Dania Bilal, Heidi Julien, Vicki Gregory, Denice

Comments

Transcription

Dania Bilal, Heidi Julien, Vicki Gregory, Denice
TELL ME! THESE THINGS I NEED TO
KNOW ABOUT THE PROGRAM
ACCREDITATION REVIEW PROCESS
Dania Bilal, Heidi Julien, Vicki Gregory, Denice Adkins, Sanda Erdelez, Kristin
Eschenfelder
Greetings and Introduction

Dania Bilal, Professor,
School of Information
Sciences, University of
Tennessee. Panel
organizer & moderator
Preparing for the accreditation review
process can be tedious and time
consuming.
In time of transition and change, this
process can be nerve-wrecking!
The panelists will share their experiences
with the process and give advice
Panelists





Heidi Julien, Chair, Department of LIS, University at Buffalo
Vicki Gregory, Professor, School of Information, University
of South Florida
Denice Adkins, Associate Professor and Chair, Library
Information Science Program, University of Missouri-Columbia
Sanda Erdelez, Professor, Past Chair, Library Information
Science Program, University of Missouri-Columbia
Kristin Eschenfelder, Professor and Director, School of
Information, University of Milwaukee-Madison
Outline
Speakers
Advice: Dos and Don’ts
Resources
Q&A
Small group discussions
Have You Ever Wished…
that your program was
not ALA-accredited?
I DID! and more than
once.
Or questioned whether all
of the work involved was
worth it?
Guiding the Accreditation Review Process
at SIS-University of Tennessee




Interim Director of my
School
Framework for program
assessment in place
(CRISP)
Faculty-staff committees in
place
Planning began two years
earlier


Changed planning
structure
Established Steering
Committee and Data
Management Task
Force
Restructure of Accreditation Planning
Assigned
charge to
Steering
Committee
and Data Task
Force
Appointed
Advisory
Board
members to
committees
Issues and Challenges

Change in ERP Chairperson; New ERP chair appointed

Had to revise presentation plan



Feedback on program presentation required digging up more
data and providing evidence of systematic planning in some
areas.
Had missing data not captured in a systematic way
Reviewed all reports, faculty meeting minutes, advisory board
reports, biennial reports, etc. (past 7 years) to find evidence
needed

Learned about administrative decisions (implicit and explicit)

Consulted resources on COA website

Collected every evidence possible

Submitted program presentation 1st draft

Revised and resubmitted final program presentation
Program Presentation is not
the end. Additional data had
to be presented before and
during the ERP visit. BE
PREPARED!
Before and During ERP Visit
Before..




Brown bag meetings with
faculty, staff, and students
Received a document from
ERP Chair with questions
Replied to questions and
submitted before ERP visit
Planned for the ERP visit
During


Had to fetch specific
documents or evidence
or point to them during
Meeting with ERP team:

knowledge about
Program…
Concluding the Accreditation Review

Attending to gaps/limitations:
New Planning and Assessment
Committee to replace Framework
Strategies to overcome gaps/
limitations
KEY: Be

The BIG day! meeting with COA
members during ALA Annual
Conference in June 2015
Need to defend the program
presentation

How you will attend to gaps or
limitations indicated in the final ERP
report
well-prepared! Be HONEST!
Awaiting Outcome on Pins and Needles:
Granted Re-accreditation
Where were we?
What did I gain/learn?
THANK YOU!
Next speaker: Heidi
Julien

Similar documents