDEA, and subsequent new
models for evaluating teaching affect both academic rigor and rank and tenure
decisions? How might mentoring play a role?
Standards and official practices for all personnel-related issues with faculty (appointment,
promotion, tenure, grievance, etc.) are clearly defined and published (Policy Manual).
Procedures for the review of faculty, including the assessment of teaching, are also
carefully articulated and communicated effectively. Standards for promotion and tenure
have become clearer over recent years. That said, there are still opportunities to improve
in these areas. For example, student evaluations are currently the only quantitative
measure we have for the assessment of teaching. While student evaluations are clearly
essential, it may also be helpful to add other, more holistic measures for the assessment
of teaching, particularly as excessive reliance on student evaluations may hinder desires
to increase academic rigor and elevate student writing skills.
Seton Hill has assessed teaching via student evaluations, peer, chair, and administrator
evaluations, and self-evaluations (Program Review Process, Sample Teaching
Observation, Sample Annual Reports, Blank Annual Report). Currently, Seton Hill uses
the IDEA form for student evaluations (IDEA Data). IDEA is a nationally normed
survey instrument, and Seton Hill requires its use by every pre-tenure professor every
term in every course. Post-tenure, instructors are required to use student evaluations one
term per year (Policy Manual).
123
A feedback program is in place whereby chairs and administrators examine the IDEA
forms and offer feedback and suggestions for improvement. The Liberal Arts Curriculum
Committee is particularly diligent about using IDEA results to examine how well courses
are meeting objectives, and altering curriculum to improve results.
A formal mentoring program is in place for all new full-time faculty. Faculty mentors are
encouraged to observe new faculty at least once and discuss their observations with the
mentee as a formative assessment. While mentoring policy is laid out in section 4.5.1.5
in the Seton Hill policy manual, implementation is uneven, partly due to differing levels
of diligence on the part of faculty mentors, and partly due to different levels of need on
the part of new faculty (some are well-mentored within their programs). Two Seton Hill
faculty members are conducting research on faculty mentoring, including Seton Hill’s
own program. While this research is in a preliminary stage, results will be used to assess
and improve faculty mentoring at Seton Hill.
Due to a desire for a more holistic feedback instrument and faculty dissatisfaction with
how well IDEA works to evaluate lab or skills-based courses, Seton Hill’s professional
development committee was charged by the Faculty Senate to work with IT to develop an
internal, all-online student evaluation form. This form is currently in development.
While it will not be nationally normed, it may be coordinated with similar regional
schools so that results can be compared.
How might we improve adjunct faculty supervision and assessment, expand upon
adjunct professional development offerings, and create more consistent teaching
between full and part-time faculty? What salary improvements and other strategies
could Seton Hill pursue in an effort to better recruit, hire, support, and retain
strong adjuncts in those areas in which it makes sense to do so?
As described above, adjunct faculty make up a significant and valuable portion of Seton
Hill’s teaching workforce. While the institution employs a large number of highly
qualified adjuncts who are committed to good teaching and Seton Hill’s mission as a
124
whole, the perception remains that there are sometimes inconsistencies (in both quality
and content) in instruction between full-time and adjunct faculty. The university’s
Adjunct Faculty Policy outlines the philosophy and guiding principles for use of adjunct
faculty within academic programs. As currently stated, “full-time faculty will mentor
adjunct faculty in their discipline area. This mentoring will be focused on course content,
program philosophy, and pedagogical expectations. Adjuncts will be guided on
administrative policies and procedures by the division chairs and vice president for
academic affairs” (Seton Hill Adjunct Policy). The degree to which the mentorship
described above is occurring is unclear; in those programs where it is occurring, it
appears to occur largely on an informal basis. Seton Hill currently assesses adjunct
teaching by means of student evaluations, which are reviewed by Division Chairs (IDEA
Data). When possible, Division Chairs and Graduate Program Directors also observe
adjuncts who want feedback on their teaching. In addition, some program faculty
observe the adjuncts who teach in their programs, with opportunity for feedback and
discussion. Given the increase in course offerings and full and part-time faculty since the
Fall of 2003, further development of the Adjunct Policy would clarify the process for
mentoring and define responsibilities for supervision and procedures for assessment. A
survey of SHU Division Chairs revealed a number of insightful responses on how to
address these challenges (Division Chair Adjunct Survey). Current professional
development opportunities are also outlined in the Adjunct Faculty Policy and include
fall and spring semester orientation and training events, the opportunity to participate in
technology training and the opportunity to participate in teaching and learning forums.
Of these three opportunities, the orientation events have been identified as successful for
those who attend. As described above, adjuncts are particularly important in the Liberal
Arts Curriculum, and continued efforts should be made to ensure that these adjuncts
understand their role within the mission of the institution.
Adjunct faculty are recruited and hired based on content expertise, discipline experience
and appropriate educational preparedness (Degree Qualifications). In an effort to better
recruit, hire, support and retain strong adjuncts, Seton Hill makes every attempt to align
compensation with other educational institutions in Westmoreland County. To this end,
125
the University has identified eight adjunct levels to compensate appropriately for market
and licensure as well as for experience and service (Adjunct Salary Rates). Despite these
recent adjustments and increases in salary, more aggressive initiatives in this area would
be of benefit to recruiting and retaining strong adjuncts. Results from a survey of peer
institutions demonstrates that Seton Hill’s adjunct salaries lag well behind in comparison
with those schools that reported this data (Peer Survey Results). The institution can also
continue to identify opportunities for non-salary compensation and privileges. These
may include access to technology programs such as Elite or the Griffin Technology
Advantage (iPads), professional development funding, opportunities for grants or merit
awards, and improved office space.
The current Adjunct Faculty Policy (SH Adjunct Policy) provides excellent guidelines for
the way the institution approaches the hiring, retention, assessment, and professional
development of adjunct faculty policies. Since the policy was approved in 2003, much
progress has been made to adhere to policy’s standards. However, it is necessary for the
faculty and administration to review the policy, assess its effectiveness, address areas in
which the institution may be coming up short, and revise/update the policy. All of these
improvements can continue to improve the quality of adjunct instruction received by
Seton Hill students.
Strengths
• Educational curricula designed, maintained, and updated by faculty and other
professionals who are academically prepared and qualified.
• Faculty and other professionals who demonstrate excellence in teaching and other
activities, and who demonstrate continued professional growth – although the
percentage of faculty who take advantage of funding for professional
development activities could be increased.
• Appropriate institutional support for the advancement and development of faculty,
including teaching, research, scholarship, and service – although the institution
can do more to encourage faculty to increase scholarly/creative output.
126
• Recognition of appropriate linkages among scholarship, teaching, student
learning, research, and service.
• Published and implemented standards and procedures for all faculty and other
professionals, for actions such as appointment, promotion, tenure, grievance,
discipline and dismissal, based on principles of fairness with due regard for the
rights of all persons.
• Carefully articulated, equitable, and implemented procedures and criteria for
reviewing all individuals who have responsibility for the educational program of
the institution.
• Adherence to principles of academic freedom, within the context of institutional
mission.
Challenges:
• Faculty and other professionals appropriately prepared and qualified for the
positions they hold, with roles and responsibilities clearly defined, and
sufficiently numerous to fulfill those roles appropriately.
Roles/responsibilities are clearly defined, although increases in
responsibilities have increased workload expectations, which is a
significant challenge facing the faculty.
Faculty is clearly qualified, but not sufficient in number in relation to full-
time faculty.
Low salaries are also an on-going challenge.
• The percentage of faculty who take advantage of funding for professional
development activities could be increased to improve scholarly/creative output.
• The institution as a whole can do more to encourage faculty to increase
scholarly/creative output. Faculty should mentor other faculty, and Faculty
Senate and Division Chairs should promote the availability of funding and
sabbaticals.
• Seton Hill continues to be too dependent on adjunct faculty; the University needs
to make more consistent and effective use of Adjunct Faculty Policy.
127
• Assessment of policies and procedures to ensure the use of qualified professionals
to support the institution’s programs. Some occurs in program review and
informally as well, but may need to be addressed in a broader manner.
Reference page.
Attached.
Appendices.
Lots.
List of References. See Document Roadmap, Standard 10.
128
Chapter VII – Offering Depth and Breadth
STANDARDS 11 & 13:
Educational Offerings
Related Educational Activities
Overview of the charge.
The working group for Standards 11 & 13, “Offering Depth and Breadth,” is charged by
the Middle States Steering Committee to study and report on the academic rigor of the
programs in the University and to study and report on the appropriateness of other
educational programs and activities. This is relevant to demonstrating compliance with
the Middle States Standards 11 and 13.
Standard 11
How effectively is the program review process used to improve teaching and
learning?
Seton Hill University is committed to the systematic assessment of undergraduate and
graduate programs. The program review is ongoing, with each academic major and
graduate program scheduled to undergo a full review process every five years. Under the
supervision of the provost, within the division structure, each program is expected to
update its overall learning objectives as well as the learning objectives of its individual
courses, to review its methods of assessing learning, and to examine student product. The
cyclical process culminates every five years (with minor scheduling adjustments as
necessary) with a rigorous self-study report. The current model for both the
undergraduate and graduate programs draws on a schema published in 2004 by the
Association of American Colleges and Universities, titled Taking Responsibility for the
Quality of the Baccalaureate Degree.
The process begins with the provost asking the division chair or the graduate program
director to prepare a self-study report. A committee is appointed, including the division
chair or dean of graduate and external programs, faculty teaching in the program, and at
129
least one faculty member from outside the program. Majors sharing a high percentage of
courses are reviewed together, i.e., art, business and music.
The Seton Hill University program review documents (Program Review Guidelines:
Undergraduate Programs; Program Review Guidelines: Graduate Programs) offer a
detailed outline for the collection of information and the analysis of program’s strengths
and weaknesses. While a recent professional accreditation review is viewed as a valuable
resource for the program self-study, the guidelines specify that an accreditation review
cannot substitute for the formal self-study. The guidelines also state that, in addition to
collecting factual data, the self-study is expected to supply, “an evaluative narration” that
reflects “the richness of the committee’s discussions” in each area.
Program review guidelines call for a comprehensive examination of the academic
attributes of programs in ten separate areas, as well as an examination of faculty, students
and program resources, including library and technological resources. In addition, the
program review includes the identification and evaluation of both internal and external
factors that impact the program. The self-study concludes with a summary of program
strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement. The program review is
then forwarded by the Provost to the external evaluator. External evaluators follow a
clearly outlined procedure in conducting their evaluations, which include site visits
(Program Review: Guidelines for External Evaluator’s Assessment). Finally, an
executive summary is completed which incorporates or challenges the external
evaluator’s feedback. The executive summary presents recommendations with a five-year
action plan, and is thus offers valuable guidance in the ongoing program review process
that continues in the interval in-between the production of formal self-studies.
Program review materials completed during the past decade are available for
examination. See also Standards 7 & 14 for a discussion of program review challenges,
particularly the issues of on-going review over the five-year period, using student product
as evidence, and the learning curve for faculty. Below are representative examples of the
findings and recommendations of recent program reviews (for a list of these, see Program
130
Review Chart 2003-2010). These results illustrate the benefits of the program review
process to teaching and learning.
Master of Business Administration. The program review, completed in April 2009, found
that some students lacked preparation, particularly in the area of statistics. Therefore,
successful completion of an undergraduate statistics course was made a prerequisite for
admission. The curriculum was strengthened through the addition of an accounting
course and a revision of the capstone requirement. Other recommendations included
recruiting more international students and expanding the number of blended/online
courses.
Forensic Science: The Forensic Science Program Review (2007-08) made curricular
recommendations designed to emphasize professional field experience and enhance the
relationship between students and the professional community. It also reorganized
courses to give students earlier exposure to criminalistics. One important and highly
visible strategy was to dedicate a vacant campus building (Seton House) to the program
for use as “The Crime Scene House,” to serve as an on-campus field site and recruitment
tool. A more subtle change involved noticing that the name of the course “Forensic
Biology” was not meeting the expectations of employers who were looking for
“Molecular Biology” on transcripts. The external reviewer concluded that graduates “will
be prepared for entry-level laboratory jobs” and that the degree is marketable beyond the
field of forensic science. The fact that the forensic science program, approved by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education in 2004, was itself the result of the Chemistry
Program Review of 2001-2002, also demonstrates the usefulness of the process.
Art. As a result of the Art Program Review of 2007-08, significant changes were made to
a number of majors in the visual arts that were designed to enhance learning and improve
recruitment and retention. For example, a decision was made to eliminate the Art and
Technology major, as well as the major in Visual Arts Management. Students majoring in
the latter program were transitioned into a new Arts Administration major.
131
Writing Popular Fiction. The master-level Writing Popular Fiction program was reviewed
in 2007-08, resulting in a number of recommendations. The first and most consequential
of these was that the program be converted from an M.A. to an M.F.A program in order
to compete with other creative writing programs, increase academic rigor, and improve
employment opportunities for graduates. It was also recommended that, as a low-
residence program that relies extensively on technology, technology be upgraded, and
that strategies to more effectively use technology to achieve program goals be developed.
Other recommendations called for enhancing the curriculum by, for example, adding
additional genre and theory courses and adding experiential components, such as
internships in pedagogy and publishing.
Sociology. The Sociology program review of 2003-04 resulted in changes in both
curriculum and faculty. One important result of the program review was the decision to
expand a concentration in criminal justice into a separate major, which was instituted in
the Fall of 2006. Meanwhile, the emphasis on the key skills of theory and research was
increased by the addition of new courses and the revision of existing courses. The review
also provided a rationale for the hiring of a second full-time member of the program,
which was accomplished in 2004-05.
In addition to the rather dramatic changes in curricula and staffing that often result from
program reviews, program review documents provide evidence of less sweeping but
nonetheless important revisions that have improved the quality of programs. For
example, in the program review process, each course syllabus is evaluated for the clarity
of its learning objectives and for their consistency with both overall program learning
objectives and university learning objectives. Program review committees have often
recommended rephrasing objectives in behavioral language, and have fostered greater
awareness of the hierarchy of learning objectives by examining them in terms of Bloom’s
Taxonomy. In addition, self-studies place a great emphasis upon improving the
consistency among learning objectives, educational activities, and assessment methods.
This emphasis has led to revising assessment methods to make them more appropriately
correspond to the content and level of learning objectives. As another example, the
132
essential work of integrating into major programs university-wide learning goals in areas
such as information literacy, writing, and Catholic Social Teaching occurs through the
program review process. Finally, the process of examining the interactions of the
program under review with other programs has resulted in closer collaboration among
programs and the elimination of course duplication.
Overall, the program review process is one of the strengths of academics at Seton Hill
University. Program review guidelines are comprehensive, with approximately 90
distinct items that must be addressed. This produces careful and detailed reports that are
lead to concrete improvements in programs. At the same time, the thoroughness of the
self-study poses significant demands on an already busy faculty. Ideally, the self-study is
completed in one academic year, from August to April, with the production of a self-
study report in the fall semester, a visit from an external examiner in early spring, an
executive summary drafted in March or April, and the submission of the summary to the
division, to the Dean’s Council, and to Faculty Senate in April or May. However, a
survey of recent program reviews demonstrates that this timeline is increasingly not being
met, as program reviews are taking longer to complete. This suggests a need to either
streamline the program review process or to allocate more resources to the process, such
as released-time for chairs of program reviews, in order to expedite their completion.
In what ways, and to what extent, do recently instituted programs exhibit the
principles of sound educational design?
Over the past decade, Seton Hill University has placed a strong emphasis on
differentiating its academic programs in a competitive marketplace. One result of this has
been the development of new and refocused academic programs both at the
undergraduate and graduate levels. While much of higher education was negatively
affected by the economic downturn of the late 2000s, Seton Hill continued to add new
programs in projected growth areas, to expand and/or refocus existing programs, and to
hire faculty as warranted. These actions were taken in accordance with the university
strategic plan, which includes the goal of enhancing academic recognition and quality by
133
developing or expanding academic offerings that build on the academic strengths of the
institution (Seton Hill University Strategic Plan 2009-2012). Under this goal, the strategic
plan identifies the tactics of improving the quality of education in particular fields of
study as well as increasing external recognition of those programs. The plan calls for
doing so in several ways: by instituting new undergraduate majors; by developing new
graduate programs, including certificate programs; and by enhancing existing programs
by increasing their rigor and bringing them more in line with professional standards.
In keeping with these principles, Seton Hill has in recent years undertaken significant
new initiatives in educational offerings. It has established undergraduate majors in the
growing field of criminology, with a Bachelor of Science in Forensic Science and a
Bachelor of Arts program in Criminal Justice. In the area of Visual and Performing Arts,
which has been designated a “Signature Program” at Seton Hill University, majors were
added in both Music Therapy and Dance. Programs have also been established or revised
to meet the needs of working or aspiring professionals. To this end, a number of new
graduate-level certificates have been added, including in Autism, Orthodontics, and
Genocide and Holocaust Studies. Several other programs have been revised to meet
external standards. In the field of Education, changes in Pennsylvania state standards
have been addressed by establishing a Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education: Pre-
Kindergarten to Grade 4 and a Master of Arts in Elementary/Middle Level Education. In
order to pursue accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and
Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE), the regulatory arm of the American
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the Master’s program Counseling
Psychology was revised as a Master of Arts in Marriage Family Therapy. In addition, the
Master of Science in Management was replaced by a Master of Business Administration
(MBA) program; the B.S. in Physician Assistant program was replaced with an M.S.
program (with BS/MS option of study), and the M.A. in Writing Popular Fiction was
revised to become an M.F.A. program. (For a complete list of these changes, see
“Recently Added and Revised Programs.”)
Before being implemented, new programs must pass through an approval process. The
guidelines for the process require that a need assessment be conducted and that the
134
existence of a market for the program be demonstrated. The proposal must offer an
explanation of how the program will further the mission of the university, and program
objectives must relate to university learning objectives. In addition, the guidelines require
that the curriculum design take into consideration the developmental needs of learners
(New Program/Specialization Approval Request).
The Orthodontics certificate program, implemented in Summer, 2010, exemplifies how
this process works and was described in Standard 6. The need assessment demonstrated
that a large unmet need for orthodontic services exists among low-income residents of
Westmoreland County. Seton Hill’s orthodontics program was established with the goals
of not only training practitioners who will serve the underserved region of southwestern
Pennsylvania, but directly providing both free and low-cost orthodontic services to the
indigent as well as to lower-income families (Orthodontics Project Narrative). In doing so,
the program furthers the mission of the University and is consistent with the principles of
Catholic Social Teaching, which recognize a moral obligation to serve the poor and the
needy. In terms of curriculum, the design reflects the standards of the Council on Dental
Accreditation, as well as the extensive clinical and teaching experience of the program’s
director. Courses employ an appropriate variety of educational methods, including discovery,
case- and problem-based learning, and the program culminates in a series of capstone
activities (Orthodontics Project Narrative, pp. 6-7).
As another example, a post-baccalaureate certificate in Genocide and Holocaust Studies was
introduced in 2007-08. This program represented an expansion of a historic commitment to
Holocaust education at Seton Hill University through the National Catholic Center for
Holocaust Education, which was established in 1987. Like the Center, the certificate
program is devoted to providing resources to educators to enable them to more effectively
guide their students in the study of this challenging but vital topic. Program objectives reflect
the University’s mission to “educate students to think and act critically, creatively and
ethically,” and the goal of instilling within them a commitment to transform the world. Given
that the need assessment demonstrated that a national market existed for this program, all
courses in the program were developed in online format in order to accommodate students at
a distance. In order to also serve the Seton Hill undergraduate population, courses have been
135
designed to meet the developmental needs of both graduate and undergraduate students, and
are offered at both the graduate and undergraduate levels (Genocide and Holocaust Studies
Program Approval Form).
The approval process for new programs appears to ensure that programs are consistent with
the mission of the university and exhibit the principles of sound educational design. While
the need assessment process in particular can place a significant burden on faculty and/or
staff, it is a necessary part of establishing the nature and extent of markets for programs. The
review process requires that the curriculum be in line with the mission of the university, and
that the means by which students will attain program and university learning objectives be
identified.
What steps are taken to ensure that the quality of teaching and learning in
alternative modes of course delivery (such as online instruction) and formats (such
as accelerated format) is comparable to that of in-class courses?
During the last ten years, Seton Hill has experienced growth in the number of both
undergraduate and graduate online course offerings, from a total of 13 online courses in
the Fall, 2005 semester to 37 online courses in the Fall, 2009 semester. An increase in the
number of students enrolled in online courses has also been noted, as 245 students were
enrolled in online courses in Fall, 2005 and a total of 510 students were enrolled in Fall,
2009 (Online Course Offerings Summary Spreadsheet).
As the demand for online course offerings steadily increased over the past decade, Seton
Hill recognized the need to ensure a high level of academic rigor for the online course
delivery format. It therefore established several measures to ensure the quality of
teaching and learning in alternative modes of course delivery and format are comparable
to that of conventional courses.
A formal online course approval process was implemented in the Spring, 2007 semester.
When designing a new online course, or when redesigning an existing classroom-based
course to be delivered in an online format, the instructor/course developer must submit a
136
formal proposal that is routed by the respective division chair to the Online Course
Review Team (an ad-hoc committee consisting of faculty, instructional design, and web
development representatives) for review. An independent review of the proposed online
course is critical to ensure that the course is both pedagogically sound and that the
technology to be used is realistic and available. The OCR Team reviews the proposal and
makes recommendations for improvement as necessary in the on-line format (Seton Hill
University Online Course Approval Process).
All SHU faculty members interested in teaching an online course are required to
successfully complete the Virtual Faculty Academy (VFA) or alternate approved training.
The VFA is a three-week web-based orientation to teaching in the virtual classrooms of
higher education designed for first-time online instructors. Participants complete
activities in a model online environment using the campus learning management system,
GriffinGate, in an asynchronous format. Topics of discussion include best practices of
online instruction, classroom management, instructional strategies, and the use of
emerging technologies (such as wikis, blogs, and podcasts). The VFA has been offered
twice per year (January and June) since its inception in June 2007, training a total of 62
SHU faculty (full-time and adjuncts) from all academic divisions in the best practices of
online instruction (Virtual Faculty Academy Documentation).
As with Seton Hill’s traditional courses, students in all online courses are provided the
opportunity to complete the IDEA course evaluation instrument for each online course.
The IDEA course evaluation for online courses includes a set of ten questions which
address issues specific to the online delivery format (IDEA Course Evaluation for Online
Courses). This evaluation provides feedback that is used to improve course quality.
In an effort to ensure high-quality teaching/instruction in those courses, Seton Hill
University has contracted with an outside consultant to conduct an off-site, quality
assurance review of at least five online courses annually over a three-year period. The
consultant will provide a written report of findings and recommendations and conduct a
follow-up call with Seton Hill faculty and staff to discuss objectives and outcomes. The
first five courses will be reviewed during the 2010-11 academic year, with the process
137
continuing over the next two years (Title III Quality Assurance Review of Online
Courses). Early courses reviewed will be those taught by faculty before the requirement
for participation in the Virtual Academy and/or those taught by faculty requesting an
external course review. Evaluations will be guided by an instrument that assesses key
aspects of course design (for a tool similar to the one to be used by consultants, see
Sample Online Quality Assurance Checklist).
Faculty training for online instruction and the review process for online courses are
appropriate methods for promoting the quality of online courses. The quality assurance
review to be conducted during this and future academic years should provide assessment
information that can be used to improve the effectiveness of online offerings. As
program reviews occur, if a course is offered face-to-face, as well as on-line, comparison
of student products will also be completed.
Since the early-1990s, Seton Hill University has been offering accelerated courses
through its Adult Degree Program (ADP). Currently, bachelor-degree programs in
Business and Human Services are offered entirely through accelerated courses, while
several other programs, including Accounting, Pastoral Ministry and Social Work, offer
significant numbers of accelerated courses. At the graduate level, the Master of Business
Administration and the Certificate in Genocide and Holocaust Studies are offered in
accelerated format.
It is appropriate that accelerated courses are reserved for adult and advanced learners
because of the time-management skills they require. Accelerated courses are designed in
accordance with adult education models, with an emphasis on life and work experience
and an expectation that students accomplish significant independent work outside of the
classroom. While accelerated courses often employ different techniques than their full-
semester counterparts, the learning objectives in accelerated courses must be the same as
those of full-semester courses. As part of the Seton Hill University program review
process, the syllabi for each course in the program are carefully studied. Any
138
discrepancies in the scope or objectives of accelerated and full-semester classes are
noted, and needed revisions are made.
In order to investigate the similarities and differences among full-semester and
accelerated courses, a review of sample courses was conducted for this self-study
(Comparison of Accelerated and Full-Semester Courses). The review found that in terms
of learning objectives, amount of reading and writing, and numbers of assignments, the
two groups of courses are very similar. It seems evident that the program review process,
as well as the guidance of division chairs in the development of accelerated courses, has
been sufficient to produce consistency in quality of education between accelerated and
full-semester courses. While it was out of the scope of the working group, a further study
of evidence of student learning through examination of student work would strengthen
this assumption and is addressed in the full program review process.
It is important to maintain a balance between online and face-to-face offerings. It is
essential that the training of faculty for online course instruction and the evaluation of
online courses continue.
How are learning resources and a focus on information literacy used to foster
effective teaching and learning?
Seton Hill University’s commitment to quality learning resources and to a focus on
information literacy has continued to develop and evolve throughout the last ten years.
Library holdings have progressively migrated from print to electronic versions in order to
support both on-campus and distance-learning programs. At the same time, the university
has sharpened its focus on developing information literacy throughout the curriculum. An
Information Literacy Committee was developed in 2004 and has coordinated the
university-wide efforts to ensure that information literacy instruction and skill-building
activities are incorporated cohesively throughout the curriculum.
Seton Hill’s Reeves Memorial Library maintains a collection of approximately 124,000
volumes. The serials collection totals approximately 15,000 titles, the majority of which
139
are now electronic subscriptions through the various databases accessible through the
library’s website. About 250 of the serials are still purchased in print. This migration
from print to electronic collections maximizes the library’s ability to provide resources to
all of the university’s students, faculty, and staff, including those involved in distance
programs. It also allows librarians and faculty to teach many research and information
skills without being physically in the library building (ACRL 2009 Trends and Statistics
Survey; Print Periodicals 1-1-05; Print Periodicals 1-1-11).
It is essential that library collections and staffing be examined on an ongoing basis to
ensure that Seton Hill is able to fulfill its vision of leadership in the information age.
Librarians are currently developing a strategic plan for the library’s next ten years, and
this plan requires increased space for collaborative student work, improved technological
infrastructure (including more electrical outlets for device charging), and furniture
conducive to the use of mobile and collaborative technology. An improved library
website that facilitates better access to information is another part of the library’s vision
and will require the library staff to work closely with the Seton Hill Information
Technology department.
In addition to the space and technology concerns, maintaining a quality collection will
continue to be vital. The library’s budget for monographs and serials has shrunk by
nearly $12,000 in the last ten years, with a larger percentage of that budget being devoted
to serials. During this time, the number of library staff has only increased by one half
time position, while the student body has increased by approximately 50% and the
number of faculty has increased significantly as well. In order to provide adequate access
to licensed content and to assist students and faculty with research and other information
needs, the library may require increased resources, space, and/or staff (ACRL 1999-2000
Statistical Survey; ACRL 2009 Trends and Statistics Survey).
Seton Hill’s Information Literacy Committee was created to ensure an information-
literate student body. The members were chosen to represent the writing center, the
library, the information technology department, and faculty from each academic division.
140
The Committee created an institutional definition of information literate students in
December 2004, and this definition became a standard to guide Seton Hill’s focus on
information literacy and effective teaching and learning (Information Literacy Committee
Minutes 12-15-04; Information Literacy Definition). Seton Hill has ensured that members
of the committee received information literacy training in order to better discharge the
mission of the group; the university has sent three members of the Information Literacy
Committee to the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Immersion program,
which provides comprehensive training in information literacy to instruction librarians.
Additionally, two members of the committee were among Seton Hill’s four attendees at
the Council of Independent Colleges’ Information Fluency in the Disciplines (focus on
English) workshop in the spring of 2010.
Class sessions with a librarian who provides research and information literacy instruction
are important components of Seton Hill’s information literacy program. Since the
2006/2007 academic year, librarians have taught an average of 70 information literacy
class sessions per year and have reached an average of 1,135 students per year
(Information Literacy Classes). Many of these class sessions are taught as part of LA101
Seminar in Thinking and Writing (STW) classes, which teach writing and critical
thinking skills. Each section of STW is required to have at least one class session devoted
to research and information literacy concepts. Assessment of these class sessions was
begun in the fall of 2008, and, in an effort to improve the assessment, the method was
changed the following year. This lack of consistent data across several terms is one
weakness that should be addressed by continued and consistent assessment, which
includes examination of actual student work, indicates that the sessions have been largely
successful.
The original assessment project, which reviewed the STW classes in the fall 2008
semester, reveals that students rated these research and information literacy sessions as
very helpful and informative. The students gave the class sessions an average score of 8.5
on a 10-value Likert scale, with “10” being the most beneficial. This assessment method
was replaced by a five-question quiz the following year. Of the five review questions
141
administered to STW students at the conclusion of the sessions in the Fall, 2009 and
Spring, 2010 semesters, four of the questions were answered correctly by approximately
84% of the students. The fifth question, which asked students to identify the best place to
search for journal articles about a specific topic, was answered correctly by only about
35% of the students. Because this question evaluates the ability to locate and access
needed information, an important part of the information literacy skill set, the
disappointing score has uncovered a need for more emphasis and class time on that
subject (see STW FA08, FA09, SP10 Final Reports).
In addition to the class sessions within the Seminar in Thinking and Writing sections,
information literacy classes are also embedded in a variety of courses throughout the
general curriculum at the discretion of the faculty. These class sessions were also
assessed, and the assessment indicated that the classes were “quite successful.” Because
the topics covered and assessed in these sessions varied due to the differing natures of the
courses in which the sessions were embedded, specific patterns were quite difficult to
detect (Embedded Information Literacy Study 2009). The librarians are continuing to
work on developing an assessment method that can be applied in these different classes in
such a way as to make comparisons between them meaningful.
The Information Literacy Committee determined that it would be beneficial to assess the
information literacy skill levels of incoming students in order to more effectively address
areas where student skills needed the most development. The Texas Information Literacy
Tutorial (TILT) was chosen for this purpose because an in-house assessment method was
unfeasible at the time. TILT was administered to the STW classes in the 2008/2009
academic year; approximately 56% of the STW students participated in the tutorial and
accompanying assessment. Of these participants, approximately 94.5% of the students
scored 80% or above on the assessment portion (TILT SP09 Assessment Report). While
the scores of the students who completed TILT were acceptable, the lack of widespread
participation is a weakness that is being addressed by administering the incoming
assessment in a different course. The University of Texas recently stopped offering TILT,
so the Information Literacy Committee has created a replacement. This new “Information
142
Literacy Survey” will be administered to first- and fourth-year students; it is currently
(Fall, 2010) being administered for the first time as a requirement in the first-year LA102
Connections class.
Seton Hill University’s Information Literacy Committee has also created course
assessment rubrics for faculty to use when evaluating the information literacy content of
the courses they teach (Information Literacy Rubrics). Librarians review the completed
rubrics as part of program reviews and make suggestions pertaining to ways that faculty
can ensure consistent and comprehensive integration of information literacy skills
throughout the curriculum. The rubrics are now being implemented as part of the
program review process, and several courses have already utilized the rubrics
(Information Literacy: Course Assessment Forms). Initial results are promising and
indicate that the rubrics are an effective tool for ensuring more uniform and complete
integration of information literacy skills throughout all programs.
Over half of the Seton Hill student body is receiving dedicated information literacy
instruction from a librarian in a class session in a given year. The assessment of these
sessions indicates that these classes are quite successful, though continued, consistent
assessment will continue to be necessary in order to determine strengths as well as areas
needing further development. The course assessment rubrics will allow the Information
Literacy Committee to develop a comprehensive view of information literacy
development throughout the curriculum as a whole, ensuring that students in all programs
will develop all of the skills in a sequential and integrated manner. Continued
administration of the first- and fourth-year assessment quiz will allow the university to
demonstrate the information literacy skill and knowledge development that occurs in the
course of a Seton Hill education.
Standard 13
How is experiential learning used in various forms to enhance the quality of
teaching and learning?
143
Experiential learning is a vital part of learning in all academic programs at Seton Hill
University. Two main forms of experiential learning are internships/field placements and
service learning.
Field Placements
Field placements, which include field work, internships, apprenticeships, practicums and
professional experiences (Seton Hill University Catalog 2010-12, pp. 18-19), are
integrated into most undergraduate majors and some graduate programs, at Seton Hill
University. In the review process, programs examine the effectiveness of the field
placements, and consider how field experiences are linked to academic course work, and
how students are guided in their application of theory and research to practice (Program
Review Guidelines: Undergraduate Programs, p. 6; Program Review Guidelines:
Graduate Programs, p. 6). In arranging field placements, many program faculty work in
collaboration with the CareerWorks.
CareerWorks, a new department of the university as of October 2005, replaced the former
Office of Career Development (1984-2005) with the goal of integrating entrepreneurship
education, experiential learning and career development. The catalyst for integrating
entrepreneurial skills, careers and internships was the implementation of a grant from the
United States Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary
Education (FIPSE) that was funded from 2004 to June 2006. The grant enabled Seton
Hill University to expand and improve the offerings for entrepreneurship education in the
core curriculum and experiential learning across the university.
As a result of the FIPSE project, seven departmental goals and objectives were identified
in April 2005 and became a part of the Seton Hill University Strategic Plan for 2005-10.
They included the identification of stakeholders and possible funding sources,
benchmarking and research, program organization, education and training, internship
measurement, and collaborative community activities (CareerWorks Strategic Plan 2005-
08).
144
Services provided by CareerWorks include: career testing (Strong Interest Inventory,
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Harrington O’Shea) and exploration of majors; career
counseling and coaching; resume and cover letter reviews; interviewing tips and
techniques; internship placement assistance; job and internship fairs; Career Days; job
search strategies and resources; on-campus interviewing; graduate and professional
school assistance; classroom presentations; and career programming.
Using both qualitative and quantitative data, CareerWorks prepares monthly, annual and
programmatic assessments. There are five primary areas assessed including: student
learning, career development, customer service/satisfaction, program effectiveness, and
job and internship placement. Major annual surveys and corresponding reports include
the Post-Graduate Survey and Report of recent graduates, the CareerWorks Client
Statistical Report, the CareerWorks Events Statistical Report and the Comprehensive
Internship and Experiential Learning Report. Career programming, career counseling,
job and internship fairs, and student learning are continually evaluated and assessed so
that improvements can be made, quality preserved, and student learning enhanced. (For a
summary of assessment results, see CareerWorks Assessment Activity Reports, Fall 08,
Spring 09, Dec. 09.)
The CareerWorks staff serve as both a facilitators and liaisons for the overall internship
and experiential learning registration and orientation process. The department staff assists
the students, registrar, faculty members, employers, and the university overall.
CareerWorks links with most academic programs of the university regarding internships
and experiential learning with the relationship and collaboration dependent on the
requests and needs of the program and faculty. In 2007 CareerWorks initiated a survey
and created a database of academic program information regarding internships called The
CareerWorks Internship Inventory. The Inventory is updated as requirements and
personnel change and is used by the Registrar’s office in addition to CareerWorks.
CareerWorks maintains information about internships via their secured website of the
College Central Network (CCN) at www.collegecentral.com/setonhill. Employers contact
CareerWorks and post their opportunities online at CCN. Students register on CCN to
upload their resumes and search for internships and jobs. CareerWorks prepares students
145
by assisting them with resume writing, interviewing and the overall internship acquisition
process. The department encourages all students to discuss their internship readiness with
their faculty advisor or a faculty member who will be supervising and assigning the
internship grade.
The Seton Hill University Strategic Plan 2009-2012 identified the need for the continued
improvement of the experiential education and internship program. The standards for
good practice from the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education
(CAS) and from the National Society for Experiential Education (NSE) were reviewed
and used in the development of the current plan for enhancing experiential learning. As a
result of the literature review and research, an Internship Steering Committee was
organized in spring of 2010. Members of the Committee include students, CareerWorks
staff, and two faculty members from each academic division. The Committee goals,
objectives and action steps were developed using the eight tasks for good practice in
experiential education from the NSE. In addition, the development of “five star
internships,” that provide meaningful educational experiences for the student, were made
a priority to ensure that all work/learning sites include an environment where there is
effective planning, orientation, support, supervision, feedback, and evaluation.
A departmental review of CareerWorks to evaluate the functioning and processes of best
practices is underway, with a peer review to be conducted in Spring, 2011. Current
challenges include:
1) How to continue to leverage technology in new and effective ways including
online learning, online career information, online marketing, secured internship
and job searching, career department management, job fair management, and
career mentoring;
2) A limited departmental budget and the expectation to provide more services will
be an opportunity to refine core values and best practices;
3) Continuing the work of the Internship Steering Committee and the action plan for
improving the quality of internships, integration of theory and practice, and
internship supervision and assessment;
146
4) Attending to needs of the broadening and growing community of constituents:
students, faculty, alumni, employers, and parents;
5) Working smarter with other institutions of higher education for a growing number
of collaborative initiatives.
Service Learning
Service learning is defined as a community service activity that strengthens the academic
component of a specific area of study. Effective service learning entails several elements:
preparation, during which students become familiar with the goals and objectives of the
organization; participation in the actual work of the organization; and reflection and
critical analysis of the experience.
Service learning is integrated in various ways into academic programs across the
university, as the following two cases illustrate.
Social Work. As a prelude to the required 500-hour field practicum, Social Work majors
complete a series of four service learning activities. The process begins in their first year,
in conjunction with SW215 Introduction to the Profession of Social Work, where
students visit and participate in activities at a food pantry, residential senior citizen
center, and other agencies that serve vulnerable populations. In their first practice course,
SW330 Generalist Practice I: Individuals, students interview agency staff, job shadow,
and accompany staff on home visits where permitted. In the second professional practice
course, SW331 Generalist Practice II: Families and Groups, the focus is on observation
and assistance, as appropriate, at organizations that serve delinquent and dependent youth
and organizations who provide wrap-around services for emotionally disturbed youth and
their families. Finally, in Generalist Practice III: Organizations and Communities, the
emphasis is on service in agencies that serve both inner-city and rural communities.
CAST. Creating Agents of Social Transformation is a collaboration between Seton Hill
University and the Blackburn Center Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Through
classroom projects as well as campus groups, CAST involves faculty and students in
service learning projects that support the goals and objectives of the Blackburn Center.
147
Activities include: the development of talking points and position papers on critical issues
related to the root causes of domestic and sexual violence; the identification of current
literature that reports the results of research on domestic and sexual violence, to be
included through links on the Blackburn Center’s website; the development of
communication resources such as public service announcements and press releases; the
development of a public policy agenda by which the Blackburn Center can pursue the
issues that are most pressing for its mission.
In 2009, Seton Hill was honored by the Corporation for National and Community Service
with a place on the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll, the
highest federal recognition a school can achieve for its commitment to service learning.
Honorees for the award were chosen based on a series of selection factors including
scope and innovation of service projects, percentage of student participation in service
activities, incentives for service, and the extent to which the school offers academic
service-learning courses. The university offers students opportunities to engage in service
through a number of large, campus-wide service initiatives such as Martin Luther King
Day, Labor of Love, Saturdays of Service, and Habitat for Humanity trips. While the
university does maintain some data on the numbers of students who participate in
university-wide service activities each year (CNCS Applications 2008, 2009, 2010), there
is no detailed data collected about the students who participate and if and in what ways
they are able to link these experiences to what they are learning in the academic
curriculum. Increased tracking and more communication with faculty about how they
can effectively connect campus-wide service activities to course material would enhance
the educational benefits of these activities.
Experiential learning is an important and growing component of education at Seton Hill.
Appropriate faculty members evaluate experiential learning, and the CareerWorks office
plays a useful role in facilitating experiential learning on campus. Although it is clear
through discussions with faculty and browsing through the university catalogue that
service-learning is incorporated into many academic programs, tracking to what specific
extent service-learning is taking place and the impact it is having on student learning is
148
difficult. Currently, courses with a service-learning component do not receive any
special designation on the schedule or in the catalogue. In some cases, the description of
a course in the catalogue mentions a service-learning requirement, but this not always the
case and there is no way, for example, for a student to get a listing of all service-learning
classes in their area or for the university to easily track how many and which courses
include service-learning. This issue will be presented to the Experiential Learning
Steering Committee, Dean’s Council and the Assessment and Planning Council for
discussion.
How effective is teaching and learning in non-credit programs?
At Seton Hill University, under-prepared students are served through non-credit courses
and support services designed to increase their academic readiness. However, most non-
credit education is in the form of a service to the larger community. These programs are
an important means by which the university deepens its relationship to Greensburg and
surrounding municipalities. Much of this educational outreach takes place through
university centers, including E-Magnify, the Early Childhood Development Center, the
National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education, and the Center for Family Therapy.
Non-credit, community-oriented instruction also takes place in the Community Arts
program and through Project Forward.
CAPS Program
Non-credit courses are offered to under-prepared students through the Collegiate and
Academic Personal Success (CAPS) program. The CAPS program is particularly targeted
to serve individuals who are low income, first generation, with academic need, or with
disabilities but also is available to all students in the Seton Hill community (for more
information about CAPS, see Standard 9).
The Admissions Committee identifies incoming students who are at risk as candidates for
the CAPS program. The most academically at risk of those students (Opportunity
students) are required to attend a one-week academic workshop prior to their first
semester. In addition, Opportunity students complete GS098 Mastering College
149
Academics I and GS099 Mastering College Academics II. A third developmental course,
GS095 Skills for Academic Success, is required of all students who are placed on
probation, as well as transfer students who need academic support.
Grade point averages, persistence, and graduation rates are tracked students who
participate in the CAPS program. Evidence indicates the non-credit courses do have a
beneficial effect. Beginning in Fall, 2007, GS098 has been taken not only by Opportunity
students but also by all students admitted through the CAPS program. In the three years
since that policy was implemented, CAPS students have had an overage higher GPAs
than those who did not take the course (GS 098 Report).
E-Magnify
In 1991, Seton Hill University was a pioneer when it established a center for women
entrepreneurs to address the needs of the country’s growing number of women-owned
businesses. Today, Seton Hill University’s E-Magnify provides a continuum of programs,
services and resources to help women at the start up, emerging and established stages of
their business. The Center is growing to expand its business counseling,
training/education and mentoring services to offer its programs and services across a 27-
county western Pennsylvania marketplace by Fall, 2011.
E-Magnify launched during the past decade with the development of a comprehensive
strategic plan in 2003 by a multidisciplinary group of internal and external participants
(E-Magnify 2003-2006 Strategic Plan). Shortly after the adoption of its strategic plan,
The Center began to research the perception of its identity among internal and external
constituents. After recognizing the disconnection between its organizational name and the
services being delivered, it was determined that the Center should rebrand (Organization
Identity Final Report, September 29, 2005). In 2006, the program officially changed its
name from The National Education Center for Women in Business to E-Magnify (tagline:
Entrepreneurs, Experience, Education). Anecdotal information suggests that the new
identity provides a more consistent image for the constituency served by E-Magnify,
including a growing coeducational student body at the university. It will be necessary,
150
however, to implement a formal identity study in the future to fully realize the impact of
this change.
In 2006, a significant milestone was achieved when E-Magnify was awarded federal
funding as an official women’s business center under the U.S. Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) Office of Women’s Business Ownership (OWBO). Currently, E-
Magnify is one of only four women’s business center programs in Pennsylvania and one
of 110 in the United States. The Federal program established a five-year initial funding
grant for E-Magnify, which it continues to operate under today. As an SBA women’s
business center, E-Magnify has added both breadth and depth to its programs and
services. To meet the customized needs of clients, one-on-one business counseling was
added to its portfolio of services which largely assists clients in preparing business plans
to achieve access to credit (US SBA Women’s Business Center Proposal 2006).
Recent tough economic conditions have provided an even greater opportunity E-Magnify.
Widespread layoffs have proven to be an ideal time for furloughed employees to consider
alternative career paths, often following their desire to open their own businesses. As a
result, E-Magnify’s counseling clientele has increased 55% in the past four years with the
Center serving 155 individual clients at Fiscal Year End 2009 (SBA EDMIS Statistical
Management Report 2009). An efficient and effective method of client follow-up and
documentation of the economic impact their businesses have on the Western PA Region
is a challenge E-Magnify has identified for improvement in fiscal year 2011. E-Magnify
has also continued to substantially grow its training client base during the past four years.
Clients served have increased 43% since Fiscal Year End 2007 with the Center providing
training for 888 clients at 2009 Fiscal Year End.
Educational offerings now include an 18-hour course to meet the growing needs of
clients to develop a formal business plan. Core Four is offered in a variety of formats
including six week, three hours per week sessions as well as an intensive two-day
training. Overall, participants rate that they are “very satisfied” with the course. They
most appreciate the instructor, peer interaction, content and organization of the course
and the practical knowledge gained (Core Four Participant Evaluations 2009-2010). In
151
Spring, 2010, the curriculum received course approval by Seton Hill University and
beginning in Fall, 2010, is being offered as a 100 level, one-credit elective course as part
of the University’s Undergraduate Business Program. Students across all majors
interested in business ownership are highly encouraged to gain exposure to what is
required to consider opening a business as part of this new course offering.
E-Magnify has hosted an annual full-day small business conference for women business
owners for twelve consecutive years, through 2009. During that time, satisfaction rates
were consistently very good. In 2009, 96.8% of conference attendees indicated that they
would attend the conference again; and 93.3% said that they would recommend the
conference to someone they knew in the future. 93.5% of the respondents to the 2009
Conference Survey described their experience as “good” or “great” (E-Magnify 2009
Annual Conference Survey). As the recession began to impact business owners, however,
attendees’ feedback requested consideration of a shorter timeframe for the training
opportunity at a lesser price point. As a result, E-Magnify had an opportunity in 2010 to
launch a new, more economically effective signature training event – Women’s
Entrepreneurial Symposium – at the university’s newly opened Performing Arts Center in
downtown Greensburg. The new event responded to conferees feedback with both a half-
day format and a reduced registration fee. E-Magnify will continue to build on this new
symposium format in 2011.
Early Childhood Development Center
The Seton Hill University Child Development Center has been an integral part of the
university for 59 years. It was originally founded and governed by the Home Economics
Department (Family and Consumer Sciences). In the 1960s, the Center came under the
direction of the Psychology Department. Since the late 1980s, the administration of the
Child Development Center has been in the Division of Education.
The mission of the Seton Hill Child Development Center is twofold. First, the Child
Development Center is an accredited early childhood environment dedicated to providing
an excellent education for children and their families. In addition, the Center serves as a
learning laboratory for future teachers.
152
The Seton Hill University Child Development Center is accredited by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The NAEYC Academy for
Early Childhood Program Accreditation sets and monitors standards for high quality
programs for young children and accredits programs that meet these
standards. Since 1985, NAEYC has offered a national, voluntary accreditation system to
set professional standards for early childhood education programs, and to help families
identify high-quality programs. The Child Development Center has been accredited by
the Academy of Early Childhood Programs since 1994. The most recent accreditation
decision occurred in 2007.
The decision report summary rated the Child Development Center and Kindergarten in 10
areas. To achieve NAEYC Accreditation, a program must meet at least 80% of the
criteria on which it is accessed. The percentage of met criteria by program standards for
the Child Development Center is as follows: Relationships: 100%; Curriculum: 88%;
Teaching: 100%; Assessment of Child Progress: 100%; Health: 100%; Teachers: 80%;
Families: 82%; Community Relations: 100%; Physical Environment: 95%; Leadership
and Management: 100%. The areas in the 80th percentile range required improvements
and are being addressed (NAEYC Decision Report 2007).
NAEYC accreditation has a five-year term. Annual reports are submitted on the 1st, 2nd,
3rd, and 4th anniversaries. The purpose of the annual report is to: ensure that accredited
programs are continuing to meet the 10 NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and
Accreditation Criteria; increase the accountability of the NAEYC accreditation system
for children, families, and all customers of NAEYC accreditation; and to provide
NAEYC with the most up-to-date information related to the program’s current daily
operations and overall characteristics. The Child Development center submitted the 3rd
anniversary annual report in June, 2009. At each anniversary date, the Child
Development Center retained the accreditation with “no further action required.” The 4th
report will be submitted in June, 2011 and the re-accreditation process will begin again.
All annual reports are on file and available for review. Additionally, a yearly family
153
evaluation is required by NAEYC (NAEYC Self-Study Materials). The accreditation
standards of NAEYC exceed those of the Department of Education of Pennsylvania. The
fact that the Center has consistently achieved accreditation sets its program apart from all
others in this region.
National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education
Seton Hill University began its National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education
(NCCHE) on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, November 9, 1987. The university
established the Center in keeping with its mission statement, which emphasizes that
Seton Hill is “rooted in Judeo-Christian values,” and as part of a national Catholic
movement toward Holocaust studies in response to the urging of Pope John Paul II to
recognize the significance of the Shoah. The Center’s mission, as reaffirmed by its
Advisory Board as part of the 2009-2012 Strategic Planning process in conjunction with
the university’s planning process, is stated as follows:
The mission of the National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education is to counter
anti-Semitism and to foster Catholic-Jewish relations by making the fruits of
Holocaust scholarship accessible to educators at every level, especially in
Catholic colleges and universities throughout the United States. To this end, the
Center sustains a vital cooperative program with Yad Vashem in Israel and
designs events to assist educators in shaping appropriate curricular responses for
students of every age.
Since 1989, the Center’s premier program has been a summer institute, the Catholic
Institute for Holocaust Studies (CIHS), sponsored cooperatively with Yad Vashem,
Hebrew University and the Isaac Jacob Institute for Religious Law. The Center recruits
educators working in Catholic institutions throughout the United States to participate in
the program, which takes place in Jerusalem. The goal is to have four to six participants
per year. In the past three years, twenty-one people have participated, including two
Seton Hill community members. Sister Gemma Del Duca, S.C., co-director in Israel,
coordinates each year’s group and also lectures in the program at Yad Vashem.
Regarding the assessment of this program, the “University Assessment Template” was
154
used to develop an assessment plan for the CIHS. The CIHS assessment is a one-year
follow-up to determine how participants are using what they learned through the program
in Israel. The assessments provide concrete evidence of the benefits of CIHS (see CIHS
Assessments for 2007, 2008 and 2009).
Another important program of the Center is its academic conference, held every three
years. The conference is designed to equip educators to shape appropriate curricular
responses in Holocaust education. Conference proceedings, now titled The Ethel LeFrak
Holocaust Education Conference Proceedings, are published and distributed to the
libraries of all Catholic colleges and universities in the United States as well as to
educators and Holocaust scholars worldwide. Participant experiences at the conference
are also evaluated, and during the Center’s 2009 Conference, 46 participants submitted
response forms, including “Overall Conference Evaluation” forms, “Speaker and
Presenter Experience” forms and, “Concurrent Session Evaluation” forms. This data is
reviewed post-conference and mailed to presenters to provide them with individual
feedback regarding presentations (NCCHE 2009 Conference Evaluation Summary).
Over the years, assessment has enabled staff to adjust these programs to keep them
relevant to their target audiences.
Regionally, the Center has offered a variety of training opportunities for teachers,
particularly those from local Catholic Schools. This past summer, the Center partnered
with the Greensburg Diocese to offer a two-day, intensive workshop aiming to
reinvigorate those presently teaching the Holocaust and to train additional teachers so that
every diocesan school will teach the Holocaust from a Catholic perspective. The Center
also offers a changing slate of fall and spring semester programs offered most often in
partnership with Seton Hill University programs and departments. Past programs have
included art exhibits, plays, concerts, guest lectures and visiting scholars. Each
November, the Center and Campus Ministry conduct an interfaith Kristallnacht
Remembrance Service marking the Center’s anniversary and featuring Holocaust
survivors. Each spring, the Center participates with two local ministeriums and other
155
organizations to plan and conduct a community-wide interfaith Yom HaShoah
commemoration in which Seton Hill students, faculty and staff participate.
A primary strength of the Center’s non-credit offerings is that they are designed to meet
the needs of educators with varying degrees of knowledge and experience in terms
teaching about the Holocaust and genocide. The Catholic Institute for Holocaust Studies
brings together educators from varied educational settings and helps them to fill the gaps
in their own learning. These educators are also exposed to up-to-date teaching methods
and curricula appropriate to their students’ grade levels. Further, the program provides
Catholic teachers with a rationale for teaching the Holocaust in Catholic schools. It also
leads them to confront issues about the Church and the Holocaust as well as to study the
state of contemporary Catholic-Jewish relations.
In 2008, noted New York philanthropist Ethel LeFrak donated a munificent gift of
$750,000 to Seton Hill University’s National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education
(NCCHE) to endow The Ethel LeFrak Holocaust Education Conference and create The
Ethel LeFrak Student Scholars of the Holocaust Fund. This endowment fund supports the
recruitment of national and international speakers, sponsors the art, music and film events
that accompany the Holocaust Education Conference, and underwrites the publication of
The Ethel LeFrak Holocaust Education Conference Proceedings. The Ethel LeFrak
Student Scholars Fund provides annual scholarships to support Seton Hill student
participation in the following activities: the Summer Institute at Yad Vashem, the
Holocaust Remembrance Authority in Israel; The Ethel LeFrak Holocaust Education
Conference; the Genocide and Holocaust Studies Program at Seton Hill; and activities
relating to international travel, Jewish-Catholic traditions, and readings and research to
advance understanding of significant Holocaust issues past and present. In addition, the
Ethel LeFrak Outstanding Student Scholar of the Holocaust Award in the amount of
$1,000 is presented annually to the Seton Hill Student who writes a reflection paper that
best demonstrates a keen and advanced understanding of the lessons of the Holocaust or
another specific act of genocide.
156
If there is any weakness in the Center, it may be that its activities aim to reach such a
varied audience—educators at the middle school, high school and college/university
levels. The format of both the Catholic Institute for Holocaust Studies and the LeFrak
conference provides opportunities for educators to elect sessions tailored to their specific
levels. While not always perfect, this approach has worked for both programs. In
conclusion, the Center plans to continue offering the programs described above. With
assessment plans in place, the Center intends to use the results to learn and guide progress
in strengthening these offerings.
Center for Family Therapy
The Seton Hill University Center for Family Therapy serves as a community-based
mental health care center and training site for the Westmoreland County area.
Therapeutic services are provided by advanced graduate students in the Marriage and
Family Therapy Program specializing in individual, couple, and family therapy. Using a
holistic approach, the therapists take into consideration the entire family system of each
of out clients. The Center for Family Therapy is also utilized as a training facility, where
the therapist-in-training are supervised and mentored by the faculty in the Marriage and
Family Therapy Program.
The Center opened in November 2004, and was started due to a grant from the U.S. Dept.
of Justice to work specifically with juveniles. It was originally designed to specifically
target troubled children and adolescents, at risk-youth and their families, hence filling a
gap that now exists with regard to the availability of family therapy. The Center operates
on a sliding cost scale and is accessible to families of diverse economic resources. The
Center works on the beliefs that treatment and length of care are clinically based, not
financially based.
The Center’s therapists are advanced graduate students who are specializing in marital
and family therapy. They are mature individuals with diverse life and professional
experience. Therapists are supervised by faculty who are experienced clinicians and
members of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
157
(AAMFT). Therapists and supervisors are committed to high standards of professional
competence and integrity. The Center’s therapists provide an array of services to
individuals, couples, and families. They assist client with issues including: parent-child
conflict, divorce, relational conflict, depression, pre-marital therapy, coping with death
and loss, etc.
Since 2005, the Center has kept annual reports on total intakes, total client hours, and
total amount deposited. The therapists at the Center have seen a total number of 456
individuals, couples, and families, conducted 3,425 hours of therapeutic services, and
collected $37,818.10 in client revenues (Center for Family Therapy Yearly Totals).
The impact of the Center for Family Therapy includes providing mental health services to
low-income individuals, couples, and families throughout Greensburg area that is
inclusive of a 20-mile radius. The Center provides an opportunity for hands-on training
and supervision for the students training to become family therapists. In addition, The
Center services the mission of the university to help and empower disenfranchised
persons. However, the Center continues to struggle with building a large enough client
base to fully fund operations. Since family therapy is relatively new to Western PA,
informing clients and area mental health providers of the importance of family therapy as
a healthcare option is often a challenge.
Community Arts Program
The Community Arts Program enables students and faculty in the arts at Seton Hill to
have an impact on the broader community through the following programs: The
Community Music Program, which offers Seton Hill students majoring in music the
opportunity to teach private lessons; the Seton Hill University Dance Academy, which
utilizes university instructors and students in teaching dance to members of the
community; the Youth Honors Band, which is an auditioned 80-member band offered
annually to 6th, 7th and 8th grade students, allowing Seton Hill music education students
to work alongside music program faculty and local music educators; and Winds 'N' Jazz
158
in June, which is a week-long intensive camp for approximately thirty-five students in
grades 8-12 conducted by Seton Hill music program faculty and local music educators.
The use of faculty and students as educators for these programs allows for easy and open
communication with the program director, who is the main link to the community and
offers opportunities for recruitment to the university’s music and dance programs
(identified as “Signature Programs”). The Community Arts Program makes productive
use of teaching spaces and utilities when not in use by university activities and makes the
community participants feel comfortable and welcomed on campus. Growing enrollment
(Community Arts Enrollment Statistics) and the increase in revenue (Community Arts
Revenue Comparison) for the Community Music Program and especially the Dance
Academy indicate the success of the program. The Youth Honors Band requires almost
no promotion or marketing due to its established reputation with local music educators.
In terms of assessment, student instructors are assessed informally by the director and
other instructors of the Community Music Program, who observe the progress of their
students performing in recitals each semester; any concerns brought to the attention of the
program director by other instructors or parents are then addressed with the student
instructor by the program director. While no formal assessment currently exists for the
experiential learning associated with the Honors Band and Winds 'N' Jazz in June camp,
the program director typically has a wrap-up meeting with clients in each activity to
discuss what went well and what concerns should be addressed in the future. The Wind
‘N’ Jazz in June camp participants are asked to complete a survey of their experience in
the camp (see sample results from most recent year, WNJ 2010 Student Survey). Future
plans should include more formal assessment of the impact of these programs on both the
school-age participants and on the university students who assist with the programs. This
can be accomplished through surveys and questionnaires prepared jointly by the director
and key faculty members to be completed by university students, the participants, the
faculty, and local music educators.
The growth of the program has increased the workload and responsibilities of the
director, which might result in the need for an additional employee to aid with clerical
159
tasks. The program’s growth has also illuminated a need for more private music lesson
teaching spaces and another adequately sized dance studio with parking/drop off areas for
parents of younger students. Early-stage plans to add dance studios to accommodate the
newly added dance major may alleviate some issues depending on the number of studios,
location, and proximity to other studios. The growing number of dance students has
indicated a need to create a centralized tool for instructors to track progress and document
the growth of each student to ensure that adequate number of classes is offered each year
to accommodate all dancers while maintaining low student/teacher ratios. A process for
formal evaluation of instructors by supervisors, colleagues, and students is needed to
identify successful techniques and areas of improvement.
Project Forward
The Project Forward Talent Search program is primarily funded by the U.S. Department
of Education and sponsored by Seton Hill University. The program operates in the
tradition of the Sisters of Charity and Seton Hill University to serve the educational needs
of the less fortunate in our community. It provides instructional workshops for students in
grades 7-12 related to personal skills; decision-making; goal setting; educational
planning; and career information. Operating in 26 schools in southwestern Pennsylvania,
the program serves 1,450 students. At least 2/3 of the students must be from low-income
families and will potentially be the first generation in their families to graduate from
college (Project Forward Executive Summary).
Through a variety of activities, the program encourages participants to remain in school,
attain grade promotions, graduate from high school, and enroll in college. The program
functions with measurable objectives approved by the U.S. Department of Education,
including the following: “95% of non-secondary school participants served during each
budget period will be promoted to the next grade level,” and “80% of college-ready
project participants will apply for postsecondary school admission.” All program
objectives have been met or exceeded in recent years, including the most recent year for
which data are available (Educational Status of Talent Search Participants 2009), which
is strong indicator of program effectiveness.
160
In conclusion, University Centers provide added value to a Seton Hill education and
foster vital educational connections between the campus and the wider community. It is
essential that these centers continue to monitor the effectiveness of their programs and
use this information to continue to improve educational offerings.
What methods are used to ensure the quality of programs offered in conjunction
with other organizations and away from the physical Seton Hill campus?
Seton Hill University offers a number of educational programs in collaboration with other
institutions. These programs have in common the university’s long-standing practice of
making educational opportunities accessible to students. In addition, the programs serve
as marketing and recruitment tools and provide an additional revenue stream. There are
three types of programs offered through collaboration with other organizations:
Sponsored Credit, College in High School and Dual Enrollment.
Sponsored Credit
Seton Hill University partners with non-credit granting organizations to award credits for
specific course offerings. The courses are carefully reviewed by relevant Seton Hill
faculty to determine the quality of the instruction and the appropriate number of credits to
be awarded. The courses are offered on-site or online through the partner organization.
The following are the sponsored credit partnerships:
• Graduate credits for PBS Teacherline courses in collaboration with WQLN, the
PBS local affiliate in Erie, PA.
• Undergraduate and graduate credits for WQLN’s 135-hour Pennsylvania Director
Core Certificate Program designed for childcare center directors and others
interested in becoming a center director.
• Undergraduate credits for WQLN’s 120-hour Child Development Associate
preparation program designed for child care professionals who are preparing for
the CDA credential.
161
• Three graduate credits for the summer institute conducted by Yad Vashem in
Israel contingent upon completion of a required integrated reflection paper post-
seminar. These credits may be applied toward the 15 credit graduate certificate in
Seton Hill’s online Genocide and Holocaust Studies program.
University-High School Partnerships
In recent years, Seton Hill University has significantly expanded its partnerships with
school districts through the College in High School and Dual Enrollment programs. The
intent of both to encourage a broader range of students to experience college coursework
and its increased academic rigor while still in the supportive environment of their local
high school; to increase the rigor of the high school experience for students as well as
invite more students to think of themselves as “college material”; and to introduce more
students to the advantages of college education and help students have a more successful
transition into the culture and expectations that are present in colleges and universities.
Tuition is significantly discounted to encourage students to participate.
The College in High School program offers eligible high school students the opportunity
to earn college credits for approved courses offered through collaborating school districts.
Students may register for approved courses through their schools and upon successful
completion of the course receive college credit from Seton Hill University. High schools
may apply to offer any existing entry-level course (and some 200-level courses) from the
Seton Hill catalog. The high school submits course syllabi for approval as equivalent to
Seton Hill courses. The syllabi are evaluated by the discipline faculty to determine
course equivalency based on the scope and sequence of content, learning objectives,
college-level assessments and college-level texts and materials. In addition, the high
school teacher’s credentials must meet the standards for adjunct instructors at the
university (College in High School Handbook).
The Dual Enrollment program is funded by State grants provided to school districts
throughout the Commonwealth. This program enables qualified high school students to
take Seton Hill courses on-site or online for a reduced tuition rate. The participation of
162
the student is made possible by an agreement between Seton Hill University and the
student’s school district. As required by Pennsylvania Department of Education
regulations, a Dual Enrollment Committee, composed of no fewer than six members,
oversees the agreement (Concurrent Agreement Form).
A unique component of the Dual Enrollment program is Seton Hill’s ability to offer
courses in critical foreign languages (Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Hindi and
Russian) in collaboration with Blended Schools. Blendedschools.net is a non-profit
organization that provides a complete package of curriculum, technology, professional
development and a collaborative network to its member districts.
In collaboration with Seton Hill University, the blendedschools.net Language Institute
provides live, engaging online language learning experiences enhanced by Blackboard’s
Academic Suite, Wimba’s voice tools and Learning Object’s campus pack. The critical
language courses have 2.5 hours of live instruction and 2.5 hours of asynchronous online
work so that students meet in person three days per week, have access to video and
sound, and interactive native speech. Students can access all instruction at any time they
choose, including archives of live classes, with a simple broadband Internet connection.
All courses are taught by adjunct faculty of Seton Hill University, many of whom are
native speakers, through contracted services agreements with blendedschools.net.
Students register by completing the registration form at their high school (Dual
Enrollment Handbook).
The Dean of Graduate and External Programs has restructured the College in High
School and the language courses in the Dual Enrollment programs over the past three
years by increasing the rigor of the course review process and by initiating an assessment
plan to review course syllabi, faculty credentials and student product to ensure course
equivalency. An assessment strategy was recently approved to ensure that these courses
remain equivalent to Seton Hill courses. (Assessment of CHS Courses). Under the plan,
all course syllabi and teachers’ CVs will be re-submitted every three years and will be
reviewed by the appropriate Seton Hill discipline faculty. In addition, beginning 2010-
163
11, student product from a percentage of the courses will be collected and evaluated by
the appropriate Seton Hill discipline faculty. Over the next three years, the collection of
student product will continue until all courses have been assessed and a full study is
completed. This review process is designed as a three-year cycle so that every three years,
all courses and teachers will be reviewed.
Study Away
Study away is an umbrella term to include any university-approved program that
combines study with travel away from campus, both within the United States and
abroad. Seton Hill University maintains relationships with institutions in diverse
countries, including Japan, China, Israel and Spain. Students may study in these and other
locations for a semester, year or a summer, or participate in 2-3 week study during the
January term (J-term) or May term (M-term). When Seton Hill students request credit for
a study-away course offered by another institution, the study abroad advisors approves
the study. Faculty who propose courses for J-term and M-term must complete an
application that includes a rationale and student learning objectives (J-Term, M-Term,
Study Away Application Form), and receive the approval of the Study Away Committee.
The university committee has promoted study away by creating a Study Abroad office
and a Study Abroad advisor. J-term and M-term offer many opportunities for short trips
that combine travel with study (for a list of 2011 courses, see J-Term and M-Term Study
Away Opportunities). Under the Passport to the World program, Seton Hill purchases
passports for first year students who have specific goals for study abroad (Passport to the
World Program).
In order to encourage students to study abroad, Seton Hill awards a $2500 scholarship per
semester for approved semester, summer, or full-year study abroad opportunities. If the
student is receiving any additional scholarship funds from Seton Hill, that money is
forfeited while they study abroad. However, any federal and/or state grants, loans, or
outside scholarships may be applied to the costs of study abroad.
In terms of participation, while the past several years have seen a significant decline in J-
term travel, M-term travel has steadily risen. Overall, the total number of students
164
combined has remained fairly consistent, except for the 2009-10 academic year (Study
Abroad Enrollment Trends). These trends reflect national patterns, in which rates of study
abroad were affected by the economic downturn that began in 2008.
The university is currently investigating ways to increase student participation in study
away programs. One option being explored is briefer trips to less distant locations, such
as a fall break in Montreal. This option could significantly reduce travel costs while at the
same time providing a valuable study away experience. A suggested action is that the
university examine whether it could benefit from additional professional staff or expertise
in this area, and how it compares to other institutions in terms of the resources that it
allocates to the promotion of study away from campus.
Strengths
• Program reviews are effective for improving teaching and learning.
• The University offers quality training and regular evaluation for faculty teaching
online courses in order to ensure best practices and parity between different
modes of delivery.
• The University’s Centers, including E-Magnify, the National Catholic Center for
Holocaust Education, and the Early Childhood Development Center are all
nationally recognized for excellence within their fields.
Challenges
• Program reviews are time-consuming, and might benefit from a more streamlined
process or additional resources.
• Ongoing appropriate assessments of all non-credit programs.
• Providing library resources, space and staff commensurate with the increased size
of the institution.
• Sufficient support and funding to make study abroad a successful experience for
interested SHU students.
Action Plans
165
List of References. See Document Roadmap, Standards 11 & 13.
Appendices. ?
166
Chapter VIII – Refining the Liberal Arts
STANDARD 12:
General Education
Overview of the charge.
Working group 12 “Refining the Liberal Arts” is charged by the Middle States Steering
Committee to study and report on the academic rigor and the appropriateness of the
elements of the Liberal Arts Curriculum and any other general education components in
graduate or undergraduate programs. This is relevant to demonstrating compliance with
the Middle States Standard 12, General Education.
How is Seton Hill University assessing student feedback about the effectiveness of
the liberal arts? How do we use student feedback to affect curriculum and
pedagogy?
The working group used two methods to answer this question: (1) feedback about
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) collected during the 2009-2010
academic year in focus groups with traditional and Adult Degree Program (ADP)
students, and during fall 2010 with transfer students, and (2) student assessment of
achievement of objectives for each of the liberal arts areas, as measured by student
ratings on the local questions on the IDEA faculty evaluation forms for spring 2009 and
fall 2010.
While there were areas where student feedback prompted changes in the curriculum and
pedagogy, students report that the liberal arts curriculum at Seton Hill is effective, with a
variety of courses and diversity of course formats, ample student engagement, focus on
practical application, exposure to new ideas and cultural diversity, fostering global
awareness, preparing students to analyze political issues with greater depth, and
increasing student marketability. Students reported that the liberal arts encourages and
cultivates cross-discipline learning and exposure, enhances communication skills,
cultivates critical and creative thinking, and prepares students for graduate school. The
167
faculty was seen as a considerable strength, including passion about areas of expertise
and teaching, commitment to sharing research and questions associated with their fields
of discipline, and accessibility to and engagement of students. Students also noted
collaboration among liberal arts faculty and clear linkage with the University mission.
Assessment of student rating of objectives for the eleven liberal arts areas reveals that
students report having significantly achieved the learning objectives in most of the liberal
arts curriculum areas, with scores improving from fall 2008 to fall 2009 by 11% overall.
The average score for fall 2009 is 4.29 out of 5.0, or 85.5% of a perfect score. Only the
science score fell, and a recent review of the science area revealed areas for curriculum
revision that are being implemented in spring 2011.
A number of ideas for strengthening both curriculum and pedagogy in specific liberal arts
areas were based on student feedback, and are detailed in the action plans section below.
Given the feedback from stakeholders (admissions directors and counselors,
parents, traditional students, adult degree students, faculty, members of the Liberal
Arts Committee (LAC), and employers), how is the liberal arts understood at Seton
Hill, what are the challenges and opportunities, and how can we better communicate
value to key stakeholders?
This question was also answered using feedback about strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats (SWOT) collected during the 2009-2010 academic year from
traditional and adult degree students, members of the LAC, admissions staff, employers,
and faculty, and from parents and transfer students during summer and fall 2010.
Methods included focus groups, other interviews and discussion sessions, in-person,
email, and printed surveys, and analysis of internship supervisor evaluations.
The data revealed that the stakeholders generally understand and value the liberal arts at
Seton Hill. Strengths mirror those reported in the response to Question 1. Lack of
understanding was found in several areas, including a perception of some students that
168
liberal arts is somehow a revenue generator for the University; again, of students that
liberal arts courses are irrelevant to career goals (versus employer feedback to the
contrary), that there is too much overlap in liberal arts course requirements, and that the
distinction between western and non-western cultures is ambiguous. This feedback
pointed the LAC to the need to better communicate value to students as well as other
stakeholders in a fact sheet with courses or areas linked to skills employers told us they
want, and the reasons for each requirement. Strategies for better communicating value to
faculty were also developed. A complete list of challenges was developed from these
data, along with corresponding opportunities that were translated into a set of actions,
found in the corresponding sections below.
What does review and assessment of student work product tell us about student
achievement of the goals of each of the eleven areas of the liberal arts at Seton Hill
and student mastery of the University learning objectives? What implications does
this have for strengthening the effectiveness of the liberal arts curriculum and
pedagogy?
The working group addressed this question using information from two sources: (1)
student work product (University Learning Objectives essays), randomly collected and
analyzed by the Senior Integrative Seminar area committee to learn about student mastery
of the University learning objectives and (2) comparison of the fit between the learning
objectives for each liberal arts area against the Seton Hill University learning objectives
to determine how well the liberal arts prepares students for mastery of the objectives.
In the Senior Integrative Seminar (SIS), students write a major essay arguing that they
have achieved or mastered each of the twenty skills listed under the four University
learning objectives, providing and citing evidence from their academic work and co-
curricular experience. The SIS area faculty conducted a preliminary analysis that
determined that students are successfully mastering the learning objectives. Based on
this analysis, it was decided to develop a more rigorous approach using random selection
169
of essays for analysis based on pre-determined criteria. A strategy is being developed to
complete the first reading and analysis of these essays.
In addition, the LAC is developing a comprehensive plan to collect and assess student
work product across the curriculum. As of fall 2010, student work product has been
collected in eight of the eleven liberal arts areas, selected using either a 100% or a
random sample. Areas other than SIS are currently determining assessment strategies to
be implemented in 2011. These strategies involve decisions as to evaluative criteria,
sampling, review and assessment of the student work product, and the optimal collection
cycle; for example, annually or every five years.
A comparison of the fit between the learning objectives for each liberal arts area against
the Seton Hill University learning objectives was completed in summer 2010 and
revealed that for each of the four University learning objectives there are from 30 to 76
learning objectives from liberal arts areas. This comparison provides evidence that in the
area of learning objectives, the liberal arts is well positioned to address and prepare
students for mastery of the University objectives. A review of this study is found in the
Liberal Arts Curriculum Review, Fall 2010, Appendix C.
Once the assessment of the liberal arts is complete, what curriculum choices should
be considered?
In fall 2010, the LAC agreed to a set of recommendations for curriculum revision and
refinement, as well as for three other areas: assessment, marketing and stakeholder
awareness, and credit flexibility for transfer students. The committee referred a
recommendation on revision of learning objectives and issues of faculty workload to the
Faculty Senate. These were based on ongoing assessment as well as a curriculum review
project conducted over an 18-month period that collected and analyzed data from with all
key stakeholders (traditional, adult degree, and transfer students, parents, faculty, the
LAC, admissions staff, and employers).
170
Recommendations are made in the areas of curriculum (for example, designing and
proposing courses in various areas, implementing the recommendations identified in the
math and science program review, exploring whether the curriculum sufficiently
addresses the changing world economy, implementing more J term, summer and on line
courses, and exploring how the liberal arts can better support the majors), and in the first
year Connections course (strengthening introduction of students to the liberal arts,
evaluating the effectiveness of the course and considering the best delivery options, and
exploring a Connections course for transfer students). Recommendations are also made
in the areas of assessment (reviewing and evaluating the effectiveness of ongoing liberal
arts assessment strategies and deciding how self-assessment can be strengthened),
marketing and stakeholder awareness (develop a fact sheet for the various LA
stakeholders and consider strategies to strengthen faculty buy-in to the liberal arts, and
transfer students (explore and determine whether there can be more liberal arts transfer
credit flexibility and, if so, propose and implement solutions). All of the
recommendations designated as priorities for one of the next three years (beginning with
2010-2011) are found in the recommendations section below. The complete list of
recommendations is found in the Liberal Arts Curriculum Review, Fall 2010, Appendix
M.
What pedagogical approaches should Seton Hill consider to strengthen the
effectiveness of student learning in the liberal arts curriculum?
In fall 2010, the LAC agreed to a set of recommendations of pedagogical approaches to
strengthen student learning. The priorities as to pedagogical choices are found in the
action plans section below. For example, in the area of technology, faculty will consider
ways for students to acquire best practices and learn about the ethics of technology use.
Other pedagogical approaches include strengthening introduction of students to the
University learning objectives and finding new ways to teach information literacy. A list
of all of the recommendations is found in the Liberal Arts Curriculum Review, Fall 2010,
Appendix M.
171
Strengths:
Stakeholders surveyed during the 15-month curriculum assessment (traditional, adult
degree, and transfer students, parents, faculty, the LAC, admissions staff, and employers)
reported significant strengths:
1. The liberal arts curriculum at Seton Hill is effective, with a variety of courses and
diversity of course formats, with small course sizes, particularly in writing intensive
and senior capstone courses.
2. Students perceive that there are expectations for strong academic performance in the
liberal arts, requiring a serious commitment of time and work.
3. There is ample student engagement, focus on practical application, and exposure to
new ideas and cultural diversity.
4. Global awareness is fostered, preparing students to analyze political issues with
greater depth, and increasing student marketability.
5. The liberal arts curriculum encourages and cultivates cross-discipline learning and
exposure, enhances communication skills, cultivates critical and creative thinking,
and prepares students for graduate school.
6. The faculty teaching in the liberal arts is passionate about teaching, with skills in their
areas of expertise, commitment to sharing research, and effective collaboration. They
are accessible to and effectively engage students.
7. There is clear linkage between the liberal arts and the University mission.
A more extensive list of reported strengths, organized into three categories (strong
courses and overall learning experience, strong faculty, and strong institution and
curriculum) is found in the strengths section of the Liberal Arts Curriculum Review,
Fall 2010.
Challenges:
Stakeholders also reported that the liberal arts curriculum at Seton Hill is faced with
significant challenges, most of which represent opportunities as well.
172
1. Cycling of courses presents scheduling challenges. More diversity in times courses
are offered would be helpful, along with a greater variety of course offerings,
particularly for the ADP students. Course offerings and scheduling should
particularly be addressed in the modern languages, theology, science, and math, and
in topics such as current events, global power dynamics, and the changing world
economy.
2. On-line courses could be somewhat more plentiful, with faculty better prepared to
skillfully teach on line.
3. First year students need a better and more uniform introduction to the benefits of a
liberal arts experience, the curriculum and the University Objectives; this is also a
concern for transfer students.
4. Communication skills are insufficiently addressed in the liberal arts curriculum.
5. Students do not appreciate how the liberal arts curriculum enhances their personal and
professional development, particularly related to career skills. Students seem to
question this most often in Seminar in Thinking and Writing, Faith, Religion, and
Society, Theology offerings, and Senior Integrative Seminar courses.
6. Transfer students experience the transfer policy as not sufficiently flexible.
7. There is no Connections course for transfer students. Many students and faculty
question the purpose and value of this course.
8. Although the liberal arts has implemented and systematized assessment, use of
student product in assessment should be strengthened, and strategies for assessment
reviewed for maximum effectiveness.
A more extensive list of challenges, organized into three categories (student concerns,
faculty concerns, and institutional and curricular concerns) is found in the weaknesses
and needs section of the Liberal Arts Curriculum Review, Fall 2010.
Action Plans:
The ideas listed below are those that the Committee determined to be priorities for one of
the next three years, beginning with 2010-2011, designated Year 1. They are based on
173
feedback from the stakeholders (traditional, adult degree, and transfer students, parents,
faculty, the LACC, admissions staff, and employers) gathered and analyzed during the
15-month curriculum assessment.
Curriculum. The LAC will:
• Encourage faculty to consider, design, and propose courses in various areas,
including one or more new big topics/current events/global awareness courses in
existing disciplines, in areas like race relations, environmental sustainability,
energy, and terrorism, global power dynamics, and other international concerns
(Year 1).
• Explore and implement all changes recently approved in the math and science
program review and noted in the IDEA analysis (beginning in Year 1).
• Explore whether the LA curriculum sufficiently addresses awareness and skills of
students related to the changing world economy and if not, develop strategies
(Year 2).
• Explore, and where feasible, implement more J term, summer, and online courses
for students needing more options (Year 2).
• Examine where in the curriculum or elsewhere that oral communication skills
(relational skills, self-knowledge, compassion for others, interpersonal discourse,
interviewing skills, chairing meetings, being a board member, creativity beyond
Power Point) might be developed/strengthened (Year 3).
• Consider ways for students to learn best practices in technology, educational
technology, and ethics of technology use, not necessarily through courses, and
encourage linking information fluency to the student’s discipline for maximum
relevance (Year 3).
• Form a working group to explore with faculty how liberal arts can better support
the majors (Year 3).
Connections
174
• Strengthen introduction of students to liberal arts in their first year. Consider
whether this introduction could be managed in a more robust Connections course
and if not, explore where it could be assigned to develop effective strategies (Year
2).
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the course and consider the best course delivery
options. Determine whether and how the course could also focus on helping
students to develop the following skills: knowing oneself, understanding and
effectively utilizing one’s own thinking process and learning style or styles,
developing self-confidence, learning how to learn, managing expectations, why
study liberal arts, finding solutions, developing interpersonal effectiveness,
followership, and leadership, life skills, and oral presentation. Strengthen
introduction to University learning objectives and information literacy. Add an
online section (Year 2).
• Explore, and if needed and feasible, implement a Connections course for transfer
students (Year 2).
Assessment
• Review and evaluate effectiveness and breadth of ongoing liberal arts assessment
strategies; for example, whether student product should be used in every area or in
courses with a common syllabus (Year 1) and determine the best system of
digitally collecting and storing student product (Year 2).
• Since self-assessment is a method of achieving the University learning objectives
that crosscuts all areas, establish a task force to examine and provide ideas about
how self-assessment can be strengthened in the LA curriculum (Year 2).
Marketing/stakeholder awareness
• Develop a fact sheet for the various LA stakeholders, with a list of LAC courses
linked to skills employers want and that presents a compelling case for the liberal
arts, including the reasons for each requirement. Consider whether this or another
fact sheet should correlate liberal arts offerings with majors and make the
175
resulting products available to admissions counselors, students, parents, and
faculty (Year 1).
• Consider, develop, and prioritize strategies to strengthen faculty buy-in to liberal
arts; for example, feature a Liberal Arts-related topic in one Teaching and
Learning each semester and discuss liberal arts with faculty members (Year 3).
Transfer students
• Explore and determine whether there can be more Liberal Arts transfer credit
flexibility and if there can, propose and implement solutions (Year 1).
List of References. See Document Roadmap, Standard 12.
Appendices.
Liberal Arts Curriculum Budget
Liberal Arts Curriculum Handbook
Liberal Arts Curriculum Review, Fall 2010
Liberal Arts Curriculum Review Executive Summary, Fall 2010
Linkage: University Learning Objectives and LAC Learning Objectives
Minutes, Liberal Arts Curriculum Committee
Minutes, Liberal Arts area committees
Review and Analysis of Student Assessment of Objective Achievement for Each
of the Liberal Arts Areas as Measured by Student Ratings on the Local
Questions on the IDEA Faculty Evaluation Forms (Spring 2009 and Fall
2010, respectively)
Sample letter to students emphasizing the value of a liberal arts education
Samples of student work
Seton Hill University Catalog, 2010-2011
Seton Hill University website
University Learning Objectives
University Learning Objectives related to the learning objectives of each liberal
arts area
176
Chapter IX – Assessing Performance
STANDARDS 7 & 14:
Institutional Assessment
Assessment of Student Learning
Overview of the charge.
The working group for Standards 7 & 14, “Assessing Performance,” is charged by the
Middle States Steering Committee to study and report on the institutional assessment
processes and to study and report on the process of assessment of student learning
outcomes. This is relevant to demonstrating compliance with the Middle States Standards
7 and 14.
History of Institutional Assessment
Seton Hill University embraces an inclusive approach to assessment. All decisions and
activities are viewed through two major lenses: (1) the institutional mission and the
driving spirit of the founding congregation the Sisters of Charity of Seton Hill, and (2)
student learning. The mission is the foundation for all decision-making and guides the
development of the strategic plan and assessment activities. The administration, faculty,
and staff see student learning as a priority for every endeavor the university undertakes:
in academic work, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities.
Seton Hill has a history of using various forms of assessment as part of the institution’s
operational functioning. Under the leadership of President Boyle, Seton Hill has
regularly participated in assessment activities comparing the institution to public and
private institutions in Pennsylvania and nationally, as well as, engaging in a range of
internally developed assessment efforts.
The University has consistently kept institutional profile data including: student profiles
(retention, graduation, preparedness (SATs), and demographic characteristics: race, age,
gender, geographic), enrollment trends (undergraduate, graduate, and adult degree
177
headcount and full time equivalent data, full-time and part-time data, enrollment by class
size and major), resident data, degree conferral by undergraduate major and graduate
program, financial data (tuition costs, room and board charges), faculty data (degree,
rank, tenure, race, and gender), library holdings, and career placement data.
Throughout the institution there are numerous surveys done to assess student satisfaction
with campus activities and/or services (e.g., residence life programs, campus ministry,
student activities, and food service). In addition, many programs collect usage data (e.g.,
activities attendance counts, club/organization student counts, number of athletes, number
of athletic events, number of intercultural/international students, number of students who
use counseling services, number of students who use wellness center, number of students
who use CAPS program, gate count of library usage).
While a wide range of assessment is done throughout the institution, the majority of the
assessment activities are benchmarking, customer service, or use of input/output
measures. Seton Hill faculty and administration are committed to quality improvement.
Initiation of Assessment and Planning Council
In order to ensure that all areas of the institution were formally and regularly assessed,
President JoAnne Boyle instituted an Assessment and Planning Council in fall 2005.
Council membership was appointed by the President and was comprised of: the Provost
and Dean of the Faculty (chair), the Vice President for Enrollment Services and the
Registrar, the Dean of Graduate and External Programs, the Director of Reeves Memorial
Library, the Dean of Student Services, the President of the Faculty Senate, the
Coordinator of the Liberal Arts Curriculum, a minimum of two additional faculty
members, a professional staff member from the finance area, and a professional staff
member from athletics. (President Boyle’s Appointment Letter).
The Assessment and Planning Council was charged with developing and implementing
an institutional assessment process guided by the University’s mission, strategic plan, and
learning objectives, and to assure that all necessary assessment data are identified,
178
collected, and analyzed. The Council ensures that assessment results are appropriately
analyzed and used within the units in which the assessment has occurred. The Council
makes recommendations to the President and appropriate Vice Presidents when
assessment information warrants consideration for changes in institutional or multiple
area policies, and/or procedures. An annual assessment report to the community is
presented at the fall workshop.
The Assessment and Planning Council was structured with three major committees: (1)
Teaching and Learning, (2) Student Development, and (3) Institutional Effectiveness to
allow the council to focus on student learning efforts in traditional teaching/learning
activities and in student life through co-curricular and extra-curricular learning activities,
and, by examining institutional effectiveness, how operations support the educational
efforts and institutional vitality. Understanding how assessment practices are linked to
mission, university learning objectives, and/or the strategic plan is a priority.
The Council first focused on identifying assessment data currently being collected.
Council members were impressed with the amount of assessment activities occurring
across the institution. What was most apparent in this early identification was:
• Considerable data are being collected.
• Institutional profile data are collected, shared with the president’s council, and
reported to appropriate external agencies.
• Data are collected and analyzed for accreditation and program review purposes.
• Data are reported in the institutional unit in which is collected, although often
times informally.
• Normed instruments have been and are currently used: CIRP (1968 to present),
AICUP (1996 to present), NSSE (2004 to present), CLA (2005 to present).
• Often data are used to change activities and programs
• There are limited data reporting structures across institutional units.
• There is no systematic monitoring of assessment across the institution.
179
The committee chairs were charged with meeting with faculty and staff in their areas to
assure that all existing assessments were identified, to articulate the current reporting
process, to determine whether these assessments should be continued, and to identify
areas where assessment measures should be added. In early discussions it became clear
that in order to yield a comprehensive and productive assessment plan and process,
greater structure was necessary.
The Council and committee chairs developed an assessment template designed to reflect
individual assessment activities. This template was developed to help articulate and
understand the assessment activities in relation to University mission, strategic plan,
and/or learning objectives. In order for the template to be completed an individual had to
be identified as being responsible for the assessment activity, how analysis of data would
occur had to be articulated, and a reporting structure and timeline had to be identified.
Sample templates were shared with various constituencies. (Sample Assessment
Templates)
Committee chairs collected initial assessment templates that were reviewed by the
committee membership. For many areas, departmental activities were presented to the
committee chairs without assessment measures. In areas where assessment was taking
place it was often unclear what the purpose of the assessment was. The committees
provided feedback on how to improve the assessment activities or how to conceptualize
and create assessment activities where none existed. In student development and
teaching and learning areas, assessment workshops were offered to assist staff in
developing clear and focused assessment activities. These workshops were followed with
offers for further consultation from members of the Assessment and Planning Council.
(Training and Consultation Table)
The Council encouraged the community to begin a visioning process about what
assessment activities should occur. As is often the case with visioning, there was a
movement to immediate action with a large number of new assessment activities
proposed for the next year (2005). The Council tried to confirm necessary on-going
180
assessment, encourage improvement of some assessment effort, begin planning for
additional assessments over a three-year period, and develop greater emphasis on student
learning assessment – in and out of the classroom. Although difficult at times, this
process stimulated the Council’s work and confirmed its ability to conduct valid,
meaningful assessments.
The Assessment and Planning Council presented an institutional Assessment Plan to the
President’s Council. It was approved in March 2007 and submitted to Middle States as
part of the Periodic Review Report. The hiring of the institutional researcher was
recommended in the plan but did not occur until December 2009 with the support of Title
III funding.
To prepare and assist with the assessment process, external professional development
activities were provided to various groups: Periodic Review Report Workshop, Middle
States Commission on Higher Education, Mary Ann Gawelek and Charmaine Strong
(April, 2005); IUPSI Assessment Institute at Indiana University, Mary Ann Gawelek,
Barbara Hinkle, and Doina Vlad (October, 2005); Audio Conference, Texas A&M
University, Getting Started with Assessment in Student Affairs, Charmaine Strong,
Marcia Pratt, Sr. Lois Sculco, Robin Anke, Terri Bassi-Cook, Kim Pennesi, Jaimie Steel,
Rebecca Lee, Lynda Sukolsky, Keisha Jimmerson, Linda Altman, Cindy Boland (June,
2006); AICUP Workshop on Assessment, Duquesne University, Mary Ann Gawelek,
Barbara Hinkle, Terry DePasquale, Charmaine Strong (August, 2006); AICUP Workshop
on Assessment, Duquesne University, Mary Ann Gawelek, Barbara Hinkle, Terry
DePasquale, Charmaine Strong (March, 2007)
At the close of the Assessment Plan (2007-08 to 2009-10), the Assessment and Planning
Council requested that Institutional Researcher review the plan and analyze the
effectiveness of its implementation. Because the institutional research was new to Seton
Hill and Council activities she could review with an “outsider’s” perspective and
evaluator’s expertise. She presented the following recommendations to the Council
(Assessment Activities Report 2007-2010)
181
• Streamlined Reporting
• Assessment Resource Development
• Integration of Assessment into Ongoing Planning (Special Report for the
Assessment and Planning Council)
Assessment and Planning Council members analyzed the Institutional Researcher’s report
and recommendations, reflected on their experiences with the assessment activities
completed during the 2007/2010 plan, and considered the beginnings of a cultural shift at
the institution to more readily accept assessment activities. They then recommended to
the President’s Council changes regarding the structure of the Assessment and Planning
Council and the assessment reporting policy.
The first of these changes was to reduce the major committees of the Assessment and
Planning Council from three to two, viz., restructure the council into two committees –
(1) Institutional Effectiveness and Student Learning, parallel to the Middle States
Standards of Excellence. In addition, there were some changes in the Council’s
composition. (Current Assessment and Planning Council Membership Roster)
The second major change was to conceptually shift from an assessment plan (time limited
and activities designated) to an assessment program (on-going and activities defined by
mission, strategic efforts and department/program goals), maintaining the core values
regarding assessment that are:
• Driven by the Mission: Seton Hill’s mission statement guides all institutional
activities. The mission provided and continues to provide the foundation for the
development of university, major, liberal arts, and graduate program learning
objectives.
• Guided by the Strategic Plan: The 2005-2010 strategic plan serves as a road map
for institutional efforts. The performance indicators included in the plan serve as
a means of assessing institutional progress. The plan is an evolving document and
can be adjusted as new institutional challenges or opportunities occur.
182
• Efficient and Integrated: All assessment efforts should be integrated into work
functions. As such they must be deemed as essential to understanding the success
of operations as determined by mission, plan, or overall student learning. When
designing assessment measures a determination must be made that the assessment
is necessary, has a quality design, and is cost effective and that data can be easily
analyzed and reported.
• Systematic and Makes Information Readily Available: Assessment activities
should have a defined reporting process and results of assessment should be
available to the Seton Hill community. Every effort should be made to have
assessment outcomes available to applicants, students and their families.
• A Range of Assessment: Benchmarking, customer service instruments, narrative
accounts, and student learning instruments are all legitimate means of determining
university success. The University values the use of internal as well as externally
normed assessment instruments.
• Emphasizes Student Learning: Throughout all activities, greater emphasis must
be placed on understanding the opportunities for learning and student success in
these venues. This includes activities in residence halls and dining services,
interactions with administrative offices and clubs, in the athletic program, on and
off campus. This emphasis will reflect that we are holistically teaching students,
not simply imparting content.
The third major change was to create a departmental review process. (SHU Program
Review Document on Griffin’s Lair). The Assessment and Planning Council considered
evidence of how assessment had been used to influence decision-making and decided that
a framework similar to the academic program review process would promote use of
departmental assessment results. A formal, on-going departmental evaluation process,
which allows for the evaluation of each department in the University was implemented in
2010-2011. The Institutional Effectiveness subcommittee reviews the executive
summaries of the departmental evaluations to assure that they follow the intent and
procedures of the departmental review process, and offers feedback to the appropriate
vice president and the president.
183
Another change was the designation of two key responsibilities to the institutional
researcher – oversight of all external assessment measures used by the institution and
implementation of customer service assessments each semester.
The Assessment and Planning Council also charged itself in the new assessment program
with facilitating on-going professional activities for Seton Hill employees to support their
abilities to conduct valid assessment planning and analysis.
The final element of the assessment program is the development of an electronic
assessment system designed internally.
The President’s Council approved these recommendations in Spring 2010 and
implementation began immediately.
Student Learning Background
Seton Hill is a Catholic, liberal arts institution founded by the Sisters of Charity of Seton
Hill in the tradition of Elizabeth Ann Seton, a pioneer Catholic educator and the first
American-born saint. The University recognizes that the skills needed for success must
be founded on the analytical and critical thinking skills that the liberal arts engender and
be integrated with professional preparation. Capable citizens of a global community need
also a vision informed by religious and ethical values to guide them in the active
transformation of their world.
The mission statement guided the faculty in the development of the university and
graduate learning objectives that operationally define Seton Hill’s educational goals. The
University learning objectives can be met solely through study in the liberal arts core
curriculum; however the learning objectives for each major are carefully aligned with the
and strengthen the achievement of the University objectives. Graduate program
objectives are aligned with the graduate learning objectives for the same reason.
(University Catalog)
184
Seton Hill’s Graduate learning objectives apply to all students seeking the completion of
graduate study in degree and certificate programs.
University Learning Objectives
At the reception of a baccalaureate degree from Seton Hill University, a graduate will be
able to demonstrate the following skills:
Communication and Problem Solving
• Use the expressive arts as a mode of inquiry or expression.
• Demonstrate leadership, negotiation, relational, and consensus skills.
• Use technological skills to access information, organize knowledge, and
communicate.
• Propose new solutions to current issues.
• Express arguments or main points clearly, in written and oral
communication.
• Transfer knowledge and values into sound decision-making.
Historical, Cultural, and Global Awareness
• Communicate in a second language at the intermediate level.
• Analyze the impact of history, geography, and socio-cultural dynamics on
global interactions from a variety of disciplinary perspectives.
• Analyze current and historical events through the lens of spirituality and
faith.
• Assess privilege and oppression from the perspective of culture, race,
class, and gender.
Multiple Modes of Inquiry
• Generate and analyze numerical and scientific data.
• Locate and analyze expressive media to gain information or comprehend
the significance of an issue or an event.
• Organize and manage resources in a creative way to achieve impact.
• Find, evaluate, and apply information.
185
• Interpret quantitative and qualitative information to present a logical
argument based on supporting data.
Self Reflection and Assessment
• Demonstrate ethical decision-making grounded in philosophical inquiry.
• Apply Catholic social teaching to the analysis of contemporary social
issues.
• Recognize the value of diverse spiritual and religious perspectives.
• Integrate the practice of charity with justice.
• Exercise responsible freedom and civic engagement based on an informed
value system.
Seton Hill’s University learning objectives apply to all students seeking the baccalaureate
degree.
Graduate Learning Objectives
Seton Hill University believes that the preparation of persons for specialized careers
within a small, private institution permits greater attention to all aspects of individual
development — intellectual, social, moral, aesthetic, and physical. It hopes in turn that
these professionals will share their knowledge and talents with those whose lives they
touch. In order to realize this philosophy, Seton Hill University expects all candidates for
master’s degrees to achieve the following objectives:
• To become a reflective practitioner of the discipline being mastered and
develop a professional philosophy which integrates theory, practice,
research, and methodology.
• To become a scholar-practitioner, analyzing, critiquing, and evaluating the
discipline, its current research, research methodology, and the relationship
between its theory and practice.
• To master the practical skills appropriate to the discipline, becoming an
effective and creative practitioner capable of developing new knowledge
in the field and applying it in innovative ways.
186
• To become a social change agent aware of one’s personal value system
and its impact on professional practice, as well as one’s social
responsibility to the profession and to society.
• To develop effective communication skills, including the ability to deliver
clear written and oral presentations.
• To be aware of and able to apply ethical standards appropriate to the
discipline.
• To recognize that a discipline develops within the context of a multi-
cultural and pluralistic society, understanding the relevance and
importance of social and cultural differences as defined by privilege
and/or oppression.
Strong assessment measures do exist and are targeted to the assessment of student
learning. The strongest assessment activities are as follows:
The University since the mid 1980s identified University learning objectives with two
revisions since that time. Learning objectives are also identified for each undergraduate
major and each graduate program. Students are evaluated on how they demonstrate
achieving the learning objectives though assessment of either the portfolio or capstone
project. (SHU Catalog 2010-2012)
The liberal arts curriculum is assessed annually. Faculty members representing the
particular areas of on the Liberal Arts Curriculum systematically review student feedback
and regularly discuss course syllabi and pedagogical approaches; making appropriate
changes to more effectively meet students’ learning needs.
A standardized program review process has been in place since 1999-2000, with several
adjustments made to the program review process that is increasingly focused on student
learning in the major field of study or graduate program. The Program Review process
includes a review of the program’s learning objectives, curriculum, staffing, resources,
recommendations from an external reviewer and the faculty response to those
recommendations. The executive summary is submitted for approval to The Division,
187
Graduate Advisory Council (If a graduate program), Dean’s Council, Faculty Senate and
the Board of Trustees. (Program Review Document)
The following academic majors and graduate programs are accredited or approved by
their discipline associations:
• Graduate art therapy - American Art Therapy Association (AATA), program
approval
• Undergraduate/graduate business, hospitality and tourism – International Council
of Schools of Business Education (ICSBE)
• Undergraduate chemistry - American Chemical Society (ACS), program approval
Undergraduate coordinated dietetics/nutrition – American Dietetic Association,
Commission on Accreditation for Dietetics Education (CADE)
• Certification programs in education – Pennsylvania Department of Education
(program approval) and currently under review by Teacher Education
Accreditation Council (TEAC)
• Undergraduate music - National Association of Schools of Music (NASM)
• Graduate Physician Assistant – Accreditation Review Commission on Education
for the Physician Assistant (ARCPA)
• Graduate Certificate in Orthodontics – Council on Dental Accreditation (CODA)
Graduate Marriage and Family Therapy – Commission On Accreditation for
Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE); Candidacy, with full
accreditation anticipated fall 2007
• Undergraduate social work – Council of Social Work Education (CSWE)
Currently, art, family and consumer sciences, and theatre are determining if they will
seek review for discipline accreditation.
Seton Hill participates in both the National Survey of Student Engagement (2003-2004 to
present) and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (2005-2006 to present). Analysis of the
CLA date led to devoting an entire 2005-06 year of Teaching and Learning Forums on
Teaching Critical Thinking Skills (Power Point Presentations).
188
At the reception of a baccalaureate degree from Seton Hill University, a graduate will be
able to demonstrate the skills listed in the University Learning Objectives.
(Communication and Problem Solving; Historical, Cultural and Global Awareness;
Multiple Modes of Inquiry and Self-Reflection and Assessment). These overarching
learning objectives are integrated in the learning objectives of each major program and
the liberal arts. Successful study in the liberal arts at Seton Hill prepares students for
master of the University Learning Objectives, and complements and augments study in
the major.
An essential component of Seton Hill’s evaluation of students’ overall learning is the
capstone assessment, a graduation requirement for every undergraduate student. The
capstone assessment focuses on the demonstration of learning objectives within each
major, as informed by the wider university learning objectives (communication and
problem solving; historical, cultural and global awareness; multiple modes of inquiry;
and self-reflection and assessment).
The inclusion of a unique capstone assessment for each major in the 2010-2012 catalog
represents a recent departure from the universal portfolio requirement that was in place
from 1997-2008. As part of Seton Hill’s graduation requirements, students were required
to submit a showcase portfolio that documented their academic achievements within the
major and the liberal arts curriculum. Due to an inability of all of the majors to agree on
policies and procedures surrounding the implementation of the portfolio, the portfolio
was replaced in the 2008-2010 catalog by the requirement of a capstone assessment. This
assessment is major-specific and documents the integration of the University learning
objectives with study in the major.
Questions
Throughout this review, several questions arose which guided the approach to responding
to Standards 7 and 14 and resulted in specific actions or suggestions for the future.
189
How well do faculty, professional staff, and operation staff understand what
institutional assessment is and why it is important?
Seton Hill faculty and administration are committed to quality improvement. Current and
consistent use of benchmarking measures, participant satisfaction surveys, and learning
assessment activities demonstrate this commitment. The long standing cyclical program
review and the recently implemented department review processes illustrates ways in
which results are reported and used for decision making and budgetary changes.
Seton Hill wishes to move to a more formative and summative student learning
assessment process. University leadership philosophically embraces this shift.
Behaviorally implementing this emphasis is more challenging.
Within the academic area, assessment is most integrated and widely used, but it is still
not universally conceived as essential to the teaching/learning process nor is it fully
utilized for quality improvement. Both the program review process and accreditation
review are accepted as important tools by faculty. It may be that the degree of
knowledge or experience the faculty member has with assessment, determines how ready
they are to embrace it as essential to the overall learning process.
In monthly meetings with division chairs progress on the activities targeted in program
review timelines are discussed. Keeping faculty focused on activities identified in the
program reviews that are to be worked on over the five-year before the next review has
been enormously challenging.
Analysis of the history of assessment at the university made it clear that assessment
activities were more easily undertaken in the academic affairs area than in other areas of
the institution. For professional staff the emphasis on assessment has been a sea change.
While many have been involved in data collection and limited analysis, the focus on
assessing effectiveness of departmental activities and student learning in activities outside
the classroom requires a change in vision. Examples of such a shift include but are not
190
limited to: learning objectives developed with assessment for student interaction with
professionals in the offices of the registrar, financial aid, and student accounts; learning
objectives developed and assessment for work study experiences or student clubs;
learning objectives developed with assessment for student leadership development
through athletics; learning objectives with regard to achieving University goals as a
Catholic institution. Such change requires education and training to help staff to become
comfortable with developing appropriate and useful assessments targeted on student
learning. The initiation of departmental reviews will hopefully begin to change the
culture from one of benchmarking to one of assessing effectiveness of activities and
student learning.
The University through the Assessment and Planning Council recognizes there is an
immediate and consistent need to reinforce the understanding that assessment will
improve work efforts and is central to overall quality improvement of the institution.
University leadership, President Council members, department managers and academic
leadership, must emphasize assessment as central to effective work activity. This can be
done through discussion with staff, supporting staff engaged in assessment, inclusion in
the performance appraisals, and rewarding successful assessment activities. The
Assessment and Planning Council will monitor both program reviews and departmental
reviews and make changes as necessary to the process.
As the assessment program is fully implemented with an integrated assessment system
the management of the program review and department review process will become
easier. In addition, a system for annual reporting on progress will serve as a reminder
and reinforce to keeping activities on going.
How adequate is institutional support for assessment?
The working group addressed this question by a review of the actions and decisions made
by the Assessment and Planning Council, whose members are charged with the task of
providing guidance and communication for assessment activity on campus.
191
The Assessment and Planning Council monitors the effectiveness of assessment policy
and provides communication to all members of the University community. (PowerPoint
on Assessment) Since Council membership includes membership from all parts of the
University, members share their constituents’ understanding of and response to
assessment.
An example of how this question was addressed in a broader sense through a Council
request to the Institutional Researcher to examine and evaluate assessment policy,
procedure, and communication and presents a report to the Assessment and Planning
Council. This report was completed and presented to the Assessment and Planning
Council in Spring 2010 and included an overall assessment of policy, procedure, and
effectiveness and provided recommendations to the Council. (Special Report for the
Assessment and Planning Council)
The University has increasingly committed financial resources to assessment activities.
Historically, funding was designated for direct assessment measures (e.g., NSSE, CIRP,
and CLA). More recently, the hiring of an institutional researcher represents on-going
personnel costs being committed to support assessment. And while funding has been in
place for academic external reviewers with the implementation of departmental reviews
additional funding (likely to be about $15,000 annual) will be allocated (Budget for
Assessment and Planning).
Realizing that many employees do not have a sufficient understanding of assessment and
therefore cannot be expected to engage in effective assessment work, the institution is
making a commitment to professional development. During the completion of the
Assessment Plan (2007-10) internal and external training was provided. In 2010-2012
the University is committing a significant reallocation of Title III funding towards
providing assessment consultants to various institutional areas (Title III Assessment
Consultant Plan). Additionally, institutional leadership must be vigilant in recognizing
192
when staff need training in this area. Such recognition may most effectively be addressed
in the performance appraisal.
Institutional leadership must continue to refine assessment strategies, to focus on new
areas of assessment when appropriate, and to strengthen the commitment to assessment
and the assessment skills of all employees. Assessment should certainly be included in
job descriptions and evaluated in the performance appraisal, particularly in the setting of
goals for the year in which employees will be engaged in academic program or
departmental reviews.
Finally, managers must be aware of the expansion of workload that assessment activities
necessitate. It may be necessary to adjust expectations for departmental activities during
the period in which assessment is occurring.
What are the major areas in the strategic plan that we do not measure and what is
the impact of that on meeting the institutional mission?
The Strategic Plan 2009-2012 outlines specific tactics and measurable actions for each of
its five major goal areas, and each action is associated with a timeframe and an individual
responsible to make sure it is completed. Care was taken to ensure that the actions in the
plan are specific, measurable, attainable, and realistic within the time frame
allotted. Analysis of the measures used for tracking each of the strategic goals indicated
that 1) actions do align directly with each tactic, 2) that these actions are being tracked
through assessment, and, 3) that progress is continuously reported to the Presidents
Council. Yet, beyond the metrics and measures used to track actions, are there major
areas in the strategic plan that are not adequately assessed?
It was determined by the working committee that extra analysis was needed to discern
whether or not each of the strategic goals are measured independently of the actions to
fulfill the objectives/tactics. Since some tactics are more difficult to measure than others,
it was expected that some tactics are assessed more systematically, but that other areas
193
may be in need of improvement. A full summary table of this analysis is available
(Strategic Plan Alignment to Assessment Table), yet an example is given in Table A,
which depicts the summary for Goal III, Enhanced Vibrancy as a Campus Environment.
This table displays the working group finding that for Goal III, although relevant tactics
are associated with either measures or metrics which are independent of the tracking
methods are being implemented, some of the measures could be improved or expanded in
order to adequately provide enough information about the success or progress towards
success in achieving the overall goal to which the tactic is aligned.
Table A. Summary of assessment analysis of Goal III.
GOAL III. ENHANCED VIBRANCY AS A CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT
TACTIC
Assessment of Tactic Independently?
Yes/no/
could
improve
Details
I: Increase and strengthen faculty-
staff/student relationships Yes
NSSE survey; CIRP survey and
CIRP follow-up designed by
Retention Committee
II. Expand and improve student
spaces
Yes, but
could
improve
Residence Hall end of year survey;
no specific assessment of student
perception of athletic facilities
III. Improve technology access for
community Yes
Comprehensive formative and
outcomes assessment due to Griffin
Technology Advantage initiative
(student and faculty/staff surveys,
focus groups)
IV. Strengthen campus security Yes
Metrics of security are in place and
NCHA also independently measures
student perception of campus
security.
194
V. Promote Griffin Spirit
Yes, but
could
improve
Student interest surveys; CIRP; but
could improve the use of data to
construct a better idea of what
“Griffin Spirit” should mean.
Are assessments of student learning of adequate quality? Do they yield direct
evidence that is clear, tangible, convincing, and purposefully relates to the
program’s key learning outcomes, having results that are sufficiently accurate and
truthful that they can be used with confidence to make decisions?
Assessment of student learning occurs in a number of ways. At the course level, faculty
communicate to students the learning objectives for the course, relationship of the course
objectives to the learning objectives for the major and university learning objectives. At
the major or program level, former portfolio grids linked learning objectives with
assessment(s) and integration of major learning objectives to university objectives. For
the class of 2011, the capstone assessment is designed to include an activity that has
students demonstrate or articulate the integration of the university and major learning
objectives or that the objectives were met. This is a self-assessment “graded” by faculty.
The curriculum, learning objectives and capstone assessments are reviewed every five
years through program review. Changes, if required, are implemented over a 5-year
timeline. In addition, as noted earlier, a significant number of academic majors and
graduate programs are accredited or approved by their discipline associations. The
combination of course evaluations, program review analysis, external
accreditation/approval and the data collected from CLA provide the university
significant, useful data which are used when making decisions about faculty staffing,
curricular issues and standards and expectations. One example is the dedication of one
full year of Teaching and Learning Forums (2005-06) to Teaching Critical Thinking
Skills as a result of data received from the CLA.
195
Have assessment results led to appropriate decisions about teaching, planning,
budgeting, etc.?
A direct outcome of academic program review is a five-year timeline for implementation
of recommendations. Ordinarily, recommendations are in the areas of curriculum,
staffing and facility all of which are intended to strengthen the learning experience
(Samples of Program Review Executive Summaries). A comparison of executive
summary recommendations for resources would be demonstrated in budget allocations,
examples would include additional faculty, library resources, equipment and capital
expenditures for space. Curriculum changes both in content and pedagogy are
demonstrated in University Catalog and course syllabi.
It is anticipated that as departmental reviews are completed similar changes will be
recommended and instituted. As the review process begins, departments will articulate
departmental goals, task objectives and performance indicators that will result in clear
assessment measures in the second review process. It is also likely that departmental
review will address staffing needs and possibly compensation by market comparison.
How well do students understand what the capstone assessment is and why it is
important?
Given the recent shift in the University’s culminating assessment project, it seems
pertinent to determine whether the new changes have been fully understood and
embraced by faculty and students. The incidental fact that the University’s website still
refers to a portfolio requirement for all students suggests that the conversion has not been
entirely successful.
In order to ascertain the level of familiarity with and dedication to the new capstone
assessment process among faculty and students, each member of the working group
contacted the division chairs and faculty. For consistency, the members asked the
following questions:
196
• Is the Description of the Capstone Assessment form still accurate?
• Did the faculty in the major follow the process outlined in the Description of the
Capstone Assessment?
• Were changes made to the process since the Description of the Capstone
Assessment was originally submitted?
• If so, has a revised Description of the Capstone Assessment form been submitted
to the Educational Outcomes Assessment Committee?
• How is the Description of the Capstone Assessment form distributed to students?
Is it posted on the webpage?
• Is there any other feedback on the process that the faculty wish to give?
Several themes emerged:
• Most majors are following the process in the Description of the Capstone
Assessment.
• This review prompted some majors to revisit the Description of the Capstone
Assessment and discuss ways to strength the way students are informed, e.g.,
more information in syllabi.
• Dietetics & Biology revised their Description of the Capstone Assessment forms,
but need to submit to the Student Learning Sub-committee for approval.
• Education and Dance did not create a capstone assessment as part of their new
major. Both programs are engaged on doing so and should have a capstone
proposal ready by the end of the semester.
• The working group agreed to propose that the capstone be added as a requirement
in the New Degree/Specialization approval process. (Capstone Questionnaire
Summaries)
• There is an overall variety in how majors orient students to the capstone. Some
do it at Setonian Days, some at a major’s seminar, some in classes.
Analysis of these data suggests the following:
197
• All capstone requirements and the Description of the Capstone Assessment forms
should be posted on Griffin’s Lair.
• The University should identify a universal place on Griffin’s Lair where the
capstone process and Description of the Capstone Assessment forms can be
posted. This place should be consistent across majors.
• The posted Description of the Capstone Assessment forms should be open to
everyone in the SHU community, not only to majors. The members recommend
that anyone be able to view the capstone requirements. This is helpful to advisors
and to students who may be transferring or changing majors.
Graduate students demonstrate their having met the Program and University learning
objectives in a number of different ways depending on the program. These include theses
or culminating projects, internships, capstone presentations and a publishable manuscript.
Strengths:
• Strong institutional commitment to assessment.
• Robust institutional assessment program
• Wealth of data collected in most areas
• A strong and continuous engagement in academic program review with increasing
emphasis on examination of student product
• A full-time institutional researcher
• Financial commitment to assessment, including funding for assessment measures,
professional development and external reviewers
Weaknesses
• While Seton Hill has made progress, all members of the community have not yet
embraced the need for having a culture of assessment.
• Provision of assessment training is not systemic or comprehensive
• Managers have not to date integrated expectation of assessment as part of the
workload expectations
198
• The data is not adequately analyzed or sufficiently used to make
recommendations for actions
• An electronic assessment system does not currently exist
Action Plans
List of References. See Document Roadmap, Standards 7 & 14.
Appendices. ?
199
Conclusion:
[This will be composed after feedback from the community and from the steering
committee. It will include a summary of the major conclusions reached and
recommendations offered in the report.]
