Introduction

Newsletter                    

Resources

Committee Portal

Accreditation Timeline

Criterion Committees:
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5

The second meeting of the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Criterion 3 self-study committee was held November 7th. In attendance were Mike Mitchell, Chair; John Arle; Liz O'Brien; Dana Fladhammer; Joy Fitzpatrick; Don Richardson; Ofelia Canez; Pam Rogers; Kristin Anderson; Lily Kang (new member); and self-study co-chair Brent Jamison.
The minutes from the October 16th were approved as distributed.

Chair Mike Mitchell addressed the need to determine a method or methods for addressing Criterion 3. Kristen Anderson suggested using sub divisions in the core components; thus, we could take III, A, for example; consider all of the examples and compare them to Phoenix College as a whole. The assignments would be for people to gather evidence. Probably we would need to return to III, A, also, as completion might be somewhat tenous.

John Arle suggested a broader approach. At Rio Salado, he said, assessments needed to be tied to the college's Vision and Mission. However, Phoenix College's do not lend themselves to assessment; the connection is challenging. The focus in on responsiveness instead. Thus, perhaps we need to re-evaluate the Vision statement. The issue is "Responsiveness to the changing needs." Actually everything is intended to assess this. Maybe the Mission statement should be changed. The NCA evaluation team will be looking for a loop of feedback and cycle as evidence. Because some of the elements are troublesome, perhaps Brent and Marian should be asked to re-examine the Mission statement; however, Team #1 (or Criterion #1) has this charge.
The focus is the changing needs.

This committee needs to organize itself. One approach could be from campus to departments or programs to courses to classroom to classes, each subsequent level more specific than the previous one. Levels of implementation will be considered. Thus, we should start at the campus level and do an overview. The problem is that we are aiming at a moving target, Mike said (demonstrating an effective metaphor). We are trying to assess what is being formulated, proposed, and developed right now. We will need documentation for what is happening now and what is planned for the future also. In addition, we will need evidence from the historical perspective, that is 1996. The history will include the creation of the historical goals added to the assessment plan, revisions to that plan, today's practice, and future plans (to be monitored as they are developed). Some criteria have been changed, so the future assessments may not be entirely relevant. In fact, there is greater focus this time on assessment as opposed to 1996 or prior years. There is more focus on establishing the process and keeping it accessible.

The committee will need to provide evidence of direct and indirect measures-as examples of evidence-that must be documented. Direct measures are mandatory and easily documented. Indirect measures are more challenging and harder to document.
The process is what the HLC will measure.

The campus level is one consideration. The department should then follow. To show progress at the department level should be convincing to the evaluation team. Examination of the process will probably be foremost.

Evidence for departments and programs ought to be relatively easy to gather and document. Department goals-outcomes-should reflect improvement over the past decade. In the process, departments may need to re-evaluate.
III, A states "outcomes clearly stated" and "make effective assessment possible."

This seems to call for Mission and Goals statement from every department or program. Should every coordinator and chair on campus be contacted? The course competencies are in the bank of courses at the District Curriculum web site. "Goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated" is another charge. See Web CT for a link to John Arle's, for example. It was mentioned that each department's Mission and Goals statement is required for the budgetary process.

Mike distributed a handout which listed all 30 departments on campus as given in the 2003-04 Phoenix College Catalog (111-12). It was agreed that members of the committee should contact the department chairs and program coordinators to ask them for their Mission and Goals statements. These should be submitted to Mike Mitchell in a Word table document; Mike will maintain a spread sheet listing the stages of completion for each entity. Mike will then submit documents, etc. to Emily Lander, the web master.

Through a relatively democratic process of coerced volunteerism, the members of the committee chose departments to follow up on, asking for Mission and Goals statements (for each department and each sub division [program]) as currently existing, all variations from 1996 on, and any plans to change the documentation. The suggested deadline is December 9th. A follow-up reminder may need to be sent in January.

Since the Criterion 1 committee is to compile the historical research, the initial focus of this group will not be on the historical details. In fact, they can refer to our web site.

"And make effective assessment possible." Thus, the assumption is that assessments are being made to evaluate the Mission and Goals. See examples of evidence (p. 10). Statements of learning goals for certificates and degrees, catalog statements, curriculum web site, course competencies, occupational programs goals and competencies, ESL, etc. are all resources to be called on. Mike will check the catalog for relevant statements. In addition the evidence needs to reflect "multiple levels."

The committee members discussed course level evaluation and agreed that this means a common final examination for a specific course, i.e. ENG101 or PSY101. This does not mean individual classes. How do we get access to course level assessments? Through the departments that are using them.

Mike volunteered to request to be placed on the department chair meeting agenda and to attend the meeting of November 20th to provide an overview of what we are asking of the department chairs.
Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 9th at 2:30; Lily will try to secure the Multi-Purpose Room in the Library for us.

Respectfully Submitted,
Don Richardson