1 / 27

UT Self Study Senior Leadership Retreat December 3, 2009

UT Self Study Senior Leadership Retreat December 3, 2009. MISSION STATEMENT

lotus
Télécharger la présentation

UT Self Study Senior Leadership Retreat December 3, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UT Self Study Senior Leadership Retreat December 3, 2009 MISSION STATEMENT The mission of The University of Toledo is to improve the human condition; to advance knowledge through excellence in learning, discovery and engagement; and to serve as a diverse, student-centered public metropolitan research university.

  2. NCA-HLC Self-Study Leadership Co-Chairs: Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Professor, College of Business Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Professor, College of Medicine Steering Committee: Team Leaders Team 1: Dr. Charles Blatz, College of Arts & Sciences Team 2: Bryan Pyles, HSC Provost Office Team 3: Dr. Constance Shriner, College of Medicine Team 4: Dr. Charlene Czerniak, Judith Herb College of Education Team 5: Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, College of Arts & Sciences Administrative Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, MC Provost Office Support: Dr. Bin Ning, Director, Institutional Research Marcia King-Blandford, MC Provost Office

  3. Accreditation History The University of Toledo Medical College of Ohio 1972 - Approval by OBOR - Accreditation granted 1986 – Accreditation continued 1991 – Accreditation continued 2001- Accreditation continued 1922 – Accreditation granted 1977 – Accreditation continued 1983 – Accreditation continued 1992 – Accreditation continued 2002 – Accreditation continued 2011-2012 – UT Site Visit

  4. An Effective Self-Study • Evaluates the whole university - all undergraduate and graduate programs • Engages all constituencies • Builds on processes in place or identifies processes to add • Shows effective leadership and communication • Presents Evidence of Fulfilling the Accreditation Criteria The findings of the self-study inform decision-making and future institutional development From J. Taylor 10/09

  5. Examples of Descriptive vs. Evaluative Statements • The university uses different methods to assess general education outcomes. • 2. The merger has significantly improved the University’s capacity in obtaining research funding. • Testing results using nationally-recognized instruments (CAAP & CLA) demonstrated a 70% growth in students’ writing and mathematic skills between freshmen and senior year. • As a result of the merger, the amount of Federal-sponsored research funding has increased from $12 million before the merger to $45 million in 2009.

  6. UT Self Study Goals • Confirm that UT’s practices and actions are consistent with its mission statement and strategic direction. • Provide proof of evidence of UT’s strengths, identify areas for improvement, and recommend improvement. • Foster the strong sense of community through communication, collaboration, and connectedness between and among all UT constituencies. • Position UT’s future as a leading academic institution in the region, the state and the nation. • Achieve continued accreditation from Higher Learning Commission.

  7. Previously Identified Challenges The University of Toledo 2002 Site Visit Medical College of Ohio 2001 Site Visit Strategic planning does not drive decision making or have measurable goals. Scholarships are limited to the School of Medicine. Campus lacks a cohesive institution-wide student recruitment plan. • No institution-wide, HLC approved Plan for the Assessment of Student Academic Achievement. • Also noted in 1992. • Noted in Focus visit 2004 • Institutional planning process does not clearly articulate and connect the University’s evolving mission, resource allocation, and measures of institutional effectiveness.

  8. Criterion One Mission and Integrity The organization operates with integrity to insure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students. Dr. Charles Blatz, Criterion One Team Leader Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, Liaison

  9. Criterion One:Mission and Integrity • Clear articulation of the Mission • Recognition of diversity: among learners and other constituencies • University members understand the Mission • Mission is supported throughout organization • University protects the Mission

  10. Criterion One Progress Update • Criterion I addresses the university, its activities and its programs considered as an integral whole deliberately organized by its mission, vision, values and strategic planning. • How and to what degree do we function in ways that forward the goals and objectives of our mission, and other core guidance?

  11. Criterion One Progress Update Our Examination will ask: • Do our public documents clearly express our aims and commitments? • Do our core documents recognize the diversity of our learners and the variety of our constituencies, and do they do so with the depth and inclusiveness needed to further our mission? • Do the university’s governance and administration further our mission by promoting needed leadership and collaboration? • Do all segments of the university perform in ways showing the grasp and endorsement of UT’s mission needed for our advancement? • Do all segments of the university conduct their work conscientiously so as to sustain the further advancement of its mission?

  12. Criterion Two Preparing for the future The organization's allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. Bryan Pyles, Criterion Two Team Leader Dr. Bin Ning, Liaison

  13. Criterion Two Preparing for the Future • Preparation for a future shaped by societal and economic trends • Resource support for maintaining and strengthening education programs • Evaluation and assessment processes show effectiveness and continuous improvement • Planning levels align with the mission and the capacity to fulfill the Mission.

  14. Criterion Two Progress Update • Established process to capture information needs • Began reviewing Core Component 1 • Identified initial data needs • Conversations regarding the context of a newly-merged institution and the socioeconomic surroundings • Discussed the close interaction with the UT current planning process

  15. Criterion Three Student Learning and Effective Teaching The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its education mission. Dr. Constance Shriner, Criterion Three Team Leader Marcia King-Blandford, Liaison

  16. Criterion Three Student Learning and Effective Teaching • Has clear statements of student learning outcomes that make effective assessment possible. • Values and supports effective teaching • Creates effective learning environments • Has resources supporting student learning and effective teaching.

  17. Criterion Three Progress Update • Outcomes based education • Core curriculum • Supportive environment • Alignment of resources with educational mission

  18. Criterion Four Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge The organization promotes a life of learning for the faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission. Dr. Charlene Czerniak, Criterion Four Team Leader Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Liaison

  19. Criterion Four Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge • Demonstrates it values a “Life of Learning” • Demonstrates the integral nature of knowledge and skill acquisition and intellectual inquiry • Assesses the usefulness of curricula to students living and working in a global, diverse, and technological society • Supports responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge

  20. Criterion Four Progress Updates In-depth review of Core Components 4a-4d; Identified activities & procedures in place that address each and initial data needs Discussed data collection and resource sharing Key elements: • Activities supporting “life of learning” and financial commitments to them • Status of education program reviews • Frequency/quality of ethics and responsible conduct training • Research, technology Transfer, grants, Spin off companies, etc • General education program: Extent of core curriculum and assess how it demonstrates students have a breath of knowledge/skills

  21. Criterion Five: Engagement and Service As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value. Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, Criterion Five Team Leader Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Liaison

  22. Criterion Five: Engagement and Service • Learns from constituencies and analyzes its capacity to serve them • Has the capacity and commitment to engage with identified constituencies and communities • Demonstrates responsiveness to constituencies that depend on it • Services are of value to internal and external constituencies

  23. Criterion Five Progress Update • Establishment of common definitions and understanding of key elements such as constituencies,” “community,” and “engagement.” • Begin review of internal and external stakeholders • Internal: Faculty, students, staff, administrators • External: Alumni, community, state • Hybrids: UT Medical Center • Begin to list sources of evidence • Accreditation reports from colleges, departments, etc. • Reports from UT centers, institutes, and offices

  24. Federal Compliance • Credits, Program Length, and Tuition • Student Complaints 3. Transfer Policies • Verification of Student Identity [Online Correspondence] • Title IV Program and Related Responsibilities • Institutional Disclosures [Advertising and Recruiting Materials] • Relationship with Other Agencies • Public Notification of Evaluation Visit and Third Party Comment

  25. Institutional Snapshot • Student Demography Headcounts • Student Recruitment and Admissions • Financial Assistance for Students • Student Retention and Program Productivity • Faculty Demography • Availability of Instructional Resources, Information Technology • Financial Data Retrieved from the Higher Learning Commission web site at http://www.ncahlc.org

  26. Outcomes of Site Visit • Evidence criterion is met • Evidence criterion met but needs institutional attention • Evidence that criterion is met but requires institutional attention and commission follow-up (Progress/Contingency Reports /Focused visits) • Criterion not met (even 1 of the 21 components)

  27. What’s Next • Appointment of student representatives • Decision regarding Special Emphasis within UT Self Study • Progress report update to senior leadership in late spring • Draft of findings and evidence by late fall 2010

More Related