Preliminary Self-Review Worksheet for the Standards

The preliminary self-review is divided into the following four sections, each linked to its respective location on this page:
  1. About this Worksheet
  2. Suggested Rating
  3. Self-Review Worksheet
  4. Summative Questions

About this Worksheet
Purpose of the Worksheet
This worksheet has been developed to assist planning groups preparing for a WASC review to undertake a preliminary, systematic institutional self-analysis. Every institution is expected to describe in its Proposal how the review will address issues that are priorities in its own context that have arisen from a self-review under Commission Standards. This worksheet has been designed to assist that purpose. Its use is entirely optional and voluntary, and the institution may choose some other means of reviewing itself under the Standards. This worksheet leads planning groups to identify strengths and areas of good practice, as well as areas that may need attention under each Standard and Criteria for Review and that may suggest themes or topics for further exploration in the accreditation review.
The WASC Standards and CFRs
The WASC Standards are the framework of evaluation for the Proposal Review Committee, evaluation team, and the Commission, and are applied within each institution's mission and context. Accreditation judgments are made at the level of the Standard itself. Within each Standard are sub-areas titled "Criteria for Review" (CFRs). Each of the CFRs defines topical areas essential to the Standard and is meant to support the decision about whether the institution meets the Standard. Many of the CFRs have associated Guidelines. The Guidelines identify the expected forms or methods of demonstrating performance. If an institution chooses not to employ the practices described in a particular Guideline, the institution is responsible for showing that it has addressed the intent of the CFR in an equally effective way. The attached worksheet lists the four WASC Standards, their CFRS and associated Guidelines. For a more complete description of the Standards, CFRs, and Guidelines, see the 2001 Handbook, p. 15-16.
Strategies for Using this Worksheet
The worksheet may be used during the early stages of thinking about the review and writing of the Institutional Proposal or later as part of the preparation for the Preparatory Review. The worksheet is meant to be a heuristic tool for stimulating discussion and exploration, rather than a definitive grading scheme or a mechanical check-list for compliance. Through its use, key areas may be identified where more evidence is needed or more development is required. The planning group for the accreditation review may use the worksheet in any way appropriate to its own way of organizing and its own priorities for the review, and may modify the worksheet in any way that suits its purposes. One approach is to have members of the planning group complete the worksheet individually with responses reviewed by the group and reconciled, as in a modified Delphi approach. Another approach is to divide the worksheet by Standards with different groups completing each Standard, or one group completing Standards 1 and 3 (oriented more toward the capacity review) and one group Standards 2 and 4 (oriented more toward the educational effectiveness review).

Once the institution has completed this self-review process, priorities that are identified using this form should be integrated with the institution's context, goals, and planning in the development of its Institutional Proposal for the accreditation review. Summary questions are provided in the worksheet as a means of assisting institutions determine those areas of greatest concern, or areas of good practice to be addressed or highlighted in the Proposal and Institutional Presentation. Institutions have also found helpful the Questions for Institutional Engagement included in the Handbook following each Accreditation Standard.

Suggested Rating
Self-Review Rating
1 = We do this well; area of strength for us
2 = Aspects of this need our attention
3 = This item needs significant development
0 = Does not apply or not enough evidence to address
Importance to address at this time
A = High priority
B = Lower priority
C = Does not need to be addressed at this time
Self-Reviews
Click on each of the following to selectively show/hide the details:
  • The institution defines its purposes and establishes educational objectives aligned with its purposes and character. It has a clear and conscious sense of its essential values and character, its distinctive elements, its place in the higher educational community and its relationship to society at large. Through its purposes and educational objectives, the institution dedicates itself to higher learning, the search for truth, and the dissemination of knowledge. The institution functions with integrity and autonomy.
    Institutional Purposes
    1.1 The institution's formally approved statements of purpose and operational practices are appropriate for an institution of higher education and clearly define its essential values and character.
    Guideline: The institution has a published mission statement that clearly describes its purposes. The institution's purposes fall within recognized academic areas and/or disciplines, or are subject to peer review within the framework of generally recognized academic disciplines or areas of practice.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: BYU—Hawaii's mission statement is listed in the University Catalog and on the official university website. The university's purposes fall within those expected of a faith-based, liberal-arts institution. The mission statement was most recently reviewed and revised by the university's Strategic Planning Committee and then approved by the Executive Committee of the Church's Board of Education in 2001. The Strategic Planning Committee is reviewing the framing of the University's mission statement.
    1.2 Educational objectives are clearly recognized throughout the institution and are consistent with stated purposes. The institution has developed indicators and evidence to ascertain the level of achievement of its purposes and educational objectives.
    Guideline: The institution has published educational objectives that are consistent with its purposes.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: BYU—Hawaii has established four specific educational commitments or goals. The earnest pursuit of the university's overall mission is embodied in its commitment to prepare students for a life of learning and service in an expanding international church. To succeed in its mission, the University provides an environment sustained by those moral virtues that characterize the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. By fostering such an environment, the University strives to achieve these four goals. The university has also established two key performance indicators that are used by all academic units in gauging performance: total student credit hours produced and bachelor's degrees awarded (A password is required to view this information; for permission please contact: iresearch@byuh.edu). In addition, each program has an assessment plan that includes educational outcomes about which the programs collect evidence each year. These program outcomes are published in the University Bulletin and are on the BYUH-Hawaii Assessment web site. Each university department reports annually to the University Assessment Committee on progress made in assessing performance against objectives.
    1.3 The institution's leadership creates and sustains a leadership system at all levels that is marked by high performance, appropriate responsibility, and accountability.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: BYU—Hawaii's organizational chart shows the accountability and stewardship for all academic, administrative, and student life leaders. All full-time employees are reviewed annually in stewardship interviews with their respective file leaders; goals are established on line and used as the basis for these evaluations. Members of the President's Council are evaluated annually by the President, and Academic Deans are evaluated annually by the Vice President for Academics.
    Integrity
    1.4 The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff, and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching and in their writing.
    Guideline: The institution has published or has readily available policies on academic freedom. For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world views, policies clearly state conditions, and ensure these conditions are consistent with academic freedom. Due process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: The University's statement of academic freedom is published in the Faculty Handbook (p. 8) and in the Student Life Handbook. Due process and grievance procedures for faculty and staff are published in University's Policies and Procedures and the Faculty Handbook (p. 15) and on the web under Faculty/Staff Resources.
    1.5 Consistent with its purposes and character, the institution demonstrates an appropriate response to the increasing diversity in society through its policies, its educational and co-curricular programs, and its administrative and organizational practices.
    Guideline: The institution has demonstrated institutional commitment to the principles enunciated in the WASC Statement on Diversity.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: A clear strength of BYU—Hawaii is the diversity of its student body. (See Headcount Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity and Headcount by Home Country—Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer). Data for faculty diversity and staff diversity is also included on the web.

    BYU—Hawaii supports Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) and publishes this policy in the Policy Handbook. (A password is required to view this information; for permission please contact: HRS@byuh.edu).The EEO/AA policy is distributed to all prospective employees. Procedures for hiring at BYU—Hawaii are detailed at http://hr.byuh.edu/policy/manual/IV.A.1-FacAptmts.pdf and include specific commitments to EEO/AA practices and requirements that search committees include ethnic and gender diversity.

    1.6 Even when supported by or affiliated with political, corporate, or religious organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose and operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.
    Guideline: The institution has no history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by political, religious, corporate or other external bodies outside the institution's own governance arrangements.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: BYU—Hawaii operates with appropriate autonomy in presenting its educational program to students. Inherent to the university are the standards and values of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and these standards and values are built into the governance structure of the university. The Church's Board of Education oversees the annual budget review, recommendations for new programs, and the master plan for new construction.
    1.7 The institution truthfully represents its academic goals, programs, and services to students and to the larger public; demonstrates that its academic programs can be completed in a timely fashion and treats students fairly and equitably through established policies and procedures addressing student conduct, grievances, human subjects in research and refunds.
    Guideline: The institution has published or readily- available policies on student grievances and complaints, refunds, etc. and has no history of adverse findings against it with respect to violation of these policies. Records of student complaints are maintained for a six-year period. The institution clearly defines and distinguishes between the different types of credits it offers and between degree and non-degree credit, and accurately identifies the type and meaning of the credit awarded in its transcripts.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: B
    Evidence/Evaluation: The University Catalog details the university's academic goals, programs, student services, and policies including information about degrees, credit offered, refund policies, etc. Policies regarding human subjects in research are available on the Institutional Research website and is overseen by the Institutional Review Board of Human Subjects.

    Clear procedures are in place to assure that students are treated fairly. BYU—Hawaii has an code of conduct that applies to students as well as faculty and all full-time employees. Due process for Honor Code violations are published on the Honor Code website. The Honor Code director maintains copies of all records regarding student appeals for a five-year period. Records for non-academic grievances by students are maintained by the Vice President for Student Life; records for student academic grievances are maintained by the Vice President for Academics.

    1.8 The institution exhibits integrity in its operations as demonstrated by the implementation of appropriate policies, sound business practices, timely and fair responses to complaints and grievances, and regular evaluation of its performance in these areas.
    Guideline: The institution has published or readily-available grievance procedures for faculty, staff, and students. Its finances are regularly audited by external agencies.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: Due process and grievance procedures for faculty and staff are published in University's Policies and Procedures and the Faculty Handbook (p. 15).

    Audit information (2004 audit report, or most recent)

    1.9 1.9 The institution is committed to honest and open communication the Accrediting Commission, to undertaking the accreditation review process with seriousness and condor, and to abiding by commission policies and procedures, including all substantive change policies.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: BYU—Hawaii recognizes the benefits to be gained through the accreditation process and fully subscribes to the WASC process. We will provide the clearest institution representation possible and will make all relevant records available to the visiting teams.
    Synthesis/Reflection
    1. After completing this analysis, what are the 2 or 3 most important issues that should be emphasized in the Review under this Standard?
    2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
    • Mission
    • Program and student learning outcomes
    3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
    • Work on leadership accountability (1.3)
    • Share faculty handbook and academic freedom statement (review at FAC and APC); distribute to faculty on the web
    • Publicize due process procedures better
    • Develop subcommittee of FAC for exploring ways to increase diverse faculty/administration
  • The institution achieves its institutional purposes and attains its educational objectives through the core functions of teaching and learning, scholarship and creative activity, and support for student learning. It demonstrates that these core functions are performed effectively and that they support one another in the institution’s efforts to attain educational effectiveness.
    Teaching and Learning
    2.1 The institution’s educational programs are appropriate in content, standards, and nomenclature for the degree level awarded, regardless of mode of delivery, and are staffed by sufficient numbers of faculty qualified for the type and level of curriculum offered.
    Guideline: The content, length, and standards of the institution’s academic programs conform to recognized disciplinary or professional standards and are subject to peer review.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: BYU—Hawaii offers BA and BS degrees in typical liberal arts and sciences areas as well as BSW degree in Social Work (accredited by CSWE) and a BFA in Fine Arts. In addition, the School of Business, currently preparing for AACSB accreditation, offers BS degrees in Accounting, International Business, and Hospitality and Tourism Management. The School of Computing (preparing for ABET accreditation) offers BS degrees in Computer Science, Information Systems, and Mathematics. The School of Education (which is accredited by the Hawai‘i Department of Education using NCATE standards) offers BS degrees in Elementary Education, Special Education, Secondary Education in approved majors and a post-baccalaureate Professional Diploma for licensed public school teachers. Each major academic program goes through a process of peer review (which includes external reviewers) approximately every five years. Staffing for each of these programs is presented in Table 4.2. and includes information on part-time vs. full-time faculty. Faculty qualifications are listed in the catalog by department
    2.2.A All degrees—undergraduate and graduate—awarded by the institution are clearly defined in terms of entry-level requirements and in terms of levels of student achievement necessary for graduation that represent more than simply an accumulation of courses or credits.
    Guideline: Competencies required for graduation are reflected in course syllabi for both General Education and the major.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: Now that outcomes have been identified and an outcomes matrix developed for each major program, departments are working on incorporating outcomes in each course syllabus (see Accounting sample). Courses used in the general education program also reflect which of the seven outcomes of a generally education person (see p 71 of the University Bulletin for a description of these outcomes) the course is designed to impart to students.)
    2.2.B Baccalaureate programs engage students in an integrated course of study of sufficient breadth and depth to prepare them for work, citizenship, and a fulfilling life. These programs also ensure the development of core learning abilities and competencies including, but not limited to, college-level written and oral communication; college-level quantitative skills; information literacy; and the habit of critical analysis of data and argument. In addition, baccalaureate programs actively foster an understanding of diversity; civic responsibility; the ability to work with others; and the capability to engage in lifelong learning. Baccalaureate programs also ensure breadth for all students in the areas of cultural and aesthetic, social and political, as well as scientific and technical knowledge expected of educated persons in this society. Finally, students are required to engage in an in-depth, focused, and sustained program of study as part of their baccalaureate programs.
    Guideline: The institution has a program of General Education that is integrated throughout the curriculum, including at the upper division level, consisting of a minimum of 45 semester credit hours (or the equivalent), together with significant study in depth in a given area of knowledge (typically described in terms of a major).
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: Breadth. The university’s General Education Program is well-developed and administered by a standing committee that is chaired by an Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences. Total credits are summarized in the University Catalog. The General Education requirement at BYU–Hawaii is divided into three areas:

    • Area I—Basic Skills - Courses in Area I provide basic analytical, computation, and communication skills, including quantitative methods, critical analysis, physical fitness, reading and writing skills. Area I courses prepare the student for success in other university courses including those in the major. With these basic skills, the student will be ready for a lifetime of learning.
    • Area II—Fundamental Knowledge - Courses in Area II sample fundamental understandings in natural and social sciences and humanities. These courses introduce students to the ideas, theories, methodologies, and contributions of various disciplines and professions.
    • Area III—Synthesis – Area III includes courses in world civilizations, advanced writing and interdisciplinary studies; this area helps students synthesize and evaluate their former learning and see themselves in the stream of history.

    Depth. The University offers 24 majors with various emphases that range from 37-60 semester credit hours (except for secondary education majors which range from 69-81 semester credit hours).

    2.2.C Graduate programs are consistent with the purpose and character of their institutions; are in keeping with the expectations of their respective disciplines and professions; and are described through nomenclature that is appropriate to the several levels of graduate and professional degrees offered. Graduate curricula are visibly structured to include active involvement with the literature of the field and ongoing student engagement in research and/or appropriate high-level professional practice and training experiences. Additionally, admission criteria to graduate programs normally include a baccalaureate degree in an appropriate undergraduate program.
    Guideline: The institution employs at least one full-time faculty member for each graduate degree program offered.
    Self-Review Rating: N/A
    Importance to address at this time: N/A
    Evidence/Evaluation: N/A
    2.3 The institution’s expectations for learning and student attainment are clearly reflected in its academic programs and policies. These include the organization and content of the institution’s curricula; admissions and graduation policies; the organization and delivery of advisement; the use of its library and information resources; and (where applicable) experience in the wider learning environment provided by the campus and/or co-curriculum.
    Guideline: The use of information and learning resources beyond textbooks is evidenced in syllabi throughout the undergraduate and graduate curriculum.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: Curricula. Student learning outcomes are an integral part of the University’s academic programs (including General Education) and administrative support processes. Assessment procedures are in place to evaluate student performance against these outcomes.

    Admissions. Both our highly selective admissions policies (US students) and our high standards for English competency (international students) communicate high expectations for student learning.

    Graduation. All potential graduates are required to apply for graduation the semester before they actually graduate. Graduation policies are clearly and specifically articulated in the University Catalog. Each candidate for graduation meets with an academic advisor and a graduation specialist from the registrar’s office to assure that the student meets all graduation requirements.

    Advisement. All new students are assigned to an academic advisor who specializes by major. (The Student Development Center assists students undecided about their major). Under the direction of the academic advisor, each student develops a graduation plan, or MAP, which is required for department scholarship consideration.

    Information Literacy. Information literacy goals have been specifically integrated into the General Education curriculum.

    Library and Information Resources. Review of syllabi for courses offered in 2004 indicate that 60% of the courses offered explicitly use primary sources that extend beyond textbooks.

    2.4 The institution’s expectations for learning and student attainment are developed and widely shared among its members (including faculty, students, staff, and where appropriate, external stakeholders). The institution’s faculty takes collective responsibility for establishing, reviewing, fostering, and demonstrating the attainment of these expectations.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: Each academic program has established student learning outcomes (see the University Catalog and department portfolios). Departments develop annual assessment plans which focus on 2-5 of these learning outcomes and a multi-year assessment plan showing when and how each program outcome will be assessed in a cycle over several years. Findings are reviewed in department meetings and department chairs present the results of their assessment plan each year to the University Assessment Committee. This committee (consisting of six faculty members and six academic support staff) provides feedback to departments on their assessment plans using a rubric developed by the committee. Each major academic program also goes through a process of peer review (which includes external reviewers) approximately every five years.
    2.5 The institution’s academic programs actively involve students in learning, challenge them to achieve high expectations, and provide them with appropriate and ongoing feedback about their performance and how it can be improved.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: B
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • Student ratings about these items are posted on each faculty member’s on-line profile.
    • Active student learning and feedback on performance are also components of program reviews.
    • BYU—Hawaii participates in NSSE data collection and analysis. With four years of data it is now possible to document trends over time in our performance. A group of undergraduate research assistants are analyzing data, conducting student focus groups, and presenting finds and recommendations in faculty meetings and with academic departments.
    2.6 The institution demonstrates that its graduates consistently achieve its stated levels of attainment and ensures that its expectations for student learning are embedded in the standards faculty use to evaluate student work.
    Self-Review Rating: 3
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • Sample evaluations by faculty of students’ work
    • ***The deans/APC need to address how expectations for student learning are embedded in the standards faculty use to evaluate student work
    2.7 In order to improve currency and effectiveness, all programs offered by the institution are subject to review, including analyses of the achievement of the program’s learning objectives and outcomes. Where appropriate, evidence from external constituencies such as employers and professional societies is included in such reviews.
    Guideline: The institution incorporates it its assessment of educational objectives results with respect to student achievement, including program completion, license examination, and placement rates results.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • All programs are subject to program reviews on rotating basis. Some reviews coincide with professional program accreditation, including Social Work (CSWE--Council on Social Work Education), School of Education (Hawai‘i Department of Education and NCATE—National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education), School of Business (AACSB—The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business).
    • Placement data are also requested in each program review. Does the program review require evidence from employers.
    • Career Services collects placement data. The Alumni Office tracks graduates for regular follow-ups.
    Scholarship and Creative Activity
    2.8 The institution actively values and promotes scholarship, curricular and instructional innovations, and creative activity, as well as their dissemination at levels and of the kinds appropriate to the institution’s purposes and character.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • BYU—Hawaii requires that faculty be excellent teachers and scholars.
    • Annual evaluations require faculty to set goals in the areas of teaching (pedagogical innovations), scholarship and creative activity, and service. These standards are embedded in Continuing Faculty Status and Promotion.
    • The Center for Instructional Technology and Outreach provides support to faculty for instructional development.
    • Professional development funds are available to assist with teaching and scholarly activities. Total budget amount? How it’s used?
    • Undergraduate student research funds are available for faculty to mentor students in conducting research and making professional presentations.
    2.9 The institution recognizes and promotes appropriate linkages among scholarship, teaching, student learning and service.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: B
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • BYU—Hawaii recognizes that scholarship and teaching are complementary activities. Faculty research is integrated into senior capstone experiences throughout many academic departments.
    • Professional programs that culminate in practicum and student teaching experiences integrate teaching and service as faculty engage in outreach and supervision of students in agencies where placement occurs and master teachers and practicum supervisors (individuals directly supervising our students in field settings) from the are integrated into our campus programs.
    • By incorporating service into the academic curriculum, students build on classroom learning by applying skills to real situations in the community. They then return to the classroom with "hands-on" experience in the field and are able to effectively contribute to classroom discussion and learning. Service learning website
    Support for Student Learning
    2.10 Regardless of mode of program delivery, the institution regularly identifies the characteristics of its students and assesses their needs, experiences and levels of satisfaction. This information is used to help shape a learning-centered environment and to actively promote student success.
    Guideline: The institution’s policy on grading and student evaluation is clearly stated, and provides opportunity for appeal as needed; and periodic analyses of grades and evaluation procedures are conducted to assess the rigor and impact of these policies.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • The Admissions Office provides information about the characteristics of new students each semester.
    • Each year graduates complete a Graduating Student Survey and do exit interviews with their department chairs. Results of the Graduating Student Survey are distributed to departments and faculty each year and are reviewed by departments.
    • In addition BYU–Hawaii has administered the NSSE in each of the last 4 years.
    • Input from students has been used by the institution for quality improvement programs (such as customer service) and as evidence for departmental assessment efforts.
    • Policies on grading
    • Appeal process for grades
    • Periodic analysis of grades
    2.11 Consistent with its purposes, the institution develops and implements co-curricular programs that are integrated with its academic goals and programs, and supports student professional and personal development.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • Over 45 student organizations provide leadership, professional, service, cultural awareness, and social opportunities for students and coordinated through the student government association (BYUHSA).
    • Academic co-curricular activities include participation in TESOL Society, English Circle, Social Work Club, and special programs such as graduate school prep colleges, monthly forums, speech and essay contests, an Undergraduate Research Conference, national competitions, etc.
    • Unique to BYU-Hawai‘i are the cultural and special interest organizations that sponsor campus-wide events such as Culture Night, as well as cultural awareness weeks (including poster displays and lectures).
    • Residential life staff also provides ongoing programming and leadership opportunities for residents.
    • Student Life provides service opportunities (from Blood Drives and local school clean ups, to tutoring and translating public health materials into a dozen languages), wholesome recreation, and programming directed towards families.
    • The Counseling Center provides a tutoring network, marriage student outreach programs, services for students with special needs and workshops on a variety of topics to help students succeed.
    • Career Services help students as they prepare for employment or graduate school.
    2.12 The institution ensures that all students understand the requirements of their academic programs and receive timely, useful, and regular information and advising about relevant academic requirements.
    Guideline: Recruiting and admission practices, academic calendars, publications, and advertising are accurate, current, disclosing, and are readily available to support student needs.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • All new students are assigned an academic advisor, who provides information about academic requirements. In addition, an undecided major advisor in the Student Development Center helps students to crystallize their higher education goals.
    • Under the direction of an advisor, each student is required to develop a Major Academic Plan (MAP), which is also required for department scholarship consideration.
    • (To be reviewed by the academic advisors and Jeff Bunker) Also include statement about recruiting and admissions practices
    2.13 Student support services—including financial aid, registration, advising, career counseling, computer labs, and library and information services—are designed to meet the needs of the specific types of students the institution serves and the curricula it offers.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: B
    2.14 Institutions that serve transfer students assume an obligation to provide clear and accurate information about transfer requirements, ensure equitable treatment for such students with respect to academic policies, and ensure that such students are not unduly disadvantaged by transfer requirements.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • Link to catalog on transfer students; transfer student website. Transfer credits are evaluated by academic advisors who submit possible courses for departmental approval as substitutions for BYU–Hawaii required courses. A matrix has been set up to automatically give equivalent credit to common transfer college courses.
    • Articulation agreements have been implemented for students transferring with an Associates Degree. For those transferring without an AA degree, a General Education proposal may be submitted to the G.E. committee for approval of meeting the majority of our GE requirements.
    • Before classes begin, an Academic Realities orientation is presented to all new and transfer students to help them understand various campus academic procedures such as registering, adding/dropping classes, and evaluating transfer credits.
    Synthesis/Reflection
    1. After completing this analysis, what are the 2 or 3 most important issues that should be emphasized in the Review under this Standard?
    2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
    3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
  • The institution sustains its operations and supports the achievement of its educational objectives through its investment in human, physical, fiscal and information resources and through an appropriate and effective set of organizational and decision-making structures. These key resources and organizational structures promote the achievement of institutional purposes and educational objectives and create a high quality environment for learning.
    Faculty and Staff
    3.1 The institution employs personnel sufficient in number and professional qualifications to maintain its operations and to support its academic programs, consistent with its institutional and educational objectives.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: c
    Evidence/Evaluation: The University has 117 faculty positions, XXX professional staff, and XXX staff members, or a total of XXX full-time employees. The number of faculty are included in Table 4.2; of the full-time faculty, 76 percent hold doctoral degrees or terminal degrees in their field.
    3.2 The institution demonstrates that it employs a faculty with substantial and continuing commitment to the institution sufficient in number, professional qualifications, and diversity to achieve its educational objectives, to establish and oversee academic policies, and to ensure the integrity and continuity of its academic programs wherever and however delivered.
    Guideline: The institution has an instructional staffing plan that includes a sufficient number of full-time faculty with appropriate background by discipline and degree levels.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: Information about faculty qualifications is listed by department in the University Catalog. A public profile for each faculty member is also available on line.
    3.3 Faculty and staff recruitment, workload, incentive, and evaluation practices are aligned with institutional purposes and educational objectives. Evaluation processes are systematic, include appropriate peer review, and, for instructional faculty and other teaching staff, involve consideration of evidence of teaching effectiveness, including student evaluations of instruction.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: B
    Evidence/Evaluation: A summary of faculty size and credentials, diversity, recruitment and selection and retention is presented in Essay 3 (Utilizing Resources to Achieve Organizational Goals). This essay reflects on these processes in light of institutional purposes. Faculty evaluation processes are detailed in Essay 2 (Faculty Development and Evaluation) with a summary of performance appraisal and faculty retention and promotion practices. The document describing criteria for promotion and for attaining continuing faculty status is available
    • All faculty members hold annual reviews with their deans or associate dean. Link to online form
    • Peer reviews are requested for each faculty member on the Continuing Faculty Status track.
    • Staff members hold annual reviews with their supervisors, using the “Performance Now!” database (sample)
    • All faculty members on CFS track are evaluated every semester. CFS and adjunct faculty are evaluated each fifth semester (minimum) by students. Other part-time faculty members are evaluated every other semester (minimum). A new on-line system for student evaluations is currently being field tested and developed. Faculty and student links
    • Evidence of teaching effectiveness in addition to student evaluations?
    3.4 The institution maintains appropriate and sufficiently supported faculty development activities designed to improve teaching and learning consistent with its educational objectives and institutional purposes.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: Essay 2 (Faculty Development and Evaluation)
    Fiscal, Physical, and Information Resources
    3.5 Fiscal and physical resources are effectively aligned with institutional purposes and educational objectives, and are sufficiently developed to support and maintain the level and kinds of educational programs offered both now and for the foreseeable future.
    Guideline: The institution has a history of financial stability, appropriate independent audits, and realistic plans to eliminate any accumulated deficits and to build sufficient reserves to support long-term viability.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: See Essay 3 (Utilizing Financial Resources); also see Tables 5.1-5.7 - Information, Physical, and Fiscal Resources. (Access code needed from institutional research; email Bill Neal)
    3.6 The institution holds, or provides access to, information resources sufficient in scope, quality, currency, and kind to support its academic offerings and the scholarship of its members. For on-campus students and students enrolled at a distance, physical and information resources, services, and information technology facilities are sufficient in scope and kinds to support and maintain the level and kind of education offered. These resources, services and facilities are consistent with the institution’s purposes, and are appropriate, sufficient, and sustainable.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: See Essay 3 (Utilizing Information and Electronic Resources)
    3.7 The institution’s information technology resources are sufficiently coordinated and supported to fulfill its educational purposes and to provide key academic and administrative functions.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: See Essay 3 (Utilizing Information and Electronic Resources)
    Organizational Structures and Decision-Making Processes
    3.8 The institution’s organizational structures and decision-making processes are clear, consistent with its purposes, and sufficient to support effective decision making.
    Guideline: The institution has an organization chart that clearly depicts positions, associated responsibilities, and lines of authority.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • See Essay 3 (Organizational Decision-Making in Councils)
    • Organization chart
    3.9 The institution has an independent governing board or similar authority that, consistent with its legal and fiduciary authority, exercises appropriate oversight over institutional integrity, policies, and ongoing operations, including hiring and evaluating the chief executive officer.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: See Essay 3 (Organizational Decision-Making in Councils)
    3.10 The institution has a chief executive whose full-time responsibility is to the institution, together with a cadre of administrators qualified and able to provide effective educational leadership and management at all levels.
    Guideline:
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: C
    Evidence/Evaluation: See Essay 3 (Organizational Decision-Making in Councils)
    3.11 The institution’s faculty exercises effective academic leadership and acts consistently to ensure both academic quality and the appropriate maintenance of the institution’s educational purposes and character.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: B
    Evidence/Evaluation: See Essay 3 (The University Context: Councils, Leadership and Decision-Making at BYU-Hawai‘i)
    Synthesis/Reflection
    1. After completing this analysis, what are the 2 or 3 most important issues that should be emphasized in the Review under this Standard?
    2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
    3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
  • The institution conducts sustained, evidence-based, and participatory discussions about how effectively it is accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives. These activities inform both institutional planning and systematic evaluations of educational effectiveness. The results of institutional inquiry, research, and data collection are used to establish priorities at different levels of the institution, and to revise institutional purposes, structures, and approaches to teaching, learning, and scholarly work.
    Strategic Thinking and Planning
    4.1 The institution periodically engages its multiple constituencies in institutional reflection and planning processes which assess it strategic position; articulate priorities; examine the alignment of its purposes, core functions and resources; and define the future direction of the institution. The institution monitors the effectiveness of the implementation of its plans and revises them as appropriate.
    Guideline: A clear charge to planning bodies with a regular schedule and the existence of an understandable and coherent plan for assessing the attainment of educational objectives must be developed. Evidence of the ways the results of planning and evaluation are linked to decision-making is demonstrable.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: b
    Evidence/Evaluation: 14 Points, SWOT Analysis, Strategic Plan, Future’s Committee

    See Standard IV Essay

    4.2 Planning processes at the institution define and, to the extent possible, align academic, personnel, fiscal, physical, and technological needs with the strategic objectives and priorities of the institution.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: c
    Evidence/Evaluation: See Standard III Essay (Financial Planning) - University mission
    4.3 Planning processes are informed by appropriately defined and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data, and include consideration of evidence of educational effectiveness, including student learning.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: Program Assessment

    See Standard IV Essay (Evidence-Based Decision Making)

    4.4 The institution employs a deliberate set of quality assurance processes at each level of institutional functioning, including new curriculum and program approval processes, periodic program review, ongoing evaluation, and data collection. These processes involve assessments of effectiveness, track results over time, and use the results of these assessments to revise and improve structures, and processes, curricula, and pedagogy.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation: Curriculum Proposal Document

    Program Reviews - See Standard II Essay (Program Review)

    Academic Assessment Plans and Administrative Unit Assessment Plans

    Commitment to Learning and Improvement
    4.5 Institutional research addresses strategic data needs, is disseminated in a timely manner, and is incorporated in institutional review and decision-making processes. Included among the priorities of institutional research function is the identification of indicators and the collection of appropriate data to support the assessment of student learning consistent with the institution’s purposes and educational objectives. Periodic reviews of institutional research and data collection are conducted to develop more effective indicators of performance and to assure the suitability and usefulness of data.
    Guideline: The institution exhibits existence of clear institutional research capacities with appropriate reporting lines and support appropriate to the institution’s size and scope. Institutional research or equivalent databases are developed that are sufficient to meet all external reporting needs (e.g. IPEDS), and there are appropriate ways to access or disseminate this information through publications, reports, or widely-accessible databases.
    Self-Review Rating: 1
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    4.6 Leadership at all levels is committed to improvement based on the results of the processes of inquiry, evaluation and assessment used throughout the institution. The faculty take responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process and use the results for improvement. Assessments of the campus environment in support of academic and co-curricular objectives are also undertaken and used, and are incorporated into institutional planning.
    Guideline: The institution has clear, well-established policies and practices for gathering and analyzing information that leads to a culture of evidence and improvement.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    4.7 The institution, with significant faculty involvement, engages in ongoing inquiry into the processes of teaching and learning, as well as into the conditions and practices that promote the kinds and levels of learning intended by the institution. The outcomes of such inquiries are applied to the design of curricula, the design and practice of pedagogy, and to the improvement of evaluation means and methodology.
    Self-Review Rating: 2
    Importance to address at this time: A
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    4.8 Appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, and others defined by the institution, are involved in the assessment of the effectiveness of the educational programs.
    Self-Review Rating:
    Importance to address at this time:
    Evidence/Evaluation:
    • 2005 Alumni Survey link
    • Alumni Surveys 2001-2004 (Provo) put reports online
    • Employer & Practitioner Interviews or surveys
    • Program Reviews
    • See Standard II (Program Reviews)
    Synthesis/Reflection
    1. After completing this analysis, what are the 2 or 3 most important issues that should be emphasized in the Review under this Standard?
    2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
    3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved for the Preparatory Review? For the Educational Effectiveness Review?
Summative Questions
  1. Who participated in preparing this self inventory? What approach was used in completing the worksheet?
  2. What areas were identified as issues or concerns to be addressed before the review?
  3. What areas emerged as either institutional strengths or topics for further exploration that might be targeted as themes or topics to be explored in the review?
  4. What are the next steps in preparing for the accreditation review?