The Self-Study Process

Self-Study Plan and Goals

The University of Colorado is undergoing its ten-year reaccreditation review by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) in the academic year that bridges the old and the new millennium. At such a profound moment of change, it seems appropriate to take stock of who we are as a campus, assess what we are doing, and ask ourselves how we can improve.

A. Goals of the Self-Study

The self-study plan for the University of Colorado at Boulder has two goals and four objectives:

Goal I. Do an integrated assessment of major campus units and activities.

Objectives:

1. Identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of these units, including the degree to which the units are appropriately and successfully integrated with other relevant campus units and activities.
2. Use this assessment as a check on the current campus strategic plan.

Process:

• Involve major campus units in an assessment of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). Within the assessments of strengths and weaknesses, include evidence of the degree to which the units are successfully integrated with other relevant units and activities. Utilize relevant external as well as internal sources of input.
• Integrate these reports into an overall campus assessment.
• Develop recommendations for improvement of the campus based on this overall assessment.
• Check the congruence of these recommendations with the current strategic plan and make proposals for changes or action.

Goal II. Achieve continued accreditation for the next decade.

Objectives:

1. Demonstrate satisfactory achievement of all NCA criteria.
2. Demonstrate satisfactory achievement of all NCA General Institutional Requirements (GIRs).

Process:

• Integrate unit and overall campus assessments and other institutional data to respond to criteria and GIRs.
• Obtain widespread internal and selected external input on interpretation of results and conclusions drawn from them.
• Frame the self study report around the five criteria, providing evidence of quality for each and recommendations for the future that are checked against the current strategic plan.
• Include evidence for each GIR as an appendix to the report.

B. Organization of the Study

In fall 1997, the chancellor of the Boulder campus designated Dr. Brangwyn Foote, assistant vice chancellor for academic affairs, to chair the campus self-study review committee. In turn, Dr. Foote asked Associate Vice Chancellor William H. Kaempfer to assist as co-chair of the committee.

Together they solicited names of potential members from the vice chancellors, school and college deans, the Boulder Faculty Assembly (BFA), University of Colorado Student Union (UCSU), and Staff Council. The following individuals were named to serve on the self-study committee:

• Susan Avery, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environment Sciences
• Shaun Dalrymple, Electronic Engineer and Staff Council Representative
• Jean Delaney, Director of the Office of International Education
• Brangwyn Foote, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
• Boyd Hill, Professor of History and BFA Representative
• William H. Kaempfer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
• Genet Kozik-Rosabal, United Government of Graduate Students (UGGS)
• Trey Lyons, UCSU Representative
• Lou McClelland, Director of Institutional Analysis
• Ofelia Miramontes, Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity
• David Pinkow, Associate Professor of Music
• Ric Porreca, Vice Chancellor for Budget and Finance
• Peter Steinhauer, Member of the Board of Regents
• Marc Swadener, Associate Dean of Education

Chancellor Richard L. Byyny formally charged the committee as follows: "Following the guidelines provided by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), do a thorough and critical review of campus programs, policies, and practices, and develop a report to be submitted to NCA prior to the site visit on April 17-18, 2000."

The self-study committee was divided into subcommittees to consider each of the five NCA criteria. The charge to each subcommittee followed the NCA guidelines for providing evidence of achieving each criterion.

The self-study report was organized with a chapter on each criterion, but the contents of each section do not necessarily conform to the outline in the charge to the committees. Specifically, these charges are:

Sub-Committee I: Mission

Chair: Lou McClelland

Charge: Review and articulate patterns of evidence that the institution has clear and publicly stated purposes consistent with its mission and appropriate to an institution of higher education, such as:

• long- and short-range institutional and educational goals

• processes, involving its constituencies, through which the institution evaluates its purposes

• decision-making processes that are appropriate to its stated mission and purposes

• understanding of the stated purposes by institutional constituencies

• efforts to keep the public informed of its institutional and educational goals through documents such as the catalog and program brochures

• support for freedom of inquiry for faculty and students

• institutional commitment to excellence, both in the teaching provided by faculty and the learning expected of students.

Sub-Committee Members:

• William H. Kaempfer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
• Bobbi Barrow, Executive Director of Institutional Relations

Sub-Committee II: Resources

Chair: David Pinkow

Charge: Review and articulate patterns of evidence that the institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes, such as:

• governance by a board consisting of informed people who understand their responsibilities, function in accordance with stated board policies, and have the resolve necessary to preserve the institution's integrity

• effective administration through well-defined and understood organizational structures, policies, and procedures

• qualified and experienced administrative personnel who oversee institutional activities and exercise appropriate responsibility for them

• systems of governance that provide dependable information to the institution's constituencies and, as appropriate, involve them in the decision-making processes

• faculty with educational credentials that testify to appropriate preparation for the courses they teach

• a sufficient number of students enrolled to meet the institution's stated educational purposes

• provision of services that afford all admitted students the opportunity to succeed

• a physical plant that supports effective teaching and learning

• conscientious efforts to provide students with a safe and healthy environment

• academic resources and equipment (e.g., libraries, electronic services and products, learning resource centers, laboratories and studios, computers) adequate to support the institution's purposes

• a pattern of financial expenditures that shows the commitment to provide both the environment and the human resources necessary for effective teaching and learning

• management of financial resources to maximize the institution's capability to meet its purposes

Sub-Committee Members/Contributors:

Sub-Committee III: Results

Committee Chair: Susan Avery

Charge: Review and articulate patterns of evidence that the institution is accomplishing its educational and other purposes, such as:

• educational programs appropriate to an institution of higher education:

- courses of study in the academic programs that are clearly defined, coherent, and intellectually rigorous

- programs that include courses and/or activities whose purpose is to stimulate the examination and understanding of personal, social and civic values

- programs that require of the faculty and students (as appropriate to the level of the educational program) the use of scholarship and/or the participation in research as part of the program

- programs that require intellectual interaction between student and faculty and encourage it between student and student

• graduate programs that:

- distinguish clearly graduate from undergraduate offerings

- expect students and faculty to value and engage in research, scholarship, and creative activity

- are approved, taught, and evaluated by a graduate faculty that possesses appropriate credentials and experience

- use results of regular internal and external peer review processes to ensure quality

• assessment of appropriate student academic achievement in all its programs, documenting:

- proficiency in skills and competencies essential for all college-educated adults

- completion of an identifiable and coherent undergraduate level general education component

- mastery of the level of knowledge appropriate to the degree granted

• transcripts that accurately reflect student learning and follow commonly accepted practices

• effective teaching that characterizes its courses and academic programs

• ongoing support for professional development for faculty, staff, and administrators

• student services that effectively support the institution's purposes

• staff and faculty service that contributes to the institution's effectiveness

• evidence of support for basic and applied research and creative work through provision of sufficient human, financial, and physical resources to produce effective research and creative work

• evidence of effective delivery of educational and other services beyond the campus

Sub-Committee Members/Contributors:

Sub-Committee IV: Planning

Chair: William Kaempfer

Charge: Review and articulate patterns of evidence that the institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness, such as:

• a current resource base — financial, physical, and human — that positions the institution for the future

• decision-making processes with tested capability of responding effectively to anticipated and unanticipated challenges to the institution

• structured assessment processes that are continuous, that involve a variety of institutional constituencies, and that provide meaningful and useful information to the planning processes, as well as to students, faculty, and administration

• plans as well as ongoing effective planning processes necessary to the institution's continuance

• resources organized and allocated to support its plans for strengthening both the institution and its programs

Sub-Committee Members:

Sub-Committee V: Integrity

Chair: Marc Swadener

Charge: Review and articulate patterns of evidence that the institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships, such as:

• student, faculty, and staff handbooks that describe various institutional relationships with those constituencies, including appropriate grievance procedures

• policies and practices for the resolution of internal disputes within the institution's constituency

• policies and practices consistent with its mission related to equity of treatment, nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and other means of enhancing access to education and the building of a diverse educational community

• institutional publications, statements, and advertising that describe accurately and fairly the institution, its operations, and its programs

• relationships with other institutions of higher education conducted ethically and responsibly

• appropriate support for resources shared with other institutions

• policies and procedures regarding institutional relationships with and responsibility for intercollegiate athletics, student associations, and subsidiary or related business enterprises

• oversight processes for monitoring contractual arrangements with government, industry, and other organizations

Sub-Committee Members/Contributors:

C. Timetable for the Study