· Web viewWorking Group 7: Institutional Assessment and Student Learning Assessment Standard 7,...

SANS Technology InstituteSTI

Self-Study Design Final

Submitted to:Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools

Commission on Higher Education

February 16, 2012

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 3

Mission 3

Vision Statement 3

Compelling Public Purpose: Knowledge for Peace 3

History 4

Institutional Profile 6

II. Self-Study Design Rationale 7

III. Intended Outcomes of the Self-Study 9

IV. Forming the Steering Committee and Working Groups 9

VI. Research Questions 13

VII. Organization of the Self-Study Report 20

VIII. Timeline for Institutional Self-Study 21

IX. Profile of the Visiting Evaluation Team 22

X. Inventory of Supporting Documents 23

Institutional Self- Study Design Document

I. Introduction

Mission

The mission of the SANS Technology Institute is to develop the information security

technology leaders needed to help strengthen the information community all over the world by

improving the security of cyberspace. SANS Technology Institute seeks to prepare both the

managers of information security groups and the technical leaders who direct security technology

programs. SANS Technology Institute's primary functional emphasis is instruction, but the

Institute faculty and students will engage in research and public service programs.

Vision Statement

STI aspires to be The Premier Skills-Based Cyber Security Graduate School. As a center

for security leadership and technical excellence, we will attract excellent students, provide an

innovative higher educational experience and prepare information security leaders. As a result,

STI will improve the overall security of individuals, communities, organizations and

governments worldwide.

Compelling Public Purpose: Knowledge for Peace

The mission statement is a critical component of an institution. The heart of the SANS

Technology Institute mission is "to help strengthen the world by improving the security of

cyberspace." Cyber violence in its multiple forms, at all levels of the internet, is a major

problem. It is not uncommon for large internet server providers to average more than 1,000

cyber-attacks per day. Organized crime has been rapidly moving into phishing, the fastest

growing crime segment. The Latin word scientia, the root of our word for science, means

knowledge, which we feel is the only real defense to this growing threat. If we do not learn how


to harden systems, manage change, design networks and ensure that software is developed

securely, we remain vulnerable to internet predators. Hence, our motto Scientia pro Pace

(Knowledge for Peace) reflects the goal of STI. We want to develop the exceptional technology

students of today into the technology leaders of tomorrow, and to ensure that the number and

capability of these leaders create a formidable defense against cyber-crime and other forms of

cyber-attacks.

History

The parent company, Escal Institute of Advanced Technologies, a Delaware corporation,

was originally established in 1989 to create multiple institutes in various areas of technology, but

later its Board of Directors decided to focus on only one area of technology – cyber security. The

SANS (Systems administration, Audit, Network, Security) Institute is a privately held company

owned by Alan and Marsha Paller, envisioned to provide advanced-level, state-of-the-art training

to the men and women who are responsible for cyber security in corporations, universities, and

government agencies.

SANS began by providing short training classes in a few areas of information security.

Over time, as the body of knowledge in information security grew and as the professionals in the

field took on greater responsibilities, SANS courses kept pace, both in number and in depth.

Today SANS offers more than 20 different courses. Newer courses have added information

security management, legal, and policy dimensions to round out the cyber security professionals’

capabilities. SANS also added optional research and writing projects for those who wanted to

demonstrate a deeper understanding of the material. On average, more than 18,000 information

security professionals complete at least one course from SANS each year. More than 85,000

people have completed at least one full length course with SANS.


Late in 2003, several SANS students approached their faculty members and asked

whether SANS could make it possible for them to use SANS courses, in part, to fulfill

requirements for graduate degrees. They maintained that the SANS courses taught advanced

level practice and theory, were rigorous, and far more up-to-date than the courses in their current

graduate programs. In addition, their employers wanted more ‘higher educational’ opportunities

for their employees. SANS approached the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC)

to pursue authorization as a graduate degree granting institution. On November 16, 2005,

MHEC voted to authorize SANS to grant graduate degrees. SANS Technology Institute (STI)

was born. Leveraging the SANS Institute content delivery model, STI is not a typical brick and

mortar higher educational institution. Instead, courses are taught at "residential institutes", hotel

venues worldwide as well as through various distance learning modalities.

The SANS Institute is the parent of STI and also GIAC (Global Information Assurance

Certification), a certification enterprise. SANS fosters original research in information security

and codifies the results into high quality educational material. STI makes use of the SANS

educational materials and uses GIAC in part to assess mastery of the content material. GIAC

certification exams are available for key areas of information security. GIAC "Gold"

Certification includes not only a certification exam but also research paper. The following quote

by Hal Berghel, PhD (University of Nevada, Las Vegas), MHEC consultant testifies to the

quality of the educational materials:

Not only have SANS courses become a staple in security, they are mission-critical. And I use this phrase carefully and without exaggeration. SANS is the only educational environment that fully recognizes and appreciates the critical importance of currency and relevance. I should mention that as a computer scientist who specializes in Internet security, I attend SANS training several times a year to maintain currency. What is more, as Director of the School of Computer Science, I send three other PhD-level faculty to SANS courses as well. Like other universities, while our research and educational offerings are laudable, we simply cannot duplicate the infrastructure, expertise and technical staff to duplicate the


SANS experience without incurring enormous additional expense. In a very real sense, SANS occupies a unique and indispensable role in digital security that even the leading computing programs in the world cannot duplicate.

Institutional Profile

STI offers two graduate degree programs. The Masters of Science in Information Security

Engineering (MSISE) prepares graduates to be leaders in the design and build process of the

information security enterprise. The Masters of Science in Information Security Management

(MSISM) prepares graduates to be leaders in the management of the information security

enterprise.

Student Profile

Program of Study Current Students

Males Females GraduatesDegree Completion Time (average)

Information Security Engineering

47 41 6 13 2.98 years

Information Security Management

14 13 1 3 2.81 years

Dual 1 1

Total 62 49 12 16 2.90 years

Faculty Profile

STI Title Higher Ed Equivalency Males Females Total

SANS Faculty Fellow Professor 8 0 8Senior Instructor Associate Professor 13 1 14

Certified Instructor Assistant Professor 17 1 18Non-certified Instructor Lecturer 15 0 15

Total 53 2 55


Tuition

MSISE Credits Tuition $1200 per credit 11/02/2011 35 $ 42,000.00 Capstone experience 0 $ 1,598.00 TOTAL TUITION $ 43,598.00

MSISM Credits Tuition $1200 per credit 11/02/2011 37 44,400.00 TOTAL TUITION 44,400.00

II. Self-Study Design Rationale

STI is a unique institution of higher education. Integral to STI’s self-study design is the

link between the role of planning and assessment in achieving the institute’s mission and the

institute’s scholar practitioner model for teaching and learning. The academic leaders and

faculty of the institute are at once both scholars and practitioners; simultaneously engaged in the

continuous research, assessment, evaluation, and response to threats and practices in the global

information security community of practice. As such, the institute has adopted a scholar

practitioner philosophy in the design, development, and ongoing implementation of curriculum

that translates the dynamic nature of global information security practice into dynamic learning

experiences designed to develop and sustain the highest quality leaders in the field.

The scholar practitioner philosophy recognizes the inexorable linkage between theory, and

the rapidly changing realities of practice in the global information security community. STI

operationally monitors the change through the SANS Internet Storm Center (ISC; a consensus

community for cyber threats world-wide). The scholar practitioner philosophy recognizes the

need for dynamic continuously updated security curriculum as well as more reflective curriculum

building the development of knowledge and skills to lead, manage, design, plan, implement and


sustain organizations with respect to information security. This is deeply reflected in the history

of assessment driven curriculum revisions of the two masters’ degrees: Information Security

Management and Information Security Engineering.

Because this is the first self-study undertaken by SANS Technology Institute, a

comprehensive self-study design model as described in Self Study: Creating a Useful Process

and Report; Second Edition will be utilized. This will allow STI to address our unique role in

higher education and emphasize the importance of the scholar practitioner model for teaching

and learning within the institute. STI’s self-study will use working groups whose reports will

morph into chapters in the final self-study report. Because STI is small, working groups will

also be small and several group members will overlap with each other.

Working Groups Standards 1: Mission, Goals and Integrity Standard 1, Mission and Goals

Standard 6, Integrity2: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal

Standard 2, Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional RenewalStandard 3, Institutional Resources

3: Leadership, Governance, and Administration

Standard 4, Leadership and GovernanceStandard 5, Administration

4: Student Admissions and Support Services

Standard 8, Student Admissions and RetentionStandard 9, Student Support Services

5: Faculty Standard 10, Faculty

6: Educational Offerings, General Education, and Related Educational Activities

Standard 11, Educational OfferingsStandard 12, General EducationStandard 13, Related Education Activities

7: Institutional Assessment and Student Learning Assessment

Standard 7, Institutional AssessmentStandard 14, Assessment of Student Learning


III. Intended Outcomes of the Self-Study

This self-study provides the institute an opportunity to assess and analyze the progress STI

has made over the years and to utilize the results of the self-study to strengthen the institute for

the future. Creating a self-study allows STI to deeply engage with the STI community, the

SANS Institute community and the GIAC community to strengthen collaboration amongst all

related entities and document the importance of the dynamic relationship between all three.

Most importantly, this self-study will document the alignment with the STI’s programs and

services to the stated mission and goals.

In the context of the fourteen standards, the goals of this self-study are:

(1) To ensure STI is aligned with collegiate expectations at the master’s degree level.

(2) To ensure STI’s scholar practitioner model for teaching and learning is preparing leaders

in information security to design/ build and manage the information security enterprise.

(3) To ensure STI is aligned with best practices in information security.

(4) To ensure STI has the necessary resources to grow at a sustainable level in order to meet

our stated mission and goals.

IV. Forming the Steering Committee and Working Groups

In June 2011, STI established a seven person Steering Committee consisting of faculty,

administration, and alumni. The Steering Committee is charged with (1) creating and

implementing the self-study institutional design (2) nominating members to participate in

working groups, (3) assisting in formulating effective, self-study research questions for each of

the working groups, (4) ensuring open communication between the working group and steering


committee, (5) writing and editing the majority of the self-study final document and (6) planning

and organizing site visits.

Steering Committee Co-ChairsBonnie Diehl Provost, Chief Academic Officer (CAO)Matthew Scott Assistant Provost of Learning OutcomesMembersToby Gouker Chancellor/Chief Operating Officer (COO)Jim Voorhees MSISM Program DirectorEric Cole MSISE Program DirectorDavid Hoelzer Faculty memberRick Smith Alumnus

Membership of Working Groups

Working Group 1: Mission, Goals and Integrity Standard 1, Mission and Goals; Standard 6, Integrity

*Stephen Northcutt PresidentBonnie Diehl Provost/CAOToby Gouker Chancellor/COOMason Brown SANS DirectorDave Shackleford Board memberAlan Paller Board Chair

Working Group 2: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal Standard 2, Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal; Standard 3, Institutional Resources*Toby Gouker Chancellor/COOStephen Northcutt PresidentBonnie Diehl Provost/CAAPeggy Logue CFOMason Brown SANS DirectorWorking Group 3: Leadership, Governance, and Administration Standard 4, Leadership and Governance; Standard 5, Administration *Bonnie Diehl Provost/CAOStephen Northcutt PresidentToby Gouker Chancellor/COOMason Brown SANS DirectorWorking Group 4: Student Admissions and Support Services Standard 8, Student Admissions and Retention; Standard 9, Student Support Services


*Debbie Svoboda Dean of Admissions and Student ServicesToby Gouker Chancellor/COOMatthew Scott Assistant Provost of Learning OutcomesKiel Wadner StudentRick Smith AlumniWorking Group 5: Faculty Standard 10, Faculty *Johannes Ullrich Dean of Research Deb Jorgensen Director of Instructor DevelopmentDeanna Boyden Community SANS ProgramHeather Kohls SANS Mentor ProgramToby Gouker Chancellor/COOBonnie Diehl Provost/CAO

Working Group 6: Educational Offerings, General Education, and Related Educational Activities Standard 11, Educational Offerings; Standard 12, General Education;Standard 13, Related Education Activities

*David Hoelzer Faculty memberMatthew Scott Assistant Provost of Learning OutcomesEric Bassel DirectorStephen Northcutt PresidentJohannes Ullrich Dean of ResearchEric Cole MSISE Program DirectorJeff Frisk Faculty memberEd Skoudis Faculty memberDennis Kirby Curriculum Committee memberSeth Misenar StudentJim Voorhees MSISM Program Director


Working Group 7: Institutional Assessment and Student Learning Assessment Standard 7, Institutional Assessment; Standard 14, Assessment of Student Learning *Matthew Scott Assistant Provost of Learning OutcomesBonnie Diehl Provost/CAOStephen Northcutt PresidentJohannes Ullrich Dean of ResearchEric Cole MSISE Program DirectorJeff Frisk Faculty memberEd Skoudis Faculty memberDennis Kirby Director, SANSDavid Hoelzer Faculty memberJim Voorhees MSISM Program Director

*Chair of working group

V. Charge to the Working Groups

The Steering Committee will provide detailed self-study research questions to each of the

working groups. See below. General working group guidelines will include the following:

1. Collect all plans, policies and procedures currently being implemented at STI that are correlated with your area of study. This collection may be voluminous.

2. Compare your working group’s collection with the other working groups to avoid overlap.

3. Evaluate the degree of compliance to the respective fourteen standards of excellence.4. Analyze and evaluate each of the collected processes by asking the following questions in

relation to the four goals of the Self-Study:a. Is the process working?b. Are we progressing towards our goals?c. Is the process aligned with STI’s mission?d. What evidence do we have to support these findings?e. What recommendations or plans would be needed for improvements?f. What have been the outcomes as a result of implementing new plans or

processes?5. Include data and evidence to support any conclusions.6. Write a real-time summary for each process/plan currently being utilized in your study

area.


The reports from the working groups should be no longer than 10 pages (12 pt Times

Roman) and use the following outline:

Purpose and overview

Discussion of the research methodologies/ approach utilized

Thoughtful, evidence based responses to the self-study questions

Summary analysis of the strengths and challenges found; and,

Recommendations for enhancing/maintaining strengths and addressing challenges

An example will be provided upon request. Remember that showing compliance with each of

the 14 standards is paramount.

VI. Research Questions

Working Group 1: Mission, Goals and Integrity

Standard 1 Mission and Goals

1.1 What evidence exists that the mission of STI aligns with a compelling and demanding

global need to ensure enterprise wide information security?

1.1.1 Given that information security needs are constantly changing, how does STI ensure that

its mission and the goals that help STI stay aligned with the compelling and demanding

needs and changes of maintaining global information security?

1.2 What policies, processes and procedures exist to ensure that STI’s strategic plan, mission

and goals guide the administrative staff and faculty in driving improvement over time?

1.3 Given the fact that the requirements of information security professionals are constantly

changing, how does STI determine the requirements of future scholar practitioners of the

information security industry?

Standard 6 Integrity


6.1 In fulfilling their missions, STI, SANS, and our partners define and shape the “white hat”

community. Given the rapid advancement of the “black hat” community and the dire

consequences for the global information security enterprise, how does STI transition

community of practice subject matter experts into enterprise wide security managers and

engineers?

6.2 Does our image, products, services and outcomes fulfill our mission in advancing the white

hat role?

6.3 How does STI provide a quality curriculum and learning experience that develops scholar

practitioners to meet the highest information security standards?

Working Group 2: Planning, Resources and Institutional Renewal

Standard 2 Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal

2.1 To what extent does STI’s current resource allocation and institutional

development/renewal process advance the mission?

2.2 How does STI assess the effectiveness of its current plans, resource allocations, and

development/ institutional renewal processes?

2.3 To what extent do the processes serve STI’s mission? How are the STI planning, change

management and improvement processes communicated to the STI community? Does the

process include participation from key stakeholders?

Standard 3 Institutional Resources

3.1. Does STI have strategies to measure and assess the level of, and efficient utilization of,

institutional resources required to support STI’s mission and goals?


3.2. How is growth specified in terms of resource needs? How are policies and decisions

evaluated in order to determine their efficacy to reach the goal of institutional growth and

sustainability?

3.3. Does the STI strategic plan have measurable goals stated as outcomes, responsibilities for

goal achievement clearly assigned with specified timelines, and assessment measures that

will enable STI to know the extent to which goals are being met?

3.4. How does STI ensure and demonstrate that there is a systematic approach to planning

including a schedule for planning, goal development and goal assessment? Does STI have

a methodology for sharing information learned as the basis for further planning and action

related to resource allocation decisions and budgeting?

Working Group 3: Leadership, Governance and Administration

Standard 4 Leadership and Governance

4.1. How effectively do the leadership and governance structures of the related entities SANS

and GIAC align with STI’s mission, vision and role as the premier skills-based cyber

security graduate school?

4.2. Is the composition of the Board of Directors appropriate to fulfill its responsibilities? Does

board membership reflect key stakeholder interest? How is the effectiveness of the Board

assessed?

4.3. How will STI ensure the president can continue to fulfill the responsibilities of the Chief

Executive Officer in what is anticipated to be a rapidly growing institution in high

demand?


Standard 5 Administration

5.1. How do STI’s strategic partners’ administrative structures and services facilitate learning,

research, scholarship, foster quality improvement, support STI’s organization and

governance and allow STI to be prominent in the field and achieve its mission?

5.2. How are assessment results used to determine the effectiveness of administrative structures

and services? How does STI monitor and analyze administrative staff, systems and

services to determine current and future capacity and effectiveness given the ever evolving

nature of the enterprise and the continuing challenges derived from its mission?

Working Group 4: Student Admissions and Support Services

Standard 8 Student Admissions and Retention

8.1. How well do STI admissions policies assess the abilities and motivation of students

relative to their ability to progress adequately in their program of study and aligned with

STI’s mission?

8.2. Is satisfactory monitoring of student success occurring? Are the admission policies

reviewed or assessed relative to causes of students who do not complete the program? Are

changes implemented and with what results?

8.3. Do administrative staff members have access to accurate and comprehensive enrollment

management information in order to make informed decisions to support the mission and

goals of STI?

Standard 9 Student Support Services

9.1. Does the student services portfolio align with STI’s mission?


9.2. If there is a great influx of students as a result of obtaining MSCHE accreditation, what

plans are in place to ensure not only a continued high quality educational experience for its

students but an even more highly improved experience?

Working Group 5: Faculty; Standard 10

Standard 10 Faculty

10.1. What evidence exists to ensure STI instructors are appropriately prepared? How does STI

ensure that faculty members demonstrate excellence in teaching? Given the shortage of

master teachers in information security, how does STI develop the instructors needed to

meet the global demand?

10.2. What evidence exists to ensure the rigorous faculty development process at STI provides a

sufficient number of qualified instructors? If there should be a sudden influx of students

after accreditation, will this faculty development process need to be revised? If so, how?

Working Group 6: Educational Offerings, General Education, and Related Educational

Activities

Standard 11 Educational Offerings

11.1. How does STI sustain an educational enterprise, with the appropriate scope, content,

refresh cycles, and practice ready standards aligned with appropriate performance

standards, that continues to meet the mission to educate and develop the information

security enterprise?

11.1.1. How effective is STI in developing scholar/practitioners with the skill set needed

to fill positions in the information security industry?


11.2 How does STI meet the challenge of designing, developing and delivering a curriculum

that adequately prepares learners to perform the information security organization design/

build function?

11.3 How does STI meet the challenge of designing, developing and delivering a curriculum

that adequately prepares learners to engage and sustain secure information environments

and practice?

Standard 12 General Education

Does not apply

Standard 13 Related Educational Activities

13.1. What is the experience of the learner? How does STI optimize the learning experience of

each learner engaged in STI curriculum? Is there a consistency of quality across learning

modalities offered at STI?

13.2. How does STI optimize and leverage its embedded research culture to ensure the optimum

curriculum and learner experience?

13.3. Do STI's course schedules enable students to complete their degree requirements in a

reasonable time?

Working Group 7 Institutional Assessment and Student Learning Assessment

Standard 7 Institutional Assessment

7.1. How does STI's comprehensive institutional effectiveness strategy and system for

evaluating and improving programs and services measure the achievement of STI’s

mission, goals, and plans? Is the process aligned with STI’s mission and goals?


7.2. What external evidence supports STI’s assessment effectiveness? How are external

assessments used to validate achievement of institutional effectiveness and guide the

continuing evolution of STI curriculum and practice?

Standard 14 Assessment of Student Learning

14.1. How are results from STI’s comprehensive strategy for assessing student learning collected

and utilized in academic and institutional decision making? Are the student learning

outcomes expected of students appropriately integrated with one another? Are they

aligned with STI’s mission? Are they aligned with standards of higher education and

information security practice? (Consider splitting M&E credential student learning

assessment to inform the relational evaluation of the comprehensive strategy).

14.2. Does the STI assessment process accurately evaluate and improve student learning? Does

the process relate to the goals being assessed? Does the process produce appropriate results

to be used in making decisions about STI's programs?

14.3. Does the learning assessment process produce direct evidence of student learning? Does

the process reveal that students are achieving key institutional and program learning

outcomes? Are student learning assessment results used as part of institutional

assessment?


VII. Organization of the Self-Study Report

The STI Self-Study Report will be organized according to the following outline:

Executive SummaryEligibility CertificationIntroduction and Purpose

Chapter 1: Mission, Goals and Integrity Methods for analysis Strengths & challenges Recommendations for improvement

Standard 1, Mission and GoalsStandard 6, Integrity

Chapter 2: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal Methods for analysis Strengths & challenges Recommendations for improvement

Standard 2, Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional RenewalStandard 3, Institutional Resources

Chapter 3: Leadership, Governance, and Administration Methods for analysis Strengths & challenges Recommendations for improvement

Standard 4, Leadership and GovernanceStandard 5, Administration

Chapter 4: Student Admissions and Support Services Methods for analysis Strengths & challenges Recommendations for improvement

Standard 8, Student Admissions and RetentionStandard 9, Student Support Services

Chapter 5: Faculty Methods for analysis Strengths & challenges Recommendations for improvement

Standard 10, Faculty

Chapter 6: Educational Offerings, General Education, and Related Educational Activities Methods for analysis Strengths & challenges Recommendations for improvement

Standard 11, Educational OfferingsStandard 12, General EducationStandard 13, Related Education Activities


Chapter 7: Institutional Assessment and Student Learning Assessment Methods for analysis Strengths & challenges Recommendations for improvement

Standard 7, Institutional AssessmentStandard 14, Assessment of Student Learning

ConclusionAppendices


VIII. Timeline for Institutional Self-Study

Date Action2012January 19 NOLA Middle States Liaison preparation visitTBD Self-study design document approved by Middle States LiaisonJanuary 31 MSCHE selects evaluation team ChairFebruary 27 Submit self-study design document to team ChairTBD MSCHE selects members to the self-study evaluation teamOngoing Steering Committee oversees research and reporting by working groupsFeb 8 Overview of the WG’s charge and the research questionsApril 9 Finish collecting data for research questionsMay 7 Submit analytical discussion of the inquiry undertaken and the

outcomes of that inquiry including strengths and weaknessesMay 28 Submit explanation of how the WG findings and conclusions relate to

the Commission’s standardsJune 25 Working group reports submittedJuly 9 Feedback given to working groups including connection to other

groupsAugust 6 Working group reports submitted 2nd timeAugust 6 Begin drafting self-study reportOctober 8 Self-study report distributed to institute community for discussion/

feedbackNovember 5 Second iteration sent to institute communityNovember 26 Steering Committee approves penultimate draft of self-study report December 3 Submit penultimate draft of self-study report to team chair2013January XX, NOLA Team chair preliminary visitFebruary 4, 2013 Steering Committee approves Final Self-Study ReportApril 29, 2013 Final Self-Study Report submitted to Middle States and visiting team June 16 Sunday – 19 WednesdaySANSFIRE 2013 Washington, DC

Middle States team visit

August Middle States team visit reportSeptember STI formal response to reportOctober Middle States Committee meetsNovember Commission action


STI is a small, higher educational institution with a focused mission and no general

education program. STI is not residence-based and therefore, has no brick and mortar teaching

facilities to maintain. STI does not operate on a typical ‘academic schedule’ and does not take

typical seasonal vacations. We are a close-knit community with an extremely integrated form of

communication across all levels. For these reasons, the proposed schedule easily accommodates

sufficient time for researching, documenting and writing the final self-study report. Most

importantly, the need for information security leaders has reached a critical level in the United

States. STI is committed to expeditiously filling this need with the highest quality leaders.

IX. Profile of the Visiting Evaluation Team

STI is a small, unique, mission-specific institution. STI is committed to the following:

The scholar practitioner teaching/ learning model Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) higher education Quality professional Master’s Degree curriculum Enhancing quality distance learning modalities Institutional sustainability Adult learners Students from the military Exceptional adult student advising

Team members with professional expertise in any or all of these areas would significantly

contribute to the growth and development of STI as the premier skills-based cyber security

graduate school.


X. Inventory of Supporting Documents

Document YearCharacteristics of Excellence in Higher Education- MSCHE 2006Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report - MSCHE 2007Team Visits: Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Visit 2006Standard 1: Mission and GoalsMission Statement Rev 2010Vision Statement 2010Institutional Goals 2010STI Curriculum Centered Strategic Planning and Management White Paper (CCSPM) 2011STI Board of Director meeting minutes 2005-2011Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional RenewalCCSPM White Paper 2011STI Board of Director meeting minutes 2005-2011STI Curriculum Committee meeting minutes 2005-2011STI Curriculum update inventory 2011STI Course update report 2011STI Strategic Plan 2010Standard 3: Institutional ResourcesAudited financial statements 2006-2010Financial plans 2011Analytical narrative 2006-2010STI Planning and Management Spreadsheet 2011Standard 4: Leadership and GovernanceBylaws 2006Board of Directors policies and procedures 2006List of Board of Directors 2011Board of Directors meeting minutes 2005-2011Board of Director orientation documents 2008Committee Charters 2010Board of Director self-assessment report 2008-2011Conflict of interest policy 2006

Standard 5: AdministrationResume/ C.V. for CEOBoard of Director minutes appointing CEOSTI Functional Organization Chart 2011Administration biographies 2011Semi-annual goals and objectives for administrators 2005-2011STI Leadership Level Policy 2008Bylaws 2006Dean of Research position description 2011Provost position description 2011Program Director position description 2011Chancellor position description 2011Standard 6: IntegrityStudent Grievance Policy 2008Disabled Student Services 2009Student Code of Conduct Policy 2009Faculty Grievance Policy 2007Grading Policy 2009Semi-annual goals and objectives reviews 2005-2011Faculty Handbook 2007Conflict of Interest policy 2006Staff/ Faculty Ethics Policy 2007STI Website - Course ListingsSTI Website - Archive pageSTI Website – generalStandard 7: Institutional AssessmentSTI's 360 Degree Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Model 2011STI Strategic Plan 2010Semi-annual student satisfaction survey 2011Year-end financial report 2010Visits to reading room reports (containing STI student publications) 2011Standard 8: Student Admissions and RetentionAdmissions philosophy and practices 2009Admissions profile 2005-2011Enrollment profile 2005-2011Enrollment projections 2010Retention and graduation rates 2005-2011Program learning outcomes 2011

Standard 9: Student Support ServicesStudent handbook (STI Website - Students)Planning materials for new students 2011Student grievance policy 2008Maintaining student records policyPrivacy policy 2008360 Degree Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Model 2011Standard 10: FacultyFaculty profile 2011Faculty data 2011Faculty/ Staff handbooks 2007Faculty development process 2010Curriculum Committee charter 2010Course Evaluations 2005-2011Class observation rubric 2011Standard 11: Educational OfferingsList of MSISE and MSISM program outcomes 2011Graduation requirements (STI website)Library and other holdings (STI website) 2011Academic rigor - CCSPM White Paper 2011Course listings (STI website)Course descriptions and learning objectives (SANS website)Program learning outcomes 2011360 Degree Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Model 2011STI Website - Learning Resource CenterSTI Website – AdmissionsSTI Website – AdvisingStandard 12: General EducationStandard does not apply

Standard 13: Related Educational ActivitiesMemo of Understanding – GIAC 2010Memo of Understanding – SANS 2010Certification of Related Entities 2010Provisional Admittance Policy (STI website)Course descriptions and learning objectives (SANS website)Course listings (STI Website)Mission statement Rev 2010Proctor policy (GIAC website) Kryterion testing center agreementProgram learning outcomes 2011STI Website - Learning Resource CenterGIAC Exam Assessment Results summary 2005-2011Faculty Handbook 2007Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning360 Degree Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Model 2011Course descriptions and learning objectives (SANS Website)Program Learning Outcomes 2011GIAC exam assessment results summary 2005-2011Grading rubrics 2010Student portfolios 2011Student application essays 2005-2011Leadership position survey of graduates 2007-2011Curriculum Committee meeting minutes 2005-2011

· Web viewWorking Group 7: Institutional Assessment and Student Learning Assessment Standard 7,...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewWorking Group 7: Institutional Assessment and Student Learning Assessment Standard 7,...