2005 HLC Self-Study Steering Committee
Review of January 23, 2004 Meeting

Members Present: Barbara Bushman, Sue George, Tammy Jahnke, Martha Kirker, Etta Madden, John Catau, Tom Dicke, Pete Richardson, Roger Sell, Don Simpson, and Bill Cheek (Meeting notes recorded and prepared by Roger Sell)

1. Reports from those attending January 16, 2004 HLC Workshop in St. Louis

   1. Etta Madden

      1. Review and writing are two aspects of the self-study process

      2. There is a tension between using existing reports and the learning process of the self-study

      3. The discussion of Criteria 3 &4 was most useful

      4. Integrity (meaning integration) one of the key terms used

   2. Tom Dicke

      1. The workshop might have been more useful six months or so ago

      2. It was good to hear the HLC folks discuss the criteria and self-study process

      3. General education matters a lot in what HLC looks for in the self-study

      4. Other institutions have used focus groups and employer surveys

   3. Don Simpson

      1. Agrees that the workshop might have been more useful earlier

      2. First two hours of workshop could have been in form of teleconference

      3. HLC has a mission statement (see back cover of notebook) that they practice

      4. Key message: look forward, not backward

      5. We need to use all of the criteria in our self-study

      6. Personally struggling to fit together the five objectives and five criteria

      7. Question about how to define constituencies

      8. Concerns about diversity are not based on quotas

      9. Missouri State University should have a diversity statement as part of its institutional messages

   4. Martha Kirker

      1. We are able (and encouraged) to define what we will be addressing and how we will be judged

      2. We need to document how we evaluate ourself (the University) and where we are heading

      3. Self-study is an opportunity to talk about things important to us

      4. Externally imposed accreditation is a justification for doing what we think needs to get done

      5. Key terms: engagement; systems approach; integration; embedded leadership)

      6. Don’t send in self-study report too early; can be as late as six weeks before the team visit

   5. Bill Cheek

      1. 320 people attended the workshop (far more than HLC initially anticipated, but the NCA area includes over 1,000 institutions from all Carnegie classifications)

      2. Karen Solomon (new to the HLC as of May 2003) is our liaison for the self-study

      3. We will be in that portion of the accreditation process called PEAQ (Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality).

2. Self-study report and visit

   1. The HLC does not require a specific format for the self-study report and we will decide the appropriate form

   2. The team visit will include a team leader and several consultant-evaluators (CEs) selected by the HLC from our region. The visit will occur over a three-day period.

   3. After talking to CEs at the St. Louis workshop, it is apparent that we may be required to have a traditional "resource room" for the team as well as "virtual resources" that team members can access electronically

3. Self-study plan will include

   1. Goal

   2. Objectives

   3. Strategies

   4. Timeline

   5. Charges (tasks and assignment of responsibilities)

   6. Suggestions for self-study "design" may be found in the Handbook for Accreditation, 5.2-5 and 6.

4. Self-study Objective 3: To involve the University’s many constituencies in the evaluation of institutional structures, processes, and programs relative to the criteria for accreditation

   1. Definition of "constituency": people (or groups) involved in or served by the institution

   2. Key external constituencies

   1. Emeritus faculty

   2. Alumni

   3. Employers

   4. Donors

   5. Legislators

   6. Citizens in Southwest Missouri/community and regional interest groups participating in Missouri State University events such as recreation, arts, entertainment, etc.

   7. Other educational institutions (Pre-K – 12; community colleges)

   3. Key internal constituencies

      1. Board members/li>

      2. Administrators

      3. Faculty

      4. Staff

      5. Students

   4. Organizations of constituencies related to five themes (examples only, not exhaustive)

      1. Schools (public and private)

      2. Social service agencies

      3. Government agencies

      4. Medical institutions (hospitals, other health care, etc.)

      5. Agriculture-related

      6. Religious organizations

      7. Business and industrial organizations

      8. Libraries

      9. Museums

      10. Other

   5. Some issues and questions raised about constituencies and Objective 3

      1. What does our statewide public affairs mission imply about the constituencies we serve?

      2. Is the concept of "constituency" different than the concept of "collaboration" and, if so, what are the implications for this objective?

      3. What constituency-based evidence do we have regarding the five themes?

      4. What strategies will we use to collect data from the constituencies?

   6. Note: Paul Kinkaid is compiling a list of Missouri State University constituency groups by program area within the University as part of the Process Improvement Committee chaired by Greg Burris.

5. Other announcements and comments

   1. Guideline: We will use existing data rather than generate new data as "patterns of evidence" wherever possible

   2. We still do not have formal notification from the HLC regarding our forthcoming accreditation review.

   3. Pete Richardson attended a two-day AACSB workshop on assessment that included the assessment of critical thinking

   4. Important to involve students in the self-study process.