REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION AND QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT AS A JOURNEY: A CASE STUDY
by
PHUONG THI THANH NGUYEN, B.A., B.S., M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Brent D. Cejda
Co-Chairperson of the Committee
James E. Brink
Co-Chairperson of the Committee
Bonita K. Butner
Lee S. Duemer
Accepted
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
December, 2005
Copyright © 2005, Phuong Thi Thanh Nguyen
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I could not have completed this dissertation without the enormous help and
influence of many others. I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Cejda for the outstanding
guidance and support that he provided to me throughout my doctoral program as the
advisor and chair of my dissertation committee. I am also very appreciative of the
analytical comments and excellent assistance received from the other committee
members, Dr. Brink, who served as co-chair, Dr. Butner, and Dr. Duemer.
This research study would not have been possible without the participants and I
sincerely thank each one of them. I am particularly appreciative of the dedication,
guidance, and assistance of the Accreditation Liaison at the case study institution.
I would like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to Diane for her unwaivering
mentoring and support. My most sincere appreciation also goes to Lee for her wonderful
help and encouragement. It was Diane and Lee who read numerous drafts, provided
suggestions, and reminded me to take a break.
I would like to send my very special thanks to Dr. Reckner, Mr. Le Cong Khanh,
Steve, and all my other friends at the Texas Tech University Vietnam Center and
Vietnam Archive for sponsoring and facilitating my job as a graduate assistant
throughout the years of my studies.
I greatly appreciate the leadership, Office of Administration and Personnel, Office
of International Relations and Research Affairs, Office of Graduate Studies, Department
of Education, professors, and colleagues at University of Social Sciences and Humanities
ii
- Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam for their support, encouragement, and trust. Especially
noteworthy are the late Vice-Rector Prof. Dr. Nguyen Van Tai and his family.
I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the United Board for Christian
Higher Education in Asia that generously provided me with a Faculty Development Grant
for three academic years. I am also deeply grateful to the scholarship donors from the
Texas Tech University College of Education, including the Rushing Endowment
Scholarship, the Gordon C. Lee Memorial Scholarship, and the Berlie J. and Laine Fallon
Memorial Scholarship.
Many others at Texas Tech University were instrumental in my progress,
including Dr. Reeve, Dr. Elbow, and Dr. Marshall. I am thankful for all of the
administrators, professors, and staff of the Texas Tech University College of Education
for their instructions, dedication, encouragement, and help. I am deeply grateful for
Alice who generously read and edited this dissertation, as well as raised insightful
comments and questions. My sincere thanks also go to Jim at the International Cultural
Center and Becky at the Graduate School for their professionalism and helpfulness.
Librarians at Texas Tech University were extremely helpful for which I am very grateful.
I am thankful to many friends from far and near who have supported me by way
of expressions of confidence, concern, hope, and encouragement along the way. Finally
and most importantly, I am grateful to my parents, siblings, nieces, and nephews, who
have supported me from the beginning.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
ABSTRACT
xv
LIST OF TABLES
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
xix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xx
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
Background of the Study
1
What Is Accreditation?
1
How Is U.S. Accreditation Structured?
2
SACS-COC and the New Principles of Accreditation
6
Summary
9
Purpose of the Study
10
Statement of the Problem
11
Significance of the Study
12
The Research Design
13
Research Questions
13
Conceptual Framework
14
Theoretical Framework
14
How Open Systems Theory Was Started
15
How Open Systems Theory Was Developed and Used
16
Organizational Open Systems Theory
16
iv
Summary
II.
21
Delimitations
22
Limitations
22
Assumptions
23
Definition of Terms
24
Chapter Conclusions
27
LITERATURE REVIEW
29
Summary of Research Studies on Institutional Accreditation in
Higher Education
29
Historical Overview of Accreditation
37
The Beginning of Accreditation
38
The Evolution of Accreditation
38
Development of the Accreditation Process
38
Five Problems Affecting the Development of Accreditation
41
Effect of the Assessment Movement on Accreditation
48
Public Concern About Student Learning Outcomes
48
Challenges Facing Assessment
48
The Relationship Between Assessment and Accreditation
51
Effect of Institutional Effectiveness on the Self-Study Process
52
Summary
55
Institutional Self-Study Process
56
Views of Accreditation and the Self-Study Process
Summary
57
60
Institutional Self-Study Process
v
60
Phase One: Prepare and Design the Process
62
Preparing the Process
62
Designing the Process
62
Factors Contributing to a Successful Self-Study Process 66
Adequate Level of Technical Expertise
67
Understanding of Externally Mandated Accreditation
Criteria
68
Summary
71
Phase Two: Organize the Study Process
71
Tasks Following the Design and Plan
71
Self-Study Director/Coordinator
72
Steering Group
73
Workload and Teamwork
74
Selecting Team Members
75
Importance of Faculty Involvement
77
Training the Team Members
78
Summary
79
Phase Three: Conduct the Self-Study Process
79
Tasks and Types of Work
80
Importance of Documentation
80
Tools for Data Collection
83
Challenges During the Process
83
Summary
83
Phase Four: Discuss Results and Prepare Reports
vi
84
Discussing and Preparing Reports
84
Special Forms of Self-Study Report
87
Summary
88
Phase Five: Host External Peer Visitors
88
Peer Review
88
External Visitors
91
Summary
92
Phase Six: Make Decisions and Evaluate the Self-Study
Process
92
Making Decisions
92
Evaluating the Self-Study Process
96
Summary
96
Conclusion
97
Institutional Effectiveness in Relation to Self-Study
97
What Is Institutional Effectiveness?
98
Major Components of Institutional Effectiveness
101
Planning and Evaluation
101
Institutional Research
104
Institutional Effectiveness Paradigm
105
Summary
108
How Is Institutional Effectiveness Related to Self-Study
109
Pre-Self-Study
109
Post-Self-Study
114
Summary
119
vii
Conclusion
119
Open Systems Theory
120
Conclusion
123
Chapter Conclusions
123
III. METHODOLOGY
127
Research Design
127
Qualitative Research
127
Strengths
128
Weaknesses
129
Case Study Method
129
Strengths
134
Weaknesses
135
Restatement of the Problem
136
Delimitation and Selection of the Case
136
Instrumentation and Materials
137
Instrumentation
137
Materials
139
Answering the Research Questions
Procedures for Data Collection
140
142
Data Sources and Collection Techniques
142
Documents
143
Interviews
144
Observations
146
Audiovisual Materials
147
viii
Case Study Data Collection
147
Differences Between the SACS-COC Former and New
Reaffirmation Approaches
148
Development and Implementation of Internal Review
Processes at USSU
149
Fieldwork Trip to USSU
151
Interviews
153
Observation and Collection of Documents and
Audiovisual Materials
156
Data Management
158
Ethical Considerations
159
Bias
161
Procedure for Data Analysis
162
Data Analysis
163
Constant Comparative Method
163
Analytical Procedure
165
Validity, Transferability, and Reliability
168
Internal Validity
168
External Validity, Transferability, or Fittingness
170
Reliability
171
Chapter Conclusions
172
IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
174
Introduction to the Chapter Structure
174
Response to Research Question 1
176
Overview of the Principles of Accreditation
ix
176
Purpose and Philosophy
177
Structure and Process
178
Components of the Principles
179
Importance of Asking this Question
184
Similarities and Differences Between the Criteria for
Accreditation and the Principles of Accreditation
185
The Principles 2001 Version Compared to the Current
Version
194
Rationale for Changing From the Criteria to the Principles
196
SACS-COC Recommendations for Effective Internal
Review Processes
198
Milestones for Communication Between Institutions
and SACS-COC
200
Conclusions for Research Question 1
The Case Study Institution
201
203
General Information About USSU
203
Outcomes and Impacts of USSU’s 1995 Reaffirmation
205
Unique Elements Within USSU’s Context
207
Conclusions
211
Response to Research Question 2
213
Rationale for Using the Term “Extended Pilot”
214
Development of Internal Review Processes
215
Forming the Leadership Team
215
Selection of the Accreditation Liaison
216
Selection of the Leadership Team Members
218
Involvement of the Ex-Officio Members and Others
223
x
Summary
224
Involving the Technical Support Team
225
Preparing for the Reaffirmation
228
Preparing the Accreditation Liaison
228
Preparing the Leadership Team
230
Preparing the Institution
231
Summary
235
Conclusions for Development of Internal Review Processes
Implementation of the Internal Review Processes
The Compliance Certification Work Process
235
237
238
Compliance Certification Structure
238
Data Collection
239
Writing the Compliance Certification
250
Presentation of the Compliance Certification
254
Off-Site Review
257
Conference Call With the SACS-COC Staff Liaison
258
Focused Report
259
Conclusions for the Compliance Certification
Work Process
260
The QEP Work Process
262
The QEP Structure
263
Defining the QEP Topic
264
Collecting Data for the QEP
272
Writing the QEP
279
xi
Hosting the On-Site Review Committee
286
Following Up
297
Conclusions for the QEP Work Process
303
Conclusions for Implementation of the Internal Review
Processes
304
Conclusions for Research Question 2
Response to Research Question 3
308
317
What Institutional Effectiveness and Internal Review
Processes Are
317
How Institutional Effectiveness Facilitated
the USSU Internal Review Processes
319
Addressing Three Specific Accreditation Requirements
in the Principles
319
Providing Data and Evidence for Addressing
the Requirements and Standards
320
Providing the Foundation for Developing the QEP
330
Summary
332
How the Internal Review Processes Enhanced
the Institutional Effectiveness Program
333
Impact of the 1995 Reaffirmation
333
Impact of the Internal Review Processes
335
Making Improvements During the Internal
Review Processes
335
Using the Results From the Internal Review
Processes
337
Focusing the QEP
339
Summary
340
xii
Conclusions for Research Question 3
Response to Research Question 4
340
343
Leadership
345
The Leadership Team
345
The Accreditation Liaison
346
University Leadership
347
Communication
349
The Leadership Team and Others Involved in the
Reaffirmation
350
The University Community
352
SACS-COC
355
Other Higher Education Institutions
357
The Public
358
Summary
359
Technical Support
360
Resources
365
The Compliance Certification and the QEP Work Processes
368
Conclusions for Research Question 4
380
Chapter Conclusions
384
V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
392
Overview of the Research Study
392
Conclusions
394
The Principles Versus the Criteria
395
Critical Elements of the USSU Internal Review Processes
396
xiii
Preparing Well for the On-Site Review
399
Using Technology Effectively
401
Implications
416
Recommendations
419
Recommendations for SACS-COC
419
Recommendations for the Case Study Institution
421
Recommendations for Higher Education Institutions
423
Recommendations for Future Research
427
Concluding Remarks About the Journey of Reaffirmation
428
REFERENCES
429
APPENDICES
453
A.
Interview Participants
454
B.
Letters of Introduction and Support From the Case Study Institution
457
C.
Invitation Letter, Interview Questions, and Protocol
for Participants at the Case Study Institution
459
Letter of Invitation
459
Research Summary
460
Semi-Standardized Interview Questions
462
Interview Protocol
470
Participant Consent Form
471
D. Invitation Letter, Interview Questions, and Protocol for SACS-COC
472
Letter of Invitation and Interview Questions
472
Interview Protocol
474
Participant Consent Form
475
xiv
ABSTRACT
Institutional accreditation is an excellent vehicle for facilitating change toward the
improvement of quality in higher education. It is fulfilled by three phases: (a) a selfstudy, (b) a peer review, and (c) a decision by the accrediting agency. Self-study is at the
heart of institutional accreditation; however, it is not always favored. Some participants
consider it to be a waste of time and resources. Yet, self-study, if properly approached
and packaged, can help ensure a high-quality future for the institution.
This qualitative case study research explored the internal review (self-study)
processes used by a Level VI public university, United States Sigma University (USSU)
(a pseudonym), that successfully went through reaffirmation in 2004 under the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools - Commission on Colleges (SACS-COC) new
Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, which was approved
in December 2001. Data were collected from reviewing online and other documents; a
fieldwork trip to USSU where interviews, observations, documents, and archival
materials were gathered; and follow-up correspondence that increased the validity,
reliability, and utility of the research study. The data analysis strategy used in this
research study was the constant comparative method and the theoretical framework was
open systems theory.
Because the Principles of Accreditation were new, this research study addressed
two fundamental problems: (a) how to deal with this new reaffirmation approach and the
associated need for change and (b) how to integrate other quality improvement
xv
mechanisms with the internal review processes. Results of the study indicate that sixteen
critical elements contributed to the success of the internal review processes at USSU:
1.
Adapting to the new Principles;
2.
Selecting the right Accreditation Liaison;
3.
Selecting the right Leadership Team;
4.
Starting early and using timelines;
5.
Training and preparing the participants and the university community;
6.
Using unique strategies for developing the Compliance Certification and
the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP);
7.
Having a well-written Compliance Certification and QEP;
8.
Preparing well for the on-site review;
9.
Having university leadership commitment, support, and belief in
accreditation;
10.
Communicating effectively;
11.
Using technology effectively;
12.
Leveraging available resources and matching the reaffirmation with the
institutional circumstances;
13.
Establishing an effective relationship and regular communication with the
SACS-COC staff liaison;
14.
Having competent reviewers;
15.
Using internal review findings for improvement; and
16.
Having a strong institutional effectiveness program.
xvi
This study also indicates that the more reaffirmation requirements are integrated
into institutional processes (e.g., strategic planning and budgeting), the better the
institution will do in carrying out its internal review.
Sixteen critical elements of the USSU internal review processes and insights
gained from this case study are potentially useful to other SACS-COC universities. This
research contributes to knowledge for improvement of educational practices. It
also meets the SACS-COC universities’ needs for understanding effective ways of
conducting internal reviews for quality improvement while simultaneously satisfying the
SACS-COC new requirements for reaffirmation.
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
1.
Summary of Research Studies on Institutional Accreditation
2.
Abbreviations Used for Interviews From Other Related Research
176
3.
Overview of the Principles of Accreditation
180
4.
Similarities and Differences Between the Criteria for Accreditation
and the Principles of Accreditation
187
5.
USSU’s External Timeline for 2004 Reaffirmation
233
6.
Grouping and Assigning of Core Requirements and Comprehensive
Standards
241
Strategies Used in Development of the Compliance Certification
Versus the QEP
306
8.
Summary of Milestones for Development of the Internal Review
308
9.
Summary of Milestones for Implementation of the Internal Review
309
7.
10. Critical Elements, Correlative Literature, and Contributions to the
Literature
xviii
31
404
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
SACS-COC Organizational Chart
8
2.
Conceptual Framework: An Open Systems Perspective
xix
133
- Xem thêm -