Transcript Research Study of Internal Review Processes for the New

SACS/COC Annual Meeting, December 4-7, 2004, Atlanta, Georgia
Research Study of
Internal Review Processes for
the New SACS Principles of Accreditation
Ms. Phuong T. T. Nguyen, Dr. Diane E. Oliver, & Dr. T. Gilmour Reeve
Texas Tech University
1
Presenters and Moderator
Presenters
– Phuong T. T. Nguyen: Doctoral Candidate (ABD) in
the College of Education, Higher Education Program
at Texas Tech University (TTU)
– Diane Oliver, Ph.D: Deputy Director of the Vietnam
Center, TTU
Moderator
– T. Gilmour Reeve, Ph.D: Director of Strategic
Planning, President’s Office, TTU
2
Panelists
Dr. Gary Elbow, Texas Tech University
Dr. Ruth Feiock, Florida State University
Dr. Teresa A. Summers, Louisiana State
University System
3
Format
PRESENTATION
– Purpose and Significance
– Methodology and Data Collection
– Findings and Recommendations
PANEL DISCUSSION
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
4
Purpose and Significance
To examine the internal review processes used
by selected higher education institutions (HEIs)
to carry out the SACS new Principles of
Accreditation
Because the model is new, lessons learned are
potentially useful to other HEIs
5
Methodology and Data Collection
Philosophical lens was postpositivism
The same phenomenon is perceived differently by
different people
Qualitative and exploratory research design
Data collection from public documents and
phone interviews
6
Findings & Recommendations
Time Line
Task Planning and
Leadership Team
Implementation for the
Task Planning and
QEP
Implementation for
Communication
the Compliance
Technical Support
Certification
Culture of Assessment
7
Recommendations
Time Line
- Develop both
external & internal
time lines
- Track formative
assessments
- Allow ample time
8
Recommendations
Time Line

When appointing the SACS
liaison, consider current SACS
Leadership
guidelines and the best skill sets
Team

Institutional leadership support
for the SACS liaison (e.g.,
resources, release time, etc.)

Selected Leadership Team
members assume responsibility
for the writing

Train Leadership Team
9
Recommendations
Keep the CC Team small;
Time Line
•
Leadership Team
Select key players
Task Planning &
• Design standardized data
Implementation for
collection forms
the Compliance
• Consider the audience’s
Certification (CC)
potential lack of knowledge
regarding the institution
10
Recommendations
•
Select a chair who is a respected
faculty member, knowledgeable of
the institution, experienced in
planning & assessment,
Task Planning &
Implementation
for the QEP
resourceful, and a good writer
• Solicit faculty involvement and
broad based participation
•Limit the QEP scope so that
progress can be demonstrated
within five years, and develop clear
success criteria
11
Recommendations
•
Provide background information on
Task Planning and
the new SACS processes
Implementation for
• Regularly update the leadership
the QEP
• Include leadership’s assistants on
e-mails
Communication
• Provide regular communication
within the working teams
• Have the Compliance Certification
and QEP processes open to
comments
12
Recommendations
•
Involve early technical support
to:
Task Planning and
Implementation for
• Design a user-friendly
the QEP
website
• Facilitate interactive online
Communication
communication
Technical Support
•Track tasks and time lines
• Have a technical support
person on-call 24 hours during
off-site review
13
Recommendations
• Establish professional
regular assessments
through standing bodies
Task Planning and
Implementation for the
QEP
• specifically charged
Communication
with assessment
Technical Support
responsibilities
• help units with
Culture of Assessment
developing tools for
enhancing quality
14
Panel Discussion
Moderator
– Dr. T. Gilmour Reeve, Texas Tech University
Panelists
– Dr. Gary Elbow, Texas Tech University
– Dr. Ruth Feiock, Florida State University
– Dr. Teresa A. Summers, Louisiana State University
System
15
Thank you!
16