(7 resources)

Why Accreditation Matters to the University
Sullivan, Teresa - University of Michigan
2009-05-07 09:02:27-04:00
Ann Arbor, MI - University of Michigan - Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons
Duration: 00:05:34

Remarks on accreditation, the upcoming review, the committee and the working groups.
The Accreditation Process, Criterion One: Mission and Integrity and Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future
van der Pluijm, Ben - University of Michigan
2009-05-07 09:08:12-04:00
Ann Arbor, MI - University of Michigan - Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons
Duration: 00:27:30

Overview of the accreditation process
Criterion 1 - Mission and Integrity
Criterion 2 - Preparing for the Future
Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching
Dey, Eric - University of Michigan
2009-05-07 09:41:23-04:00
Ann Arbor, MI - University of Michigan - Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons
Duration: 00:14:53

View Flash version of this presentation (requires the free Flash Player plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)
View RealPlayer version of this presentation (requires the free RealPlayer plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)

Chair: Eric Dey, Associate Professor in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, School of Education.

Charge: Assessing how and why our educational programs contribute to the learning and development of our students is an important concern across the schools, colleges and programs that comprise the University of Michigan; it is vital that we expand on our collective understanding of the wide range of relevant activities.

The Accreditation Working Group on the Student Learning Environment worked to develop a comprehensive understanding of the current conditions of and opportunities for developing effective programs of educational assessment at the UM. The goal of the group is not simply to identify and showcase the best and most promising assessment practices on campus, but also to uncover the current range of ongoing activities, and to uncover both barriers and enabling mechanisms. Drawing upon faculty from various academic programs the working group seeks to identify and learn from a broad range of expertise embedded within the University community. The effort is made more complex by the distributed nature of the University and by assessment efforts that span the range of our enterprise. Such efforts include the work of individual educators, efforts aligned with academic majors and programs, and efforts in the Schools and Colleges. As such, the working group will connect to faculty colleagues who are currently engaging in (or interested in developing) assessment work, but also to individuals working in critical educational support roles throughout the University, including student affairs personnel, learning support staff, assessment and technical experts.

Membership: James Cogswell, Professor of Art; Brian Coppola, Professor, Chemistry, LSA; Deborah Goldberg, Professor Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, LSA; Pat Gurin, Professor Emerita, Psychology and Women's Studies, LSA and DSA; Rajesh Mangrulkar, Associate Professor, Internal Medicine; Perry Samson, Professor Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, Engineering; Rich Tolman, Professor, Social Work

In addition to the experiences and expertise of the working group membership, our work was enriched by sessions with UM experts from the Office of Budget and Planning, the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, and the Division of Student Affairs. We also benefited from discussions with colleagues at an earlier Provost’s Forum (on the Student Learning Environment) and the Provost’s Leadership Roundtable for Chairs and Associate Deans, as well as sessions with University donors and alumni more generally. We focused on both the formal and informal educational environments across the University of Michigan, and the qualities we expect our students to possess – and demonstrate – when they complete their studies.

Looking forward. Our work suggests that there is a good deal and variety of current activity in the area of educational assessment, but that these efforts are often isolated, uncoordinated, and typically disconnected from other centralized administrative and evaluation processes at the University. In order to focus and scale up these efforts it would be useful to enhance our capacity to create connections, coordinate resources, and also seed the development of additional processes. There are issues of supporting infrastructure resources – both in terms of coordinating access to data and also the availability of professional assessment expertise – that are not systematically funded or coordinated by the University. Establishment of an institutional research or faculty-led academic assessment resource center could address this concern. Existing University processes that could be adapted to also support the University’s educational and assessment efforts should be reviewed. Electronic student evaluations, academic program review, and faculty promotion processes could all be adapted in ways that provide opportunities to systematically generate – and utilize – assessment results to a much greater degree than currently exists.

To what end? In order to focus our educational and assessment efforts it is important to have a common set of educational goals or competencies against which progress can be measured and acquisition assured. A number of academic units on campus – particularly the professional schools – have developed outcome statements that can be used by both faculty and students to guide the development and selection of educational experiences. Building out from principles suggested by national associations and similarly situated institutions, the working group has developed a statement of such goals that should ultimately prove useful in developing educational programs, identifying assessment approaches, and creating common language and expectations for the University of Michigan community.
Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge
Howard, June - University of Michigan
2009-05-07 10:06:07-04:00
Ann Arbor, MI - University of Michigan - Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons
Duration: 00:21:53

View Flash version of this presentation (requires the free Flash Player plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)
View RealPlayer version of this presentation (requires the free RealPlayer plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)

Chair: June Howard, Professor of English, American Culture and Women’s Studies, LS&A.

Charge: The University promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students through inquiry, creativity, practice and social responsibility. The working group on the knowledge environment will explore the distinctive role of research, professional and creative practices at the University. These activities are intertwined, in many ways and at every level, with our educational work. Knowledge production is not only responsive to changing social needs, but is also itself an engine of change. The working group will examine how understandings of our research mission are consistent or varied across the campus; what is distinctive or even unique about the knowledge environment at the University of Michigan; how research and creative practices are integrated in graduate, professional, and undergraduate education. It will work to identify key emerging trends and opportunities.

Membership: Mark Burns, Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Chemical Engineering; Juan Cole, Professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian History, LSA; Jane Dutton, Professor of Business Administration and Psychology, LSA and Business; Scott Page, Professor of Political Science and Economics, LSA and Business; Marianetta Porter, Professor of Art, Art & Design; James Shayman, Professor of Internal Medicine; John Wilkin, Associate University Librarian

Key Shared Premises
• Research and creativity form the dynamic core of the University; knowledge work is not just one of our many activities but shapes (almost) everything we do.
• An extraordinary quantity and quality of research is done here.
• The U-M has long been, is, and will continue to be an intellectually exciting, generative place for a diverse faculty.
• Interdisciplinarity continues to be a key distinctive feature of the U-M’s knowledge environment.
• Higher education is in the midst of great changes that call on us to protect and continue to nourish our important strengths.

Examples of Findings
• How the “research mission” is enacted varies widely across schools, colleges and units. In both research and creative practices, multiple models of “knowledge” exist across the U-M, with a strong, shared commitment to rigorous inquiry and openness.
• Respectful, serious dialogue across our differences strengthens us individually and collectively. Time for purposeful reflection is scarce, but it is an essential activity.
• The U-M brings in increasing amounts of external funding and also commits significant internal funds for research. Some tension exists between external and internal priorities. • Research and undergraduate education are more integrated than many members of the University community may realize. • University instructors transmit knowledge and, just as crucially, create an environment that encourages and enables inquiry. We need to interrogate our models of knowledge in the radically new environment of the twenty-first century. Both the preservation of information and rigor are touchstones, as are inquisitiveness and experimentation.
• The U-M’s knowledge-creation community is multigenerational and multi-role, involving faculty, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, professional students, undergraduate students, and staff.
• Both the technology and the economy of our system of publication are undergoing fundamental transformation, and its effectiveness is compromised.
• The University staff enables faculty and student achievement, maintains institutional memory, and contributes to our knowledge work in important ways.
• The University provides practical knowledge and resources to Michigan and the region, the nation and the world--and engages in dialogue on all those scales. The U-M is also committed to basic inquiry, to pursuing knowledge for its own sake, to maintaining high academic standards—which implies an intense internal dialogue. We need to do both.
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service
Dewar, Margaret - University of Michigan
2009-05-07 10:42:25-04:00
Ann Arbor, MI - University of Michigan - Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons
Duration: 00:26:55

View Flash version of this presentation (requires the free Flash Player plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)
View RealPlayer version of this presentation (requires the free RealPlayer plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)

Chair: Margaret Dewar, Professor of Urban & Regional Planning, Architecture & Urban Planning.

Charge: The University cares deeply how its work intersects with the lives of individuals and organizations on and off campus, through local, state, national and international interactions and endeavors. The societal value of our activities is deep and we interact with a great number of individuals and groups. After defining our constituents and their needs, a dialogue about the services of the university is needed to map effective engagement and outreach activities. The working group on the University’s engagement and service activities will explore the role of engagement and service activities in our educational, research, professional, and creative endeavors, and how they benefit and serve the needs of our constituents and their communities.

Membership: Julie Ellison, American Culture, English and Art and Design, LSA and A&D; Tony England, Engineering; Tom Kinnear, Business; Lorraine Gutierrez, Social Work and Psychology, LSA; Barbara Israel, Public Health; Richard Redman, Nursing; Alford Young, Sociology, LSA.

The accreditation working group on engagement and service aimed to define what these terms mean for the University of Michigan; to assess what helps and hinders engagement and service at the University both from inside the University and from outside; to learn about the administrative perspectives on engagement and service across schools and colleges; and to develop recommendations for ways to enhance engagement and service.

Definition. Engagement and service are activities, often in partnerships, that meet certain criteria. These activities do not include many interactions with those outside the University and do not include all the ways the University’s actions help those outside the University. The criteria:
• Connection with a non-university entity. Engagement and service involve the interaction of University students, faculty, and staff with people and organizations outside the University.
• Mutual benefit. The faculty, staff, or students and the community partners gain from the engagement. Both learn from each other, build capacity, and/or advance their agendas.
• Proximate outcomes. The benefits from engagement and service derive from direct interactions among University students, faculty, and staff and people outside the University and occur in a somewhat short term period.
• Intentionality. Engagement and service involve the intention to produce mutual benefits. These benefits are not secondary or accidental.
The motivation for engagement and service can come from the desire to attract students (although direct student recruiting does not fit the definition of engagement), to enrich teaching, to advance research, to improve social justice, to stimulate economic activity, to enhance democracy, or to achieve a range of other possible goals.

Recommendations. The working group’s recommendations fall into two major, related groups. One is building faculty, staff, and student capacity for engagement and service. The other is strengthening the institutional environment for this kind of activity. The inspiration and energy for this work comes from thousands of faculty, staff, students, and their community partners. At the same time, administrators can help make this work more productive and successful through certain changes. A sampling of recommendations:
• Faculty and students need more understanding about how to undertake engagement and service that is mutually beneficial. The University needs more widespread support systems that will enable faculty to realize what they do not know and to find the resources that help them learn.
• The University needs to gather more data about what engagement is occurring. Such data will enable progress in learning about and explaining the impact of engagement and service on students’ learning and development, faculty research and teaching, and community goals. This knowledge is the basis for strengthening the work.
• The deans should engage in discussions of engagement and service in a format that enables them to learn from each other about the possible dimensions of engagement and service and models of excellence. Deans should be evaluated for their leadership in engagement and service.
Special-Emphasis Study: Internationalization (Part I)
Tessler, Mark - University of Michigan
2009-05-07 11:10:12-04:00
Ann Arbor, MI - University of Michigan - Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons
Duration: 00:16:44

View Flash version of this presentation (requires the free Flash Player plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)
View RealPlayer version of this presentation (requires the free RealPlayer plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)

Chair: Mark Tessler, Professor of Political Science, LS&A and ISR.

Charge: An increasingly interconnected world demands that our students be aware of and appreciate its social and cultural diversity. Developing students’ global awareness calls for campus discussion and, perhaps, enrichment and refinement of the teaching and research goals of the University of Michigan. Operating in today’s global environment requires ever greater attention to developing the knowledge and skills both of faculty and of students in our undergraduate, graduate and professional programs. The accreditation working group on the academic dimensions of internationalization will explore the academic needs and goals born of a broadened international perspective, and will work toward strengthening our students’ international exposure and experience. Understanding of global perspectives can be achieved, for example, through curricular innovations and education abroad experiences, each of which poses both opportunities and challenges. The working group will explore these opportunities and challenges, suggesting possibilities for action where appropriate, with a view toward sustaining, expanding and bringing increased distinction of the international dimension of the University’s mission.

Membership: Kathleen Canning, History, LSA; Alan Deardorff, Public Policy, LSA and Ford School; Mary Gallagher, Political Science, LSA; Daniel Herwitz, Philosophy and Art and Design; James Holloway, Engineering; Peggy McCracken, Romance Languages, LSA; Rachel Snow, Public Health

Report Components
Our increasingly interconnected world demands ever greater attention to developing the sensitivity, knowledge and skills that are necessary to operate in today’s global environment.
• Principles, broad goals, priorities.
• Specific recommendations
• Questions for reflection

Topics and Examples of Recommendations Curriculum Enrichment
• Whenever possible, disciplinary concentrations should identify or develop one or more coherent sets of courses with an international focus that students can take to fulfill the requirements of the concentration. Education Abroad
• Develop and expand short-term education abroad opportunities for freshmen and sophomores to increase their interest in a fuller overseas study experience.
International Partnerships
• Expand and promote diversity in international partnerships with respect to location, types of partnering institutions, types of collaborative programs and activities, and innovation in the use of new technologies. Expanded Language Learning
• Students should have varied and multiple opportunities to use a foreign language in their coursework and research, including through a language-across-the-curriculum program. International Visitors, Students, and Faculty
• Increase interaction with international visitors through classroom appearances and public lectures and performances. Development
• Activities and programs that enhance the university’s international mission should be given a central place in the university’s development activities.
Space and Facilities
• Establish a central facility that gives appropriate visibility and prominence to the international dimension of the university’s teaching, research and service missions, and permits regular interaction among students, faculty, and visitors with international interests.
Administration and Structure
• Identify those international activities and programs that should be brought together under a central administrative structure and those that are best administered independently by different academic units.
Special-Emphasis Study: Internationalization (Part II)
Greisberger, John - University of Michigan
2009-05-07 11:10:12-04:00
Ann Arbor, MI - University of Michigan - Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons
Duration: 00:17:38

View Flash version of this presentation (requires the free Flash Player plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)
View RealPlayer version of this presentation (requires the free RealPlayer plug-in. Your screen resolution should be at least 1024x768 for optimal viewing.)

Chair: John Greisberger, Director of the International Center.

Charge: Offering expanded opportunities for our students to experience today’s interconnected world places new organizational demands on the supporting infrastructure at the University of Michigan. Whereas thousands of undergraduate and graduate students already have international educational experiences, the expectation that their numbers will significantly increase requires a campus-wide analysis of the existing support structures and especially of our future needs. The accreditation working group on the organizational dimensions of internationalization will examine the current structures in support of a wide array of international activities including study, research, internships and service abroad, international students and visiting scholars, and collaborations with other institutions. The group will also focus on the expected increase in international activities during the coming decade.

Membership: Amy Conger, International Programs in Engineering; Evans Young, Office of International Programs; Amy Kehoe, International Institute; David Baum, Law School; Joe Trumpey, International Engagement, Art and Design

Draft Vision Statement:
The University of Michigan is a premier international university noted for its aggressive leadership in building a globally engaged community. The University fosters the continual development of an internationally proficient student body, faculty and staff. The University actively provides its community with a wide range of international opportunities, regardless of field of study, level of experience or financial resources. The University robustly supports the necessary administrative infrastructure for, removes barriers for participation in, improves access to, and consolidates information about all international opportunities associated with its Schools and Colleges. Faculty and staff are rewarded and receive support to participate in existing programs, and to develop new programs and models that foster international goals both on campus and overseas. On campus, the University provides comprehensive support services and programs for international students and scholars facilitating their full participation and integration in campus life, thus promoting intercultural learning for the entire campus community.

1. Create a campus-wide interactive Web environment related to U-M global engagement.
2. Centralize safety, security and emergency procedures and related shared databases of contact information for each student and each U-M education abroad program.
3. Centralize and coordinate standard processes, procedures, policies, and support services for education abroad (study, research, internships and service learning).
4. Centralize the approval process and management of all international agreements.
5. Create a Center for Global Engagement.
6. Develop an efficient and transparent system for pre-approval of credit for education abroad.
7. Provide opportunities for all students to have an international learning experience.
8. Develop a research agenda around international education and student learning outcomes.
9. Eliminate cost barriers to education abroad.
10. Provide resources and incentives to internationalize the faculty and staff.
11. Develop new support services and learning opportunities for international visiting scholars.
12. Work toward environmentally sound and socially responsible global engagement.