Middle States Self-Study

To read the draft of Lincoln’s Self-Study Report for Middle States, just click on the Self-Study link below. We’ll look forward to all comments on how to improve it for the final version.

Self-Study

Attendance: Dana Flint, Mazharul Huq, Safro Kwame, David Royer, Judith Thomas, Levi Nwachuku, J.K.VanDover, M.D. Button, Gladys Willis, York Williams, Grant Venerable, Mel Leaman, Adonita Ahmetaj, Linda Stine, James DeBoy, Patricia Joseph

I. Approval of September 6, 2007, and September 24, 2007 Minutes
Minutes were approved as submitted.

II. Self-Study Report Revision: Update
Drs. Stine and Joseph updated committee members on the progress of the draft revision. Chapters are being revised one by one and sent off to task forces as they are finished. Plans are to have the complete revision ready for Steering Committee and community review by early December, with final edits being made over the semester break.

III. Getting Started on the “To Do” suggestions: Which, How, When, By Whom?
One major goal in revising the self-study report is to consider which “to do” items from the first draft have already been accomplished, which ones can be accomplished before the self-study team visit, and which ones should remain as items for future action. Committee members made the following comments/suggestions:

• The action step originally recommending that the PAWS procedure be revised should be reclassified as an accomplishment rather than a “to-do”; it now needs only ongoing improvement and simplification (Turbo PAWS);
• A governance committee of some type should be set up to review on-going faculty bylaws issues rather than listed as a future action;
• The assessment of deans should just be considered part of the ongoing institutional assessment structure, not singled out as a separate “to do”;
• The Educational Policy Committee could perhaps be the appropriate process owner to explore how the 3 deans/3 schools concept fits into overall university and how/whether Academic Affairs has improved as a result of the deanship structure;
• The Executive Leadership series should be highlighted as a successful student program;
• The action item referring to addressing “the challenge of disciplinary overspecialization and inter-school competition by encouraging more interdisciplinary programs and collaborative research” should be revised to read simply that we want to enhance inter-school cooperation;
• One way to enhance such cooperation is to ensure that department chairs meet as a group at least twice yearly;
• The section on support for students with learning disabilities was questioned, and the suggestion made that the topic be added to New Student Week discussions so that students understand more clearly what supports exist and how to access them;
• The action item on advising should be worded that we want to explore ways to improve our current advising system, considering the move from a Total Intake to a Split Model of advising as one possible means of improvement, rather than recommending specifically that we shift to the Split Model.
• The action item concerning improving faculty meetings can be handled by the parliamentarian working on explaining Roberts’ Rules of Order; Dr. Flint agreed to begin this task.

IV. November 12 Self-Study Community Meeting Plans
Dr. Stine reminded task force co-chairs that they would only have five minutes each to present their main points at the town hall meeting, suggesting that they focus primarily on recommended next steps, so that this meeting would be the beginning of the action phase of our self study rather than simply the end of the research. Dr. Thomas suggested that perhaps the first minute or so of each report could be devoted to addressing the accomplishments uncovered in the task force research, so as to celebrate our achievements. Members agreed. The question was raised about how best to manage discussion to make sure faculty get to voice their questions/comments on all nine task force reports, and it was agreed that questions would be held until all nine reports were delivered.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Attendance: Benson Prigg, James L. DeBoy, Mazharul Huq, David Royer, Safro Kwame, Mel Leaman, Dana Flint, John Chikwem, Robert Langley, Zoran Milovanovich, Linda Stine, Grant Venerable, Patricia Joseph, William Bynum, Gladys J. Willis, Marilyn D. Button, J. K. VanDover, Levi Nwachuku, Michael Hill, Judith Thomas, Renford Brevett, Jeff Hoogeveen.

Opening Remarks and Introduction: Grant Venerable

Dr. Thelma Thompson – President of University of Maryland East Shore

I. Opening Comments
A. “Fall in love with what you hate.” – inspiring words of
her father – She fell in love with accreditation
B. Two faces of accreditation

1. a guide dog, taking you where you need to go
2. a guard dog, standing at the gate
3. Either way, the dog can bite so it’s important to know how to train them and tame them.

C. Her purpose today: to pose questions and make suggestions.

II. Chapter I
A. By combining Mission and Integrity the latter has been shortchanged
B. Split the two

1. Mission determines policy issues.
2. Integrity is process and behavioral.

III. Chapter 8 (also 6 and other two-titled tasks)

A. Need strength in both areas: Institutional and Student Awareness
B. Middle States team will look at the standards, not the self-study.
C. If it is not in the book, you do not need it.
D. Look at every suggestion and tie it to a standard; if it doesn’t relate, leave it out.

IV. Student Centered
A. Make students the focus of all discussions.
B. Reread chapter on Institutional Effectiveness with principles:

1. What were we doing?
2. How did we evaluate it?
3. What have we done since the evaluation?

C. Focus on the ways we have improved or enhance student learning.
Be explicit (examples…)

1. theater and cultural awareness events
2. displays in science and history
3. number of computer labs, etc.

V. Commendations
A. “in poor taste” – Let the incoming team decide what is commendable.
B. Don’t say “We are in compliance” and then list recommendations that suggest otherwise.

VI. General Suggestions
A. Read page 57ff. of the MS Team Visits booklet “Institutional Effectiveness with an eye for the expectations of that team.
B. If you mention methods then document them and have them embedded in
the document.
C. Don’t say with words what can be shown on graphs.
D. Between now and April do the things (recommendations) that this study
has suggested needs to be done.
E. Under “Student Learning” document learning that takes place outside the
classroom – residence halls; cultural offerings, etc. (TF Team #6)

VII. Summary and Conclusion
A. Strengthen them.
B. List accomplishments that have occurred as a result of the self study.
C. Use charts to handle expository data.
D. Quantify the discussions.

VIII. Future Hospitality to Visiting Team
A. Treat them with the accommodations (from overnight stays, to meals, to
scheduling and transportation) their professionalism deserves.
B. Encourage hospitality on their behalf throughout the entire campus.

IX. Words to Ponder
A. We do not have accreditation to settle internal matters. We want to see if you are doing what you say you are supposed to be doing – your mission.
B. Accreditation can bite you.
C. Those who are talking don’t know because those who know don’t have time enough to talk.
D. Show team that the self-study helped us to see what needed to be done and we did it – by April that is.

Attendance: Mel Leaman; William Bynum; Jeffrey Wilmont; Patricia Joseph; Jeff Hoogeveen; Safro Kwame; Dana R. Flint; J.K. VanDover; David F. Royer; Gladys J. Willis; Judith A.W. Thomas; Adonita Ahmetaj; G.D. Venerable; Linda Stine; Levi Nwachuku; Nancy Kenner; President Ivory Nelson

I. Approval of April 16, 2007 Minutes: Minutes were approved as submitted.

II: Reactions to the Self-Study Draft: Dr. Joseph led the team in a discussion regarding our reactions to the Self-Study Draft.

1. Mission, Goals, and Objectives/Integrity (Standards 1 & 6)
Dr. Thomas affirmed the draft and offered the following suggestions:
• It should be noted that each department has an honors program or club with special requirements. Add in mention of honor societies and link to list.
• Report should note what earlier mission was to show how the present one changed the emphases.

2. Planning, Resource Allocation & Institutional Renewal/InstitutionalResources (Standards 2 & 3) – No report

3. Leadership & Governance/Administration (Standards 4 & 5)
Dr. Flint has assumed the duties of Dr. Stafford, who is on sabbatical.
• The recommendations are appropriate.
• One way to educate the faculty would be the formation of a committee to raise issues and policies.
• He thought the summary and conclusion should be expanded in order to clarify the statement on page 29 that address the issue of non-compliance with the by-laws; he will send suggested wording and also perhaps some re-ordering of the text.

4. Student Admissions & Student Support Services (Standards 8 & 9)
Dr. Bynum reported.
• The present statements concerning the Academic Advising Center and the MHS discussion program are not necessary in Chapter 4 since they are addressed elsewhere. He suggested that it would be better to note simply that that MHS is in the process of revamping their program and going through the proper channels.
• The suggestion to survey the students should be stricken because we are already doing so.

5. Faculty (Standard 10)
Dr. Kwame reported.
• Some numbers still need to be filled in with respect to faculty publications and conference attendance/presentations.
• Perhaps we should add an appendix that adequately addresses our definition of Liberal Arts.

6. Educational Offerings (Standard 11)
Dr. Royer reported.
• Dr. Royer noted with approval the updates such as references to white board training that took place after the task force report had been submitted.
• Construction of the science building will begin November 1, not September .
• P. 66 should reference a new major in Environmental Science rather than a new minor in Ecology.

7. General Education & Related Educational Activities (Standards 12 & 13)
Dr. Button reported the draft was “beautifully accounted” and noted the following:
• There were a few minor typos.
• The statement that “integrative themes are tested upon exit” isn’t universally accurate; wording needs to be reconsidered.

8A. Institutional Assessment (Standard 7)
Dr. Hoogeveen reported that he was very pleased with the process and offered the following concerns:
• How do we assess progress towards achieving the goals outlined in the mission statement? Report should include a concrete example or two.
• Is it possible to “metanarrate” how the Middle States Self-Study process has improved the lines of communication at Lincoln?

8B. Assessment of Student Learning (Standard 14)
Dr. DeBoy could not be in attendance but emailed his comments and suggestions prior to the meeting..

General Comments to Overall Report
Dr. Kwame wondered if the numbers regarding the faculty-student ratios over the past ten years were correct. It was suggested that the co-chairs should verify the numbers. Dr. Bynum said the numbers were accurate, explaining that the rubric used is a universal instrument recommended for all colleges. The suggestion was made that we might look at two ratios, one for core courses and one for major courses.

III. Discussion of Proposed Standard Syllabus Components: Dr. Button presented the document she developed for English Department use showing the contents of the revised standard syllabus. Committee agreed that it should be presented for faculty approval at the October faculty meeting, with one change, adding the word “Student” in front of “Learner Outcomes” for standardization of terminology. Once the contents are approved by the faculty, an example packet should be developed and made available for faculty use. There was some discussion about how to bring language up to date, such as including email addresses as requirements rather than options and mentioning class policies on things such as iPod use.

IV. Plans for Sept. 23/24 Visit of Dr. Thelma Thompson:
Dr. Venerable distributed the schedule for Dr. Thelma Thompson’s visit and urged all Steering Committee members to be available to meet with Dr. Thompson between 1:30 and 2:30, Monday, September 24.

V. Sharing the Report: A variety of possible options for encouraging community conversation on the Self-study report was discussed. The committee decided that deans and department chairs should be encouraged to make the report a topic on school and department meetings this fall and that there should be one general meeting, with refreshments, at which the whole community to comes together and discusses the issues. Additionally, university constituents have access to the report on the Self-Study blog. Ms. Ahmetaj, SGA president, will make sure that the students are informed and involved.

VI. Steering Committee Meeting Dates/Times Fall 2007:
• Monday, Sept. 24 1:30 – 2:30 with Visiting Team Chair
• Tuesday, October 23 at 4:00 p.m.
• Tuesday, November 27, at 4:00 p.m.
• December meeting date to be announced

Middle States Steering Committee: April 16, 2007

Attendance: Adenita Ahmetaj, Marilyn Button, William Bynum, Stephanie Cameron, Jim DeBoy, Michael Hill, Mazarul Huq, Pat Joseph; Safro Kwame; Mel Leaman; Zoran Milovanovich; Levi Nwachuku; Benson Prigg, David Royer, Linda Stine, Judith Thomas, Grant Venerable, Gladys Willis

I. Approval of the Minutes
The minutes from the 3/26/07 meeting were approved with the following amendments:

• Benson Prigg’s name should be added to the attendance list.
• In the section headed “Lincoln Graduate Center,” the final sentence should read: Renovation of the second floor should be completed in the fall of 2008.
• Student Outcomes Assessment is Task Force 8B.

II. Discussion: Themes to Stress in Final Report
Committee members brainstormed ideas in response to the question “What is Lincoln’s legacy and how are we advancing it?”

• Legacy (looking back): Ideas with respect to legacy included leadership; student success as the “signature of the university;” student-centered focus; students committed to helping themselves and others grow; close teacher/student relationships; Lincoln pride; the idea of graduating students with “positive arrogance,” who have the ability to compete against anyone in the world and win; reverence for university’s history and mission; taking students with unrecognized potential who historically would not have been accepted elsewhere and helping them transform themselves into leaders; educational opportunities inside and outside of the classroom; students who will not accept less than the best from faculty; passion (for the university, for the intellect).
• Advancing the legacy (looking forward): Items pointed out as examples of advancing the legacy included facelift of infrastructure; improvement in the ways we measure student achievement; new curricula (although all the changes need to be assessed and ‘tightened up’); recognizing our past and celebrating our future; new pride in campus facilities; new art program with Barnes; turning out students prepared to compete at the highest level in whatever way they want to go; continuing and recapturing the personal connection between faculty and students.
• Other questions raised: Is there the same kind of personal faculty accessibility to students now as was treasured in the past? How exactly are we operationally defining the term student-centered? Are students now receiving appropriate kinds and level of academic challenge ? How can we reach out to new students especially, to develop close faculty/student relationships even before students declare majors? Are student voices heard enough in the task force reports?

III. Task Force Summary Reports: Kudos and Critiques

• Task Force 8B: Dr. Deboy reported that assessment of student learning has always been our Achilles heel. We are now moving to show not just that we can produce luminaries, but that we can document that every student who walks across the stage at graduation has acquired certain core competencies.
• Task Force 4: Dr. Bynum reported that some of the positive results of TF4’s self study are that committee members are learning that there are data from both internal and national surveys; Act 101: TIME continues to do an excellent job; the Learning Resource center has been reorganized and is functioning well, the FYE experience has gotten off to a successful start, tutoring efforts have been working well, the reorganization of student services with the Office of Graduate Student Services has brought new voices to the discussion and is helping to bring about positive change at the graduate level.
• Task Force 7: In response to the question raised by Dr. Prigg about where the many helpful things being done off campus, such as high school partnerships, will be located in the final report, Dr. Button said that it might appear in TF 7 (Gen.Ed. & Related Educational Activities), although task force members had not been specifically charged to address that sort of issue. She also felt that the town/gown issue should be addressed at some point in the overall document.
• Task Force 5: Drs. Kwame and Huq reported that Lincoln has a “wonderful diversity” of faculty. The main problem the task force noted is the proliferation of part-time faculty and the possible lack of representation of women at the various faculty ranks.
• Task Force 2: Dr. Prigg pointed out that it was very helpful to have the resource room in the library where task forces could find documents. His main concern with respect to the task force report is that the process of planning be made as visible as possible, so that everyone can understand it better and thus be more actively involved in it.
• Task Force 6: Dr. Milovanovich singled out the improvements to the curriculum and faculty’s attempts to enhance majors to make them more current and more in keeping with the university mission. One weakness his task force noted is that technology isn’t really penetrating teaching practices to the extent that it should be, despite the fact that we are seeing technology more and more on campus. He suggested that we might consider making appropriate technology use a requirement of the workplace. Ms. Cameron pointed out that students can’t leave school today if they don’t have the technology skills to survive in the workplace. Agreeing, Dr. Huq remarked that he has definitely seen an improvement in student learning as a result of his incorporation of WebCT into his courses. Dr. Thomas suggested that all faculty should be invited every year to do something new with technology. Others pointed out that this would be a good charge for the proposed Teaching Effectiveness Center and that at the least all teachers of FYE courses should have a technology component in their course.
• Task Force 1: Dr. Thomas reported that they are still collecting information and will be meeting in the next week to construct their report.
• Task Force 3: Neither task Force 3 co-chair was able to be present at the time of the task force updates.

IV. Assessment Day Update:
Dr. Stine reminded everyone of the upcoming April 23 Assessment Day activities, with Dr. Peter Gray, from the U.S. Naval Academy as the keynote speaker.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m., among mutual compliments from co-chairs and committee members for a year well spent and a task well done.

Respectfully submitted:

Linda Stine/Mel Leaman

Middle States Steering Committee: March 26, 2007

Attendance: William Bynum; Jim DeBoy; Dana Flint; Mazarul Huq; Pat Joseph; Safro Kwame; Mel Leaman; Zoran Milovanovich; Levi Nwachuku; Benson Prigg; David Royer; Susan Safford; Linda Stine; Judith Thomas; Grant Venerable; Gladys Willis

Call to Order – Grant Venerable

Dr. Venerable applauded the open dialogue this team shares about concerns and issues. It is the crux of what we are all about. The final document will not necessarily reflect the depth of our discussions.

Lincoln Graduate Center

William Bynum brought a rendering of the outside of the center on 3020 Market Street in Philadelphia. The building will become “Grade A” space with the university occupying the second floor plus 5,000 square feet of the third floor. Renovations of the second floor of the facility should be completed in the spring of 2008.

Task Force #6: Educational Offerings – David Royer

- Some question about the level of collaboration between the library and the staff was raised.
- It was noted that sometimes there is a significant gap of time (two semesters) between the time a transfer student is accepted and the time his/her transcript is updated.

There was no report from the General Education Task Force. Neither Dr. Button nor Nancy Kenner was able attend the meeting.

Task Force 8A (Institutional Assessment) –Dana Flint–and 8 B: Student Outcomes Assessment – Jim DeBoy

- Jim DeBoy mentioned that, due to the need to measure competencies, this section is one part of the report that Middle States will closely scrutinize. He noted that the three statements listed under “Assessment of Student Learning” (page 16) will presently have to be answered in the negative. There was considerable discussion around the ways to address the assessment of students. It appears that one of the most feasible responses is to have those with expertise train other faculty members who in turn, train others.
- Dr. Flint will interview Dr. Venerable and Dr. Bynum in an effort to address the issues of institutional assessment.

Task Force 3: Leadership and Governance – Susan Stafford

- Dr. Stafford questioned whether or not we have “qualified staffing” (see page 7) at the administrative levels. She also suggested that studies indicate an insufficient number of faculty members. In recent years, the enrollment of students has increased while the number of full-time faculty has decreased. This is a pattern that needs to be addressed.

Minutes of the previous meetings were approved.

Final Drafts are due on March 30

Upcoming Meetings:

Middle States and Milestones – April 16
Assessment Day Training – April 23

A Middle States report will be given at the Faculty Conference in August.

Respectfully submitted,
Mel Leaman

MIDDLE STATES STEERING COMMITTEE: FEBRUARY 26, 2007

Attendance: Linda Stine; Mel Leaman; James DeBoy; Zoran Milovanovich; Gladys Willis; Judith Thomas; Grant Venerable; Stephanie Cameron; William Bynum; Safro Kwame

I. January 29, 2007 Minutes: approved.

II. Brainstorming: Fundamental Elements Grid

Linda Stine led the group in a lengthy, but very productive session. There was considerable dialogue between members in an attempt to come to a mutual understanding of the elements. Considerable interaction ensued beyond the boundaries of a mere brainstorm to evaluative comments regarding the rationale and assessment of the elements. The process proved to yield a fruitful dialogue; however, due to time constraints the committee agreed to continue their efforts at the next meeting which was scheduled for Monday, March 12 at 4:00.

MIDDLE STATES STEERING COMMITTEE: MARCH 12, 2007

Attendance: Jim DeBoy; Mel Leaman; Dana Flint; Marilyn Button; Benson Prigg; Safro Kwame; Zoran Milovanovich; Levi Nwachuku; Grant Venerable; Judith Thomas; Linda Stine; William Bynum; Ivory Nelson

I. February 26, 2007 Minutes: approved

II. Brainstorming (with hopes of completion): Fundamental Elements Grid

A. Task Force #2: Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal/Institutional Resources

A question regarding the frequency and effectiveness of periodic assessment was raised. Related topics included inquiries as to the reasons for the gradual decline in SAT scores of Lincoln students. Despite the fact that the President gives an institutional assessment on a quarterly basis to the trustees and questions concerning the allotments of human, physical, and financial resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of all parties involved are discussed at cabinet meetings, it was determined that we should flag “institutional resources” as a category that remains “somewhat vague.” We need to more thoroughly address this in the coming years. It was noted by Vice President Venerable that while we cannot record perfection we can document the extent to which we are effective and efficient.

President Nelson painted a more positive picture than many faculty and students have held. He expressed a bit of disenchantment over the reality that there are myths about Lincoln University that feed misperceptions of the present and the past. First of all, he commented that to some extent, in some areas, assessment should be easy. For instance, we were once in debt, now we aren’t; we once had deteriorated facilities, now we don’t; faculty were at one time underpaid, now they aren’t. What’ so hard about that?

Dr. Nelson, with a heartfelt passion to help Lincoln have a better self-concept, proceeded to debunk the myth that our quality of students has gradually lowered over the years. Access and opportunity has always been Lincoln’s mission. He read from a letter dated May 29, 1957. It was written by Horace Mann Bond, Chairperson of the Board. Dr. Bond is responding to a letter by a Mr. Grim who mentions the “low quality of students” and was in the business of “depreciating the institution.” Bond comments: “The appreciation of the past has led to an undervaluation of the present.” Interestingly enough, many of the accusations that Mr. Grim posed are similar to those we hear today. Dr. Nelson does not want Lincoln to cut herself short. In that light he offered the following statistics:

1. Lincoln graduates 40% in six years. This is good. The only HBCU that does better is Spellman.
2. The national average for graduating African Americans is 38%.
3. The national average for graduating all students is 50%.

Dr. Nelson also debunked a myth regarding athletes. The facts show that student athletes graduate at a higher rate than non-athletes.

Task Force #5: Faculty

There was some discussion as to whether or not to answer in the affirmative when there was not a group consensus on questions like: Do we have qualified and prepared faculty? It was determined that we could say “yes” without loss of integrity because we are moving in that direction. The following items were noted for future consideration:

1. Do we need more women faculty?
2. Do we want the number of part-time faculty to be increasing?
3. Define “excellence.” Do our outcomes for majors reflect this?
4. Are evaluations of faculty, deans, and the Vice President equitable?

Next Step for Narratives:

They must be given to the Steering Committee for review by March 30. All final revisions will be made over the summer.

Next Meeting:

Final Brainstorming Session - Monday, March 26 at 4:00

Task Force 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives, Integrity

Co-chairs:
Dr. Robert Langley, Chair, Chemistry
Dr. Judith Thomas, Dean, School of Social Science & Behavioral Studies

Members:
Drexel Ball, University Communications Director
Donald Bradt, Assistant Professor, Political Science
Jeffrey Chapp, Associate Professor, Visual Arts
Moses Haimbodi, Lecturer, Math & Computer Science
Chieke Ihejirika, Assistant Professor, Political Science
Helen Major, Assistant Professor, Physics
Gwinyai Muzorewa, Professor, Religion
Susan Pevar, Assistant Professor, Library
Saligrama SubbaRao, Professor, Chemistry
Stanley Tsai, Associate Professor, Physics

Summary of charges

1. How well does Lincoln University fulfill its institutional mission and goals?
2. How well does Lincoln University understand the students it serves and tie student performance to its mission and goals?
3. How closely is Lincoln University’s budget development and allocation process tied to its mission, goals, and educational priorities?
4. How well has the Institution achieved its 13 institutional goals?
5. How effective are the mission and goals statements in successfully carrying the University into the future while reflecting Lincoln’s legacy of achievement, historic values and heritage, and relevance of its students?

Areas of Special Commendation
TO BE ADDED

Recommendations for Change
TO BE ADDED

Task Force 2: Planning, Resource Allocation & Institutional Renewal/ Institutional Resources

Co-chairs:
Dr. John Chikwem, Dean, School of Natural Sciences & Mathematics
Dr. Benson Prigg, Associate Professor, English & Mass Communication

Members:
Alvin Amos, Professor, Visual and Performing Arts
James Bednez, Lecturer, HPER
Renford Brevett, Director, Institutional Research
Albert Bryson, Instructor, Library
Patrick Hall, Associate Professor, Director, Library
Ruth Dziadosz
Howard Merlin, Vice President, Finance (or designee)
Reggie Myrick, Instructor, Mathematics & Computer Sciences
Ganga Ramdas, Professor, Economics & Business [on leave spr06]
Oswald Richards, Associate Professor, Economics & Business
Thelma Ross, Financial Aid Director
Amar Tung, Assistant Professor, Chemistry

Specific Charges

1. How well does Lincoln allocate and utilize institutional resources to support its mission?
2. Since 1999, how effective has Lincoln University’s purpose- and mission-focused planning been in relation to Lincoln’s strategy-focused vision?
3. How well do the priorities and goals set forth in the University’s annual strategic plan support the stated mission?
4. How effective is the annual planning and assessment process (e.g., PAWS workshops)?
5. How effective are Lincoln’s master planning process and the process by which it generates revenue to carry out those plans?

Areas of Special Commendation

• No deficits have occurred since 2000. Operating revenues have been sufficient for the university’s expenditure with a modest balance each year.
• Maintenance of existing facilities and construction of new facilities have been pursued aggressively since 2000.
• Improvements in the acquisition and use of technology have been significant since 2000.
• Salary increases especially among faculty have made Lincoln University more competitive in recruiting and keeping highly qualified faculty.
• Strategic planning has been institutionalized at Lincoln University since 2000.

Recommendations for Change

• The university needs to increase its private gifts endowments and investment incomes.
• Faculty salaries have increased significantly since 2000; however, salaries at Lincoln are still below PA state averages. Salaries of assistant professors and lecturers are also below national averages and need to be improved.
• The operation of PAWS needs to be simplified and tied to existing strategic goals with feedback to departments on how their goals influence resource allocation. PAWS should not be used to create new goals every year unless circumstances dictate the creation of a new goal. This will enable units sufficient time to accomplish previous goals.
• The PAWS workshop process should be used to ensure that activities are in line with accomplishing goals and objectives o the Strategic Plan. The activities in each department should be reviewed and assessed annually to evaluate effectiveness. A collaborative and feedback approach is required between the chairs, deans and vice president to coordinate activities designed to achieve each year’s goal.
• The budget allocation for library resources needs to be significantly increased. The Association of College an Research Libraries recommends 5% of the university budget for the library.

Task Force 3: Leadership & Governance / Administration

Co-chairs:
Mr. Michael Hill, Vice President/Development
Dr. Susan Safford, Associate Professor, Biology, President, LUCAAUP

Members:
K. Ramachandra Bhat, Professor, Chemistry
Neal Carlson, Associate Professor, Library
William Dadson, Professor, Business & Economics
Dana Flint, Professor, Philosophy [on leave Spr06]
Valerie Tate Green, Chaplain
Yvonne Hilton, Instructor, HPER
Min Li, Assisant Professor, Mathematics & Computer Science
Nicole Stephens, Assistant Professor, Education
Kiran Taunk, Director, Human Resources
Frank Worts, Lecturer, Master of Human Services

Specific Charges:

1. How well does the University foster a collegial climate of shared governance?.
2. How well does the Board of Trustees assess its own effectiveness?
3. How well does the Board of Trustees advance Lincoln’s mission?
4. How has institutional assessment resulted in significant changes in the governance process-structure?
5. What significant changes in institutional policies have been made since 1999?

Areas of Special Commendation

• In response to the Middle States recommendation to strengthen the divisions, the administration developed a dean structure with specific written duties of the deans.

Recommendations for Change

• Many faculty see the dean’s offices as being the primary vehicle responsible for weakening the role of faculty in governance. The university needs to return to the 1998 and 2203 Middle States documents and respond in the spirit and not only the substance of those recommendations. A thorough academic review of the deanship structure that included faculty members would be an excellent first step in restoring faculty faith in the administration’s recognition that faculty do share a role in governance. Such a review should result in the dean’s offices being more proactive in anticipating the needs of the departments to adequately serve our students. Such actions as adding last minute course sections and hiring additional faculty after a semester has begun are reactive responses. Secondarily, the dean’s offices could make interdisciplinary programs, collaborations, and research a priority. This would bring our pedagogy and faculty member’s research more into line with what is happening at progressive universities around the country.

TASK FORCE 4: Student Admissions & Student Support Services

Co-chairs:
Dr. William Bynum, Jr., V.P., Student Affairs & Enrollment Management
Dr. Melvin Leaman, Assistant Professor, Religion

Members:
Susan Chikwem, Lecturer, English & Mass Communications
Dr. Lennell Dade, Associate Professor, Psychology
Dr. Jacqueline Gibson, Director, Learning Resource Center & Act 101
H. Wade Johnson, Visiting Instructor, Music & Performing Arts
Cyrus Jones, Associate Professor, HPER
Jernice Lea, Director, Graduate Student Services & Admissions
Heather Leninger-Digan, Instructor, HPER
Dr. Robert Millette, Professor, Sociology
Dr. Goro Nagase, Professor, Mathematics & Computer Science
Dr. Nichole Stephens, Assistant Professor, Education
Dr. Derrick Swinton, Assistant Professor, Chemistry
Michael Taylor, Director, Undergraduate Admissions
Dr. Admasu Tucho, Assistant Professor & Graduate Studies Coordinator
Dr. F. Carl Walton, Assistant Professor, Political Science
Morgan Shaw, Graduate Student Representative
Shaelin Kinder, Undergraduate Student Representative

Specific Charges

1. How effective are the University’s student support processes?
2. How does assessment impact change in recruitment, admissions, and retention?
3. What do we know about student attitudes (graduate and undergraduate) as reflected in reasons for matriculation, persistence to graduation, and departure before graduation?
4. How well do we meet the needs of the students we admit?

Areas of Special Commendation

• The offices of Undergraduate Admissions, Graduate Student Services and Admissions and Financial Aid are to be commended for their work in meeting University enrollment goals and for providing valuable and helpful information to prospective students. The interpersonal interactions of staff with students, the efficiency of office operations and the thorough brochures and information disseminated are outstanding and rival all competitor schools.
• The University should be commended for recognizing and addressing issues regarding enrollment and retention of its students. The goals addressing these issues are outlined succinctly in the SAEM Strategic Plan (2006-2010) and are in line with the Strategic Plans of Lincoln University. The organizational structure and tasks of the individual departments within SAEM are in place and are continuously being developed to address important issues that challenge the academic community at-large. Some key issues include enrollment and retention.
• Courses (seminars) such as the First Year Seminar are outstanding additions to the curriculum. It provides an avenue to establish a firm foundation of knowledge for new students to the University. In addition, the First Year Experience Program run by the Office of Student Life and Development is tailor made to provide year long support for first year students.
• The broadening of the athletic program is an enhancement for the University based on the efforts of the President and Student Affairs and Enrollment Management Division. It will increase school spirit and student interaction. The addition of football, a marching band, bowling and women’s golf will provide more opportunities for student activity. In general, success in these areas assists with recruitment and admissions, as these activities are drawing cards for students.
• The Student Life and Development Division is to be commended for its program that provides extensive training in student leadership. The Student Activities Associates gain knowledge of theoretical principles of student leadership and are able to apply these principles as they assist with various administrative functions in the Division. These students are gaining preparation that paves the way for eventual graduate school opportunities in Higher Education and Student Personnel Services. It is believed that these activities motivate students toward academic excellence, as the advisors require significant accountability. For example, they have pre-training prior to the beginning of the school year and in service training throughout the school year. The Emerging Leaders Program and a leadership series that is required for all organizational leaders enhance their ability to serve as peer mentors to their fellow students. This training component is key in that it re-enforces the discipline and structure that is provided by the classroom.

Recommendations For Change

• Over the past two years, the university has realized increased enrollments with the freshman class. Consequently, the student personnel staff advisors had to be increased in number to accommodate freshman students who could not be assigned to faculty given the fact of their collective bargaining agreement limiting the number of advisees to be assigned to faculty with full teaching loads. Also, the Advising Center is not staffed to accommodate the additional students, which puts an extra burden on the Director to take on an expanded caseload of advisees in addition to overseeing the management of the Advising Center and twenty-seven faculty and student personnel staff advisors coming under its jurisdiction. Given this situation, the Director is recommending that the university switch to a Split Model of Advising, wherein students coming to the university with the intent of going into a specific major be allowed to declare their major upon entry. These particular students would be assigned to a faculty advisor in the department of their major, and undecided students would be advised by an advisor in the Academic Advising Center. As it stands now, faculty do not have the time to advise undecided students given their teaching and department responsibilities (see Appendix C for full discussion of this matter by the Director of the Academic Advising Center).
• The University should enlist more input and support from relevant departments in developing strategies and models to assess and evaluate the attitudes of students matriculating, persisting to graduate, and departing before graduation. It is the committee’s belief that a student’s attitude plays a significant role in their academic success, and life. Gaining insight into a student’s attitude regarding college can assist the university in refining its enrollment management and retention strategies.
• It is recommended that there be an increase in cooperative activities between the Divisions of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management (Student Services), Athletics and Academic Affairs.
• The First Year Experience (FYE) courses are an excellent addition to the curriculum. However, expanding teaching opportunities to staff members in Student Affairs who have the academic credentials can enhance this course.
• The survey that was formerly distributed to students should be reinstated and a consistent cycle decided upon. It was a valuable source of information at the time that it was used and can continue to provide valuable student input.
• Increase the resources that are available to organizations that bridge both areas such as the Honors Program, the Learning Center and Academic Advisement.

Task Force 5: Faculty

Co-chairs:
Dr. Mazharul Huq, Professor, Physics
Dr. Safro Kwame, Associate Professor, Philosophy and Religion

Members:
Mr. Mahinder Chopra, Professor, Library
Dr. Patricia Lewis-West, Assistant Professor, Education
Mr. Jawahar Pathak, Assistant Professor, Mathematics and Computer Sciences
Mr. Charles Pettaway, Associate Professor, Visual and Performing Arts
Dr. Violet Plantz, Assistant Professor, Master of Human Services
Dr. Maria Poza, Assistant Professor, Modern Languages and Literature
Mr. Shaun Sherwood, Undergraduate Student
Dr. Oluropo Sekoni, Professor, English and Mass Communications
Ms. Brittany Stephens, Undergraduate Student
Dr. Elizabeth Surplus, Assistant Professor, Education
Mr. Jeff Wilmot, Graduate Student

Summary of charges

1. How effective, in terms of institutional missions and goals for student performance outcomes, is Lincoln University’s particular faculty representation of tenured, tenure-track, visiting, and part-time faculty?
2. How effective is Lincoln’s evaluation process for full-time and part-time faculty?
3. How productive is Lincoln’s faculty?
4. How effective is Lincoln’s faculty development model?
5. How do we know that the Lincoln faculty manifests academic excellence?

Areas of Special Commendation

• In light of its institutional missions and goals, Lincoln University’s particular faculty representation of tenured, tenure-track, visiting, and part-time faculty is effective in terms of cultural diversity and international representation. The Faculty, Administration and Students are increasing their cooperation and partnership in the wake of the Faculty strike of 2003. Faculty access to computers and the internet has improved over the years.

Recommendations for Change

• To address the issue of cohesiveness and effectiveness as well as the perception of usurpation of power, the University should fully implement or enforce Robert’s Rules of Order at Faculty meetings and strictly adhere to established University procedures about changes in curricula, pre-requisites and grades as well as reduce the use of ad-hoc committees.
• It is recommended that part-time faculty be reduced. While there are no hard and fast figures, given that the stability and continuity of a university usually rests on the shoulders of the full-time faculty, it is inadvisable for part-time faculty to constitute more than 20% of the full-time faculty. There are too few visiting faculty at Lincoln University, according to the most recent faculty list; since visiting faculty inject new ideas into an otherwise static population and the current Fall 2005 figures indicate that Lincoln University has only 5 visiting faculty. This is not to suggest that visiting faculty should be used to subvert the process of hiring regular tenure-track faculty as seemed to be the case in earlier years.
• The ongoing process by the Promotion, Tenure, and Severance Committee in establishing criteria for post-tenure review of Faculty is likely to add another dimension to Faculty evaluation, particularly of tenured Faculty, and should be carefully assessed before being implemented.
• Lincoln University should set up a committee to formally review the process by which Lincoln defines and assesses faculty productivity in terms of student performance outcomes and cuts or down-grades programs on the basis of the number of majors.
• Lincoln University should increase the budget allotment for faculty development grants and explore the possibility of supporting and funding a proposal for a Center for Teaching and Learning Effectiveness since, if done right, it has the potential of adding a new and exciting dimension to Lincoln University’s current model of faculty development. Lincoln University needs to create a data-base of faculty-development research, and substantially increase the amount of money made available for faculty development in order to improve the effectiveness of the faculty in relation to research and scholarship.
• Lincoln University should consider sending published papers of Lincoln faculty to their peers on other campuses to comment on their quality before such faculty are classified as manifesting academic excellence.
• The University should set up a committee to define academic excellence for faculty and not just (for) students or the general University campus.

Task Force 6: Educational Offerings

Co-chairs:
Dr. David Royer, Professor, Chair, Biology
Dr. Zoran Milovanovich, Professor, Sociology & Anthropology

Members:
Joanne DeBoy, Associate Professor and Chair, Education
Carol George, Assistant Professor, Education
Todd Herring, Assistant Professor, History
Anna Hull, Assistant Professor, Biology
Rufus Jimerson, Assistant Professor, Education
Joseph McIlhenny, Assistant Professor, Library
Marie Nigro, Associate Professor, English & Mass Communications
Pallavi Pathak, Lecturer, Mathematics & Computer Science
Kaukab Siddique, Associate Professor, English & Mass Communications
Virginia Smith, Associate Professor, Master of Human Services
Vanessa Pla, Undergraduate Student
Staci Scott, Graduate Student
Anneshia Lyttle, Graduate Student

Summary of charges

1. How consistent are all undergraduate majors with the University’s mission?
2. Are the University’s facilities (library, classrooms, learning laboratories, course materials, technology, staff) adequate?
3. How well do curricula in our undergraduate and graduate programs demonstrate appropriate content, rigor and depth?
4. How well are graduates of Lincoln’s undergraduate and graduate programs prepared?
5. How well do our current major curricula sustain our mission and the long-term needs and interests of our students?

Areas of Special Commendation

• Library – most chairpersons indicated that the library resources were sufficient to support their major offerings and that the library staff worked well with faculty and students.
• International Services – this office was mentioned as cooperating closely with students to arrange a variety of study abroad experiences that complement the departmental majors.

Recommendations for Change

• Recommendation: Individual departments should investigate ways in which more of the elements of the University’s mission statement could be incorporated into the major requirements.
• Recommendation: The Alumni Affairs Office should conduct periodic surveys of our graduates to determine employability, graduate and professional school admissions and completion, and satisfaction with their undergraduate education.
• Recommendation: For each major and for each course in the major, a set of concepts should be identified that each student in that course/major must master in order to pass the course/graduate from the major.
• Recommendation: Departments should encourage their students to have scores on standardized exams reported to their chairpersons so that each department has an accurate picture of how their students are doing on these exams.
• Recommendation: The Institutional Technology office should work more closely with the faculty through the Technology Committee so that faculty and student technology needs are more clearly expressed to IT.

Task Force 7: General Education, Educational Activities

Co-chairs:
Dr. Marilyn Button, Professor, Chair, English & Mass Communication
Ms. Nancy Kenner, Director, Academic Advising Center

Members:
Emmanuel Babatunde, Professor, Sociology [on leave 2005-06]
Tong Banh, Associate Professor, Mathematics & Computer Sciences
Ali Barimani, Assistant Professor, Mathematics & Computer Sciences
Efthimia Bastas, Associate Professor, Master of Human Services[on leave Fall06]
William Garcia, Professor, Visual & Performing Arts
Milford Greene, Director, Sponsored Programs & Continuing Education
Delroy Louden, Professor, Psychology
Constance Lundy, Director, International Programs & Services
Abbes Maazaoui, Associate Professor, Foreign Languages & Literatures
Lillian McKethan, Associate Professor, Education
Daryl Poe, Assistant Professor, History
Lynn Roberts, Professor, Physics
Laurellen Treisner, Associate Professor, Mathematics & Computer Sciences
Cynthia Whitesel, Lecturer, English & Mass Communications

Summary of charges

1. How effectively does Lincoln’s core appropriately reflect Lincoln’s liberal arts and science-based mission, and how clearly are core content and rationale communicated within the institution and in official (print and non-print) publications?
2. How successful are Lincoln University’s developmental efforts (English, math, oral communication, Act 101/T.I.M.E., MHS Pre-master’s Program)?
3. How effectively are the core and major curricula integrated?
4. How accurate are placement and exit criteria?
5. How effective are Lincoln’s internship and off-campus experiences?

Areas of Special Commendation

• The MHS Pre-Masters Program keeps good records, is graduating students, and the director reports that the program is successful. Likewise, the ACT 101 Achievement Program is successfully graduating students who are not meeting the minimum requirements for admittance to the University. The Freshman Writing Program is one facet of the strategic university-wide Writing Proficiency Program. It has developed strategies to enhance retention, including required Writing Lab hours in the syllabus for E100 and E101, and increased hours for the Humanities Tutoring program, some of which will be held in the Writing Lab itself. To address misplacement into developmental courses, the Freshman Writing Program has developed a system for “skipping” a course, based on a portfolio system which is evaluated by departmental faculty.
• The faculty is to be commended for the development of the 8 competencies. Every major indicated that it is making an effort to meet the goal of integrating the competencies with course offerings, especially in the area of listening and thinking.
• Departments that use a variety of placement assessments should be commended. With our student population and in compliance with our university mission, we need to assess placements in a variety of ways, such as standardized testing, personal interviews, recommendations from school counselors, and department tests.
• Of special note are the two departments that continue to assess using standardized tests. The math department requires a SAT score of at least 1000 or higher. The chemistry department requires a standardized test development by the American Chemical Society. Education continues to use PDE to measure graduation criteria.
• Students who do not meet minimum requirements are given opportunities through tutoring and special programs in math, reading, and writing to bring their preparedness and academic skills up to university level. When they successfully complete the developmental courses, they may be placed in higher-level classes, if the departments deem them prepared to do the work.
• For exit assessments, departments use a variety of measures to determine students’ readiness for graduation, including portfolios that reflect both formative and summative assessments. The Department of Education uses the State-mandated criteria established by the PDE. Our university program continues to meet the Commonwealth’s self-assessment for the PDE and Education.
• Consonant with the university’s mission statement which emphasizes global education, the International Studies program has been successful in providing study abroad experiences for many students. (See enclosed report).
• Dr. Delroy Louden, who oversees ORPDC Office of Research, Planning, Development Coordination, has been very progressive in developing internships in the sciences especially through NIH.

Recommendations for Change

• The Act 101 Achievement Program has not produced an Annual Report since 2001-2002. The Program also recently changed directors. This is an opportunity for a thorough review of the program
• The Math and Education departments responded that they have neither conducted nor established research parameters to ensure that their respective developmental programs are effective.
• Developmental courses in the Department of English and Mass Communications remain at 25 and above, despite nationally recognized class limits of 15 for this student population, and despite university catalogue rhetoric that advertises small classes. The committee recommends maintaining smaller numbers for developmental classes.
• This sub-committee recommends that departments continue with multiple placement assessments.
• For exit criteria, we have the following recommendations:
• All departments should put into place articulated and formalized exit criteria and program assessments that are based on department standards.
• All departments should provide a capstone experience for majors and articulate the standards for successful completion of the capstone.
• Departments should establish formative and summative assessments for majors, as well as exit assessments, and periodically review the progress of students in the major.
• Departments should establish an electronic portfolio system for all majors.
• Departments should attempt to follow graduates for two years after graduation.
• Departments should tie student exit criteria to program assessment.
• This subcommittee recommends that all internship and off campus experiences be channeled through one main office called the Office of Internships and Off Campus Experiences. This office could also do letters of recommendation and become a repository of information on students and what they have done.
• At this time, the Office of Career Services channels some internship possibilities, but it is too small to handle concerns of this scope. In addition, each dept. should have a website that lists internship, study abroad, Coop and Research possibilities. We need a more uniform effort to ensure that students would have opportunities.
• Although there is one category in the new undergraduate core curriculum which is labeled “Academic Enrichment (3-6 credits) and includes Study Abroad, Co-op education, Internships, Research, and/or Capstone course, it’s still possible to come to Lincoln and not do an internship

Task Force 8A, Institutional Assessment

Chair:
Dr. Jeff Hoogeveen, English and Mass Communications

Members of Committee 8A
Elizabeth Pitt, Instructor, Library
Emery Petchauer, Instructor, Education
Dana Flint, Professor, Philosophy and Religion

Summary of charges

1. How committed are Lincoln University’s constituencies to regular utilization and evaluation of an institutional assessment plan based on the university’s mission and goals?
2. How effectively does Lincoln evaluate its assessment process?
3. How systematically has institutional assessment been practiced since 1999?
4. How effectively does the Strategic Plan regularly incorporate assessment outcomes?

Areas of Special Commendation

• Generally speaking, all three Vice Presidents and their offices should be commended for their attention to detail, for their obvious commitment to achieving the goals and objectives and for their professionalism and flexibility while working toward the achievement of those goals and objectives. While battles over resources and “turf” may have caused some problematic policies during earlier visits and during Self-Studies, today’s Lincoln University is overseen by three competent and modest professionals who work together under the leadership of an outgoing and dedicated President.

Commendations
The major areas of commendation include:
In General
The creation of a Strategic Plan (covering the years 2006 through 2010) that is, pardon the cliché, a living document, meaning it guides policies in a realistic way and builds off success in achieving earlier goals and objectives.

Specific to Fiscal Affairs, Development and External Relations, Student Affairs
The creation and adherence to a transparent budgetary process. Additional areas of commendation include:
o ORGANIZATIONAL HIGHLIGHTS
• Achieved managerial and fiscal stability.
• Established a redefined vision, mission, and operating procedures.
• Established university Centers of Excellence in the sciences, business, communications, and teacher education.
• Secured $130 million for the construction of two new facilities ($51 million), a redesigned infrastructure ($29 million), and the renovation of ten existing facilities ($50 million).
• Achieved the University’s first ever investment grade rating (A-3 rating from Moody’s Investor’s Service) that resulted in the sale of $40 million in bonds to construct a new 400-bed residence hall and refinance the 200,000-square-foot Graduate and Continuing Education Center in Philadelphia.
• Significantly increased the University’s level of visibility both regionally and nationally.
• Re-established the University’s role as an educational resource and an economic enhancement to the surrounding community.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
• Reduced operating expenses by more than $2 million by cutting waste and by increasing operating efficiencies.
• Clean audits for the last five years; no findings last two years.
• Capital commitment from State to Lincoln growing overall.
• State support with operating budget appropriations and capital improvements since 1972.
• Balanced budget four consecutive years.
• Well developed strategic planning and budgeting process-Lincoln dealt with balancing a budget in challenging times.
• Since 1999, achieved a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.7%; this is an exceptional cost containment in University operations when considering the astronomical increases in utilities, property insurance and health insurance costs.
The laudable and obvious work toward creating a safer and modern campus via the newly created Police Department and through capital improvements that have been undertaken constantly under the guidance of the President.
The progress made toward addressing the lack of funding to maintain and upgrade the Physical Plant and to replace an outmoded administrative computer system.
The work, albeit inconsistent with regards to the IT office, toward creating a viable technology-rich computer-based learning community. Under its different names, the evolution of the Instructional Technology office is clear and positive as it works toward linking the best in technology with students, administration, and faculty.
Noticeable and welcome improvements in the salary system and with the bidding and purchasing processes.
Progress toward slowing attrition and with providing some resources toward supporting under-prepared students.
History Making Enrollment
• Largest total new student class in University history (923 - 708 undergrad, 215 grad); previous high 785 in 1997
• Largest new undergraduate class in University history (708 - 636 freshmen, 43 transfers and 35 readmits); previous high 611 in 1996
• Largest freshmen class in University history (636); previous high 575 in 1996
• Largest overall student body in University history (2,278 - 1,714 undergrad, 564 graduate); previous high 2,084 in 1998
• Largest undergraduate student body in University history (1,714); previous high 1,541 in 1998
• Largest graduate student body in University history (564); previous high 554 in 1999
Recruitment
Significant Increase in undergraduate applications – Fall 2004 (4436) vs. Fall 2005 (5784).
Increase in total deposits paid – Fall 2004 (614) vs. Fall 2005 (833).
Largest freshman class in Lincoln history – 636 freshman undergraduates.
o 708 total new students vs. 611 in Fall 2004.
• Increased church outreach.
o 35 church visits.
• Enhanced recruitment strategies.
o Increased high school visits & college fairs.
• Increased common application pool. (EDU, Inc)
o Fall 2004 (877) vs. Fall 2005 (1445)
• Enhanced recruitment and marketing materials.
• Increased students attendance from non-traditional states.
o States include: AR, CA, FL, IL, IN, KS, NV, RI, SC, TX, VA
ACT 101/T.I.M.E. PROGRAM AND LEARNING RESOURCE CENTER
• Hired Ms. Rachel Manson, MSW, LSW as the Assistant Director. Her start date was October 24, 2005.
• Increased our staff involvement in registration (registered 178) by adding two individuals as academic advisors during the registration periods. We now have five individuals trained to provide academic advising.
• Hired a consultant (Mr. Andre Farley, VP for Student Enrollment at Allen University, Columbia, SC) to create a database to improve our ability to monitor students using a computer program to make phone calls to our students, send emails and to produce letters. The computer program will also allow us to track our students and their progress more efficiently.
• Student Data Disk was completed in July for the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE).
• Identified 18 Act 101 students eligible (See enclosed list in appendix) for induction into Chi Alpha Epsilon National Honor Society.
ATHLETICS (INTERCOLLEGIATE)
The past athletic season proved to be a memorable one for the Lincoln University Athletic Department. In addition to all of the team success, several student-athletes excelled and helped advance the Lincoln legacy by being ranked among the top student-athletes in Division III academically and athletically. Also, Lincoln University benefited from having athletes featured in Sports Illustrated and from making an appearance on ESPN. Three athletic teams (men’s soccer, women’s basketball, and men’s basketball) advanced to the postseason. Here is a snapshot of the year that was.
UNIVERSITY ACCOMPLISHMENT
• Board of Trustees vote to re-instate football, add a marching band, and give President Dr. Ivory Nelson permission to seek membership in the CIAA (Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association) on April 8, 2006.

Recommendations for Change

• As elaborated in the Analysis section, positive communication and the building of trust among University constituencies would allow the entire Lincoln University community to move ahead and establish newer and more challenging goals and objectives in the future. Specifically and simply, treating all constituencies as if they had an equal stake and were equal participants in the achievement of the University’s outcomes. The realization that in virtually every case, except in communication between groups on campus, all participants are already engaged and committed to the goals and objectives of Lincoln would help, much more than undercutting some groups’ effectiveness by intentional slights and affronts. Similarly, some groups, for instance, a few members of the faculty, need to rein in their spontaneous and negative verbal reactions to an Administration that claims, but, ironically, rarely acts, as if it has the power to “top-down” dictate policy. An honest appraisal of how Lincoln actually works is in everyone’s best interest. Honesty in the form of critical questioning of an accepted and paternalistic cliché (that the University operates under some sort of business model—a patently false premise that collapses under any interrogation) might stem the negative discourse that causes offense and affronts, with the realization that no currently operating business would ever adopt the University’s model of insulting necessary constituents (unless it was actively soliciting Chapter 11) and that reacting negatively only enables this dysfunctional cliché.

Task Force 8B: Student Outcomes

Chair:
James L. DeBoy

Members:
Sally B. Wagner
Jamie Mansell
Jason Esters
Anthony DiFilippo
S. Ishtai-Zee
Denise Gaither-Hardy

Summary of charges

1. How successful have assessment outcomes been in improving teaching and learning
2. How effectively has assessment of student learning measures and outcomes been applied to improving core curriculum, majors, and individual courses?
3. How effective is campus coordination of learning assessment efforts?
4. How effectively are assessment data communicated to students, faculty, administration, and to external constituencies.
5. How well have best practices of assessment been disseminated

Department Majors
To date, 13 of the 22 major programs (59%) have been analyzed using a nine-item measure.

Although nine department majors have yet to be reviewed, certain patterns appear to be emerging:

• 11 of the 13 respondents report that their department majors have
  “clearly defined learner outcomes” (85%)
• all 13 respondents (including 4 partials) report that assessment results are used to improve the teaching-learning process (100%)
• 11 respondents report that they share results with departmental faculty (85%)
• 2 respondents report that they share results with students (15%), 7 (54%)
• report that they do so “partially”, and 4 (30%) report that they do not
• 11 (85%) report that they share assessment results with administration
  (5 partial) with 2 (15%) reporting that they do not
• 8 (62%) of respondents report that assessment results are conveyed via
  End of Year Reports
• 6 (46%) report that they convey assessment results via PAWS
• 5 (38%) convey assessment results via Newsletters and/or written updates
• 4 (31%) report department faculty present papers that address assessment
  of student learning
• No departments report faculty publish articles/books/monographs on assessment
• 2 (15%) report that “best practices” in their department are shared with
  on-campus constituencies

The information presented by the departments suggests that, collectively, they articulate and share assessment results within their departments and with the administration. Additionally, departments are using the results of these assessments to guide decision making with regard to curricular and pedagogical issues. However, dissemination of those results is seldom shared with students, the larger campus community or beyond the walls of the institution. The most obvious shortcoming is the reported absence of some vehicle to celebrate/disseminate best assessment practices on campus. Clearly, there are on-campus assessment endeavors conducted by selected departments that could benefit other departments grappling with teaching-learning issues. Existing model programs could be customized to assist those departments.

Assessment Methods Used by Departments

• Twenty of 22 department program chairs/coordinators (91%) reviewed the “Assessment Methods Matrix” and revised it as necessary. In short, 10 different assessment measures are being used 89 times by the 22 academic programs who responded. Thus, each program deploys slightly more than four assessment measures to gauge student learning. Of these 10 instruments, seven are direct measures of student learning and three are indirect techniques.
• Of particular note is the recently-approved core curricular revision whereby all major programs now require a capstone course – an end-of-program learning experience where students are expected to “perform”, i.e., demonstrate discipline-specific skills in a real-world (authentic) venue.

Middle States Steering Committee: December 4, 2006

Attendance: Renford Brevett; Marilyn Button; William Bynum; John Chickwem; Michael Hill; Jeff Hoogeveen; Mazarul Huq; Pat Joseph; Safro Kwame; Robert Langley; Mel Leaman; Zoran Milovanovich; Levi Nwachuku; Benson Prigg; Susan Safford; Linda Stine; Judith Thomas; Grant Venerable; Gladys Willis; Jeff Wilmot

The October 26, 2006 minutes were approved.

I. Task Force I: Missions, Goals, and Objectives/Integrity- (Standards 1 & 6) Dr. Thomas and Dr. Langley

A. Received all reports and will complete work by next week
B. Main obstacle to progress – participants procrastinate responses
C. Some problems locating documents

II. Task Force II: Planning, Resource Allocation & Institutional Renewal /Institutional Resources - (Standards 2 & 3) Dr. Chickwem and Dr. Prigg

A. Process and Findings (15 page report)

1. looked at revenues and expenditures – only 1999 had deficit and since that time a small surplus
2. reviewed the ways money – mainly from student charges and government appropriations
3. not much coming from private gifts and endowments
4. operating expenses – mostly for administrative support
5. Change in report – see page 10 (bottom) = change “The university has also included funding for faculty development in the sum of $50,000 annually to $65,000
6. studied rank and salary – L.U. compares well with the national average for professorship, but not in comparison with Pennsylvania schools. Particularly in the area of lecturers.
7. Effectiveness of PAWS – 28 faculty responded noting general agreement with the objectives, but expressed that the process is too long; better to have a strong annual focus

B. Recommendations

1. Increase private gifts
2. Increase salaries
3. Address PAWS process – actual documents to be included in appendix
4. Increase library resources – Cautioned that observation of how present funds allocated are being used should precede final recommendations

III. Task Force 3: Leadership & Governance/Administration (Standards 4 & 5) Mr. Hill, Dr. Safford

A. 24 faculty questionnaires were returned – results unclear, so open hearing in February

B. noted interim report of 1990 suggested improving Dean structure

C. never considered question #4 because the changes were not done according to institutional guidelines

D. Mr. Hill pointed out the disparity between the by-laws and faculty perceptions. He expressed concern over the apparent break of communication between the faculty, administration, and Deans related to issues of governance.

E. The Task Force gave the Deans a questionnaire based on the by-laws. It was not completed due to the sentiment among the Deans that the questions were not appropriately designed. The Deans have no issue with completing evaluative surveys, but they thought the questions in this survey entailed responses that were highly subjective. It was suggested that the questions should come from the Job Description. This elicited the rebuttle that the job description should come from the by-laws. It was posed that a survey could be designed by a combined team of the Deans and task force representatives.

F. Dr. Venerable clarified “The Four Freedoms of Education” and stated that they are ultimately determined by the Trustees. They hire the President who in turn evaluates the Deans. The Four Freedoms are:

1. What gets taught?
2. How will it be taught and graded?
3. Who will teach?
4. Who will be taught?

IV. Task Force 4: Student Admissions & Student Support Services (Standards 8 & 9) Dr. Bynum and Dr. Leaman

A. Dr. Bynum reported that standards 8 & 9 have been evaluated. His team will be looking at programs like tutoring and the women’s center to respond to questions #1 & #3. He anticipates that his team will have the report finalized before the semester break. Dr. Bynum wondered whether or not the actual working or functioning could be evaluated.

B. Dr. Leaman’s group addressed questions #2 & #4.

1. #2 – assess and evaluate student attitudes in relation to matriculation, persistence to graduation, and departure prior to graduation

aa. Process – discussions with staff members managed by SAEM: Office of Student Services; Office of Student Life and Development; Office of the Registrar and Student Government Association and researched L.U. publications

bb. Commendations: Goals for addressing enrollment and retention of students are outlined in the SAEM Strategic Plans (2004-2008) and are in line with the Strategic Plans of the university.

cc. Recommendations: The university should enlist more input and support from relevant departments in developing strategies and models to access and evaluate the attitudes of students matriculating, persisting to graduate, and departing for graduation. Surveys should be designed.
(Graduate school report forthcoming.)

2. #4 – Support services

aa. Process: Reviewed various reports and found that many needs have been addressed since the last assessment: Office of Student Services (Retention Office); Office of Student Life and Development; student tutoring; Office of Minority and Male Health and the Women’s Center.

bb. Commendations – First Year Experience; training in student leadership; upcoming football team, marching band, bowling and women’s golf; two alum serving on staff of Student Life and Development

cc. Recommendations: Increase cooperative activities between Student Services, Athletics, and Academic Affairs and unite common efforts to enhance the retention rate; the 2001 student survey should be reinstated with additional questions under particular categories; increase the resources that bridge both areas such as the Honors Program, the Learning Center, and academic Advising .

(Graduate school report forthcoming.)

V. Task Force 5: Faculty Representation - (Standard 10) Dr. Huq and Dr. Kwame (10 page report)

A. Methods – consulted many documents; developed survey

B. Commendations – good cultural diversity and international representation; increased cooperation between faculty and administration since 2003 strike

C. Recommendations – fully implement Robert’s Rules of Order in meetings; specifically define “academic excellence”; address increase in student population, but not in faculty; more women faculty needed; determine specifics regarding faculty development and increase the $5000; lessen number of part-timers in Graduate Program

VI. Task Force 6: Educational Offerings – (Standard 11) Dr. Royer and Dr. Milovanovich

A. Concern expressed: How well is L.U. serving international students?

B. Comment: Departments are adjusting to the new Core Curriculm

C. Methods: Survey – returned by most departments; I.T. did not return

D. Commendation: Increase in number of computers leads to question of how many are actually working at a given time

E. Recommendations: ask departments : How has I.T. serviced your needs?; do graduate survey to access curriculum needs; develop strategy to monitor and engage alumni

VII. Task Force 7: General Education and Related Educational Activities –(Standards 12 & 13) Dr. Button

A. Most of the information from the various sub-task group has been gathered.

B. Still gathering information on internships

C. Met with Dr. Joseph

D. Met with each sub-task force person individually

VIII. Task Force 8A: Institutional Assessment – (Standard 7) Jeff Hoogeveen

A. Draft developed to find evidence that determines the extent of “continuous improvement in institutional management, teaching, and student support services based on assessment outcomes data.”

B. Methods: individual consultations

C. Commendation: The University has an effective evaluation process for assessment and allocates resources in an accessible manner.

IX. Task Force 8B: Student Learning Outcomes (Standard 14) Jim DeBoy

A. Report is finished

B. Method: Each academic department (15) submitted core course list and learner outcomes in light of the 8 learner competencies; interviews and surveys; matrix with regard to “what and how well are we assessing student performance and if we are using these data to improve the teaching-learning process at L.U.”

C. Findings: 85 % (11/13) departments have clearly defined learner outcomes – raises question of substantiation of whether or not these outcomes are in line with good assessment and evaluative methodologies

D. Recommendation: In light of question #4 – How effectively are assessment data communicated to students, faculty, administration, and to external constituencies?

1. Plan a university-wide assessment day for faculty; perhaps schedule on a student reading day
2. Conclusion by Steering Committee – strong leaning towards scheduling first faculty assessment day on the upcoming spring semester reading day

X. Steering Committee Meetings in 2007 – last Monday of each month at 4:00

Middle States Self-Study Steering Committee Meeting
Thursday, October 26, 2006
4:00 p.m.

Attendance: Marilyn Button, William Bynum, John Chikwem, Jim DeBoy, Michael Hill, Jeff Hoogeveen, Mazharul Huq, Pat Joseph, Safro Kwame, Mel Leaman, Levi Nwachuku, David Royer, Susan Safford, Linda Stine, Judith Thomas, Grant Venerable

I. Minutes
The September 28, 2006, minutes were approved.

II. Preliminaries
The Steering Committee agreed that brief summaries of the task force reports to be presented at this meeting would be sent to Dr. Leaman for inclusion in the minutes.

Dr. Venerable encouraged the Steering Committee to continue its good work, noting that one of the pitfalls of this process is the temptation to “do too much and end up not doing what is asked for.” This means that we might “bite off more than we can chew.” He also mentioned that about 95% of the documents needed for resources are available in the Library Room 405 as well as on the Lincoln website, most in PDF form. Dr. Venerable reminded us to move from data sources (description) to recommendations (analysis). Middle States does not want long narratives of general information. Finally, he noted that it would be best for the team members to ignore temporarily the broad thesis question of each charge because “it will be answered as you answer each of the specifics.”

III. The Roll Call of Task Forces

• Task Force 1: No report.
• Task Force 2 - Dr. Chikwem
  Dr. Chikwem welcomed members to the meeting. He hoped that members had had time to read the draft sent to them. He expressed concern that some members were not attending the scheduled meetings. Dr. Amos and Mr. Hall were pleased with the information provided in the draft. They also requested that the salary data be analyzed before the next draft is ready. Dr. Chikwem promised to work on the data and to send the draft to other members in one week.
• Task Force 3 – Dr. Safford
  Task Force #3 sent out a survey on Faculty Governance to the faculty via email. They have received 24 responses. Eight committees were also given the survey to complete from the committee point of view. Letters were sent to the VPAA and the three deans with regards to the role of the deans in faculty governance. These letters stemmed from recommendations in the 1998 and 2003 Middle States reports to strengthen the divisions. The three-dean structure we have was a response to this recommendation.
• Task Force 4 – Dr. Leaman
  The team has now met several times in regard to questions 2 and 4. Individuals have been assigned to specific questions and have already dug into some aspects of the research. Various interviews with resource persons have been either scheduled or completed. They are on target for the upcoming deadline. The research and report on questions 1 and 3 will also be ready by the deadline.
• Task Force 5 – Dr. Huq
  Task Force # 5 on Faculty has divided the five questions among its members. The members have been carrying out their research looking through various documents and collecting information. As information is gathered it is sent to the co-chairs electronically. In the next meeting (Monday, November 13), gathered information will be discussed and a draft report will be written up for the next steering committee meeting on November 16.
• Task Force 6 –Dr. Royer
  The task force has just initiated its last questionnaire process. They will be interviewing each chairperson to discuss the majors’ curricula as well as to determine the effectiveness of the various support resources. The questionnaire is now being tested by chairs on the task force to determine if it will obtain the information that we need. Dr. Milovanovich is currently getting information from Steve Carol and Nancy Evans regarding technology and its support of major curricula. Professor Joseph McIlhenney has been gathering data regarding library usage. We expect to have a draft of our report ready in the next two weeks.
• Task Force #7 – Dr. Button
  Task Force #7 addresses 5 specific charges. These charges were assigned to subcommittees, each of which has a convener. All specific charge committees have submitted tentative reports documenting their progress. Completed narrative reports from each committee are forthcoming. We still expect to have our completed Task Force #7 report by November 30. Task Force Chairs (Dr. Button, Mrs. Kenner) have scheduled a meeting with Dr. Joseph to discuss the status of the Task Force #7 report.
• Task Force 8A – Dr. Hoogeveen
  Task Force 8A (Institutional Assessment) has collected almost all its information and data, has put together a rough draft, and has circulated the draft to committee members for comments. The final stage will be to solicit comments from the Administration during or after the holiday break.
• Task Force 8B – Dr. Deboy
  To date, about half of the 15 academic departments have submitted their core course list with their designated learner outcomes (8 learner competencies) About 45% of the major programs (10/22) have been reviewed by their respective chairpersons using the “interview format” designed by Task Force 8 B (to determine the extent to which the academic programs are delivering what they purport to deliver). Dr. DeBoy will construct “master matrices” of these interview questions and the corresponding responses for each of the 22 programs. The matrices will summarize our current status with regard to “what and how well we are assessing student performance and if we are using these data to improve the teaching-learning process at Lincoln University”. Task Force 8 B will generate its report by analyzing the comprehensive matrices: one for the core courses and one for the major programs.

Linda Stine inquired as to who tests the reported outcomes and determines their viability. She wondered if the Faculty Assessment Committee should be charged with this task. Dr. Deboy expressed some concern as to whether or not other faculty members have the interest or expertise to do this

IV. Other Business

• Official deadline for first drafts of Task Force reports: The first week of December
• Reminder from Dr. Venerable: Think “data driven to decision making” rather than “feelings regarding history” when writing your report.