1. 1 Evaluator WorkshopFall Visits 2011Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Please join the audio portion of this training:866-740-1260, Access Code: 7489001 ReadyTalk Help Desk: 800.843.9166 International Help: 303.209.1600

2. 2 Announcements This presentation and the accompanying materials are available for download from: http://www.wascsenior.org/fall2011 For assistance with Voice and Web connections please contact: ReadyTalk Help Desk, 800.843.9166International Help: 303.209.1600 Please mute your microphone if you are not speaking. If you have questions, please enter them into the Chat window.

3. 3 WASC Evaluator WorkshopFall Visits 2011

5. Know how to prepare for and conduct an effective visit

6. Be prepared to produce a useful, high-quality team report

7. Be ready to make sound judgments about institutions under the Standards

9. 6 External Context for Accreditation and Visits The continuing evolution of the WASC process and Standards Changes in Higher Education Perceptions about Accreditation The Changing Roles of Accreditation Changes within the WASC Region Handbook revision process

10. Continuing Evolution of WASC Commitment to the region when the 2001 Handbook was adopted Follow-up to the 2006-07 External Review USDE requirement for periodic comprehensive review of the Standards Challenges to the effectiveness of accreditation and changes in higher education 7

11. Changes in Higher Education-1 Low graduation rates High student debt/high default rates Difficulty in transferring credit Dissatisfaction with quality of undergraduate education/low levels of learning Rapid growth of online education Growth and practices of for-profit education 8

12. Changes in Higher Education-2 Changing demographics of students-age, working, diversity Swirl: majority of students attending more than one institution Open source and DIYers Shrinking support for publics Trend to privatize public universities Increased federal regulation 9

13. Perceptions about Accreditation Lack of oversight of the for-profit sector Emphasis on process not results Inadequate attention to graduation rates and student learning outcomes “Pass-fail” nature of accreditation Lack of transparency about process and results Cost and labor intensiveness of accreditation Long terms of accreditation 10

14. The Changing Role of Accreditation Compliance Centered Scope of review: compliance of all standards Improvement Centered Scope of review: key areas selected for improvement Accountability Centered Scope of review: key areas identified for all reviews, e.g., retention, graduation rates, student learning outcomes 11

15. Changes within the WASC Region 163 now accredited/candidates 22 institutions in eligibility Growth in national footprint and for-profit institutions Possible growth in community college baccalaureate degrees International institutions seeking WASC accreditation Growth in online offerings 12

16. Guiding Principles of the Redesign Student Centeredness Accountability and quality assurance Transparency of process and results Efficiency in the process Heightened attention to learning and completion results New modes of oversight of for-profits Respect for institutional diversity and mission Support for innovation 13

17. Major Topics for Handbook Development Retention and Graduation Levels of learning Degree qualifications profile Public Reporting and transparency Changing ecology of learning Institutional review process 14

18. Retention/Graduation A WASC emphasis since 2008 Creating a common template with overall and disaggregated data Establishing groups of comparable institutions in order to set target rates/timelines and share good practices 15

19. Degree Qualifications Profile/Levels of Learning Considering how to integrate the DQP into WASC standards and policies Establishing core UG competencies and identifying methods for measuring student learning/external benchmarking Creating learning communities of institutions using the same methods of assessment Establishing level of achievement that is “good enough” 16

20. Public Reporting and Transparency Making explicit the information on student achievements that institutions must publish Making WASC more transparent by publishing Commission action letters Developing a more effective communications strategy so that accreditation is not so opaque Considering a publicly available key-indicator rating system Adding “public” members/students to the review process 17

21. Changing Ecology of Learning Considering several “bundles” of change and how to address them in the Handbook E.g., characteristics of learning, new delivery systems, globalization, new players and kinds of affiliations, outsourcing, open source, competency-based programs Considering a research and development function for WASC Developing a pathway for institutions to innovate/pilot 18

22. Institutional Review Process Redesign Assure that progress to date is sustained Shorten the five-year three-stage process without reducing rigor Use of off-site reviews, existing data, and technology Allow adaptability graduated to the strengths of the institution Do regular off-site monitoring Create teams of evaluator “specialists” 19

23. Task Force on For-Profit Education Develop new expertise and new ways to evaluate: Governance structures Financial data Recruitment and student services practices Faculty models 20

24. 21 Recent Changes in the Institutional Review Process and Standards Changes to Institutional Review Process re: Student Success, Program Review and EE Sustainability Changes to CFRs (e.g., 1.2, 2.7, 2.11,4.4) Clarifying the scope of the CPR visit to review the “infrastructure” for assessment of student learning Program Review and Program-Level Student Learning in a systematic way Tool: Table A & B (EVG pg. 74 & 80); SVG pg. 68 & 74)

25. Addressing Student Success State 3-5 year trends in retention and graduation rates Benchmark against peer institutions Set goals with timelines Establish Plan B scenarios 22

26. Addressing Program Review The systematic approach described below calls for the team to: review a sample of recent program reviews (the number may vary by institution) evaluate them under the CFRs, applying various WASC rubrics as appropriate study one or two program reviews in depth, and meet with the faculty and appropriate administrators from the one or two programs selected for in-depth examination to learn more about how program review works, what was learned, and what actions flowed from the program review. 23

27. Addressing Sustainability What structures, processes, and plans does the institution have in place for continuing the progress that it has made in the current review cycle? For CPR: What are the plans for using institutional capacity to achieve and demonstrate educational effectiveness at the EER? For EER: What are the plans for optimizing EE at the institution until the next interaction with WASC? 24

28. 25 Covering the Impact of the Financial Recession on Institutions Questions to ask the institution: How has the financial recession affected your institution? How has your institution responded? What plans are in place to operate within the current financial environment?

29. Covering Concerns about Recruitment and Marketing Does the institution provide accurate information about: The length of time to degree? The overall cost of the degree? The kinds of job for which the graduate is qualified with this degree? 26

30. Canceling the Proposal The requirement for institutional proposals was cancelled in summer 2010 in anticipation of the redesign of the Institutional Review Process. 27

31. 28 Q&A Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.

32. 29 Overview of the Three-Stage Review Process 1. 2. 3. Capacity & Preparatory Review Educational Effectiveness Review Institutional Proposal

33. 30 Timeline for Three-Stage Review Process

34. 31 Institutional Self-Review The heart of accreditation Built upon an effective internal process of Evaluation Self-reflection Recommendations from previous reviews Plans for action

35. 32 Stage 1:The Institutional Proposal

36. 33 The Institutional Proposal(currently not required for accredited institutions and institutions seeking initial accreditation) Guides the entire accreditation review process Connects institution’s context and priorities with the Standards of Accreditation Provides primary basis for both institution self-review and team evaluation Allows alignment of accreditation activities to institutional strategic plan and key areas chosen for improvement

37. 34 The Letter of Intent Submitted by institutions seeking Candidacy, the LOI serves the same purpose as the proposal Includes suggestions from Eligibility approval letter Submitted to assigned WASC liaison, one year in advance of CPR Review Instructions are in “How to Become Accredited” on WASC website

38. 35 Stage 2: The Capacity and Preparatory Review

39. 36 Purpose of the CPR Review and verify the information in the institutional presentation (report and data) Evaluate key institutional resources, structures, processes in light of Standards Evaluate institution’s infrastructure to support and assess student learning Assess institution’s preparedness to undertake the Educational Effectiveness Review

40. 37 Stage 3: The Educational Effectiveness Review

41. 38 Purpose of the EER Assess the use of capacity toward the effectiveness of both student and organizational learning Invite sustained engagement by the institution on the extent to which it fulfills its educational objectives Enable the Commission to make a judgment about extent to which institution fills its Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness

42. 39 Q&A Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.

43. 40 The Two Core Commitments

44. 41 Core Commitment 1 “The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures to fulfill its purposes.”

45. 42 Core Commitment 2 “The institution evidences clear and appropriate educational objectives and design at the institutional and program level. The institution employs processes of review, including the collection and use of data, that ensure delivery of program and learner accomplishments at a level of performance appropriate for the degree or certificate awarded.”

46. 43 The Four Standards Tool: Standards of Accreditation (EVG pg. 51, SVG pg. 47) Standards at a Glance (EVG pg. 68, SVG pg. 63)

47. 44 Standard 1:Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives Institutional Purposes Integrity (Note 1.2 and 1.9)

48. 45 Standard 2:Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions Teaching and Learning Scholarship and Creative Activity Support for Student Learning (Note 2.7, 2.10, and 2.11)

49. 46 Standard 3:Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability Faculty and Staff Fiscal, Physical, Information Resources Organizational Structures & Decision Making Processes (Note 3.5 and 3.10)

50. 47 Standard 4:Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement Strategic Thinking and Planning Commitment to Learning andImprovement (Note 4.5)

51. 48 Expectations for Two Reviews Tool: Expectations for Two Reviews (EVG pg. 45, SVG pg. 42)

52. 49 Q&A Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.

53. 50 Preparing for the Visit

54. 51 Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members and Staff Role of Team Chair: guides the team (EVG pg. 259, SVG pg. 193) Role of Team Assistant Chair: guides the report and the logistics (EVG pg. 261, SVG pg. 195) Role of assigned WASC staff liaison: guides the process (EVG pg. 9) Team assignments Tool: Section 10 (Tips, Roles and Advice)

55. 52 Timeline For CPR/EER Reviews 12 weeks 2 months Institution mails report to team and WASC Team holds conference call Site visit held and team report written Institution responds to errors of fact in team report Institution responds to final team report Commission acts at February or June meeting Tool: CPR or EER Timeline (VG, pg. 75, SVG pg. 73)

56. 53 Pre-visit Preparation Read all the documents from WASC General: Standards, CFRs, policies, visit guide, rubrics Institution Specific: Background documents re: institution and purpose of the visit, including proposal and/or last action letter/team report Read the institutional report Review the data portfolio and exhibits

57. 54 Reviewing the Exhibits Enrollment data Headcounts and FTE Graduation data Faculty data Key financial indicators Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key Performance Indicators Tool: How to Review WASC Data Exhibits (EVG pg. 107, SVG pg. 96)

58. 55 Reading the Report Has the institution done what it said it would do in its proposal? Has it collected and analyzed data effectively? Are its conclusions supported by evidence? Are there serious problems or potential areas of noncompliance? Does the report contain recommendations for further institutional action?

59. 56 Worksheet for Team Pre-Visit Conference Call Organizes team’s responses to institutional materials Helps team make preliminary evaluation under the Standards Provides basis for team to work toward consensus Should be submitted in advance of call Tool: Team Conference Call Worksheet (EVG pg. 94; SVG pg. 88)

60. 57 Team Pre-Visit Conference Call Evaluates quality of institutional report and alignment with Proposal and previous action letter(s) Identifies areas of good practice, improvement, and further inquiry Identifies issues, strategies, evidence needed Identifies persons and entities to be interviewed Makes or refines team assignments Plans visit logistics

63. Evaluate facilities OR online infrastructure

64. Observe classes (can be done ahead for online)

65. Document visit and findings in the appendix

66. Discuss important findings with team for inclusion in report, as appropriateTools: Distance Ed. Summary (EVG pg. 216, SVG pg. 157) Off-Campus Site Summary (EVG pg. 205, SVG pg. 148)

67. 59 Compliance Audit(special requirement for some visits) Required for: Institutions seeking Candidacy and Initial Accreditation Some institutions under sanction Additional report submitted by institution in advance of the visit—with links to documents Prepare as appendix to report Tool: Compliance Audit Checklist (EVG pg. 103, SVG pg. 93)

68. 60 Determining Strategy for CPR Visit What evidence is provided to show capacity and readiness for EE? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence? What other evidence do you want to review to evaluate capacity and preparation for EE? Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards? Meetings: format/methodologies

69. 61 Determining Strategy for EER Visit What evidence is provided to show EE? Why was it chosen? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence? What other evidence do you want to see to evaluate effectiveness? Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards? Meetings: format/methodologies

70. 62 Drafting in Advance of the Visit Assistant Chairs follow template to draft outline of team report and Section I Team members draft narrative of section(s) for which they are responsible, using institution’s report and data portfolio, with space for additional evidence, analysis and conclusions Tool: Guidelines for Drafting Preliminary Report Narratives Prior to the Visit (EVG pg. 102, SVG pg. 92)

71. Assign and Draft Sections on Recent Requirements Student Success (CPR and EER) Program Review (EER) Sustainability (CPR and EER) Financial Impact of Recession (CPR,EER) Accuracy in Marketing (CPR and EER) 63

72. 64 Q&A Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.

73. 65 Conducting the Visit

74. 66 Launching the Visit: Team Executive Session Discuss preliminary findings Identify major issues for exploration Refine lines of inquiry for each meeting Confirm team assignments Discuss use of tools and rubrics during visit Review preliminary outline/draft team report Discuss options for confidential team recommendation Review schedule

75. 67 Visit Schedule Executive sessions and debriefings with team only Meetings and interviews with key individuals and groups Open meetings with students, faculty and staff Document review and reflection Time for drafting report sections Final exit meeting

76. 68 Confidential Email Account Set up by WASC as extension of open meetings Checked by Assistant Chair during visit Important emails shared with team and investigated Comments included in team report only if the institution has a chance to address them Tool: Sample Notification re: Confidential Email Account (EVG pg. 179, SVG pg. 123)

77. 69 Approaches Used on Visits Document review Interviews and meetings Techniques for small and large meetings Mini-surveys (large group) Fishbowl exercises (small group) Audits Plan visit methodologies in advance as part of schedule.

78. 70 Tips for Good Interviews Decide on a protocol for interview Prepare questions and lines of inquiry in advance Ask questions that elicit information, stimulate discussion, or require judgment Avoid interrogation, leading questions, or loaded language Avoid consultation, giving solutions, or talking about your institution Let them do the talking

79. Tools to Use on Visits The EER Toolkit Rubrics for Assessing Student Learning The Educational Effectiveness Framework 71

80. 72 Evaluating Program Review and Student Learning on EER Visits Tool: EE Toolkit (available online) Suggested Approaches for Evaluating Program Review (EVG pg. 184)

81. 73 EER Toolkit

82. 74

83. 75

84. 76

85. 77 Rubrics: Assessment of Student Learning Academic Program Learning Outcomes Use of Portfolios in Assessing Program Outcomes Use of Capstones in Assessing Program Outcomes Integration of Student Learning Assessment into Program Review General Education Assessment Process Tool: Rubrics for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Assessment Practices (EVG pg. 190)

86. 78 Educational Effectiveness Framework Use with team to evaluate institution’s “place” Use language of rubric to describe the institution in the report Ask the institution to evaluate itself and discuss Confer with team toward end of visit to mark a copy of the EEF Submit the marked EEF confidentially to WASC Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework (EVG pg. 188)

87. 79 The Exit Meeting Team chair communicates commendations and key recommendations that will be included in report Chair may ask team members to participate The meeting is not a dialog, discussion or debate The visit ends after the Exit Meeting. The visit is a “snapshot in time.” No new information is accepted after the Exit Meeting.

88. 80 Q&A Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.

89. 81 Producing Effective Team Reports

90. 82 Report Preparation Logistics Follow report template Review documents and materials before the visit Start writing from document review before the visit Incorporate observations from visit during the visit Complete your sections on site and give to Assistant Chair before Exit Meeting Tool: Section 7 (Producing Effective Team Reports)

91. 83 Using Evidence in Team Reports Use qualitative and quantitative evidence Select evidence carefully and purposefully Connect evidence to an assertion or question Analyze information; do not just set forth data Let evidence suggest improvements Use evidence that speaks to the institution’s themes and the team's questions

92. 84 Team Use of the Standards and CFRs Team judgments must be linked to specific Standards and CFRs CFRs must be cited in reports Standards and CFRs form the basis for Commission decisions Standards and CFRs provide a context for continuous quality improvement

93. 85 What is an effective team report? Reflects a thorough assessment of the institution’s capacity, preparation, and/or effectiveness Is evidence based Cites the Standards and CFRs Provides the basis for a sound and supportable Commission decision Identifies important areas for institution to address

94. 86 Tips for Writing Team Reports Consider multiple audiences: institution, Commission, and next team Know your areas of responsibility, including length and depth of your section Start writing before you arrive on campus Address priorities and goals set by the institution Address Commission’s concerns (last action letter) Make commendations, but don’t overdo it Use praise that doesn’t send wrong or mixed signal

95. 87 More Tips on Team Reports…. Be sure to check facts Support findings and recommendations with evidence --and tie them to CFRs Ensure evidence is sound and valid Distinguish recommendations from suggestions or observations Use formal language and tone (e.g., not “we/they”) Don’t mention personnel by name Don’t prescribe solutions

96. 88 Developing Team Recommendations

97. 89 Two Kinds of Recommendations Team recommendations at the end of team report, delivered at the exit meeting Summarize observations of team Indicate important areas for institution to address Confidential Team Recommendation to the Commission for action Recommend follow-up action to the Commission regarding future reports, visits, and accreditation status of institution

99. Confidential Team Recommendation to Commission Should be based upon evidence from observations and document review by the team Must follow Commission guidelines and decision indicators Commission Decisions on Institutions (EVG pg. 245, SVG pg. 173) Commission and Team Decision Indicators (EVG pg. 255, SVG pg. 187) 91

100. 92 Q&A Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.

101. 93 After the Visit

102. 94 What happens next? Assistant Chair prepares draft for Chair, team, and staff liaison review; changes as needed Chair sends to institution for corrections of fact Chair finalizes draft and submits to WASC Chair sends Confidential Team Recommendation and completed EEF to WASC WASC sends report to institution

103. 95 Then… Staff prepares draft action letter, which is reviewed by team Chair Commission Panel reads report and documentation including institution’s written response, meets with institutional representatives at Commission meeting Panel makes recommendation to Commission, and Commission acts Staff finalizes draft action letter on behalf of Commission

104. 96 Also after the visit…. Team members send reimbursement forms to WASC within 30 days Hotel arranged and paid directly by institution Travel / food reimbursed Rental car must be approved in advance by WASC staff Spouse or assistant costs not covered See policy for more details Team members should not have any contact with the institution About the visit OR Consult with the institution for one year All information related to visit is confidential and should not be shared with anyone other than team members

105. 97 The Team’s Impact Peer review is the foundation of accreditation. The team report forms the basis for the Commission action and its letter. The team report and action letter inform the work of the institution for years to come. You were chosen for a specific team because of your expertise and your experiences in Higher Education and for your willingness to serve this institution and Higher Education

107. Team Materials emailed by WASC and located in Box.Net

108. Institutional Report mailed 10-12 weeks in advance of visit

109. WASC Website: www.wascsenior.org

110. WASC Email Advisory (sent prior to visit)

112. 100 Thank you for your service to the region

113. 101 Announcements The materials presented during this webinar and a recording of this session will be posted at: http://www.wascsenior.org/fall2011