Assessment

MSCHE 2013 Self Study

MSCHE 2013 Self Study

Self-Study Organization and Processes

The university has recently completed the 2013 Seif-Study process. The Self-Study is available through the right thand banner link. The MSCHE Team visited the university April 21- 24, 2013, and the decision to reaffirm Zayed University's accreditation was made in June 2013.

For this process, the university had the self-study design document approved, finalized the six working groups, edited and finalized the guiding research questions, and had the working groups begin their research in Fall 2011. The self-study process was lead by a core group of university administrators and faculty who were responsible for the overall planning and oversight of the entire process. This group was supplemented with the college deans who also served as co-chairs for the working groups to form the larger steering committee. This committee faciltated communication between working groups and developed solutions to any shared challenges that the working groups may have experienced.

As the self-study reports and documents developed, there were a number of opportunities for the wider university community to be involved and provide feedback. The first opportunity for involvement was through a series of working group presentations that which occured at the monthly faculty and staff meetings. Following these presentations, another series of presentations and discussions between the working groups and the university standing committees were organized. These sessions allowed the institution's standing committees the opportunity to better understand the findings of the working groups and;provide informed feedback. These standing committees also served as a direct conduit to the colleges and departments, thereby increasing the flow of information throughout the organization. The penultimate way in which feedback was sought from the wider institutional community was through an online discussion forum. The forum allowed for continual feedback and also provided an electronic record of stakeholder comments. Finally, a large cohort of faculty participated in self-study feedback sessions over the December 2012 faculty development days, and the feedback was again added to the discussion forum.

Working Groups and Charges

Six working groups were established to focus on two or more standards. After developing research questions related to the fundamental elements of the standards, and a review of the research questions by the steering committee, each working group researched and deliberated to answer their questions.

Working Group on Planning

Chair: Marilyn Roberts, Dean, College of Communication and Media Science,

Co-Chair: Lawrence Tai, Professor, College of Business Science

  • Standard 1: Mission and Goals
  • Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal
  • Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

The working group should demonstrate that the University has a planning process that attempts to address the strategic issues, that University resources are sufficient and allocated appropriately for carrying out its mission, and that the institutional assessment process  evaluates the University’s overall effectiveness relative to mission, goals and compliance with accreditation standards.

Working Group on Outreach

Chair: John Seybolt, Dean, College of Business Sciences,

Co-Chair: Stephen Anderson, Associate Professor, College of Education,

  • Standard 3: Institutional Resources
  • Standard 13: Related Educational Activities

The working group should demonstrate that the university has available the appropriate human, financial, and technical resources, physical facilities, and other resources to support its mission and goals at present and into the future. The working group should demonstrate that the University’s other educational activities, including the Academic Bridge Program, certificate programs, non-credit offerings, and distance learning, meet the needs of entering students.

Working Group on Climate

Chair: Jyoti Grewal, Dean, University College,

Co-Chair: Fatme AlAnouti, Assistant Professor, Natural Sciences and Public Health, College of Arts & Sciences,

  • Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
  • Standard 6: Integrity

The working group should demonstrate the University’s adherence to ethical standards, its own stated policies, and its support for academic and intellectual freedom.

Working Group on Personnel

Chair:  Michael Allen Assistant Provost, Faculty Affairs & Research

Co-Chair: James Buckingham, Instructor, University College

  • Standard 5: Administration
  • Standard 10: Faculty

The working group should demonstrate that the university’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and decision-making and includes a governing body with appropriate responsibilities. The working group should demonstrate that the university has an administrative structure and services that facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’s organization and governance. The working group should demonstrate that qualified professionals are responsible for developing, monitoring, and supporting the instructional, research, and service programs of the university.

Working Group on Student Success

Chair: Chet Jablonski, Dean, Graduate Studies

Co-Chair:  David Palfreyman, Associate Professor, Languages, University College

  • Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention
  • Standard 9: Student Support Services
  • Standard 12: General Education

The working group should demonstrate that policies and procedures for admission and retention of students are congruent with the mission of the university and federal requirements. The working group should demonstrate that the university has appropriate services to support students in meeting their educational goals. The working group should demonstrate that the university’s general education program assures that students are proficient in general education and essential skills appropriate to the university’s programs and mission.

Working Group on Academic Matters

Chair: Leon Jololian, Dean, College of Information Systems

Co-Chair:  Sabrina Joseph, Associate Professor and Co-Chair, Humanities and Social Sciences, College of Arts & Sciences

  • Standard 11: Educational Offerings
  • Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning

The working group should demonstrate that the university’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherence that are appropriate to its higher education mission and that its programs of study lead to the desired student learning outcomes. The working group should  demonstrate that the university has a process for the systematic assessment of student learning that shows that students have obtained knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals and that assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning.