Hallmarks of an Effective Self-Study

 

I.2 Hallmarks of an Effective Self-Study

The “Hallmarks of an Effective Self-Study Process,” included in the new Higher Learning Commission Workbook available at the 2003 Annual Meeting, guided those organizing the SVSU self-study to align their work with the published standards, demonstrating that the SVSU self-study process is consistent with the Higher Learning Commission’s expectations, as the following analysis of these Hallmarks demonstrates:

 

SVSU’s self-study process and report fit the distinctive nature of the organization.

The SVSU Self-Study Report structure is based on the Next Steps 2000-2005 document, which elaborates SVSU’s mission and serves as the foundation for university planning. The Self-Study Report addresses the appropriate GIRS and Criteria within that structure through a careful cross-referencing process. The Editorial Board recognized that there would be some overlap, but sees this as a positive aspect of the process, because it reinforces the idea that this is a functionally integrated institution and that no unit is solely charged with fulfilling the institutional mission.

SVSU chose this approach, rather than an organizational model based primarily on the Criteria and GIRS, because it can provide a more coherent perspective of this institution and its distinctive nature. (This approach, approved by our HLC liaison, has been adopted as a viable method in the new Workbook.)

 

The Self-Study process and report achieves stated goals that guide the plan and conduct of the process.

SVSU President Eric Gilbertson explained the purpose of the self-study to the university community in the first Self-Study Update campus newsletter: “This process requires us and gives us the occasion and opportunity to look at virtually every aspect of our institution and make our own critical judgments as to how we are performing and where we should improve. And then we will have our own judgments assessed with the fresh and objective perspective of outside evaluators.”

Understanding gained from Higher Learning Commission meetings and documents provided a foundation for the Core Values for this self-study, defined at the beginning of the self-study process and reprinted in each Self-Study Update:

 

The self-study process and report ensures effective evaluation of the whole organization.

The Steering Committee and Editorial Board organized the self-study around institutional planning goals and university organizational structures to demonstrate who SVSU is as an institution. The Editorial Board adopted the continuous improvement model—Plan/Act/Review/Revise—as its logo and has used the self-study process to disseminate those values to the institution.

Through faculty and staff forums and workshops, the process was presented to all units of the institution, as well as the SVSU Board of Control, the Board of Fellows, and the Alumni Board. To reach more stakeholders, receptions were held for adjunct faculty, and student focus groups were conducted. The Student Association and the SVSU student newspaper were also consulted and actively involved in disseminating information. This outreach to all units of the campus community emphasized the reciprocity of information being gathered and shared.

 

The self-study process and report engages multiple constituencies of the organization.

As the Self-Study Coordinator organized Operational Committees and subcommittees, the Coordinator invited members from every unit on campus to participate in the self-study, bringing people from the various units of the institution to work together on committees and subcommittees that described and evaluated areas outside their own units. The most successful work and the most positive perspectives emerged from groups that were drawn from various units and who had diverse membership.

 

The self-study process and report builds naturally on existing and ongoing self-evaluation processes.

At the beginning of the process, many of those involved were unsure that SVSU had sufficient existing and ongoing self-evaluation processes around which to build a satisfactory self-study. As the Steering Committee began collecting data from multiple units, many of these concerns were alleviated.

However, the data collection process also uncovered an underlying critical need for ongoing communication of institutional data to all units to clearly show how such data is used in planning and assessment. Occasionally subcommittees struggled with data collection and reinvented processes that already existed; they were relieved to realize they could base their evaluations on work already being done.

 

The self-study process and report has strong presidential and board support.

The President and the Board of Control have stated from the outset that they have high expectations for organizational learning from the self-study process. The Self-Study Coordinator has made several reports to the Board of Control. Each of these presentations provided overviews of the process and a progress report. The Board has been given copies of the 1994 Evaluation Team Report and booklets summarizing the current GIRs and Criteria. The Board also receives copies of The Self-Study Update, which is included in the campus Interior publication about once each month. The Board and the President have reviewed self-study documents. Members of the President’s Planning Council and staff serve on the Self-Study Steering Committee, and some have attended the HLC/NCA meeting in Chicago.

 

The self-study process and report draw on the expertise and credibility of recognized leaders throughout the organization.

The Self-Study Steering Committee includes three of the four Vice-Presidents, program directors, an assistant dean, and faculty members, including faculty who have experience in professional program accreditation. The Special Assistant to the President for Diversity Programs also serves on the Steering Committee and Editorial Board. Deans have served as chairs and members of the Operational Committees and subcommittees which produced the working papers from which the Self-Study Report was written. The Editorial Board includes the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs/Director of Assessment and the Director of Instructional Support Programs, as well as the university archivist. The Library Director chaired one of the subcommittees. Student leaders worked with the Director of Residential Life in focus groups. Those who were not members of committees or subcommittees were often surveyed and interviewed, often by more than one group, on their work and perspective of the University. The Director of Institutional Research, the Institutional Planning Officer, and personnel from University Communications and Information Technology have provided invaluable information as well as production support.

While this process drew on the expertise of various university personnel, it also asked people to study aspects of the university with which they were less familiar, to promote widespread understanding of the university, as well as to enhance the evaluative function of the committees. People found themselves chairing one committee while responding to surveys or providing information for other committees.

This approach brought faculty and staff into contact with people across the institution and provided a richer perspective on the university. It promoted an appreciation for its complexity as well as increased understanding of the multiple challenges involved in fulfilling the mission of the institution.

 

The self-study process and report maintains regular and effective communication links with institutional constituencies.

In addition to involving a large number of people on committees and subcommittees, the Self-Study Update newsletter has provided information to the campus community on self-study progress, including a regular updating and reprinting of the timeline. The Core Values for the self-study, which informed the process, have been reprinted in each issue. Articles in the Self-Study Update have identified various issues and examined ways in which the self-study is addressing them. The Editorial Board solicited articles from various constituencies within the institution, including the Faculty Association.

The self-study website will make the report more widely accessible than any previous reports have been and will be maintained in order to facilitate future accreditation processes.

Presentations and workshops on the self-study have been made at a number of university occasions, including faculty orientation meetings, division staff meetings, Deans and Chairs meetings, Alumni Board, and Board of Control meetings and retreats. Additional forums for the campus community have been planned to discuss the report in anticipation of the Evaluation Team visit.

 

The self-study process and report produces evidence to show that the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation are met.

The self-study process has been organized around functional areas of the institution in alignment with the Next Steps 2000-2005 planning document. To ensure that all General Institutional Requirements and Criteria for Accreditation were addressed, the Editorial Board created a matrix to cross-reference the GIRs and Criteria with all defined areas of the self-study (see Appendix A). Though subcommittee reports showed some overlap, this was better than risking gaps. It is also instructive to approach certain issues from more than one perspective.

The four Operational Committees and their associated subcommittees defined the patterns of evidence appropriate to the issues under their purview. Once committee and subcommittee reports/working papers were submitted to the Steering Committee, members of the Editorial Board synthesized those reports into a coherent document that was reviewed by all members of the Steering Committee and Editorial Board, as well as the university President. Each self-study chapter begins with a citation of the GIRs and Criteria being addressed and the Next Steps 2000-2005 planning goals that are the focus of the respective chapters.

The Steering Committee also reviewed all areas of concern defined in the 1994 Evaluation Team Report and formulated the institutional response to those concerns. That response comprises the major section of Chapter Two, SVSU’s accreditation history.

 

The self-study process and report produces a self-study report that meets the Commission’s needs.

As previously noted, to present a coherent and comprehensive picture of this institution, this self-study is organized around the university five-year plan Next Steps 2000-2005 (with the approval of the Higher Learning Commission liaison).

The institution’s comprehensive self-study process demonstrates that Saginaw Valley State University meets all General Institutional Requirements; these and the Criteria for Accreditation are addressed in relevant chapters, and identified at the beginning of each chapter.