ABSTRACT A credentialing standard clarification brought forth by the Higher Learning Commission could result in the elimination of approximately half of the liberal arts concurrent enrollment instructors in Indiana, Minnesota, and other locations under HLC accreditation. Concurrent enrollment instructors who were affected by this evolution in credentialing and needed to complete additional coursework to retain their eligibility to instruct concurrent enrollment courses were interviewed for this research. Using the lens of principal-agent theory, the authors share the reasoning, factors, and commonalities behind the findings as to why concurrent enrollment instructors did or did not complete the required coursework before the upcoming credentialing deadline to maintain their eligibility as a concurrent enrollment instructor. Implications for the field and recommendations for policy changes further research are offered.

ABSTRACT In 1978, the University of Phoenix was among the first for-profit universities to receive accreditation from a prestigious regional agency: the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Its accreditation marked a turning point in broader acceptance for the for-profit model in higher education and gave the University of Phoenix access to its primary source of revenue: federal financial aid. This case offers an example of how innovation in US higher education can happen rapidly and with relatively little controversy. The decentralised nature of accreditation means that new schools can shop around to find an accreditor that best meets their needs. Because accreditors are so closely entwined with federal actors, they will greenlight innovative programmes when they serve the federal interest. Finally, because higher educational quality is difficult to assess, accreditors can use output-based metrics, which are better at supporting novelty than input-based standards.

This study analyzed the process through which 37 online courses were transformed using the three pillars course transformation method. The method advanced active learning and engaged learning in order to impact student success. The transformation process began with training of instructors on using the method booklet before they would continue by transforming their courses. During this transformation, instructors worked with an instructional designer assuming the role of a Higher Learning Commission Quality Initiative Project (HLC-QIP) consultant. The study analyzed the transformation process, focusing on the pedagogical support provided to course developers and the actual redesign process, benefits, and challenges.

Several reasons have been linked to the high percentage of failure when it comes to Sciences Technolo-gy, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects for college freshmen. The Higher Learning Commission during its annual conference in 2013 did find out that the leading factor, motivation, seems to play a significant role to inspire students to get involved in the course work. Much research, both in academic journals and mainstream magazines, has been published on how traditional methods of lecturing are neither engaging nor robust enough for STEM learners. In this paper, the author explores the Game-Based Learning method (GBL) as a promising platform to assistance students in their transition from high school to college level STEM courses. Additionally it also looks into the fundamental reasons why biologically, culturally and philosophically, playing has become an essential tool in engaging the real world without having to assume the risk of unwanted consequences.

Several reasons have been linked to the high percentage of failure when it comes to Sciences Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects for college freshmen. The Higher Learning Commission during its annual conference in 2013 did find out that the leading factor, motivation, seems to play a significant role to inspire students to get involved in the course work. Much research, both in academic journals and mainstream magazines, has been published on how traditional methods of lecturing are neither engaging nor robust enough for STEM learners. In this paper, the author explores the Game-Based Learning method (GBL) as a promising platform to assistance students in their transition from high school to college level STEM courses. Additionally it also looks into the fundamental reasons why biologically, culturally and philosophically, playing has become an essential tool in engaging the real world without having to assume the risk of unwanted consequences

Editors and Readers,Having finished the last weeks of the spring 2020 semester, never in my imagination did I envision having led a department and an athletic training program through a pandemic, a sudden shift to remote teaching and learning, and planning and strategizing for a Fall semester that may continue remotely. Like many readers of the Athletic Training Education Journal, I have been amazed at my students' resilience, have been concerned for the patients, preceptors, and partners in clinical practice that are essential to athletic training education, and have been relying on the innovative offers of support to continue teaching. Regrettably, during this most difficult time, I was also responsible for the difficult task of announcing the closure of a graduate professional education athletic training program, before it had even had the chance to enroll students. We were in the “teach-out phase” of our undergraduate program—one remaining class of seniors preparing to graduate in May 2020. We had spent the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 academic years recruiting for an inaugural class in 2020. In February, before the pandemic, I was asked to reconsider starting the graduate program. Ultimately, it was decided: we would never finish the final step in the Substantive Change Process. We announced Voluntary Withdrawal of Accreditation and program closure in April 2020.Given the uncertainty that the COVID-19 pandemic has foisted upon institutions of higher education, I suspect that other program directors and administrators are considering what may come. Unfortunately, I anticipate that others will be making similar announcements in the near future. As institutions of higher education are examining their financial status, anticipating a decline in enrollment and tuition revenue and increased costs for operational processes, administrators will be hard-pressed not to examine educational programming with a view toward return on investment (ROI). Though the mission of higher education is to teach, to discover, and to serve, in order to do so, it must also be able to function as a business, meeting its expenses and planning for the future. I offer this editorial (and eulogy of sorts) to (1) assist those who may be watching their athletic training program for signs of distress and (2) prepare those who remain for the continued turbulent times ahead. Readers are encouraged to consider the questions presented in the Table within their own institutional contexts.Athletic training education has responded to previous periods of growth and change. Readers are encouraged to read the extensive review by Delforge and Behnke1 of the history and evolution of athletic training education published in 1999 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA). These first 50 years were marked by growth, refinement, and recognition of the unique skill set that the athletic trainer brings to the sports medicine team. As athletic training neared its golden anniversary, the profession was poised for another moment of significant change. In 1997, the Education Reform Task Force's recommendations were formally endorsed by the NATA Board of Directors to establish the Education Council and set-in motion the elimination of the internship route to certification and the mandate that all programs be accredited by 2000. Institutions that had previously sponsored exam candidates for the Board of Certification (BOC) through the internship route to certification had to decide if they were going to pursue accreditation by the (then) Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Athletic Training and the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs to meet the 2004 deadline for BOC eligibility. Some colleges and universities chose not to pursue accreditation, while others committed the resources needed to meet the standards for initial accreditation. Between 2000 and 2004, the number of accredited programs doubled from 120 to over 250. Throughout the 2000s, improvements and adjustments were made to athletic training curriculum content, qualifications for preceptors and affiliated clinical sites, workloads and financial support, and establishment of program outcomes.Moving ahead to 2009, during the Great Recession and soon thereafter, institutions of higher education experienced a wave of furloughs, budget cuts, and enrollment declines, but relatively few athletic training programs were eliminated. Programs successfully navigated the first round of re-accreditations and prepared for revisions to the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE) Standards, the NATA Educational Competencies, and the BOC Practice Analysis. With the establishment of Standard 11 with the 2012 CAATE Standards, that programs must meet a 3-year aggregate first-time pass rate of 70% or greater, it was speculated by many that the number of professional athletic training programs would diminish as programs that were on probation or unsuccessful in meeting the standard would be eliminated. While some programs did voluntarily withdraw, the vast majority of programs responded by bolstering their curricula and improving student performance. But disparities existed in program outcomes; questions remained about the future of the profession and how to best prepare students for clinical practice.In 2014, when the NATA Board of Directors published the Executive Committee for Education's White Paper, examining the professional degree level for athletic training, program directors and faculty were once more forced to consider the future and their place in it. With the Strategic Alliance's announcement in 2015 that athletic training education was moving to the master's degree level, another round of discussions had to take place at the program, department, school, and institutional levels. Over the last 5 years, institutions have announced voluntary withdrawal; others have begun the process of growing graduate programs, recognizing their potential impact on bottom lines. Others, with a history of postprofessional master's degree programs, began offering professional education programs as well as or in lieu of accredited postprofessional degrees.So, in 2020, with the manner and structure of the coming academic year in question, program administrators and faculty are looking again at a monumental shift in athletic training education—not solely due to the implementation of the 2020 Standards for Accreditation for Professional Programs, the decision to discontinue accreditation of Post-Professional Degree Programs, and the revision to CAATE-accredited residency program and fellowship program standards. The impact of the novel corona virus, COVID-19, on higher education as a whole now places additional pressures on athletic training education and its processes.Readers would do well to use the months ahead for introspection and planning. Two additional recruiting cycles remain in which entering students may choose between enrolling at an institution offering a 4-year undergraduate professional degree program, enrolling at an institution offering a 5- or 6-year combined preprofessional and professional degree program, or enrolling at an institution not affiliated with an athletic training program and decide to adjust their academic career plans. Higher education institutions, researchers, market analysts, and consulting firms spend considerable time, energy, and resources trying to understand the decision-making processes of traditional-aged high school graduates and their families. Similar efforts are made to understand undergraduate students who are balancing the options of applying to professional or graduate schools or entering the workforce. Alternatively, individuals in the labor market are also weighing the ROI of returning to school on a full-time or part-time basis to augment their earning potential, or change careers for improved personal fulfillment or family circumstances or as a result of job loss. Recruiting for an athletic training program regardless of degree level requires an understanding of the current landscape and the market for potential students.When transitioning from an undergraduate program to a graduate program, program personnel spend considerable time preparing—conducting an environmental scan, negotiating with administration, developing a financial projection model, completing the substantive change applications or “mini self-study,” organizing curricula and marketing to future students. The launch of a new graduate program brings excitement and energy—a good story to tell and to showcase: an institution poised for growth.Over the past 5 years, my faculty and I pursued a dual strategy, expanding our offerings in health, wellness, and exercise science while being creative and innovative in our athletic training curriculum. Our goals were to showcase all that undergraduate education should offer in preparing students for professional graduate study in the health sciences (critical thinking, quantitative and informed reasoning, ethical decision making, an understanding of the biopsychosocial determinants of health and health disparities, and the essential elements of humanity in the liberal arts), while simultaneously encouraging students to consider a career in athletic training to promote physical activity, to prevent and address the prevalence of chronic disease, to manage acute illness and injury, and to promote exercise as a therapeutic intervention. While navigating the self-study process and gaining a 10-year reaccreditation in 2019 and completing the degree transition process, I am confident in saying we tried our best.Regrettably, this fall as applicants did not materialize, as program head count for the summer was tenuous, I had to make one of the most difficult decision of my career as an athletic training educator: to recommend closing my own program. How did we get there? As a program based in Cincinnati, Ohio, we are blessed to be located in a metropolitan region with a high population density. We have significant numbers of graduates from the surrounding region and robust clinical placement opportunities. We have over a 30-year history of graduating athletic trainers (ATs) for professional practice. The hospital systems in the region hire recent athletic training graduates in a variety of employment settings, and our students were able to find work easily. We have a robust network of affiliated clinical sites and an active advisory board. We had had such high aspirations and projections that making the transition would be fruitful and the right thing to do. We had completed the self-study as well as a business plan to demonstrate how we would fill our class and meet our benchmarks.Unfortunately, as the months progressed in our recruitment cycle, the data has demonstrated expanding options for students, regionally and statewide, and declining interest in athletic training education at the graduate level. Cincinnati has more than 10 institutions of higher education in a 60-mile radius. Of those institutions, remarkably, 8 offered professional athletic training programs (4 public institutions: University of Cincinnati, Miami University [Ohio], Northern Kentucky University, and Wright State University; 4 private institutions: Xavier University, Thomas More University, Wilmington College, and Mount St. Joseph University). Three of the private institutions (1 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, 1 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III, and 1 National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics) had already transitioned to the graduate level, having led the region with a year's head start, before my institution received final approval from the CAATE and the Higher Learning Commission. The 2 largest public universities (1 Football Bowl Subdivision Division I/Very High Research University and the other a Division I/Comprehensive Master's University) have transitioned or planned to transition but have delayed the start of their graduate programs. When we had originally proposed the Master of Athletic Training degree, there was 1 graduate professional program in Ohio (more than 5 hours away). By the time we were approved 2 years later and began recruiting, there were 11 graduate programs in the state (2 within our own county). Our program's historic niche had been to recruit traditional-aged students to the institution, with about half of those students also having plans to pursue graduate study in physical therapy. As we expanded our exercise science offerings, fewer students decided on athletic training as a career goal. This trend was also evident as the entering classes of athletic training students at the graduate professional programs in the state hovered at 10 students or less per cohort. Despite considerable efforts to market the athletic training program to undergraduate students at other like-sized institutions in surrounding states and connecting with pre-health students and advisors at larger universities, the numbers had not materialized.In February, as my dean and I prepared the summer and fall schedules for 2020, answered questions from Admissions and the Provost's Office, and began preparing the annual department budget, there were few remaining justifications for continuing to offer an accredited professional athletic training education program. Faced with market saturation, declining interest both internally and externally, and the obvious costs of weathering an unknown time period of low enrollment, we determined that it was in the best interests of the institution to announce program closure.It was the right thing to do for the well-being and future of my institution, but it was no less painful for myself, my students, and my colleagues. We made the decision based on data and the common good. Announcing program closure is much more reserved and measured than announcing a new program or expanded program offerings. It requires a delicate balance of showing compassion while also defending calculated decision making. Instead of celebrating an opening, announcing a program closure requires informing undergraduate students that their hoped-for destination will not be accepting students, perhaps announcing the elimination of faculty positions, and saying good-bye to trusted and respected colleagues. When advising students, faculty should be able to provide contingency plans and consider working with nearby programs to establish articulation agreements whereby students can pursue accelerated acceptance into another graduate athletic training program.To be clear, the decision to close our athletic training program was made in the opening days of the Spring 2020 semester, before the stay-at-home orders were issued, before Fall 2020 semester formats were in question, before our fiscal year budget was devastated by having to return income from residence hall room and board, and before our enrollment projections for the Fall semester had become so much more critical. Despite recruitment efforts over the past 18 months, it was determined that the anticipated enrollment we needed in order to sustain the athletic training graduate program was not going to materialize without significant investment of time, talent, and money. Providing a high-quality, accredited health care professional program is costly and resource-intensive. As more programs have transitioned from the bachelor's degree level to the graduate level, the recruiting landscape has become more predictably difficult. Despite a strong reputation in the health sciences generally, and a history of preparing ATs, programs may not be able to draw undergraduate students from other institutions to meet expectations and financial plans to keep the education reasonably priced for students. Smaller, regionally focused, comprehensive liberal arts universities without broad brand recognition will struggle to recruit students for graduate education in athletic training. The ability to recruit students to newly accredited programs in physician assistant studies, for entry-level nursing, and for physical therapy requires investment, but for athletic training, more so. The varied stakeholders in athletic training education (the NATA, the CAATE, the newly formed Association of Athletic Training Educators [AATE], the faculty, the future employers, and the alumni of these programs) will need to focus considerable effort and resources toward marketing athletic training as a destination career to potential students whether they be traditional-aged undergraduate students or career changers resulting in an older student population.So, as others are likely facing similar circumstances, now compounded by the ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic, I encourage athletic training educators to take a hard look at their institutions' long-term well-being and the well-being of the remaining athletic training programs in their region to determine a path forward. I am certain that athletic training programs will continue to thrive and will take on the best elements of the programs that have closed and ensure their legacy.With deepest regards and hope for future ATs, BC Charles-Liscombe.

This study analyzed the process through which 45 courses were transformed using the Three Pillars Course Transformation Method. The three pillars (deep learning, intellectual skills, and professional skills) advanced active learning and engaged learning in order to impact student success. The transformation process began with training of faculty members on using the method booklet before they went on to transform courses while working with an instructional designer who took the role of a Higher Learning Commission Quality Initiative Project (HLC-QIP) consultant. The study analyzed the transformation process, focusing on the pedagogical support provided to faculty members, benefits, and challenges. While course developers encountered challenges during the process, these issues were essentially duly addressed by the HLC-QIP consultant. The project was a success; transformed courses were reconstructed to include active and engaged learning activities with robust assessment strategies and well-developed syllabi. Course developers also went away with new, instructional design skills that they would use for the rest of their careers.

Adequacy in Faculty Standards in U.S. Regional Accreditation Commissions

In the last few years, a number of significant research studies were conducted focusing on identifying and determining the root cause and also factors that critically contribute to students failure and success in higher education. These studies have enabled educators to evaluate the underlying causes by analyzing different perspectives presented by students, faculty and academic leaders. Various studies were conducted and published in the past that have addressed the same issue. For example, in three related studies conducted and presented at the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) conference in Chicago, Illinois, the surveyed participants (students, faculty, and academic leaders) provided concrete root-cause factors for student’s failure at college and university level. Student’s academic readiness, self-motivation, study habits, and students attitude towards education were the most mentioned root-causes by both, faculty and academic leaders (Appendix 1). During the studies, all participants agreed upon the fact that in order to succeed, students should have clear mindsets and should be aware of the reasons and requirements they will need to meet in order to enroll in a specific course. They should be thoroughly aware of their purpose for attending a school beyond just getting passing grades and a degree to get jobs. However, all three surveyed groups strongly believe that it is not only the student’s responsibility, but also the responsibility of instructors and college administration to keep students motivated after admitting them to their colleges, programs, and courses (Cherif, Movahedzadeh, Adams, Martyn 2013; 2014; 2015). In this paper, we explore the implementation of some proposed recommendations from various research studies for improving students learning and instructors teaching in a classroom setting. Keywords: Modern students, Motivations; Student academic performance and retention, Student success. DOI : 10.7176/JEP/10-3-01

Decolonizing Pathways Through Indigenous EducationNative Student Conceptions of Nation Building Leola Tsinnajinnie Paquin (bio) Celina listened intently at a celebratory event while a political leader of her Native1 Nation spoke enthusiastically about the opening of its newest economic enterprise: a gas station.2 She attended this presentation armed with knowledge about Native sovereignty and nation building attained through her studies at the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) a federally operated college for American Indians (AI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. An eager learner concerned about AI issues, she took as many Native studies-oriented courses as possible at SIPI. Celina had obtained an Indigenous-oriented education made possible in large part by the rise of Native American Studies programs across the nation resulting from Indian demands for culturally relevant education in post-secondary institutions.3 A faculty-driven movement at SIPI sought to establish a strong Native nation building foundation within the framework of the college's general education program. That objective of empowering Natives with useful [End Page 93] knowledge eventually became a value that transcended all facets of SIPI.4 Although SIPI did not offer a specific degree in Native American Studies (NAS), its curriculum included a number of courses with Native content. Those offerings enabled her and her advisor to develop a program of study within an NAS framework to accommodate her career goal (to teach Native children). Thus, she exemplified this vision in terms of what qualities and Indigenous-centered perspectives a Native Nations community college graduate should embody. Returning to Celina's thoughts while at the gas station, as the political leader's speech gained momentum he proclaimed that the business represented an act of nation building. Because Celina understood that the new enterprise was solely a profit-making venture, she reached a conclusion saying to herself: "That is not nation building." INTRODUCTION What is nation building? This article explores the perspectives of a group of students at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in 2014 during a time of cultural revitalization and upon the restoration of Higher Learning Commission (HLC) accreditation. As demonstrated by the vignette, nation building has become a popular term in academia as well as in the words spoken by Native leadership. From the vantage point of various roles, but primarily as an educator, I wanted to uncover how nation building was articulated through the eyes of tribal college students who: studied nation building curriculum; heard from the experiences of speakers invested in Indigenous communities; engaged in service learning projects that served Native children; and who were immersed in an educational setting that was grounded in valuing the sovereignty of tribal nations. Celina shared her story with me during an interview. She was a key participant in a phenomenological study that was completed shortly after the gas station event described above. The purpose of the study was to capture the collective phenomenological experience and pay tribute to the many projects that led to the accomplishments of students like Celina. These students shared the common experience of taking a set of Native Studies–centered courses and attending SIPI from 2013–14 during a general education movement in cultural relevancy. These [End Page 94] courses were designed to establish an understanding of nation building through Indigenous education pedagogy. The research study sought to answer the question "How do Indigenous students plan their academic, career, and cultural goals in relationship to nation building in practice?" The use of the word "practice" was to highlight the theme of what nation building really looks like to those who serve Native communities. Furthermore, the study explored three subquestions. How do students define nation building? What are the core values that guide student engagement with nation building as a learning process? Do students identify and apply decolonization in this process? My hope was that the students who took the courses could demonstrate immediate applications of the lessons they learned to their future trajectory. In Celina's case, she based her assessment of the gas station on the readings, guest presenters, lectures, discussions, and, most significantly, her participation in service learning projects. In her mind, nation building encompassed the finding of common ground and unity, education, core values, community, self...

Getting Up to Speed: Understanding the Connection between Learning Outcomes and Assessments in a Doctrinal Course

Steven Yelton, PE, AS, BSEE, is a professor in the Electrical Engineering Technologies Department at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College in Cincinnati, OH. Email: steven.yelton@ cincinnatistate.edu Over time, the healthcare technology management (HTM) field has seen an expansion in the education credentials for certain positions. However, getting a college degree can be challenging for many professionals, even with extensive experience in the field and a previous college degree. One problem is that accreditation mismatches may exist between institutions, which often is a surprise for employees and employers. A thorough understanding of institutional accreditation is critical for successful career development. To begin, here is an important fact: Every one of the thousands of colleges and universities in this country is accredited (with a tiny number of exceptions, mainly religious schools). Accreditation is designed to ensure academic quality, ensure public confidence, and most importantly, serve as a gatekeeper for federal financial aid (Title IV funds). Because many students use financial support to pay for college, institutions need accreditation for enrollment to start to happen. An accreditation credential granted to institutions is associated with one of two bodies: the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). CHEA is a nongovernmental organization that recognizes five regional groups (Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Higher Learning Commission, New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges) surveying about 3,000 schools. Colleges or universities with this accreditation type are deemed “regionally accredited.” Academic credits earned at one of the schools are transferrable to another regionally accredited school. (Of note, while regional accreditation ensures the transfer of courses between institutions, it does not guarantee that courses will meet the specific degree requirements.) The transfer of courses between institutions is a complicated and challenging process that also involves program accreditation (discussed later). A database of regionally accredited schools is accessible at www.chea.org. Approximately 85% of colleges have regional accreditation, including all public (state or federally supported) institutions. The other accreditation credential option comes from one of about 52 private agencies. The USDE has provided “deemed status” to this diverse group to accredit colleges and universities, many of which are faith-based (e.g., Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools) or focused on specialty training (e.g., Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine). Institutions accredited by one of these We Hear You! Our Complete Standards Collection Is Now Digital. Includes the current version of every standard and guidance document

Student mobility and transfer between two-year and four-year institutions are critical issues when considering student success and degree completion. College and university administrators continually work to identify opportunities that align policy and practice with accreditation standards in an effort to facilitate self-study initiatives and meet requirements associated with national measures and expectations. To contribute to research about student mobility and transfer related to accreditation, this article considers two accrediting bodies and their potential in supporting student mobility and transfer. Findings identify several differences among institutional criteria highlighting a stark contrast between two accrediting bodies, North Central Association’s Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and Middle States’ Commission on Higher Education accreditation policies and practices. Through a comparison case study of mobility and student transfer data, findings highlight value in acknowledging the importance of facilitating mobility and student transfer in accreditation policies and practices. Findings should be considered for informational purposes and additional study is recommended for exploring implications for policy and practice.

Out-of-class Learning and Accountability in Higher Education

<p>Generic University recently underwent a successful reaffirmation of accreditation process with The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. As part of the 3-year process, a committee, named the Education and Communication working group, was formed to inform and engage with the entire Generic community. This report describes the process and strategies this working group employed to achieve those goals in a distance learning environment.</p> <p>The primary charges of the Education and Communication working group were to (1) educate stakeholders about the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the importance of accreditation, and their role in the accreditation process; (2) provide consistent and quality communication to ensure stakeholders are appropriately informed about HLC and the self-study process; and (3) create and execute an appropriate and supportive communication and education plan during the HLC self-study process. The Education and Communication working group primarily focused on internal stakeholders, including students, faculty, and staff. Additional outreach specifically addressed associated individuals, such as alumni and field site supervisors. Other institutions may define their constituencies differently but will find that the goals, plans, and strategies described here will help them to achieve involvement by their stakeholders in accreditation processes.</p>

Clinical Doctorate in Speech-Language Pathology

Faculty development and scholarship is an expectation of nurse educators. Accrediting institutions, such as the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission, and the Higher Learning Commission, all have criteria regarding faculty achievement. A faculty achievement tracking tool (FATT) was developed to facilitate documentation of accreditation criteria attainment. Based on criteria from accrediting organizations, the roles that are addressed include scholarship, service, and practice. Definitions and benchmarks for the faculty as an aggregate are included. Undergoing reviews from different accrediting organizations, the FATT has been used once for accreditation of the undergraduate program and once for accreditation of the graduate program. The FATT is easy to use and has become an excellent adjunct for the preparation for accreditation reports. In addition, the FATT may be used for yearly evaluations, advancement, and merit.

The 2005 standards published by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association are intentionally general, placing less emphasis on quantifiable and arbitrary inputs and more emphasis on institutional effectiveness and assessment of student learning. The non-prescriptive nature of the new standards makes it difficult for librarians to determine an appropriate compliance strategy. The authors advocate use of the 2004 ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Educationfor assessment of an academic library to provide the comprehensive evaluation required to demonstrate compliance with the North Central Association standards. A comprehensive listing of the North Central provisions affecting libraries and other material are provided to assist in such an evaluation.

Like many institutions of higher learning, Hocking College has struggled to define, document, and assess those general skills deemed necessary for success in the workplace and life. An oppor tunity for Hocking College to focus on this task was provided through its participation in the 21st Century Learning Outcomes Project sponsored by The League for Innovation in the Community College. This project complemented or extended other initiatives such as the Academic Affairs (AA) ReVISIONing Learning Project and the Self-Study for reaccreditation by The Higher Learning Commission (NCA), which included a Special Emphasis on college wide ReVISIONing Learning.