PAIS Newsletter - May 2022 (Plain Text Version)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In this issue: |
ARTICLES STAY AHEAD OF THE GAME: A FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE THE PREPARATION FOR ACCREDITATION Eman Elturki, College of DuPage, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Accreditation is a means for institutions to maintain educational quality and promote accountability. This is sought through the appraisal of institutional practices against rigorous standards set forth by the accrediting agency. Institutions need to develop, implement, and review procedures, policies, and plans to ensure adherence to standards. As noted by Andrade (2010), “regional accrediting bodies require evidence that institutions are meeting their educational objectives, as aligned with institutional missions” (p. 221). In the field of teaching English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL), the Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA) is the accrediting agency for post-secondary English language programs and institutions in the United States and globally (CEA, 2021). CEA offers a set of standards in eleven programmatic areas. Striving to adhere to standards results in “self-improvement and targeted planning for future institutional development” and could push institutions to “raise the bar of quality in teaching and learning and keep themselves in check with the set standards” (Segismundo, 2017, p. 291). Nonetheless, going through (re-)accreditation could be a daunting and overwhelming process for program administrators and faculty. Hasbun and Rudolph (2016) urge institutions to share their experiences with the accreditation process to “serve as examples of how various institutions navigated their own accreditation journey and can, hopefully, provide support to those currently undergoing or preparing to undergo national accreditation” (p. 1). This article shares lessons learned from navigating CEA accreditation and offers guidelines that could benefit institutions that seek accreditation. It highlights procedures to ensure adherence to standards and, as a result, a smooth, successful accreditation process. Guidelines for Preparing for Accreditation This section presents a framework to guide the accreditation process. The framework consists of the following steps (Figure 1): Reflect, formalize, document, and review (RFDR). The guidelines offered here can be particularly beneficial to programs that plan on or consider embarking on the accreditation process in the future. The RFDR framework aims at normalizing accreditation standards to maximize program effectiveness and nurture a culture of continuous improvement.
Reflect Reflecting on what the program does and how it is done prior to beginning the accreditation process can help prepare for the self-study. The reflection process needs to be in writing and involve all aspects of the program. This includes, for example, what the mission of the program is, what the goals are, who the program serves, how the curriculum is structured, how the program ensures that all the curricular pieces align, what the overall philosophy of instruction is, how learning is assessed, what the criteria for hiring instructors are, and so on. Formalize Reflecting on and outlining what a program does and how it is done helps identify what is lacking and what needs improvement, and, as a result, allows the institution to create new procedures or build on existing ones. This includes formalizing and putting in writing how assessments are conducted and what procedures are in place to ensure fair, reliable, and valid assessment of students’ English language proficiency. When creating new procedures, it is important to ensure that the procedures are realistic and sustainable. Compiling all program-related policies and procedures concerning, for example, curriculum, instruction, student services, and student complaints, in one document makes such information easily accessible to faculty, staff, administrators, as well as new hires. This could take the form of a faculty handbook or manual and can be organized in correspondence with the CEA standards. Document Documentation is a key not only for a smoother accreditation process but also for gathering evidence to prove what is working and what needs improvement and making informed decisions accordingly. When creating procedures and processes, it is critical to identify what can serve as supporting evidence for each programmatic area. For instance, to maximize grading reliability perhaps final exams can be panel graded. Supporting evidence for such practice may consist of norming procedures and materials, completed rubrics, and sample graded student papers. Making documentation a habit by keeping a record of all program-related materials, including memos, teaching schedules, syllabi, exams, rubrics, student evaluations, and progression data, is invaluable. Such documents must be saved electronically, named clearly, and organized properly. This allows retrieving supporting evidence when needed more efficient. Review Review plans need to be created to assess the procedures and processes that are in place for the different programmatic areas. For example, a review plan of the curriculum needs to be developed in writing. The review plan would contain information about when the curriculum is reviewed, what the cycle is, who is involved in the process, how the process is carried out, and what supporting evidence is used to document the process. Such information can be organized in a table format and included in the faculty handbook or manual mentioned above. A periodic review of procedures and processes allows for making any necessary changes and improvements to respond to evolving student needs and educational demands. Sample Procedures to Tackling Accreditation Standards This section offers guiding questions to aid the reflection process and outlines sample procedures to formalize practices by addressing select CEA standards as examples (Table 1), which can be accessed at https://cea-accredit.org/about-cea/standards Sample Procedures to Guide the Navigation of Select CEA Standards
When conducting the self-study, it is important to establish sub-committees or review teams and assign a set of standards to each. For instance, a standard such as ‘Mission,’ can be reviewed by a sub-committee consisting of faculty, staff, and administrators. A standard such as ‘Curriculum’ can be tackled by a committee of faculty. A standard such as ‘Student Services’ can be addressed by specialized individuals or units such as student advisors. Finally, it is important to reiterate that establishing procedures in accordance with standards, creating a culture of evidence, and reviewing processes periodically are crucial not only for accreditation but also for enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. References Andrade, M. S. (2010). Increasing accountability: Faculty perspectives on the English language competence of nonnative English speakers. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(3), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308331295 CEA. (2021). About CEA. Commission on English Language Program Accreditation. Retrieved from https://cea-accredit.org/about-cea Hasbun, T. C., & Rudolph, A. (2016). Navigating the waters of accreditation: Best practices, challenges, and lessons learned from one institution. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016656719 Segismundo, M. C. D. (2017). Measuring accreditation experience: Impact on the quality of education of selected ASAS member-schools in Luzon and the NCR. International Journal of Education and Research, 5(7). Dr. Eman Elturki teaches academic English in the Department of English Language Studies at College of DuPage in Illinois. She holds a Ph.D. in Language, Literacy, and Technology from Washington State University and a master’s degree in TESOL from the University of Southern California. Dr. Elturki has taught ESL/EFL for over 15 years and has held administrative positions related to curriculum, assessment, and accreditation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||