SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY
Middle States
Re-Accreditation
Self-Study Design
I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF SELF-STUDY
Saint Joseph's believes that a comprehensive self-study best serves the interests of the institution. We believe that for reasons both retrospective and prospective.
The university has changed dramatically in the last ten years. It has had major changes in its physical plant, student body, faculty, planning process, budgeting, admissions, academic programs and other areas. For retrospective reasons, then, the university can benefit from a thorough review of the changes and an analysis of their impact on our effectiveness both as a university and in discrete areas of our operations.
The university is also about to undergo another major series of changes. There are the very real possibilities of both a major land acquisition and the construction of a major new residential complex. There is the certainty of change in the top administration of the university in the next three years. Next year we will have a new President and the following year we will have a new Academic VP. A comprehensive study will be of great value to the new leadership in helping it to understand the recent history and the current challenges facing the university.
II. SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The university hopes to continue the progress it has made on institutional planning in the past few years. Specifically, it hopes that the comprehensive study of the university will produce new strategic themes in light of changed circumstances. Those themes will continue to be based on the core values and principles that derive from our Mission Statement. The university's planning document, Plan 2000, provides flexibility for the strategic choices facing the university in the next ten years.
In addition to using the self-study to investigate renewed yet ongoing planning efforts, we intend it to yield a more systematic approach to help link planning more closely with budgeting as well as with outcomes assessment. While the university has made great strides in planning, budgeting and assessment over the past 5 years, a comprehensive self-study will provide a blueprint for strategic improvement in these areas. In particular, the self-study should provide resources for improved strategic planning in the areas of technology and physical facilities, two areas that have seen, and are expected to see, significant change.
The scope and size of the self-study provide an opportunity to socialize newer members of the community through participation with more senior colleagues on an in-depth analysis of some aspect of campus life. It also provides an opportunity to widen interaction between campus constituencies and so to deepen the sense of community. We intend to use this process in a way that strengthens the sense of shared purpose and transfers the institutional culture to more recent hires.
In order to realize these goals, the self-study will form the Taskforces with broad representation from constituencies and will provide vehicles for broad community input (e.g., public notice of the self-study design and progress, open fora for the community's constituencies, e-mail aliases for the separate Taskforces to receive comments from individuals). We will also direct the five Taskforces to pay particular attention in their respective reports to instances where processes for budgeting and assessment might be improved.
We want the self-study to identify processes in place that evaluate progress towards goals and objectives. We also want the self-study to identify any deficiencies in our evaluative processes so that corrective action(s) can be taken to improve institutional evaluation and performance.
III. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Saint Joseph's self-study will be led by a steering committee of 18 members. These members are drawn from overlapping campus constituencies: 12 faculty, 3 Jesuits, 5 administrators, 1 student and 1 trustee. The members were chosen to reflect the diversity of faculty generations, colleges, and divisions. The Steering Committee membership is as follows:
Dr. John McCall, Chair
Professor of Philosophy and Management
Dr. Paul Aspan
Associate Professor of Theology
Dr. Frank Bernt
Associate Professor of Health Services
Rev. Bruce Bidinger, S.J.
Trustee
Ms. Dawn Burdsall
Director of Planning & Assessment
Mr. Mark Denney ‘04
Student
Dr. Sandra Fillebrown
Associate Professor of Mathematics & Computer Science
Ms. Kathleen Gaval
Vice President/Assistant to the President
Dr. Bart Hartman
Professor of Accounting
Dr. Ron Klimberg
Associate Professor of Finance
Dr. Linda Lelii
Vice President for Student Life and Academic Development
Rev. Joseph Lombardi, S.J.
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Rev. Richard Malloy, S.J.
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Dr. Michael McCann
Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Catherine Murray
Associate Professor of Psychology
Dr. Robert Palestini
Dean, Graduate Arts & Sciences and University College
Dr. Richard Passon
Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dr. Claire Simmers
Assistant Professor of Management & Information Systems
The Steering Committee will direct the work of five Taskforces that will be individually charged with assessing our university performance in light of both particular subsets of the fourteen Middle States standards for accreditation and Saint Joseph's own core values as identified in our recent Plan 2000 document. The five Taskforces will be: 1) Institutional Mission, Planning, Resources and Assessment; 2) Leadership, Governance and Administration; 3) Admissions and Student Life; 4) Faculty; and 5) Programs, Curriculum and Student Assessment. Members of the Steering Committee will serve as co-chairs of Taskforces. The Steering Committee Chair will convene the Taskforces to explain their respective charges and will periodically attend Taskforce meetings. With co-chairs and periodic check-ins from the Steering Committee chair, the Taskforces should be assured of clear direction and efficient production of their reports.
The members of the respective Taskforces are:
TASKFORCE I: Mission,
Planning, Budgeting, Resources, and Assessment
(12 members)
Steering Committee Liaisons:
Dawn Burdsall, Director of Planning and Assessment; Frank Bernt,
Associate Professor of Education; Bart Hartman, Professor of Accounting
Faculty:
Rob Moore (CHAIR), Assistant Professor of Sociology; Frank Morris, Professor of English; Tony Berret (SJ), Associate Professor of English; Diane Phillips, Assitant Professor of Marketing; Roger Murray, Professor of Chemistry; Allen Kerkeslager, Assistant Professor of Theology
Administration/Staff:
Kevin Robinson, Vice President for Administrative Services; Kate Shields,
Executive Director of Athletic Development; Joe Pease, Controller/Assistant Vice-President
TASKFORCE II: Leadership,
Governance and Administration
(12 members)
Steering Committee Liaisons:
Linda Lelii, Vice President for Student Life; Mike McCann, Associate
Professor of Biology
Faculty:
Joe Godfrey (SJ), Rector of the Jesuit Community/Associate Professor of Philosophy; Millie Feske, Assistant Professor of Theology; David White, Professor of Health Services; Jack Haverty, Associate Professor of Accounting; Yasmin Purohit, Assistant Professor of Management; Bill McDevitt, Associate Professor of Management
Administration/Staff:
Steve Porth (CHAIR), Associate Dean, Haub School of Business; Tom Durso, Director, University Communications; Don DiJulia, Associate Vice President and Director of Athletics; Joe Petragnani, Assistant Vice President for Information Technology; Bruce Bidinger, Trustee
TASKFORCE III: Admissions,
Student Support Services, and Student Life
(15 members)
Steering Committee Liaisons:
Rick Malloy (SJ), Assistant Professor of Sociology; Mark Denney, Student Body President
Faculty:
Betsy Linehan (CHAIR), Associate Professor of Philosophy; Tom Buckley, Assistant Professor of Foreign Languages; Joe Larkin, Associate Professor of Accounting; Peter Clark (SJ), Associate Professor of Theology; Derek Avery, Assistant Professor of Management; Terry Furin, Assistant Professor of Education; Kim Logio, Assistant Professor of Sociology; David Carpenter, Associate Professor of Theology
Administration/Staff:
Anne Marie Cilli, Senior Associate Director of Admissions; Matthew Brink, Director of Career Development; Nancy Komada, Assistant to the Vice President for Student life/Senior Judicial Officer; Connie McSherry, Assistant Director of Faith-Justice Center/Director of Service Learning; Kevin Quinn, Associate Athletic Director
TASKFORCE IV: Faculty
(14 members)
Steering Committee Liaisons:
Catherine Murray, Associate Professor of Psychology; Sandy Fillebrown, Associate Professor of Mathematics
Faculty:
Jodi Mindell (CHAIR), Associate Professor of Psychology; Vincent McCarthy, Professor of Philosophy; Alfredo Mauri, Assistant Professor of Management; Christina King-Smith, Associate Professor of Biology; Tom Brennan (SJ), Assistant Professor of English; Eileen Cohen, Professor of English; Carolyn Schellhorn, Assistant Professor of Finance; Jay Carter, Assistant Professor of History; Nancy Childs, Professor of Marketing; Jean Smollen, Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Administration/Staff: Shoshanna Edwards-Alexander, Director of Multicultural
Life; Chris Dixon, Librarian for Government Information Resources
TASKFORCE V: General
Education, Curriculum, Programs, and Student Assessment
(16 members)
Steering Committee Liaisons:
Paul Aspan, Associate Professor of Theology; Ron Klimberg, Associate Professor of Finance
Faculty:
Jim Watrous (CHAIR), Professor of Biology; Pat Samway (SJ), Professor of English; Marty Meloche, Associate Professor of Marketing; Todd Moody, Professor of Philosophy; Vipul Gupta, Assistant Professor of Management; Jeanne Brady, Associate Professor of Education; Phil Smith, Professor of History; Anne Green, Assistant Professor of English; Nancy Fox, Associate Professor of Economics
Administration/Staff:
Brice Wachterhauser, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences; Joe DiAngelo, Dean of the Haub School of Business; Tim Laborie, Librarian for Information Systems; Greg Dell'Omo, Vice President for External affairs; David Lees, Director of Instructional Media Services
N.B.: Nominations for student membership have been solicited from student leadership. Student members are to be named shortly.
IV. TASKFORCE CHARGES
General Charge for all Taskforces:
A. Description and Historical Overview
-Each Taskforce should outline any significant
changes to Saint Joseph's over the past ten years in the study areas
assigned to it and should briefly describe any relevant features of the
institution.
B. Performance Evaluation
1) Data Collection
-Each Taskforce should collect/compile data relevant to assessing Saint Joseph's performance and effectiveness in the assigned study areas. Middle States requires that the data for assessment should not focus solely on input measures (for example, the amount of new library funding) but should rather focus more on outcomes (for example, usage rates of library materials). [Taskforces can consult the Middle States monograph Designs for Excellence (pp. 46-47) for Middle States general expectations concerning assessment and the Middle States website at http://www.msache.org in order to review more specific examples of both direct and indirect means of assessing outcomes.]
2) Data Analysis
-Each Taskforce must analyze Saint Joseph's in light of both the relevant standards of accreditation provided in the Middle States monograph Characteristics of Excellence and the mission statement and core values identified in Saint Joseph's Plan 2000. Each Taskforce, where appropriate should pay particular attention to how the religious identity of the university is reflected in our institutional practices. The crucial question to ask is how effective Saint Joseph's is in achieving the goals it sets for itself. For each relevant standard of accreditation from Characteristics, Taskforces should pay particular attention to the "fundamental elements" for assessment under that standard.
-Each Taskforce should pay particular attention to meta-evaluative questions. That is, each Taskforce should not merely evaluate the university's performance relative to its own mission and values or to the Middle States standards of accreditation. Each Taskforce also needs to evaluate the degree to which Saint Joseph's engages in effective, ongoing evaluation of its policies and programs in the assigned areas of study. Some Middle States standards of accreditation explicitly require us to demonstrate that, as an institution, we collect and analyze data and that we use that data to improve performance. Middle States especially emphasizes this demonstration in the area of student learning. As a result of this Middle States emphasis, Taskforces must identify the processes in place for evaluation of our programs and our institutional performance, and to identify any deficiencies in our evaluative processes.
-Taskforces are encouraged to identify key areas and issues for analysis that go beyond those issues identified in the specific charges. Part of the intent of data collection and analysis is to identify such issues. Taskforces should also note that the list of questions in their specific charges is suggestive and not a check-off list of tasks to execute.
-All Taskforces should attend to Middle States Standard 6, Integrity, and to the fundamental elements associated with that standard (cf. pp. 18-20 of Characteristics of Excellence). Where appropriate, each Taskforce should address those fundamental elements from Standard 6 that are relevant to its specific charge.
C. Recommendations
-Each Taskforce should identify areas where the university could improve its performance, either in its ability to realize its goals or in its institutionalized and ongoing assessment practices. Any recommendations, of course, must be supported by the analysis that precedes them. Taskforces are not expected to solve problems they identify. Rather they are expected to recommend possible solutions for problems. Taskforces are also expected to identify things that the university does well and to offer recommendations on how to do them better. Most importantly, Taskforces are asked to identify the university's mechanisms for self-assessment (especially in terms of outcomes achieved) and to evaluate both the effectiveness of those mechanisms and the degree to which they are used for improving performance. Taskforce recommendations should be in a form that permits the university clearly to determine in the future whether the recommendations have been met.
D. Report Structure
-All Taskforces should report their respective findings in the same format. Reports should be in Microsoft WORD. Reports should have three discrete sub-sections for each assigned study area: Description and Historical Overview; Data Presentation and Analysis (in Excel); Recommendations. How many such sub-sections reports contain will be a function of the number of relevant Middle States standards and the number of assigned areas of study. Taskforces should use the Specific Charges below as a guide to constructing their report.
Specific Charges:
Taskforce I: Institutional Mission, Planning, Resources
and Assessment
Taskforce I is charged with evaluating Saint Joseph's in light of Middle States Standards 1, 2, 3 and 7.
Assigned Area 1- Mission:
Description and Historical Overview:
What changes have occurred since 1994 in Saint Joseph's Mission, Goals and Objectives? How was Plan 2000 created? Describe the degree to which that process was inclusive and related to the Mission.
[Address especially the new Mission Statement and the creation of Plan 2000.]
Analysis:
Does Saint Joseph's Mission Statement function effectively as a guide for planning and for decision-making? Does it guide scholarship and teaching? Does it guide University relations between both internal and external constituencies?
[Consult pp. 26-27 of Design for Excellence and pp. 1-3 of Characteristics of Excellence to identify other additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any pressing issues in this area for Saint Joseph's.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 2 - Planning and Budget
Description and Historical Overview:
Has Saint Joseph's realized the goals set out under the "Strategic Themes" section on Mission and Identity (pp. 6-7) in the Plan 2000 document?
What are the University's processes for planning and for budgeting and resource allocation?
How have the processes for planning and budgeting changed?
What changes in the university's available resources (human, fiscal, physical, technological, etc) have taken place since 1994?
[Look especially at Plan 2000, IPC/BAC processes, Campus Master Plan evolution, technology investments/plan, human resources.]
Analysis:
Is the planning and budgeting (both process and outcome) consistent with the avowed Mission and values of Saint Joseph's?
Is the effectiveness of the planning and budgeting process subject to ongoing evaluation? How does the University carry out that evaluation? Are benchmarks used in allocating resources? Are resource trends tracked over time?
Demonstrate how the University's periodic assessment of planning and budgeting has resulted in improvements in those processes.
Is the budget clearly tied to planning and mission?
Can current programs be executed effectively within the current budget? Can projected programs be executed effectively within the budget projections?
Is the Campus Master Plan realistic? Are there specific parts of the current Master Plan that should be changed? In what ways does the Master Plan undergo periodic re-evaluation?
Identify technology resources required to support the university's mission and programs? Human resources? Physical plant?
[Consult pp. 27-29 of Designs and pp. 4-9 of Characteristics for other relevant questions/fundamental elements for analysis. Also consult Plan 2000 sections on "Strategic Themes" and "Assessment."]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 3 - Institutional Assessment
Description and Historical Overview:
How have Saint Joseph's assessment processes (especially in the areas specified in Standard 7 from Characteristics) evolved over the past decade?
Analysis:
Identify the university assessment mechanisms in the areas addressed by Standard 7.
Are the assessment mechanisms in place effective? Have assessment results generated changes in University programs, policies or plans?
Do the assessment mechanisms assist in improving institutional performance?
Has Plan 2000 identified assessment mechanisms, with determinable goals?
Have we assessed whether the goals set out in Plan 2000 have been realized?
Have we taken steps to assure realization of those goals not yet achieved?
Does the University engage in periodic evaluation of its assessment processes?
[Consult pp. 35-35 of Designs, pp. 21-23 of Characteristics and pp. 13-15 (and any other relevant pages) of Plan 2000 for relevant questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Taskforce II - Leadership, Governance and Administration
Taskforce II is charged with evaluating Saint Joseph's in light of Middle States Standards 4 and 5.
Assigned Area 1 - Leadership and Governance
Description and Historical Overview:
Identify any significant changes in top university leadership systems or the structure/processes of the Board of Trustees since 1994.
Identify any substantial change or maturation in the university governance systems since 1994.
Describe the university governance system, from faculty and staff structures to the Board of Trustees.
Analysis:
Does the Board of Trustees exercise appropriate oversight of the institution and its leadership?
Does the Board regularly evaluate university leadership, especially the President?
Does the Board engage in periodic self-assessment?
Is there an effective selection and orientation process for new Board members?
Does the Board provide adequate assistance in university fundraising?
Is the internal governance process clearly defined by constitution or statute? Does it function effectively as a voice for collegial governance?
Are students given appropriate representation on decision-making or advisory bodies that affect them?
Are governance structures subject to periodic assessment?
[Consult pp. 29-31 of Designs, pp. 10-15 of Characteristics, and pp. 8-9 and 14 of Plan 2000 for additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 2 - Administration
Description and Historical Overview:
Describe significant changes in administrative structure or key personnel (especially upper levels of administration) since 1994.
What new administrative units or processes been added?
Analysis:
Is the administrative structure appropriate for the institutions needs and mission?
Is there clear communication within the administration and between the administration and the other university constituencies?
Are there appropriately institutionalized vehicles for internal communications?
Do administrative officers have the proper skills and resources for carrying out their responsibilities effectively?
Is there a periodic assessment of performance in key administrative areas? Are the assessment criteria congruent with the university mission and values?
[Consult pp. 16-17 of Characteristics, pp. 31-32 of Designs, and pp. 8-9 and 14 of Plan 2000 for added questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Taskforce III - Admissions and Student Life
Taskforce III is charged with evaluating Saint Joseph's in light of Middle States Standards 8 and 9.
Assigned Area 1 - Admissions
Description and Historical Overview:
Describe significant changes in admissions processes, personnel and results since 1994.
[Attend to graduate and undergraduate, domestic and international admissions, on campus, off-campus and on-line programs.]
Describe significant changes in financial aid processes, strategies or results since 1994.
Analysis:
How do admissions strategies and outcomes correspond to the university's mission and values? Is the university's religious identity reflected in admissions office recruiting? Is there evidence that the university's admissions reflects a commitment to a "preferential option for the poor?" What processes exist for the ongoing assessment of the match between admissions and these aspects of the University mission?
Is there evidence that the amount of financial aid available is adequate to meet institutional objectives in terms of quantity and composition of the student body?
Is there appropriate community input into the development of admissions and financial aid strategies?
Is there appropriate quality control for admissions to both undergraduate and graduate programs?
Is there on-going assessment of the attributes of admitted students that are related to success at Saint Joseph's?
Do admissions procedures and materials assist prospective students in making reliable and informed decisions about whether to attend Saint Joseph's? Is there a process that allows prospective students to obtain individualized information about his/her compatibility with the University?
How is information on student outcomes available to prospective students?
Are policies for transfer credit clear and available to prospective students?
[Consult pp. 35-36 of Designs, pp. 24-25 of Characteristics, and pp. 6-15 of Plan 2000.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 2 - Student Support Services/Student Activities
Description and Historical Overview:
Generally describe the student body at Saint Joseph's.
What services are available in the areas of mental, physical and academic support for students? Have services changed or new services been added since 1994?
[Attend to the variety of support services in areas such as the following: advising, tutoring, library, registrar/financial aid/student services center, counseling center, health center, career services, public safety, campus ministry.]
What activities/organizations are available for student involvement?
[Attend to recreational activities (intramurals, sports center, athletic teams) and to student organizations (Hawk, student government, Hand-in-Hand, etc.).]
How are student grievances handled?
[Attend to student appeals/discipline procedures, academic complaint procedures, etc.]
Analysis:
[It would probably help if you split the analysis into discrete segments according to support area.]
Is the range of services offered in specific areas adequate for both the size of the student body and the institutional mission?
Are appropriate services offered in specific areas to full-time, part-time, international students?
What assessments have been done to determine the adequacy of services in specific areas? Are those assessments reasonable? What actions has the University taken on the basis of those assessments?
Are the personnel that staff the various services adequately trained and professional?
Are staffing levels in service areas reasonable given the university's size and budget?
Are campus security efforts adequate?
Do support services further the basic educational objectives of the university? Do support services reflect the religious identity of the university? Its distinctively Ignatian identity?
Are support services at off campus sites adequate and equitable?
Are grievance procedures in specific areas clear, fairly administered and widely disseminated?
Does the University maintain records of student complaints and grievances?
Are there appropriate procedures for assuring that student records are confidential?
Are the opportunities and the facilities available for athletics adequate for the size of the student body?
Is intercollegiate athletics effectively regulated by the same institutional rules and procedures that govern other programs?
Is student academic advising executed well? Uniformly?
Are students able to develop leadership skills through involvement in activities and organizations?
Does campus programming adequate to support the educational mission?
Are career counseling and placement services sufficient?
Is technology support for students adequate?
[Consult pp. 36-37 of Designs, pp. 26-27 of Characteristics, pp. 9-11 and 14-15 of Plan 2000 for added questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 3 - Residence Life
Description and Historical Overview:
How have the percentages and numbers of students in residence changed?
What changes have there been in available residence spaces?
What changes have there been in integrating academics into the residence life of students?
How have non-residence facilities available for resident students changed since 1994?
Analysis:
Is current residence space adequate to meet the demand? Is projected residence space adequate to meet projected demand? Why (why not)?
How has planning attempted to foresee and address housing needs?
Does residence life programming (in dormitories) reinforce the educational mission? In what ways?
Is residence life staff professional and appropriately trained? Provide supporting evidence.
Are expectations for students in residence clear and widely distributed?
Is the process of residence assignment/selection handled effectively? Describe the processes for residence assignment/selection.
Are physical facilities (dining facilities, transportation, etc.) other than the residences sufficient for the size of the residence population?
What procedures for periodic assessment of residence life are in place? Are those adequate?
What technological resources in residences are available for the educational needs of the students? Are these resources adequate?
Are recreational facilities/activities for the resident population sufficient to create a vital campus environment?
Does the university take steps to assure that resident students respect others in the university and in the broader community?
[Consult pp. 36-37 of Designs, pp. 26-27 of Characteristics, pp. 9-11 and 14-15 of Plan 2000 for additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Taskforce IV - Faculty
Taskforce IV is charged with evaluating Saint Joseph's in light of Middle States Standard 10.
Assigned Area 1 - Hiring, Evaluation, Tenure and
Promotion
Description and Historical Overview:
What changes in the size of the faculty have occurred since 1994?
What changes have there been since 1994 in the numbers and proportion of faculty in the various divisions?
What changes have there been since 1994 in the use of adjunct/part-time faculty and one-year full-time appointments? Describe both in numbers and proportion.
How does the University determine the level of faculty staffing needed in its various programs?
Has the faculty become more diverse in terms of race, gender and ethnicity since 1994?
What are the main notable features of hiring and recruitment practices and policies?
What percentage of the faculty is terminally qualified?
What are the practices and policies for annual evaluation of faculty?
What are the practices and policies for tenure and promotion review?
Analysis:
Is the size of the faculty sufficient to meet the needs of the university given the size of the student body?
Is it possible to recruit strong faculty candidates? Why (why not)? Provide non-anecdotal evidence.
Does hiring for mission occur in an appropriate way? hiring for diversity? Provide clear evidence to support the answers.
Are annual evaluation procedures consistent and consistently followed? Are they used as a tool to improve faculty performance?
Are the practices and policies of mid-tenure, tenure and promotion review clearly communicated? Followed consistently? Reasonable in light of demands on faculty time? Fair and provide due process? Respectful of academic freedom?
Are practices and policies for evaluation of adjunct and temporary appointments clearly communicated? Fair and effective?
[Consult pp. 28-30 of Characteristics, p. 37-38 of Designs, and pp. 7-9, 10-11 and 13-15 of Plan 2000 for additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify other pressing issues]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 2 - Teaching and Research
Description and Historical Overview:
What procedures are used to evaluate faculty teaching? Research? Have these changed since 1994?
What is the average teaching load of faculty? How has it changed since 1994?
What institutional support is there for teaching? How has it changed since 1994?
What institutional support is there for research? How has it changed since 1994?
What is the scholarly productivity of the faculty (numbers of publications as well as per capita output)?
Is there an official policy on the respective importance of teaching and research?
What changes have there been since 1994 in average class size? In the percentage distribution of classes of various sizes?
What policies exist on academic freedom?
Analysis:
Is there adequate support for teaching? Are there practices or resources available for improving teaching performance?
Is the support for research adequate for the university's expectations and for the faculty's needs?
Is academic freedom respected in practice both in teaching and in research?
Does faculty productivity match the aspirations of the university for academic excellence?
Is there appropriate balance between teaching, research and service in the university's expectations of faculty?
Are available IT resources adequate for teaching needs? For research needs?
Are library resources adequate for teaching objectives? For research?
Do faculty sufficiently challenge students in their coursework?
Are procedures for student evaluation of teaching effectiveness appropriately administered and used in assessing teaching performance? Are other mechanisms of assessment given appropriate weight in assessment of teaching?
[Consult pp. 28-30 of Characteristics, p. 37-38 of Designs, and pp. 7-8 and 13-15 of Plan 2000 for additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 3 - Governance
Description and Historical Overview:
What is the faculty role in the formal university governance system?
How are faculty involved outside the formal governance system in decisions related to planning, budgeting, administrative hiring, etc.?
What is the time it takes for mandates to pass through the governance system?
Analysis:
How effective and efficient is the process of university governance (the University Council, Faculty senate, College Council system)?
Is the governance system that is in place consistently used to gather constituency input on major policy decisions?
Is the level of faculty input into decision-making that validly takes place outside the constitutionally mandated governance system (UC, Senate, College Councils) adequate?
Do faculty have appropriate control over curriculum and program decisions?
Is communication between upper administration and faculty on important matters regularized?
Do the governance system, other venues for faculty input and the flow of information between faculty and administration engender a sense of trust and community?
[Consult pp. 28-30 of Characteristics, p. 37-38 of Designs, and pp. 6-9 and 13-15 of Plan 2000 for additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Taskforce V - Curriculum, Programs and Student Assessment
Taskforce V is charged with evaluating Saint Joseph's in light of Middle States Standards 11. 12, 13, and 14.
Assigned Area 1 - General Education Requirement
Description and Historical Overview:
Describe how Saint Joseph's GER has changed since 1994, either in its overall structure or its content?
What processes exist for evaluating the GER and for revising it? How have the results of these processes been used to improve the content or the delivery of the GER?
What are the respective levels of adjunct and full-time teaching in the GER?
What processes exist to ensure similar educational content within multiple section courses?
What institutional statements exist on the role and rationale of the GER in Saint Joseph's undergraduate curriculum?
Analysis:
Is the content of the GER congruent with the university's mission and goals? In what ways does the GER reflect the religious, Ignatian identity of the university? In what ways does the content of the GER promote the mission's ideals of social justice and service to others?
Does the GER constitute a coherent educational program?
Is the delivery of the courses that comprise the GER effective in achieving the student learning goals set for it by the university mission?
What evidence suggests that students taking the GER improve their general knowledge, their critical reasoning skills, their intellectual curiosity, their cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity, their understanding of ethics and values, their communication skills, their technological abilities and their understanding of scientific and quantitative reasoning? How does the University assure that students at graduation are proficient and knowledgeable in all these areas?
What institutional support exists for the delivery, development and assessment of the GER?
Does the GER link effectively with students' other educational programs (such as majors and minors)? Can these links be demonstrated?
Is the rigor of the GER sufficient to challenge students intellectually?
Does the GER provide students with sufficient exposure to diversity?
Does the GER expose students to social justice issues and provide students with the intellectual tools for addressing those issues in a rigorous way?
Does the GER provide opportunities for students to think in ways that integrate disciplinary perspectives?
Are faculty and student assessments of the GER's effectiveness comparable?
Are library resources sufficient for the purposes of the GER?
[Consult pp. 36-39 of Characteristics, pp. 41 of Designs, and pp. 6-8. 10-11 and 13-15 of Plan 2000 for additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 2 - Programs
Description and Historical Overview:
How have the undergraduate major/program offerings changed since 1994?
How have the graduate program offerings changed since 1994?
[I.e., What changes to undergrad or grad curricula have occurred since 1994?]
Has the university introduced any other notable program offerings since 1994?
What off-site programs does the university offer? On-line programs? Certificate programs (e.g., post-baccalaureate certificates)?
What 'experiential learning' credit is offered by university programs (internships, co-operative programs, etc.)?
What accelerated degree programs does the university offer?
What contractual agreements does the university have for accepting transfer credits?
Analysis:
Are the library resources sufficient for both the needs of the undergraduate and graduate programs? Are there areas of coverage that are lacking, given the programs we offer?
Is there an equal emphasis on academic rigor across major programs? Across colleges?
Are major programs resourced equitably and adequately within and across colleges?
What evidence exists to ensure that programs delivered off-site (Ursinus, ACE Center, Police Academy, etc.) are equally rigorous? Equally resourced? Equally subject to quality assessments?
What evidence exists to demonstrate that on-line programs equally rigorous? Resourced? Assessed?
Is there evidence to demonstrate that accelerated courses or degree programs provide comparable quality? Are student outcomes comparable to non-accelerated courses/programs?
Do certificate programs provide a coherent and challenging course of study? How are such programs evaluated for their quality?
Does the University have clear criteria for determining when credit should be awarded for experiential learning? What mechanisms are used to evaluate the academic merits of such experiential learning?
Are students made aware of the expected outcomes of our programs and courses? How? Are learning outcomes identified in course syllabi?
Do programs across the university develop the student outcomes claimed as institutional goals? Do programs across the university re-enforce the mission's emphasis on social justice and diversity? Its religious, Ignatian identity? Explain how (how not).
Describe student exposure to inter-disciplinary work or work that enables integration across the curriculum.
Do graduate programs provide students higher levels of research and independent thinking skills?
Do graduate programs have faculty resources adequate to support graduate level work?
In what ways do our students acquire skills that enable them independently to retrieve information, synthesize and analyze it effectively?
Are students in our varied programs being challenged to their potential?
Are policies for acceptance of transfer credit sufficient to assure that the transferred credits are recognition of college (or graduate) level achievement?
Are there mechanisms for identifying students who lack adequate preparation? What resources are made available to such students?
Do the major programs complement the GER in a way that provides a coherent educational program?
What formal processes exist for periodic assessment of program offerings within programs? Within colleges? How have these processes been used to improve the content or the delivery of programs?
Are our physical plant resources adequate for the sum of the programs we offer?
Are IT resources available sufficient for the various educational program needs?
[Consult pp. 31-36 and 40-49 of Characteristics, pp. 39-40 and 42-45 of Designs, and pp. 6-8 and 13-15 of Plan 2000 for additional questions/fundamental elements for analysis.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
Assigned Area 3 - Assessment of Student Learning
Description and Historical Overview:
What procedures exist for assessing student-learning outcomes at the level of individual courses? At the GER level? At the major level? At the graduate program level? At the college level? At the university level? How do we collect and use data collected at those levels for improvement of our educational offerings?
How have those procedures evolved over the past decade?
Analysis:
Describe the university's assessment mechanisms for periodic assessment of student learning outcomes (in courses, programs and across the institution).
Is the assessment of student learning outcomes consistent across programs?
Describe the changes in university assessment mechanisms at the course, major, program, college and university levels since 1994.
What evidence exists to ensure that these assessment mechanisms operate effectively? That their effectiveness is periodically reviewed? That their results are used to improve institutional achievement of stated student learning goals?
[Consult pp. 50-54 of Characteristics, pp. 45-46 of Designs
and pp. 6-15 of Plan 2000.
For further information about student learning outcomes
assessment, please consult the Middle States monograph STUDENT LEARNING
ASSESSMENT: OPTIONS AND RESOURCES.
It has very helpful descriptions of both direct and indirect measures
for learning outcomes. The monograph can
be used as a guide in evaluating Saint Joseph's assessment initiatives.]
[Identify any other pressing issues.]
Recommendations:
V.
INVENTORY OF RESOURCE DOCUMENTS
The University has accumulated a number of significant self-assessment documents over the past few years. It has also established a new administrative position for organizing and tracking the various University assessment projects. Taskforces thus will be able to have shared access these documents through a central office. The list of relevant documents for the self-study include:
-College of Arts and Sciences Phi Beta Kappa application
-Haub School of Business AACSB application and periodic assessment
-National Survey of Student Engagement
-College of Arts and Sciences pilot survey on the GER
-Department and College outcomes assessment plans and reports
-Plan 2000 and assessments of progress towards achieving its goals
-Budget Advisory Committee consultant report (1999) and procedures; 10 year history of allocations
-Institutional Planning Committee records
-Facilities Campus Master Plan
-Student Life and Academic Development assessment plans and data
-Freshman, senior and alumni survey data
-Development consultant reports
-Technology planning and overview
-Governance flowcharts
-Faculty Senate and College Council constitutions
-Historical data on activity of governance bodies, especially paths of governance mandates
-Orientation agendas (faculty, staff, trustees, students)
- Evaluations of President and officers
-Napier Group consultant report (1996)
-Academic Council on Mission and Identity survey (2001)
- Image campaign goals and objectives
-Admissions marketing flowchart
-Departmental "Fact Sheets"
-Learning outcomes data (freshman retention, graduation rates, GRE/LSAT/MCAT/GMAT scores, graduate placement)
-Career Services annual reports
-Financial Aid reports/summary
-Transfer statistics
-Advanced Placement and course credit policies/data
-Registrar Policies on release of student data
-Student appeals mechanisms and annual reports (judicial and academic)
-Athletics Department NCAA self-study
-Student, Faculty and Staff Handbooks
-University Catalogs
-Deans' offices records on student complaints
-Faculty hiring statistics
-Faculty Bibliography
-Rank and Tenure summary records
-Haub School survey of faculty on attitudes towards Rank and Tenure procedures
-Sabbatical and research grants summary data
-Faculty Development funds awarded (1993-2003)
-Teacher Course evaluation data
-GER and Curriculum Committees records
Library/Learning Resources lists
-Library usage statistics
-Library educational programs for students and faculty
-Policies on transfer credit
Grading policies
-GPA summaries and Dean's List statistics
-Department of Education accreditation self-study
-Criminal Justice program certification self-study
The above enumeration of documents available obviously is not an exhaustive one.
VI.
SELF-STUDY TIMETABLE
Fall 2002 October/November -Steering Committee named and
begins work
December/January - Self-Study Design sent to Middle
States liaison
December -Taskforces appointed and charged
Spring 2003 January - Taskforces begin self-study projects
March - Taskforces provide mid-stream draft reports to
Steering Committee
May - Taskforces provide final reports to Steering Committee
Summer 2003 Steering Committee Chair synthesizes Taskforce reports
and produces initial Self-Study Draft
Fall 2003 September - Steering Committee edits initial draft
Community comment period
October - Draft Self-Study mailed to Evaluation Team Chair
October/November - Preliminary visit by Evaluation Team
Chair
December/January - Final Draft of Self-Study
Spring 2004 January - Printing/Binding Self-Study
February - Mail Self-Study to Evaluation Team
April - Evaluation Team visit
Summer 2004 University response to Evaluation Team Report
VII.
EDITORIAL FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION OF SELF-STUDY
The Self-Study will follow the outline of the Taskforce charges above in addressing the 14 Middle States standards. That is, the Self-Study will have five discrete sections in addition to the executive summary, institutional overview and introduction (in which the evidence related to the required Middle States criteria of eligibility will be presented). Supporting documentation will be provided in appendixes. The five sections of the report will be, following the Taskforce charges: 1) Mission, Planning, Budgeting, Resources and Institutional Assessment; 2) Leadership, Governance and Administration; 3) Admissions, Student Support Services and Student Life; 4) Faculty; and 5) Curriculum, Programs and Student Assessment. Each section will include a brief descriptive and historical sub-section as well as subsections analyzing Saint Joseph's and providing recommendations (where appropriate). The Middle States Standard 6 (Integrity) will be addressed thematically throughout the Self-Study.
In format, the Self-Study and the Taskforce reports are to follow the style of the Self-Study Design. They are to be presented in single spaced format (with double spaces between paragraphs and triple spaces between sections). The text of Taskforce reports should be in Arial font, 12 point (with section sub-headings in bold and major section headings in Arial, 14 point, bold). Text should be aligned left, ragged right margins of standard width. Reports should be submitted in Microsoft Word and any data presented should be in Excel. Following recent guidelines, named references to the University should be "Saint Joseph's."
VIII. EVALUATION TEAM PROFILE
Saint Joseph's would prefer that the Evaluation Team members be drawn from institutions that have environments and challenges comparable to those facing the University. The characteristics of Saint Joseph's that we regard as relevant include the following: an institution with a Jesuit and Catholic tradition and mission; an institution in the comprehensive, Masters-II category; an institution significantly dependent on tuition; an institution with a full-time undergraduate student body that is upwards of 60% resident; an institution that has grown substantially in recent years and is presented with important opportunities for future growth in the physical plant and residence system; an institution where teaching is regarded as primary but where significant scholarship is also required of faculty; an institution that aspires to become more well-recognized for the academic caliber of its faculty and students.
We expect that any Evaluation Team will be comprised of members who reflect the all the functional areas of university life. That would include top administrators (perhaps past or current presidents), financial and student life officers and, especially, faculty. We particularly would like the Chair of the evaluation team to be a person with presidential-level experience and a person who has familiarity with both regional accreditation and the mission of a Jesuit, Catholic university.