Credentials

1
Faculty In-Service In lieu of the Compliance
Committee May Meeting
Credentials Assessment May 15,
2007 900-400 Beto Academic Center Auditiorium
2
Agenda for May 15, 2007

• Opening Remarks
• Dr. Alan Runge-Provost
• Dr. Joel Heck-Chair, Compliance Committee
• Mr. Gary Belcher, Dir IE
• Working Groups on Faculty Credentials
• Working Groups on Assessment Plans
• Close

3
Provost Comments

• Goal today is
• To tackle two areas that are expansive and
  exclusively within the realm of the faculty
• Faculty Credential database
• Academic program assessment
• Relocation focus is very visiblebut is second
  on my list of priorities
• To fail at relocation, our business goes on
• To fail at reaffirmation, our business stops
• Were not doing this for SACSwere doing this
  as something that helps us to evolve our
  cultureto improve how we make student learning
  centric to what we are and to the accomplishment
  of our mission
• Program assessment is a key enabler to making
  informed decisions

4
Chair Comments

• Assembly of the first draft of the compliance
  report is underway
• Some parts and pieces depend upon the assembly of
  input from this semester that just endedtwo
  expansive areas are
• Faculty Credentialsfull time faculty inputs are
  in still missing some pieces from part time
  faculty
• Impetus is on us to argue the case for faculty
  qualificationsSACS provides guidelines (ie.
  terminal degree, 18 hours in the discipline,
  etc.)but this is a significant change in that
  these are GUIDELINES
• Academic Program Assessmenttwo academic years
  worth of records for each program/majordeans are
  the focal point for their colleges
• Emphasis is on closing the loopwhat does the
  assessment information tell us, and what are we
  doing to make the program better based on those
  results

5
Workshop Guidelines

• Clarifying the changes in faculty credentials
• Emphasis on our vetting process for new faculty
• Col 3 arguments for the factors that complete a
  faculty members suitability when guidelines
  are not met
• Program Assessment
• Review of the Back-map regarding programs vs.
  outcomes
• Emphasis on aggregated informationnot on
  individual grades!
• Nichols 5 col framework is the gold
  standardexample provided at the January
  In-Servicethe 5 element outline is the minimum
• Discussion on institutional outcome
  alignmentevery program likely does not support
  all 9 outcomes! Reality is 1 or 2 or maybe 3
• Programs have internal outcomes as well as
  contributory outcomes to the institutional
  across the institution, the aggregate of programs
  should cover the 9
• Review of the Expanded Statement of Purpose and
  how it directly relates to the Back-map and
  Individual Academic Programs

6
Outcomes

• Ensuring that all faculty credential inputs have
  been updated through Spring 2007
• Compiling AY 04/05, 05/06, and 06/07 program
  assessment reports
• Full time faculty closing the loop on inputs from
  part time faculty for credential issues
• Division/College level working groups on
  Assessment Plans
• Joel Gary are available all day as
  facilitators/mediators/consultants
• Reception _at_1130lunch avail in Beto _at_1200

7
Resources

• Faculty records on file available from Kathy
  Arnold
• Updated Back-Map matrix
• AY 2006/2007 Expanded Statement of Purpose
• Nichols Model Gold Standard
• Credential Guidelines
• One-on-one discussions as required for specific
  programs

8
Thank you for caring