UT Self StudySenior 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.

Co-Chairs: Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Professor, College of Business Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Professor, College of Medicine

Steering Committee: Team LeadersTeam 1: Dr. Charles Blatz, College of Arts & SciencesTeam 2: Bryan Pyles, HSC Provost OfficeTeam 3: Dr. Constance Shriner, College of MedicineTeam 4: Dr. Charlene Czerniak, Judith Herb College of EducationTeam 5: Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, College of Arts & Sciences

Administrative Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, MC Provost OfficeSupport: Dr. Bin Ning, Director, Institutional Research

Marcia King-Blandford, MC Provost Office

NCA-HLC Self-Study Leadership

2

Accreditation History

The University of Toledo

1922 – Accreditation granted

1977 – Accreditation continued

1983 – Accreditation continued

1992 – Accreditation continued

2002 – Accreditation continued

Medical College of Ohio

1972 - Approval by OBOR

1980- Accreditation granted

1986 – Accreditation continued

1991 – Accreditation continued

2001- Accreditation continued

3

2011-2012 – UT Site Visit

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

4

Examples of Descriptive vs. Evaluative Statements

1. Testing results using nationally-recognized instruments (CAAP & CLA) demonstrated a 70% growth in students’ writing and mathematic skills between freshmen and senior year.

2. 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.

1. The university uses different methods to assess general education outcomes.

2. The merger has significantly improved the University’s capacity in obtaining research funding.

5

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.

6

Previously Identified ChallengesThe University of Toledo2002 Site Visit• 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.

Medical College of Ohio2001 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.

7

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

8

Criterion One:Mission and Integrity

a) Clear articulation of the Missionb) Recognition of diversity:

among learners and other constituenciesc) University members understand the Missiond) Mission is supported throughout organizatione) University protects the Mission

9

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?

10

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?

11

Criterion Two Preparing for the future

12

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

Criterion Two Preparing for the Future

13

a) Preparation for a future shaped by societal and economic trends

b) Resource support for maintaining and strengthening education programs

c) Evaluation and assessment processes show effectiveness and continuous improvement

d) Planning levels align with the mission and the capacity to fulfill the Mission.

Criterion Two Progress Update

14

• 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

Criterion Three Student Learning and Effective Teaching

15

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

Criterion Three Student Learning and Effective Teaching

16

a) Has clear statements of student learning outcomes that make effective assessment possible.

b) Values and supports effective teachingc) Creates effective learning environmentsd) Has resources supporting student learning and effective

teaching.

Criterion Three Progress Update

17

• Outcomes based education

• Core curriculum

• Supportive environment

• Alignment of resources with educational mission

Criterion Four Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge

18

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 LeaderDr. Dorothea Sawicki, Liaison

Criterion Four Acquisition, Discovery and Application of Knowledge

19

a) Demonstrates it values a “Life of Learning”b) Demonstrates the integral nature of knowledge and skill

acquisition and intellectual inquiryc) Assesses the usefulness of curricula to students living and

working in a global, diverse, and technological societyd) Supports responsible acquisition, discovery and

application of knowledge

Criterion Four Progress Updates

20

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 sharingKey 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

Criterion Five: Engagement and Service

21

As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.

Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, Criterion Five Team LeaderDr. Thomas Sharkey, Liaison

Criterion Five: Engagement and Service

22

a) Learns from constituencies and analyzes its capacity to serve them

b) Has the capacity and commitment to engage with identified constituencies and communities

c) Demonstrates responsiveness to constituencies that depend on it

d) Services are of value to internal and external constituencies

Criterion Five Progress Update

23

• 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

Federal Compliance

1. Credits, Program Length, and Tuition2. Student Complaints3. Transfer Policies4. Verification of Student Identity [Online Correspondence]5. Title IV Program and Related Responsibilities6. Institutional Disclosures [Advertising and Recruiting

Materials]7. Relationship with Other Agencies8. Public Notification of Evaluation Visit and Third Party

Comment

24

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

25

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)

26

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

27