Taking stock

Self-evaluation report online

After months of research and analysis, the lion’s share of SFU’s accreditation self-evaluation report is complete. And the verdict: by virtually every measure of all its core theme objectives—as rated from “satisfactory” to “outstanding” to “improvement required”—SFU’s performance is satisfactory.

The university’s operational scale is appropriate to fulfi ll its mission and carry out its core themes. Enrolment targets at the undergraduate and graduate levels are consistently met and often exceeded. Over-enrolment creates unusual pressure on resources, but is also generating fi nancial fl exibility.

Academic and support staff are employed in numbers adequate to allow the institution to carry out its mandates to teach, conduct research and engage communities.

However SFU, like other Canadian universities, faces a major challenge in addressing its deferred maintenance. The university’s academic operations increasingly depend on the smooth and effi cient functioning of its IT infrastructure, which requires ever increasing fi nancial and staff resources to maintain and grow.

Although more government support would be welcome, SFU’s current resources are well managed, adequate for their intended purposes, and appropriately allocated to achieve the university’s mission now and for the foreseeable future.

Here’s how we measure up by core theme: y Teaching and Learning: SFU’s performance is satisfactory

when it comes to providing students with academic opportunities to become informed, engaged global citizens.

Its support and promotion of teaching excellence is outstanding. And SFU is also satisfactory at offering high-quality academic programs from a diverse set of disciplines across all faculties.

y Research: SFU is satisfactory at increasing the level and quality of research and promoting its profi le as a research-intensive university. It is also satisfactory at incorporating research into teaching and learning.

y Student Experience and Success: The university is satisfactory at providing both an engaging student experience and a supportive student learning and living environment. It also satisfactorily creates vibrant campus communities.

y Community and Citizenship: SFU satisfactorily engages and involves its many communities and provides opportunities for international collaboration and partnerships. SFU also satisfactorily mobilizes resources and expertise that refl ect regional, national and global concerns.

To read the full self-evaluation report, visit: www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/accreditation.html.

Core theme report cardteaching excellence

quality academic

disciplines across

ViewPointAcademic THURSDAY JUNE 23, 2011NEWSLETTER OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC, SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

SUPPLEMENT

The third draft of SFU’s self-evaluation report for the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) will be posted online June 27 for the SFU community to review, at www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/accreditation.html.

The contents of the report are: y Chapter 1: Defi nes SFU’s mission, core themes and the criteria

by which the assessments in Chapter 4 will be carried out. y Chapter 2: Responds to approximately 80 standards on SFU’s

resources and capacity. It explains in some detail the Canadian and British Columbia contexts for an American audience. Subheadings are taken from the NWCCU’s Standards.

y Chapter 3: Describes SFU’s major institutional planning processes.

y Chapter 4: Covers the assessment of SFU’s four core themes. y Chapter 5: Includes conclusions about SFU’s performance in

fulfi lling our mission and allows us to introduce “core theme 5”—Institutional Strength—from the University Planning Frameworkin discussing the University’s ability to adapt and sustain itself.This is an opportunity for you to comment on the substance of

the report. Concentrate on the content, including possible omissions, contradictions and the like. All data and electronic links will be checked before we submit the report to the NWCCU.

Submit your comments to accredit@sfu.ca by no later than July 15 and be sure to reference chapter/page/paragraph number and heading/subheading.

Welcome to the second issue of ViewPointAcademic, a newsletter produced by the offi ce of the Vice President Academic (VPA) to keep members of the Simon Fraser University community abreast of current and future VPA initiatives.

This issue again focuses on two major VPA undertakings that will have signifi cant impact on the university and its stakeholders in the years ahead: the 2010–13 academic plan and the accreditation project.

SFU is in the midst of applying for institutional accreditation with the U.S.-based Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), a certifi cation process for which there is no equivalent in Canada.

The process is focused on SFU’s mission fulfi llment, with an emphasis on how all its organizational units contribute collectively to the core themes of the university’s mission, rather than looking at individual units separately.

To help evaluate whether post-secondary institutions are achieving their mission, the NWCCU requires them to identify the core themes through which they carry out their mission. SFU identifi ed four core themes that closely align with themes in the academic plan: Teaching and Learning, Research, Student Experience and Success, and Community and Citizenship.

To facilitate the accreditation process and help the university

units that fall within his portfolio implement the academic plan, VPA Jon Driver struck fi ve teams last summer—one for each self-evaluation theme plus a fi fth, Financial Sustainability and Institutional Strength team. The fi fth team’s work will be interwoven into the other four teams’ work on both the accreditation project and the academic plan.

The fi rst stage of the process will result in a fi ve-chapter self-evaluation report being submitted to the NWCCU by early August 2011. You will fi nd a brief report card on the self-evaluation results in this issue (p.1). And follow the instructions on how to access an advanced draft of the full document (p.1), which will be posted online for review by the SFU community on June 27.

An NWCCU evaluation team will visit SFU this fall to assess how the university applies its resources and capacities toward mission fulfi llment, as indicated in the self-evaluation document.

While here, the team will meet with senior administrators and host open forums for faculty, staff, students and other community members.

This issue of ViewPointAcademic features an interview with Jon Driver (p.4) on the progress being made on both the accreditation project and the academic plan.

It also features a photo essay (pp.2-3) on the deans’ planning retreat in April, at which both initiatives were top of mind.

SFU’s 11 deans were the driving force behind a planning retreat in April to discuss SFU’s current three-year academic plan (see pp.2-3). Back row, from left: Kris Magnusson, Daniel Shapiro, Wade Parkhouse, John O’Neil and Nimal Rajapakse. Front row, from left: Cheryl Geisler, John Craig, Helen Wussow, Claire Cupples, Charles Eckman and John Pierce.

OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT

Associate VP Academic Bill Krane (above) is one of fi ve Core Theme team leaders who were recognized with small gifts at the April deans’ planning retreat (see pp.2–3) for their leadership.

In addition to Krane, who leads the Institutional Strength theme team, the others include: y Teaching and Learning team leader, Sarah Dench,

Director, University Curriculum and Institutional Liaison. y Research team leader, Wade Parkhouse, Dean,

Graduate Studies. y Student Experience and Success team leader, Tim Rahilly,

Associate Vice President, Students. y Community and Citizenship team leader, Joanne Curry,

Executive Director, Surrey campus.

A token of appreciation

2

Back row, from left: Jacy Lee, Laurie Anderson, Anita Stepan, Daniel Shapiro, Wade Parkhouse, Norbert Haunerland, John O’Neil, Nimal Rajapakse, Bill Krane, Joanne Curry, Louise Paquette, Mario Pinto, Gayle Myers, Tim Rahilly. Front row, from left: Ken Steele, Jay Black, Jon Driver, Kris Magnusson, Cheryl Geisler, John Craig, Helen Wussow, Claire Cupples, Charles Eckman, John Pierce, Sarah Dench, Jan Sanderson, KC Bell, Lynda Erickson, Andrew Petter, Glynn Nicholls.

SUPPLEMENTSIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY NEWS y VIEWPOINTACADEMIC y THURSDAY JUNE 23, 2011

The envision>SFU campaign launched by President Andrew Petter (left) embodies many of the themes detailed in the accreditation self-study document co-written by professor emeritus Lynda Erickson (right).

Helen Wussow, Dean of Lifelong Learning, led the Financial Sustainability and Institutional Strength theme plenary discussion on revenue generation.

Above: VP Research, Mario Pinto (left) and Academic Relations Director, Gayle Myers, listen to a discussion of the academic plan’s five themes—high quality student experience; teaching and learning in a research university; research intensity; the university’s role in the community; and financial sustainability and institutional strength.

Right: Chief Information Officer, Jay Black (left), Applied Sciences Dean, Nimal Rajapakse, and AVP Students, Tim Rahilly, during one of the plenary sessions that addressed three questions related to each of the academic plan’s five themes.

More than 30 of SFU’s senior administrative staff and deans gathered at the Shadbolt Centre for the Arts in Burnaby in April to discuss a wide range of issues related to both the 2010–13 academic plan and the accreditation project.

Deans’ planning retreat

SUPPLEMENT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY NEWS y VIEWPOINTACADEMIC y THURSDAY JUNE 23, 2011

Graduate Studies Dean and research team leader, Wade Parkhouse (above), opened discussions on Research Intensity with questions related to research and teaching & learning, research competitiveness, and research and the community.

Above: Faculty of Science Dean, Claire Cupples led the “University’s Role in the Community” theme discussion on integrating community engagement with teaching and learning.

Left: Participants broke into plenary sub-groups to discuss related questions and issues after listening to short summaries of accomplishments in each of the academic plan’s five theme areas.

More than 30 of SFU’s senior administrative staff and deans gathered at the Shadbolt Centre for the Arts in Burnaby in April to discuss a wide range of issues related to both the 2010–13 academic plan and the accreditation project.

Taking a break from their planning deliberations are (clockwise from left) SFU Surrey Executive Director, Joanne Curry; VP Academic, Jon Driver; AVP Students, Tim Rahilly; SFU Business Dean, Daniel Shapiro; and Communication, Art & Technology Dean, Cheryl Geisler.

A year into SFU’s current three-year academic plan, VP Academic (VPA) Jon Driver and the University’s 11 deans gathered for a daylong retreat April 20 at Burnaby’s Shadbolt Centre to discuss the plan’s progress and identify areas needing attention.

But unlike previous annual retreats, President Andrew Petter and some 20 others who work closely with the deans and the VPA to support academic units and develop new initiatives also participated.

They included senior staff from the VPA’s office, the VP and Associate VP Research, the Director of Academic Relations, the Chief Information Officer, the executive directors of the Surrey and Vancouver campuses, and the accreditation team.

“This was a very different kind of retreat,” says Driver, “where the deans were still the key people in the room, but with a lot of other people there who contributed in their own areas of expertise.”

The day’s program centred on the academic plan’s five themes—high quality student experience; teaching and learning in a research university; research intensity; the university’s role in the community; and financial sustainability and institutional strength—focusing on implementation issues around each theme.

The respective theme team leaders first gave a short summary of what had already been accomplished in achieving plan goals

and objectives and then each of them asked the participants to consider questions on which their group needed advice.

The participants then broke into sub-groups to discuss the issues/questions and reported back to the whole group 30 minutes later. The process was repeated for each of the five themes.

Guest speaker Ken Steele of the Academica Group, author of the daily Top Ten, spoke at lunch on the trends in higher education and discussed some lighter, humorous education issues at dinner.

“It was a fairly heavy workload for a single meeting, but I thought the energy level stayed remarkably high,” says Driver.

“There was always the danger that if you bring too many people together the voices of the deans would get swamped, but I don’t think that happened. We covered a lot of ground and some very interesting and creative ideas emerged.”

The theme teams are now coming up with action plans based on some of the issues raised at the retreat.

“Once we have a set of priorities I will take these back to the deans and we will discuss what should be at the top of the list for the next year to two years,” says Driver.

“And then the staff in the VPA’s office and possibly others, such as the Registrar’s office or Graduate Studies, will work with the deans to implement them.”

Deans’ planning retreat

4 SUPPLEMENTSIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY NEWS y VIEWPOINTACADEMIC y THURSDAY JUNE 23, 2011

Notice of accreditation visit and invitation to commentWith no comparable national quality-assurance organization in Canada, Simon Fraser University (SFU) has applied for formal accreditation in the United States from the Washington-based Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU).

Upon completion, SFU will become the first major Canadian research university to be so accredited.

Among the benefits of accreditation:

§ Regular external assessment of SFU’s adherence to best-practice standards will increase our accountability to stakeholders. § Accreditation will help establish clearer benchmarks/standards for assessing learning outcomes and thus benefit students’ learning experiences. § Accreditation will enhance the value of an SFU degree for alumni abroad and for international students returning home. § Accreditation will simplify our relationships with US institutions, including government, foundations and collegiate sports associations. § Accreditation will foster public confidence in SFU’s ability to fulfill its stated mission and goals.

The independent, non-profit NWCCU accepted SFU’s application for candidacy in January 2009. The full accreditation process, which is based on a series of SFU self-assessments and NWCCU member peer reviews, will take another three to five years to complete.

As part of the process, a team of senior administrators and academic peers from accredited institutions will visit SFU on October 12, 13 and 14, 2011 to conduct a comprehensive initial site evaluation for candidacy.

Members of the public are invited to send signed comments on SFU’s application for candidacy directly to the NWCCU at:

Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities Suite 100 – 8060 165th Avenue N.E.,

Redmond, WA 98052. U.S.A. Telephone: (425) 558-4224

The deadline for comments is September 11, 2011. The NWCCU will forward all signed comments to SFU and the site evaluation committee.

For more information, visit www.nwccu.org or telephone (425) 558-4224. To review the NWCCU’s Policy A-5, Public Notification and Third Party Comments Regarding Full-Scale Evaluations, visit: at.sfu.ca/gLpfuM

VIEWPOINTACADEMIC

V I C E - P R E S I D E N T , A C A D E M I C

VP-ACADEMICDr. Jon Driver y 778.782.3925 y driver@sfu.ca

NEWSLETTER EDITORStuart Colcleugh y 778.782. 3210 y colcleugh@sfu.ca

DESIGNThe Design Group, External Relations

 www.sfu.ca

Q&AWITH JON DRIVER

How are things progressing with the Academic Plan?Well, Senate approved the plan just over a year ago and we’ve done a lot of work on it since then, particularly in the area of teaching and learning. We’re implementing recommendations from the task force on teaching and learning, we’re reviewing how teaching is evaluated, and we’ve introduced grants to support faculty members who want to do some inquiry into teaching methods. In addition, the Teaching and Learning Centre is being reorganized to link better to the needs of the faculties.

We’ve also changed the budgeting process quite a lot, to try and link the budget more closely to the academic plans. The accreditation project, which is closely linked to the academic plan, is moving us towards more careful statements of learning outcomes that define more precisely for students what the purpose of a course or overall program is and what outcomes they can expect.

We’ve also been looking a lot at experiential learning where students “learn through doing” and apply theoretical and methodological knowledge to practice. We’ll have more on this in the next newsletter, which will be focused on teaching and learning.

A number of issues have emerged since the plan was introduced. Can you talk about a few of them?One of them is the tradeoff between having flexible programs and giving students the opportunity to access and complete programs in a reasonable amount of time.For example, in some areas students don’t have to declare a major until well into their university experience. But that flexibility makes it much more difficult for us to plan and program and make sure students are getting the courses they need. We hear from students that they enjoy the flexibility that SFU offers, but they are also frustrated when they cannot enroll in courses they need or want.

Another concern that comes up frequently is barriers to interdisciplinarity. Both students and instructors tell me that interdisciplinarity is important, and that there seem to be administrative and bureaucratic barriers to working across the disciplines.

And we spent a lot of time at the retreat speaking about the university’s role in the community and the difficulty of tracking what we’re doing. There are all sorts of things going on that we don’t know about because we don’t track certain activities centrally.

We also discussed the role international students play, especially at the undergraduate level. They’re obviously important to the diversity of the student population, and they contribute revenue, but having more international students means more crowded classes and campuses, and we know we have to provide more comprehensive English language support than we’re currently doing.

So what happens now regarding those issues?At the retreat the theme teams identified these and a number of other issues that were not adequately addressed in the three-year plan but seemed important to people. So they are now in the process of combining the goals of the three-year plan with these emergent issues and then recommending some priorities that we will focus on for the next couple of years.

What are the key messages you want to convey about the academic plan?The first is to emphasize that the academic plan is really a university plan. It affects 70 per cent of our budget, most SFU students and instructors, and large numbers of staff.

I would also like to stress the key role the deans play in translating the plan into the context of their own faculties. For example, the deans must take the rather broad goal of developing more experiential learning and make it work in the context of the particular academic units they lead.

They must decide which of the plan’s goals and objectives are most relevant to their faculties. For example, a faculty may already offer a lot of experiential learning opportunities so the dean might focus more attention on retaining students or promoting community engagement.

Draft three of the accreditation self-evaluation guide is being posted online this week. Are you satisfied with the results?Yes, I am. It’s the first time we’ve done such a comprehensive analysis of how SFU works and it provides a really interesting overview of the university. What it doesn’t do, because it’s not intended to, is focus in any detail on the academic programs we offer. Instead, it focuses on the overall goals of the university and how we organize ourselves to achieve those goals.

We’re there any surprises?I don’t know if it’s a surprise but the NWCCU has a lengthy set of standards that revolve around best practices for university governance, planning, teaching and learning and so on. And I was pleased to see how well we conformed to those standards.

On the other hand, we discovered that there are some areas in which we are not collecting the data to really assess how well we’re doing. For example, we do not track very well the total research output of our professors, and this is important if we want to be accountable to the public.

We also need to define more clearly what the learning outcomes of our programs ought to be. This is important first of all for our students, because we ought to be able to state clearly what they can expect in a particular course or a program and what the purpose of that course or program is. I’m not talking just about the academic content, but also the skills that the course promotes and the kind of learning that the student will experience.

This is important for our accountability back to the community. If you don’t clearly define the purpose and intended outcomes of a program of study it’s hard to demonstrate that you are accountable to the people who are paying the tuition and the grants that keep us running.

One of the goals of the accreditation process was better institutional self-awareness, if you will. Are we achieving that?That’s a good term to use, actually, and I believe we are achieving that goal. If you look across the political landscape in Canada right now, from government to business to community groups to parents, people are asking universities, “What’s the justification for your institution’s existence? What do you contribute to society? How well prepared are your alumni?” I don’t think those are unreasonable questions, and we have to be more self-aware to answer them convincingly.

In the climate of accountability we’re living in now, where every public organization is under scrutiny, people set very high expectations. And there’s no reason we should be exempted from being accountable.

How does the accreditation project help us in achieving that goal?Accreditation basically requires us to define what our ambitions are as an institution and develop objective measures of how well we’re doing. Sometimes those can be very factual measurements, such as the percentage of students who graduate with a degree. Others may be more qualitative and harder to measure, for example, assessing whether students come out of university with better critical thinking skills. But we are devising measures that we can use over a period of time to see how well we are doing.

This is something new for Canadian universities isn’t it?It’s new to do it in such a systematic way and to do it at the institutional level. Certain disciplines, such as engineering or clinical psychology, have their own accreditation process that’s focused very much on the needs and standards of the profession. And we have our own lengthy experience of conducting external reviews of academic departments. But the idea of doing an evaluation of the entire institution on a regular basis is new to Canada, although well established in many other countries.

ViewPointAcademic recently sat down with VP Academic Jon Driver to discuss the university’s progress with the 2010–13 Academic Plan and the accreditation project. Here is some of what he had to say.

SFU is running the advertisement below in the Vancouver Sun business pages on Saturday, June 25, to conform with the NWCCU’s policy on public notification and third-party comments.