Overview

The criterion for which we are responsible is Criterion 4 - Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement. This criterion has 3 Core Components, shown in the table below:

Component Description
4.A The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs.
4.B The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement an improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning.
4.C The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.

Path Forward

Moving forward, I want us to consider each of core component in-turn over the next three months. This means I want to focus on creating initial drafts for each core component using the tentative schedule below:

Core Component Initial Meeting Final Meeting Deliverable
4.A Thursday, Aug 10 2017 Thursday, Aug 24 2017 Initial Draft of Core Component 4.A
4.B Thursday, Sep 07 2017 Thursday, Sep 21 2017 Initial Draft of Core Component 4.B
4.C Thursday, Oct 05 2017 Thursday, Oct 19 2017 Initial Draft of Core Component 4.C

Core Component 4.A

This core component has six sub-components - shown below.

Sub.Component Description
4.A.1 The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews.
4.A.2 The institution evaluates all the credit that it transcripts, including what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning, or relies on the evaluation of responsible third parties.
4.A.3 The institution has policies that assure the quality of the credit it accepts in transfer.
4.A.4 The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs, including dual credit programs. It assures that its dual credit courses or programs for high school students are equivalent in learning outcomes and levels of achievement to its higher education curriculum.
4.A.5 The institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as appropriate to its educational purposes.
4.A.6 The institution evaluates the success of its graduates. The institution assures that the degree or certificate programs it represents as preparation for advanced study or employment accomplish these purposes. For all programs, the institution looks to indicators it deems appropriate to its mission, such as employment rates, admission rates to advanced degree programs, and participation rates in fellowships, internships, and special programs (e.g., Peace Corps and Americorps).

I reviewed several assurance argument examples that were recently completed by other institutions. Based on these examples and the documentation provided by the HLC, I’ve made several comments/recommmendations as to what I believe needs to be included for each of these six sub-components. My comments/recommendation can be viewed by clicking on the corresponding tabs below.

What I need from each of you:

Please review my comments for each sub-component. If you want to work on a particular sub-component let me know. Otherwise, I can assign each of us to a sub-component.

4.A.1

4.A.1 - The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews

Need to provide evidence detailing the current program review (PR) process. Most of the assurance argument examples seem to have written their program review process in narrative form. AFIT’s PR process is documented in ENOI 36-117 (any other sources?). Does a narritive form for our PR process already exist? We’ll need to write it - Points to include in this narrative are:

– How do we select external reviewers? – How often is the PR process itself reviewed? – What changes (if any) have been made to the PR process? – What types of information is collected? – What follow up actions occur after a review is completed? – Are there any exemplary actions that have been taken as result of a recent PR that could be included?

4.A.2

4.A.2 - The institution evaluates all the credit that it transcripts, including what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning, or relies on the evaluation of responsible third parties.

  • I don’t believe that AFIT transcripts any type of experiential learning (internships, fellowships, accomplishments from prior assignments) is this correct?

  • AFIT does transcript courses from schools belonging to several consortia such as SOCHE & GCCCU. Are there others? Is there any existing documentation on how each member institution ensures the quality of the courses taken from other member institutions?

4.A.3

4.A.3 - The institution has policies that assure the quality of the credit it accepts in transfer.

  • ENOI 36-167 details AFIT’s course transfer policy - are there other sources of information that should be included?

  • Like 4.A.1, a good first start will be to write a narrarive summary of our transfer policy (assuming that it does not already exist).

4.A.4

4.A.4 - The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs, including dual credit programs. It assures that its dual credit courses or programs for high school students are equivalent in learning outcomes and levels of achievement to its higher education curriculum.

  • Dual credit courses are N/A for AFIT – or am I overlooking something?

  • How do we assess the rigor of our courses?

    • Does this come from program reviews? (e.g. student outcomes related to learning objectives)
    • Are there established measures that AFIT uses?
    • Is this department specific?

  • Expectations for student learning

    • Similar to rigor of courses - do these come from the program reviews?

  • Access to learning resources

    • Is there already a documented list of resources?

  • Regarding faculty qualifications

    • ENOI 36-168 details how faculty searches should be conducted
    • ENOI 36-125 details faculty development plans to ensure competency
    • ENOI 36-130 details how military candidates are found for the faculty pipeline
    • ENOI 36-128 details standards for who can serve as master’s committee chairs

4.A.5

4.A.5 - The institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as appropriate to its educational purposes.

  • Are there AFIT programs that require specialized accreditation?

4.A.6

4.A.6 - The institution evaluates the success of its graduates. The institution assures that the degree or certificate programs it represents as preparation for advanced study or employment accomplish these purposes. For all programs, the institution looks to indicators it deems appropriate to its mission, such as employment rates, admission rates to advanced degree programs, and participation rates in fellowships, internships, and special programs (e.g., Peace Corps and Americorps).

  • Is there an established policy for graduate surveys? ENOI 36-117 mentions them but I could not find an established policy?
  • Employment placement is obviously a biased measure - other ways to measure student success?
  • ENOI 36-142 Requirements for graduate certificate programs
  • ENOI 36-114 Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree
  • AFIT/EN Curriculum and Degree Requirements Committee (CDRC) Standing Rules
  • Are there any exemplary actions that have been taken as result of a student surveys?