INTRODUCTION
GENERAL GUIDELINES
RESPONSIBILITIES
COMPONENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT PLAN

Sources of Information

Assessment Processes

Periodic Studies of Selected Issues

NEXT STEPS
APPENDIX A: HOW TO LOCATE ASSESSMENT-RELATED REPORTS
APPENDIX B: ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1997-98
APPENDIX C: ACADEMIC PROGRAMS SUBJECT TO ACCREDITATIONREVIEWS

INTRODUCTION

This document attempts to identify in an explicit manner an assessmentplan for theUniversity of Scranton. The plan is designed to provide informationabout the extent towhich the University is accomplishing its goals, particularlywith respect to studentoutcomes. When the plan presented here is fullyimplemented, we believe that there will bea reasonable basis for judgingthe extent to which the University is being successful indeveloping itsstudents. The plan is an essential part of our reports to accreditingagencies,including the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, as wellasvarious disciplinary or professional associations. More importantly, the information generated should be useful to members of the University community in improving programs designed to achieve student outcomes.

The following sections of this report review the guidelines used in developing the program, outline the major components of the assessment program, and discuss certain operational issues such as responsibility for implementation of the program. We conclude with a list of the several steps currently being taken to implement the plan.

Top of the page

GENERAL GUIDELINES

Development and implementation of the University's assessment plan reflect the following general guidelines which have emerged from discussions in the University's Planning Committee, Assessment Committee, and Academic Policy Council. The guidelines are not fixed rules but represent general dispositions regarding a variety of assessment-related issues, particularly as those issues are being discussed in higher education circles today.
1. The principal, although not exclusive, focus of attention for the assessment plan is student outcomes. That is, the plan should help to answer the question: What happens to our students as a result of their experiences at the University of Scranton?
Other University outcomes are of interest in the assessment plan, but only of secondary interest at this time. Within the next several years, we expect to concentrate our attention on those aspects of the assessment plan which relate most directly to student outcomes. Some attention will be devoted to other University goals, even within the next several years; and after elements of the assessment plan for student outcomes are well established, additional attention will be devoted to the other goals.
2. Student outcomes should be broadly conceived to include both academic and non-academic outcomes. Academic outcomes center mainly on the knowledge and skills developed in the major field of study and on the intended outcomes of general education. Non-academic outcomes include such matters as the development of character, moral sensibilities, proclivities towards leadership and volunteer work, etc.
3. The University's mission statement should be a key document in determining what student outcomes will be addressed. Further, the assessment plan itself should incorporate mechanisms for continually monitoring the vitality and relevance of the mission statement.
4. A modest plan is desired. The plan is not designed to "measure everything that moves." The immediate goal is to have an identifiable but modest plan that provides meaningful feedback to members of the University community. The plan is not are placement for how instructors evaluate their students, although in some instances elements of the plan may eventually supplement such evaluation. Experience suggests that elaborate, elegant structures for assessment usually collapse from their own weight. Inaccord with our desire for a modest plan, to the extent possible, existing mechanisms or processes will be used for the collection and analysis of assessment information.
5. The plan should encourage individual units (departments, offices, etc.) within the University to develop their own assessment activities. Again, experience suggests that the most effective utilization of assessment information occurs when individual units have a sense of ownership and participation in how results are used. We want to encourage that sense of ownership and participation.
For purposes of reporting to external agencies, there is an unfortunate by-product of this predisposition to decentralize assessment. External agencies often want to know precisely what assessment is occurring and what effects it has had. To the extent that we are successful in fostering a very widespread ownership of assessment, it becomes difficult to answer the question of precisely what is taking place and precisely what its effects are. We believe that it is worth contending with this difficulty in order to gain the advantages associated with decentralization.
6. There should be an emphasis on utilization of assessment information for purposes of improvement. To be sure, much of the information garnered from parts of the assessment plan can be used in an accountability framework. However, we will, whenever possible, attempt to aim our assessment efforts at improving the way we go about the University's business, which is principally to educate students.
7. A major effort will be made to communicate results from the assessment plan to the University community, again with an eye toward improvement. We do not want to collect a lot of information which just sits on the shelf. We will try to resist the temptation to collect more information when currently available information has not been digested or to create entirely new assessment processes when the current processes need improvement.

Top of the page

RESPONSIBILITIES

Of course assessment is everyone's responsibility. However, without assigning some more specific responsibility for the effort, we are in danger of falling prey to the maxim that what is everyone's responsibility soon becomes no one's responsibility.
Assessment and Institutional Research Office. Responsibility for the development and implementation of the University's assessment plan has been assigned by the Provost/Academic Vice President to the Assessment and Institutional Research Office (AIRO). The office reports to the Provost. Activities related to the assessment plan are reviewed in the annual report submitted to the Provost by AIRO.
Assessment Committee. An Assessment Committee, consisting of faculty, staff, students, and alumni, helps to define and give on-going direction to the assessment plan. The committee aids in identifying the "key indicators" referenced in the plan, provides advice on modification of assessment processes, contributes to the development of reports about assessment matters, and interprets to the institution the meaning of thecurrent "assessment movement" in higher education. A list of the current members of the committee is given in Appendix B.
Departments, Offices, Other Committees. As will be noted presently, important parts of the assessment plan become operational within various departments or offices of the University. For example, annual department reports, program reviews, and updates of strategic plans are typically prepared by department chairs or directors of offices. The chairs or directors are often aided in the process by other faculty and staff, thus widening the circle of persons involved in assessment processes. Academic program reviews, which originate in departments, are considered by deans' conferences and ultimately by the Academic Policy Council. The Curriculum Conference Committee (CCC), currently occupied with approving elements of the revised general education program, will be an important group in the assessment of general education outcomes.
Also, several offices play especially important roles in implementing certain parts of the assessment plan. The Career Services office conducts the annual survey of post-graduation placements. The Admissions office is the key to providing certain types of input information for undergraduate day students.
We believe that the diversity of offices, departments, and committees involved in various aspects of the assessment plan is a strength of the plan. To be sure, it is tidier to have all aspects of the plan controlled by a single office. But experience indicates that such centrally operated assessment plans don't last as long nor have as much impact as those with more diversified structures.
Historical Notes. The beginning of the University's interest in developing an assessment plan is conveniently marked by the University's 1987-88 decennial accreditation report, in which "outcomes" or "assessment "was one of the special topics selected for study. Following a review of that topic in the accreditation study, the University undertook a three-year, CAPHE-funded project in which much assessment activity occurred; the project concluded in May, 1992. The final report for the CAPHE project is available from AIRO. In Fall of 1992, the Institutional Research Office was re-christened as the Assessment and Institutional Research Office; and responsibility for further development of an overall assessment plan was assigned to that office. At the same time, a committee of faculty and staff which had served in an advisory capacity to the CAPHE project was expanded and formally designated as the University's Assessment Committee.
In the Spring of 1993, the University's Planning Committee adopted a statement of twelve planning directions for the University as a whole. One of those directions was: "That the University commit itself to a more comprehensive program of outcomes assessment in order to provide the necessary evaluation of its planning and programming efforts. "This formal declaration reaffirmed the role of assessment at the institution.
In 1994, the first edition of this assessment plan was published and widely disseminated on campus. This first edition concluded with a list of "Next Steps" which helped to guide the development of assessment activities over the past two years. All of the objectives set forth at that time have been accomplished. A detailed chronicle of specific steps taken with respect to those objectives is provided in the annual reports submitted to the Provost by the Assessment and Institutional Research Office.

Top of the page

COMPONENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT PLAN

The University's assessment plan has three major components: sources of information, assessment processes, and periodic studies of selected issues. Each of these components is described below. It should be noted that we do not consider the plan as complete and fully implemented. In certain cases, we simply indicate the general nature of work which is in progress or in need of attention in the future.

Sources of Information

The first component of the assessment plan consists of a relatively small number of sources of information about student outcomes. This information is collected and analyzed on a regular basis. There are two special comments to be made about these sources of information. First, the indicators vary in their simplicity and directness. Some are susceptible to fairly simple, direct interpretation, e.g., retention rate. Others call for more complex, difficult interpretation, e.g., responses to multi-part surveys. Second, we include among these measures or sources of information only those which apply to all or nearly all groups of students. Measures or sources which apply to only one or a few groups of students are simply incorporated into the program review process (treated under Assessment Processes below). The following are the key sources of information in our assessment plan.
- The annual survey of students' post-graduation placementsconducted by the Career Services Office. This survey covers a period of time until about six months after graduation and concentrates almost exclusively on the immediate post-graduation plans of graduates, especially regarding employment or graduate school. It is worth noting that the Career Services Office achieves an excellent response rate to this survey. The office provides a variety of reports on survey results to the campus community each year.
- A senior survey is conducted each spring semester with all graduating seniors. The instrument used for this survey may differ from year to year but the procedure for collecting the information remains relatively constant. More importantly, the purpose remains the same: To provide students with the opportunity to reflect on their college experiences at about thetime of graduation.
Within the past several years, we have used the Higher Education Research Institute's Senior Survey, the College Student Experience Questionnaire, and the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) Consortium Senior Survey. (HEDS is the acronym for the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium, a group of about 100 relatively selective, private colleges and universities which cooperate on a variety of projects. The University became an active participant in HEDS in 1989.) Each of these instruments provides somewhat different information. It is likely that we will continue to have some variety in the instrument used for the senior survey, precisely to obtain different perspectives from this part of the assessment plan. The Assessment Committee annually makes recommendations regarding the instrument to be used for the senior survey. AIRO provides a variety of reports to the campus community based on the senior survey.
- A survey of alumni approximately three to five years after graduation. This survey allows graduates to report on their current activities (e.g., careers, community activities) and to evaluate the quality of their educational experience in a variety of areas after gaining the perspective of being away from the University for a few years.
The first alumni survey was administered in spring, 1994 to alumni who graduated five years earlier. A sub-committee of the Assessment Committee, after examining seven different alumni survey instruments, selected the HEDS alumni survey for this initial administration. The plan anticipates use of an alumni survey every several years.
- Retention data. We must collect retention data for purposes of the federal Right-to-Know law which became effective in 1993. In fact, "retention rate" is the federal government's only current definition of "student outcomes." Hence, it seems to make some sense to include this information among our list of key indicators.
Retention information is already collected by a number of different offices for various purposes. Until 1993, the undergraduate Admissions Office tracked the retention of undergraduate day students for five years after date of entry. In more recent years, the Assessment and Institutional Research Office has conducted a variety of retention studies and traced retention of all students over one year periods in connection with the enrollment management model. The Graduate Office has conducted separate studies of retention rates for graduate programs.
AIRO has provided a regular flow of reports about our retention rate to the campus community. In 1995, the Vice President for Student Affairs created a "Retention Team," which monitors the retention picture and develops plans to preserve and even enhance our excellent retention record. In 1996, the University initiated use of a form (the Complete Withdrawal/Request for Leave of Absence form) to help determine reasons for students leaving the University. It will be some time before a reasonable data base is available for this form.
- Assessment of general education. We do not yet have any very direct indicators of success in accomplishing general education objectives. However, it seems quite clear that we should have such measures among our key indicators. We do obtain some indirect evidence, by way of students' opinions regarding general education from the senior survey. Further, the 1995 and 1996 senior surveys as well as the 1994 the alumni survey contained supplementary, locally constructed questions aimed explicitly at general education.
The Curriculum Conference Committee (CCC) is currently reviewing courses proposed for meeting the requirements of the revised general education program. Course proposals follow a seven-point format specified by the CCC. At the recommendation of the Assessment Committee, one item in that format is:

5.0 Evaluation
Describe the evaluation procedures that will be used to determine the extent to which student outcomes given in 2.0 [Course Objectives] have been achieved. Indicate ways in which the results of the evaluation will be used not only to grade students but also will help to modify how the course is taught.
Inclusion of this requirement should help to ensure a type of course-embedded assessment throughout the revised general education program.
In 1996, a sub-committee of the Assessment Committee, supplemented with several additional faculty, began investigating possible sources of information about the outcomes of general education beyond what is (or will be) available for individual courses or from self-reports of progress in senior and alumni surveys. The sub-committee is continuing to meet.
- Input Information. This assessment plan focuses principally on student outcomes. However, interpretation of the outcomes information is aided by the availability ofcertain input information. Hence, the inputbecomes part of the assessment plan.
We have a great deal of information about our students as they cometo us. Not all of itis terribly useful for assessment purposes, althoughit may be essential for otherinstitutional purposes. We list here the inputinformation which seems most relevant forthe assessment plan.
For undergraduate students, important input information includes: SATscores, number ofnew freshmen enrolled, average credit load, high schoolrank, age, sex, home residence,and financial status as indicated by financialaid forms. In addition, at leastperiodically, we administer the CooperativeInstitutional Research Program (CIRP) freshmansurvey which provides informationon a wide variety of attitudes, personal goals,self-estimates of abilities,etc.
For graduate students, important input information includes: the undergraduateinstitution,major and GPA; previous graduate study and GPA; years and type of workexperience;age and sex; purpose of graduate study; and home residence. In addition,GraduateManagement Admissions Test (GMAT) scores are available for all MBA students;eitherGMAT or GRE scores for all software engineering students; and Test of Englishas aForeign Language (TOEFL) scores for all international students.
Some Exclusions. We conclude this list of key indicators byidentifying a number ofsources of information which we have deliberatelynot included in the list. First,we do not include in our list ofkey indicators various tests which are specific toparticular fields ofstudy or professional certification. Information from such testsshouldbe treated, for purposes of our plan, as part of the review of individualprograms.Second, we have not included the course/instructor evaluationsystem. We thought it bestto simply leave this as part of the faculty evaluationsystem. However, in 1996 theAssessment Committee expressed a desire tore-think this position. The Committee will bediscussing the issue in 1996-97.Finally, we have not included the results of the Franklin& Marshallstudy of the undergraduate origins of doctoral degrees. This is a usefulstudy,particularly with the corrections applied by the HEDS consortium, and wewillreport results from the study periodically. However, we have not elevatedit to the statusof one of our key indicators. On the other hand, it maybe an important source ofinformation in the program review process forcertain programs.

Top of the page

Assessment Processes

The second component of the University's assessment plan consists ofa set of processeswhich are in place (or need to be put in place) to monitorthe operation of programs,particularly with respect to whether they areyielding the desired student outcomes. Theterm "programs" is used herein a very broad sense to include anyUniversity-sponsored effort intendedto have some impact on students. The most obvious ofsuch programs are theacademic majors. Other programs include the array ofextra-curricular andco-curricular activities designed for students. A "process"is defined hereas any organized method for looking at how these various programs areworking.Among the assessment processes we have (or should have) in place are thefollowing:
- Program review. Perhaps the most important assessment processat the Universityis the periodic program review. There are somewhat differentprocesses for academicprograms and for units in the Student Affairs divisionof the University.
Each academic program is scheduled for review approximately every sevenyears. The reviewprocess is under the supervision of the academic deans(and ultimately, theProvost/Academic Vice President) and is carried outby the faculty of the program beingreviewed. The reviews are conductedaccording to a set of guidelines titled "TheAcademic Program Review forthe University of Scranton." AIRO assists with the reviewprocess.
In some cases, the review is conducted by or in conjunction with anexternal accreditinggroup. Appendix C provides a list of academic programswhich undergo externalaccreditation review. To the extent possible, theexternal review substitutes for theUniversity's internal review process.However, the external review may be supplemented byinternal review procedures.
It is worth noting that the Assessment Committee does not participatedirectly inreviewing academic programs. In 1995, the Assessment Committee'sSub-committee on ProgramReview, which included four department chairs,helped to create the program reviewguidelines referred to above; theseguidelines were subsequently approved by the AcademicPolicy Council.
Units in the Student Affairs division of the University follow a processroughly parallelto the academic program review process. The Student Affairs'units have adopted theprocedures of the Council for the Advancement ofStandards for StudentServices/Development Programs -- a national effortto provide guidelines for reviewing theeffectiveness of the types of officesordinarily found in the Student Affairs realm of auniversity.
- Annual Department Reports. Each department within the Universityis expected toproduce an annual report. The report reviews the accomplishmentsof the past year andprojects operational objectives and resource needsfor the coming year. Reports arereviewed by department heads with the appropriatevice president.
The process of preparing and reviewing annual department reports isnow well establishedat the University. It is a useful mechanism both formanagement of the institution and fordirecting people's attention to selectedissues. To some extent, what people have toreport on is what they willthink about.
Beginning in 1994, upon recommendation of the Assessment Committee,the Provost's annualrequest for department reports included this item:

4.0 Identify any student outcome information which the department hascollected and/ordiscussed during the past year. Such information mightinclude follow-up of graduates,surveys of students, graduates' test scores,and similar types of information.
Hence, each year departments report on their collection and use ofassessment information.So far, our experience tells us that this reportingmechanism is fostering increasedattention to assessment of student outcomes.
In Spring, 1996, AIRO pilot-tested a Departmental Summary Report, whichprovided to eachacademic department information on such items as numberof new freshmen, number ofgraduates, average SAT scores, average classsize, etc. for each major (with at least 10students) offered by the department.We expect to continue providing these reports withthe hope that they willenhance the utility of the annual department reports.
- Updates of Strategic Plans. The University has a well developedstrategic plan,including components for individual colleges and other operationalunits. The strategicplan is updated periodically. This provides the opportunity,in a manner similar to thatfor annual reports, to focus attention on studentoutcomes. Part of our assessment plan isto see that, in the process ofupdating strategic plans, attention is given to includinginformation aboutstudent outcomes and, eventually, information about other Universitygoals.
- Review of the Mission Statement. A good assessment plan iscarefully articulatedwith the institution's mission statement. Further,the plan should incorporate a processfor periodic review and fresheningof the mission statement. Regarding these matters, thefirst edition ofthis Assessment Plan contained these observations:

We do not seem to have, at present, a clear process for periodic reviewtheUniversity's mission statement. We should assure that there is sucha process and specifyit in this part of the plan. It should be noted thatthe Assessment Committee finds thecurrent mission statement too diffuseto be of much help in formulating specificassessment plans.
In the meantime, the University has made significant progress regardingthe status of itsmission statement. In 1994, the University's President,Fr. Panuska, appointed the TaskForce on Ignatian Identity and Mission.In Spring, 1996, after a year's worth ofcampus-wide discussions, the TaskForce issued a preliminary report, entitled AUniversity Missioned toIgnatian Education. The report called attention to fourcharacteristicsof Ignatian education and identified twelve recommendations for furtherdiscussion.One of the recommendations called for the establishment of a Center forMissionReflection. Such a center was, in fact, established later in the Springof 1996(it is to be formally inaugurated on October 17, 1996). A finalreport from the Task Forceis expected in late Fall, 1996.
Hence, in contrast to the situation prevailing when the first editionof the AssessmentPlan was published, the University does now have a processfor review of the missionstatement; of course, the work of the Task Forceand the Center go well beyond simplereview. The Assessment Committee hopesthat an outgrowth of these recent developments willbe a revised missionstatement that gives clearer guidance to assessment activities.
- Assessment Committee. We consider the simple fact that wehave a University-wideAssessment Committee as an important process in ouroverall plan. The Committee'sexistence calls attention to the University'scommitment to assessment; and theCommittee's deliberations continuallyfocus attention on important issues in assessingstudent outcomes.
Some More Exclusions. We conclude this treatment of assessmentprocesses just as weconcluded the section on Sources of Information aboveby identifying a number of processeswhich might be included in ourplan but which, in fact, are not included. There aretwo such exclusionswhich have been deliberately made (and perhaps some othersunconsciouslymade). First, we have not included anything about classroom assessment,exceptfor the guidelines on general education courses. This topic has receivedconsiderableattention in the literature on assessment in higher education. However,wehave not, at least as of now, attempted to incorporate it into our plan.Second, perhapsrelatedly, our plan does not include examination of coursesyllabi, particularly withrespect to assessment practices. There has beensome discussion in the AssessmentCommittee about preparing a set of recommendationson good assessment practices forinclusion in the guidebooks for faculty;but the Committee has not yet taken specificaction based on those discussions.

Top of the page

Periodic Studies of Selected Issues

The final component of the University's assessment plan consists ofselected studies ofa variety of issues related to the accomplishment ofstudent outcomes or other Universitygoals. The plan does not specify, inadvance, what these studies might be but simplyacknowledges that such studieswill be undertaken from time to time and will be consideredpart of theoverall assessment effort.
Examples of such studies include the University's participation inthe Higher EducationResearch Institute's (HERI) Faculty Survey in 1992and again in 1996. The survey resultsprovide at least some informationregarding goals related to faculty scholarly andcommunity activities, aswell as a variety of other areas. Another example of a periodicstudy isthe "beeper log" study conducted by the Student Affairs division. Thestudyprovided information about students' activity patterns which, in turn,were relatedto certain outcome issues. Student Affairs has also recentlyconducted surveys related todiversity issues and the concerns of commuterstudents. The survey of commuter students isan excellent example of a studywhich led quite directly and immediately to programmaticchanges. Yet anotherexample is provided by periodic analyses of the Franklin and Marshallstudy,referenced earlier, on the undergraduate origins of doctorates. We havenotattempted an exhaustive listing of periodic studies here. The intentis simply toillustrate the types of studies included in this category ofthe assessment plan.

Top of the page

NEXT STEPS

We consider the assessment plan described in this document as a living,evolvingaffair. While it represents our best thinking now, it is subjectto expansion, refinement,and further demands. The plan will never be fullydeveloped and implemented. At any giventime, there will be some parts ofthe plan in need of attention. Hence, an important partof the plan is tosketch the broad outlines of future developmental work. The followingitemsare among those to receive attention in the near future.
1. We will continue to pursue methods for assessing outcomes of thegeneral educationprogram.
2. In 1995-96 we initiated a major effort to increase the disseminationof informationobtained from the assessment program. We need to continuethis emphasis.
3. A number of initiatives have been undertaken to increase the involvementof academicdepartments in devising their own assessment strategies. Thiswork has proven fruitful andwill continue. It will be some years beforewe have worked with all departments.
4. Plans need to be established for another alumni follow-up, similarto the 1994 effort.The intent is to conduct an alumni study every 3-5 years.
5. The Assessment Committee has expressed the feeling that we are gettingto the pointwhere we have pretty good information at the incoming freshmanlevel and the outgoingsenior level, but insufficient information at pointsin between. We should study some"process variables" for the in-betweenyears. We should explore the implicationsof current work on "principlesof good practice" in higher education for fillingin this gap.
6. Also related to "process variables," we need to expand our workon providingcertain types of management information to the University administration.
7. We should continue to study ways to articulate assessment activitieswith theUniversity mission, especially as the mission statement may evolvein the context of workdescribed earlier in this document.

Top of the page

APPENDIX A

This appendix provides a convenient summary of specific reports referredto in thisassessment plan and how to locate them. For reports which mayprove particularly elusive,the Assessment and Institutional Research (AIRO)may be helpful in locating them.
Post-graduation placements. Copies of this report, publishedannually since 1982,are available from the Career Services Office.
Senior surveys. Reports on the senior survey, conducted foreach of the past eightyears, are available from AIRO.
Retention Data. The annual report of retention date, preparedin compliance withRight-to-Know regulations, is available from AIRO.
Alumni Survey. A comprehensive report on the HEDS Alumni Surveyis available fromAIRO.
Input Information. Reports of demographic information are availablefrom AIRO. Dataon SAT scores and high school rank for undergraduate dayschool students are availablefrom the Admissions Office. Results of thefreshman survey (i.e., the CIRP or"Astin" survey) for the past severalyears are available from the StudentAffairs Office.
Program Reviews. Academic program reviews are available fromthe respectivedepartments or the academic deans' offices. AIRO is currentlydeveloping a system forpermanent cataloging and storage of these reports.
Program reviews for units within the Student Affairs division are availablefrom the VicePresident for Student Affairs.
Annual department reports. Copies of the annual department reportsare availablefrom the Provost's Office or from the respective departments.
Updates of strategic plans. The University's Strategic Planis published in asingle document of about 100 pages . It is completelyupdated annually or biennially.Copies are available from any of the University'svice presidents' offices.
Periodic studies. Reports of periodic studies may originatewith any office in theUniversity. For a particular study, if one does notknow the originating office, contactAIRO for assistance.
Fact Book. The University's Fact Book is the principal sourceof information aboutenrollment trends, faculty characteristics, etc. Itis published annually by AIRO.

Top of the page

APPENDIX B

Dr. Tom Hogan, Chair - Assessment Committee, Psychology
Dr. Len Champney, History and Political Science
Dr. Kathleen Dwyer, Biology
Ms. Elizabeth Jacob, Counseling and Human Services
Dr. Jack Kasar, Occupational Therapy
Dr. Robyn Lawerence, Accounting
Dr. Larry Morton, Student Affairs
Mr. Paul Perhach, Career Services
Dr. Joan Robbins, English
Dr. Rose Sebastianelli, Operations and Information Management
Mr. Rob Stirton, AIRO
Mr. Frantz Alcindor, Graduate Student Representative
Mr. David Bailey, Undergraduate Student Representative
Ms. Kristen Brezinski, Undergraduate Student Representative

Top of the page

APPENDIX C

EDUCATION (all programs)

Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)

PHYSICAL THERAPY

American Physical Therapy Association (CAPTE)

NURSING

National League for Nursing (NLN)

COMMUNITY COUNSELING

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs(CACREP)

SCHOOL COUNSELING

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs(CACREP)

Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE)

 

REHABILITATION COUNSELING

Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE)

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

Accrediting Commission on Education for Health Services Administration(ACHESA/AUPHA)

BUSINESS (all programs)

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)

CHEMISTRY (undergraduate chemistry major only)

American Chemical Society (ACS-CPT)

COMPUTING SCIENCES

Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB)

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE)

9-18-96

Top of the page