WASC
Purpose of WASC Accreditation
The overriding purpose of WASC accreditation is to assure stakeholders that a WASC accredited institution has been rigorously evaluated and that it meets or exceeds the criteria required to maintain accreditation. In addition, the accreditation process is designed to build a culture of evidence, promote a commitment to institutional improvement, validate institutional integrity, and provide feedback that improves the accreditation process itself.
WASC is one of seven regional accrediting agencies. Regional accreditation serves to assure the educational community, parents, students, employers, policymakers, and the public that an accredited institution has met high standards of quality and effectiveness.
Statement For Accreditation
"United Arab Emirates University is accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), 985 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 100, Alameda, CA 94501, 510.748.9001".
WASC Core Commitments
Core Commitment to Student Learning and Success
Institutions have clear educational goals and student learning outcomes. Institutions collect, analyze, and interpret valid and reliable evidence of learning as a way of assessing student achievement and success. Institutions support the success of all students and seek to understand and improve student success.
Core Commitment to Quality and Improvement
Institutions are committed to high standards of quality in all of their educational activities. They utilize appropriate evidence to improve teaching, learning, and overall institutional effectiveness.
Through strategic and integrated planning, institutions demonstrate the capacity to fulfill their current commitments and future needs and opportunities.
Core Commitment to Institutional Integrity, Sustainability, and Accountability
Institutions recognize that the public has entrusted them with the critical responsibilities of upholding the values of higher education and contributing to the public good. They engage in sound business practices, demonstrate institutional integrity, operate in a transparent manner, and adapt to changing conditions.
WASC Standards Of Accreditation
The Standards of Accreditation consist of four broad, holistic statements that reflect widely accepted good practices in higher education. WASC institutions are diverse in terms of mission, character, and type. The Standards are broad enough to honor that diversity, respect institutional mission, and support institutional autonomy. At the same time, institutions must demonstrate that they are in substantial compliance with the four Standards and related Criteria for Review in order to become and remain accredited. The four Standards are:
Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives
Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions
Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Quality and Sustainability
Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance, Institutional Learning, and Improvement
WASC Criteria For Review (CFR)
Criteria for Review 1.1 The institution’s formally approved statements of purpose are appropriate for
an institution of higher education and clearly define its essential values and character
and ways in which it contributes to the public good.
Criteria for Review 1.3 The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty,
staff, and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the
academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their
colleagues and students in their teaching and writing. 1.4 Consistent with its purposes and character, the institution demonstrates an appropriate
response to the increasing diversity in society through its policies, its educational
and co-curricular programs, its hiring and admissions criteria, and its administrative
and organizational practices.
Criteria for Review
Criteria for Review 2.8 The institution clearly defines expectations for research, scholarship, and creative
activity for its students and all categories of faculty. The institution actively
values and promotes scholarship, creative activity, and curricular and instructional
innovation, and their dissemination appropriate to the institution’s purposes and
character. 2.9 The institution recognizes and promotes appropriate linkages among scholarship,
teaching, assessment, student learning, and service.
Criteria for Review 2.10 The institution demonstrates that students make timely progress toward the completion
of their degrees and that an acceptable proportion of students complete their degrees
in a timely fashion, given the institution’s mission, the nature of the students it
serves, and the kinds of programs it offers. The institution collects and analyzes
student data, disaggregated by appropriate demographic categories and areas of study.
It tracks achievement, satisfaction, and the extent to which the campus climate supports
student success. The institution regularly identifies the characteristics of its students;
assesses their preparation, needs, and experiences; and uses these data to improve
student achievement. 2.11 Consistent with its purposes, the institution offers co-curricular programs that
are aligned with its academic goals, integrated with academic programs, and designed
to support all students’ personal and professional development. The institution assesses
the effectiveness of its co-curricular programs and uses the results for improvement. 2.12 The institution ensures that all students understand the requirements of their
academic programs and receive timely, useful, and complete information and advising
about relevant academic requirements.
Criteria for Review 2.13 The institution provides academic and other student support services such as
tutoring, services for students with disabilities, financial aid counseling, career
counseling and placement, residential life, athletics, and other services and programs
as appropriate, which meet the needs of the specific types of students that the institution
serves and the programs it offers. 2.14 Institutions that serve transfer students provide clear, accurate, and timely
information, ensure equitable treatment under academic policies, provide such students
access to student services, and ensure that they are not unduly disadvantaged by the
transfer process.
Criteria for Review 3.1 The institution employs faculty and staff with substantial and continuing commitment
to the institution. The faculty and staff are sufficient in number, professional qualification,
and diversity and to achieve the institution’s educational objectives, establish and
oversee academic policies, and ensure the integrity and continuity of its academic
and co-curricular programs wherever and however delivered. 3.2 Faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, orientation, workload, incentives, and
evaluation practices are aligned with institutional purposes and educational objectives.
Evaluation is consistent with best practices in performance appraisal, including multisource
feedback and appropriate peer review. Faculty evaluation processes are systematic
and are used to improve teaching and learning. 3.3 The institution maintains appropriate and sufficiently supported faculty and staff
development activities designed to improve teaching, learning, and assessment of learning
outcomes.
Criteria for Review 3.4 The institution is financially stable and has unqualified independent financial
audits and resources sufficient to ensure long-term viability. Resource planning and
development include realistic budgeting, enrollment management, and diversification
of revenue sources. Resource planning is integrated with all other institutional planning.
Resources are aligned with educational purposes and objectives. 3.5 The institution provides access to information and technology resources sufficient
in scope, quality, currency, and kind at physical sites and online, as appropriate,
to support its academic offerings and the research and scholarship of its faculty,
staff, and students. These information resources, services, and facilities are consistent
with the institution’s educational objectives and are aligned with student learning
outcomes.
Criteria for Review 3.6 The institution’s leadership, at all levels, is characterized by integrity, high
performance, appropriate responsibility, and accountability. 3.7 The institution’s organizational structures and decision-making processes are
clear and consistent with its purposes, support effective decision making, and place
priority on sustaining institutional capacity and educational effectiveness. 3.8 The institution has a full-time chief executive officer and a chief financial
officer whose primary or full-time responsibilities are to the institution. In addition,
the institution has a sufficient number of other qualified administrators to provide
effective educational leadership and management. 3.9 The institution has an independent governing board or similar authority that,
consistent with its legal and fiduciary authority, exercises appropriate oversight
over institutional integrity, policies, and ongoing operations, including hiring and
evaluating the chief executive officer. 3.10 The institution’s faculty exercises effective academic leadership and acts consistently
to ensure that both academic quality and the institution’s educational purposes and
character are sustained.
Criteria for Review 4.1 The institution employs a deliberate set of quality-assurance processes in both
academic and non-academic areas, including new curriculum and program approval processes,
periodic program review, assessment of student learning, and other forms of ongoing
evaluation. These processes include: collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data;
tracking learning results over time; using comparative data from external sources;
and improving structures, services, processes, curricula, pedagogy, and learning results. 4.2 The institution has institutional research capacity consistent with its purposes
and characteristics. Data are disseminated internally and externally in a timely manner,
and analyzed, interpreted, and incorporated in institutional review, planning, and
decision-making. Periodic reviews are conducted to ensure the effectiveness of the
institutional research function and the suitability and usefulness of the data generated.
Criteria for Review 4.3 Leadership at all levels, including faculty, staff, and administration, is committed
to improvement based on the results of inquiry, evidence, and evaluation. Assessment
of teaching, learning, and the campus environment—in support of academic and co-curricular
objectives—is undertaken, used for improvement, and incorporated into institutional
planning processes. 4.4 The institution, with significant faculty involvement, engages in ongoing inquiry
into the processes of teaching and learning, and the conditions and practices that
ensure that the standards of performance established by the institution are being
achieved. The faculty and other educators take responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness
of teaching and learning processes and uses the results for improvement of student
learning and success. The findings from such inquiries are applied to the design and
improvement of curricula, pedagogy, and assessment methodology. 4.5 Appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, students,
and others designated by the institution, are regularly involved in the assessment
and alignment of educational programs. 4.6 The institution periodically engages its multiple constituencies, including the
governing board, faculty, staff, and others, in institutional reflection and planning
processes that are based on the examination of data and evidence. These processes
assess the institution’s strategic position, articulate priorities, examine the alignment
of its purposes, core functions, and resources, and define the future direction of
the institution. 4.7 Within the context of its mission and structural and financial realities, the
institution considers changes that are currently taking place and are anticipated
to take place within the institution and higher education environment as part of its
planning, new program development, and resource allocation.Thirty-nine Criteria for Review (CFR) are distributed across the four Standards. The
CFRs under each Standard provide more specific statements about the meaning of the
Standard. The CFRs are grouped under headings that identify major aspects of institutional
functioning. The CFRs are cited by institutions in their institutional report, by
peer reviewers in evaluating institutions, and by the Commission in making decisions
about institutions. Many of the CFRs are cross-referenced to allow for ease in identifying
related and connected CFRs.
1.2 Educational objectives are widely recognized throughout the institution, are consistent
with stated purposes, and are demonstrably achieved. The institution regularly generates,
evaluates, and makes public data about student achievement, including measures of
retention and graduation, and evidence of student learning outcomes.
Academic Degrees
WASC -Related Activities
Wasc Activities | Date |
---|---|
WASC Academic Resource Conference (ARC) |
April, 2012 |
Assessment/Program Review Workshops |
October-November, 2012 |
An Initial Assessment of UAEUs Preparedness to Pursue WASC Accreditation “Consultation Visit“ (Jill Kern) |
December, 2012 |
WASC Retreat on Assessment of Learning Outcome |
February, 2013 |
2013-2014 Assessment Leadership Academy (ALA) |
March 2013-January 2014 |
WASC Academic Resource Conference (ARC) |
April, 2013 |
Outcome Assessment Workshop (Amy Driscoll) |
September-October, 2013 |
WASC Workshop for Presidents and Trustees |
December, 2013 |
2014-2015 Assessment Leadership Academy (ALA) |
March 2014-January 2015 |
WASC Academic Resource Conference (ARC) |
April, 2014 |
WASC Retreat on Core Competencies: Critical Thinking and Information Literacy |
October, 2014 |
WASC workshop on Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of Degrees |
January, 2015 |
2015-2016 Assessment Leadership Academy (ALA) |
March 2015-January 2016 |
WASC Academic Resource Conference (ARC) |
April, 2015 |
The Big Five: Addressing Core Competencies |
May, 2015 |
Time Line
Description | Date |
---|---|
University Decision to Pursue WASC Accreditation |
February, 2012 |
Initial Application |
September, 2012 |
Diagnostic Visit |
June, 2013 |
Eligibility |
September, 2014 |
Seeking Accreditation, Visit (1) |
November, 2015 |
Resources
- Accreditation Handbook: http://www.wascsenior.org/resources/handbook-accreditation-2013
- Substantive Changes Policy.
- Allen, M. J. (2004). Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker.
- Allen, M. J. (2006). Assessing general education programs. Bolton, MA: Anker.
- Association of American Colleges and Universities (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Available at http://www.greaterexpectations.org/
- Banta, T. W., & Associates. (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Bresciani, M. J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
- Cambridge, D., Cambridge, B., & Yancey, K. (2009). Electronic portfolios 2.0. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
- Diamond, R. M. (Ed.) (2002). Field guide to academic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Driscoll, A., & Wood, S. (2007). Outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
- Schuh, J. H., & Associates. (2009). Assessment methods for student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Suskie, Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide (2nd edition; 2009). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Impact of Accreditation on the Quality of Education.
- A GUIDE TOWARD WASC ACCREDITATION: For Institutions Incorporated or Operating Primarily Outside of the United States.
WASC Accreditation Newsletters
Do you find this content helpful?
عفوا
لايوجد محتوى عربي لهذه الصفحة
عفوا
يوجد مشكلة في الصفحة التي تحاول الوصول إليها