TOP
THE VALUE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT
The new WASC approach to accreditation is an important innovation in higher education. It promises to help us meet our own internally-defined goals by focusing on:
- assisting the institution in its efforts to be accountable for student learning results;
- presenting a balanced view of the institution;
- finding what WASC calls the “Good Catch,” that is, identifying issues that need attention; and
- sustaining a learning-centered culture.
This process at Point Loma Nazarene University will seek to look openly and honestly at the challenge of placing learning as a strategic institutional priority and providing, for us as well as for WASC, a full assessment and appropriate recommendations as befitting a quality Christian institution of higher education.
There is no need to present an ideal institution or seek to protect the University from criticism; this is about a careful analysis that leads to institutional improvement.
TOP WEB RESOURCES
The University has launched a Web site at
www.pointloma.edu/accreditation containing helpful information for internal and public reference. Though undergoing continual
updates, the site currently contains the following items of interest:
- An introductory front page;
- An explanation of the “Accreditation Process;”
- A list of the WASC Steering Committee members;
- A list of all WASC committees and their memberships;
- A Glossary of Terms;
- A link to PLNU’s approved Institutional Proposal (pdf);
- A link to WASC’s 2001 Handbook of Accreditation (pdf); and
- A link to WASC’s Evidence Guide (pdf).
TOP ORGANIZATION
Duties of the Chair. The chair, of course, is given the responsibility for convening Task Force I at times and places that are possible for the majority of the membership. The chair will communicate the
CHARGE (see below), work through the designated liaison with the WASC Steering Committee (WSC) for further clarification as needed, prepare reports and documents, and meet the project deadline (see
TIMEFRAME and
CALENDAR below). Initially, it may be helpful for the task force to read and discuss the general information regarding the reaffirmation of accreditation (“Accreditation Process”) found on the University’s Web site.
Expectations of the Liaison. Every group and task force involved in the reaffirmation process is assigned a liaison from the WASC Steering Committee. Working closely with the chair, the liaison serves to relay questions and clarifications and to provide routine updates and progress reports to monthly meetings of the WASC Steering Committee. The liaison is expected to engage fully in the work of the group or task force but does not have a vote, should one be taken in the course of deliberations.
Work of the Task Force. The first meeting of the task force should include a time for addressing organizational issues, especially the designation of a recorder/secretary. That person will maintain a record of meetings and create electronic documents as needed. In some cases, chairs may also want to designate a team writer who will be responsible for polishing the narrative report of the task force’s work. While it is assumed the conclusions and recommendations of task forces are by consensus, voting on these matters is certainly appropriate when it is determined to be desirable. Minutes of all meetings should be submitted periodically to Keith Bell, project coordinator for the WASC Steering Committee, as well as the final report at deadline.
Off-site Task Force Members. In an attempt to include participants from the broader University community, faculty and administrators from Arcadia, Bakersfield, Mission Valley, and the Board of Trustees have been assigned to groups and task forces. Whenever possible, special consideration should be given to persons who are not routinely on the main campus when scheduling meetings. It may be necessary to plan meetings that coincide with already-scheduled visits to the Point (Board of Trustees meetings, faculty meetings on Wednesdays, etc.). Normally, members should not be asked to travel to San Diego for the sole purpose of attending a group meeting.
Engagement with the Entire PLNU Community. Since the scope of WASC assignments is broad, it is essential—when appropriate—that non-members become engaged in conversations and in the evaluations being made. For example, when a topic for consideration focuses on an area not well represented in the membership of the group or task force, care should be taken to engage those faculty, staff, and administrators in the PLNU community who are stakeholders.
Dialog with Students. WASC certainly values the input of students. Groups and task forces are encouraged to include them in focus groups and regular meetings whenever the
CHARGE would be met more completely with their special input.
TOP CHARGE
Point Loma Nazarene University has chosen to opt for a thematic approach to its Education Effectiveness Review. The newly restated University Mission, summarized in the phrase To Teach ~ To Shape ~ To Send, is a logical choice for such a thematic treatment. Furthermore, the University is anxious to investigate further and more deliberately sustain discourse on these missional phrases. The
Institutional Proposal, page 8, calls for “analytical essays for each of the three themes” utilizing “specific lines of inquiry and means of assessment.” At the conclusion of its work, Task Force I will have prepared a reflective essay whose findings will generate full discussion “with the Board of Trustees, faculty, staff, students, and alumni.”
TOP THE THEME “TO TEACH”
Listed below are questions that have been crafted by the WASC Steering Committee for the purpose of addressing the theme “To Teach.” These questions cover three specific areas: general education, the academic major, and faculty scholarship.
General Education [undergraduate level]
- Do students learn fundamental writing, quantitative, and critical thinking skills?
- How do students who are involved in cross-cultural experiences change as a result of intensive immersion in other cultures?
- Are students able to articulate a Wesleyan theological approach when addressing particular social and ethical issues?
Academic Majors [undergraduate and graduate levels]
- Do students demonstrate knowledge at the appropriate level in their major field?
- Have students developed the skills needed by professionals in their field of study?
- Are students able to identify and discuss significant ethical and theological issues in their major area of study?
Scholarship [undergraduate and graduate levels]
- In what ways are faculty actively engaged in research?
- In what ways has faculty-student collaboration increased?
- In what ways do faculty actively work at developing their teaching craft?
Suggested Sources of Evidence: pre- and post-tests in writing, Mathematics 303, general education holistic assessment of seniors, student focus groups, results on the GRE, LSAT, MCAT and on licensure exams such as those used in nursing and athletic training, alumni surveys, graduate school entrance data, departmental assessment data, departmental capstone courses, portfolios, results of data analysis in the Office of International Studies, faculty publications, conference participation records, data from the undergraduate Honors Scholars program, mentoring data, faculty surveys, faculty discussion groups, and Center for Teaching and Learning program assessment data.
TOP TIMEFRAME
The work of Task Force I can begin at any time, since these questions will require research and time for follow-up. The reflective essay should be completed by October 2, 2006, in order to be processed by the WASC Steering Committee later that semester. The entire University community will review the final draft of the Educational Effectiveness Review during the spring semester (2007), and final edits will be made by the Steering Committee. The Educational Effectiveness Review will be submitted to WASC no later than 12 weeks prior to the Site Visit (set for the fall of 2007).
TOP CALENDAR
There are some critical dates that you should bear in mind in the work of Task Force I. The task force may want to expedite its work and without doubt will want to develop its own timeline, while referencing the following general schedule:
| First Meeting of Task Force I |
Early February, 2005 |
| Research Theme I Questions and Discuss Issues |
March 2005-Feb. 2006 |
| WASC General Committee Meeting (chairs only) |
August 31, 2005 |
| Conclude Findings on “To Teach” Theme |
March 1, 2006 |
| Submit a Preliminary Draft of the Relective Essay to the WSC |
September 1, 2006 |
| Submit the Reflective Essay Final Draft to the WSC |
October 2, 2006 |
TOP LENGTH OF THE PROJECT REPORT
The Educational Effectiveness Review Report is limited to 50 pages of text (single spaced), exclusive of exhibits and appendices. Final reports to the WASC Steering Committee, therefore, should be succinct (8-10 pages; 15 maximum) with links to supporting evidence whenever possible. It will be the ultimate responsibility of the WASC Steering Committee to edit and synthesize all reports into the final Educational Effectiveness Review Report document.
TOP FURTHER SUGGESTIONS
The WASC Steering Committee may communicate specific issues or concerns to the group or task force.
TOP