Pepperdine’s five schools will host the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) visiting committee next week in its third and final stage of the four-year accreditation process. After submitting the Educational Effectiveness Review (EER) report to the WASC Commission and team members, the university now waits for the commission to reaffirm accreditation for the next 10 years. The three-part process began in 2008 with an Institutional Proposal and followed by the 2010 Capacity and Preparatory Review and the 2012 EER. The closing preparations have submitted to educational outcomes as recommended by WASC.
From Sept. 26 to 28, eight visiting team members from WASC are expected to review and collect information from institutional reports, on-campus interviews, open sessions and email comments. The complete schedule of the visit can be found online on the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) research site.
On their last day at 11:30 a.m., WASC will conduct its exit interview on the Drescher campus, and at noon, the team leaves. At the end of the three days, the team will determine if Pepperdine has satisfactorily addressed the Core Commitments as embodied in the Commission Standards for accreditation.
WASC is one of six academic bodies in the U.S. responsible for the accreditation of Pepperdine. Along with evaluating Pepperdine, WASC ensures the university is compliant with government standards to receive federal funding for students.
The importance of accreditation rests in meeting WASC’s core commitments and standards. Participation shows “institutional accountability,” as well as involvement and understanding of university-wide goals to stakeholders from all levels (students, staff, faculty, etc.).
The OIE is the nexus between these university goals and research. Over the past two years, the office has served as an agent for programs and WASC alignments. Now, they have to work to inform the community about the significance of the EER visit.
The 50-page EER report, offered online, extends the OIE mission: collect “the results of assessment efforts for academic and cocurricular programs; discuss the review process and its influence on program quality, planning, and budgeting; and evaluate the institution’s educational goals and climate.” Each of these outcomes is featured in three essays presented to WASC and the community.
Now, the OIE is focusing on faculty, staff and student participation during the visit. Everyone is invited to the open forums on campus. This is one of the ways WASC will determine if students are getting what they were promised.
In the OIE 2010-2011 annual report, the office writes that its job is to support institutional needs as “the assessment movement collides with the rapid growth of the accountability movement.” As a result, the office sees itself more as a think tank than a piece of the administration.
Formed in September 2009, the OIE is housed in the Thornton Administrative Center, serving as the institutional research office and a resource for the university’s educational review process. They are responsible for guiding the university and its five schools through evidence-based decisions and into a “culture of assessment.”
Perhaps the most exhaustive effort of the OIE is its online research engine. Found among program reviews, learning outcomes and accreditation action is the Data Warehouse, also known as “the heart of the OIE.” The Common Data Set, the Factbook, the interactive reports and national surveys are all available to anyone on the Web.
The OIE’s of the WASC process emerged from a series of CPR recommendations to “to clearly articulate and publicize (catalog, website, program materials) all student learning outcomes, performance indicators and standards of achievement for each degree (1.2, 2.2, 2.3) and make this information readily accessible in at least one single location.”
Three essays make up the report. The first of three, “Student Learning and Assessment,” acknowledges there is room for improvement in evidence-based program changes, but overall the academic review process is seen as a success. As a result, 100 percent of divisions now have a “curriculum matrix” to connect courses to specific learning outcomes. Before the CPR, few programs had concrete course objectives to apply to assessments and evaluations.
Essay two, “Faculty Engagement,” details the committees and councils have teamed with administrative and faculty operations.
“Pepperdine has taken several concrete steps toward shared governance and creating a more collaborative environment,” the essay reads. “This primarily revolves around central themes of transparency, open communication, and faculty representation.”
The last essays addresses WASC’s observation that the university would “benefit from a focus on specific goals, and critical analysis of data to inform strategies and support achievement of those goals.” It presents Dean Rick Marrs’ updated Seaver College strategic plan as the answer.
Currently, Seaver is completing the first year of a two-year project to finish the approved strategic plan.
“Similar to the university strategic plan, the Seaver College strategic plan will include a preamble articulating the vision for the school and capturing the essence of the school currently and aspirationally,” Marrs wrote in a memo to Assistant Provost Lisa Bortman and Constance Fulmer, associate dean for Assessment and Learning Excellence. Marrs wrote that Seaver’s specific goals will put the college in line with the university’s five schools.
“Utilizing this procedure honors the recommendations in the most recent WASC visit to mesh closely the school specific strategic plans with the university strategic plan, and to find ways to increase shared governance at Pepperdine University,” Marrs wrote.
