mountains

Relevant Documents

WASC Visitation

 

Contact Information

Alana Olschwang, Director
Institutional Effectiveness and WASC Accreditation Liaison Officer
alana.olschwang@cgu.edu
909.607.8135
CGU • Harper Hall
150 East Tenth Street
Claremont, California 91711
 

WASC Timeline

Stage 1: Institutional Proposal

The proposal establishes the framework for connecting each institution’s context and priorities with the Standards of Accreditation for the accreditation review. It serves as the primary basis for both institutional self-review and team evaluation, and is given to each evaluation team and the Commission, along with the Accreditation Standards, as a basis upon which the evaluation of the institution should occur. In the proposal, institutions

  • Establish a context for its accreditation review;
  • Conduct a preliminary evaluation of itself under the Standards of Accreditation to identify areas of needed improvement;
  • Link its self-review under the Standards with defined outcomes for the accreditation review;
  • Identify the key issues of Institutional Capacity to be addressed in the CPR
  • Develop strategies for assessing and improving student and organizational learning in the EER
  • Identify for each of the stages of review such necessary components as researchable questions, key indicators of performance, evidence to be collected and used, committees or groups to be involved, and the resources needed as components of a work plan for the review;
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of its data gathering and analysis system;
  • Develop a portfolio of data tables and institutional evidence that serves the institution throughout the review and beyond.

Stage 2: Capacity Preparatory Review (CPR)

The CPR is designed to enable the Commission to determine whether an institution fulfills the Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity. It is a focused review which includes a site visit with defined purposes and procedures. The purposes of the CPR are to:

  • Review and verify the information provided in the Institutional Presentation, and assure that the institution’s data fairly and accurately portray the state of the institution at the time of review.
  • Evaluate the key institutional resources, structures, and processes in light of the Commissions Standards, to assure that the institution operates at or above threshold levels acceptable for accreditation and, where appropriate, to identify any capacity-related issues that need to be reconsidered during the EER.
  • Evaluate the institution’s infrastructure to support educational effectiveness, especially in regard to retention and graduation, the assessment of student learning, and program review, and organization learning and use of evidence.
  • Assess the institution’s preparedness to undertake the EER as identified in the Proposal, and assist the institution in refining the focus and plan for the review.

Stage 3: The Educational Effectiveness Review (EER)

Its purpose is to invite sustained engagement by the institution on the extent to which it fulfills its educational objectives. Through this process, it is designed to enable the Commission to make a judgment about the extent to which the institution fulfills its Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness. Purposes of the EER include

  • To review institutional efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs, with special attention to the institution’s program review process;
  • To examine institutional practices for evaluating student learning and to develop and share good practices for using educational results to improve the process of teaching and learning;
  • To examine the alignment of institutional resources with activities designed to achieve the institution’s educational objectives;
  • To promote sustained engagement with selected issues of Educational Effectiveness consistent with Commission Standards.

 

Source: WASC (2009). The Institutional Proposal and Beyond Resource Book.

 

CGU ASSESSMENT TIMELINES for STAGE 2

CGU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Action Plan (Appendix I.1 in Proposal)


When
What and Who
May 2010
The Provost appoints a Subcommittee on Assessment in consultation with the FEC Chair
September 2010
The Provost presents to the faculty on an overall assessment plan
October 2010
Consultant on the campus working with the Subcommittee and academic units
November 2010
Academic units submit to the Assessment Committee a draft plan on expected learning outcomes and their measures
December 2010
The Assessment Committee finalizes the plans and present them to the FEC
February 2011
Data collection begins
May 2011
The Assessment Committee presents results to FEC and the Provost
June – August 2011
The Institutional Research Office analyzes data
September 2011
The Institutional Research Office presents findings to the FEC and Provost
September 2011
FEC, faculty and the Assessment Committee will discuss areas that need further improvements
September 2011-
May 2012
Data collection and assessment continue

 

Transdisciplinary Studies Action Plan (Appendix I.2 in Proposal)

When
What and Who
August 2010
Provost, V. Provost T-Studies, T-Committee, FEC report on What is transdisciplinarity in current graduate education?
September 2010
Vice Provost Transdisciplinary Studies and Transdisciplinary Committee (and others) report on Learning from existing T-Programs
September 2010
Vice Provost Transdisciplinary Studies Program, Faculty Executive Committee and, School Deans report on implications of increased T-course enrollment (e.g. prerequisites)
September 2010

VP T-Studies, Vice Provost Student Services; Faculty Executive Committee; School Deans report on the organizational structures that allow and inhibit students to incorporate T-Learning into their primary disciplines.
September 2010
Vice Provost Transdisciplinary Studies; Transdisciplinary Committee; Faculty Executive Committee, (and others) report The impact on student learning in both disciplinary and Transdisciplinary activities in pursuit of additional T-courses, awards and, activities.
November 2010

VP Transdisciplinary Studies and Committee, FEC, and school deans (and others) report on Campus understanding of transdisciplinarity.
December 2010
Assistant Provost; Office of Institutional Research; Transdisciplinary Committee; Faculty Executive Committee implement assessment tools to ask Are our students prepared for professional opportunities that call for transdisciplinary approaches?
January 2011

VP T-Studies, T-committee (and others) report on What keeps us in our disciplines?
January 2011
VP T-Studies, Vice Provost Student Services; Faculty Executive Committee; School Deans report on Program and School responsiveness to increases in students’ Transdisciplinary course work and research.
February 2011
Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans report on, What are the rewards to faculty members engaged in transdisciplinary teaching and advising? Does evidence of transdisciplinary student-learning inform this discussion?
February 2011
Faculty Executive Committee; School Deans report on Key challenges that limit collaborative student research? What impact does this have on student learning and completion times?
March 2011
Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee, Faculty Executive Committee; School Deans report on What are the implications for faculty tenure?
May 2011
Faculty Executive Committee; School Deans report on creating, collecting, documenting and using student assessment results, especially at the program level.
May 2011
Vice Provost Transdisciplinary Studies; Transdisciplinary Committee; Faculty Executive Committee, and School Deans report on how the Transdisciplinary Studies Program serves as a resource that assists students in maintaining balance between transdisciplinary and single disciplinary demands? How does this balance impact student learning?
June 2011
Provost; Vice Provost Transdisciplinary Studies; Transdisciplinary Committee; Vice Provost Student Affairs; Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans report the "location of a Transdisciplinary researcher’s home"?
September 2011
Vice Provost Transdisciplinary Studies; Transdisciplinary Committee; Faculty Executive Committee, and School Deans report on ways T- Studies Program works with School, departments, and programs in creating student learning outcomes (for T-learning)?

 

Research that Matters Action Plan (Appendix I.3 in Proposal)

When
What and Who
January 2011
Vice Provost and Director of Research; Research Committee; Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans begin needs-assessment study of Intercollegiate Research Collaboration.
January 2011
Vice Provost and Director of Research; Research Committee; Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans report on What activities are the current organized research units at CGU engaged in, and how does the organizational and administrative structure at CGU help or hinder their efforts?
January 2011
Vice Provost and Director of Research; Research Committee; Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans report on What organized research units have emerged in the fields of study identified by CGU?
May 2011
Vice Provost and Director of Research; Research Committee; Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans report on The major opportunities to promote and enhance the level of graduate student research support.
June 2011
Vice Provost and Director of Research; Research Committee; Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans report on Assessing the impact on student learning outcomes of differential levels of opportunities for support of graduate student research.
June 2011
Vice Provost and Director of Research; Research Committee; Faculty Executive Committee; School Deans report on How and what can we learn from applied research programs at other institutions of higher education or advanced study?
January 2012
Vice Provost and Director of Research; Research Committee; Faculty Executive Committee; and School Deans report on How does student learning assessment reflect the understanding and ability to perform research that matters as affected by the availability of specialized opportunities associated with ORUs?

January 2012

Faculty Executive Committee; School Deans report on Key challenges that limit collaborative student research? What impact does this have on student learning and completion times?

 

WRITTEN REPORTS BY CGU

  • WASC Proposal
  • Assessing Learning at CGU
    • Summarizes SLOs (may include course mapping), means of assessment, and data collection plans by degree granting program; i.e. program assessment plans
  • WASC Special Report
    • Summarizes program assessment plans, data collection instruments, and sample data by degree granting program

WASC RESOURCES

 

 

 

2014 Claremont Graduate University 150 E. 10th St., Claremont, CA 91711 (909) 621-8000 Campus Safety Emergency Info Campus Map/Driving Directions