WASC Self Study: A First Look

California State University, Fresno – WASC Campus Open Forums April 28-29 ,2014

WASC Self Study: A First Look

CoCo-sponsored by President Castro

and the Academic Senate

submit questions to @Fresno_State and use #FresnoStateWASC

www.wascsenior.org


Outline

• Overview of WASC and accreditation• Our process so far• Summary of key points from the self study• Feedback


Regional Accreditation• Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools • New England Association of Schools and Colleges • North Central Association of Colleges and Schools• Northwest Commission on Colleges and

Universities • Western Association of Schools and Colleges • Southern Association of Colleges and Schools


Regional Accreditation:• Assures quality• Allows students to transfer credits• Allows students to receive federal financial aid• Provides institutions an opportunity to reflect

on their practices and improve


WASC Standards CFRsStandard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives

1.1-1.8

Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions

2.1-2.14

Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Quality and Sustainability

3.1-3.10

Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance, Institutional Learning, and Improvement

4.1-4.7


CFR Examples:

1.2 Educational objectives are widely recognized throughout the institution, are consistent with stated purposes, and are demonstrably achieved. The institution regularly generates, evaluates, and makes public data about student achievement, including measures of retention and graduation, and evidence of student learning outcomes.


CFR Examples:

3.3 The institution maintains appropriate and sufficiently supported faculty and staff development activities designed to improve teaching, learning, and assessment of learning outcomes.


The Self Study - provides evidence of the CFRs through1. Introduction: Institutional Context; Response to Previous Commission

Actions2. Compliance with WASC Standards and Federal Regulations: Self-review

under the Standards; Compliance Checklist 3. Degree Programs: Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of Degrees4. Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards

of Performance at Graduation5. Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation6. Quality Assurance and Improvement: Program Review; Assessment; Use of

Data and Evidence7. Sustainability: Financial Viability; Preparing for the Changing Higher

Education Environment8. Conclusion: Reflection and Plans for Improvement


Our Campus Process:

• Fall 2012 – Meaning Quality and Integrity Subcommittee and Core Competency Subcommittee

• Executive Committee• Steering Committee


Our Campus Process:

• Fall 2013 – Essays written by groups (from Exec and Steering) – 2 rounds of revision

• Jan 2014 – Outside review / revision• March – Editing and revision by Gil Harootunian• April 2014 - draft circulated to campus for input


Looking forward:

• Aug 2014: Self narrative submission• November 20, 2014: Offsite Review• October 20-22, 2015: Accreditation Visit


Introduction: Institutional Context;

1. Sets institutional context as regional, minority serving, primarily first gen commuter campus.

2. Changes over last 10 years including:a. Demographics (more Hispanic, more Pell eligible)b. Classification as Carnegie engaged institutionc. Capital Campaign and infrastructure


Introduction: Response to Previous Commission Actions

3. Strengthening GE and University Wide Assessment

4. Faculty Expectations for Research / Universities place within Higher Ed.


Compliance with WASC Standards and Federal Regulations: Self-review under the Standards; Compliance Checklist

1. Compliance Review– Policies clear and Shared governance string

2. Self review– Strengths

• Strategic planning• Student success focus• Faculty evaluation• Values diversity


Self Review (cont’d)Challenges:• Values and character weak in mission statement• SLO standards generally nonexistent• Lack of publicly available data on achievement of SLOs• MQI not language we have used• Information literacy not a focus• ILOs just now being developed• GE assessment course rather than program based• Student affairs program review processes unclear• Broader concept of faculty development needed-address

part-time faculty


Degree Programs: Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of Degrees

• Development of Institutional Learning Outcomes for undergrad (and potential for eportfolios)

• Less work done for graduate programs• Reviewed assessment processes in place to

insure quality


Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of Performance at Graduation1. Fresno State evaluated written communication core

competency in spring/summer 2013. Seventy-one percent (71%) of W course samples and 94% of W exam samples are rated at competent or accomplished levels (on a rubric developed by The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing, and adopted by Writing Across the Curriculum Committee at Fresno State).


Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of Performance at Graduation2. Fresno State is planning to evaluate all five

cores (Oral and Written Communication, Information Literary, Critical Thinking and Quantitative Reasoning) by selecting student work samples via an E-portfolio system that will be implemented in 2014-15 academic year.


Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of Performance at Graduation3. Standards of Core competency will be

determined either universally (all students are expected to reach a certain level) or by discipline (students are expected to reach varying degrees of competency across disciplines).


Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation

1. Fresno State has had an unwavering focus on improving student learning, retention and degree completion for well over a decade.

2. A wide variety of discipline specific initiatives, pedagogy, technology and intervention strategies have been deployed to support student retention and degree completion.


Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation

3. Fresno State is well on track to surpass the goal of increasing the six year graduation rate by six percentage points (from 45 to 51%) and is making good progress with closing the achievement gap between underrepresented minority groups and non-Underrepresented minority groups.


Quality Assurance and Improvement: Program Review; Assessment; Use of Data and Evidence

• Culture of evidence and use of data are evolving • University-level use of data is strong; program-level

use of data needs to be strengthened • Fall short in follow-through on Program Review

Action Plans • Currently lacking a means by which we periodically

review the Program Review process


Sustainability: Financial Viability; Preparing for the Changing Higher Education Environment

1. Organization2. Fiscal

a) Processb) Alignment

3. Strategic planninga) Universityb) Division


Sustainability: Financial Viability; Preparing for the Changing Higher Education Environment

4. Identify and Respond to changes in higher educationa) Accessb) Accountability

• EPortfolios

c) Accommodation• Common core• Learning strategies/pedagogies• Technology


Feedback:

• Twitter: submit questions to @Fresno_State and use #FresnoStateWASC

• Submit feedback on the web:www.fresnostate.edu/wasc

WASC Self Study: A First Look

Documents

Transcript of WASC Self Study: A First Look