James T. Rogers toRetire from Commissionon Colleges

After 19 years of leadership with theCommission on Colleges of theSouthern Association of Colleges andSchools, James T. Rogers announced hisretirement plans to the Commission atits annual summer meeting held thispast June. Rogers will retire in June2005. During his tenure as executivedirector of the Commission on Colleges,Rogers engineered the implementation

of standards oninstitutionaleffectivenessadopted in the late1980s for highereducationinstitutions in the 11states of thesoutheastern region

and recently worked with themembership and the Commission’sleadership and staff to institute compre-hensive changes in accreditationstandards placing a renewed and in-depth emphasis on student learning.

Rogers began his distinguished careerwith the Commission in 1985 andimmediately began working with theleadership on the implementation of theCriteria for Accreditation. TheCommission’s most recent efforts led tothe adoption in 2001 of the accreditationstandards called the Principles ofAccreditation: Foundations for QualityEnhancement.

“Dr. Rogers’ retirement will bring toan end one of the most significantcareers of our era in higher education,”says John T. Casteen, III, president of theUniversity of Virginia. “He has broughtintegrity, fairness, and a profounddedication to quality to the process ofimproving our colleges anduniversities. Every college president inthe nation and many persons who workin colleges across the country will knowjust how important Dr. Rogers’

FALL, 2003 1

An outstanding group of speakers willaddress the expected 3,000 delegates atthe 2004 Annual Meeting of theCommission on Colleges to be co-headquartered at the Marriott Marquisand the Hilton hotels in downtownAtlanta, December 4-7. On Sunday,

December 5, at 5:00p.m., the OpeningPlenary speaker willbe the formerAmbassador to theCourt of St. James,Philip Lader.Ambassador Laderwas administrator of

the U.S. Small Business Administration,White House Deputy Chief of Staff, andDeputy Director for Management in theOffice of Management and Budget. Inaddition, he was president of bothWinthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C.,and Australia’s first private university,Bond University, in Queensland,

Australia. On Monday,

December 6, at 9:00a.m., the SecondPlenary speakerwill be DavidGergen,commentator,editor, teacher,

public servant, best-selling authorand adviser to Presidents Nixon,Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. Davidcurrently serves as editor-at-large atU.S. News & World Report and as aregular television commentator.

Former Governorof MississippiWilliam Winterwill speak onTuesday, December7, at 9:00 a.m.during the COCGeneral Sessionand College

Delegate Assembly Business Meeting. The Williams Winter Institute on RacialReconciliation at the University of

Mississippi is namedin his honor.

The Presidents’ DayBreakfast andLuncheon speakerswill be Gwen Ifilland ChairmanDonald Powell,respectively. Gwen

Ifill is Senior Correspondent of TheNewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Moderatorand Managing Editor of Washington

Week. ChairmanPowell of the FederalDeposit InsuranceCorporation is formerChairman of theBoard of Regents ofthe Texas A&MUniversity System.

2 John Dwyer to Retire

4 Commission Actions in June 2004

5 Call for Comment

6 Educational ExcellenceExposition

7 Travel, Hotel and RegistrationInformation

8 Professional DevelopmentSessions by Staff

9 Pre-Conference Workshops

10 Travel Grant

11 Preliminary 2004 Program

27 Presidents’ Day Activities

28 Reserve These Dates!

Outstanding Speakers to AddressAnnual Meeting Delegates

ACommuniqué

of theCommissionon Colleges

VOL.56, No. 6 Southern Association of Colleges and Schools FALL - 2004

continued on page 3

2 PROCEEDINGS

leadership has been. He has spelled outprocesses for assuring excellence that areused in every part of the country. It is veryhard to imagine a replacement for him, butin truth he leaves in place foundations thatwill matter to all of us in the future.”

“During my term on the executivecouncil and as chairman of theCommission, I came to understand the highregard that people across the nation havefor Jim Rogers. It is clear that he is viewedas a leader among accrediting agencydirectors,” said Robert Khayat, chancellorof the University of Mississippi. “Amongthe reasons for the respect he enjoys is hiswork on clarifying and simplifying thebylaws of SACS and streamlining thereaffirmation process. The members of ourassociation know that we have dedicated,visionary, and tireless leadership from JimRogers and his staff. His strong personalvalues are reflected in the work he has donefor the association. We are a much betterorganization as a result.”

One of Rogers’ immediate challengeswhen accepting the executive director’sposition was to downsize the association’sbureaucracy and decentralize authorityfrom the Association’s Board of Trustees tothe individual commissions. By modifyingthe role of the Board, Rogers and theCommission’s leadership were able tomaintain a more efficient overall organi-zation and create increased independenceof the individual Commissions, allowingfor better management of their ownoperations.

“Jim led a very important revolution inthe South in higher education,” saidThomas E. Corts, president of SamfordUniversity. “He is an ardent advocate oflearning and is aggressive about addressingissues nationally. In the Rogers’ years,SACS has become a leader nationwide.”

Rogers has been a key player in thereauthorization of the Higher EducationAmendments, working with his colleaguesin the other regional commissions to stemintrusion of federal oversight while at thesame time balancing the need forinstitutions receiving federal and statefunds to be accountable.

“Dr. Jim Rogers has led the Commissionon Colleges with energy and vision for 19years,” said James F. Barker, president ofClemson University and the Commission’scurrent chair. “He has established us as theleading regional accrediting body inAmerica. His service to the colleges anduniversities in the South has beenremarkable.”

“This has been the greatest challenge andgreatest reward of my professional life,”says Rogers. “I look forward to dedicatingthis last year to further improvements andto helping pave the way for my successor. Ihave been extremely fortunate to haveworked with some of the finest academicleaders in the South.”

Barker appointed John Casteen, presidentof the University of Virginia, to serve aschair of the search committee for Rogers’successor. The work of the committee willbegin this month.

Staff Member John Dwyer to Retire

After serving as staff representativeto one-hundred colleges and univer-sities in the Southern region since1994, Dr. John Orr Dwyer announcedhis retirement as associate executivedirector of the Commission on

Colleges effectiveDecember 31, 2004.John will work withhis assignedinstitutions throughthe annual meetingthis December.During his tenure,John provided

support for a number of Commissionprojects, including most recently aresource manual for the Principles ofAccreditation. He has been a strongadvocate for liberal arts education.

Prior to his appointment with theCommission, John held faculty andadministrative positions at PomonaCollege in California, Centre Collegein Kentucky, the University of DetroitMercy, and Thiel College inPennsylvania. He has heldfellowships at the Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universitiesand at the Council of IndependentColleges, both in Washington, D.C.His publications and presentationshave been in the fields of Africanhistory, the history of highereducation, and freshman studies. Inaddition to having time to travel (nopun intended), John plans to continueto enjoy golf, opera, and reading forthe blind.

The Commission extends itsappreciation to John for his manyyears of dedicated service and bestwishes in the future.

Rogers--continued from page 1

Statement of Ownership, Management and CirculationFiling Date: 10/01/2004

Required by the U.S. Postal Service: 39 U.S.C. 3685

Proceedings (Publication No. 0038-3813) is published eight times per year, $10 per year subscription. Thecomplete mailing address of the office of publication: 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033-4097. Ownerand publication: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Editors: Carol Hollins, Carol Luthman, andLucy Welzant-Hayden. There are no known bondholders, mortgagees or other security holders. Circulationdata below is for issue date September 2004:

Avg. copies per issue Actual copies of singleissue nearest file date

Total copies: (net press run) 18,600 16,800Paid/requested:

1. dealers/carriers: 0 02. mailed subs. 18,500 16150

Total paid/requested 18,500 16,150Free distribution:

1. mailed: 55 2002. not mailed: 0 0

Total free distribution: 55 200Copies not distributed: 45 450Total: 18,600 16,800Percent paid/requested 99% 99%Certified correct and complete October 1, 2004 by Victor D. Banks.

POSITION VACANCYThe Commission on Colleges of the SouthernAssociation of Colleges and Schools invites applica-tions and nominations for the position of AssociateExecutive Director. Reporting to the ExecutiveDirector, the associate staff member is responsible forcoordinating the development and implementation ofprograms, policies, and procedures in assisting insti-tutions in meeting accreditation standards andimproving educational programs, and for serving asthe staff liaison representative for approximately 100member and candidate institutions. Please refer to theCommission’s Web page at http://www.sacscoc.org/posi-tion_vacancy.asp for the application process and posi-tion description. Deadline for applications: January31, 2005.

FALL, 2004 3

Commission SeeksNominations forCommissioners

Each year approximately one-third ofthe seventy-seven member Commissionon Colleges is eligible for election or re-election. Selection begins withpresidents nominating individuals fromtheir respective states and the processconcludes with a vote on a slate ofnominees by all the presidents duringthe College Delegate Assembly meetingeach December. Among some of theirimportant responsibilities,Commissioners review cases and makedecisions about the accreditation ofinstitutions, vote on policies andprocedures, and review and forward tothe membership recommended duesassessments and recommendedchanges to the Commission’s standards.

For the class beginning service inJanuary 2005, there are 12 individualseligible for re-election and there are 11vacancies. Within the next severalweeks, all presidents should receive aballot and information regardingnominations within their states. Thecoordinator for each state’s nominationprocess is the elected executive councilmember. They are as follows:Alabama—Jack Hawkins, chancellor,Troy State University; Florida—PatrickLee, provost, Barry University;Georgia—Stuart Gulley, president,LaGrange College; Kentucky—JamesTaylor, president, Cumberland College;Louisiana—Dan Reneau, chancellor,Louisiana Tech University;Mississippi—Clinton Bristow,president, Alcorn State University;North Carolina—Joseph Barwick,president, Carteret CommunityCollege; South Carolina—CharlesGould, president, Florence-DarlingtonTechnical College; Tennessee—PaulStanton, president, East Tennessee StateUniversity; Texas—Bud Austin,president, LeTourneau University; andVirginia—Elisabeth Muhlenfeld,president, Sweet Briar College.

Please contact your state’s executivecouncil member if you have notreceived information regarding yourstate’s nominations.

During its executive session on June 24,2004, the seventy-seven memberCommission on Colleges approved a newpolicy on nominating QEP (QualityEnhancement Plan) lead evaluators andadopted revisions to its policies ondisclosure of Commission actions, andobservers serving on reaffirmationcommittees.

The new policy, “QEP: Lead EvaluatorNomination Process,” outlines aninstitution’s responsibility for nominatingtwo lead QEP evaluators to its On-SiteReview Committee during the reaffirmationprocess. The policy (1) describes the type ofexperience and expertise expected fornominees, (2) outlines conflict of interestprovisions, (3) describes the process forsubmitting nominees’ names toCommission staff, making the initial contactwith the approved evaluators, and issuing aformal invitation, and (4) asks institutions todevelop a series of questions or issuesconcerning the QEP that would beforwarded to the On-Site ReviewCommittee in advance to help the QEP leadevaluators prepare for the visit. This policycan be accessed on the Commission’s Webpage at www.sacscoc.org/pdf/QEPLeadEvaluator.pdf.

The Commission reviewed two of itsprevious policies under the Criteria andupdated them in accord with the Principlesof Accreditation. The revised policy,“Observers on On-Site Review Committeesfor Reaffirmation,” allows an institution tosend one person to accompany an On-SiteReview Committee to observe and learnfrom committee activities and from theexperience of persons at the hostinstitution. In addition, it (1) restricts thenumber of observers on an On-Site ReviewCommittee to that of one, and that observermay not be from the same state of the hostinstitution, (2) does not allow for observerson Off-Site Review Committees due to thepreliminary nature of the review and thelimited exposure to the entire process, (3)requires the observer’s institution to paythe expenses of the individual visiting thehost institution, and (4) outlines the role ofthe observer during the on-site review.This policy can be accessed on theCommission’s Web page atwww.sacscoc.org/pdf/observers.pdf.

Although recently revised in June 2003,the Commission adopted additional

modifications to its policy, “Disclosure ofAccrediting Documents and Actions of theCommission on Colleges.” The modifi-cations (1) allow the Executive Directormore flexibility in the release ofinformation when an institution presentsincorrect or misleading information to thepublic, (2) modifies the type of informationthat the Commission may make availableto the public about applicant, candidate,and member institutions, and (3)streamlines the list of Commission actionson institutions read to the College DelegateAssembly during its business session at theAnnual Meeting. This policy can beaccessed on the Commission’s Web page atwww.sacscoc.org/pdf/disclosu.pdf.

In addition to the policies approved byCommissioners, the Commission’s thirteen-member Executive Council adopted twooperational procedures. The Councilincreased the fee for institutions seekinginitial accreditation with the Commission:for regional institutions in the elevensoutheastern states, an increase from $8,000to $10,000; for international institutions, anincrease from $12,000 to $15,000. TheCouncil noted that while an applicantinstitution is seeking initial membership, itpays no dues. The increase in applicationfees is designed to offset staff and adminis-trative costs incurred during the applicant’sreview process.

The Council also approved aCommission staff request to expand theoptions on ways that a staff membercommunicates the findings of an Off-SiteReview Committee to an institution.Instead of allowing for findings to becommunicated solely through a conferencecall to the leadership team, staff membershave additional options of relaying thatinformation by sending the institution theReport of the Off-Site Review Committee;sending the Report and conducting aconference call; meeting in Atlanta toreview the Report; or other means asrequested by the institution. Originally, theCommission was reluctant to send theinstitution the Report of the Off-SiteReview Committee so as to stem anyunnecessary attention on a preliminaryreport that possibly could be made public.But institutions undergoing review in 2004indicated that they would prefer optionsand the responsibility for their choice.

Commission Approves Three Policies; Adopts Additional Operational Procedures

4 PROCEEDINGS

The Commission granted initialaccreditation to the following institutions:

• Air University, Maxwell AFB, AL (Level III)• New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL (Level II)• Texas Tech University Health Sciences

Center, Lubbock, TX(Level VI)• University of South Carolina Beaufort,

Beaufort, SC (Level II)

The Commission granted initial candidacy tothe following institution (effective June 24, 2004):

• Atlanta Technical College, Atlanta, GA

The Commission authorized an accreditationcommittee for the following institution:

• University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

The Commission authorized a candidacycommittee for the following institutions:

• Southeastern Technical College, Vidalia, GA• West Georgia Technical College,

LaGrange, GA

The Commission accredited the followingmember institutions at a more advanceddegree level:

• ECPI College of Technology, Virginia Beach, VA

Moved from Level I to Level II offering the Bachelorof Science in Computer and Information Sciences

• Jefferson College of Health Sciences,Roanoke, VA

Moved from Level II to Level III offering the Masterof Science in Nursing

• Texas A & M International University, Laredo, TX

Moved from Level III to Level V offering the Ph.D.in International Business

• West Texas A & M University, Canyon, TXMoved from Level III to Level V offering the Ph.D.in Agriculture

The Commission approved the followingsubstantive changes:

• Lexington Community College, Lexington, KY

Approval of change of governance• United States Sports Academy, Daphne, AL

Approval of Bachelor of Sport Science degreeand of an exception to Core Requirement 2.7.4

The Commission accepted the prospectus for the merger/consolidation of thefollowing institutions:

• Jefferson Community College, Louisville, KYAcceptance of the prospectus for the consoli-dation/merger of Jefferson Community College andJefferson Technical College

The Commission approved themerger/consolidation of the followinginstitutions:

• Elizabethtown Community College, Elizabethtown, KY

The consolidation/merger of ElizabethtownCommunity College and Elizabethtown Technical College

The Commission continued accreditation ofthe following institutions after reviewingtheir substantive changes:

• Elon University, Elon, NCReview of membership at Level V, offering theDoctor of Physical Therapy

• Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL

Review of graduate programs at the Prescott Campus

• Freed-Hardeman University, Henderson, TNReview of the Education Specialist Degree Program

• Gadsden State Community College, Gadsden, AL

Review of merger/consolidation of Gadsden StateCommunity College with Harry M. Ayers StateTechnical College

• Greensboro College, Greensboro, NCReview of membership at Level III, offering theMaster of Education and the Master of Arts inTeaching English as a Second Language

• Hardin-Simmons University, Abilene, TXReview of membership at Level V, offering theDoctor of Physical Therapy

• Louisiana State University at Alexandria, Alexandria, LA

Review of membership at Level II, offering theBachelor of Science in Biology and in ElementaryEducation, the Bachelor of General Studies, and theBachelor of Liberal Studies

• Lubbock Christian University, Lubbock, TXReview of the Bachelor of Science degree inOrganizational Management offered on the campusof Howard College in Big Spring, Texas

• Miami-Dade College, Miami, FLReview of membership at Level II offering theBachelor of Science degree in Secondary ScienceEducation, in Secondary Mathematics Education,and in Exceptional Student Education

• Mississippi Delta Community College, Moorhead, MS

Review of associate degree programs offered at the Greenville Higher Education Center in Greenville, Miss.

• North Harris Montgomery Community College District, The Woodlands, TX

Review of the new campus at Cy-Fair College

Actions onAccreditationTaken by theCommission

At its meeting on June 24, 2004, theCommission on Colleges reviewed

the recommendations of itsstanding committees—the

Committees on Compliance andReports—and the Executive

Council, and granted initial accred-itation to four institutions and

candidacy to one. It took action on44 cases, and reviewed an

additional 58 monitoring reports.(Actions on monitoring reports are notdisclosed to the public unless an action

includes the imposition of a publicsanction.) A summary of thoseactions is listed below; a moreextensive report is available at

http://www.sacscoc.org/.

FALL, 2004 5

Call for CommentThe Commission on Colleges of

the Southern Association ofColleges and Schools is therecognized regional accreditingbody in the eleven U.S. Southernstates (Alabama, Florida, Georgia,Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,North Carolina, South Carolina,Tennessee, Texas and Virginia) andin Latin America for thoseinstitutions of higher educationthat award associate,baccalaureate, master or doctoratedegrees.

The purpose of this notice is toinvite interested third parties topresent written comments on theinstitutions listed in this notice thatare scheduled for reaffirmation ofaccreditation (continued accredi-tation) in 2005. Please send yourwritten comments on any of theinstitutions listed below to Dr.James T. Rogers, ExecutiveDirector, Commission on Colleges,1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Ga.30033-4097. The deadline forsubmission of comments isDecember 1, 2004.

The following institutions arescheduled for reaffirmation ofaccreditation during the June andDecember 2005 meetings of theCommission on Colleges of theSouthern Association of Collegesand Schools:Art Institute of Houston, Houston, TXAsbury Theological Seminary,

Wilmore, KYBaptist Memorial College of Health

Sciences, Memphis, TN Bishop State Community College,

Mobile, AL Blinn College, Brenham, TXBlue Mountain College,

Blue Mountain, MSBlue Ridge Community College,

Weyers Cave, VACatawba College, Salisbury, NCCatawba Valley Community College,

Hickory, NCCentral Alabama Community College,

Alexander City, ALCentral Georgia Technical College,

Macon, GA Central Texas College, Killeen, TXClear Creek Baptist Bible College,

Pineville, KY Coker College, Hartsville, SC

• South University, Savannah, GAReview of membership at Level V, offering theDoctor of Pharmacy degree

• Southern Adventist University, Collegedale, TN

Review of the MBA program offered via onlineweb-based distance learning originating at themain campus

• Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TXReview of membership at Level V, offering theEd.D. in Educational Leadership

• Toccoa Falls College, Toccoa Falls, GAReview of Associate of Arts degree offered atEpworth, Ga.

• University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC

Review of membership at Level V offering thePh.D. in Marine Biology

• University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN

Review of membership at Level V, offering theDoctor of Physical Therapy

• University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX

Review of Ph.D. in Urban and PublicAdministration and the Ph.D. in Social Workoffered in partnership with the AutonomousUniversity of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, Mexico

• Virginia State University, Petersburg, VAReview of membership at Level V, offering theEd.D. in Educational Leadership and Supervision

The Commission removed the followinginstitutions from Probation:

• Interdenominational Theological Center, Atlanta, GA

• Lexington Community College,Lexington, KY

Negative Actions

The Commission placed the followinginstitutions on Warning:

• American InterContinental University, Atlanta, GA

For six months for failure to comply withComprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (InstitutionalEffectiveness) of the Principles of Accreditation.

• Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX For twelve months for failure to comply withComprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (InstitutionalEffectiveness), and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1(Faculty) of the Principles of Accreditation.

The Commission denied approval of accredi-tation at a more advanced degree level for thefollowing member institutions:

• Louisiana College, Pineville, LADenial of membership at Level III for failure tocomply with Core Requirements 2.1 (Degree-granting Authority), 2.2 (Governing Board),2.7.1 (Program Length), 2.8 (Faculty), 2.9(Learning Resources and Services), and 2.11(Resources) of the Principles of Accreditation.

• Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA

Denial of membership at Level V offering the Ed.D.in Leadership in collaboration with the Universityof Louisiana at Lafayette for failure to comply withCore Requirements 2.1 (Degree-grantingAuthority), 2.7.2 (Program Content), and 2.8(Faculty) of the Principles of Accreditation.

The Commission denied approval ofsubstantive changes requested by thefollowing institutions:

• Texas College, Tyler, TXDenied approval of Medical Health Care AssistantProgram for failure to comply with Section 1(Integrity), Comprehensive Standards 3.10.1(Financial and Physical Resources), and 3.10.4(Budget Control) of the Principles ofAccreditation.

• Truett-McConnell College, Cleveland, GADenied approval of the Bachelor of Arts inChristian Studies degree for failure to comply withComprehensive Standards 3.8.1 (Library andOther Learning Resources) and 3.10.1 (Financialand Physical Resources) of the Principles ofAccreditation.

Adverse Action

The Commission removed the accreditationof the following institution:

• Barber-Scotia College, Concord, NCFor failure to comply with Section 1: Principles andPhilosophy of Accreditation (Integrity) of thePrinciples of Accreditation. (Note: The ten-day period for Barber-ScotiaCollege to appeal the Commission’s decisionelapsed on July 12, 2004. Because theinstitution did not appeal, the Commissionon Colleges’ decision to remove the accredi-tation of Barber-Scotia College was effectiveJune 24, 2004.)

Special NoteAir University, Maxwell AFB, AlabamaWith the accreditation of Air Universitylocated at Maxwell AFB in Alabama, theCommunity College of the Air Forceand the School for Advanced AirpowerStudies no longer exist as separatelyaccredited entities. As of June 24, 2004,both are accredited as part of AirUniversity.

continued on page 6

6 PROCEEDINGS

Collin County Community College District, Plano, TX

Columbus Technical College, Columbus, GA

Copiah-Lincoln Community College,Wesson, MS

Denmark Technical College, Denmark, SCEdward Waters College, Jacksonville, FLFlorida Gulf Coast University,

Ft. Meyers, FL Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FLFundacion Universidad de las Americas-Puebla,

Puebla, MXGalveston College, Galveston, TXGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GAGeorgia Southern University, Statesboro, GAGreensboro College, Greensboro, NCGuilford Technical Community College,

Jamestown, NCJohnson Bible College, Knoxville, TNJudson College, Marion, ALLamar Institute of Technology, Beaumont, TXLamar State College Orange, Orange, TX Lee University, Cleveland, TNLees-McRae College, Banner Elk, NCLon Morris College, Jacksonville, TXLouisiana State University at Alexandria,

Alexandria, LA Louisiana State University Health Science

Center, New Orleans, LA

Louisiana State University in Shreveport,Shreveport, LA

Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LAMagnolia Bible College, Kosciusko, MSManatee Community College, Bradenton, FLMarine Corps University, Quantico, VA Marion Military Institute, Marion, ALMayland Community College, Spruce Pine, NCMercer University, Macon, GA Miami-Dade College, Miami, FLMidway College, Midway, KYNorth Florida Community College, Madison, FLNortheast Alabama Community College,

Rainsville, ALRoanoke Bible College, Elizabeth City, NC Rollins College, Winter Park, FLSouth College, Knoxville, TNSoutheastern Louisiana University,

Hammond, LASouthern Christian University, Montgomery, AL Southwest Tennessee Community College,

Memphis, TNStanly Community College, Albemarle, NCSullivan University, Louisville, KYTallahassee Community College, Tallahassee, FLTexas A. & M. International University,

Laredo, TXTexas A & M University - Kingsville,

Kingsville, TX

Texas State Technical College-Harlingen, Harlingen, TX

Texas State Technical College - West Texas, Sweetwater, TX

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TXUnion College, Barbourville, KYThe University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, ALThe University of Alabama at Birmingham,

Birmingham, ALUniversity of the Incarnate Word,

San Antonio, TXUniversity of Memphis, Memphis, TNUniversity of New Orleans, New Orleans, LAUniversity of St. Thomas, Houston, TXUniversity of Tampa, Tampa, FLUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, TNUniversity of South Florida, Tampa, FLThe University of West Florida, Pensacola, FLWake Technical Community College,

Raleigh, NCWallace State Community College,

Hanceville, ALWarren Wilson College, Asheville, NCWesleyan College, Macon, GAWestern Kentucky University,

Bowling Green, KYWilson Technical Community College,

Wilson, NC

Call for Comment--continued from page 5

The Commission on Colleges EducationalExcellence Exposition will be heldSunday and Monday, December 5-6, 2004.The Expo will feature companies thatrepresent a variety of resources such aspublishers; hardware and softwareservice and design companies; financial,

investment, and lendinginstitutions; insurance,real estate development,marketing, andmerchandising

consultants; student housing andbuilding consultants; representativesfrom higher education; and others.Special features of this year's Expo will bean Internet café to allow participants toaccess their Web-based e-mail, andseminars and training by conferencesponsors.

Exhibitors to date are: ACT, Inc.,Assessment Resource Center, Barnes &Noble College Booksellers, Inc.,Blackboard, Inc., Campus ManagementCorporation, Capstone DevelopmentCorp., Commerce Capital Access

Program, Connexxia LLC, Datatel,Educational Testing Service, FollettHigher Education Group, Freese andNichols, Inc., GradMax, The GrowthGroup, The Idea Center, Josef Silny &Associates, Inc., Key EducationResources, Lawler-Wood LLC, TheLegend Group, MBS Direct, MerrillLynch, Nuventive, PartnersDevelopment, Platform Advertising,Principia Products, Quizdom, Inc.,RobinSoft Corporation, Smarthinking,Inc., Sodexho, SunGard SCT, Tandberg,Thomson Learning, TIAA-CREF, TurnerConstruction, and Wells Fargo.

Conference sponsors to date are:Commerce Capital Access Program(co-sponsor of Presidents' Breakfast), KeyEducation Resources (co-sponsor ofPresidents' Breakfast), and TIAA-CREF(co-sponsor of Presidents'Luncheon).TIAA-CREF representativeswill offer private, personal, financialcounseling sessions at the SACS-COCAnnual Meeting. Make a reservation inadvance through their secure website at:

www.tiaa-cref.org/moc. Select"Georgia" where the meeting occurs,then look for "Commission on Colleges"under the Workplace-based Eventscolumn. The online registration pagewill be active beginning October 20.

Expo hours are: Sunday, December 5,2004, (Exhibit Hall opens), 6:00 p.m. to7:30 p.m. (COC Opening Reception);Monday, December 6, 2004, 10:00 a.m. to5:00 p.m. (Exhibit Hall hours), 10:00 a.m.to 11:00 a.m. (Conference break to includevendor presentations and refreshments),12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (Lunch availablefor purchase and vendor presentations),and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Conferencebreak to include vendor presentations andrefreshments), 5:00 p.m. (Exhibit Hallcloses).

For additional information about the Expo, contact Joan M. Downes

at (770) 416-9510 orvia e-mail at joan@hmsbiz.com.

2004ANNUALMEETING

Educational Excellence Exposition

FALL, 2003 7

The site of this year's SACS-COCconference is a very familiar one. Some ofAtlanta's well-known attractions includethe Atlanta Cyclorama, CNN StudioTours, Stone Mountain Park, the MartinLuther King, Jr. National Historic Site, SixFlags Over Georgia, and Zoo Atlanta. Inseason, sports fans can cheer on the 2004National League East Division AtlantaBraves baseball team, the Atlanta FalconsNFL football team, the Atlanta ThrashersNHL hockey team, the Atlanta HawksNBA basketball team, the AtlantaSilverbacks professional men's soccerteam, or the Georgia Force Arena footballteam. Art lovers can study paintings orsculpture at the High Museum of Art,

enjoy the gracefulAtlanta Ballet, taptheir toes to music ofan Andrew LloydWeber production

and other Broadway musicals, or enjoy theGrammy Award-winning AtlantaSymphony Orchestra.

So what's new in Atlanta? The Coca-Cola Company has donated land acrossfrom Centennial Olympic Park indowntown Atlanta for a five million gallonGeorgia Aquarium and a new World ofCoca-Cola. These attractions willcomplement the existing CentennialOlympic Park, Georgia Dome, Philips Area,Tabernacle, CNN Center and Imagine It!Children's Museum of Atlanta. TheGeorgia Aquarium is slated to open in fall2005 and will be among the largest and

most elaborate in the nation with morethan 50,000 freshwater and saltwater fishand mammals. The new World of Coca-Cola will be moving from its UndergroundAtlanta site to the new area beside theaquarium in late 2006 or early 2007.

Another coming addition is the AtlanticStation project, a 140-acre mixed-usedevelopment in Midtown. Oncecomplete, the development is projected toinclude 12 million square feet of retail,office, residential and hotel space as wellas 11 acres of public parks. The grandopening of the first phase of the $2 billionconglomerate is scheduled for spring 2005.

Expect to see a variety of improvementsat Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport,including the name. In January 2004 theairport was renamed Hartsfield-JacksonInternational Airport in tribute to the lateAtlanta mayors William B. Hartsfield and

Maynard Jackson, both supporters of theairport and its continued growth. Otherimprovements include a $5.4 billiondevelopment program, which willidentify, repair and upgrade designatedareas within the airport's facilities.

A visit to Atlanta is not complete withouta stop at one of the city's malls, outlets,antique shops, or galleries. Shoppers canfind a reprieve in one of Atlanta's 8,000restaurants or its many spas and resorts tosoothe their tired shoppers' legs.

Spurgeon Richardson, president of theAtlanta Convention & Visitors Bureausays "No matter how many times you'vebeen here, or your age, there are manynew surprises awaiting in the capital ofthe South." By the way, did you know thatAtlanta has over 100 streets with the namePeachtree?

2004ANNUALMEETING

Take a Look atAtlanta Again!

Delta Air Lines is the official airlinefor the Commission on Colleges of theSouthern Association of Colleges andSchools in 2004. Delta Air Lines isoffering special discount round-trip Zonefares. To take advantage of discounts,call Delta Meeting Network reservationsat 800-241-6760 weekdays 7:30 a.m. -11:00 p.m., or weekends 8:30 a.m. - 11:00p.m. Eastern time. Refer to File numberDMN202485A. You may also callGeorgia International Travel Agency at800-444-3078 to request assistance withyour travel plans. Notify the agent thatyou will be attending the Commission on

Colleges 2004 Annual Meeting in Atlanta.For rental car assistance, Avis Rent A

Car is offering conference attendeesspecial rates from November 27, 2004, toDecember 14, 2004. Reservations can bemade by calling 800-331-1600 or online athttp://www.avis.com Refer to theCommission on Colleges Avis WorldwideDiscount group number - B301699.

Hotel reservations can be madethrough Connections, the SACS-COCHousing Bureau, using one of thefollowing options. Please observe thecut-off date of November 4, 2004, to beassured of availability of your choice

hotel at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis,Hilton Atlanta, or Sheraton Atlanta.

Internet - Book your reservation onlineusing the interactive site athttp://www.sacscoc.org/aamain.asp.

Mail - The hotel reservation form locatedon the above Web site can be sent to:Connections, SACS-COC HousingBureau, 820 Church Street, Decatur, GA30030.

Fax - You may fax the hotel reservationform to 404-842-0954.

Travel and Hotel Accommodations

8 PROCEEDINGS

2004 SACS-COC Annual Meeting Registration Form

Directions: To pre-register, forms must be postmarked by Friday,November 12, 2004. Remit checks, money orders, or purchase orders (nocredit cards) payable to SACS with this form. Please type or print legibly.Send to 2004 SACS-COC Annual Meeting, 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur,GA 30033-4097. Do Not Fax. Refund requests postmarked after

November 12 will not be accepted. Confirmation letters will be sentbeginning in September and a list of pre-registrants will be available athttp://www.sacscoc.org in October. Registration inquiries should bedirected to (404) 679-4501, ext. 563.

rDr. rMrs. rMs. rMr. Other ___________ (please specify)(Please check preferred title)

Name ____________________________________________________(Last) (First) (Middle)

Position Title ____________________________________________(Limit to 45 characters)

Name or nickname you prefer on badge ____________________(Limit to 12 characters)

Institution ________________________________________________

Mailing Address __________________________________________

City __________________________ State ________Zip ________

Phone / Ext ______________________________________________

E-mail ____________________________________________________

SACS-COC Annual Meeting first time attendees please check here r

Voting InstructionsThe Voting delegate is the chief executive officer (president,chancellor) of an accredited institution. If you are not the CEO,but are authorized to vote in his/her place, the regular votingdelegate must sign below and provide his/her title.

CEO Signature ____________________________________________

Title ____________________________________________________

CONFERENCE FEES

Pre-Registration Fee (by Nov. 12, 2004) $275Late Registration Fee (after Nov 12, 2004) $350

Registration fee $ ________

Workshops*(Separate fee required-indicate 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices) $ ________

Saturday: W- W- W-

Sunday: W- W- W-

*Workshop fees required at time of registration. There will be no on-siteregistration for workshops.

Southern Association of Community, Junior& Technical Colleges Meeting/Luncheon $ ________($30.00 – Sunday, December 5, 2004, 11:30 a.m.)Questions concerning this function should be directed to Dr. Marshall Smith, President of John Tyler Community College at (804) 594-1571.

TOTAL DUE (Registration + Event fees) $ ________

Breakfast/Luncheon for COC Presidents and Chancellors Only (Monday, December 6, 2004 – No cost for breakfast or luncheon.Conference registration required)

Check one or both: r Breakfast r Luncheon

Professional Development Sessions (PDS) Professional Development Sessions (PDS) Sunday, December 5, 2004, 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

PDS 1 – Core RequirementsPDS 2 – Institutional Mission and Institutional EffectivenessPDS 3 – Governance and Administration PDS 4 – Educational ProgramsPDS 5 – Faculty Qualifications: Presenting the CasePDS 6 – Library and Other Learning Resources

PDS 7 – Student Affairs and ServicesPDS 8 – Financial and Physical ResourcesPDS 9 – The Quality Enhancement Plan

PDS 10 – The New Role of the Accreditation LiaisonPDS 11 – The Off-Site Review and the On-Site Review: What

We Have Learned So Far

Commission staff and institutional representatives will leadtopical sessions on the Principles of Accreditation: Foundationsfor Quality Enhancement. In addition to providing generalguidance, the sessions will highlight lessons learned from off-

site and on-site review committees. Presenters will presumethat participants have a basic understanding of accreditationand the Principles. Time will be allotted for questions from theaudience.

1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.Unless otherwise indicated, Pre-ConferenceWorkshops are $75 each. (Separate registration is required.)

W – 1 Institutional Effectiveness:A New Back-to-Basics ApproachDr. J. Joseph Hoey IV and Dr. SusanBosworth

W – 2 The Challenge ofAssessment in DocumentingLearning Outcomes: AComprehensive Plan forPractitioners

Dr. Carolyn Collins

W – 3 Web-based Support forReaffirmation of Accreditation,Strategic Planning, and State-Mandated AssessmentsDr. Margaret Sullivan; Mr. NormanCherry; Dr. Dan Gardner; Dr. KathleenMoore; Dr. Jane Rose; and Dr. Jack Sites

W – 4 Web-based Support forReaffirmation of Accreditation,Strategic Planning, and State-Mandated AssessmentsDr. Carl Backman; Dr. Rosemary Hays-Thomas; Ms. Laura Hiltabrand; Dr. T.Marzilli; and Dr. Robert Norris

W – 5 Engaging in GenuineAssessment: A Balancing Actbetween Administrators and FacultyDr. Marilee Bresciani ; Dr. CandaceGoode-Vick; and Dr. Jon Rust

W – 6 Developing and ReviewingAssessment Plans and Results

Dr. Robert Armacost; and Dr. Julia Pet-Armacost

W – 7 A Programmatic Approachto General Education Assessment:Successful Implementation andDocumentation

Dr. Rachelle Prioleau; and Ms. KatyMurphy

W – 8 Assessing InstitutionalEffectiveness

Dr. David Underwood; and Dr. SusanUnderwood

W – 9 Integrating Local, State, andRegional Student Learning Criteriainto a Cohesive Assessment ProgramDr. Robin Anderson; and Ms. Julia Bland

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.All-day session—$130 (includes lunch)

W – 10 Baldrige on Campus: AGuide to Promote EducationalExcellence, Identify Best Practices,and Gauge Sustainable ResultsDr. Donald C. Fisher; and Dr. Robert

Palinchak

FALL, 2004 9

Pre-Conference WorkshopsSaturday and Sunday, December 4 and 5, 2004

Note that there will be no onsite registration for workshops.

8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.Pre-Conference Workhops—$75 each(Separate registration is required.)

W – 11 Meeting the Challenge:Building and Maintaining aPlanning and EvaluationFramework for ContinuousImprovementDr. Anthony Newberry; Dr. DianneCalhoun-French; and Dr. Mary Jones

W – 12 Enhancing StudentLearning by Teaching StudentsHow to Learn

Dr. Saundra Y. McGuire

W – 13 Foundations ofExcellenceTM - Evaluating andImproving Your Campus’s First YearDr. Randy Swing; Dr. Betsy Barefoot;and Dr. Stephen Schwartz

W – 14 Assessing Writing andThinking Skills with the CognitiveLevel and Quality of WritingAssessment

Dr. Teresa Flateby

W – 15 Program AssessmentSystem Design and Implementation

Dr. Julia Pet-Armacost; and Dr. RobertArmacost

W – 16 W – 16 Faculty-Based Assessmentof General EducationDr. Marilee Bresciani; Dr. MichaelCarter; Dr. Allen DuPont; and Ms.Jacqui Hawkins-Morton

W – 17 Using Surveys to AssessOutcomesDr. Marilyn Greer

W – 18 Using the LearningPortfolio to Improve and AssessStudent LearningDr. John Zubizarreta

W – 19 Assessing GraduatePrograms in Doctoral ResearchUniversities

Dr. J. Joseph Hoey IV; and Mr. LorneKuffel

W – 20 WEAVEonlineTM:Implementing Web-basedAssessment Management

Ms. Jean Yerian; and Mr. James Yucha8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

W – 21 COC Workshop onFinancial Reporting in thePrinciples of AccreditationMs. Donna Barrett

W – 22 The Quality EnhancementPlan (QEP): Creative Opportunity(Repeat Workshop)

Dr. Margaret Sullivan; Mr. NormanCherry; Dr. Dan Gardner; Dr. KathleenMoore; Dr. Jane Rose; and Dr. Jack Sites

Refer to the enclosed programfor workshop descriptions.

Space is limited. Please register early!

10 PROCEEDINGS

(For additional information, visit our website at www.sacscoc.org. Deadline - October 29, 2004)

1. Full name __________________________________________________________________________________________________________Last First Middle Initial

2. Mailing address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________Street City State Zip code

3. Phone: (_______) ________________________ (________) ________________________ __________________Home Work Extension

4. Fax: __________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________________

5. Employer and job title (if applicable):

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Institution where you are enrolled:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. List major, anticipated degree, and graduation date: ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Explain reasons why you desire to attend the SACS/COC 2004 Annual Meeting: (Limit to 100 words or less)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Attach an itemized list of anticipated expenses (include $275 registration fee, travel, housing, and meals).

10. Attach a copy of your résumé and a letter of reference, preferably from a faculty member in your department.

Mail request to Carol Hollins, Commission on Colleges, 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033, or fax to (404) 679-4558. Notificationof awards will be sent to applicants on November 1, 2004. Scholarship recipients will be reimbursed for direct expenses within 7-10working days after the conference.

Application for Travel Grant to Attendthe SACS/COC Annual MeetingAtlanta, GA - Dec. 4-7, 2004

COMMISSION ON COLLEGESSouthern Association

of Colleges and Schools

nnn 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.COMMISSION ON COLLEGES REGISTRATION

nnn 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS(Separate registration is required.)

nnn 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.Unless otherwise indicated, workshops are $75 each

Institutional Effectiveness: A New Back-to-Basics ApproachWhile the Principles of Accreditation represents progression toward aless prescriptive set of criteria, they also place greater emphasis onstudent learning and continuous cycles of organizationalimprovement. Institutional effectiveness continues to be a founda-tional requirement for achieving accreditation. This workshop willcover 1) the basics of planning, evaluation, and assessing institu-tional effectiveness; 2) meeting institutional effectivenessrequirements under the Principles of Accreditation; and 3) examplesof current best practices in institutional effectiveness. Planningand assessment frameworks will be given for both academicprograms and administrative units. Methods of integratingassessment into traditional academic processes will also bediscussed. Examples will be provided of how to assess impact anddocument institutional effectiveness in a variety of academicsettings, from community colleges to major research institutions.

Target Audience: This workshop will focus on those who are responsible forensuring institutional effectiveness within constituent institutions—fromfaculty members to new assessment coordinators to vice presidents and provosts.

The Challenge of Assessment in Documenting LearningOutcomes: A Comprehensive Plan for PractitionersThis workshop will present a comprehensive developmentalapproach to assessment and take participants from the basicelements of assessment to current and future issues of assessment.Participants will be guided through the stages of assessment andaddress the following basic elements: why we performassessment; developing a shared vision of assessment; writingmeasurable goals; evaluating and understanding the variousassessment tools; determining the timing of data collection;reporting results; using results for effective planning; and futureissues in assessment. The presentation will be divided in twoparts. Part one will require participants to review and analyzetwo case studies and prescribe an appropriate plan of assessment.Part two will require the participants to present a program to beassessed using the information gained in the workshop and drafta comprehensive assessment plan for their use.

Target Audience: This presentation is designed for college and universityprofessionals who desire to improve their basic knowledge of and strategies forassessment.

The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP):Creative OpportunitySelecting a topic for the QEP relates to the strengths andweaknesses identified and described in the institution’s strategicplan. This data-based document provides the basis for numeroustopics, potential goals, objectives, and outcomes. Selecting thefocus of the student learning based QEP requires administrators,faculty, and staff to examine institutional priorities. Thisworkshop will address various approaches in selecting a QEPtopic, QEP design, and evaluation criteria important in preparingthe QEP

Target Audience: This workshop is designed especially for the 2005 and 2006institutional Leadership Teams; however, others may benefit from the session.

Web-based Support for Reaffirmation of Accreditation,Strategic Planning, and State-Mandated AssessmentsParticipants will review, discuss, and critique Web-basedprocedures, tools, and materials developed by the University ofWest Florida to 1) facilitate strategic planning, 2) manageaccountability-related information, and 3) support reaffirmationof accreditation under the Principles of Accreditation. Specialattention will be given to the design, development, andmaintenance of the University’s reaffirmation of accreditationand University Planning Information Center Web sites.Participants will also explore ways in which accreditation andplanning Web sites can be integrated with other Web-basedinformation resources. Each participant will be provided anotebook containing sample materials and discussion/critiquequestions.

Target Audience: This workshop is directed toward academic, administrative,and information technology personnel at institutions considering or planning touse a Web-based approach for submission of the Compliance Certification andQuality Enhancement Plan. Participants will explore ways to manage theprocess for preparing these reports and their supporting documentation.

FALL, 2004 11

Saturday - December 4, 2004

Continued on next page

THE COMMISSION ON COLLEGES

2004 Annual Meeting Program*Theme: “Meeting the Challenge: Enhancing Student Learning”

Co-Headquarters:Atlanta Marriott Marquis Hotel and Atlanta Hilton

Registration: Imperial Registration Area,Convention Level,Marriott Marquis Hotel

Commission Offices: Second Floor (Marriott),First Floor (Hilton)

W - 1

W - 2

W - 3

W - 4

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education*Please keep in mind that program sessions represent case studies and may not reflect the official position of the Commission on Colleges. For additional information, participants are encouraged to wisit our Web site, http://www.sacscoc.org,or contact their Commission staff liaison.

12 PROCEEDINGS

Engaging in Genuine Assessment: A Balancing Actbetween Administrators and FacultyIn the effort to institutionalize genuine assessment, challengesarise in its implementation. In balancing the sometimes competinginterests over the use of assessment results, administrators andfaculty must build bridges of communication based on trust inorder to maintain the meaningful and manageable use ofassessment data. This presentation discusses some of the issuesthat arise between faculty and administration in implementing theprocess, fully engaging in the process, in the use of the data, andin making decisions that will sustain the process over time.

Target Audience: This workshop is geared to intermediate-level participants andassumes that participants will have more than a basic knowledge of assessment.

Developing and Reviewing Assessment Plans and ResultsThis workshop will present how to develop, document, andreview assessment plans and results to support a high-qualityprogram assessment process. Topics include developing missionstatements, defining objectives and student learning outcomes,selecting measurement approaches, documenting results and theiruse, and conducting reviews to ensure the quality of the process.Participants will conduct exercises to develop assessment plansand will practice reviewing assessment plans and theirdocumented results.

Target Audience: This is an intermediate-level workshop. The intended audienceincludes mid-level personnel who have some responsibility for conductingassessment, teaching people to do assessment, and/or ensuring the quality of theprocess. The content of the workshop is applicable to both large and small institutionsand both public and private. It is assumed that the participants will have someelementary knowledge of assessment and the SACS Principles of Accreditation.

A Programmatic Approach to General EducationAssessment: Successful Implementationand Documentation

In order to comply with SACS standards for assessing studentlearning in general education courses, an institution mustsuccessfully implement a general education program anddocument activities to enhance student learning. This workshop isdesigned to assist assessment coordinators in developing aprogrammatic approach to general education assessment anddocumenting continuous activities to enhance student learning.Workshop participants are encouraged to establish programobjectives, clarify general education competencies, identifyappropriate assessment tools, and develop strategies for recordingand reporting assessment results. If available, participants shouldbring the following information to the workshop: institutionalmission statement, general education competencies, generaleducation curriculum, a brief description of current assessmentstrategies, and the institution’s latest assessment report.

Target Audience: The audience for this workshop includes institutional assessmentcoordinators, as well as faculty and administrators who have the responsibility ofdesigning and implementing general education assessment procedures.

Assessing Institutional EffectivenessThis workshop will describe institutional effectiveness withemphasis on ways in which this component may be addressed.The presenters will discuss various approaches that have beenused to meet this requirement as well as assessment techniquesthat have been employed, including strengths and weaknesses ofthose most commonly used. Participants will receive guidance onassessing the degree to which an institutional effectivenessprogram meets accreditation requirements. Discussion of specificissues and problems will be encouraged.

Target Audience: Anyone who is interested in the application of sound assessmentpractices will benefit from this workshop, including assessment/institutionalresearch personnel, faculty, deans, provosts, and presidents.

Integrating Local, State, and Regional Student LearningCriteria into a Cohesive Assessment ProgramIn addition to regional accreditation, many institutions mustincorporate state level assessments as well as address localassessment needs. If institutions attempt to address each set ofcriteria separately, they end up with a multi-layered assessmentprogram that is repetitive and resource-consuming. Thisworkshop gives participants an opportunity to develop a cohesiveassessment blueprint. Participating team members will apply theintegration concepts to their institution’s assessment plan.Participants should bring a copy of all objectives (local, state, etc.)for which they are responsible for assessing. Institutional teamsare highly encouraged but not required.

Target Audience: This workshop is designed for college/university teams thatmay include leaders, assessment practitioners, and others involved in theinstitution’s reaffirmation and/or assessment processes. Participants will learntechniques to make the assessment process more effective and to streamlineresources needed.

nnn 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.All-day session—$130 (includes lunch)

Baldrige on Campus: A Guide to Promote EducationalExcellence, Identify Best Practices, and GaugeSustainable ResultsThis session provides an alternative assessment process using theMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria forperformance excellence within education that is aligned with theSACS Principles of Accreditation as a tool for colleges and univer-sities to use that promotes educational excellence, best practices,and sustainable results.

Target Audience: Most institutional representatives will benefit from thisworkshop, including presidents, chancellors, vice presidents, deans, directors,accreditation leadership team members, quality assurance practitioners, faculty,and staff.

nnn 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.AFTERNOON ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS(Separate registration is not required and participation is on a first-come, first served basis.)

The following small-group discussions are designed for individuals whoare interested in topics related to accreditation and other issues in academe.

R-1 The Compliance Certification (Level I)*R-2 The Compliance Certification (Levels II-VI)**R-3 The Quality Enhancement Plan (Level I)R-4 The Quality Enhancement Plan (Levels II-VI)R-5 Electronic Submission of Reaffirmation Materials (Level I)R-6 Electronic Submission of Reaffirmation Materials (Levels II-VI)R-7 Establishing an Integrated Planning and Evaluation ProcessR-8 Effective Means of Assessing Student Learning (Level I)R-9 Effective Means of Assessing Student Learning (Levels II-VI)R-10 Documenting Faculty Qualifications* Level I institutions are accredited to award the associate degree as the highest degree.**Levels II-VI institutions are accredited to award baccalaureate, masters, and/ordoctoral degrees as highest degrees.

W - 6

W - 9

W - 1 0

W - 7

W - 8

W - 5

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

Saturday, December 4, 2004 (continued from page 11)

FALL, 2004 13

nnn 7:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.COMMISSION ON COLLEGES REGISTRATION

nnn 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS—$75 each (Separate registration is required.)

Meeting the Challenge: Building and Maintaininga Planning and Evaluation Framework for Continuous Improvement

Confronted by demographic, technological, cultural, informa-tional, and financial forces, along with increasing demands foraccountability, many colleges and universities struggle today tomaintain financial viability and demonstrate quality outcomes.The planning and evaluation process is the mechanism used toachieve that viability, quality, and accountability. This workshopwill focus on the challenges one college encountered as it soughtto develop, from the ground up, a new planning and evaluationframework which would link all critical, college-wide processes,while incorporating quality improvement at all levels of theinstitution. The development and implementation of this newplanning and evaluation process will be presented from theperspective of the president, the provost, and the director ofinstitutional effectiveness, research and planning.

Target Audience: This session is especially designed for presidents, provosts, deans,and directors of institutional effectiveness, research, and planning. Other individualsin leadership positions within colleges and universities could also benefit.

Enhancing Student Learning by Teaching Students How to LearnToday’s students come to college with widely varying academicskills, interests, and motivation levels. Faculty often lament thatstudents are focused on achieving high grades, but are not willingto invest much effort in learning. Most students think thatmemorizing information just before an examination is tantamountto learning the material, and spend considerably less timestudying than is commensurate with their grade expectations.This interactive workshop will help faculty and administratorsunderstand why today’s students do not have effective learningstrategies, and will present cognitive science research-basedmethods that can be used to enhance student learning.

Target Audience: The target audience for this workshop includes college anduniversity faculty, staff, and administrators who would like to know more aboutusing basic learning principles and strategies to enhance student learning at alllevels, from the first year through graduate school.

Foundations of ExcellenceTM - Evaluating and Improving Your Campus’s First YearThis workshop introduces participants to a process for evaluatingand improving the first year at a college or university. TheFoundations of Excellence project, developed collaboratively bythe Policy Center on the First Year of College and 219 colleges anduniversities, provides an aspirational model for the first year. Thismodel can be used to evaluate an institution’s level ofachievement through specific performance indicators and canlead to the development of a first-year improvement plan.Participants will explore the project’s two core concepts: 1) the useof a model of excellence built from national research efforts; and 2)the use of a local taskforce to drive an assessment andimprovement protocol.

Target Audience: Faculty and administrators who are interested in theimprovement of the first college year will benefit from this workshop.

Assessing Writing and Thinking Skills with theCognitive Level and Quality of Writing Assessment Fostering and assessing quality writing skills and higher thinkingskills are critical to an effective undergraduate curriculum.Developed in response to assessment needs in a general educationprogram, the Cognitive Level and Quality of Writing Assessment(CLAQWA) is used to confirm writing proficiency or identifystudents’ writing weaknesses for the purpose of programimprovement. Participants will 1) learn to assess students’ papersconsistently with CLAQWA to determine writing proficiency orweaknesses; 2) learn how to conduct defensible scoring sessions toattain interrater reliability; 3) write assessment prompts thatreflect appropriately progressive cognitive levels; 4) explorestrategies for correcting weaknesses systemic to an institution; and5) discuss ways to initiate campuswide conversations todetermine expectations for different curricular levels.

Target Audience: Faculty, assessment coordinators, and others who are interestedin effectiveness in the undergraduate curriculum may benefit from this session.

Program Assessment System Design and ImplementationThis workshop describes how to develop and implement asuccessful program assessment process. Specific topics include:the role of assessment in continuous improvement, key character-istics of program assessment success, essential components of anassessment process, organizational structures and support, therole of quality assurance in managing the process, and Webtechnologies to facilitate program assessment. Participants willconduct self-assessment exercises followed by discussionsdesigned to identify the state of assessment and identify opportu-nities to improve the assessment system at their institution.

Target Audience: This is an intermediate-level workshop. The workshop isintended for senior personnel (e.g., provost, vice-provost) to develop theirunderstanding of systemic approaches to assessment as well as for mid-levelpersonnel (e.g., director of institutional effectiveness) who have responsibility forthe day-to-day functioning of an assessment system. Because the focus is on a“scalable assessment system,” participants may work for both large and smallinstitutions, and both public and private. It is assumed that the participantswould have some elementary knowledge of assessment and the SACS Principlesof Accreditation.

Faculty-Based Assessment of General EducationEvaluating general education is a challenge for any institution. Itis especially a challenge when the institution delivers its generaleducation by courses and when the institution is proud of itscollege autonomy. This session will explore a faculty-dependentmodel of assessing student learning in general education in acourse-embedded manner. The history of failed assessmentattempts will be presented as well as the struggle to implement aprocess that is faculty dependent and one that will embody andpromote institution-wide learning principles.

Target Audience: This session will be beneficial to participants of any institu-tional type who may have a similar means of delivering general education.

Using Surveys to Assess OutcomesThe topics in this workshop start from the initial ideas required togenerate a research objective and study hypothesis through thecomplete design, analysis, and reporting of the survey. Samplesize, response rates, and data entry will be covered, all withexplicit examples. Instruction on conducting focus groups willalso be included in the workshop. A comprehensive workbookwill be available for all participants that includes appendices ofseveral different surveys and reference material.

Target Audience: The target audience includes any staff or faculty performingassessments on student outcomes and institutional researchers new to the field ofsurvey assessment.

Sunday - December 5, 2004

W - 1 3

W - 1 4

W - 1 5

W - 1 6

W - 1 7

W - 1 1

W - 1 2

Continued on next page

14 PROCEEDINGS

Using the Learning Portfolio to Improve and Assess Student LearningInterested in discovering or sharing an alternative, comple-mentary approach to assessing and improving student learning?Wondering how reflection, collaboration, and evidence promotehigher-level learning in our students? Come find out about thebenefits and challenges of learning portfolios; the value ofreflective practice in enhancing learning and promoting self-regulating, reasoned judgment; and the diverse applications ofstudent portfolios across disciplines. Bring your experiences andyour varied models for interactive conversation and sharing ofideas and resources on learning portfolios.

Target Audience: This workshop is designed for faculty, academic chairs, andprogram directors who want to know more about or reaffirm the value of learningportfolios for various purposes across disciplines.

Assessing Graduate Programs in DoctoralResearch UniversitiesGood practice in assessing graduate programs withindoctoral/research universities is the focus of this workshop. Aframework for graduate program assessment, extant data sources,and examples from a variety of disciplines will be presented.Evaluation of research and public service functions will bediscussed briefly, and further resources provided. Hands-onlearning experiences will include the formulation of expectationsfor graduate student learning and analysis of a graduate programcase study. Discussion will follow on how examples and processescan inform practice in participants’ institutions. Participants willgain background knowledge and hands-on ability to design,implement, and interpret results from graduate programassessment as required under the Principles of Accreditation.

Target Audience: This workshop will be focused on those who work in graduateeducation especially in the context of research-intensive and research-extensiveinstitutions.

WEAVEonlineTM: Implementing Web-based AssessmentManagementVirginia Commonwealth University developed WEAVEonline sounits could track quality enhancement via a Web-basedapplication. WEAVE is an assessment cycle in which a unit will:Write expected outcomes/objectives; Establish criteria forsuccess; Assess performance against criteria; View assessmentresults; and Effect improvements through actions. VCU is highlydecentralized, so a central repository for quality enhancementcycle documentation had to have great flexibility and ease of use.Provost-area staff developed WEAVEonline, but only significantinput from the university community made it what it is today—avalued tool for regional and disciplinary accreditation, annualreporting, program review, and external reporting. Thisworkshop will address both technology and assessment aspectsof WEAVEonline.

Target Audience: Anyone interested in learning how Web-based assessmentmanagement at an institutional level can support good assessment practice andcompliance certification should benefit from this workshop.

COC Workshop on Financial Reporting in the Principles of AccreditationThis workshop will focus on the areas of the Principlesmost affecting chief financial officers and business officeoperations. The preparation, presentation, and successfulintegration of required financial information into theaccreditation process will be discussed. Target Audience: This session is designed for chief financial officersand business officers.

The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP):Creative Opportunity (Repeat Workshop)Selecting a topic for the QEP relates to the strengths andweaknesses identified and described in the institution’s strategicplan. This data-based document provides the basis for numeroustopics, potential goals, objectives, and outcomes. Selecting thefocus of the student learning based QEP requires administrators,faculty, and staff to examine institutional priorities. Thisworkshop will address various approaches in selecting a QEPtopic, QEP design, and evaluation criteria important in preparingthe QEP.

Target Audience: This workshop is designed especially for the 2005 and 2006institutional Leadership Teams; however, others may benefit from the session..

nnn 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.ORIENTATION FOR FIRST-TIME ATTENDEES

This orientation session will enable participants to make the most ofthe resources available at the meeting, network with colleagues,and learn about the workings of the Commission on Colleges.Bring a friend and map out an agenda for the next few days.

nnn 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.Lunch (on your own)

nnn 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SESSIONS

Core RequirementsCore requirements are basic qualifications that an institutionmust meet to be accredited with the Commission on Colleges.

The purpose of this session is to assist institutions in documentingcompliance with the Core Requirements 2.1-2.12 in the Principles ofAccreditation. The presenter will explore discussions involved indemonstrating and evaluating compliance.

Institutional Mission and Institutional EffectivenessThis session will examine basic assumptions about institutionalmission (CR 2.4 and CS 3.1) and institutional effectiveness (CR 2.5

and CS 3.3) in the Principles of Accreditation. Emphasis will be placed on theessential components of an effective planning and evaluation process thatresults in continuing improvement and demonstrates that an institution iseffectively accomplishing its mission.

Governance and Administration This session will discuss the policy-making functions of thegoverning board and the responsibility of the administration

and faculty to administer and implement policy as outlined in thePrinciples of Accreditation (CR 2.2 and CS 3.2). Time will be allotted forquestions from the audience.

Educational ProgramsEfforts to enhance the quality of student learning are logicallylinked to the quality of an institution’s educational programs

and services. This session will provide a general overview of EducationalPrograms in the Principles of Accreditation (CR 2.7 and CS 3.4) and thosestandards that are unique to undergraduate and graduate programs.

Faculty Qualifications: Presenting the CaseComprehensive Standard (3.7.1) for faculty qualifications asstated in the Principles of Accreditation requires an institution to

employ competent faculty members qualified to accomplish its missionand goals. Further, the institution is responsible for justifying anddocumenting the qualifications of its faculty. This session is designed toillustrate possible approaches to the additional documentation andjustification that might be needed when the qualifications of facultymembers are not self-evident. Presenters will introduce two case studiesand will illustrate (1) how to complete the Commission’s Roster ofInstructional Staff, (2) how to handle the portfolio approach to thedocumentation of qualifications, and (3) how to write a justificationlinking a faculty member’s qualifications with course outcomes.

Sunday, December 5, 2004 (continued from page 13)

W - 1 8

W - 1 9

W - 2 0

W - 2 1

W - 2 2

P D S 1

P D S 2

P D S 3

P D S 4

P D S 5

FALL, 2004 15

Library and Other Learning ResourcesThis session will provide guidance in evaluating an institution’slibrary and learning resources under the Principles of

Accreditation (Core Requirement 2.9 and Comprehensive Standard 3.8).

Student Affairs and ServicesAn effective student affairs and services program is integral to asound educational experience. This session will review Core

Requirement 2.10 and Comprehensive Standard 3.9 in the Principles ofAccreditation and examine best practices in student development services.

Financial and Physical ResourcesA sound financial base, demonstrated financial stability, andadequate physical resources to support the mission of the

institution are essential for all institutions of higher education. Thissession will examine Core Requirement 2.11 and ComprehensiveStandard 3.10 in the Principles of Accreditation.

The Quality Enhancement PlanThis session will discuss components of an acceptable QualityEnhancement Plan that is part of an ongoing planning and

evaluation process as described in the Principles of Accreditation.

The New Role of the Accreditation LiaisonThe role of the Accreditation Liaison changed significantly withthe implementation of the Principles of Accreditation. This session

will focus on the Accreditation Liaison’s role during the reaffirmationprocess and during the years between the decennial reviews.

The Off-Site Review and the On-Site Review:What We Have Learned So FarTwo classes of 111 institutions have completed all or part of the

new two-phased reaffirmation review process associated with the Principlesof Accreditation. How has the process changed as the result of its implemen-tation? How have institutions fared? This session (1) will provide anoverview of changes that have resulted from the recommendations of off-site and on-site review committees and of institutions, and (2) will present asummary of committee findings from the review of ComplianceCertifications and Quality Enhancement Plans.

nnn 2:15 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.CONCURRENT SESSIONS

A Leadership Team’s Approach to ManagingCompliance Certification This session will demonstrate a Leadership Team’s innovativeapproach to managing the Compliance Certification process fromgetting started to submitting the Compliance Certification report.The presenters will share procedures, structures, timelines, techno-logical tools, and reports that have proven invaluable in overseeingthe process. The presenters will demonstrate how technology canbe used to assign institutional responsibilities, collect and communi-cate information, build in accountability, provide narrativeresponses, archive supporting documents, and create the final elec-tronic report. Their demonstration will include a multifaceted data-base, Web site, Web interface tool, and sample reports to considerfor successful management of the Compliance Certification process.

Target Audience: The audience for this session will include anyone involved inhelping an institution go from the initial stages of getting started with theCompliance Certification review process to the final report to be shared with theOff-Site Review Team.

Using Your Head Instead of Losing It: Completing the Compliance CertificationThere are key components to successfully completing andelectronically submitting the Compliance Certification. Thissession will focus on practical lessons learned by a college teamthat electronically submitted the Compliance Certification inMarch 2004. Overview topics include selecting the LeadershipTeam, writing narratives and gathering resources to supportcompliance, as well as organizational, technical, and overallsupport needs to be considered.

Target Audience: Presidents, Accreditation Liaisons, chairpersons, andmembers of Compliance Certification teams will benefit from this session.Content will be basic although familiarity with the Principles of Accreditationwill be helpful.

Electronic Format and the Compliance CertificationDocument: Organization, Communication, and SubmissionPreparation for electronic submission of the Compliancedocument starts at the very earliest stages in the reaffirmationprocess. This session will describe how one institution in the 2005class prepared its Compliance Certification document with an eyetoward the submission of all materials electronically. Target Audience: Individuals who are interested in the electronicsubmission of their institution’s compliance certification should find thissession to be helpful

A Research Study of Internal Review Processes for thenew SACS Principles of AccreditationThis presentation discusses a qualitative research study thatexamined internal review processes used by three universities tocarry out their Compliance Certification and, to some extent theirQuality Enhancement Plan (QEP) under the new SACS Principlesof Accreditation. The research resulted in five primary categoriesof findings for best practices, including the timeline, leadershipteam, task planning, communication, and technical support.Seven recommendations emerged that are potentially useful toSACS institutions preparing for reaffirmation. Representativesfrom higher education institutions that recently completed theirreaffirmation will join the discussion to facilitate articulation ofthe research with practice.

Target Audience: The appropriate audience would be higher educationinstitutions and SACS representatives who are interested in recent research oninternal review processes for carrying out the new Principles of Accreditationand those who would like to be informed about how other universities haveapproached the new model.

Helpful Hints and Strategies for Electronic SubmissionElectronic submission of the SACS Compliance Certification posesmany challenges and opportunities for participating colleges. Mostcolleges just beginning this process wonder where to start and arenot even sure what questions to ask. Presenters will addressdocumentation, format, and structure to help participants be awareof initial important choices. Presenters will also review some of thecreative solutions Blue Ridge Community College chose for themore complicated issues of information management, collaborativewriting, and presentation. Awareness of choices and options willencourage participants to develop their own vision of an effectiveelectronic document for their institutions.

Target Audience: This presentation will benefit any institution beginning thereaffirmation process. Members of the Leadership Team will become aware of theimportant decisions that need to be addressed and options that are available.Technical experts will be provided with an array of possible strategies, and non-technical representatives will be introduced to terms and techniques that willfacilitate conversations and planning with the technical advisors at theirinstitutions.

Continued on next page

P D S 6

P D S 7

P D S 8

P D S 9

P D S 1 0

P D S 1 1

C S - 1

C S - 2

C S - 3

C S - 4

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

C S - 5

16 PROCEEDINGS

Is It or Isn’t It A Substantive Change? When an accredited institution significantly modifies or expandsits scope, or changes the nature of its affiliation or its ownership, asubstantive change review is required. This session will describethe types of changes that are included in the Commission’ssubstantive change policy, approval and notificationrequirements, and reporting timelines. Time will be reserved forquestions from the audience. Target Audience: Anyone who would like to better understand theCommission’s substantive change policy and procedures will benefit

from this session. The information to be presented can be especially beneficial toaccreditation liaisons.

University College: A Freshman Living and Learning Community That’s Working!University College (UC) opened in 2000 as a state-of-the-artresidential complex housing 1,224 Prairie View A&M Universityfreshmen. But UC is far more than a set of buildings. It is acomprehensive freshman program. Each team includes approxi-mately 102 students, a Professional Advisor, a LearningCommunity Manager, two student Community Assistants and aFaculty Fellow. The UC model features intrusive advisement,academic enhancement, support services/referrals, and co-curricular activities within the residential complex. The programhas already shown statistical success in improving freshmanretention and academic performance.

Target Audience: This session will be of special interest to those who want toenhance the freshman-year experience at their institution.

Developing a QEP: An Incredible Journey of DiscoverySystematic study of the SACS requirement for the implementationof a QEP as one element for accreditation and a focus on institu-tional effectiveness can lead to the discovery of a meaningful QEP.Technical College of the Lowcountry’s process of identifing andrefining the issue with broad-based support to develop, approve,and implement the QEP will be shared. Understanding the CoreRequirements, the role of the QEP, and the creation of a qualitydocument to meet reporting requirements may seemoverwhelming. The journey to understanding the power of ameaningful QEP for your campus community is challenging butworth the effort.

Target Audience: The target audience for this session includes administrators,deans, chairs and members of QEP/assessment committees.

Integrating Planning and Technology for Improved Student LearningThis session is designed for individuals who are developing aQuality Enhancement Plan (QEP). A QEP can best be developedusing information generated from an ongoing strategic planningprocess that links planning, budgeting, and assessment. Thisprocess examines critical issues, establishes priorities, andidentifies possible revenue streams to develop, implement, andsustain a QEP.

Target Audience: This presentation targets presidents, chief academic officers,deans, department chairs, Leadership Teams, and others involved in the planningand accreditation process.

Development and Preparation of a QEP Focused onLeadership: Leaders Educated to Make a DifferenceThe purpose of this session is to describe one doctoral/researchinstitution’s experience in the successful development andpreparation of a broad-based QEP focused on leadership andenhancing student learning outcomes in the areas of research,teaching, and service. From the conceptual stage driven by campusconstituency groups, to the final electronic submission of allrequired documents, the authors will review critical decision points,potential obstacles, resource management, and strategies for thesuccessful preparation of one institution’s QEP, LEAD, “LeadersEducated to Make a Difference.” Major emphasis will be given tothe planning, oversight, preparation, outcomes and assessmentprocesses necessary from a Leadership Team’s perspective.

Target Audience: The target audience for this session includes representativesof various sizes and types of institutions who are at the beginning phase ofpreparing a QEP. While the case study institution is a large, complexdoctoral/research university, it is expected that the practices related to the QEP,strategic planning, endorsement by key constituency groups, preparation,dissemination and system oversight will be valuable to institutions representinga range of sizes and missions.

Developing a Successful QEP through Invitational EducationThis session will focus on how Asheville-Buncombe TechnicalCommunity College used invitational education throughout itsQEP development process and how the QEP was evaluated by theOn-Site Review Team and received full acceptance with norecommendations. Invitational education is a theory of practicethat views the people, places, programs, policies and processes(the Five “P’s”) of an institution as essential links to studentsuccess. Through the lens of invitational education, the A-B Techcommunity viewed itself as a learning environment, andfacilitated the focus of the QEP on “Educational and CareerAdvisement.”

Target Audience: This session will provide helpful information to anyinstitution currently preparing for the QEP process. It would be especiallyhelpful for those persons assigned to leading the QEP. It will also provideinformation to anyone who is interested in learning more about invitationaleducation as a theory of practice.

Benchmarking with e-PortfoliosEducators nationwide have begun to embrace the e-portfolio as aneffective benchmarking vehicle that involves a self-selectedmultimedia presentation of student work accomplishments andoffers a comprehensive view of a student’s learning anddevelopment. A number of institutions have used it at theundergraduate level, but it can be used for graduate students aswell. This session will focus on how e-Portfolio learningoutcomes can be benchmarked. Electronic portfolios can includetext such as research papers and essays, as well as projects andcampus activities that incorporate images, audio and video. Thecompleted e-portfolio represents students’ efforts to collect andselect materials from their college careers to create a body of workthat represents their learning over the course of their degreeprogram. One major benefit of the e-portfolio is that students canuse it in their employment search upon graduation. Theinstitution can use student e-portfolios as evidence of studentlearning and outcome measures.

Target Audience: This session will benefit institutional effectiveness educatorsfrom all levels of higher education.

C S - 9

C S - 1 0

C S - 1 1

C S - 1 2

C S - 6

C S - 7

C S - 8

Sunday, December 5, 2004 (continued from page 15)

FALL, 2004 17

Transformational Learning Abilities: Mapping the Road to Learning In the journey to enhance students’ college experiences and theirachievement of learning outcomes, Samford University has drivendown a number of curricular and pedagogical byways.Strengthening the byways, and indeed building connecting routesfor the integration of general education and disciplinary learning,led to the development of the Transformational Learning Abilities(TLA) project. The “Around-the-University” journey will mapstudents’ travels in their acquisition and refinement of key coreliteracies. Information, quantitative, oral and written communi-cation literacies are our current destination. Join the sessionpresenters as they share insights and materials for yourinstitution’s own journey in transformational student learning.

Target Audience: This session should appeal to faculty and adminis-trators who have various levels of experience in university-wide learninginitiatives. Session content will be introduced via a problem-basedlearning activity, mini-lecture, and discussions.

Meeting the Challenge: Developing Learning-Centered College LeadersChange has become a matter of course for colleges and univer-sities across the nation. Even as the need for postsecondaryeducation has increased, the federal and state funds previouslysupporting higher education has been diminishing. The need todo more with fewer resources has created a demand in highereducation for leaders who can make sound decisions for the long-and short-term needs of their institutions and the students theyeducate. As institutions struggle to create a climate of support forlearning across all sectors, they must nurture faculty leaders atthe department and division levels who can make studentlearning their first priority when making difficult decisions. Thisinteractive session will look at one college’s attempt to trainfaculty leaders to support its learning-centered mission.

Target Audience: Administrators and faculty alike will benefit from this sessionby examining ways to develop leaders whose primary focus is on student learning.

S.O.S. : Student Outcomes Solutions for Program AssessmentSACS and other accrediting boards want academic programs tofocus on student learning and internal assessments to drivecurricular and programmatic change. Universities and collegesare well served with a standard means for evaluating anddocumenting student outcomes. This session describes howexisting models for program evaluation, such as the A.B.E.T.Criteria for Evaluating Engineering Programs and the N.C.A.T.E.Standards and Performance Assessment Experiences for Education, canprovide a framework for student outcomes-oriented programevaluation. Participants will apply A.B.E.T. Criterion 3 toengineering and non-engineering disciplines and will developstrategies to collect student outcomes information. Ideas forassessment driven change will be shared.

Target Audience: This session will provide an opportunity for Leadership Teammembers to develop strategies for successful student outcomes assessment ontheir campuses. It will appeal to individuals who are at a basic level, i.e., to thosewho are having trouble getting started with effective, campus-wide studentoutcomes assessment.

Getting the Lead Out! A Practical Model for Planningand Evaluation That Maximizes the Use of Technologyand Enhances Student LearningEnhanced student learning is not just the product of classroominstruction – it is also the fruition of effective institutionalprocesses and a climate conducive to student success. LenoirCommunity College is maximizing the use of technology andputting effective processes at the fingertips of faculty, staff, andstudents. The Planning and Research Department has developeda user-friendly, time-efficient, and cost-effective online planningand evaluation system through which students respond to facultyand course evaluations electronically outside of classroom time.Faculty and staff plan and report accordingly. Attendees of thisinteractive session will take home a “toolbox” CD with thefoundations for developing their own college’s online processes.

Target Audience: This session will be aimed at institutions seeking a means forestablishing and sustaining assessment activities that are more effective and canresult in enhanced student learning.

Ensuring a Competent Commonwealth: InstitutionalEffectiveness, Student Learning, and PublicAccountability in VirginiaThe State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV)monitors institutional effectiveness efforts as measured by sixpostsecondary competency-based assessments. These assessments– writing, technological literacy, quantitative reasoning, scientificreasoning, critical thinking, and oral communications – wereimplemented as a result of the 1999 Governor’s Blue RibbonCommission on Higher Education and are conducted by all publicinstitutions of higher education. The results of the assessments aresummarized in the Reports of Institutional Effectiveness (ROIE)and in institutional progress reports assessing the goals of thesystemwide strategic plan. This accountability system has provedbeneficial for all parties involved: the institutions, state policymakers, and the general public.

Target Audience: This session is designed for state higher education officials,assessment administrators, academic officers, deans, and faculty.

Integrating Internationalism into the CurriculumOld Dominion University, a Carnegie Research ExtensiveUniversity in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked for a number of yearsto integrate a sense of international awareness into its curriculum.In this session, university leaders will summarize pertinentliterature regarding the integration of internationalism into thecurriculum, discuss the principles behind and purposes forweaving international perspectives into the curriculum, talkabout barriers and pitfalls that can impede such integration, andintroduce some proposals for innovation.

Target Audience: The target audience for this presentation is campus adminis-trators, faculty, and others who have an interest in promoting internationalperspectives on their campuses. Attendees should have some basicunderstanding of university governance and curriculum development in highereducation.

Taking Your Master Plan to the Next Level: FromPlanning Strategy to Funding and ImplementationThis session explains how to use your master plan to providecampus leaders with powerful and persuasive communicationstools to aid their interaction with major donors, alumni and thecommunity. An interactive and visually appealing master planallows an institution to communicate its strategic goals andcampus vision effectively through the use of specific data,illustrative materials, and 3-D renderings and animations. Thedevelopment and use of these visual aids will be illustratedthrough a recent master plan update at Midwestern StateUniversity.

Target Audience: This session will be broad enough for beginners as well asadvanced participants and will be appropriate for leaders of all types ofinstitutions.

C S - 1 6

C S - 1 7

C S - 1 8

Continued on next page

C S - 1 9

C S - 1 3

C S - 1 4

C S - 1 5

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

18 PROCEEDINGS

A Successful PartnershipIn January of 2001, Mississippi Delta Community College (MDCC)began offering courses along with two state universities (Delta Stateand Mississippi Valley State) at the Greenville Higher EducationCenter (GHEC) in Greenville, Mississippi. In the partnership,MDCC students can complete the courses leading to a universityparallel degree (AA) and many of the courses leading to two-yeartechnical degrees (AAS) without attending the main campus inMoorhead. The College requested and received approval of asubstantive change from the Commission on Colleges and only onerecommendation from the Visiting Committee. The College expectsto grant the first AA degrees at the GHEC in May 2005. This sessionwill describe the partnership and suggest ways in which otherinstitutions can pursue a similar arrangement.

Target Audience: This session will benefit those persons who are interested inenhancing their institution’s accessibility while maintaining quality.

nnn 3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.STATE MEETINGS

The following sessions are designed to encourage networkingamong participants after which a brief discussion of topicspertinent to accreditation along with issues unique to each stateand Latin America will be presented. The Executive Councilmember of the Commission on Colleges for each state will serveas moderator.

n Alabama State Meeting nNorth Carolina State Meetingn Florida State Meeting nSouth Carolina State Meetingn Georgia State Meeting nTennessee State Meeting n Kentucky State Meeting nTexas State Meeting n Louisiana State Meeting nVirginia State Meeting n Mississippi State Meeting nLatin America Meeting

nnn 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.COC FIRST GENERAL SESSION

Speaker: Ambassador Philip LaderFormer Ambassador to the Court of St. JamesAdministrator of the U.S. Small Business AdministrationWhite House Deputy Chief of Staff, andDeputy Director for Management, Office ofManagement and Budget

nnn 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.COC RECEPTION AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE EXPOSITION

nnn 7:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.COMMISSION ON COLLEGES REGISTRATION

nnn 7:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m.PRESIDENTS’ BREAKFAST

Introduction of Speaker:Dr. Johnnetta Cole—President, Bennett College

Speaker:Gwen Ifill— Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour with JimLehrer and Moderator and Managing Editor, Washington Week

Topic:“Politics, Policy, and Reality:What’s Really Going on in Washington?”

nnn 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.MORNING ROUNDTABLE DICUSSIONS

(Separate registration is not required; participation is on a first-come, first-served basis.)

The following small-group discussions are designed forindividuals who are interested in topics related to accreditationand other issues in academe.

R-1 Chief Academic Officers (Level I)R-2 Chief Academic Officers (Levels II-VI)R-3 Chief Financial OfficersR-4 Institutional Effectiveness (Level I)R-5 Institutional Effectiveness (Levels II-VI)R-6 Libraries and Learning ResourcesR-7 Student Services OfficersR-8 Accreditation Liaisons (Level I)R-9 Accreditation Liaisons (Levels II-VI)R-10 Creating a Culture of AssessmentR-11 Using Evaluation Results for Continuous ImprovementR-12 Assessing General EducationR-13 Assessing Distance EducationR-14 Perspectives of an Off-Site EvaluatorR-15 Perspectives of an On-Site EvaluatorR-16 Good Practices when Establishing Satellite CampusesR-17 Good Practices when Exporting Programs to International SitesR-18 The QEP: Narrowing the FocusR-19 Electronic Submission of the Compliance CertificationR-20 Be Careful What You Wish For: Involving All Campus

Constituencies in the QEPR-21 The Effective Compliance Committee: An Objective Approach

for Accomplishing Roles and ResponsibilitiesR-22 Student Success and Faculty Development: Developing the QEP

nnn 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.SECOND GENERAL SESSION

Speaker: David Gergen—Commentator, editor, teacher, public servant,best-selling author, and adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford,Reagan, and Clinton

Topic:“Eyewitness to Power: Leadership in America”

nnn 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.EXHIBIT HALL HOURS

nnn 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.MORNING BREAK

C S - 2 0

Sunday, December 5, 2004 (continued from page 17)

Monday- December 6, 2004

FALL, 2004 19

nnn 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Special Presidents’ Panel: Issues, Challenges, andOpportunities in Higher Education Under the Current(or New) AdministrationHaving concluded the election, this session for college anduniversity presidents will explore issues, challenges, and opportu-nities in higher education under the current (or new) adminis-tration. Emphasis will be placed on topics relevant to reautho-rization of the Higher Education Act and their potential impact onaccreditation practices. Time will be reserved for questions.

nnn 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.CONCURRENT SESSIONS – II

How to Conduct a Compliance Certification Readiness AuditEngaging in a Compliance Certification readiness audit can beinstrumental in the early identification of areas in which aninstitution may have compliance issues or where there is a lack ofsufficient evidence to support compliance. Conducting this auditenables an institution to uncover potential problems and implementchanges in a timely fashion before getting started with preparingthe Compliance Certification document. This session will describeand demonstrate the readiness audit process developed at theUniversity of Central Florida. The use of technology as a keyenabler in preparing for reaffirmation will be discussed.

Target Audience: This is an intermediate-level presentation. The presentationis intended for senior personnel in order to develop an understanding of thepotential benefits of a compliance readiness audit as well as for mid-levelpersonnel who would have responsibility for the day-to-day functioning of such asystem. It is assumed that the participants would have some knowledge of SACSrequirements.

Two Web Sites in One: Producing the ComplianceCertification (and More) OnlineFollowing adoption of the Principles of Accreditation, NortheastAlabama Community College, a member of the ReaffirmationClass of 2005, dedicated itself to the use of electronic resources inpursuing its reaffirmation of accreditation. The result was twoWeb sites, the first for use by personnel in the actual work of theprocess; the second is the official site for submission of theCompliance Certification in accordance with the Commission onCollege’s “Guidelines for Communicating InformationElectronically.” The presenters will explain the development ofeach site, with special emphasis on the Compliance Certificationand the electronic presentation of almost all documentation.

Target Audience: This presentation is aimed at college personnel beginning thereaffirmation process, including administrators, Leadership Team members, Webmasters, and other technology personnel.

Completing the Compliance Certification Document This session will present a case study involving one college’scompliance certification. The institution received no recommen-dations and was lauded for the comprehensive nature of itscompliance certification. Target Audience: Anyone who would like to dialogue about thecompletion of the Compliance Certification is encouraged to attend thissession.

Self-Accountability: The Texas A&M-KingsvilleExperienceThis session will include a discussion of a step-wise, Web-basedSACS preparation and planning experience that reinforced themomentum toward a culture of assessment at Texas A&MUniversity-Kingsville. Through legislative and university systemmandates, the university was responsible for establishing anacademic center in a major urban area and developing it into afree-standing public institution as soon as possible. A SACSreview of this substantive change occurred as the universityprepared compliance audits in conjunction with its own reaffir-mation efforts. Audience members will be guided through thestrategies and decision processes used to determine anddocument compliance for both campuses.

Target Audience: The primary beneficiaries are other doctoral/research-intensiveand comprehensive universities, but any insitution would be able to identify withmany of the issues involved. Additionally, anyone faced with compliance issuesinvolving a substantive change would find this session of interest.

Closing the Loop: The Impact of Program Reviewand Planning on the Continuous Improvement of Instruction Targeting basic and advanced audiences, the presenters willdemonstrate an innovative, replicable, currently functioning,broad-based “closed-loop” program review and planning modelthat uses results to close failing programs or to trigger focusedplanning to improve weak programs and the administrativeprocesses that affect them, all with faculty buy-in. Attendees learnhow faculty take the lead in writing procedures, determiningindicators, recommending program closure or continuation, andin using Microsoft Access to write strategies to address unmetstandards. Attendees will participate in entering actual data andstrategies and recommending closure or continuation of aprogram, before learning what the college really did.

Target Audience: The presentation targets both basic and more advancedaudiences by providing a successful, replicable, working program for institutionsstruggling to develop an effective process of program review for academic andadministrative areas.

To Tell the Truth: A Successful, Comprehensive Example for Assessing Faculty QualificationsAccording to a survey of top areas for recommendations, facultyqualifications for teaching transfer courses was the number onerecommendation among Level I institutions; number four wasdocumentation of academic preparation. Anecdotally, mostinstitutions have at least one recommendation related to faculty.This session demonstrates the importance of documentationusing a ‘To Tell the Truth’ theme. See how one large, urbancommunity college combines the tradition of credentialing withseveral twists applicable for the new Principles. Key featuresinclude an electronic roster, electronic crosswalk ofcourse/credentials, a Web site, portfolio evaluations, andevaluation of teaching effectiveness. Come participate ininteractive segments and network with colleagues on creden-tialing pitfalls.

Target Audience: This session is intended for those who want to improve theircurrent faculty credentialing processes and procedures. It would be helpful tonew and veteran faculty and staff who have credentialing responsibility.

C S - 2 5

C S - 2 6

C S - 2 7

C S - 2 2

C S - 2 3

C S - 2 4

Continued on next page

C S - 2 1

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

20 PROCEEDINGS

Educating Low-Income Students: A Case Study onInstitutional Transformation to Ensure Access and SuccessThis session will showcase strategies for allowing access andassuring success for low-income students. Specifically, thepresenters will focus on their “modus operandi” that allowedtheir small comprehensive institution to increase enrollment, andenhance student retention, graduation and placement rates whilecontinuing to be listed as a “Best Value” among Southern compre-hensive colleges and universities by U.S. News and World Report.

Target Audience: The target audience includes college presidents, senioracademic administrators, student services administrators and professionals,institutional planners, institutional effectiveness professionals, enrollmentmanagement administrators and others from institutions that are confronting theissues of access and success.

Creating the QEP: Using Study Groups to GenerateInstitutional Dialogue About Enhancement of Student LearningThe study group format was used at Louisiana State University,Class of 2004 Level-VI institution, to involve faculty, professionalstaff, students, and administrators in developing their QEP. Twogroups met throughout a semester to read and discuss topicsrelated to learning and teaching in undergraduate and graduateeducation within the context of LSU’s student assessment dataand the institution’s strategic plan. The groups proposedrecommendations for change and continued meeting the nextsemester to identify implementation strategies. Their effortsformed the basis of LSU’s QEP. Strengths and challenges of thisformat and suggestions for organizing and conducting studygroups will be discussed.

Target Audience: The target audience for this presentation includes institu-tional Accreditation Liaisons and other individuals anticipating involvement inpreparation of their institution’s QEP. Audience participants could be from anytype or level of institution, private or public, and of varying sizes since the studygroup format can be modified to suit their institutional needs.

The Long and Winding Road: One College’s QualityEnhancement Plan JourneyThe development of the QEP at Wallace State Community Collegecoincided with the formulation of a five-year strategic plan toembrace the concepts and practices of the college learningmovement. From initial topic selection through topic refinementand project design and development, this presentation willoutline our journey to combine transformation to a learningcollege and the QEP. The presenters have navigated the twistsand turns in the journey to create a QEP focused on innovativelearning-centered instruction—learning styles assessments,infusing technology, and a variety of learning options—facili-tating their primary objective: to enhance student success throughengagement. The presentation will also share feedback from theirfall 2004 on-site visit.

Target Audience: This presentation will appeal to institutions preparing toaddress their QEP.

Evaluating the Quality Enhancement Plan Institutional compliance with accreditation requirements hasbecome much more standardized, systematic, and digital under thenew Principles. That trend led an Off-Site Review Team to developand test an electronic tool for systematically assessing the QEP. Theuse of that tool in a pre-visit evaluation process via email proved tobe highly efficient and effective for identifying QEP strengths,weaknesses, needed improvements, issues for on-site follow-up,and final report generation. Lessons learned from this experiencehave implications not only for the work of peer review committees,but also for self-assessment of the QEP by an institution.

Target Audience: The presentation should be especially appealing and useful toOn-Site Review Team chairs and peer evaluators, campus representatives coordi-nating their QEP’s design and development, and others interested in the generaltopic of planning for quality enhancement in higher education. The presentationwill assume that the audience already has a basic understanding of the QEP andis seeking an advanced level of appreciation for its systematic evaluation.

Evolution of a Quality Enhancement Plan:Engaging the Entire UniversityUnder the new guidelines for reaffirmation, colleges and univer-sities must develop a QEP that evolves from the institutionalplanning and effectiveness process, embraces quality, andreaffirms student learning as the centerpiece of the institution’smission. This session details the process used by Alabama A&MUniversity to determine its QEP focus including faculty/stafffocus groups and town hall meetings, establishing the QEP focusgroups, and engaging the institutional planning and effectivenessunit in a comprehensive study of the issues identified from thefocus groups. Participants will be led through the process thatserves as an example of one approach that can be taken by othercolleges and universities to gather information, delineate a focus,and identify needed data for developing their own QEP.

Target Audience: The target audience will be institutions that have not yetparticipated in the new process for reaffirmation of accreditation and areunfamiliar with the concept of a QEP. This session will be particularly useful forthose institutions that are scheduled for reaffirmation in the next two to threeyears and are undergoing preliminary steps now.

Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness: How a SmallSchool Can Do It With Limited Resources This session will address how schools of 5,000 or fewer studentscan accomplish Core Requirement 2.5 (research-based planningand evaluation), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (assessment andimprovement of academic and non-academic areas),Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 (assessment of general educationcompetencies), and Federal Requirement 4.1 (evaluation ofstudent achievement) with minimal staff and money. Ideas forthe efficient and effective use of planning and assessmentinstruments will be presented.

Target Audience: This presentation is aimed at participants from institutionswith 5000 or fewer students.

Building General Education with Assessment in Mind: Belmont University’s BELL-Core Model Belmont University has recently created a new vertical and develop-mental general education program that features coursework ininterdisciplinary and experiential formats and that links generaleducation to the major. The design of this program enables theembedding of internal and external assessment at key points, mostnotably, first, third, and fourth years. The decision to revise generaleducation was strengthened by the use of institutional research dataand the results of the NSSE to identify weaknesses in a distributionalmodel of general education requirements.

Target Audience: This session will appeal to those concerned with generaleducation, from those who are considering a process of reform to those who areworking with assessment of general education programs in place. It will addressconcerns of faculty, academic administrators, institutional research adminis-trators, and senior leaders.

C S - 3 1

C S - 3 2

C S - 3 3

C S - 3 4

C S - 2 8

C S - 2 9

C S - 3 0

Monday, December 6, 2004 (continued from page 19)

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

FALL, 2004 21

The Right Tool for the Job: Matching Methods with ObjectivesWhile the academy embraces student learning objectives to shapecourses, curricula, and programs, it doesn’t scrutinize the teachingmethods used to help student meet those objectives. Yet researchhas found that any given method serves certain objectives and notothers. In this session, participants will hypothesize which ofsixteen methods help students achieve eight categories of cognitivelearning objectives, then hear the research findings. They will alsoconsider appropriate assessment strategies and barriers to facultyusing them. By the end, they will be able to identify disconnectsamong objectives, methods, and assessment strategies and torealign them as needed.

Target Audience: This intermediate-level presentation will benefit accreditationagency representatives, university administrators, and faculty.

Consolidating General Education: General Education as a ProcessIn the spring of 2002, Coker College consolidated generaleducation into a program to be continuously administered by asmall committee. This was intended to end cyclic reviews andreforms of the requirements by ad hoc committees in favor ofmore stability, continuity, and currency. The new program iscalled Liberal Arts Studies, and has a director who has a rolesimilar to that of a department chair. The process of creating thismodel will be discussed, as well as the specific approach togeneral education, which is a very flexible “skills plus knowledgeareas” approach.

Target Audience: Academic administrators and faculty members should findthe presentation valuable.

Using Aspirational “Dimensions of Excellence” to Rethinkthe Design and Assessment of the First College YearThis session will report the lessons learned and the applicabilityfor all SACS institutions wishing to be more successful withentering college students. The content will be drawn from anational project in which six SACS campuses were “foundinginstitutions” in a new process to rethink the design andassessment of the first college year. Funded by The AtlanticPhilanthropies and Lumina Foundation for Education, thisproject provides both an aspirational model and an internalmeasurement process to improve the critical first college year.

Target Audience: The audience for this session includes administrators andfaculty who are interested in improving student success during the first collegeyear. Institutional representatives who are seeking a focus for their QEP mayalso find this topic worthwhile.

Legal Issues in Higher EducationThis session will focus on contemporary legal issues inhigher education.Target Audience: Administrators and faculty from any collegeor university will find this session interesting.

Is There Anything Christian About Christian Higher Education?The issue of the integration of faith and learning is a currenteducational issue in both secular and religious colleges anduniversities. The panel will include educators from both venuesand will aim to encourage both types of institutions, secular andreligious, to become more aware of the history of Christian highereducation and introduce participants to several viable models ofintegration. Another outcome wil be the consideration offormation of an ongoing study group among SACS members ofreligious and secular institutions for continuing study andfellowship at future SACS annual meetings.

Target Audience: This session is designed primarily for administrators atChristian colleges and universities; however, other interested indivduals areencouraged to attend.

nnn 12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.PRESIDENTS’ LUNCHEON

Speaker:Chairman Donald Powell—Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation, Washington, D.C. and former Chairman of the Board of Regents of the Texas A&M University System

Topic:“Integrity in Today’s Marketplace”

nnn 12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.DELEGATES’ LUNCH (Exhibit Hall)

nnn 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.VENDOR PRESENTATIONS

nnn 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.CONCURRENT SESSIONS - III

Web-Based Support for Reaffirmation of Accreditation,Strategic Planning, and State-Mandated AssessmentsThis session will provide an overview of the Web-based procedures,tools, and materials developed by the University of West Florida tofacilitate strategic planning, manage accountability-relatedinformation and, support reaffirmation of accreditation under thePrinciples. Special attention will be given to the design,development, and maintenance of the university’s Reaffirmation ofAccreditation and University Planning Information Center Websites. Ways in which accreditation and planning Web sites can beintegrated with other Web-based information resources will also beexplored. Participants will receive discussion/critique questionsbased on the University of West Florida’s experience of preparingfor reaffirmation of accreditation.

Target Audience: The target audience will include academic, administrative, andinformation technology personnel in institutions considering or planning to use aWeb-based approach for submission of the Compliance Certification and QEP.

Implementing Planning and Institutional Effectivenessin the Reaffirmation ProcessThis session provides examples of how two colleges in differentstages of the reaffirmation process have implemented resultsfrom planning and institutional effectiveness. Brazosport Collegeis beginning reaffirmation and Florida Keys Community Collegeis completing reaffirmation. Together these colleges providepractical examples of how essential parts of the requirements forinstitutional effectiveness can be integrated into reaffirmation andserve the vital role of explaining how colleges go about planningand using the results of assessment to improve student outcomes.

Target Audience: Since these examples come from two colleges in differentstages of the reaffirmation process, the case studies would have application toinstitutions at any stage of reaffirmation.

Online Compliance Certification: An Efficient and Effective MethodologyLouisiana State University at Alexandria chose to complete itsCompliance Certification in a very abbreviated timeframe. Theshortened time frame required LSUA to develop an efficientprocess for conducting the compliance audit and for creating theWeb site for electronic submission. In this session, the presenterswill share details of the process LSUA used, including organi-zation, timelines, and the roles of key personnel. They will alsoprovide details on the technological tools used that enabledefficient development of the Web site, enhanced functionality, anduse of the Web site as an institutional informational tool long afterthe reaffirmation process.

Target Audience: This presentation would be suitable for anyone interested inattempting online Compliance Certification, but would be most applicable to thosefrom small- to medium-sized institutions (fewer than 5,000 students). The technicalinformation will be presented for a non-technical audience with the idea that partic-ipants can pass the information on to the technical personnel on their campuses.

C S - 4 0

C S - 4 1

C S - 4 2

C S - 3 5

C S - 3 6

C S - 3 7

C S - 3 8

C S - 3 9

Continued on next page

22 PROCEEDINGS

Write on the Web: A Simple Approach to PublishingSACS Documents (Part I)This session will demonstrate a simple approach to creating Web-based documents and posting the documents via a database tothe Web. The presenters will focus on transition steps forchanging an institution to a Web-based environment forpublication of documents including Compliance Certification andthe QEP. Discussion will include the advantages of Webdocuments as the primary publications with hyperlinks tosupport documents, problems to be avoided by applying effectiveorganizational strategies for the site as well as expectations fornavigation tools, and free access to a Web-based contentmanagement system. The commitment and economicalapproaches in creating an all-electronic institution will bestressed. A sample Web site with templates will ease developmentfor participants in creating Web documents.

Target Audience: This presentation is designed for beginners and intermediate-level participants.

Attendance Monitoring: A Gateway to PersistenceMany factors lead to student success and persistence: prioracademic preparation, maturity, resilience, and academicperformance to name a few. In fact, when a student fails topersist, inability to meet academic expectations is rarely the solereason. Columbia College, a United Methodist college for womenin South Carolina, has developed a retention strategy based onattendance monitoring. This presentation will explain the workof the First-Year Student Success Team (FYSST) and the results ofthe strategy on retention.

Target Audience: This session is designed for all audiences, especially those whoserve large numbers of underprepared students.

Development of a QEP From Its Inception to the On-site VisitMembers of the Texas State Technical College West Texas QEPTeam will describe their recent experiences developing a QEP(submitted to the SACS-COC in August 2004) and learning fromthe on-site SACS visit (completed in October 2004). The presen-tation focuses on the pitfalls this small technical college with fourrural locations has encountered in planning, involving allsegments of the college community, conducting data gatheringand analysis, writing the QEP, and negotiating the on-site visit.

Target Audience: The presentation targets an audience that is just beginning tothink about developing a QEP.

Enhancing General Education: Participatory Assessment by Faculty and StudentsFour members of the University of South Florida’s QEP andassessment committees will discuss assessment results within thecontext of their general education curriculum revision, plans forreform, implementation efforts, and resulting challenges andbenefits. Specific assessment strategies and data will bepresented, as well as an assessment plan developed to foster aculture of assessment. Lessons learned, both benefits andchallenges to assessment, QEP planning, and the implementationprocesses will be shared and discussed with the audience.

Target Audience: Faculty, assessment coordinators, and others who areinterested in effectiveness in the undergraduate curriculum may benefit from thissession.

Student Success at Miami Dade College: The Mathematics ConnectionThe purpose of Miami Dade College’s QEP was to enhance studentlearning in mathematics by developing innovative curricular,instructional, support, and assessment strategies. The college iscurrently in the process of implementing its QEP by workingtoward the following goals: designing a supplementary study skillscourse specifically for developmental mathematics, creating aprogram to incorporate mathematics into other disciplines,enhancing the mathematics support facilities, improvingmathematics advisement, developing a professional developmentprogram to help faculty adapt to different learning styles, institutinga program of frequent testing in mathematics, and establishingmathematics assessment centers to allow faculty to assess studentsoutside of class. The process used to develop a discipline-basedQEP at a large, multi-campus college will be discussed.

Target Audience: This presentation will be of interest to representatives fromcolleges and universities that are interested in writing discipline-based QEPs andcolleges and universities with high failure rates in mathematics.

Enhancing Student Learning Through the QEP Process: Engaging the Academic CommunityThis session will address unusual challenges and opportunitiesassociated with developing a QEP at a new public university. Acomplete description of the Florida Gulf Coast University’s QEP,“Developing an Ecological Perspective and Fostering CommunityInvolvement,” will be presented. Coordination of QEP committeeactivities, refinement of the QEP topic, and strategies forengagement of the entire academic community will be discussed.Time will be reserved at the end of the session for questions anddiscussion. Presenters will provide handouts and resources forparticipants beginning the QEP process.

Target Audience: This presentation is designed for colleges and universitiesthat are beginning the QEP process. Content will be presented at the beginningto intermediate level.

Enhancing Student Learning with the College’s QEPIn this session, three members of the Leadership Team of a small,rural community college will discuss the evolution of the QEP.Presenters will highlight ways to involve faculty, staff, andstudents in developing and implementing the college QEP.Mayland Community College’s QEP is “Gateway to the LearningCollege Journey: Enhanced Student Learning throughAdvisement and Technology.”

Target Audience: The target audience for this presentation is the reaffirmationclass of 2006 and beyond, including institutions that may have begun writingtheir Compliance Certification and are expecting Off- and On-site Review Teamsduring 2006 at the earliest.

Using Multiple Measures of Student Learning OutcomesAddressing student learning outcomes is a critical part of thePrinciples of Accreditation. How to identify desired learningoutcomes, measure them in reliable ways, and analyze results formeaningful changes can challenge institutional leaders who mayfeel unprepared for these responsibilities. This session will helpinstitutions to identify ways to measure student learningoutcomes related to critical thinking, student engagement, thefirst-year experience, residential programming, contentknowledge in the major field, and the overall college experience.The presenters will show how one college has used multipleassessment measures to translate into significant curricular andprogrammatic changes.

Target Audience: This session will provide several examples of assessment toolsand measures that institutions may make use of in demonstrating institutionaleffectiveness.

C S - 4 3

C S - 4 7

C S - 4 8

C S - 4 9

C S - 5 0

C S - 4 4

C S - 4 5

C S - 4 6

Monday, December 6, 2004 (continued from page 21)

FALL, 2004 23

Add In, Not Add On: Weaving the QEP intothe Institutional Fabric

This session will present the process by which Guilford TechnicalCommunity College determined the focus for their QEP and thenintegrated that theme into the planning process. Total collegeinvolvement in establishing a theme was achieved by havingcollege-wide, inclusive focus groups as the starting point. Thetarget deadline for establishing a topic allowed the college toinclude the theme in annual fall planning activities. The processby which they determined the QEP topic and the use of theplanning process helped to begin the college-wide work on long-term quality enhancement.

Target Audience: Community colleges, in particular, that are approaching thereaffirmation process should be interested in this session though smaller collegesand universities might find clear applicability. Content will be useful to SACSliaisons, QEP leaders and team members, administrators, and faculty.

Using Student Assessment Data for Program AssessmentDemonstrating that academic programs are successful inachieving educational outcomes requires collection of programassessment data. However, instead of developing newassessments specifically to address program effectiveness, it ispossible in many cases for faculty to make new uses of typicalstudent assessment data, such as portfolios, juried performances,theses and honors projects, comprehensive exams, oral presen-tations, and papers or essays. This session will present simplestrategies to make minor revisions to current student assessmentpractices in order to utilize the data for program assessment.

Target Audience: This session is intended for anyone who has responsibility foracademic program assessment, including faculty members, department chairs,and deans. It will be appropriate for individuals who design and implementassessments of all types of academic programs, including certificate, associate,baccalaureate, and graduate.

A Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Process at the Academic Program Level This session will demonstrate how faculty members of the Assuranceof Learning Council at one institution facilitated workshops toprovide training to other faculty on eight elements of the studentlearning outcomes assessment process and used the council toprovide formative feedback to academic programs on their reports ofthe first two elements. The perspectives of council members andfaculty who developed program reports will be provided.

Target Audience: Individuals who are interested in the assessment of studentoutcomes at the program level should attend this session. The information will bepresented at a basic level.

Using the Transition to College Inventory to Identify andTreat Freshmen At Risk for Academic Difficulty Identifying at-risk freshmen early in their academic careers is criticalfor their success. Researchers at Old Dominion Universitydeveloped the Transition to College Inventory (TCI) to identifyfreshmen who, in spite of good high school GPA and SAT scores, areat risk for academic difficulty and subsequent attrition. The goal ofthe TCI is to use a probation score to identify at-risk students beforethe semester begins and assist them before they encounter academicdifficulty. The presenter will review the development and use of theTCI and engage participants in a discussion about treating at-riskstudents using sample TCI student profiles.

Target Audience: Anyone who is interested in improving freshman studentretention should benefit from this session.

Organize to OptimizeCampus and system administrators will be challenged by thequestion of whether institutions of higher education, as currentlyorganized, meet the growing, global demands for postsecondarycompetencies, cope with the increasing pace of change, optimizethe learning of the widening spectrum of students, and reconnectfacts and values in undergraduate learning. The pressure tooptimize “throughput” and to assure minimal student learningoutcomes will continue to increase. System and campus adminis-trators will be expected to optimize bureaucratically structuredinstitutions modeled after universities originally designed forelite students and research. To optimize, an organization mustfunction as a horizontal, integrated system, yet, most colleges anduniversities are organized as bureaucracies of disciplinary silos.While horizontal systems are far more amiable to optimizationthan to silo bureaucracies, horizontal systems are most effectivefor coping with change, dealing with student differences, andconnecting fact and value when they function organically.

Target Audience: The target audience for this presentation includes thoseindividuals who are interested in how a college or university might be organizedto optimize undergraduate learning.

Experiential Education: An Effective Methodologyfor Enhancing Student LearningThe inclusion of experiential education in the curriculumenhances student learning by providing opportunities forconnecting classroom instruction to “real world” experiences,self-esteem building, career exploration/jobs,interpersonal/leadership skills development, critical thinking,diversity experiences, civic responsibility development, and valueclarification. Presenters will discuss the principles of experientialeducation practice, examine the commonality and differencesamong its various forms (e.g. internships, field education,community service, service learning), discuss challenges involvedin assessment and evaluation of the methodology, and provideexamples of successful experiential education collaborationbetween academic and student affairs and its inclusion in FirstYear Experience and other campus initiatives.

Target Audience: The intended audience participants are administrators ofcolleges and universities, including presidents/chancellors, vice presidents anddeans of academic affairs, vice presidents of student affairs, and all other staff andfaculty who are interested in providing opportunities to enhance student learningby incorporating experiential education methodology.

Using Standardized Online Writing Tools to Enhance Learner-Centered Writing Proficiency Across the CurriculumEnhancing learner-centered writing proficiency across thecurriculum is a worthy goal in higher education. This session willconsist of a presentation of a campus-wide, cross-curriculumwriting evaluation system implemented at North Carolina A&TState University and an assessment process for new andcontinuing students at Averett University. Topics covered in thesession include the rationale for this project, goals, projectplanning, deployment, assessment procedures and early results.An online demonstration of this innovative writing diagnosticand evaluation learning tool will be provided. A discussionperiod will also be provided so participants may engage in aquestion-and-answer dialogue.

Target Audience: This is a basic-level presentation designed for those who areinterested in improving students’ writing proficiency.

Continued on next page

C S - 5 1 C S - 5 5

C S - 5 6

C S - 5 7

C S - 5 2

C S - 5 3

C S - 5 4

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

24 PROCEEDINGS

The Distance Learner and Information LiteracyInstruction: Methods and Measures A review of the current regional accreditation standardsdemonstrates a trend toward acknowledging the accountability ofinstitutions of higher learning to ensure that information literacyinstruction is occurring and has measurable outcomes. A reviewof the literature for best practices and recognized online libraryinstruction programs will assist with discovering and reinforcingmethods of evaluating, improving, documenting, and promotingour own programs. Distance learners must not only have accessto, but must utilize these instructional opportunities. Librariesmust offer instructional programs and measure the learningoutcomes to ensure that the needs of the learners are being met.

Target Audience: This session is designed for librarians, instructional officers,faculty, and institutional effectiveness personnel.

General Education Reform and Dr. SisyphusAnderson College completed a three-year process to enhance itsgeneral education curriculum. Over 25 percent of faculty partic-ipated on three successive committees to establish new learningoutcomes, develop a structure and proportionality (that eventuallyreduced requirements by 20 percent), and revise the present courseofferings. Hallmarks were skill and content emphases, sequentialofferings beyond the first two years, and greater cohesion withmajor fields of study, including planned outcomes assessmentprovided through capstone courses in the major along with compre-hensive program review. This presentation will focus on theprocess, pitfalls, and promise of our journey “up the hill” towardcreating a better learning experience for students.

Target Audience: Faculty and curriculum specialists, academic administrators,and non-academic staff would benefit from this presentation. Institutionalrepresentatives from those considering, continuing, or completing generaleducation or significant curricular revision would find the session to be helpful.The presentation may have more value to those in small colleges, thoughapplication to a large university structure can occur.

Leadership in Times of Transition In July 2002, Bennett College appointed its fourteenth presidentfollowing the transition through three presidencies in one year. Inthe year immediately preceding this appointment, the SouthernAssociation of Colleges and Schools had placed the College onprobation for fiscal instability. In addition, questions existedconcerning the quality of its institutional management, academicprograms, and community and public relations. This session willpresent the new administration’s efforts to regain institutionalstability, full accreditation, and enhance the management and imageof the College through comprehensive revitalization activities.

Target Audience: Individuals who are interested in leadership and institutionalrenewal should find this session to be of interest.

nnn 3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.CONFERENCE BREAK

nnn 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.CONCURRENT SESSIONS - IV

Voices of Experience: 2004 Reaffirmation ofAccreditation at Level VI InstitutionsRepresentatives from Level VI institutions which experiencedSACS’ new reaffirmation of accreditation processes in 2004 willprovide insights into the off-site review, the site visit, anddevelopment of their QEPs. Presenters will outline theirinstitutions’ progress in implementation of their QEPs and offersuggestions for hosting successful site visits. Target Audience: Representatives from institutions that will have their

SACS-COC reaffirmation of accreditation site reviews within the next two tothree years should benefit from this session.

New Principles, New Relationships: Preparing for the SACS Off-Site and On-Site ReviewThis presentation will share practical details of one institution’sexperience with SACS review under the new Principles ofAccreditation. It will cover ways of understanding the needs andinterests of the two different SACS teams: the Off-CampusReview Teams of the compliance certification and the On-CampusReview Teams of the QEP and the Focused Report. Thepresenters, who served on the SACS Leadership Team for GeorgiaCollege and State University, will discuss the electronic tools theycreated for off-site review, various other ways of presentinginformation, and the logistics associated with the on-site visit.Topics covered will include the Compliance Certification, theFocused Report, the QEP, campus communications, and thecampus visit.

Target Audience: Institutions preparing for reaffirmation review in the nextfew years whose representatives want to dialogue about the new requirements,standards, and procedures should find this session interesting.

Top Ten Things to Know for the Compliance CertificationThe Compliance Certification is the internal check of the organi-zation that begins the reaffirmation process. Learn from a small,rural community college ten things to do (or not to do) as younavigate the process of determining and documenting the extentof your institution’s compliance.Target Audience: The target audience for this presentation is thereaffirmation class of 2006 and beyond.

Organizing, Responding, Documenting: Completing the Compliance CertificationUncertainty is amidst as institutions consider options foroperationalizing the process and engaging everyone in theCompliance Certification. Institutions face struggles withdetermining models, developing processes, preparing faculty,staff, and administrators, and incorporating technology. Step-by-step, this presentation will describe how a mid-size institutionwent about the process from beginning to end. Samples ofdocuments developed for accomplishing the review ofrequirements and standards will be provided in this interactivepresentation designed for Leadership Team members, SACSliaisons, Compliance Certification team members, and thoseresponding to the audit.

Target Audience: Target audiences for this session include university adminis-trators, chairs of institutional effectiveness committees, Leadership Teammembers, Compliance Certification committee members and chairs,Accreditation Liaisons, assessment directors, faculty members, and support staff.

New Principles, New Methods: Conducting aCompliance Certification without Review CommitteesEarly in the process of preparing for reaffirmation of accredi-tation, administrators at Central Alabama Community Collegedetermined that the most effective use of personnel would be toallow instructors to engage in planning for improvement ofstudent learning by focusing on the QEP while administratorsand staff tackled the process of demonstrating compliance.Challenges included ensuring a system of checks and balances,avoiding groupthink, and meeting deadlines. The result was acompliance system that allowed full input from administratorswithout time-consuming meetings. Presenters will discuss thecompliance system used and its unexpected benefits.

Target Audience: The presentation is designed for administrators from smallcolleges who are seeking ways to streamline the compliance process under thenew Principles of Accreditation by converting from a faculty committee-drivenself-study to an administratively driven Compliance Certification.

Monday, December 6, 2004 (continued from page 23)

C S - 5 8

C S - 6 2

C S - 6 3

C S - 6 4

C S - 6 5

C S - 5 9

C S - 6 0

C S - 6 1

SQUID: Building and Using an Electronic ArchiveSQUID stands for “Systematic Quality ImprovementDocumentation,” a system developed at Coker College formaintaining an online archive of institutional documents. It isdesigned to solve the problems presented by lost or inaccessibledocuments that are important to the institution. The archive is user-generated, administered by librarians, and holds meta-data usefulfor finding documents—title, owner, year of origin, keywords, andother information that can be searched. It’s small, fast, andinexpensive to build. Resources are provided to create your ownsystem, including specifications and source code. Its usefulness increating an electronic compliance certification is described.

Target Audience: Academic administrators, effectiveness planners, SACSliaisons, librarians, and institutional researchers should find this session to bevaluable. The presentation will be suitable for a general audience.

Library Assessment Using LIBQUAL+ and theLibrary Summit ConceptThis session will introduce two techniques which have been usedby academic libraries to assess their effectiveness and to assistthose libraries in development strategies and plans to improvetheir effectiveness in the delivery of information and services totheir users. LIBQUAL+ is a tool developed at Texas A&MUniversity and the Association of Research Libraries to measurethe effectiveness of libraries. The Library Summit concept wasdeveloped at Clemson University and recently replicated at theUniversity of Texas, Austin, to assist libraries in using theLIBQUAL+ results to develop strategies and plans to improvetheir effectiveness.

Target Audience: This session is designed to provide participants with tools forthe assessment of their libraries.

Conquering the Demon of Documentation –Establishment of a Faculty Qualifications Review CommitteeIn preparation for the generation of a successful ComplianceCertification, Guilford Technical Community College developed aprocess to verify the appropriateness of faculty qualifications as itrelates to faculty instructional assignments. This session willoutline the steps that led the college to take this approach toensure that existing documentation of faculty qualifications areappropriate and up-to-date. In addition, the steps taken to ensurethat new faculty hires, both full-time and adjunct, are incompliance with SACS requirements will be described.

Target Audience: Individuals at colleges who bear the responsibility ofverifying/maintaining faculty files, including administrators, faculty and humanresource managers.

Write on the Web: A Simple Approach to Publishing SACS Documents (Part II)This session will demonstrate two simple approaches to creatingWeb-based documents and posting the documents to the Web viaemail and file transfer protocol (ftp) or a database. The email-and-ftp approach uses Microsoft Word and a MSWord filter to createdocuments and ftp to post them to the Web. The second approachuses phpWebSite, a free (open-source), Web-based contentmanagement system, to post documents. A sample Web site withtemplates will ease development for participants in creating Webdocuments. Economical approaches in creating an all-electronicinstitution will be stressed.

Target Audience: Beginners and intermediate users will benefit from thispresentation.

Retention of At-Risk Students in a Graduate Nursing ProgramMeeting the challenge of accessibility for at-risk students is morethan helping them gain access. For graduate nursing studentsadmitted “at-risk,” it is helping them to succeed once enrolled,graduating, and gaining access to careers as nurse practitioners ornurse educators. This presentation describes at-risk students’retention records of a historically black public university’sgraduate nursing program. Included are data for the cohort fromprogram inception in 1995 through fall 2002. Discussion willinclude pertinent literature, cohort demographics,completion/attrition rates, and survey results of graduates’opinions on what worked and why.

Target Audience: This presentation is directed toward a broad audienceinterested in strategies to meet the challenges of accessibility, particularly withat-risk students in advanced programs in the rural South.

Benchmarking in Community Colleges: Two National InitiativesIn response to increasing calls for accountability, many four-yearcolleges and universities participate in various regional andnational benchmarking efforts. However, no such peerbenchmarking consortia have been available in the communitycollege sector. Johnson County (KS) Community College hastaken the lead role in the design and implementation of two suchnational initiatives: The Kansas Study of Community CollegeInstructional Costs and Productivity and the NationalCommunity College Benchmark Project, including a wide array ofstudent outcome and other relevant variables. This concurrentsession will describe these two initiatives and will give specificexamples of the use of the national comparative benchmark datafrom both state system and individual college perspectives.

Target Audience: The information provided in this concurrent session should berelevant to all community college personnel interested in planning, managementdecision making, budgeting, assessment of student learning outcomes andinstitutional effectiveness, quality improvement, and national and peercomparisons and benchmarking. It should be of particular interest to academicand administrative managers, institutional researchers, faculty and adminis-trators engaged in outcomes assessment, and systems personnel.

The QEP Process: Devising and Revising the PlanInstitutions facing reaffirmation under the new criteria can benefitfrom the experiences of the institutions that went through theprocess in 2004. Clayton College and State University (CCSU), acomprehensive unit of the University System of Georgia, is one ofthose institutions. The focus of their QEP is the improvement ofstudent performance through the enhancement of faculty/staffawareness and development. In particular, faculty/staffawareness and development efforts will address the areas ofstudent engagement in the classroom, methods of academicintervention to support student performance, and academicadvisement and mentoring to give students appropriate guidanceand direction. Their work over the past two years to develop andbegin implementation of the QEP, as well as the feedback fromtheir On-Site Review Team, could provide valuable informationabout the new process.

Target Audience: This presentation will be designed for institutions facingaccreditation or reaffirmation in the near future under the new standards.

FALL, 2003 25

C S - 6 6 C S - 7 0

C S - 7 1

C S - 7 2

C S - 6 7

C S - 6 8

C S - 6 9

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

Continued on next page

26 PROCEEDINGS

Northwest Vista College’s Road to QualityThe development, implementation, and evaluation of keyprocesses at a fast-growing mid-size community college presentboth advantages and unique opportunities for improvement.Northwest Vista College (NVC) continually improves its keylearning-centered processes to maximize student success. Thissession will emphasize NVC’s use of the Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Criteria for Education to focus on qualitystudent learning and services—improving student outcomeswhile addressing a significant increase in enrollment.

Target Audience: This session will benefit members of Leadership Teams seekinga quality performance system and strategic planning tools to measure andimprove student learning-centered processes.

Engaging the University Community to Identify a QEP TopicThe QEP must have broad-based university input in the selectionof the topic and be accepted by the university community asvaluable for enhancing student learning. A well-designedapproach that involves initial planning, topic selection, and QEPdevelopment is key to satisfying the engagement requirement.This presentation will identify alternative approaches for surfacingpotential QEP topics, and illustrate methods to expand theengagement of the university community to add topic areas andrefine those topics to those that can be researched for feasibility anddesirability. Alternative approaches are described for selecting thefinal topic and developing university-wide support.

Target Audience: University leaders involved in preparing for reaffirmation ofSACS accreditation and individuals with leadership responsibility for the QEPshould benefit from this session.

Empowering Student Learning through Quality Enhancement This session describes the development, implementationstrategies, and evaluation methods of Tallahassee CommunityCollege’s QEP. Using empirical data, strategic planninginitiatives, broad-based participation, and best practice as aframework, the plan addresses student engagement throughthree interrelated approaches: communication and collaboration,early intervention, and teaching and learning. The presenters willdiscuss the process used and the challenges encountered inidentifying the topic, determining the focus, and developingimplementation strategies and evaluation methods within thecontext of the college’s strategic plan.

Target Audience: Individuals who are at the initial stages of preparing for theQEP at their institution should find this session of interest.

Assessing Critical Thinking SkillsTennessee Technological University has been examining methods ofassessing critical thinking skills as part of a performance fundinginitiative since 2000. Their experiences provide useful informationabout both a process for developing an assessment tool and aproduct for assessing critical thinking skills that they are willing toshare with other institutions. Their approach has been to empowerfaculty to both identify and evaluate a core set of skills they believeto be an important part of critical thinking in graduates. Thepresenters will examine the procedures used to ensure face validity,to evaluate criterion validity, and to improve reliability.

Target Audience: Colleges and universities that are looking for alternative waysto assess critical thinking and institutions that are considering possible topics fortheir quality enhancement plan represent the target audience.

The Use of Electronic Portfolios to Motivate Students and Enhance LearningElectronic portfolios have become increasingly popular witheducators as a tool for showcasing students’ work and as recordsof learning, growth and change. They bring together curriculum,instruction and assessment. This session will illustrate how tocreate templates for a course using the e-portfolio and evaluate itusing an assessment rubric, and demonstrate how students andfaculty can create their own e-portfolios to showcase theirachievements online. The instructors of two courses, adultdevelopment and psychology of learning, will demonstrate howthe e-portfolios were integrated into each course.

Target Audience: Instructors with basic technology skills will find this systemto be effective and easy to learn. Academic advisors, admissions, and placementofficers may find this content useful to assess the use of the e-portfolio at theirinstitution. The assessment and academic units at colleges and universities mayfind this will give them a tool to demonstrate evidence of student progress.

Using Program Review to Facilitate Change inInstructional, Administrative, and Student Services UnitsThis proposal explains how an outcome-based program reviewprocess at a large urban community college has been embraced.The review, required by all college units, addressesmission/goals, unit functions, staffing, administrativeobjectives/student learning outcomes, strategies for change,discipline trends and future issues. Each unit develops surveysspecific to their program area or submits questions for the annualfaculty-staff survey. A one-year follow-up on “strategies forchange” is required thus ensuring the use of results forimprovement. This institutional effectiveness process has provento be empowering for all units and has encouraged anenvironment of assessment and improvement.

Target Audience: College/university assessment officers, business officers andfaculty will benefit from this session.

Online Student Evaluations: One College’s ExperienceThis session will present a review of lessons learned in oneinstitution’s move from a traditional paper-based method ofcollecting student evaluations of instructors to an online format.Policy and technology issues will be addressed as well as earlysuccesses and ongoing challenges.Target Audience: The target audience for this presentation will bethose personnel representing information technology, academic affairs,institutional research, and institutional effectiveness at colleges contem-plating moving to an online student evaluation system.

Using Logic Models to Plan and Evaluate Student Learning OutcomesA logic model is a graphic representation that shows logicalrelationships between program inputs, outputs, and outcomes.They can be used to plan, monitor, evaluate, report, and improveinstructional and non-instructional programs and services. Thepresenters will describe uses of logic models that lead to theassessment of student learning outputs and outcomes, as well asdiscuss the process used in constructing a logic model.

Target Audience: The target audience will be intermediate through advanceddirectors, deans, vice-presidents, and faculty who have responsibility for institu-tional effectiveness, assessment, and curriculum development.

C S - 7 3

C S - 7 7

C S - 7 8

C S - 7 9

C S - 8 0

C S - 7 4

C S - 7 5

C S - 7 6

Monday, December 6, 2004 (continued from page 25)

Program Tracks:Track 1-Meeting the Challenge for AccountabilityTrack 2-Meeting the Challenge for AccessibilityTrack 3-Meeting the Challenge for Quality EnhancementTrack 4-Meeting the Challenge to Address Student LearningTrack 5-Current Issues in Higher Education

FALL, 2003 27

nnn 7:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.COMMISSION ON COLLEGES REGISTRATION

nnn 7:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m.MORNING ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS(Separate registration is not required; participation is on a first-come, first-served basis.)

The following small-group discussions are designed forindividuals who are interested in topics related to accreditationand other issues in academe.

R-1 University and Elementary School Partnerships

R-2 Assessment Framework for Short-Term Study Abroad Programs

R-3 Assessing Student Work Ethics

R-4 The Key to Enhancing Online Student Learning: EffectiveFaculty Training and Development Programs

R-5 Developing the QEP

R-6 Service Learning

R-7 Retention of At-Risk Students

R-8 Blogging: Using Internet Technology for StudentReflective Learning

R-9 Distance Education Program Development

R-10Assessing Student Learning Outcomes in an AcceleratedDelivery Format

R-11 Building Blocks for a Successful Compliance Certification

R-11 Assessing Student Learning by Emphasizing ProjectManagement Skills

R-12Assessing Institutional Effectiveness: How A Small SchoolCan Do It With Limited Resources

nnn 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.COC GENERAL SESSION AND COLLEGE DELEGATEASSEMBLY BUSINESS MEETING*

Speaker:Governor William Winter—Former Governor of Mississippi

Topic:“Cultural Change, Community Building, and Civic Responsibility”

*Accreditation decisions will be announced at this session.

nnn 10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.CONFERENCE BREAK

nnn 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.GROUP MEETINGS WITH COC STAFF

nnn 12:00 p.m.CONFERENCE ENDS

Tuesday - December 7, 2004 Attention Presidents and Chancellors

You are Cordially Invited to Attend

PRESIDENTS’ DAY ACTIVITIESMonday, December 6, 2004

Imperial Ballroom, Marriott Marquis

John T. Casteen III, President,University of Virginia

Moderator

7:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m.Presidents’ BreakfastPolitics, Policy, and Reality:

What’s Really Going on in Washington?Gwen Ifill

Senior Correspondent, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and Moderator and Managing Editor, Washington Week

9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.PLENARY SESSION

Eyewitness to Power: Leadership in AmericaDavid Gergen

commentator, editor, teacher, public servant, best-selling author, and adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton

10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.Special Presidents’ Panel

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities in HigherEducation under the Current or NewAdministration

Dr. Constantine W. (Deno) CurrisAmerican Association of State Colleges and Universities

Dr. C. Peter MagrathNational Association of State

Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

Dr. David L. WarrenNational Association of Independent Colleges and Universities

Mr. David BaimeAmerican Association of Community Colleges

David GergenModerator

12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.Presidents’ Luncheon

Integrity in Today’s Marketplace (proposed)Chairman Donald Powell

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, D.C.

28 PROCEEDINGS28 PROCEEDINGSRESERVE THESE DATES!!!

PROCEEDINGSCommission on CollegesSouthern Association of

Colleges and Schools1866 Southern Lane

Decatur, GA 30033-4097

PeriodicalsPOSTAGE

PAIDDecatur, Ga

Announcing

THE INSTITUTE ON QUALITYENHANCEMENT

AND ACCREDITATIONOrlando, Florida

July 24-27, 2005

Sponsored by

The Commission on Collegesof the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

The Institute is designed to provide opportunities for activelearning and for dialogue on topics such as assessing studentlearning, creating a culture of institutional effectiveness, developingthe Quality Enhancement Plan, and understanding the new accred-itation review process.

Mark the dates and look for details on our Web site early in 2005!

2005ANNUAL MEETING

of theCOMMISSION ON COLLEGES

December 3-6, 2005Headquarters:

Hyatt Regency Atlanta

Speakers:Dr. Derek BokPresident EmeritusHarvard University

Ambassador Andrew YoungFormer Mayor of Atlanta

FUTURE ANNUAL MEETINGS of the

COMMISSION ON COLLEGES

December 9-12, 2006Miami, Florida

Fountainbleu Hilton Hotel

December 8-11, 2007New Orleans, Louisiana

Hilton New Orleans Riverside

December 6-9, 2008San Antonio, Texas

Marriott Rivercenter/Riverwalk