The self-study process is a cornerstone of institutional accreditation and continuous improvement. A well-crafted Self-Study Design (SSD) serves as a roadmap, guiding institutions through a comprehensive evaluation of their strengths, challenges, and opportunities. This week’s design study guide focuses on creating a robust and effective SSD, ensuring a streamlined and insightful self-study experience.
Institutional Overview: Setting the Stage
The SSD begins with an “Institutional Overview,” providing essential context for the entire process. This section should concisely describe the institution’s mission, key programs, recent developments, and the broader environmental factors influencing its operations. Include student achievement and enrollment trends, as well as financial information. Don’t forget to outline the steps taken to prepare for the self-study. Highlight points of pride, address any unusual circumstances or challenges, and note any substantive changes since the last self-study. This overview fosters a shared understanding of institutional needs and priorities for all stakeholders, including new members of the campus community and external reviewers.
Institutional Priorities: Focusing the Inquiry
Clearly define the three to four institutional priorities that will be the focus of the self-study. Explain the processes used to identify these priorities and demonstrate their alignment with both the institution’s mission and the relevant accreditation standards. This alignment can be presented in a narrative format or through tables that “cross-walk” mission elements and accreditation standards with the selected priorities.
Table 1: Sample Alignment of Mission with Institutional Priorities
| Mission Statement Elements | Priority 1: Enhancing Student Success through Innovative Pedagogy | Priority 2: Fostering a Diverse and Inclusive Learning Environment | Priority 3: Strengthening Community Engagement and Partnerships |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exceptional Educational Experiences | |||
| Research and Scholarship | |||
| Engagement and Impact (regionally, nationally, and globally) | |||
| Student Success |
This section is crucial for demonstrating that the institution has engaged in an open and inclusive process, selecting priorities that are well-aligned with its core values and accreditation requirements.
Table 2: Sample Alignment of Institutional Priorities with Accreditation Standards
| Accreditation Standards | Priority 1: Enhancing Student Success through Innovative Pedagogy | Priority 2: Fostering a Diverse and Inclusive Learning Environment | Priority 3: Strengthening Community Engagement and Partnerships |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Mission and Goals | |||
| II. Ethics and Integrity | |||
| III. Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience | |||
| IV. Support of the Student Experience | |||
| V. Educational Effectiveness Assessment | |||
| VI. Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement | |||
| VII. Governance, Leadership, and Administration |
Intended Outcomes: Defining Success
Clearly articulate the intended outcomes of the self-study process. These outcomes should reflect what the institution hopes to achieve through self-analysis and should be based on conversations with campus stakeholders. At a minimum, the outcomes should address how the institution currently meets accreditation standards, focuses on continuous improvement, and engages the institutional community in an inclusive self-appraisal process. Remember to include at least one additional outcome based on the institution’s desired return on investment.
| Sample Self-Study Outcomes |
|---|
| – Enhance data-informed decision-making processes across all departments and units. |
| – Improve the integration of technology into teaching and learning to enhance student engagement and success. |
| – Strengthen the assessment of student learning outcomes at the program and institutional levels. |
| – Evaluate the effectiveness of current student support services and identify areas for improvement. |
Outcome statements should be specific, observable, and/or measurable. Avoid vague statements like “increase diversity” or “increase retention.” Instead, focus on the processes and analyses that will contribute to these goals.
Self-Study Approach: Standards-Based vs. Priorities-Based
Outline the approach the institution will use to organize its Self-Study Report and Working Groups: either a “Standards-Based” approach (organized by accreditation standard) or a “Priorities-Based” approach (organized by institutional priority). Provide a brief explanation and rationale for the chosen approach.
Organizational Structure: Steering Committee and Working Groups
Detail the organizational structure of the Steering Committee and Working Groups, including their respective charges. Each Working Group should engage in an active, open, and evidence-based inquiry to identify institutional strengths, challenges, and opportunities for improvement.
For the Steering Committee, include:
- Names and titles of members.
- Strategies for encouraging interaction among Working Groups.
- A description of the Steering Committee’s oversight role.
- How the Steering Committee will ensure that institutional mission, priorities, and accreditation standards are addressed.
For each Working Group, include:
- Names and titles of chairperson and members.
- A description of which institutional priorities or accreditation standards will be addressed.
- The Working Group’s charge and specific lines of inquiry (critical questions that develop or investigate a particular analytical focus).
- Relevant assessment information, institutional processes, documents, and procedures to be reviewed.
- Anticipated collaborations among Working Groups.
- Description of how Working Groups will collaborate with those responsible for the Evidence Inventory.
Guidelines for Reporting: Ensuring Consistency
Provide guidelines for the Working Groups to ensure consistency in reporting. This includes:
- A list/description of all products to be completed by the Working Groups and Steering Committee (outlines, preliminary drafts, final reports, etc.).
- Deadlines for the submission of various draft documents and reports.
- A template for the preparation of Working Group Reports.
Organization of the Final Self-Study Report: Structuring the Narrative
Include an annotated outline of the organization and structure of the final Self-Study Report. At a minimum, the outline should include:
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Chapter for each Accreditation Standard or institutional priority
- Conclusion
Verification of Compliance Strategy: Meeting Federal Regulations
Describe the strategy(ies) the institution will employ to successfully complete the Verification of Compliance with Accreditation-Relevant Federal Regulations process. This includes identifying the groups, offices, or individuals responsible and how they will communicate with the Working Groups and Steering Committee.
Self-Study Timetable: Staying on Track
Include a timeline for every major step in the self-study process, from the early stages of planning to the Commission’s action. The timeline should be realistic and achievable, with clear milestones.
Communications Plan: Engaging Stakeholders
Develop a Communications Plan to regularly update institutional stakeholders about progress made during the self-study process, gather input and feedback, and ensure an inclusive process. The plan should identify the purpose of the communication, the target audiences, the methods of communication, and the timeline for communication.
Evaluation Team Profile: Guiding the Review
Apprise the Commission about the preferred qualities, specific expertise, and backgrounds for consideration when selecting the evaluation team. Provide information for both the Team Chair and Peer Evaluators, including desired expertise, experience, and any potential conflicts of interest. A listing of the institution’s top programs by enrollment would also be helpful.
Strategies for Managing the Evidence Inventory: Organizing Documentation
Outline the institution’s strategies for populating and managing the Evidence Inventory within the accreditation portal. This includes assigning responsibility for documentation and organizing a specific Working Group for this task, ensuring easy access to supporting materials for the self-study process.
By carefully considering and addressing each of these elements, institutions can create a robust and effective Self-Study Design that facilitates a meaningful and impactful self-study experience.
