WASC Home > CPR Reports
Back

QUALITY ASSURANCE INITIATIVES SUMMARY

The discussion on this section was held December 1, 2005 and was supplemented by e-mail comments and follow-up work done by the Academic Council.

One of the key items noted in the conversation is that it is expected that many of the recommendations will come from the work of various WASC teams since much of this is related to detailed campus procedures.
           
Ideas:

  • Revise the faculty evaluation system to include more formative evaluation (the Faculty Resources committee is already at work on this – see further comments in the Faculty Initiatives section of the Academic Plan).
  • Create a Third Year Seminar to help faculty plan their career
  • Faculty Career Planning Seminar offered every seven years so that faculty can map out a cycle of scholarly work and other career development activities between sabbaticals.
  • Several departments are or would like to see professional accreditation.  The university needs to do a cost benefits analysis of this process.
  • The department review process needs to remain consistent across cycles.  Changing the system adds work for the Chairs/School Deans/Site Directors.
  • There needs to be an outside review component to department reviews.  Departments who have sought feedback from colleagues at other institutions have gained a great deal of useful information.  There needs to a budget amount set aside to pay an honorarium to these outside reviewers.
  • The standards for the review need to be more clearly specified and a realistic estimate of the number of hours of work necessary to meet these standards needs to be created. 

Note:

  • CPR Group Four: Standards 2 & 4 recommends:
    • It is recommended that PLNU make a continued and stronger effort to show faculty how to use and interpret the current national instruments so that student evaluations can be used for formative purposes.
    • It is recommended that the Center for Teaching and Learning focus efforts on formative evaluation in order to better assess teaching and learning at PLNU.
  • EER Group Two: New Programs should have recommendations for this area.
  • EER Group Three: Program Review should have recommendations for this area.

Framing questions:

  1. How might faculty evaluation be improved?  Is it currently effective? 
  2. Does the current system actually serve to improve instruction? 
  3. Is the current system helpful for professional development? 
  4. Does it effectively aid in the evaluation of faculty performance?
  5. What could be done to improve the Program Review process?  (Recommendations will also come from the WASC EE Three committee)
  6. Is it time for a major overhaul of the Program Review Process or just minor adjustments?
  7. What structures are necessary for investigating new programs and possible sites?  How do we involve all stakeholders at an early stage in the process?
  8. What structures are necessary for creating and evaluating new programs or sites that may not be tied to a single academic department or school?
  9. How successful have we been in our new program starts?  Have they met their initial projections regarding enrollment and income?
  10. Is it possible to develop a priority list and timeline for new program starts?  Would a multiyear plan be possible to develop, and if so, useful?