ALFRED UNIVERSITY SELF-STUDY DESIGN FINAL
MAY2012 Table of Contents
Introduction...... 1 Nature and Scope of Self-Study...... 5 Intended Outcomes of the Self-Study ...... 5 Organizational Structure ofthe Self-Study Committee ...... 6 Charges to the Working Groups ...... 9 Organization ofthe Self-Study Report ...... 20 Editorial Style Sheet ...... 21 Template for Working Group Reports ...... 21 Inventory of Support Documents ...... 21 Timetable for Self-Study ...... 21 Profile of the Visiting Evaluation Team ...... 24 Appendix 1: Editorial Style Sheet...... 25 Appendix 2: Template for Working Group Reports ...... 29 Appendix 3: Inventory of Support Documents ...... 30 I. Introduction
History, Mission, and Governance
Alfred University was founded in 1836 by pioneer Seventh Day Baptists and chartered by New York State in 1857. Since its inception, the university has been a non-sectarian institution dedicated to making higher education accessible. People ofany race, sex, or religion have always been welcome. Alfred University (AU) is the oldest coeducational institution in New York State and the second oldest in the nation. The first black student, who came from Haiti, enrolled in 1850. The sense of social justice and the egalitarian approach to education that was at the core ofthe university in its founding has shaped our history. These values continue to infuse our culture and our direction.
The current articulation ofthe University's mission, vision and values has evolved organically from its founding principles into the following:
Alfred University Mission Alfred University aims to provide academically challenging programs in a student-centered environment in order to prepare well-educated, independent thinkers ready for lives of continuous intellectual and personal growth. We are committed to both teaching and research, and are devoted to the pursuit oftechnical expertise, artistic creativity and humanistic learning.
Vision Statement Alfred University will be nationally recognized as a preeminent, small comprehensive university dedicated to inspiring individuals and preparing them to excel intellectually and personally.
Values At Alfred University we value:
• A learning environment that promotes open exchange of ideas, critical thinking, global awareness, technological literacy, intellectual honesty, and community involvement; • A work environment that promotes open communication, recognition of achievement, and the development ofpersonal potential; • Research and scholarship that advance the frontiers ofknowledge, contribute to graduate and undergraduate teaching, and demonstrate creativity in all fields of endeavor; • Diversity in people and cultures, ideas and scholarship; • A campus that is safe, attractive, and promotes health and wellness; • A caring community that respects each individual, fosters intellectual curiosity and growth, promotes and models good citizenship, and encourages enlightened leadership.
Over the years, the University has evolved into a complex structure comprised ofnon statutory (private) units and statutory (publicly supported) units. The College of Liberal Arts 2
and Sciences and the College of Business, which is in the process ofbeing reorganized as part ofthe College ofProfessional Studies, are the non-statutory entities. The state-supported New York State College of Ceramics (NYSCC), which Alfred University administers for the State University ofNew York, houses the statutory units organized into two schools: the School of Art and Design and the Kazuo Inamori School ofEngineering. The engineering school has programs that are publicly supported and programs that are privately endowed. All academic programs are supported by two libraries: Scholes Library of Ceramics (statutory) and Herrick Memorial Library (non-statutory).
In addition to being accredited by the Middle States Association and the New York State Department ofEducation (NYSDEP), individual programs are accredited or approved by the following specific agencies:
AACSB College ofBusiness ABET School ofEngineering ACS Chemistry CAATE Athletic Training NASAD School of Art and Design TEAC Teacher Education NASP School Psychology APA School Psychology
For several consecutive years, the University and its programs have received top rankings by independent publications. Recent examples of these include:
• Alfred University was ranked eighth in the nation among masters' degree institutions in the 2011 Washington Monthly College Rankings.
• In their 2012 edition, the Princeton Review annual college guide "The Best 376 Colleges," ranked Alfred University as one of the nation's best institutions for undergraduate education.
• In 2011, Forbes Magazine ranked Alfred University as among the best schools in the nation. Alfred University was ranked in the top ten percent of all colleges and universities.
• Alfred University was ranked among the top twenty-five private colleges and universities in the United States as "Best Buys" (best value for the educational dollar) in the 2012 edition ofthe Fiske Guide to Colleges.
• The 2011 edition ofthe US. News and World Report ranked Alfred University third in the North as a "great school at a great price" among masters' degree institutions.
Based on spring 2012 census data, Alfred serves approximately 1716 full-time undergraduate, 164 full-time graduate students, and 126 part-time graduate students. This 3
census includes graduate students enrolled in counseling, literacy, and public administration in New York City in partnership with the Center for Integrated Education (C.I.T.E.), known as "Downstate." The Downstate graduate students are taught in cohorts and come to Alfred, New York for two weeks in the summer as part oftheir programs. Alfred also serves 126 undergraduate students in Istanbul, Turkey in partnership with Cinar-Universal Education. The Middle States site visit ofthat partnership occurred in April of2009.
Alfred University is selective in its admissions. While the university draws internationally and nationally, the majority of undergraduates come from New York State. The tuition for the 2012/13 year for private sector first year students will be $26,884. Tuition for students in the NYSCC will be $15,814 for state residents and $21,762 for out-of-state residents. Ninety percent ofall undergraduates received financial aid during this academic year.
Students pursue studies in 40 major programs at the Bachelor's level (BF A, BA, and BS degrees), 12 masters programs (MBA, MFA, MS degrees), two post-masters certificate programs (School Psychology) and four doctoral programs. Several of our undergraduate and graduate programs lead to teacher certification in the State ofNew York. In addition to traditional degree programs, the University provides study abroad opportunities and hosts about 75 international students annually. Students may also pursue internships or co-ops through the support ofThe Career Development Center. A campus Confucius Institute, partially funded by the Chinese government, supports the cultural and language programs on campus and regionally. Summer programs and continuing education courses also enhance educational offerings.
Alfred University faculty are dedicated to teaching and are active in campus life. Currently there are 144 full-time, tenure-track faculty members (75% are tenured) and 21 visiting or non tenure track faculty. This creates a supportive, student-centered teaching environment with a 12: 1 student/faculty ratio.
The success ofour students would not be possible without the work of all personnel at the university. Professional staff provide essential services and support. Through its curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular programming, the Division of Student Affairs offers students opportunities for leadership, teamwork, self-expression, social engagement, and responsibility. The Office of Special Academic Services provides support services, consultation, and advocacy for students with learning, physical, or psychological disabilities. The Counseling and Wellness Center is dedicated to promoting the holistic development of students. All ofthese services have become increasingly important as the needs of our students have changed.
The University is governed by the Board of Trustees which meets three times a year. The President reports to the Board and delegates authority to a cabinet composed ofthe Vice President for University Relations, Vice President for Student Affairs, Vice President for Enrollment Management, Vice President for Business and Finance, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs who also serves as the Provost. An Executive Council, comprised ofthe vice presidents and the academic deans, meets regularly. In addition, each constituency ofthe University has a representative governing body. Faculty members are represented by a Faculty Senate, staff members are represented by the Support Staff Council, administrative and 4
technical specialists are represented by the Administrative Technical Specialist Council, and students have a Student Senate. One body has representatives from all University constituencies: The Strategic Planning Council.
Significant Recent History
The University has made changes in its organizational structure, has expanded learning opportunities, and has completed important construction and renovation projects.
• The University began a reorganization ofacademic departments beginning in the fall of 2009. The reorganization will create the newly formed College of Professional Studies which will include the Division of Education, the Division ofAthletic Training, the Counseling and School Psychology graduate programs, and the College of Business which will be renamed the School ofBusiness. The faculty in these units now report to the Associate Provost, currently serving as the dean ofthe faculty for this transitional year. The students majoring in the programs within this academic unit will be administratively moved to the new college during the summer of 2012. The creation of the new academic unit will be completed by August, 2012.
• A 2009-2010 strategic planning process resulted in eliminating three academic majors: electrical engineering, French, and German. Courses necessary to these majors will continue to be offered until all current students in the programs have graduated. Additionally, it was decided that no new students will be enrolled in the economics major pending a thorough review ofthe effectiveness ofthat program and its place in the university curricula.
• A proposal to add B.S. degrees in seven areas ofscience (biology, chemistry, environmental science, geology, mathematics, physics, and astronomy) has been submitted to the New York State Department of Education and is under review.
• Alfred University has developed off-site partnership programs in New York City. The Center for Integrated Teacher Education (CITE) is a professional service organization that manages the logistical operations for Alfred's Downstate programs. The masters' level programs (Counseling, Literacy, Master ofPublic Administration, and Certificate of Advanced Study in Mental Health Counseling) are extension programs ofregular campus offerings. They are designed specifically for individuals who are seeking graduate classes that are scheduled at times that are accessible to busy educational professionals.
• Thanks to the generosity ofa donor, an endowed Horowitz Service Learning fund has been established to support faculty and students pursuing service learning activities. Local agencies have also contributed funds to this effort in order to make the Youth Court possible. 5
• The newly established Confucius Institute at Alfred University develops cultural and language programs on the AU campus, for high schools throughout Western New York, and for selected industries in the local area.
• New construction projects and renovations to existing building have significantly enhanced the learning environment. The University welcomes the newly constructed Miller Theatre, Ann's House (a residence hall), and the McGee Art and Design Pavilion. The Inamori Kyocera Museum ofFine Ceramics, housed in Binns-Merrill Hall, was dedicated in May 2011. Renovations to Perlman Hall (housing Modern Languages and the International Programs Office), Herrick Library, the Bromley-Daggett Equestrian Center, the McMahon Building (housing engineering), and Kruson Hall (residence) have been completed. Two existing structures were renovated to become university facilities: The Welcome Center at the Fasano House (formerly a fraternity building) houses University Relations and the Cohen Center for the Arts provides classroom studio space, professional exhibition space, and housing for visiting artists.
II. Nature and Scope of the Self-Study
Alfred University will follow a comprehensive self-study model. The evaluation process will serve as a means of initiating campus conversations to help articulate our distinctiveness and map out a path for the future. Examining all aspects ofthe University through an analysis of compliance with the fourteen standards seemed appropriate to accomplish this goal.
The AU Self-Study Steering Committee, in consultation with the Cabinet, chose the model. Since we have not had recent university-wide conversations regarding the most central challenges and opportunities currently facing the institution, we do not want a small number of people deciding upon areas ofemphasis. Rather, those areas of concern, along with shared values and overarching goals, will emerge as a result ofthe university-wide conversations that constitute a self-study process.
III. Intended Outcomes of the Self-Study
1. Conduct a thorough review ofthe University to demonstrate compliance with the fourteen Characteristics ofExcellence standards.
2. Analyze all aspects ofthe University to determine the degree to which planning is strategic, based on assessment outcomes, and integrated across units.
3. Initiate university-wide, evidenced-based conversations that will: a. Create a clear understanding of each unit's role and responsibilities as well as how they work together. b. Identify shared future goals and aspirations. c. Renew and reinvigorate the institution's commitment to fulfilling its mission. 6
d. Engage the campus in an open and honest exchange of ideas and concerns. e. Facilitate a campus culture of approaching and using assessment methods in a favorable and non-threatening manner.
4. Through participation of all constituents, the self-study will present a clear message for the campus community and our region about who we are and what we do well.
5. Create an ongoing and intentional process to respond to, build upon, and follow up with the conversations and feedback gathered during the self-study. This mechanism will also help facilitate the institution's responses to reports from the Evaluation Team and the Middle States Commission ofHigher Education in a way that ensures continuous engagement and improvement.
IV. Organizational Structure of the Steering Committee and Working Groups
The Alfred University Self-Study Steering Committee has a Chair and a Vice-Chair who are responsible for overseeing the process. In consultation with the Provost, the Chair and Vice Chair grouped the fourteen standards to create areas ofinquiry for seven working groups. Each working group chair is a member ofthe Steering Committee. Across the seven working groups, there are representatives from all areas ofthe university and all constituencies. Each working group has members who are experts in the area and members who are not. Together, the Steering Committee and Working Groups compose the AU Self-Study Committee.
Self-Study Steering Committee Members
Chair Elizabeth Ann Dobie, Professor Art Theory Vice Chair Laurie McFadden, Librarian/University Archivist, Alumna Chair, Working Group 1 Amy Jacobson, Director, Gift Planning Chair, Working Group 2 Robert Maiden, Professor ofPsychology Chair, Working Group 3 Norm Pollard, Dean of Students Chair, Working Group 4 Dan Napolitano, Director, Student Activities, Alumnus Chair, Working Group 5 Coral Lambert, Associate Professor of Sculpture Chair, Working Group 6 Nancy Furlong, Professor ofPsychology Chair, Working Group 7 Mark Smith, Director of Scholes Library 7
Working Group 1: Mission and Goals, Institutional Assessment (Standards 1 and 7)
Amy Jacobson, Chair Director, Gift Planning, University Relations Tricia Debertolis, Vice-Chair Assistant Dean, New Student Programs Cheryld Emmons Professor of Biology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Maeghen MacDonald Assistant Dean, School ofBusiness, College ofProfessional Studies Mark McFadden Director, Career Development Center, Student Affairs
Working Group 2: Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal, Institutional Resources, and Integrity (Standards 2, 3, and 6)
Robert Maiden, Chair Professor ofPsychology, Division ofPsychology and Communication Studies, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Ellen Bahr Assistant Librarian, Herrick Library Billie Burns Administrative Assistant, Graduate Programs, School ofArt and Design Kathy Costello Human Resources Generalist Edward Gaughan Professor of Psychology, Division of Counseling and School Psychology, College ofProfessional Studies Theresa Gunn Assistant Professor ofAccounting, School of Business, College of Professional Studies Cindy Mullen Asst. Planner and Internal Control Coordinator, New York State College of Ceramics
Working Group 3: Leadership and Governance, and Administration (Standards 4 and 5)
Norm Pollard, Chair Dean of Students, Student Affairs Jennifer Posener Assistant Dean, College ofLiberal Arts and Sciences S.K. Sundaram Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Inamori School ofEngineering Eric Teller Undergraduate Ceramic Engineering Student, Inamori School of Engineering Francie Viggiani Associate Professor of Management, School of Business, College ofProfessional Studies Lori Wellman Director ofAlumni Engagement, University Relations Emrys Westacott Professor ofPhilosophy, Division of Human Studies, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 8
Working Group 4: Student Admissions and Retention, and Student Support Services (Standards 8 and 9)
Dan Napolitano, Chair Director, Student Activities, Student Affairs, Alumnus Cathie Chester Director Counseling and Health Services, Student Affairs Kathryn Esham Undergraduate Glass Engineering Science Student, Inamori School ofEngineering Michele Hluchy Professor ofGeology, Division of Environmental Science and Geology, College ofLiberal Arts and Sciences Kristen Kovatch Western Trainer/Instructor, Equestrian Program, Student Affairs Steve Pilgrim Professor ofMaterials Science and Engineering, Inamori School ofEngineering Nadine Shardlow Director HEOP and EOP, Enrollment Management Kristen Vargason Associate Director, Admissions, Enrollment Management
Working Group 5: Faculty (Standard 10)
Coral Lambert~ Chair Associate Professor of Sculpture, School ofArt and Design Hope Marie Childers Assistant Professor ofArt History, School ofArt and Design Allen Grove Professor ofEnglish, Division ofEnglish, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences John Hosford Visual Resource Curator, Scholes Library Nancy Kohler Director Equestrian Program, Student Affairs Amy Rummel Professor ofMarketing, School of Business, College of Professional Studies
Working Group 6: Educational Offerings, General Education, and Related Educational Activities (Standards 11, 12, and 13)
Nancy Furlong, Chair Professor ofPsychology, Division of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Jill Crandall Assistant Director, Career Development Center, Student Affairs Frank Duserick Professor ofBusiness, School ofBusiness, College of Professional Studies Olivia Graeve Associate Professor ofMaterials Science and Engineering, Inamori School of Engineering Nick Kuder Assistant Professor ofGraphic Design, School ofArt and Design Melody McLay Director, Summer/Parent Programs, Academic Affairs Peter Metz Graduate Ceramic Engineering Student, Inamori School of Engineering Dylan Sammut Undergraduate Political Science Student, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 9
Working Group 7: Assessment of Student Learning (Standard 14)
Mark Smith, Chair Director of Scholes Library Vicky W estacott, Vice-Chair Director, Writing Center William Carty Professor of Ceramic Engineering and Materials Science, Inamori School ofEngineering Robin Caster Howard Assistant Dean, School ofArt and Design Kerry Kautzman Associate Professor ofSpanish, Division ofModem Languages, College ofLiberal Arts and Sciences Samantha Patton Head Women's Lacrosse Coach, Athletics, Student Affairs Brian Sullivan Instructional Librarian, Herrick Library
V. Charges to the Working Groups
Overall Charge
Throughout the 2012-13 academic year, seven working groups will meet and analyze the evidence needed to fully review and show compliance with the elements in each oftheir assigned standards. They will also work to answer the research questions developed by the Self-Study Steering Committee in order to make a set ofclear recommendations for improvement. Guided by The Characteristics ofExcellence their work will be comprehensive, drawing from the greater University community to seek input in order to analytically demonstrate how the University is meeting each ofthe standards.
The Chair ofeach working group will facilitate the overall approach to their work and will encourage not just document review, but other methods for data gathering that seem appropriate (e.g., focus groups and individual meetings with key people). However, as much as possible, these additional methods will be reviewed at Steering Committee meetings to avoid overlap and over-sampling any constituency. While the working groups will devise their own meeting schedule and workflow, pre-determined deadlines as outlined in the Self-Study Timetable will guide their process.
The Vice-Chair and Chair ofthe Self-Study will create an initial document inventory map. All working groups will have access to this electronic inventory of suggested documents cross-listed by the "fundamental elements" ofeach standard. It is expected that the groups will gather additional evidence for the inventory and it is their responsibility to coordinate this collection ofmaterial with the Vice-Chair ofthe Self-Study. In support ofdocument collection and data analysis, key people within the university have been identified as resources to assist in this process. Throughout the Self-Study year, a primary responsibility ofthe Chair and Vice Chair are to support and be resources for the working groups.
A template for the final reports ofthe working groups has been devised to facilitate consistency across the reports. When preparing the reports, each working group should keep in 10
mind to write concisely, emphasize analysis over description, and base their conclusions and recommendations on clearly presented evidence.
The self-study process is a welcomed opportunity for open campus dialogue and reflection where all opinions and views are encouraged and respected. The process should stimulate discussion, analysis, and action that will continue after the self-study is complete, engaging the campus in exploring new ideas and supporting a sustained focus on ensuring the University's mission is lived out through strategic planning and ongoing assessment.
Specific Charges and Research Questions for Each Working Group
Working Group 1: Institutional Mission and Assessment
Standard 1: Mission and Goals The institution's mission clearly defines its purpose within the context ofhigher education and indicates who the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish. The institution's stated goals, consistent with the aspirations and expectations ofhigher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. The mission and goals are developed and recognized by the institution with the participation ofits members and its governing body and are used to develop and shape its programs andpractices and to evaluate its effectiveness.
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment The institution has developed and implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards.
As the guiding framework for defining a university and its priorities, a mission statement is essential to its overall efficacy. Working Group 1 is charged with examining how effectively the University's mission guides the development of strategic goals and objectives as well as how it influences decision-making on all levels. Working Group 1 will examine how well the University achieves its mission and investigate the ways the mission is communicated to internal and external audiences.
Working Group 1 is also charged with evaluating the process and structure of institutional assessment to examine the extent to which this assessment guides improvements and advances the overall University mission.
Research Questions
Standard 1: Mission & Goals
1. To what extent are AU's mission and goals appropriate to the institution and how well are they communicated? a. Do AU's mission and goals focus on student learning, scholarly and creative activity, institutional improvement and other concrete outcomes? 11
b. In what ways are these goals and outcomes congruent with AU's purpose, history, and character? c. How effectively do we communicate our mission & goals to our various constituencies (prospective students, current students, the campus and local community, the community at large including alumni, and the general public)?
2. By what process does Alfred University evaluate, revise, and approve, our mission & goals? a. What is the process for evaluating, revising and approving the mission & goals? b. Is the process a collaborative and inclusive one that promotes a sense of understanding and ownership within the campus community?
3. How effectively do our mission and goals guide institutional decision-making? a. In what ways do AU's mission and goals guide decision-making across our operations including our strategic planning process, resource allocation, recruitment, retention and fundraising efforts? b. To what degree are connections between mission and decision-making explained and communicated to the various constituencies to facilitate a sense ofownership in these decisions?
4. To what degree are mission statements ofthe various colleges, divisions, and programs at AU congruent with the overall AU mission and how are those mission statements created by the various colleges, divisions, and programs?
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
1. What processes are in place to periodically evaluate and improve the total range ofAU's programs and services; achievement ofinstitutional mission, goals, and plans; and compliance with accreditation standards? a. How are these assessment processes organized, documented, supported, and sustained? b. How is this information compiled, reviewed, analyzed, and shared with / made available to stakeholders? c. What elements ofour mission, goals and plans are addressed and evaluated by current assessment mechanisms and where are the gaps?
2. To what extent is assessment data shared, accessed, discussed, analyzed and used by relevant constituents across the AU community for the purpose of ongoing institutional improvement? To what extent is the assessment data comprehensive, practical, and detailed enough to facilitate these activities?
3. By what process is assessment data reviewed and utilized by the University's leadership in institution-wide decision-making? 12
a. What connections are being made between AU's mission, assessment activities, assessment outcomes, goal-setting, budget allocations, strategic planning, and plans for renewal? b. How and when are assessment processes themselves periodically evaluated?
Working Group 2: Institutional Resources and Integrity
Standard 2: Planning. Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals, develops objectives to achieve them, and utilizes the results ofits assessment activities for institutional renewal. Implementation and subsequent evaluation ofthe success ofthe strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality.
Standard 3: Institutional Resources The human, financial, technical, facilities, and other resources necessary to achieve an institution's mission and goals are available and accessible. In the context ofthe institution's mission, the effective and efficient uses ofthe institution's resources are analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment.
Standard 6: Integrity In the conduct ofits programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing supportfor academic and intellectual freedom.
Working Group 2 is charged with reviewing the effectiveness ofthe University's efforts to align strategic planning and resource allocation (physical facilities, finances, technology and personnel) with the University's mission. Included in this examination will be how new initiatives are assessed within the framework ofresource allocation and the mission.
Given that resource allocation is so closely interconnected with the overall institutional resources, Working Group 2 will also undergo a study ofthe way the University utilizes its resources in order to achieve its mission and guide the development of strategic planning.
While integrity is an expected function ofthe use ofresources, it also is integral to the support ofethical standards and campus values. The University has a long history of advocating for social justice and egalitarianism, setting precedents for acceptance ofa wide range of principles while holding itself to high moral standards. Working Group 2 is additionally charged with demonstrating how the University adheres to those ethical standards, upholds its own stated policies, allows for a fair process when questioned, and creates a campus culture that continues to support the historic values ofthe institution. 13
Research Questions
Standard 2: Planning, Resource and Institutional Renewal
1. How well do institutional and unit-level goals and assessments used in strategic planning and the allocation ofresources meet the mission of Alfred University "to provide academically challenging programs in a student-centered environment"?
2. How has assessment informed institutional strategic planning, including how the plan is shared and discussed with key people and assessed to inform the next planning cycle?
3. How has the mission statement informed planning and resource allocation to produce strategies to improve teaching and research?
4. How does institutional resource allocation, financial planning and budgeting relate to the plans, goals, and objectives of division and departments and to the overall University mission, goals, and objectives?
5. How are changing technologies incorporated into the department, division and University's plans to assist our students in their pursuit oftechnical expertise, artistic creativity and humanistic learning?
Standard 3: Institutional Resources
1. How is the mission statement used in determining resource allocation (i.e., technology plan, facilities master plan, financial plan, developmental plan)? Are they inter-related? What does assessment of these plans tell us? What improvements have been accomplished in the allocation ofresources through the development and implementation of these plans?
2. How is the planning process for facilities improvement linked to program development and student retention/engagement/success?
3. What strategies are in place to measure and to assess the level of and efficient utilization of, institutional resources required to support the intuition's mission and goals?
4. How does the mission statement guide the prioritizing, planning, funding and assessing of new initiatives?
Standard 6: Integrity
1. What university-wide policies exist related to academic integrity, plagiarism, judicial procedures, and ethical conduct? What evidence exists that demonstrates that these policies are applied fairly and consistently? Are they consistent with federal policies, for example, the three click rule? 14
2. How successful has the university been in establishing a climate of civility and appreciation for diversity? How have these values been assessed? What changes have emerged as a result ofthis assessment? How have these changes been communicated across campus?
3. How does the university address and respond to faculty, staff, administrative, or student issues related to grievances, misconduct or fairness? How successfully are the policies and procedures communicated, assessed, and revised as necessary?
Working Group 3: University Leadership, Governance and Administration
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance The institution's system ofgovernance clearly defines the roles ofinstitutional constituencies in policy development and decision-making. The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the mission ofthe institution.
Standard 5: Administration The institution's administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution's organization and governance.
Working Group 3 is charged with conducting an overall examination of the University's leadership, governance and administration. They will study the interaction and communication between various governance structures as well as investigate the overall effectiveness ofthe University's leadership.
Through their review ofthe administrative structure, Working Group 3 will examine the assessment of the administrative operations for efficacy and articulation ofroles and responsibilities.
Research Questions
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
1. Do the various councils, cabinets, boards, and senates interact, communicate, and participate in shared governance?
2. Does the Alfred University's system of governance afford appropriate sharing of responsibilities with "checks and balances" and appropriate representation and attention of all relevant constituencies?
3. How does the institution's current structure of shared governance reflect constituents (i.e. faculty, students, and staff) and community interest? To what extent are the various constituencies involved in university governance represented and do they understand their specific responsibilities? 15
4. What periodic assessment process is in place to evaluate the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance?
5. How does the Board ofTrustees review its roles and assess its effectiveness?
6. Are the established processes of shared governance followed in arriving at university policies and other decisions?
Standard 5: Administration
1. Are the roles and responsibilities ofthe administrative offices articulated? How well has that information been disseminated across the campus community?
2. Are there processes for reviewing and improving administrative operations? How effective are these processes?
3. Do the various campus constituents understand the roles and functions of the administrative offices, and are the offices appropriately and effectively used?
4. What are the staffing and operational budgets for each department? Are the staffing and budgets adequate?
5. To what extent do clear lines of organizational authority and responsibility exist to foster an appropriate degree ofaccountability and efficacy in administrative offices?
Working Group 4: Student Admissions, Retention and Support Services
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit ofthe students' educational goals.
Standard 9: Student Support Services The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution's goals for students.
Enrollment management, retention, and student support services are essential to the success of any university. Working Group 4 is charged with examining the recruitment process and the services provided to students to demonstrate the extent to which the University's current practices are successful in retaining and contributing to the overall achievement of students. The exploration will include the degree to which the University is successful in providing quality and necessary services that support academic excellence and individual attention. 16
Research Questions
Standard 8 and Standard 9: Student Admissions, Retention and Support Services
1. To what extent do support services effectively contribute to students' academic progress and retention? What services exist for non-traditional and marginalized student populations (Commuters, veterans, GLBTQ, ethnic minority, etc.)?
2. To what extent do academic, co-curricular, and admissions offices mutually inform recruitment and retention goals and practices?
3. Are the expectations built into admissions and recruitment practices in alignment with Alfred's learning environment?
4. How does the University use enrollment trends to refine recruitment practices and respond to increasing competition in Western New York?
Working Group 5: Faculty
Standard 10: Faculty The institution's instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals.
Working Group 5 is charged with an overall examination ofthe faculty including an assessment ofthe alignment ofthe faculty's qualifications and responsibilities with educational trends and the support ofthe University mission. Also addressed will be the faculty role in curriculum development and the support they receive in order to excel in their teaching duties.
Research Questions
Standard 10: Faculty
1. How do the faculty qualifications, roles, and responsibilities support the University's student-centered mission and help prepare students to engage emerging trends in technology, society, culture, and intellectual life?
2. How are the faculty and other education professionals involved in the conceptualization, development, implementation and revision of curricula required to achieve technical expertise, artistic creativity and humanistic learning as referenced in the mission ofthe University?
3. In what ways does the University achieve and evaluate a high level ofacademic excellence in faculty teaching and research? 17
Working Group 6: Overall University Educational Offerings and Curricula
Standard 11: Educational Offerings The institution's educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherence appropriate to its higher education mission. The institution identifies student learning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills, for its educational offerings.
Standard 12: General Education The institution's curricula are designed so that students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency.
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities The institution's programs or activities that are characterized by particular content, focus, location, mode ofdelivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards.
Working Group 6 is charged with taking a broad review ofthe educational offerings and activities offered by the University and showing how learning goals and objectives from all levels (college/school, department/division, course) support the overall University mission. Included in this assessment is the examination ofthe University's approach to General Education and how requirements and desired skills are developed. Working Group 6 will also study the co curricular activities offered by the University and how they articulate learning goals, support student needs, and align with the overall University mission.
Research Questions
Standard 11 : Educational Offerings
1. Has Alfred University clearly articulated learning goals and objectives that are consistent with its mission and values? Is the mission ofeach unit consistent with the mission ofthe University while also clearly articulating the unique goals and objectives for the individual unit?
2. Does Alfred University's total range of curricula, educational activities and services adequately foster the achievement of its institutional goals? How well do programs and departments articulate expected learning outcomes for specific courses and for their programs of study? How do programs and departments ensure that the learning outcomes for their programs are adequately covered by the courses in the curriculum? Are there institutional mechanisms in place to ensure that course-level learning outcomes are consistent with goals articulated at the college and university level?
3. How does the University determine the content, rigor, and coherence of its educational offerings, and what evidence is there that AU attends to each of these elements to ensure high-quality educational offerings? How does the University make decisions about expanding or cutting programs, curricula, or educational activities and services? How do 18
academic programs make decisions about changing curricular offerings in response to assessment data on student learning or changing resources (such as reductions or increases in faculty or funding)?
4. How are the expected learning goals and objectives - at the University, College, program, and course levels-communicated to students, both current and prospective?
Standard 12: General Education
1. Do the undergraduate ( and relevant graduate) curricula include requirements that assure that students, upon degree completion, meet acceptable levels of competency in fundamental "General Education" skills (including oral and written communication, critical thinking, quantitative and scientific reasoning, information literacy, and technological competency)? Are these essential skills developed within a purposeful, coherent general education program or as part ofcourses within the major, and are these learning goals and objectives clearly articulated in the syllabi ofthe relevant courses?
2. What are the distinctive features of the General Education curricula at Alfred University? How are the General Education programs presented to and/or viewed by students? What evidence is used to determine the value of the General Education programs to the students' Alfred University education as a whole?
3. How are courses approved for General Education credit? What role does the faculty play in determining the General Education curriculum in their program?
4. Do the undergraduate (and relevant graduate) curricula adequately expose students to the study ofvalues, ethics, and diverse perspectives, as consistent with the University's mission? How does the University determine that graduates have grown intellectually, have expanded their global awareness and sensitivity, and are prepared to make enlightened judgments?
5. How do we know that each undergraduate ( and relevant graduate) program provides adequate opportunities for students to achieve the general education outcomes?
6. Should Alfred University adopt an undergraduate General Education curriculum that is common across all degree programs? What benefits would be realized by a common General Education program? What barriers would need to be removed to make a common General Education curriculum feasible?
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities
1. What procedures are in place to identify admitted students who are not fully prepared for college-level study? What procedures are in place to provide these under-prepared students with appropriate courses and support services? What courses or support services are already in place, and based upon assessment of student learning, are they effective? Has there been an increase in the number of students coming to AU with documented learning 19
disabilities or psychological/emotional disorders? If so, how has this demographic change affected the ability ofthe academic support programs to meet the students' needs?
2. Do the co-curricular educational activities ( offered through Special Academic Services, the Opportunities Program, Study Abroad, Student Affairs, Residence Life, the Center for Student Involvement, Career Development Center, the Athletics program, etc.) foster the achievement of Alfred University's institutional goals? Do these activities clearly articulate their learning goals and objectives? Are these goals and objectives systematically integrated with those ofthe academic programs?
3. How are decisions made to support and promote proposed and ongoing co-curricular educational programs and initiatives (such as Drawn to Diversity, Service Learning, and the Leadership Academy)? Do these decisions depend on how well the proposed programs fit the University's mission, and learning goals? How is student learning assessment data used in this decision-making process?
4. Do internship, practicum, study-abroad, and service learning activities have clearly articulated learning goals and objectives that foster the achievement ofAlfred University's institutional goals? . What institutional mechanisms are place to ensure that these activities provide appropriately rigorous, engaging educational experiences? How is student learning assessment data used in the evaluation ofthese activities?
5. Are Alfred University's off-site programs consistent with the University's mission [which says, in part, that AU is student-oriented and provides challenging programs in a caring environment]? Are the unique goals and objectives ofthese programs clearly articulated and communicated to students? What processes are in place to ensure these off-site programs meet the University's standards for quality of instruction, academic rigor, student learning, and educational effectiveness? ·
Working Group 7: Student Learning Assessment
Standard 14: Assessment ofStudent Learning Assessment ofstudent learning demonstrates that, at graduation, or other appropriate points, the institution's students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals.
Assessment of student learning should be an integrated process used to guide improvements in the curricula and to support the University's mission. Working Group 7 is charged with examining the University's support for this type of assessment and the institutional commitment that ensures it happens in a coherent and well-managed process. Focus will also be given to the interconnectedness and alignment of individual academic unit assessment plans and how well they ultimately tie in with the University mission. Working Group 7 will additionally examine how current assessment practices inform strategic planning and decision-making throughout the University. 20
Research Questions
Standard 14: Assessment ofStudent Learning
1. What is the level ofinstitutional support for assessing student learning and the universal adoption ofprinciples ofthe teaching-learning-assessment cycle?
a. What structural and administrative mechanisms for continuous improvement are in place, or should be adopted, to support comprehensive outcomes based reporting and analysis?
b. In what ways are current policies, structures, institutional research resources, and strategic funding supporting an institutional commitment to fostering a "culture ofassessment?"
2. How do individual college and program assessment plans align with institutional mission, unit goals, and shared co-curricular outcomes? In addition, how do they integrate with each other to directly to reflect the aspirations and commitments established within the university mission?
3. To what degree does assessment reporting inform and impact decisions about teaching, planning, and budgeting for programmatic and curricular transformation? Where are successful applications or impediments to completing the four-step teaching-learning assessment process that informs institutional strategic action?
VI. Organization of the self-study report
The body ofthe self-study report will be chapters created from the working group reports. Each working group report will constitute one chapter with one exception. We intend to make the report from Working Group One (Mission and Goals; Institutional Assessment) into two chapters. Findings on institutional assessment will incorporate results from the other working groups. As such, it will make an appropriate concluding chapter.
Chapter 1: Executive Summary and Eligibility Certification Statement Chapter 2: Overview ofthe Institution and Description ofthe Self-Study Process Chapter 3: Mission and Goals Chapter 4: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Institutional Resources Integrity Chapter 5: Leadership and Governance Administration Chapter 6: Student Admissions and Retention Student Support Services Chapter 7: Faculty 21
Chapter 8: Educational Offerings General Education Related Educational Activities Chapter 9: Assessment ofStudent Learning Chapter 10: Institutional Assessment
VII. Editorial Style Sheet
Appendix 1 contains the editorial style sheet.
VIII. Template for Working Group Reports
The template for working groups is included in Appendix 2.
IX. Inventory of Support Documents
The inventory ofsupport documents will be overseen and managed by Laurie McFadden, Vice Chair ofthe Self-Study Steering Committee. The initial map will be created Summer 2012. Collaborating with various campus offices, she will collect and make available pertinent documents to assist the working groups with their research and analysis as well as those necessary to show evidence for the final self-study.
The documents will be electronically housed on a University-owned server and access made available through hyperlinks both within the self-study report as well as in a collated Excel spreadsheet which identifies each document with the appropriate fundamental elements ofeach standard. While the majority of documents will be open to all members ofthe University community, access will vary depending on the sensitivity ofthe material and may be restricted to only members ofa certain working group and the visiting team.
A draft ofthe Inventory of Support Documents is attached as Appendix 3.
IX. Alfred University Self-Study Timetable
Fall 2011
November 9-10, 2011 Chair and Vice Chair of Self-Study Steering Committee attend Self-Study Institute.
AU Self-Study Steering Committee established.
December 2011 Steering Committee has initial meeting. 22
Spring 20 I 2 January 23, 2012 Steering Committee begins meeting to work on Design. Working group members established.
Steering committee has regular (bi-monthly and weekly as needed) meeting to draft the Design, talk about procedures and timetable.
Steering committee members attend meetings to give an initial overview and kick-off for the self-study. These groups include the Cabinet, Faculty Senate, Student Senate, Administrative/Technical Specialist Council, Support Staff Council.
March 16, 2012 Sean McKitrick, MSCHE Vice-President and our liaison, comes to AU and meets with representatives from campus constituencies.
Working groups meet to discuss research questions for the Design.
April 6, 2012 Second draft ofDesign submitted to Sean McKitrick.
May 14, 2012 Final Design submitted to MSCHE.
Summer 2012 Chair, Vice Chair, and Provost continue preparatory work for the self-study, including construction ofa document map.
Ongoing communication with Steering Committee and working group members.
Fall2012 August 20-24, 2012 Initial meeting for the Steering Committee.
Chairs of Working Groups will set up a schedule ofregular meetings for each working group.
The Steering Committee will continue to meet regularly to discuss process, coordinate research efforts, and review interim reports.
Working Groups reach out to university community to assist in answering research questions. 23
Continued communication with all university constituencies about process and progress.
September 2012 First report due from Working Groups. How are you going to proceed? To what sources ofevidence will you appeal?
November 2012 Second report from Working Groups due.
Winter 2012 MSCHE selects evaluation team Chair; AU President approves Chair selection.
University and evaluation team Chair choose dates for preliminary visit and evaluation team visit.
University sends Self-Study Design to evaluation team Chair.
Spring 2013 Continued communication and involvement ofuniversity constituents.
February 2013 Working groups reports due to Steering Committee.
March 2013 Working groups submit draft reports to Steering Committee.
May 21, 2013 Working Groups submit final reports to Self-Study Committee Chair.
Summer 2013 Working group reports edited into chapters for the Self-Study document.
Fall 2013 Early September 2013 Steering Committee reviews and responds to draft.
Draft document made available to entire university community. Responses solicited through e-mails, announcements in Alfred Today, visits to meetings.
October 2013 Draft document sent to evaluation team chair.
October/N"ovember 2013 Evaluation team Chair makes preliminary visit to AU
December 2013/January Final edits made to the self-study document. 2014 24
Spring 201--t February 2014 Final self-study report sent to MSCHE and evaluation team members.
April2014 Evaluation team visits Alfred University.
Evaluation team issues report.
Alfred University responds to evaluation team report.
MSCHE issues statement ofaction on accreditation.
X. Profile of the Visiting Evaluation Team
We would like to highlight some ofthe features of Alfred University that contribute to its distinctiveness. In recruiting members for the evaluation team, it would be helpful to have some members who are familiar with each ofthese structures.
• Our educational offerings include liberal arts and sciences programs and professional programs. The university confers both undergraduate and graduate degrees. We are a comprehensive university that has multiple schools and levels of degrees that are awarded to a student population of fewer than 2,200.
• We have doctoral programs that are highly specialized and dependent upon expensive facilities and equipment.
• The campus exists in a rural location that has begun to develop off site graduate programs in urban New York State locations. The university has initiated developing a global presence by partnering with educational institutions in Turkey and China. 25
APPENDIXl
Alfred University Self-Study Editorial and Format Guidelines
All draft and final reports must be written and saved in Microsoft Office Word 2010 (.docx) and submitted electronically (as e-mail attachments or on a CD or portal drive) to the Chair of the Steering Committee (Beth Ann Dobie, [email protected]). All files should be clearly labeled (e.g., University and Campus Mission Draft 1). Backup copies of all documents should be retained by the Chair and prime authors.
To ensure consistency among reports, please use these guidelines and contact the Chair if you have any questions related to formatting or style not answered in these guidelines.
General Style
• Use commas between all elements in a series: administrators, faculty, and staff. • A number less than 20 can be written as a word, e.g. "six" but larger numbers can be simply written as numbers. Very large numbers can be written as a combination of numbers and words for the sake ofgreater clarity, e.g. "34 million dollars." • Dates should be in standard American style: January 16, 2011; a comma should follow the year ifthe sentence continues. References to months and years should not have a comma: January 2011. • A void contractions and the overuse of commas. • For dashes, type two hyphens with no space after the previous word or before the succeeding word. After you type the next word following the dash, press the space bar and Word inserts the appropriate mark. • Material omitted from quotations should be indicated by spaced periods(... ellipses): three ifin the middle of a sentence; four ifbetween sentences in the original. Changes to the grammar ofthe original are indicated by square brackets [ ] . • Do not change standard tab settings. • Use the block indent function for long quotations; do not use the tab for each line. [Helpful hint: type the paragraph at the margin; block the paragraph and pull the left indent icon to the first tab stop.] • Do not insert hard carriage returns within paragraphs. • Do not use hyphenation, right justification, or orphan-widow page functions. • Do not use headers or footers except for inserting page numbers. • Write in a first-person, present tense with an active voice; Reports should be written in clear, succinct, jargon-free English prose. • All text and graphics should be readable in black and white • Support documents must be fully cited (title, date, and author) once in each document 26
Formatting
Tables: Microsoft Excel 2010
Font: Times New Roman 12 point
Spacing: Single space all body text. Insert one line between paragraphs and two lines before new subheadings. Indent one tab for beginnings of paragraphs. Use the tab key rather than the space bar for indenting first lines ofparagraphs.
Margins: Normal l" all sides
Alignment: Align left, no justify
Lists: Bulleted lists are acceptable, use the round bullet format
Headings: Align left, do not center, follow guidelines below
Style Guide: Chicago Manual of Style
Acronyms: Acronyms must be spelled out the first time they are used with the abbreviation in parentheses (abbreviation alone can be used in future mentions)
Length: Working group reports need to be thorough yet concise. Each report will be limited to no more than 15 pages.
Page Numbers: Page numbering should appear in the upper right corner ofthe page using Arabic numbers without embellishments or punctuation ( dashes, initials, page#, etc.). All pages should be numbered, including the first page.
Headers: Do not use headers or footers except for inserting page numbers. Capitalizations
• Capitalize first letters of all important words in unit names, e.g., Financial Aid Office, Office of the Provost. Capitalize "University" when referring to Alfred University. • Disciplines are lower case, e.g., accounting, history, and political science (except proper nouns like English); however, departments should be capitalized: Human Studies department. • Semesters should be lower case, e.g., fall 2004, spring 2005, summer session, General references to "colleges" within the University should be lower case [e.g., "All the colleges ofthe University engage in assessment"; but references to specific colleges should be capitalized: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.] 27
Nomenclature
a) self-study (should be hyphenated) b) AU Self-Study Steering Committee c) AU Self-Study Committee d) Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) e) New York State College of Ceramics (NYSCC) t) School ofArt and Design (SoAD) g) Inamori School ofEngineering h) College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) i) College of Business j) College ofProfessional Studies (CPS) k) Career Development Center (CDC) 1) Powell Campus Center (PCC)
Abbreviations
• Time Designations: a.m. and p.m. • Latin abbreviations: i.e., e.g., v. or vs., etc. • Reference notations: p. 3, pp. 12-26, fig. 4, 3rd ed.; • All numbers should be Arabic; e.g., Volume 1, Table 4, and Chapter 17.
References: Internal References and Appendices
Cross-References: There are two ways to reference material in another section ofthe Middle States study report: the first, an explicit reference within the text of a section; and second, a footnote. You can explicitly direct the reader's attention to another section ofthe report by indicating the section name and providing, either explicitly in the sentence or in a parenthetical citation, an appropriate page number. Here is an example: "For additional treatment ofthis issue, see section IV: Financial Resources, page 46," or "Additional information can be found in Appendix A, page 122." This has the advantage ofbeing clear and concise, without having to direct the reader to a footnote.
Ifyou choose to use a footnote, simply place the footnote reference after the relevant material, then be explicit in the actual footnote. For instance, you can reference a footnote after one piece ofinformation, and then write the note as you would ifyou were including it in the body ofthe text. This has the advantage ofnot cluttering a section oftext with other references.
Appendices: Ifa working group creates the content for an appendix, the formatting and style follow the same rules as other sections ofthe report. Ifthe appendix material was created by a campus office and attached as written, there's no need to change the formatting or style. Working group appendices should be ordered with a combination number and letter that reflects the working group number and the alphabetical order ofthe group's appendices (e.g. Appendix 2A would be Working Group #2's first appendix and Appendix 2B would be the second one). 28
Heading Styles
MAIN CHAPTER HEADINGS
Chapter headings should be placed at the left margin with full title capitalized in 16-point bold face (no italic or underlining). Text begins on the second line below the heading.
Major Headings
Major headings within chapters should begin flush with the left margin and should be 16-point bold face and "title case" (the first letter ofeach main word in the title capitalized). Text begins on the second line below the heading.
Primary Subheadings
Primary subheadings should be flush with the default margin, 14-point boldface and italics in "title case" (first letter of each main word capitalized). Text begins on the second line below the heading.
Secondary Subheadings
Secondary subheadings should be flush with the margin, 12-point bold face in "title case" (first letter ofthe first word in the heading capitalized).
Tertiary Subheadings
Tertiary subheadings (if any) should be 12-point normal italics (no bold), flush with margin. 29
APPENDIX2
Template for Working Group Reports
Working Group Title:
Standard(s) ______
Working Group Members:
Text of the Standard(s):
Charge to the Working Group:
Research Questions: I. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Methods: (Identify the evidence collected, how it was analyzed and potential limits on its interpretation)
Findings: a. Discuss/summarize the results ofthe questions, be sure to include the strengths and challenges ofthe institution and any pertinent charts, tables or graphs b. Relate the findings to the other working groups ( as relevant) c. Provide evidence for the other elements (not covered by research questions) related to the standard(s)
Recommendations for Improvement: 30
APPENDIX3
Inventory of Primary Support Documents
Middle States Standards of Accreditation 1 Mission, Goals, and Objectives 6 Integrity 10 Faculty 2 Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional 7 Institutional 11 Educational Offerings Renewal Assessment 12 General Education 3 Institutional Resources 8 Student Admissions 13 Related Educational 4 Leadership and Governance 9 Student Support Activities 5 Administration Services 14 Assessment of Student Leaming
Documents for Review, andAccreditation Standard Relevance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ·. .··• GENERAL.DOCUMENTS .. ·.•··.·...... ·.. ··.. · .·· •··\ • Alfred University Mission, Vision, and Values Statement • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Mission Statements ofIndividual Academic Units • • • • • • • • • Mission Statements ofIndividual Administrative Units • • • • • Alfred University Strategic Plan • • • • • • • • • Strategic Plans ofIndividual Academic Units • • • • • • • • • Strategic Plans ofIndividual Administrative Units • • • • • • • Alfred University Organizational Chart • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Alfred University Website • • • Alfred University Undergraduate Catalog • • • • • • • Alfred University Graduate Catalog • • • • • • • Campus Facilities Master Plan • • • • • AU Libraries Websites • • • • • . MIDDLE STATES ACCREDITATION REPORTS •· 2004 Self-Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2004 Evaluation Team Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2009 Periodic Review Report (PRR) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2009 PRR External Review Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2009 Response to External Review Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Most recent MSCHE Annual Institutional Profile (AIP) • • • • • • • 31
MSCHE Publications - Characteristics ofExcellence, Desi!!Ils for Excellence • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. INDIV1DUAL PROGRAMSELF-STUDY AND ACCREDITATION REPORTS College of Business: AACSB • • • • • • • • • School of Engineering: ABET • • • • • • • • • College of Professional Studies (Education): TEAC • • • • • • • • • College ofProfessional Studies (Athletic Training): CAATE • • • • • • • • • College of Professional Studies (School Psychology/Counseling): APA (PsyD Program in School Psychology) • • • • • • • • • College of Professional Studies (School Psychology/Counseling): NASP (MA/CAS Program in School Psychology) • • • • • • • • • School ofArt & Design: NASAD • • • • • • • • • .. HANDBOOKS, P<>LICIES, PROCEDURES, AND/OR GUIDES . .. .· .. ·•. Faculty Handbook • • • • Policies ofthe Board of Trustees • • Student Handbook • Admission Requirements • Tuition Remission Policy • • Human Resources Policies • • • Academic Policies • • • Conflict of Interest Statement • Affirmative Action Plan • Campus Emergency Response Plan • Intellectual Property Policy • .···• SURVEYS, STATISTICAL DATA AND BENCHMARKS .. Student Opinion Survey • • • • • • • • • • • Executive Summary of the NSSE Results • • • • • • • • • • CIRP Survey • REDS • Employee Evaluations • Alumni Survey • • • • • 32
IPEDS Benchmarking Data •
··UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE ·. . ·.• Board of Trustee Committee List • • Alfred University Charter and By-Laws • • • • By-Laws of Individual Academic Units • • • State Education Law Regarding SUNY and the College of Ceramics • • • Faculty Senate Constitution and By-Laws • • • Administrative and Technical Specialists Council Constitution and By-Laws • • • Support Staff Council Constitution and By-Laws • • • Student Senate Constitution and By-Laws • • • ...... ·. .. ·.·· '. .· ..·· .. • RE.PORTS t { : •·· .t . ·. • •••• •···· ...... • ... \ Annual Security Report • • Student Affairs Annual Reports • Campus Safety Report • College ofLiberal Arts General Education Report • • • • • • Career Development Center Outcomes Report • • • • ...... ii ·. ·•· ·.•·· ASSESSMENT J>OCUMENT.ATJON ·. ·. . Alfred University Assessment Data Bank • • • ·. ·.· .. .. I FINANCIALST,ATEMENTSAND DATA . ·. • .· ... IPEDS Finance Reports • Audited Financial Statements • •