Comprehensive Quality Review Report

A Comprehensive Quality Review (CQR) is required during the final year of the AQIP Pathway cycle and may also occur in the fourth year based upon institutional request or Commission determination. The goals of the CQR are to:

• Provide assurance that the institution is meeting Commission’s Criteria for
  Accreditation. (With respect to the optional mid-cycle CQR, alert the organization to areas that need attention prior to its next Reaffirmation of Accreditation. Such concerns may be signaled during the Systems Appraisal process in the third year of the cycle.)
• Provide assurance that the institution is meeting the Federal Compliance
  Requirements (eighth year only).
• Facilitate the institution’s continuing quality improvement commitment, confirming that a developing or established Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) culture and infrastructure exist that advances organizational maturity in relation to the AQIP Pathway Categories.
• Verify any issues identified in Action Project Feedback Reports, Systems Appraisals or Commission actions.
• Validate process level development and deployment as described in the Systems Portfolio.
• Identify actions taken to minimize identified strategic issues and to alleviate potential accreditation issues.
• Review CQI priorities and progress including how Action Projects are integrated into an institution’s overall performance improvement strategy.
• Review distance and/or correspondence education delivery, if applicable (eighth year only).
• Evaluate distributed education, (multiple campuses) if applicable (eighth year only).
• Develop an initial recommendation regarding Pathway eligibility (eighth year only).

The team conducted a Comprehensive Quality Review visit, which included a multi-campus visit to Chillicothe Campus, Southern Campus, and Zanesville Campus. As part of the Comprehensive Quality Review, the Federal Compliance Worksheet and a review of distance delivery and correspondence education (Appendix C) were completed.

Ohio University is a public, state-assisted research university coordinated by the Ohio Board of Regents/University System of Ohio. There are six campuses in the Ohio University system, the main campus in Athens, Ohio and the five regional campuses with three satellite centers. The five regional campuses are located in Chillicothe, St. Clairsville (Eastern), Ironton (Southern), Lancaster and Zanesville. The University also offers instruction at several additional locations. Ohio University has no out of state locations.

Ohio University was established in 1804 and is the oldest public institution of higher learning in the state of Ohio and the Northwest Territory. Its mission states:

Ohio University holds as its central purpose the intellectual and personal
development of its students. Distinguished by its rich history, diverse campus,
international community, and beautiful Appalachian setting, Ohio University is
known as well for its outstanding faculty of accomplished teachers whose
research and creative activity advance knowledge across many disciplines.

At the same time that the mission clearly articulates a commitment to teaching, the institution holds a dual focus on research. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has designated Ohio University as a research university (high research activity).

The mission has been updated with the creation of a Vision Statement, which focuses on the institution’s goal to be transformational in its impact. Also, the Strategic Plan, Vision Ohio, has been distilled into four fundamentals and four strategic priorities (the 4x4) that guide the institution’s record of growth and focus on innovation. The emerging sense of “Ohio (University) for Ohio” comes with the planning for the extension of its program in Osteopathic Medicine to Dublin and Cleveland, areas outside the institution’s historic
regional delivery system. The Dublin location originally was intended for the College of Osteopathic Medicine, but it now includes other colleges such as Health Sciences and Professions and the Patton College of Education.

The University enrolls over 39,000 students (fall 2014-15) with approximately 29,000 students enrolled on the Athens campus including distance learners, and 10,000 students enrolled on the regional campuses. It offers 560+ undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs (majors) of study at the associate, bachelor, master's, doctoral, and professional levels. It is divided among 11 colleges: College of Arts and Sciences, College of Business, College of Fine Arts, College of Health Sciences and Professions, Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education, Graduate College, Honors Tutorial College, University College, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Russ College of Engineering and Technology, and the Scripps College of Communication. Additional academic units include the Center for International Studies,
Office of Regional Higher Education, and the Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs. The University employs approximately 5,100 faculty and staff, and reported an annual budget of $678 million for 2014-15.

Ohio University has enjoyed stable leadership with its President, Dr. Roderick McDavis, and Executive Vice President and Provost, Dr. Pam Benoit, who together represent more than 15 years of leadership. Members of the Board are appointed for nine year terms by the Governor of Ohio with one member entering and retiring each year thereby creating continuity in the Board membership.

Ohio University has been an AQIP institution since 2002. In 2013 the institution
completed its Systems Portfolio and in turn received its Systems Appraisal Report as provided within the AQIP cycle of actions. In 2015 the institution participated in a Strategy Forum followed in November 2015 with the comprehensive evaluation visit represented here.

What has been unique is the bridging of the previous AQIP cycle in which there had been a Quality Check-up, followed by a review from a panel for the Reaffirmation of Accreditation, to what is now the new AQIP cycle wherein an institution participates in a Comprehensive Quality Review parallel to the comprehensive evaluation in other HLC Pathways. Ohio University is one of the first AQIP institutions to complete the Comprehensive Quality Review with the Commission’s implementation of this change in the AQIP cycle and process in fall 2015. Also, the electronic filing associated with the current assurance system was neither available nor required for AQIP Comprehensive Quality Review at the time of this visit. Therefore, the team needed to work closely with the institution to identify the needed evidence and documentation. Ohio University is recognized by the visiting team for its flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness to changes in the accreditation processes.

The Comprehensive Quality Review included a multi-campus visit to three locations: Chillicothe Campus (101 University Drive, Chillicothe, OH 45601), Southern Campus (1804 Liberty Ave, Ironton, OH 45638), and Zanesville Campus (1425 Newark Rd, Zanesville, OH 43701). Reports for each campus have been submitted along with this Comprehensive Quality Review Report.

As part of the comprehensive evaluation, a review of distance delivery and
correspondence education was completed using the Commission’s “Protocol for Reviewing Distance Education and Correspondence Education.” (See Appendix C) The team’s findings are included with Criteria Three.

Ohio University appropriately placed public notice of its comprehensive evaluation. The Higher Learning Commission did not receive any third party comments to forward regarding Ohio University.

The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.

Core Component 1A: 

The institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations.

Subcomponent 1. The mission statement is developed through a process suited to the nature and culture of the institution and is adopted by the governing board.

Subcomponent 2. The institution’s academic programs, student support services, and enrollment profile are consistent with its stated mission.

Subcomponent 3. The institution’s planning and budgeting priorities align with and support the mission.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University’s current mission statement was affirmed and updated with vision and values statements through a strategic planning process that evolved from the Vision Ohio Strategic Plan, which was distilled into four fundamentals and four strategic priorities in 2011. It is evident that the process is appropriate to the institution and that it involved broad constituencies including the 46-member Task Force approved by the Board of Trustees.

Ohio University’s academic programs, student support services, and enrollment profile are consistent with its mission statement as evidenced by aligned mission statements of the College of Arts and Sciences, Division of Student Affairs, and the University Registrar provided in 5P1 of the Systems Portfolio.

Ohio University’s enrollment profile is consistent with its mission and its role as a public university. The institution achieves this, in part, by both 1) recruiting “high need, high potential” students with the selective admission process on the Athens Campus, and 2) maintaining open admission processes at the University’s system of regional education thereby providing quality programs in flexible and accessible formats, supported by student success programs, to students seeking to be educated “in place.” Ohio University consistently tracks its performance in documents that were shared with the team in the recruitment of “high need, high potential” prospective undergraduates to assure its mission in providing access. While there may be different paths for entry (selective or open admission), there is an expressed sense that there is only “One Ohio University” since all students must meet the same high standards required for graduation given a system-wide curriculum.

The Budget Planning Council and Responsibility Centered Management are the primary processes by which Ohio University aligns its budget priorities with its mission statement and demonstrates its commitment to the institution’s mission, vision, and values. Dashboard indicators, at the University-wide and unit levels, allow leadership to monitor progress and
the effectiveness of budgeting process with the Strategic Plan’s Four Fundamentals. While the Responsibility Centered Management guides funding decisions, examples were provided to the visiting team whereby programs are supported financially when revenue or funding was lacking because these programs are central to the mission of the University. Subventions to programs in the liberal arts, fine arts, or regional higher education were cited as examples.

The University’s mission forms the foundation for the 4x4 Strategic Plan, and it is the 4x4 Strategic Plan that is refreshed through annual planning processes that involve the use of dashboards, environmental scanning and dynamic budgeting processes. The University Dashboard from August 2015 aligned with the 4x4 was provided to the team. Further, it was shared that these dashboard indicators cascade down through the 13 academic colleges to
ensure alignment with the 4x4 Strategic Plan.

Core Component 1B: 

The mission is articulated publicly.

Subcomponent 1. The institution clearly articulates its mission through one or more public documents, such as statements of purpose, vision, values, goals, plans, or institutional priorities.

Subcomponent 2. The mission document or documents are current and explain the extent of the institution’s emphasis on the various aspects of its mission, such as instruction, scholarship, research, application of research, creative works, clinical service, public service, economic development, and religious or cultural purpose.

Subcomponent 3. The mission document or documents identify the nature, scope, and intended constituents of the higher education programs and services the institution provides.

Team Determination:

 _X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University publicly articulates its mission on its Mission/Values/Vision webpage, in its catalogs, and in appropriate publications, providing evidence of its commitment to its mission. Banners across campus displayed the 4x4 Strategic Plan at the time of the team’s visit in 2015.

The mission, vision, and values, as well as the 4x4 Strategic Plan are kept current through regular processes that clearly articulate the institution’s scholarly, instructional, and service mission and priorities. The Board is apprised of progress on the 4x4 at each Board meeting as evidenced in Board Minutes that are publicly posted on the institution’s website.

Ohio University’s mission, vision, and values documents specify the institution’s priorities and its relationship with its many constituents. The successful completion of an eight year, $500 million dollar capital campaign is attributed by leadership to the compelling and consistent messaging of the mission, vision and values.

Core Component 1C: 

The institution understands the relationship between its mission and
the diversity of society.

Subcomponent 1. The institution addresses its role in a multicultural society.

Subcomponent 2. The institution’s processes and activities reflect attention to human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.

Team Determination:

 _X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University addresses its role in a multicultural society through its focus on serving the needs of diverse populations through a number of programs and centers coordinated by the Office for Diversity and Inclusion. For example, the Academic Advancement Center and the Office of Multicultural Student Access and Retention (OMSAR) provide support services to a diverse array of students. The Women’s Center acts to promote awareness, education and
advocacy about women. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Center create spaces on and off campus that are inclusive. In an open forum with staff and the visiting team, reference was made to the Women’s Center as a place that welcomes and creates programs to support all women in the campus community.

The Office for Diversity and Inclusion has a published Strategic Plan that defines and seeks to advance diversity in all its forms as a distinct part of the Ohio University educational experience. In a strategic plan with six goals, action steps and outcome measures are provided to support the practical realization of a diverse and inclusive community.

Institutional policies also emphasize the University’s commitment to diversity. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Accessibility oversees the University’s compliance with equal opportunity in education and employment and to improve the inclusion and accessibility for persons living with disabilities. For example, this office is involved in the review of candidate pools in the hiring process to assure that diversity is present. However, the goal of creating
an accessible and supportive environment did not seem limited to one office. In a tour of campus facilities by the visiting team that is linked to the development of a new 10-year campus master plan, renovations to historic structures as well as new construction are designed to improve accessibility and sustainability as well as to support teaching and learning.

Core Component 1D: 

The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.

Subcomponent 1. Actions and decisions reflect an understanding that in its educational role the institution serves the public, not solely the institution, and thus entails a public obligation.

Subcomponent 2. The institution’s educational responsibilities take primacy over other purposes, such as generating financial returns for investors, contributing to a related or parent organization, or supporting external interests.

Subcomponent 3. The institution engages with its identified external constituencies and communities of interest and responds to their needs as its mission and capacity allow.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University demonstrates an understanding in its educational role as one that serves the public through the transformative role that it plays in its students’ lives; the contributions that its faculty provides to the wider community are measured by the Office of International Research, which conducts student satisfaction surveys, alumni surveys, and faculty and
staff salary and productivity surveys.

The institution also receives feedback through campus and college advisory boards, formal advisory activities, and interactions with its community. As an example of the way that interactions with the community have led to innovation and mutually beneficial partnerships, the University’s establishment of the Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine at an additional location in Dublin, will serve to expand the University’s role in the education of primary care physicians, a critical need in the state, while also providing as a key anchor in the city’s re-development by building a bridge between industry, government and academia. Programs at Dublin also include the College of Health Sciences and the Patton College of Education which also serve to meet need for other areas.

The economic, employment, and cultural impact of the regional campuses and centers was studied in 2012-13 providing a series of impact measurements of which include the annual economic impact of the regional campuses, the number of regional campus employees, the jobs created by the related spending of the regional campuses, and the students educated per year at the regional campuses. A critical measure is the affordable tuition offered at the
regional campuses that makes higher education accessible to populations with limited economic means. The result in partnering with the local communities in which the campuses are located is the ability to create programs that boost the regional workforce.

A Center for Campus and Community Engagement has been established and staffed with a Director and Faculty Fellow to support the development and offering of service-learning courses at Ohio University. The multi-approach assessment plan recognizes and has developed rubrics and methodologies to assess the student, faculty, and community impact of service-learning.

A meeting with Athens City leaders and representatives of university/community partnerships, such as an Innovation Center, provided evidence of the University’s commitment to the public good through accounts of its ongoing support and investment in the surrounding community. By serving as an economic and cultural anchor, the University allows Athens to compete and draw industries, such as a software industry, that might not otherwise be attracted to the rural region. The availability of interns, students participating in service learning and leaders in entrepreneurship has directly benefitted the community.

Team Determination on Criterion One:

_X_Criterion is met
__ Criterion is met with concerns
__ Criterion is not met

Summary Statement on Criterion:

Ohio University has a clearly articulated mission that forms the basis for its vision, values and the 4x4 Strategic Plan. The mission guides the institution in its operations as evidenced by its budgeting processes. The mission is articulated publicly on websites and through published documents. Consistent statements of mission and purpose are found in academic programs and student services. The University demonstrates its understanding of the
diversity of society through its multi-cultural programs and its focus through services on accessibility and inclusion. The University demonstrates its commitment to the public good through its enrollment profile and commitment to educational access, as well as its investments in the city and surrounding region.

The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.

Core Component 2A: 

The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows fair and ethical policies and processes for its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows fair and ethical policies and process for its governing board, administration, faculty and staff.

Ohio University has developed and encourages a culture of open reporting and dialogue. Ohio University has an established whistle-blower protection policy that protects individuals who have concerns. Anyone with a concern is encouraged to report their concerns and observations, and individuals are protected against retaliation for reporting. An ethics hotline provides safeguards for students, and allows individuals to report incidents anonymously without concern of retaliation or disciplinary action.

Ohio University has an effective internal audit process. The University has a Chief Audit Executive who investigates complaints, conducts independent audits, and reports five times per year to the Board of Trustees. Interactions with the board include discussion of problems reported, audits conducted, and findings. The team reviewed the results of four internal audits. Each of the four audits include specific recommendations for improvements to ensure that practices are consistent with state and federal requirements and identify
changes that would bring the unit close to accepted best practices.

The Office for Equal Opportunity and Accessibility ensures that citizens of protected classes are treated fairly and equitably. The University policy on retaliation is frequently reviewed in light of federal standards and best practices. In fact, that review has occurred five times in the past four years, resulting in four revisions. Ohio University has identified state, mid-American, and national peers and aspirational institutions as a pool against which to
benchmark performance. Relevant attributes of those institutions are chosen by various offices as benchmarks for individual units. For example, benchmarks for reporting, investigating and addressing sexual misconduct are based on Ohio and national peers.

Ohio University hosted the International Space University that involved inviting
approximately 150 people from around the nation to discuss space exploration. The University adopted an aspirational goal of ensuring accessibility for physically challenged individuals to all aspects of the experience, including test firing of rockets. The University met that goal and successfully hosted the event, providing full access to all aspects of the
event.

Core Component 2B: 

The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to
students, control, and accreditation relationships.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships. As noted in the Systems Portfolio, the University communicates with its stakeholders as required by federal and state law, such as the Student Right to Know and Cleary Act laws. Departments such as Communication and Marketing, Institutional Research, Undergraduate Admissions, Student Financial Aid, University Registrar, and Legal Affairs work collaboratively to ensure that the information provided to
stakeholders is accurate, consistent, and effective (p. 13). The team found through its review that the communications are accurate, consistent, and effective.

Ohio University’s home page is well structured, offering students, faculty, staff and visitors clear information about mission, vision and practices. The Ohio University campus master plan is detailed, and offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on aspects of performance or growth (e.g., planning for the new Dublin campus). The University catalog is visually appealing and has search functions that allow students readily to locate options. Faculty and staff handbooks, as well as policy and procedure manuals are publicly available online. Minutes of the meetings of governing bodies, such as the Board of Trustees and the Faculty Senate, are publicly available and readily located. Costs for residents and non-residents are clearly portrayed only two layers deep from the University home page.

Core Component 2C: 

The governing board of the institution is sufficiently autonomous to
make decisions in the best interest of the institution and to assure its integrity.

Subcomponent 1. The governing board’s deliberations reflect priorities to preserve and enhance the institution.

Subcomponent 2. The governing board reviews and considers the reasonable and relevant interests of the institution’s internal and external constituencies during its decision-making deliberations.

Subcomponent 3. The governing board preserves its independence from undue influence on the part of donors, elected officials, ownership interests, or other external parties when such influence would not be in the best interest of the institution.

Subcomponent 4. The governing board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the administration and expects the faculty to oversee academic matters.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

The Board of Trustees establishes its institutional priorities, and meets with the President and Executive Council on a regular basis to set direction and to delegate authority. Members of the Board are guided in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities by the State of Expectations for Members of the Board of Trustees of Ohio University, which was amended on June 22, 2012. The board’s primary concerns are strategic governance and accountability. Each time the board meets, members reflect explicitly on previous board discussions as a basis for decision-making. The governance committee provides ongoing review of board policy and recommends revisions as needed. The process for the annual presidential review was recently revised to ensure transparency and accountability.

The Board of Trustees has developed and adopted enrollment policies that stress their service to the 29-counties in the Appalachian region of southeastern Ohio. In doing so, the board has identified an opportunity to develop a “high need/high potential” niche. This includes a focus on admitting first generation college students, who may not have high ACT scores but represent significant potential for contribution to society. In addition, at least one board meeting per year is held at one of the regional campuses in order to connect with constituencies in the service region of that campus.

The Board of Trustees is very sensitive to the mission of the institution and to the potential of undue influence. For example, the Board was approached to enter into a private/public partnership to build new residence halls. The proposal would have resulted in significant cost savings to the University but lack of board control over several aspects of the project. The Board reviewed and rejected this proposal because members viewed that lack of control as being in conflict with their vision for the University. Engaging in such a
public/private partnership would have reduced the board’s academic, fiscal and physical independence and control. Board members felt that relationship would have created inappropriate external influence. Each individual board member serves a nine-year term and submits annual financial statements to demonstrate that he/she is not unduly subject to outside influences.

The Board of Trustees has an established set of presidential expectations which are reviewed and reconsidered annually, and which guide the President in administering the institution. Board members do not engage in day-to-day decision-making nor do they make decisions involving faculty or curriculum.

Core Component 2D: 

The institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University subscribes fully to the 1940 Statement of Principles of the American Association of University Professors regarding academic freedom and regarding tenure as stated within the Ohio University Faculty Handbook. The principles cover academic freedom, professional ethics and academic tenure. There was no evidence or interaction that suggested to the team that these principles were not in effect.

The University is committed to developing a respective and inclusive culture that is respectful and encouraging of expression. For example, the Graduate School is building a sense of community among graduate students. In pursuing this goal, it has hosted several activities including training sessions focused on developing graduate student strengths (e.g., negotiating skills for women), and has invited Theatre Delta to campus. Theatre Delta offers
interactive advisor/advisee discussions which encourage audience participation, engaging students in discussion of ethics and best practices.

The library is committed to supporting the pursuit of truth by making online, data-base services increasingly available across the Athens and regional campuses. The staff reported that 90% of journal subscription funds go to the electronic journals collection. Staff members analyzed usage by the campus community and demonstrated that Ohio University invested $1.3 million in electronic journals, and got a return of $10-12 million in journal access.

Core Component 2E: 

The institution’s policies and procedures call for responsible acquisition, discovery, and application of knowledge by its faculty, students, and staff.

Subcomponent 1. The institution provides effective oversight and support services to ensure the integrity of research and scholarly practice conducted by its faculty, staff, and students.

Subcomponent 2. Students are offered guidance in the ethical use of information resources.

Subcomponent 3. The institution has and enforces policies on academic honesty and integrity.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Training for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) is required of all faculty receiving funding from programs where such training is federally mandated (e.g., NSF, NIH). In addition, some departments take that further and require all graduate students to engage in RCR training. Ohio University offers additional training in managing conflict of interest, animal welfare (i.e., IACUC) and human subjects (i.e., IRB). All are offered via distance education and can be customized for on-site offerings, if requested.

Research and scholarship are highly integrated into the student academic experience. For example, Ohio University hosts an annual Creative Expressions Expo, which has grown over the past 10 years to most recently include over 800 participants from across the institution. Participation in the Expo includes students from the regional campuses. One year Ohio University Zanesville brought a busload of students to the Expo, and a Zanesville student won an award for best presentation in the field of history.

The Library and the Honors program jointly sponsor copyright and plagiarism workshops to inform students and to foster understanding of the importance of ethics and integrity. Academic honesty is addressed in many aspects of student education and faculty behavior. The University has an Academic Honesty Oversight Committee. Reports of committee deliberations and actions are made available to the press through Ohio University Outlook
and are published on Ohio University’s web site. In another example, the Russ College of Engineering and Technology has a Student Academic Honesty Honors Council whose charter and membership are publicly posted. An engineering student attended the national LeaderShape experience which focuses on helping students learn to lead with integrity. Her experiences were published in Academic Honesty Feature, and those experiences led her to
serve as president of Engineers without Borders, and as student representative to the Society for Women Engineers.

Team Determination on Criterion Two:

_X_Criterion is met
__ Criterion is met with concerns
__ Criterion is not met

Summary Statement on Criterion:

Ohio University has demonstrated that it acts with integrity and that its conduct is ethical and responsible. Processes and procedures, such as audits and reporting systems, are in place and assure that its governing board, administration, faculty and students engage in fair and ethical practices. The institution represents itself fairly with respect to its costs and accreditations as confirmed by a review of its websites. The Board confirmed its autonomy
and its decision-making abilities to protect that autonomy and provided as evidence an example of its decision not to proceed with a private-public venture over which it felt that it lacked the necessary control. The institution abides by the principles of academic freedom, professional ethics and academic tenure as articulated by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and seeks to cultivate truth in the pursuit of teaching and
research in its academic endeavors. Documented practices involving research, academic integrity, and professional conduct were provided and these involved training, scholarship, and professional activities.

The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.

Core Component 3A: 

The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education.

Subcomponent 1. Courses and programs are current and require levels of performance by students appropriate to the degree or certificate awarded.

Subcomponent 2. The institution articulates and differentiates learning goals for its undergraduate, graduate, post-baccalaureate, post-graduate, and certificate programs.

Subcomponent 3. The institution’s program quality and learning goals are consistent across all modes of delivery and all locations (on the main campus, at additional locations, by distance delivery, as dual credit, through contractual or consortial arrangements, or any other modality).

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

A review of programs and course syllabi indicates that courses and programs are current and are appropriate for the degrees awarded upon completion of the respective programs. Ohio University also provides challenging programs for high-achieving students, for example through the Honors Tutorial College. Requirements and guidelines of accrediting bodies, standards for disciplinary bodies, and professional and industry advisory groups provide benchmarks and involve processes that assure programs are current and appropriate.

• Ohio University has 10 academic programs that have current relationships with specialized accreditation agencies recognized by the US Department of Education: Audiology, Dance, Education, Music, Nursing, Nutrition, Osteopathic Medicine, Physical Therapy, Psychology, and Theater. All are in good standing with their respective accreditors as documented by letters available in the evidence files.
• Examples of alignment with professional associations include the Mathematics Department that bases its learning objectives on a 2004 report of the Committee on the Undergraduate Program of the Mathematical Association of America and the Department of Modern Languages, which takes most of its directives concerning learning objectives from the Modern Language Association of America (MLA) and
  the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).
• The College of Business uses a model in which each department's advisory board consisting of recruiters and alumni provides advice to the faculty on trends and needs of employers. 

The team reviewed program learning objectives as well as course syllabi to verify that courses and programs are current and require levels of outcomes appropriate for the various degrees awarded. Learning outcomes are posted on departmental websites. Degrees reflect the appropriate number of credit hours as required by good practice in higher education and as stated in the HLC Assumed Practices.

The team found distance delivery and correspondence education to meet the standards of good practice as articulated in the HLC Protocol and according to the Criteria that institution’s offerings provide high quality education however its offerings are delivered. As of 2014-15, Ohio University reported 5,911 students engaged in eLearning. Ohio University distance-delivered courses and programs are primarily designed to serve non-traditional
students, which include both undergraduate adult learners and graduate students. The institution has a three-pronged strategy for developing and growing online courses and programs: 1) graduate programs, 2) certificates and multi-disciplinary offerings, and 3) adult completion degrees. Currently, the institution offers over 35 online and hybrid programs with four additional online programs in development. Ohio University is authorized for online
programs in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories. A sampling of online courses for review supported the team’s determination that the institution met expectations for quality offerings and met good practice in distance delivery as detailed in Appendix C.

Since 1974, Ohio University has been delivering correspondence courses and programs. The correspondence program is national in scope and is delivered primarily to individuals at correctional facilities. Currently, five associate degrees and two bachelor degrees are offered to approximately 1,000 individuals via correspondence delivery. A review of selected correspondence courses chosen by the team, contributed to the team’s determination that
the offerings met expectations for quality education.

Core Component 3B: 

The institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry
and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs.

Subcomponent 1. The general education program is appropriate to the mission, educational offerings, and degree levels of the institution.

Subcomponent 2. The institution articulates the purposes, content, and intended learning outcomes of its undergraduate general education requirements. The program of general education is grounded in a philosophy or framework developed by the institution or adopted from an established framework. It imparts broad knowledge and intellectual concepts to students and develops skills and attitudes that the institution believes every college-educated person should possess.

Subcomponent 3. Every degree program offered by the institution engages students in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments.

Subcomponent 4. The education offered by the institution recognizes the human and cultural diversity of the world in which students live and work.

Subcomponent 5. The faculty and students contribute to scholarship, creative work, and the discovery of knowledge to the extent appropriate to their programs and the institution’s mission.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University has demonstrated long-term commitment to developing processes to integrate the general education program with institutional mission. The general education program supports the transformative mission of the institution. As described in the Systems Portfolio, the General Education Program (Tiers I, II, III) sets objectives for student learning outcomes regarding proficiency in written composition, mathematics and logical thinking, breadth of knowledge, and interdisciplinary and integrative thought (p. 4)

Based upon the American Association of Colleges & University’s LEAP model, the undergraduate general education program is configured in accord with accepted educational models. From 2011 through 2013, cross-functional task forces and committees charged with general education review and reform used AAC&U’s LEAP model to inform frameworks for the continuing evaluation of the general education program.

The expected student competencies enumerated for general education by Ohio University demonstrate that the institution engages students in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments. Work by the General Education Task Force called together by the Executive Vice President and Provost in 2013-14 synthesized the work of previous committees and, as a result, in 2014-15, was able to articulate common learning goals in three areas: quantitative reasoning, oral and written communication skills, and breadth of knowledge. Subcommittees are now formed around implementing and assessing each area.

As an example of inviting students to engage in critical and creative thinking, the institution has implemented a new Arts and Sciences “Curricular Themes” initiative, in which groups of faculty representing diverse fields of study are developing integrated sets of courses. As noted in the Systems Portfolio, this initiative aims to help students tackle the challenges of the 21st century by building interdisciplinary and team-taught courses around a set of themes that will provide students with the perspectives they will need as engaged citizens.
By combining the perspectives of the social sciences, natural sciences, and the humanities, students will gain a broad but integrated intellectual experience that will give full and tangible meaning to the idea of the liberal arts (p. 7). Further an AQIP Action Project has been developed on the Curricular Themes, and a draft of the Action Project Report to be submitted to the HLC was shared with the team evidencing the successful creation, implementation and plans for the assessment of new courses related to the following nine
curricular themes: Between Love and Hate; Fire to iPhone; Food Studies; Knowing the Future; Making and Breaking the Law; Ohio: Sense of Place; Sustainability Studies; War and Peace; Wealth and Poverty. The draft Action Project Report noted that the CAS 1300X Themes in Action courses (1 credit hour) provide an instance in which the institution is coordinating across theme groups to explore shared assessments (p. 7).

The team perceived that Ohio University’s status as a public institution for both teaching and research leads it to offer degree programs that engage students in such work as collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments. Ohio University describes itself in the Systems Portfolio as a center for scholarship, research, and creative
activity involving the creation, testing, and dissemination of knowledge, understanding, expressions, and technique (p. 9). Faculty are expected to engage students in scholarly and artistic activity at all levels of the student experience. The team confirmed through a review of the Faculty Handbook that “eligibility for tenure shall be ….reserved for those who are engaged in academic activities, including teaching, research, and service” (p. 22). The
expectations for effective teaching for all faculty are summarized in the Systems Portfolio (p. 18).

The engagement outcome, which includes appreciating the value of other cultures, diversity, aesthetic sensibility and civic responsibility, affirms that the Ohio University educational experience needs to recognize human and cultural diversity in a global context. The Ohio University Vision is to prepare alumni to be global leaders. To this end, the institution provides curricular and co-curricular programs. For example, International Studies has redesigned its programs toward "Global Studies" in response in part to the interconnectedness of international studies for a new political age. Also, the mission of the Division of Student Affairs is to prepare students to be responsible and contributing members of a diverse, global society by providing learning-centered environments, professional support services and meaningful out-of-class opportunities as cited in the Systems Portfolio (Systems Portfolio, p. 79).

The University provides research opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students in all disciplines. This focus mirrors the focus on faculty scholarship and creative production. The department of research, led by the Vice President of Research and Creative Activity, is indicative of the importance attributed to this area. Opportunities include the annual Student
Expo giving students a venue to showcase their research and creative activity. Internal funding for research include Ohio University Research Committee, Baker Fund Awards, Student Enhancement Awards, Provost Undergraduate Research Award, and the 1804 Fund which support undergraduate learning as well as graduate and faculty scholarly activities.

Core Component 3C: 

The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.

Subcomponent 1. The institution has sufficient numbers and continuity of faculty members to carry out both the classroom and the non-classroom roles of faculty, including oversight of the curriculum and expectations for student performance; establishment of academic credentials for instructional staff; involvement in assessment of student learning.

Subcomponent 2. All instructors are appropriately credentialed, including those in dual credit, contractual, and consortial programs.

Subcomponent 3. Instructors are evaluated regularly in accordance with established institutional policies and procedures.

Subcomponent 4. The institution has processes and resources for assuring that instructors are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles; it supports their professional development.

Subcomponent 5. Instructors are accessible for student inquiry.

Subcomponent 6. Staff members providing student support services, such as tutoring, financial aid advising, academic advising, and co-curricular activities, are appropriately qualified, trained, and supported in their professional development.

Team Determination: 

_X Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Faculty are distributed in four groups which include:

• Group I Faculty - Tenure-track (includes tenured and not-yet-tenured; includes department chairs)
• Group II Faculty - Non-tenure track; divided between FT = 1.0 FTE (FT) and less than 1.0 FTE
• (PT)
• Group III Faculty - Part-time, term-by-term appointment
• Group IV Faculty - Full-time, term appointment (maximum 3 years)

There are 1,160 full-time faculty and 869 part-time faculty according to Institutional Research for fall 2014, allowing the institution to claim a student to faculty ratio of 18:1. This ratio is tracked on the University Dashboard as a measure of quality and efficiency. The ratio has remained consistently at or near 18:1 over a five year period. In the view of the team, faculty members in all four groups are sufficiently distributed to carry out the classroom and non-faculty roles pertaining to the purposes of the colleges and the comprehensive mission of the institution. This view was supported by the report on faculty distribution across programs and campuses prepared by the Office of Institutional Research (Fact Book, pp. 33-44). In open meetings with faculty, the recent change in policy to allow Group II faculty members to seek promotion, although they are not tenured or tenure-track, was viewed a positive and motivating change.

The institution complies with requirements from the state of Ohio, HLC, and specialty accreditors to ensure that all instructors are qualified, including those in dual credit programs. Faculty teaching in dual enrollment programs for Ohio University must meet the same requirements for faculty employed at the institution. There is a formal admission and selection process through which the credentials of those high school teachers seeking to teach dual credit courses are reviewed and determined to have met institutional and
program standards. Oversight of dual enrollment is facilitated through an Advisory Board and the responsibility of the Director of Dual Enrollment. As required by the College Credit Plus legislation, Ohio University will provide all secondary school teachers who are teaching at least one college course with at least one three-hour professional development session per academic year.

The team confirmed through a review of the Faculty Handbook and meetings with faculty that Ohio University uses established policies and procedures to annually evaluate faculty in all groups and at all locations. These policies and procedures are described in the Systems Portfolio with the following features noted (p. 71):

• Faculty are evaluated annually in a merit evaluation process conducted by their departmental peers.
• Faculty are evaluated on their performance in teaching, research and service, and receive a written evaluation of their performance in these areas from their department chair/school director and the chair of their departmental merit review committee.
• A major aspect of the annual merit review process deals with teaching performance, which can be demonstrated in a variety of ways including student evaluations, peer evaluations, teaching portfolios, and other means.
• Faculty are also evaluated on their research/scholarship/creative productivity. This productivity is demonstrated and measured through publications, grant activities, juried exhibitions or performances, and other means.
• Service activities by faculty members are a third component in the evaluation process.

Additionally, the team perceives that Ohio University has developed processes and resources to ensure that instructors maintain disciplinary currency and engage in regular professional development. For example, the Center for Teaching and Learning supports the comprehensive faculty role.

As a part of the institutional focus on teaching and learning, instructors make themselves accessible for student inquiry. The availability for office hours is an expectation of the faculty. In the Student Satisfaction Survey administered by the HLC in advance of the team’s visit, in response to the item “Faculty are available when I need help,” the score for undergraduates was 4.11 (with 5.0 as the highest) and 4.07 for graduate students.

The team found that staff members providing support services possess appropriate qualifications and maintain currency in the professional conversation and practice in their respective fields. In addition to formal job descriptions with stated qualifications, there is ongoing training to assure that staff remain current in their fields. Among the training described in the Systems Portfolio for staff is the following (p.71):

• The Human Resources Leadership and Staff Development group offers a variety of training opportunities for all employment groups. Seminars and courses have been developed to address leadership basics, giving and receiving constructive feedback, difficult conversations, delegation, communication, project management, diversity, policies, procedures and compliance topics and performance management.
• Self-directed learning is also available through the Web using the University’s Learning Express Library with links from the UHR website.
• Classified employees can participate in the Classified Development Program, a commitment of two and a half years, for employees to take university classes for credit, to enable them to gain skills and establish a higher performance level for current and future positions.
• Skilled crafts staff members have an apprentice program and an organized
  continuing education program.

Further, in open forums with staff, the team confirmed that staff has tuition waiver benefits which allows for continued education through degree preparation. As a large employer for the rural southeastern part of Ohio, the team learned that the University is an employer of choice for graduates who wish to remain in the area. It was also noted that there was not consistent support across departments for employees wishing to use the educational tuition benefit for their betterment, and this may be an area in which the institution would benefit from further review as it works to prepare and retain qualified faculty.

Core Component 3D: 

The institution provides support for student learning and effective
teaching.

Subcomponent 1. The institution provides student support services suited to the needs of its student populations.

Subcomponent 2. The institution provides for learning support and preparatory instruction to address the academic needs of its students. It has a process for directing entering students to courses and programs for which the students are adequately prepared.

Subcomponent 3. The institution provides academic advising suited to its programs and the needs of its students.

Subcomponent 4. The institution provides to students and instructors the infrastructure and resources necessary to support effective teaching and learning (technological infrastructure, scientific laboratories, libraries, performance spaces, clinical practice sites, museum collections, as appropriate to the institution’s offerings).

Subcomponent 5. The institution provides to students guidance in the effective use of research and information resources.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Noted as a strength in the Systems Appraisal, was the finding that Ohio University makes available to at-risk students a comprehensive array of resources, including writing, science, and math centers, study skills courses, and developmental courses. The institution uses predictive examinations, MAPWorks, and the Student Involvement Study to help identify students who may be struggling (p. 12). An example of collaboration between the colleges
and central student support resources is the Academic Progress e-report program, which involves a mid-semester report. Used with different student groups with various risk factors, the report asks the professor/instructor to assess how the student is currently performing in her/his class and what recommendation the instructor/professor has for them for the remainder of the semester. Each regional campus has a student learning center that provides such services as tutoring, supplemental materials, tutorial assistance, and
counseling and academic advising, which was confirmed at the three regional campuses visited by team members.

Ohio University has developed innovative models for learning communities, retention strategies and targeted support for distinct student segments such as at-risk, honors, and non-traditional and international students. Ohio University’s robust learning support system includes: learning communities and first-year seminars to acclimate first-year students to the University’s academic standards and expectations for first-year students; focused advising
for undeclared and undecided students and intensive advising for at-risk students; support for first-generation students; tutoring and supplemental instruction.

The departments of Mathematics, Modern Languages (Spanish, French, and German), Chemistry, and English have developed placement assessments given to students typically during orientation (Systems Portfolio, p. 12). On the regional campuses, first-year students are placed in academic coursework based on standardized placement scores. All regional campuses utilize the Compass placement exam for students who do not have ACT or SAT scores. In addition, some programs have supplemental placement instruments. For example, the Associate of Applied Science in Nursing requires students to take an additional mathematics proficiency exam, and the Associate of Applied Science in Equine Studies assesses student’s horsemanship for appropriate placement (Systems Portfolio, p. 12). These placement tests insure that students are placed appropriately so as to facilitate their satisfactory academic progress. In response to the question in the HLC administered
Student Satisfaction Survey, “I was placed at the appropriate level that matched my academic preparation,” the undergraduate score was 4.15 (with 5 as the highest and N=1115).

Faculty and professional advisors provide focused academic advising support to students at all locations. Additionally, graduate student advisors in the Allen Advising Center provide student advising support as a part of their supervised experiential learning in the related graduate disciplines. The team confirmed that Ohio University provides the infrastructure and resources necessary to support teaching and learning in current programs and innovation for the
future. At the institutional level, the master plan, competitive innovation fund administered by the Executive Vice President and Provost and comprehensive technological infrastructure, support program delivery and development. At the college level the infrastructure and resources are allocated through the Responsibility Centered Management budget process to amplify effective teaching and learning outcomes.

Ohio University supports student information literacy through library support at the institution level and appropriate discipline-based support through the constituent colleges. Ohio University Libraries is a member of OhioLINK, a library consortium that leverages state and member funding to provide an extraordinary range of electronic journals and books to Ohio’s academic libraries. A recent innovation cited in the Systems Portfolio is that librarians
currently are engaged in a needs assessment of graduate students related to their research skills and teaching of research skills, with the results to be used to foster professional development opportunities for graduate students, including teaching. The Library staff were collaborators on the proposal to fund the Graduate Research and Writing Center (p. 26).

Core Component 3E: 

The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.

Subcomponent 1. Co-curricular programs are suited to the institution’s mission and contribute to the educational experience of its students.

Subcomponent 2. The institution demonstrates any claims it makes about contributions to its students’ educational experience by virtue of aspects of its mission, such as research, community engagement, service learning, religious or spiritual purpose, and economic development.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Recognized as a clear strength of Ohio University, the Systems Appraisal team noted that the institution offers extensive centralized resources in support of teaching and learning through the Faculty Commons, Center for Teaching and Learning, Graduate Writing and Research Center, the Center for Academic Technology, and the Academic Advancement Center and Allen Student Advising Center, housed in University College. These centers address student needs by providing developmental and early warning programs as well as
by assisting with assessment of student learning (p. 14). Based upon information presented during the comprehensive evaluation, the team concurs that robust co-curricular programs contribute to the iteration of the institution’s transformative mission and enrich the students’ educational experiences. Examples include tutoring, student accessibility, Office of
Nationally Competitive Awards, learning communities, and the CHOICES program for first-year students, Supplemental Instruction, leadership, etc.

Ohio University collects data about the contributions to its students’ educational experiences. The University measures effectiveness of its support services (advising, library, technology services) through surveys and other assessment measures sharing results with appropriate departments. The Campus Involvement Center’s impact measures; the career and leadership development Center’s metrics; student affairs dashboard, etc. are examples of the data collected about the impact of these programs on students’ educational experiences.

Team Determination on Criterion Three:

_X_Criterion is met
__ Criterion is met with concerns
__ Criterion is not met

Summary Statement on Criterion:

The team found evidence that the institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education, that the institution has articulated learning goals for its programs, and that the quality of educational offering is consistent across modalities and locations. The institution’s general education program is appropriate to its mission and it has clearly articulated purposes, content and learning outcomes as updated most recently by the 2013-14 General Education Task Force. Students are engaged in critical thinking and creative work as evidenced by the innovative Curricular Themes program offered in the College of Arts and Sciences to prepare students for the 21st century and global society. The institution has sufficient faculty and staff to offer high quality educational programs and it maintains an 18:1 student faculty ratio. Support for student learning is provided through academic support programs and student services, both areas having been recognized by previous teams as strengths of Ohio University. Finally, through its library services and electronic resources, the University provides an enriched education environment that stretches to the regional campuses.

The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments, and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.

Core Component 4A: 

The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its
educational programs.

Subcomponent 1. The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews.

Subcomponent 2. The institution evaluates all the credit that it transcripts, including what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning.

Subcomponent 3. The institution has policies that assure the quality of the credit it accepts in transfer.

Subcomponent 4. The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs, including dual credit programs. It assures that its dual credit courses or programs for high school students are equivalent in learning outcomes and levels of achievement to its higher education curriculum.

Subcomponent 5. The institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as appropriate to its educational purposes.

Subcomponent 6. The institution evaluates the success of its graduates. The institution assures that the degree or certificate programs it represents as preparation for advanced study or employment accomplish these purposes. For all programs, the institution looks to indicators it deems appropriate to its mission, such as employment rates, admission rates to advanced degree
programs, and participation rates in fellowships, internships, and special programs (e.g., Peace Corps and Americorps).

Team Determination:

 _X Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University has a seven-year program review cycle that was suspended during the quarter to semester transition, and has now been re-articulated and operationalized. Colleges and departments report that, as a result of the quarter to semester process, they capitalized upon the opportunity to review and redesign program efficacy and the program review process itself.

Clear transfer credit policies are articulated on the Ohio University website as well as in the University’s academic catalogs. The institution has articulation agreements with community colleges within the state of Ohio system, as well as in Kentucky and West Virginia, to allow students to readily see how credits from other institutions will transfer to Ohio University. Policies for credit by examination, Armed Services Courses, and for experiential learning are in the academic catalog and on the web site.

Transfer policies, such as minimum grade required and transfer courses are accepted only from accredited institutions, as well as articulation agreements help guide the acceptance of transfer credit. Additionally, transfer courses not covered by an articulation agreement are vetted by faculty in the college in which the discipline of the transfer course is housed to assure the transfer course meets the requirements of the comparable Ohio University course.

The team affirmed that the institution reports the use of mechanisms to assure that its dual credit courses are equivalent in learning outcomes to its higher education curriculum. Further, the team affirmed that Ohio University uses standardized learning outcomes across programs and locations.

Ohio University maintains specialized accreditation for many programs, particularly its professional programs. These include business, education, social work, health professions, engineering, actuarial science, osteopathic medicine, clinical psychology, and journalism. All programs are in good standing with their respective accrediting bodies as demonstrated through evidence provided.

Academic programs collect information about their graduates; this information is reported in program review documents. Since 1981 Ohio University has been assessing the outcomes of its students through the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). OIR conducts two follow-up surveys of graduates (one year and five years after graduation) that provide outcomes information to colleges and departments. The Career and Further Education Study measures short-term educational outcomes through a survey to all graduates of all degree
levels of a given class.

Core Component 4B: 

The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational
achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning.

Subcomponent 1. The institution has clearly stated goals for student learning and effective processes for assessment of student learning and achievement of learning goals.

Subcomponent 2. The institution assesses achievement of the learning outcomes that it claims for its curricular and co-curricular programs.

Subcomponent 3. The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning.

Subcomponent 4. The institution’s processes and methodologies to assess student learning reflect good practice, including the substantial participation of faculty and other instructional staff members.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Responsibility for program assessment resides with the faculty, departments and colleges at Ohio University. The implementation of Responsibility Centered Management, as described in the institution’s Systems Portfolio, in 2013, was followed by the realignment of responsibility for academic assessment, along with planning and budgeting responsibilities, to the colleges as described in the Quality Highlights 2015. The Systems Portfolio and Quality Highlights describe a move from a centralized system to a more decentralized system in which central administration leads, coordinates and checks, and the colleges implement, assess, and act.

The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost maintains oversight responsibility for academic assessment by 1) providing funding and infrastructure support, 2) measuring progress and outcomes through Institutional Research, and 3) designing a system-wide process to capture and promote best practices. In September 2014 and February 2015, the Executive Vice President and Provost funded a consultant to lead discussions, conduct
workshops and provide feedback on program assessments across the colleges. In October 2014, the Executive Vice President and Provost convened the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Committee to work with academic programs’ faculty to create a new system-wide approach to assessment that strengthens the alignment of teaching and learning with the institution’s vision to be transformational as articulated in the 4x4 Strategic Plan.

A precipitating factor that set the baseline for assessment was the transition from quarters to semesters as reported by the institution as a completed 2012 AQIP Action Project. Across the entire Ohio University system, course curriculum, activities and learning outcomes were reconfigured for the conversion to semester hours thereby beginning curriculum review at the course level.

As described in the Quality Highlights, the Office of Institutional Research tracks the level of assessment activity. Results reported in the Quality Highlights 2015 show that almost all (94%) undergraduate programs and almost three-fourths of graduate programs have updated their program-level learning outcomes following the system-wide revamping of courses into the semester format (p. 8). As noted in the Systems Portfolio, all programs are updating their program learning goals to focus on student success (p. 6). In addition to surveying departments on their assessment activity, the Office of Institutional Research is developing an Assessment Clearinghouse. Currently, assessment results reside in the colleges and are reported by the respective colleges and departments on their websites as verified by the team.

While the team found satisfactory assessment activity at the department and program level, we also note unevenness in the development of assessment processes and the reporting of outcomes across colleges. Those professional programs with external reporting to specialized accreditors were more mature in their processes than the non-professional programs. An example of a mature process cited in the Systems Portfolio is found with the College of Engineering and Technology, whose learning objectives are divided into two
categories. First are the program educational objectives, which are statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program prepares graduates to achieve. These are communicated publically to external constituencies, prospective students, employers, and student sponsors (parents, etc.). Second, there are program outcomes, which are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time they graduate. Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) programs are required to have 11 specific program objectives which must be verified through assessments before certification for graduation.

The team anticipates that the full implementation of the decentralized assessment responsibilities reflective of mature assessment cycles at the program level, along with the centralized tracking and archiving by Institutional Research, will be areas in which the institution should be able to report progress in its next Systems Portfolio. Evidence that the institution is moving forward with strengthening its culture of assessment is found with the
selection of its most recent Action Project, entitled “Academic Assessment Culture,” which issues from its participation in the 2015 AQIP Strategy Forum. Recognizing this is a new Action Project, evidence from it on improved student learning and expanded opportunities for student success will need to be included in future reporting.

Ohio University’s decentralized structure and culture facilitate broad staff participation in the development and implementation of assessment methodologies. In an Action Project dating back to 2009-2011, the institution focused on a project to create an “Academic Support Unit Review Process.” An example of a current initiative involving the assessment of an academic support office is the current initiative of the Career & Leadership Development
Center which has created and implemented a customized “first destination” survey following the standards of the National Association of Colleges and Employers to measure student outcomes at the first six-months after graduation. The results will be shared with each college for “the purpose of improving planning, services and programs across the University.” (Quality Highlights, p. 9)

Core Component 4C: 

The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its
degree and certificate programs.

Subcomponent 1. The institution has defined goals for student retention, persistence, and completion that are ambitious but attainable and appropriate to its mission, student populations, and educational offerings.

Subcomponent 2. The institution collects and analyzes information on student retention, persistence, and completion of its programs.

Subcomponent 3. The institution uses information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs to make improvements as warranted by the data.

Subcomponent 4. The institution’s processes and methodologies for collecting and analyzing information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs reflect good practice. (Institutions are not required to use IPEDS definitions in their determination of persistence or completion rates. Institutions are encouraged to choose measures that are suitable to their student populations, but institutions are accountable for the validity of their measures.)

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University has defined goals for student persistence and retention that are keyed to discrete student populations and educational offerings within the colleges to iterate the institution’s transformative mission.

The team has affirmed the systematic collection and analysis of information concerning student retention, persistence, and program completion. Ohio University tracks graduation rates overall, as well as by location, college, and program; these are available on the website. Retention and graduation rates are key indicators in the University Dashboard that are tracked over five years, compared to internal and external targets, and regularly reported to the Board of Trustees. According to the August 2015 University Dashboard, the five-year institutional average for first-year retention is 80.2% and the six-year graduation rate is 67%; both figures indicate strong performances. The Office of Institutional Research provides the institutional figures for retention and graduation which are also broken down by college and tracked over seven years (Fact Book, pp. 24-27).

Ohio University engages in robust best practices for making improvements as warranted by information collected about student persistence and completion. Notably, the areas charged with these responsibilities such as Allen Student Advising Center, University College, Student Academic Advancement Center, Advising and Student Services, and Learning Community programs, strategically triangulate data analyses to identify opportunities for improvement in comprehensive student support.

The institutional areas charged with student retention, persistence, and program completion systematically engage in continuous improvement practice by investigating emergent methodologies and delivery mechanisms for adaption to further enhance the efficacy of their programs. This practice represents an effective model for more comprehensive use across the institution. Various units across the University make use of these data and studies to make improvements in their programs. A strong example of a unit making use of the data from numerous campus retentions studies is the First Year Experience Council, which compiled a list of nineteen action items necessary to improve first-year success and persistence.

Team Determination on Criterion Four:

_X_Criterion is met
__ Criterion is met with concerns
__ Criterion is not met

Summary Statement on Criterion:

Ohio University demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs through program reviews, a process that has been revised and is now being widely implemented in its updated form. The institution has policies related to transfer credit and prerequisites that ensure continued quality of its educational programs. All academic programs with specialty accreditations are able to evidence their good standing. The institution tracks the success of its graduates through a first destination survey, alumni surveys and employer outreach to assure that its graduates achieve professional and educational goals. The institution has an effective system for the assessment of student
learning in its academic programs and it uses feedback from its assessments for improvement and innovation such as its curricular themes project. The institution monitors and sets targets for retention, persistence and completion and has demonstrated success in its student rates.

The institution’s resources, structures, and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.

Core Component 5A: 

The institution’s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

Subcomponent 1. The institution has the fiscal and human resources and physical and technological infrastructure sufficient to support its operations wherever and however programs are delivered.

Subcomponent 2. The institution’s resource allocation process ensures that its educational purposes are not adversely affected by elective resource allocations to other areas or disbursement of revenue to a superordinate entity.

Subcomponent 3. The goals incorporated into mission statements or elaborations of mission statements are realistic in light of the institution’s organization, resources, and opportunities.

Subcomponent 4. The institution’s staff in all areas are appropriately qualified and trained.

Subcomponent 5. The institution has a well-developed process in place for budgeting and for monitoring expense.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University demonstrates that it has the fiscal and human resources to carry out its operation in its regular financial audits, its annual budget process through which a broad-based committee makes recommendations to the president in line with the priorities of the strategic plan, and its Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) model. As Ohio University has matured in its RCM environment, the academic colleges are able to establish their own processes for resource allocation to meet their academic missions, within the
framework of the University's overall mission and strategic priorities.

Ohio University financial audits for FY 2011 through 2013 indicate that the results were unqualified and there were no concerns for disclosure. According to the Independent Auditor’s Report for 2012-13, “This level of financial strength continues to provide the flexibility needed for the institution to make strategic investments over the next several years” (p. 5). An example of the institution’s ability to use its financial strength to make a strategic investment is the Ohio Guarantee Program. As described in the Quality Highlights, over the last few years, Ohio University has recognized the need for controlling rising tuition costs and has responded by developing a guaranteed tuition program. With significant background planning, working with the Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Legislature, beginning in fall 2015, the Ohio Guarantee was launched. The Ohio Guarantee is a cohort based, level-rate comprehensive fee model that assures students and their families a set of
fixed rates for the pursuit of an undergraduate degree at Ohio University including tuition, housing, dining, and fees for 12 consecutive semesters (p. 10).

The institution’s financial position assures that investments in other areas such as physical plant and capital projects will not detract from its support of its educational purposes. Through strategic investments involving debt and an extremely successful capital campaign, the institution has identified the funds needed for the phased implementation of its Campus Master Plan. As stated in the Independent Auditor’s Report for 2012-13, “the University views debt as a strategic resource and plans to issue additional debt over the next several
years in a measured and incremental approach for the renovation of academic facilities, student housing, and deferred maintenance/infrastructure improvements, which has been identified as one of the top priorities for the University over the next decade” (p. 6). Offsetting this debt is the outcome of a successful capital campaign which surpassed its goal of $450 million as noted in the announcement of reaching $500 million in spring 2015.

The goals established by the University’s Vision Statement and its 4x4 Strategic Plan seem well within the institution’s reach. For example, the University Dashboard tracks faculty compensation in relation to the strategic goal of increasing faculty salaries to a more competitive level and, as such, reports progress in relation to Ohio University’s position vis-à-vis the average compensation of other Ohio institutions.

Qualifications for faculty and staff positions are set by the hiring department with an emphasis on hiring appropriately and highly qualified employees. Equal employment and education opportunity policies and procedures are well established and clearly articulated in student and faculty handbooks and on the University website.

Core Component 5B: 

The institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission.

Subcomponent 1. The institution has and employs policies and procedures to engage its internal constituencies—including its governing board, administration, faculty, staff, and students—in the institution’s governance.

Subcomponent 2. The governing board is knowledgeable about the institution; it provides oversight for the institution’s financial and academic policies and practices and meets its legal and fiduciary responsibilities.

Subcomponent 3. The institution enables the involvement of its administration, faculty, staff, and students in setting academic requirements, policy, and processes through effective structures for contribution and collaborative effort.

Team Determination: 

_X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Ohio University demonstrates a commitment to shared governance in its faculty handbook, board polices, and its processes. The current 4x4 Strategic Plan, for example, was developed through broad participation and guides decision-making throughout the University. The President’s University Risk Council provides ongoing review of risk management and safety issues including financial compliance, disaster recovery, employee and student safety, and human resources management and compliance.

Ohio University’s Board of Trustees is knowledgeable about the institution and its practices and policies. The Board provides oversight of the University’s fiscal integrity to ensure that the operations of the University are in compliance with all applicable laws. The Board audit committee provides oversight of the University’s processes for external and internal audits and for risk management.

The University enables the involvement of its administration, faculty, staff and students through representative bodies, standing committees at the University and college levels and numerous task forces and special committees. The President welcomes input from the University’s Administrative Senate, Classified Senate, Faculty Senate, and Student Senate, as well as a number of other University Standing Committees. By virtue of their appointment as ex officio members of the Board of Trustees, student trustees are able to share their views with the Board.

Decisions related to academic policy and faculty issues begin with one of the
subcommittees of Faculty Senate. Curriculum decisions are regulated by the faculty. The vice chair of the Faculty Senate serves as chair of the University Curriculum Council (UCC) - the body governing policy affecting university curriculum. The UCC oversees academic program approval, the seven year program review process, and approves and oversees all changes to course curriculum.

Core Component 5C: 

The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.

Subcomponent 1. The institution allocates its resources in alignment with its mission and priorities.

Subcomponent 2. The institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, planning, and budgeting.

Subcomponent 3. The planning process encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external constituent groups.

Subcomponent 4. The institution plans on the basis of a sound understanding of its current capacity. Institutional plans anticipate the possible impact of fluctuations in the institution’s sources of revenue, such as enrollment, the economy, and state support.

Subcomponent 5. Institutional planning anticipates emerging factors, such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization.

Team Determination: 

_X Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

Both the Budget Planning Council and the Responsibility Centered Management model align the University’s budget processes with its mission and priorities. The Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP) and the Capital Improvement (CIP) plan support the academic mission and strategic plan. Through the CMP process, short and long-term strategies are identified
that align deferred maintenance needs with programmatic priorities. ` The CIP outlines capital budgets, fund sources, and project timing.

Ohio University’s current mission statement was developed through a clear strategic planning process that is evaluated regularly through broad consultation with appropriate constituencies. The 4x4 Strategic Plan serves as the cornerstone for planning and decision-making throughout the University.

The use of assessment outcomes is an integral part of the Responsibility Centered Management planning and budgeting model because academic colleges as “cost centers” have resource allocations that are based in large part on revenue from student enrollment and from student success involving retention and completion.

The Systems Portfolio provides examples of process-results-improvement decisions that have used data to guide decisions in such areas as childcare options for employees, scholarship allocations based on analyses of admissions yield, and efforts to improve student success and retention. Return on investment is usually considered in resource allocation decisions (p. 85).

A strong example of Ohio University’s planning that anticipates the possible impact of fluctuations in the institution’s sources of revenue is the work with Regional Higher Education to plan for the change in the state funding formula that would count degree completion rather than enrollment. For the regional campus that fulfills an important role in the provision of dual credit or early college, certificate programs and transfer credit, or that accommodate students who need to “stop out,” the funding formula creates pockets of
unfunded participation in higher education by the state. While reviewing its funding formula for the regional campuses, the institution also recognizes the need and its potential for subventions in this area.

The University regularly engages in environmental scanning to identify opportunities related to trends and societal change. For example, the approval of the Dublin and Cleveland locations for the offering of Osteopathic Medicine and other programs in health sciences and education responds to recognized needs across the state and the country.

Core Component 5D: 

The institution works systematically to improve its performance.

Subcomponent 1. The institution develops and documents evidence of performance in its operations.

Subcomponent 2. The institution learns from its operational experience and applies that learning to improve its institutional effectiveness, capabilities, and sustainability, overall and in its component parts.

Team Determination:

 _X_Core Component is met
__ Core Component is met with concerns
__ Core Component is not met

Evidence:

As an AQIP Pathway institution, Ohio University has regularly planned and executed Action Projects, has engaged in a broad-based strategic planning process, and conducts regular assessments that demonstrate the institution learns from its operational experience and strives to improve its institutional effectiveness.

Ohio University has created a cross-functional task force to operationalize the AQIP Action Projects as a result of its most recent strategy forum, which was attended by the President, Provost, Faculty Senate leaders, and other representatives. Members of the AQIP Task Force described its purpose as disseminating AQIP processes and practices across the University.

Team Determination on Criterion Five:

_X_Criterion is met
__ Criterion is met with concerns
__ Criterion is not met

Summary Statement on Criterion:

Ohio University’s resource base supports its current educational programs and assures their future quality through a system of budgeting and planning in which unit expenses are aligned with revenue generated, the success of students, and the institution’s mission, vision, values, and strategic plan. The institution’s processes promote shared governance, transparency in communication, and informed decision-making. The institution engages in integrated and systematic planning as evidenced by the 4x4 Strategic Plan and processes that continues to be refreshed by such practices as environmental sanning. As an AQIP institution that has remained committed to continuous quality improvement through Action Projects and numerous quality initiatives, Ohio University exemplifies a commitment to institutional learning and improvement.

Ohio University completed its Systems Portfolio in 2013 using the previous generation of nine AQIP categories. However, the team has chosen to respond to the levels of maturity using the six categories as this 2014 format will be used by the institution in its next Systems Portfolio. The four levels of maturity are reactive, systematic, aligned and integrated. As a statement of overall findings, the team found Ohio University to have a more mature quality culture, as supported by evidence cited within this report, than that viewed in the 2013 Systems Portfolio.

Ohio University demonstrates that it is systematic in its focus on assessment and is moving toward becoming aligned as it completes program assessments across all units, as it more fully realizes the leadership of its Teaching Learning and Assessment Committee, and as it finds a way to centralize and archive what is gathered within Institutional Research. With respect to Helping Students Learn, there is good evidence of an increased focus on the assessment of student learning with evidence gathered and improvements made in most areas to support a systematic rating.

The maturity of Meeting Student and Other Stakeholder Needs overall is at the level of aligned with processes that are strongest being evidenced through retention and completion, and alumni research. The area related to stakeholder needs seems less developed and therefore appears more systematic. This area addresses tracking stakeholders’ satisfaction for students, and overlaps with tracking satisfaction of faculty and staff in Valuing Employees. The institution is undertaking initiatives to improve faculty compensation, contain student tuition, and provide leadership training for staff. The incorporation of findings from existing tools such as NSSE and
the Modern Think employee survey, and the addition of new tools to measure the perceptions of those who are to benefit from the strategic initiatives would help the institution track its progress while meeting needs.

Valuing Employees is aligned in its maturity level for faculty and administration, but more systematic in its processes related to staff. Reviews of handbooks and information shared with the team were not sufficient to determine how goals are set, information gathered, or improvements made in these areas.

Planning and Leading is integrated as the Strategic Plan has been refocused through the 4x4 Strategic Plan. Institutional practices focused on measuring effectiveness are also at the maturity level of integrated through the best practices exemplified with the dashboard reporting, the continuous environmental scanning, the dynamic budgeting, and the support for innovation made possible by the linking of the 4X4 Strategic Plan and Responsibility Centered Management. A strength of the integrated planning and budgeting model is the transparency in decision-making and the clear focus on growth and innovation. At the same time, the team believes that the institution has the opportunity to recognize that its strength also presents an
opportunity to address an attending challenge. The experience of “feeling valued” is harder when one’s area is not producing revenue that exceeds expenses. In spite of subventions to provide support, and administrative assurances that certain programs are fundamental to the mission of the University, the team still heard some expression of not feeling valued. Whether it is funding programs within the liberal arts or adjusting funding for the regional campuses, or recognizing the contributions of non-revenue producing units, there is a continued opportunity for leadership to affirm the importance of all contributors to the mission and vision of the institution. Both the President and Executive Vice President and Provost appear aware of this
need and seem engaged by the challenge. As stated earlier, strengthening feedback processes would help leaders to monitor the need for affirmation.

The category of Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship is at the maturity level of integrated as exemplified by the interconnectedness of the Campus Master Plan through facilities planning that maximizes utilization, sustainability projects to control expenses, and funding through strategic debt and capital gifts. The team toured the campus to see the current renovations and building projects, to learn about the related sources of funding and the
innovations in technologies that will save energy and create new learning environments. Ohio University is a blend of older structures that speak to its historic role and liberal arts traditions, and new structures and renovations that reflect professional and research needs through state of the art facilities. The University is investing in both the historic and the new. The regional
campuses visited mirror the appearance of the historic architecture in their more modern facilities; many of these facilities are remodeled and expanded as needed in response to enrollment growth and stakeholder needs. For example, the team observed recent investment and upgrades in two Ohio University Learning Network (OULN) classrooms on the Chillicothe campus. These two CISCO Telepresence classrooms will be further used to link Chillicothe to the other regional campuses, as well the Athens campus, to offer a wide range of classes taught by faculty across the Ohio University system.

Overall, the institution is aligned in its maturity level for the category of Quality Overview. The institution has undergone rapid transformation in response to both internal and external changes, and in the process of change has demonstrated a renewed emphasis on quality improvement processes. It was reported to the team that the commitment to AQIP and being a continuous quality improvement institution was affirmed at the 2015 Strategy Forum attended by senior leadership and key organizational figures. Ohio University’s recent Action Projects on curricular themes, universal design, and integrating new faculty into the University, address areas identified across the institution as being important and support the renewed commitment to AQIP and continuous quality improvement reported by those who attended the AQIP Strategy Forum.

The institution has made numerous improvements since the last Systems Portfolio. Ohio University has an opportunity to take its quality systems to the next level of maturity by incorporating systematic evaluation of key processes and initiatives. This may help the University determine whether the significant resources it invests in making improvements have the intended impact or to make adjustments as necessary.

A different example of alignment in the category of Quality Culture was seen in the multi-campus visits through evidence of the initiatives and problem-solving of administrators and classified staff on the regional campuses. The administrators and staff reported numerous instances of when they could “plan, do, check and act” through local initiatives suggesting the effectiveness of the organization and the structuring of authority between the main campus and the Office of Regional Higher Education. Numerous instances of the kaizen attitude toward problems as opportunities were provided by administration, staff and faculty to the visiting team members.

The team found strong evidence to demonstrate that many of the ten principles of a high performance organization are guiding the institution. Two principles provide opportunities for further growth. The principle of Focus that involves action following the use of information and feedback is strong in the use of informal and selected formal processes. It is a culture in which individuals know things by speaking with one another (picking up the phone) and through informal social interactions. At the same time, the institution has the opportunity to be more intentional in the ways it listens to all members of the community to enhance the sense of being valued. The principle of People invites the institution to foster the support and development of its individual faculty, staff, administrators and students both graduate and undergraduate in order to nourish a sense of responsibility and ownership in which all understand how their role contributes to the measurable success of the institution. Opportunities to strengthen graduate student satisfaction appeared in the student survey.

There were five strategic issues identified in the 2013 Systems Appraisal. In the judgment of the team, Ohio University has appropriately responded to each.

• On the issue of campus integration, the institution has made progress through the Executive Vice President and Provost’s integration of the Office of Regional Higher Education into her academic leadership team, through the enhanced role of the Regional Higher Education structure, and through strengthened processes in the areas of admissions, student services and academic programs across the system.
• On the issue of limited comparative data, the institution has more clearly identified its aspirational and peer institutions, has developed an aligned dashboard system to measure progress on strategic initiatives, and has undertaken new measures such as the implementation of a climate survey, and its commitment to improve and benchmark faculty salaries.
• Ohio University has demonstrated increased measurements of its effectiveness in collaborative relationships with external partners in the region and state through a regional impact study, formalization of service level agreements, and the recent establishment of a Center for Community Engagement that will assess the impact on the community. Alumni surveys and advisory groups provide feedback on academic programs and their fit with workforce needs.
• The institutional commitment to Responsibility Centered Management has necessitated aligning results with processes to create the desired outcomes. The institution has an opportunity in the next Systems Portfolio to align its discussion of process with results and improvements.
• In 2013, the institution implemented processes to strengthen its Strategic Plan in alignment with the articulation of the 4X4 so that they have become guiding fundamentals and principles to which all units align their strategic initiatives and budgeting. The 4x4 provide a common set of planning assumptions which leadership views as providing a roadmap for the next few years as initiatives are aligned and outcomes measured.

The institution attended the 2015 Strategy Forum with an Action Project focused on assessment appropriate to its development. In the Forum, the University learned of the shift in Action Project format and has since come to re-formulate its assessment initiatives into a series of smaller projects with the first focused on the assessment of the interdisciplinary curricular themes. The
participation of the President and the Executive Vice President and Provost with other senior leadership and AQIP Committee members communicated the importance of the AQIP Strategy Forum to the University.

The Action Projects have identified opportunities to improve processes related to campus facilities through universal design principles, to improve new faculty orientation to strengthen communication among faculty and create better support, and to focus assessment on the new interdisciplinary curricular themes that have proven very successful in terms of interest and
demand. Institutional learning was shared with the team in response to each of these projects.

The institution shared that the AQIP Task Force, which has been focused on the preparation for the Comprehensive Quality Review, will transition to a standing committee in the future that they anticipate will be combined with the newly formed Teaching, Learning and Assessment Committee. The current AQIP Committee views this as a significant and positive change as this
will keep the institution focused on “Helping Students Learn” which in their context, balances the existing focus on scholarship and aligns with their mission and vision to be transformative in students’ lives through education. At the same, the team observes that the institution has the opportunity to clarify the next generation of the AQIP Committee.

1. Recommendation for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 

Ohio University meets all Criteria for Accreditation and therefore the team recommends Reaffirmation of Accreditation.

2. Recommendation for Eligibility to Select Next Pathway 

Ohio University is eligible to select its next Pathway.

Rationale:
As a statement of overall findings, Ohio University fully meets the Criteria for
Accreditation and has demonstrated a maturity in its AQIP Pathway

In summary the team concluded the following with respect to the Criteria for
Accreditation. Ohio University has a clearly articulated mission that forms the basis for its vision, values and the 4x4 Strategic Plan. The institution has demonstrated that it acts with integrity and that its conduct is ethical and responsible. The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education with articulated student learning outcomes, and consistency across modalities and locations. Ohio University demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs through program reviews and the assessment of student learning. The institution’s resource base supports its current educational programs and assures their future quality through an aligned system of budgeting and planning.

The team views Ohio University as an AQIP institution with mature quality processes ranging from systematic in a few areas to aligned and integrated in most areas. The team found evidence that many of the ten principles of a high performance organization are guiding the institution. Further it was determined that Ohio University has appropriately responded to each of the five strategic challenges identified in the 2013 Systems Appraisal.

3. Criterion-related Monitoring Required (report, focused visit):

Monitoring: None

Rationale: All Core Components of the Criteria are met.

4. Federal Compliance Monitoring Required (report, focused visit):

Monitoring: None

Rationale: The team found sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance and had no concerns with materials submitted for the Federal Compliance Review.

None

Roderick McDavis, President
Pamela Benoit, Executive Vice President and Provost
Michael Williford, Associate Provost for Institutional Accreditation & Accreditation Liaison Officer
Stephen Golding, Vice President for Finance and Administration
Jenny Hall-Jones, Interim Vice President for Student Affairs
Joseph Shields, Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate College
William Willan, Executive Dean for Regional Higher Education
Elizabeth Sayrs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, Dean of University College
Bradley Cohen, Senior Vice Provost for Instructional Innovation
Beth Quitslund, Chair of Faculty Senate; Associate Professor of English
Jeffrey Davis, Chief Audit Executive
Patricia McSteen, Associate Dean of Students
Dianne Bouvier, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity and Accessibility
Candace Boeninger, Assistant Vice Provost & Director of Undergraduate Admissions
Inya Baiye, Director of Equity and Civil Rights Compliance - Title IX Coordinator
Robert Frank, Co-Chair, General Education Committee, and Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Greg Kremer, Co-Chair, General Education Committee, and Chair, Mechanical
Engineering
Shari Clark, Vice Provost for Diversity & Inclusion
Scott Seaman, Dean, Ohio University Libraries
Dianne Bouvier, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity and Accessibility
Peter Mather, Associate Professor, Higher Education and Student Affairs and Faculty
Fellow, Center for Campus and Community Engagement
Joseph Shields, Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate College
Scott Seaman, Dean, Ohio University Libraries
Kelly Broughton, Assistant Dean for Research & Education Services, Ohio University Libraries
Janet Hulm, Assistant Dean for Collections & Digital Initiatives, Ohio University Libraries
Howard Dewald, Associate Provost for Faculty & Academic Planning
Robert Callahan, Director of Dual Enrollment Programs
Laurie Hatch, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
Chris Moberg, Associate Dean, College of Business
Beth Novak, Associate Dean, Scripps College of Communication
Ann Paulins, Associate Dean, Patton College of Education
Shawn Ostermann, Russ College of Engineering and Technology
Jody Lamb, Associate Dean, College of Fine Arts
Sally Marinellie, Associate Dean, College of Health Sciences and Professions
Sandra. Anderson, Chair, Board of Trustees
David Brightbill, Immediate Past Chair, Board of Trustees
Janetta King, Chair, Resources Committee, Board of Trustees
David Scholl, Chair, Academics Committee, Board of Trustees
Sharmaine Wilcox, Student Trustee
Patrick Roden, Student Trustee
Cheri Sheets, Chair, Classified Senate
Cathy Waller, Chair, Administrative Senate                                                   Wendy Merb-Brown, Director, Learning Community Programs and Associate Dean, University College
Elizabeth Clodfelter, Director, Office of Nationally Competitive Awards
Charlene Kopchick, Assistant Dean of Students, Campus Programs
Peter Trentacoste, Executive Director of Residential Housing
Cynthia King, Associate Dean, University College & Executive Director, Student
Academic Advancement Center
Carey Busch, Assistant Dean for Student Accessibility, University College
Doug Orr, Assistant Dean for Advising and Student Services
Brian Benchoff, Vice President for Advancement
Jennifer Kirksey, Chief of Staff, President’s Office

Teaching Learning Assessment Committee & AQIP Task Force:

Laurie Hatch, Co-Chair, TLA Committee and Associate Dean, College of Arts
and Sciences
Scott Titsworth, Co-Chair, TLA Committee and Dean, Scripps College of
Communication
Todd Myers, Chair, Engineering Technology and Management
Deb Gearhart, Vice Provost for eLearning and Strategic Partnerships
Joni Wadley, Director, Program Assessment Support Services
Peg Kennedy-Dygas, Dean, College of Fine Arts
Michael Lafreniere, Associate Professor, Chillicothe Campus
Katherine Hartman, Associate Professor, Marketing
Tim Vickers, Director, Center for Teaching and Learning
David Koonce, Associate Dean, Graduate College
Bob Klein, Associate Professor, Mathematics
Gary Coombs, Chair, Management
William Condee, Ping Professor of Humanities
Mary Wurm-Schaar, Director, Institutional Assessment and Accreditation,
Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine
Imants Jaunarajs, Assistant Dean of Students for the Career and Leadership
Development Center
Elizabeth Sayrs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, Dean of University
College
Bradley Cohen, Senior Vice Provost for Instructional Innovation
Beth Quitslund, Chair of Faculty Senate; Associate Professor of English
Michael Williford, Chair, AQIP Task Force and Associate Provost for Institutional Accreditation
John Day, Associate Dean, College of Business
Maureen Wagner, Assistant Dean for Student Services, College of Fine Arts
Wendy Merb-Brown, Director, Learning Community Programs and Associate
Dean, University College
Carrie Frith, Interim Dean, Honors Tutorial College
Theresa Lester, Accreditation and Program Analyst, Heritage College of
Osteopathic Medicine
Martin Tuck, Dean, Chillicothe Campus
Scott Seaman, Dean, Ohio University Libraries
Julie Allison, Assistant Vice President for Finance
Cornelia Patterson, Assistant Dean, Patton College of Education
Maureen Coon, Assistant Dean, Patton College of Education

Barbara Wharton, Associate Provost for Institutional Research and Effectiveness
Katherine Hartman, Associate Professor, Marketing                                         Jeff Giesey, Associate Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology
Joni Wadley, Director, Program Assessment Support Services
Cornelia Patterson, Assistant Dean, Patton College of Education
Theresa Lester, Accreditation and Program Analyst, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine
Jennifer Maskiell, Assistant Director of Residential Housing, Planning & Assessment
Imants Jaunarajs, Assistant Dean of Students for the Career and Leadership
Development Center
Eileen Theodore-Shusta, Director of Planning, Assessment and Organization
Effectiveness, Ohio University Libraries
Howard Dewald, Associate Provost for Faculty & Academic Planning
David Thomas, Chair, University Curriculum Council and Professor of Film
Patrick Barr-Melej, Faculty Fellow, Program Review and Associate Professor, History
Scott Sparks, Program Review Committee and Professor of Teacher Education
John Cotton, Program Review Committee and Assistant Professor, Mechanical
Engineering
Hans Kruse, Program Review Committee and Director, School of Information and Telecommunications Systems
Shawna Bolin, Director of University Planning and Space Management
Joseph Lalley, Senior Associate Vice President of Technologies & Administrative Services
Deborah Shafer, Senior Associate Vice President for Finance and Administration
Paul Abraham, Dean, Eastern Campus
Martin Tuck, Dean, Chillicothe Campus
James Smith, Dean, Lancaster Campus
Jennifer Cushman, Dean, Zanesville Campus
Nicole Pennington, Dean, Southern Campus
Robert Frank, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Renee Middleton, Dean, Patton College of Education
Randy Leite, Dean, College of Health Sciences and Professions
Scott Titsworth, Dean, Scripps College of Communication
Hugh Sherman, Dean, College of Business

Academic College Deans:

Robert Frank, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Hugh Sherman, Dean, College of Business
Scott Titsworth, Dean, Scripps College of Communication
Renee Middleton, Dean, Patton College of Education
Dennis Irwin, Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology
Margaret Kennedy-Dygas, Dean, College of Fine Arts
Randy Leite, Dean, College of Health Sciences and Professions
Carrie Frith, Interim Dean, Honors Tutorial College
William Willan, Executive Dean for Regional Higher Education
Kenneth Johnson, Dean, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine
Elizabeth Sayrs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dean, University College

Paul Wiehl, Athens City Mayor
Steve Patterson, Athens City Mayor-elect
Chris Knisley, President, Athens City Council
Wendy Jakmas, President, Athens Area Chamber of Commerce
Sarah Marrs, Director, Athens, County Economic Development Council
Debbie Arnold, Chair, Athens Area Chamber of Commerce                             Jen Simon, Director, Innovation Center
Debra Benton, Registrar
Valerie Miller, Director, Student Financial Aid and Scholarships
Judith Piercy, Ombuds
Deborah Gearhart, Vice Provost for eLearning and Strategic Partnerships
Candice Morris, Director for Instructional Technology and Research
Joe Carver, Director, eLearning Student and Academic Services
Suzette Wells, Academic Services Coordinator, Independent and Distance Learning Programs
Luanne Weisenbach, Records Management Senior Specialist, Independent and
Distance Learning Programs
John Day, Associate Provost for Budgeting and Planning
Chad Mitchell, Budget Director, Budget Planning and Analysis
Deborah Shafer, Senior Associate Vice President for Finance and Administration
Angela Lash, Assistant Director, Allen Student Advising Center

70 Academic Department Chairs and Directors representing the Athens campus and 3 regional campuses (Chillicothe, Zanesville, Southern) (Focused Meeting)
17 Faculty Members (Athens Open Forum)
7 Administrators and Classified Staff (Athens Open Forum)
20 Students (Athens Open Forum)

OU Chillicothe Campus Visit

Brenda D. Phillips, Associate Dean
Kim McKimmy, Administrative Associate to the dean and Athletic Director
Dave Scott, Facilities Director
Jonna DePugh, Human Resources/Accounting Manager
Bill Modzelewski, Director of Information Technology
Jack Jeffery, Coordinator of Communications
Joyce Atwwod, Resource Development Coordinator and Director of the Child
Development Center
John Fisher, Director of Student Services
Jim McKean, Division Coordinator for Applied Sciences and Professions
Robb Moats, Division Coordinator for Arts and Sciences
Onald Cance, Interim Associate Director of Nursing
Barbara Trube, Faculty Senator and Professor of Education
15 Faculty Members
18 Administrators and Classified Staff
16 Students

OU Zanesville Campus Visit

Jenifer Cushman, Dean
Jarod Anderson, Director of External Relations
14 Dean and Associate Dean Meeting
20 Faculty Members
8 Administrators and Classified Staff
6 Campus Leadership
12 Students

OU Southern Campus Visit

Nicole Pennington – Dean and Associate Professor of Nursing
Miki Crawford – Interim Associate Dean and Full Professor in Communication
Kim Addis – Business Manager
Kristi Barnes – Associate Professor of Psychology, Created the Dashboards,
Coordinator of Strategic Planning Initiatives
Stephanie Burcham – Director of OUS Proctorville Center
Beth Delaney – Associate Director/Associate Professor of Nursing Programs
Kelly Hall – Director of Equine Studies and Senior Lecturer
Hayley Haugen - Associate Professor of English and Faculty Coordinator
Kim Keffer – Interim Director of Enrollment and Student Services, Director of First Year Experience and Associate Lecturer
Mary Lou Malone – Director of Information Technology and CTCH Program Director
Don Moore - Associate Professor/Director of Electronic Media
Robert Pleasant – Coordinator of Student Success Center & College Credit Plus
Pam Porter – Assistant to the Dean
Adam Riehl – Director of Facilities Management
Mary Stout – Library Director
Traci Tillis - Director of Marketing, Public Relations, and Special Initiatives
15 Faculty Members (Open Forum)
15 Staff (Open Forum)
15 Students (Open Forum)

AQIP Comprehensive Quality Review Highlights Report 2015
AQIP Regional Higher Education Multi-Campus Report 2015
AQIP Systems Portfolios 2010, 2013
AQIP Systems Appraisal Report February 2014
Multi-Location Team Report 2014
Institutional Updates 2013-14, 2014-15
Institutional Status and Requirements Report
Financial Statements for Years Ending June 2012, June 2013, June 2014
Change Panel Distance Delivery Panel Analysis Report
Ohio University Student Survey Results

Regional Higher Education Program Learning Outcomes (on Box)
Institutional Strategic Plan – Chillicothe Campus 2013-2018
Chillicothe Campus Fact Sheet Fall 2015
Academic Advising Syllabus OU-Chillicothe
Ohio University Southern - Action Plan, Goals and Objectives 2014-2019
Ohio University Southern Dashboard Slides
Southern Campus Fact Sheet Fall 2015
Ohio University Zanesville Strategic Implementation Plan 2015-2020
Zanesville Campus Business Plan
Zanesville Campus Fact Sheet Fall 2015

Dublin Campus Vision Statement 2015
University Dashboard August 2015
Assessment Information: Athens-based programs (on Box)
General Strategic Plan https://www.ohio.edu/provost/upload/Strategic-Planning-Summary-10-31-11.pdf 
Campus Master Plan https://www.ohio.edu/master-plan/ 
Student Handbook: https://www.ohio.edu/students/handbook/index.cfm 
Student Code of Conduct: https://www.ohio.edu/communitystandards/ 
Policy and Procedure Manual: https://www.ohio.edu/policy/ 
Faculty Handbook: https://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/handbook/upload/Faculty-Handbook-fall-2015-2.pdf 
Organizational Chart
https://www.ohio.edu/president/office/upload/Ohio-University-Organizational-Structure-2.jpg 
https://www.ohio.edu/provost/upload/EVPP-org-chart-AUG2015.pdf 
Fact Book https://www.ohio.edu/instres/factbook.pdf 
Equal Employment and Educational Opportunity Policy
Materials from the Office of Equal Opportunity and Training
Overview Sheet from the Office for Equal Opportunity and Accessibility
Brochure from the Office for Diversity and Inclusion
Strategic Plan for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion                            Service-Learning Draft Assessment Plan
Curricular Themes Action Project Update October 2015
Ohio University Campus Tour with AQIP Brochure

Current Action Projects
https://www.ohio.edu/provost/accreditation/aqip.cfm 
Program Reviews https://www.ohio.edu/provost/apaa/programreviews/index.cfm 
Scripps College of Communication Undergraduate Learning Outcomes and assessment plan
Division of Student Affairs 14-15 Annual Report
Arts & Sciences Annual Advising Survey
Dual Enrollment Teacher Approval and Faculty Mentor Documents
A&S Faculty Professional Development Opportunities
Teaching Learning and Assessment (TLC) Committee – Executive Summary of
Activities
Overview of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL)
Common Goals for Baccalaureate Programs at OHIO UNIVERSITY
Theme It – sample documents for Curricular Themes
Curricular Themes Action Project Update October 2015
Career & Leadership Development Center Annual Report 2013-2014
Student Affairs Dashboard
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Assessment Plan – October 2015
Campus Involvement Center Annual Report 2014-15
Campus Alcohol Prevention Action Plan 2013
Major and Degree Program Reviews – a sample of reviews and approvals of the reviews
Ohio University Division of Student Affairs Priorities & Goals: FY16
EBI 2014-2015 Resident Satisfaction Survey (PowerPoint)
Assessment in the Career & Leadership Development Center (CLDC)
University Catalog (undergraduate and graduate)
http://www.catalogs.ohio.edu/ 
Copy of the By-Laws and the past two years of Board of Trustees minutes
Bylaws: https://www.ohio.edu/trustees/governance/upload/BylawsAug2014.pdf 
https://www.ohio.edu/trustees/governance/docs/upload Resolution-2012-3296-  
Statement-of-Expectations-Amended-on-June-22-2012.pdf
Minutes: https://www.ohio.edu/trustees/agendas/index.cfm
Faculty Senate Constitution and the past two years of Senate minutes
https://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/handbook/upload/Faculty-Handbook-fall-2015-2.pdf 
http://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/agendas.cfm 
https://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/archived-minutes.cfm 
Academic policy & procedure, 19.052: Research Projects Involving Human
Subjects, May 21, 2009.
Board of Trustees, Statement of Expectations, June 22, 2012.
Board of Trustees, Audit Committee Charter, Resolution 2009 – 3100 (Internal
Audit Charter), January 2009. Board of Trustees, Audit Committee Report, Trustee Victor Goodman, Audit
Committee Chair, October 15, 2015.
Draft of A Vision for Online Learning at OHIO, 2015.
ECAM Progress Student Survey Results, Spring 2015.
Executive Summary on Ohio’s Economic Impact, Educating Students, Impacting
Communities, 2013.
Resources and Capital Planning: Planning for the Future, AQIP Session 5a,
November 2, 2015.
OHIO eCampus Online and Distance Programs, retention and persistence
reports, October 16 2015.
OU Distance Learning resource manual, November 2015.
Practices for verification of student identity, Commission Policy FDCR.A.10.050
President’s University Risk Council (PURC) agenda, March 12, 2015.
Syllabus and Course Calendar, Facilitating Online Learning: The Basics,
November 2015.

Blackboard Learn, https://blackboard.ohio.edu 
IT support, https://www.ohio.edu/oit 
Office for Equal Opportunity and Accessibility, https://www.ohio.edu/equal-opportunity/index.cfm 
Online Student Services, eCampus Student Central,
https://www.ohio.edu/ecampus 
OU Testing Services, https://www.ohio.edu/testing 
State Authorization, https://www.ohio.edu/ecampus/about/authorization.htm 
Undergraduate eCampus General Orientation, http://atschoolorientation.net/ohio 
University Planning and Space Management, https://www.ohio.edu/planning-space/ 
University Curriculum Council,
https://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/committees.ucc/ 

Distance Delivery Review

Name of Institution: Ohio University

Date of Review: November 3, 2015

Reviewer(s): Dr. Diane Dingfelder, Dr. Jim Perry

1. Scope of Distance-delivered Courses and Programs (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 5; Core Components 1.B, 1.D, 2.A, 2.B, 3.A, 3.C, 5.A, 5.C)

The scope of distance-delivered degree and diploma programs in relationship to stipulation the institution is authorized to operate within as set by HLC. 

All Ohio University distance-delivered courses and programs are developed and approved by faculty and departments in alignment with established university curriculum review and approval processes. Program approval for distance education is treated in the same way that traditional face-to-face (F2F) courses and programs are treated. In 2014-15, Ohio University’s stipulation regarding distance and correspondence courses and programs was upgraded by HLC for all distance and correspondence education.

The scope of the institution’s distance-delivered courses and programs (degree, diploma, certificate) and their relationship to and impact on the institution, its constituencies, and its mission.

• Distance-delivered programs are intended to provide access through
  extended learning. Ohio University distance-delivered courses and programs are primarily designed to serve non-traditional students. Courses and programs serve both undergraduate adult learners and graduate students. At the graduate level, it is anticipated that the demand for online programs will eventually exceed traditional on-campus enrollments.
• Since 1974, Ohio University has been delivering correspondence courses
  and programs. The correspondence program is national in scope and is
  delivered primarily to individuals at correctional facilities. Currently, five
  associate degrees and two bachelor degrees are offered to approximately
  1,000 individuals via correspondence delivery. All correspondence course
  interactions are handled by surface mail. Processes for determining need,
  developing curriculum, admitting students, and supporting students are
  mapped out and clearly articulated.
• Ohio University has a three-pronged strategy for developing and growing
  online courses and programs: 1) graduate programs, 2) certificates and multi-disciplinary offerings, and 3) adult completion degrees. Currently, Ohio University offers over 35 online and hybrid programs with four additional online programs in development. Graduate and undergraduate online program development processes are in place and mapped out for internal stakeholders.

Organizational structures in place to ensure effective oversight,
implementation and management of the institutions distance-delivered
offerings.

Ohio University has recently reconfigured its organizational structure to enhance coordination and management of distance-delivered offerings through the creation of a new position of Senior Vice Provost for Instructional Innovations. That person has oversight for eLearning, Academic Technologies, and the Center for Teaching and Learning. Under the direction of this Senior Vice Provost, a process is underway to restructure distance education operations and budgeting in order to support and grow online programs. Several new academic technology staff positions were created in 2014-15.

Consortial or contractual arrangements in conjunction with distance-delivered offerings and processes to assure their integrity and quality.

• Ohio University is actively working to comply with state authorization for
  distance education through participation in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA). The Ohio University website informs current and potential students about the status of state-level reciprocity throughout the United States.
• Ohio University has several contractual agreements in place with eLearning
  service providers. Currently, Pearson Company is providing online curriculum and student support services for several graduate programs. A recent RFP for online tutoring support resulted in a service agreement with Tutor.com. Senior leadership has expressed interest in transitioning the university from these online vendor-supported services to university-delivered services.

2. Institution’s History with Distance-Delivered Offerings (Criteria 1, 4, and 5; Core Components 1.A, 1.B., 4.A, 5.C, 5.C, 5D.)

The institution’s experience with distance-delivered offerings.

OU has a long history of serving students through extended learning. University Extension was established in 1910 to serve learners who were not typical college students. The correspondence, print-based program was begun in 1974. Currently, the correspondence program has a unique niche as a nationwide program primarily serving students in the correctional system. Approximately, 1,000 students are currently served through the correspondence program.

In 2008, a collaborative online program was established with community colleges in Ohio to provide a baccalaureate pathway for associate degree students in Technical and Applied Studies and Criminal Justice. In 2014-15, HLC approved OU’s request for institution-wide distance education course and program delivery. Currently, OU offers approximately 35 online and hybrid programs at the baccalaureate and master degree level. Additional online programs are planned with emphasis on serving graduate students and non-traditional students through the regional campuses.

Plans for future growth short-term and long-term and for managing growth

OU has a three-pronged strategy for developing and growing online courses and programs: 1) graduate programs, 2) certificates and multi-disciplinary offerings, and 3) adult completion degrees. Graduate and undergraduate online program development processes are in place and mapped out for internal stakeholders. Future growth in online programs is anticipated for graduate programs. OU has recently realigned its organizational structure to enhance coordination and management of distance-delivered offerings through the creation of a new position of Senior Vice Provost for Instructional Innovations with oversight of eLearning, Academic Technologies, and the Center for Teaching and Learning. Under direction of the Senior Vice Provost, an effort is underway to substantially restructure online operations and budgeting in order to support and grow online programs across the university.

3. Institutional Planning for Distance-Delivered Offerings. (Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5; Core Components 2.A, 2.B, 3.A, 4.A, 5.A, 5.B, 5.C)

Processes for determining the need to offer or to expand programs via
distance delivery.

In January 2015, Ohio University engaged a consultant to perform a program review of its distance education operation. Due to the rapid growth in online programs for adult learners and graduate students, Ohio University has decided to re-assess its approach to developing and delivering distance-delivered education, seeking to ensure sustainability and growth. Three guiding principles have been developed: 1) online learning should be viewed as a modality rather than a stand-alone program; 2) online programs should be treated in the same way as traditional F2F academic programs; and 3) students enrolled in online programs should experience a high level of support and sense of community.

Processes for planning and managing financial resources and their allocation for distance-delivered offerings.

Under the leadership of the recently-appointed Senior Vice Provost for Instructional Innovations, a new model for planning and managing distance education resources has been proposed and is being vetted with internal stakeholders. An initial proposal has received support from the University budgeting group, which includes the Executive Vice President and Provost. The intent is to reposition eLearning as a service unit rather than as a revenue center and to integrate distance delivery seamlessly throughout the University using targeted growth strategies to drive decision-making.

Processes to assure that promotion, marketing and enrollment of its distance-delivered offerings are appropriate, accurate, and transparent to students and the public.

• Ohio University is actively working to comply with state authorization for
  distance education through participation in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA). The Ohio University website informs current and potential students about the status of state-level reciprocity throughout the United States.
• Under a new proposal, online learning will be managed operationally like
  traditional programs and will be integrated throughout Ohio University.
  Enrollment management will have primary responsibility for enrollment
  planning, marketing and recruitment for distance-delivered programs in
  collaboration with academic units and deans.

4. Curriculum and Instructional Design (Criteria 2, 3, and 4; Core Components 2.E, 3.A, 3.B, 3.C, 4.A)

Processes for developing, approving, and assuring quality curricula for
distance-delivered programs.

Distance-delivered programs are treated the same as traditional campus-based programs in regard to academic approval. Faculty and academic departments develop and approve curriculum for distance education. Academic Technologies personnel provide support for faculty in designing, developing, and delivering online courses. Quality Matters national standards are accepted as best practices used to guide faculty in the development of online courses; several similar, national best practices have been adopted by the University. A course on Facilitating Online Learning provides a basic foundation for instructional staff on distance delivery.

Processes for technology maintenance, upgrades, back up, remote services and for communicating changes in software, hardware or technical systems to students and faculty.

Ohio University’s learning management system, Blackboard Learn, and student record system, PeopleSoft, are backed up on a daily basis to an off-site disaster recovery system. Blackboard is upgraded annually during the summer.

Processes to provide convenient, reliable and timely services to students or faculty needing technical assistance, and to communicate information about these services.

Multiple media are used for communicating to students and staff regarding upgrades and unplanned disruption of services. This includes direct emails, social media, website announcements, and appropriate announcements on Blackboard. The eCampus web portal provides general information and support for online and distance education for students.

5. Staffing and Faculty Support (Criteria 2, 3, and 4; Core Components 2.D, 2.E, 3.C, 3.D)

Processes to ensure sufficient faculty and staff for distance-delivered
programs.

In recent years, Ohio University has experienced rapid growth in online learning for degree completion and graduate/professional level courses and programs. Ohio University is embarking on a significant restructuring of its distance education operations to reposition eLearning as a service unit rather than as a revenue center and to integrate distance education seamlessly throughout the institution.

Processes for selecting, training and orienting faculty for distance delivery.

Academic Technologies staff provide support for faculty in designing and developing online courses. Quality Matters national standards and several other national best practices are used to guide faculty in the development of online courses. A course on Facilitating Online Learning provides a basic foundation for instructional staff on distance delivery.

Practices and procedures of distance delivery faculty and staff and their
alignment with those of face-to-face faculty and staff and with institutional policies and processes.

Distance-delivered programs are treated the same as traditional campus-based programs in regard to academic approval. Faculty and academic departments develop and approve curriculum for distance education in alignment with university academic policies and practices.

6. Student Support (Criteria 2, 3, and 4; Core Components 2.A, 3.C, 3.D, 3.E, 4.C)

Access to necessary student and support services.

Student and support services are available through eCampus Student Central. This includes services for accessibility, counseling, library, career advising, testing, and a writing center. Services for online students also are available in Blackboard Learn under the eLearning Resources tab. There are separate links for undergraduate and graduate students.

Appropriate materials and communications for students regarding distance-delivered programs.

The Office of Information Technology (OIT) provides technical support to all
students. For online support, there is a support desk and a ticket system called Footprints that is designed to help students and faculty troubleshoot common technical issues and to answer IT-related questions.

Access to faculty, including processes that promote interactions among
distance delivery students and faculty.

Instructional design technologists are available to support faculty, primarily on the Athens campus, in developing well-designed distance education courses. At the regional campuses, there are dedicated support and personnel for IT services. The team reviewed a wide range of eLearning courses and found that all included clear routes for student access to faculty.

Process that protect student identity and personal information and assure student authentication and identity.

Ohio University verifies distance student authentication by means of the University-wide secure login and password, which is used to manage access to Blackboard and other University systems. The Ohio University Testing Center along with regional campus proctoring services ensure verification for all university students.

7. Evaluation and Assessment (Criteria 3, 4, and 5; Core Components 3.A, 4.A, 4.B, 4.C, 5.A, 5.C, 5.D)

Processes to evaluate and improve quality in distance-delivered offerings.

Quality Matters national standards and rubrics represent one of several best
practices used to guide faculty in the development of online courses. A course on Facilitating Online Learning provides a basic foundation for faculty and instructional staff on distance delivery.

Processes for assessing and improving student learning and evaluating and improving student retention and completion.

Several metrics for persistence and completion are tracked by the Ohio University Office of the Registrar for distance education students including total graduates per term and completion percentage by term. In spring 2015, an ECAM Progress survey was administered to assess student needs and satisfaction with online courses.

Assessment and evaluation methods used for distance-delivered offerings and their equivalence to those use in traditional face-to-face offerings.

Data for eCampus student enrollment, persistence, and graduation are tracked by the Ohio University Office of the Registrar. According to data provided by Ohio University, the overall term-to-term persistence rate for all OHIO eCampus online and distance programs was 73% in 2014-15. The team reviewed a wide range of eLearning offerings, ranging across several Ohio University colleges. All eLearning materials reviewed by the team are well designed and stimulating to the learner. Faculty are using innovative tools such as Voice Thread to allow distance education students to achieve goals not traditionally associated with eLearning. For example, public speaking, and an active learning capstone class both are offered via distance education.

Higher Learning Commission                                                     A commission of the North Central Association               Forms

Federal Compliance Worksheet for Evaluation Teams

Evaluation of Federal Compliance Components

The team reviews each item identified in the Federal Compliance Guide and documents its findings in the appropriate spaces below. Teams should expect institutions to address these requirements with brief narrative responses and provide supporting documentation, where necessary. Generally, if the team finds in the course of this review that there are substantive issues related to the institution’s ability to fulfill the Criteria for Accreditation, such issues should be raised in appropriate sections of the Assurance Section of the Team Report or highlighted as such in the appropriate AQIP Quality Checkup Report.

This worksheet outlines the information the team should review in relation to the federal requirements and provides spaces for the team’s conclusions in relation to each requirement. The team should refer to the Federal Compliance Guide for Institutions and Evaluation Teams in completing this worksheet. The
Guide identifies applicable Commission policies and an explanation of each requirement. The worksheet becomes an appendix to the team’s report. If the team recommends monitoring on a Federal Compliance requirement in the form of a report or focused visit, it should be included in the
Federal Compliance monitoring sections below and added to the appropriate section in the team report template.

Institution under review: Ohio University

Assignment of Credits, Program Length, and Tuition

Address this requirement by completing the “Team Worksheet for Evaluating an Institution’s Assignment of Credit Hours and on Clock Hours” in the Appendix at the end of this document.

Institutional Records of Student Complaints

The institution has documented a process in place for addressing student complaints and appears to be systematically processing such complaints as evidenced by the data on student complaints since the last comprehensive evaluation.

1. Review the process that the institution uses to manage complaints as well as the history of complaints
   received and processed with a particular focus in that history on the past three or four years.
2. Determine whether the institution has a process to review and resolve complaints in a timely manner.
3. Verify that the evidence shows that the institution can, and does, follow this process and that it is able
   to integrate any relevant findings from this process into its review and planning processes.
4. Advise the institution of any improvements that might be appropriate.
5. Consider whether the record of student complaints indicates any pattern of complaints or otherwise raises concerns about the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation or Assumed Practices.
6. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

Comments:

The team reviewed syllabi, the Undergraduate and Graduate Catolog, admissions recruiting material, and The Ohio Guide and found the information to be accurate and consistent with standard practices.

Additional monitoring, if any:

Publication of Transfer Policies 

The institution has demonstrated it is appropriately disclosing its transfer policies to students and to the public. Policies contain information about the criteria the institution uses to make transfer decisions.

1. Review the institution’s transfer policies.
2. Review any articulation agreements the institution has in place, including articulation agreements at the institution level and program-specific articulation agreements.

3. Consider where the institution discloses these policies (e.g., in its catalog, on its web site) and how easily current and prospective students can access that information.

   Determine whether the disclosed information clearly explains the criteria the institution uses to make transfer decisions and any articulation arrangements the institution has with other institutions. Note whether the institution appropriately lists its articulation agreements with other institutions on its website or elsewhere. The information the institution provides should include any program-specific articulation agreements in place and should clearly identify program-specific articulation agreements as such. Also, the information the institution provides should include whether the articulation agreement anticipates that the institution under Commission review: 1) accepts credit from the other institution(s) in the articulation agreement; 2) sends credits to the other institution(s) in the articulation agreements that it accepts; or 3) both offers and accepts credits with the other institution(s).

4. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:

   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.          ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

Comments:

Detailed information about articulation and course transfer is readily available on the website and in the undergraduate catalog.

Additional monitoring, if any:

Practices for Verification of Student Identity

The institution has demonstrated that it verifies the identity of students who participate in courses or programs provided to the student through distance or correspondence education and appropriately discloses additional fees related to verification to students and to protect their privacy.

1. Determine how the institution verifies that the student who enrolls in a course is the same student who submits assignments, takes exams, and earns a final grade. The team should ensure that the institution’s approach respects student privacy.
2. Check that any fees related to verification and not included in tuition are explained to the students prior to enrollment in distance courses (e.g., a proctoring fee paid by students on the day of the proctored exam).
3. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

Comments:

Ohio University utilizes a single sign on for student access to online courses and there is a process for proctoring exams for online students. No additional fees are charged.

Additional monitoring, if any:

Title IV Program Responsibilities

The institution has presented evidence on the required components of the Title IV Program.

This requirement has several components the institution and team must address:

• General Program Requirements. The institution has provided the Commission with information about the fulfillment of its Title IV program responsibilities, particularly findings from any review activities by the Department of Education. It has, as necessary, addressed any issues the Department raised regarding the institution’s fulfillment of its responsibilities in this area.
• Financial Responsibility Requirements. The institution has provided the Commission with information about the Department’s review of composite ratios and financial audits. It has, as necessary, addressed any issues the Department raised regarding the institution’s fulfillment of its responsibilities in this area. (Note that the team should also be commenting under Criterion Five if an institution has significant issues with financial responsibility as demonstrated through ratios that are below acceptable levels or other financial responsibility findings by its auditor.)
• Default Rates. The institution has provided the Commission with information about its three year default rate. It has a responsible program to work with students to minimize default rates. It has, as necessary, addressed any issues the Department raised regarding the institution’s fulfillment of its responsibilities in this area. Note for 2012 and thereafter institutions and teams should be using the three-year default rate based on revised default rate data published by the Department in September
  2012; if the institution does not provide the default rate for three years leading up to the comprehensive evaluation visit, the team should contact Commission staff.
• Campus Crime Information, Athletic Participation and Financial Aid, and Related Disclosures. The institution has provided the Commission with information about its disclosures. It has demonstrated, and the team has reviewed, the institution’s policies and practices for ensuring compliance with these regulations.
• Student Right to Know. The institution has provided the Commission with information about its disclosures. It has demonstrated, and the team has reviewed, the institution’s policies and practices for ensuring compliance with these regulations. The disclosures are accurate and provide appropriate information to students. (Note that the team should also be commenting under Criterion One if the team determines that disclosures are not accurate or appropriate.)
• Satisfactory Academic Progress and Attendance. The institution has provided the Commission with information about policies and practices for ensuring compliance with these regulations. The institution has demonstrated that the policies and practices meet state or federal requirements and that the institution is appropriately applying these policies and practices to students. In most cases, teams should verify that these policies exist and are available to students, typically in the course
  catalog or student handbook. Note that the Commission does not necessarily require that the institution take attendance but does anticipate that institutional attendance policies will provide information to students about attendance at the institution.
• Contractual Relationships. The institution has presented a list of its contractual relationships related to its academic program and evidence of its compliance with Commission policies requiring notification or approval for contractual relationships (If the team learns that the institution has a
  contractual relationship that may require Commission approval and has not received Commission approval the team must require that the institution complete and file the change request form as soon as possible. The team should direct the institution to review the Contractual Change Application on the Commission’s web site for more information.)
• Consortial Relationships. The institution has presented a list of its consortial relationships related to its academic program and evidence of its compliance with Commission policies requiring notification or approval for consortial relationships. (If the team learns that the institution has a consortial relationship that may require Commission approval and has not received Commission approval the team must require that the institution complete and file the form as soon as possible. The team should direct the institution to review the Consortial Change Application on the Commission’s web site for more information.)

1. Review all of the information that the institution discloses having to do with its Title IV program responsibilities.

2. Determine whether the Department has raised any issues related to the institution’s compliance or whether the institution’s auditor in the A-133 has raised any issues about the institution’s compliance as well as look to see how carefully and effectively the institution handles its Title IV responsibilities.

3. If an institution has been cited or is not handling these responsibilities effectively, indicate that finding within the federal compliance portion of the team report and whether the institution appears to be moving forward with corrective action that the Department has determined to be appropriate.

4. If issues have been raised with the institution’s compliance, decide whether these issues relate to the institution’s ability to satisfy the Criteria for Accreditation, particularly with regard to whether its disclosures to students are candid and complete and demonstrate appropriate integrity (Core
Component 2.A and 2.B).

5. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
_X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

Comments:

The team reviewed information on general program requirements, financial
responsibility, default rates, campus crime information, student right to know,
satisfactory academic progress, and contractual and consortial relationships and found the institution’s policies to be in line with expected practice.

Additional monitoring, if any:

Required Information for Students and the Public

1. Verify that the institution publishes fair, accurate, and complete information on the following topics: the calendar, grading, admissions, academic program requirements, tuition and fees, and refund policies.
2. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

Comments:

The academic calendar and information regarding, admissions, academic program requirements, tuition and fees are all available on the university website.

Additional monitoring, if any:

Advertising and Recruitment Materials and Other Public Information 

The institution has documented that it provides accurate, timely and appropriately detailed information to current and prospective students and the public about its accreditation status with the Commission and other agencies as well as about its programs, locations and policies.

1. Review the institution’s disclosure about its accreditation status with the Commission to determine whether the information it provides is accurate and complete, appropriately formatted and contains the Commission’s web address.
2. Review institutional disclosures about its relationship with other accrediting agencies for accuracy and for appropriate consumer information, particularly regarding the link between specialized/professional accreditation and the licensure necessary for employment in many professional or specialized areas.
3. Review the institution’s catalog, brochures, recruiting materials, and information provided by the institution’s advisors or counselors to determine whether the institution provides accurate information to current and prospective students about its accreditation, placement or licensure, program requirements, etc.
4. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.                                                          ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference)

Comments:

The team reviewed recruiting materials, brochures, online information, and The Ohio Guide and found the information to be consistent, accurate, and timely.

Additional monitoring, if any:

Review of Student Outcome Data

1. Review the student outcome data the institution collects to determine whether it is appropriate and sufficient based on the kinds of academic programs it offers and the students it serves.
2. Determine whether the institution uses this information effectively to make decisions about academic programs and requirements and to determine its effectiveness in achieving its educational objectives.

3. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

   Comments:

   The team reviewed retention and graduation rates, plans for responding to retention and graduation rates, and program review materials and found that the institution uses the information effectively to make decisions regarding its programs and educational objectives.

   Additional monitoring, if any:

Standing with State and Other Accrediting Agencies

The institution has documented that it discloses accurately to the public and the Commission its relationship with any other specialized, professional or institutional accreditor and with all governing or coordinating bodies in states in which the institution may have a presence.

The team has considered any potential implications for accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission of sanction or loss of status by the institution with any other accrediting agency or loss of authorization in any state.

Important note: If the team is recommending initial or continued status, and the institution is now or has been in the past five years under sanction or show-cause with, or has received an adverse action (i.e., withdrawal, suspension, denial, or termination) from, any other federally recognized specialized or institutional accreditor or a state entity, then the team must explain the sanction or adverse action of the other agency in the body of the Assurance Section of the Team Report and provide its rationale for recommending Commission status in light of this action. In addition, the team must contact the staff liaison immediately if it learns that the institution is at risk of losing its degree authorization or lacks such authorization in any state in which the institution meets state presence requirements.

1. Review the information, particularly any information that indicates the institution is under sanction or show-cause or has had its status with any agency suspended, revoked, or terminated, as well as the reasons for such actions.
2. Determine whether this information provides any indication about the institution’s capacity to meet the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation. Should the team learn that the institution is at risk of losing, or has lost, its degree or program authorization in any state in which it meets state presence requirements, it should contact the Commission staff liaison immediately.
3. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

Comments:

Additional monitoring, if any:

Public Notification of Opportunity to Comment

The institution has made an appropriate and timely effort to solicit third party comments. The team has evaluated any comments received and completed any necessary follow-up on issues raised in these comments. Note that if the team has determined that any issues raised by third-party comment relate to the team’s review of the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation, it must discuss this information and its analysis in the body of the Assurance Section of the Team Report.

1. Review information about the public disclosure of the upcoming visit, including sample announcements, to determine whether the institution made an appropriate and timely effort to notify the public and seek comments.
2. Evaluate the comments to determine whether the team needs to follow-up on any issues through its interviews and review of documentation during the visit process. 
3. Check the appropriate response that reflects the team’s conclusions:
   _X_ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution to meet the Commission’s requirements but recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team has reviewed this component of federal compliance and has found the institution not to meet the Commission’s requirements and recommends Commission follow-up.
   ___ The team also has comments that relate to the institution’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. See Criterion (insert appropriate reference).

Comments:

The team reviewed newspaper advertising, published August 12, and closed October 2, and web advertising and found the institution provided opportunity for public comment.

Additional monitoring, if any:

Institutional Materials Related to Federal Compliance Reviewed by the Team

Provide a list materials reviewed here:

Program Review Materials
Institutional information on student complaints
The Ohio Guide
Undergraduate Admissions Brochure 2015/2016
Course Syllabi
Undergraduate Catalog
Graduate Catalog
Undergraduate Admissions magazine 2015/2016
University Web Site
University Policies
Accreditation Letters

Institution under review: Ohio University

Part 1: Program Length and Tuition

Instructions

The institution has documented that it has credit hour assignments and degree program lengths within the range of good practice in higher education and that tuition is consistent across degree programs (or that there is a rational basis for any program-specific tuition).

Review the “Worksheet for Use by Institutions on the Assignment of Credit Hours and on Clock Hours” as well as the course catalog and other attachments required for the institutional worksheet.

Worksheet on Program Length and Tuition

A. Answer the Following Questions

Are the institution’s degree program requirements within the range of good practice in higher education and contribute to an academic environment in which students receive a rigorous and thorough education?

_X_ Yes ____ No

Comments:

The Business Economics major requires a minimum of 128 hours for the BBA, The Business Analytics program requires 15 hours in addition to another BBA co-concentration, the MBA program requires 45 hours, The BA in Psychology requires 120 credit hours, BA in Human Biology requires 123 credit hours, PhD in Clinical Psychology requires 90 credit hours with a Baccalaureate or 56 with a Masters Degree, the BA in Applied Communication requires 120 credit hours, and the Masters in Applied Economics requires 44 credit hours.

Are the institution’s tuition costs across programs within the range of good practice in higher education and contribute to an academic environment in which students receive a rigorous and thorough education?

_X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

B. Recommend Commission Follow-up, If Appropriate

Is any Commission follow-up required related to the institution’s program length and tuition practices?

____ Yes __X__ No

Rationale:

Identify the type of Commission monitoring required and the due date:

Part 2: Assignment of Credit Hours

Instructions

In assessing the appropriateness of the credit allocations provided by the institution the team should complete the following steps:

1. Review the Worksheet completed by the institution, which provides information about an institution’s academic calendar and an overview of credit hour assignments across institutional offerings and delivery formats, and the institution’s policy and procedures for awarding credit hours. Note that such
policies may be at the institution or department level and may be differentiated by such distinctions as undergraduate or graduate, by delivery format, etc.

2. Identify the institution’s principal degree levels and the number of credit hours for degrees at each level. The following minimum number of credit hours should apply at a semester institution:

• Associate’s degrees = 60 hours
• Bachelor’s degrees = 120 hours
• Master’s or other degrees beyond the Bachelor’s = at least 30 hours beyond the Bachelor’s degree
• Note that one quarter hour = .67 semester hour
• Any exceptions to this requirement must be explained and justified.

3. Scan the course descriptions in the catalog and the number of credit hours assigned for courses in different departments at the institution.

• At semester-based institutions courses will be typically be from two to four credit hours (or approximately five quarter hours) and extend approximately 14-16 weeks (or approximately 10 weeks for a quarter). The description in the catalog should indicate a course that is appropriately rigorous and has collegiate expectations for objectives and workload. Identify courses/disciplines that seem to depart markedly from these expectations.
• Institutions may have courses that are in compressed format, self-paced, or otherwise alternatively structured. Credit assignments should be reasonable. (For example, as a full-time load for a traditional semester is typically 15 credits, it might be expected that the norm for a full-time load in a five-week term is 5 credits; therefore, a single five-week course
  awarding 10 credits would be subject to inquiry and justification.)
• Teams should be sure to scan across disciplines, delivery mode, and types of academic activities.
• Federal regulations allow for an institution to have two credit-hour awards: one award for Title IV purposes and following the above federal definition and one for the purpose of defining progression in and completion of an academic program at that institution. Commission procedure also permits this approach.

4. Scan course schedules to determine how frequently courses meet each week and what other scheduled activities are required for each course. Pay particular attention to alternatively-structured or other courses with particularly high credit hours for a course completed in a short period of time or with less frequently scheduled interaction between student and instructor.

5. Sampling. Teams will need to sample some number of degree programs based on the headcount at the institution and the range of programs it offers.

• At a minimum, teams should anticipate sampling at least a few programs at each degree level.
• For institutions with several different academic calendars or terms or with a wide range of academic programs, the team should expand the sample size appropriately to ensure that it is paying careful attention to alternative format and compressed and accelerated courses.
• Where the institution offers the same course in more than one format, the team is advised to sample across the various formats to test for consistency.
• For the programs the team sampled, the team should review syllabi and intended learning outcomes for several of the courses in the program, identify the contact hours for each course, and expectations for homework or work outside of instructional time.
• The team should pay particular attention to alternatively-structured and other courses that have high credit hours and less frequently scheduled interaction between the students and the instructor. Provide information on the samples in the appropriate space on the worksheet.

6. Consider the following questions:

• Does the institution’s policy for awarding credit address all the delivery formats employed by the institution?
• Does that policy address the amount of instructional or contact time assigned and homework typically expected of a student with regard to credit hours earned?
• For institutions with courses in alternative formats or with less instructional and homework time than would be typically expected, does that policy also equate credit hours with intended learning outcomes and student achievement that could be reasonably achieved by a student in the timeframe allotted for the course?
• Is the policy reasonable within the federal definition as well as within the range of good practice in higher education? (Note that the Commission will expect that credit hour policies at public institutions that meet state regulatory requirements or are dictated by the state will likely meet federal definitions as well.)
• If so, is the institution’s assignment of credit to courses reflective of its policy on the award of credit?

7. If the answers to the above questions lead the team to conclude that there may be a problem with the credit hours awarded the team should recommend the following:

• If the problem involves a poor or insufficiently-detailed institutional policy, the team should call for a revised policy as soon as possible by requiring a monitoring report within no more than one year that demonstrates the institution has a revised policy and evidence of implementation.
• If the team identifies an application problem and that problem is isolated to a few courses or single department or division or learning format, the team should call for follow-up activities (monitoring report or focused evaluation) to ensure that the problems are corrected within no more than one year.
• If the team identifies systematic non-compliance across the institution with regard to the award of credit, the team should notify Commission staff immediately and work with staff to design appropriate follow-up activities. The Commission shall understand systematic noncompliance to mean that the institution lacks any policies to determine the award of academic credit or that there is an inappropriate award of institutional credit not in conformity with the policies established by the institution or with commonly accepted practices in higher education across multiple programs or divisions or affecting significant numbers of students.

Worksheet on Assignment of Credit Hours

A. Identify the Sample Courses and Programs Reviewed by the Team (see #5 of instructions in completing this section)

African American Studies Program
Business Analytics Major
Business Economics Major
Master of Business Administration
AAS 1060
AVN 4000
BUSL 2000
COMS 1010
ECON 1040 (Face to face and online)
EXPH 2280
HLTH 2901
HST 1750 Chilicothe Campus
MATH 6320
MBA 6320
MBA 6325
NURS 2130
PHIL 3200 and PHIL 5020 Online Course
POLS 4751/5751
SOC 100 (Athens and Eastern)

B. Answer the Following Questions

1) Institutional Policies on Credit Hours

Does the institution’s policy for awarding credit address all the delivery formats employed by the institution? (Note that for this question and the questions that follow an institution may have a single comprehensive policy or multiple policies.)

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

Does that policy relate the amount of instructional or contact time provided and homework typically expected of a student to the credit hours awarded for the classes offered in the delivery formats offered by the institution? (Note that an institution’s policy must go beyond simply stating that it awards credit solely based on assessment of student learning and should also reference instructional time.)

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

For institutions with non-traditional courses in alternative formats or with less instructional and homework time than would be typically expected, does that policy equate credit hours with intended learning outcomes and student achievement that could be reasonably achieved by a student in the timeframe and utilizing the activities allotted for the course?

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

Is the policy reasonable within the federal definition as well as within the range of good practice in higher education? (Note that the Commission will expect that credit hour policies at public institutions that meet state regulatory requirements or are dictated by the state will likely meet federal definitions as well.)

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

2) Application of Policies

Are the course descriptions and syllabi in the sample academic programs reviewed by the team appropriate and reflective of the institution’s policy on the award of credit? (Note that the Commission will expect that credit hour policies at public institutions that meet state regulatory requirements or are dictated by the state will likely meet federal definitions as well.)

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

Are the learning outcomes in the sample reviewed by the team appropriate to the courses and programs reviewed and in keeping with the institution’s policy on the award of credit?

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

If the institution offers any alternative delivery or compressed format courses or programs, were the course descriptions and syllabi for those courses appropriate and reflective of the institution’s policy on the award of academic credit?

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

If the institution offers alternative delivery or compressed format courses or programs, are the learning outcomes reviewed by the team appropriate to the courses and programs reviewed and in keeping with the institution’s policy on the award of credit? Are the learning outcomes reasonably capable of being fulfilled by students in the time allocated to justify the allocation of credit?

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

Is the institution’s actual assignment of credit to courses and programs across the institution reflective of its policy on the award of credit and reasonable and appropriate within commonly accepted practice in higher education?

__X__ Yes ____ No

Comments:

C. Recommend Commission Follow-up, If Appropriate

Review the responses provided in this section. If the team has responded “no” to any of the questions above, the team will need to assign Commission follow-up to assure that the institution comes into compliance with expectations regarding the assignment of credit hours.

 Is any Commission follow-up required related to the institution’s credit hour policies and practices?

____ Yes __X__ No

Rationale:

Identify the type of Commission monitoring required and the due date:

D. Identify and Explain Any Findings of Systematic Non-Compliance in One or More Educational Programs with Commission Policies Regarding the Credit Hour

Part 3: Clock Hours

Does the institution offer any degree or certificate programs in clock hours?

____ Yes __X__ No

Does the institution offer any degree or certificate programs that must be reported to the Department of Education in clock hours for Title IV purposes even though students may earn credit hours for graduation from these programs?

____ Yes __X__ No

If the answer to either question is “Yes,” complete this part of the form.

Instructions

This worksheet is not intended for teams to evaluate whether an institution has assigned credit hours relative to contact hours in accordance with the Carnegie definition of the credit hour. This worksheet solely addresses those programs reported to the Department of Education in clock hours for Title IV purposes.

Complete this worksheet only if the institution offers any degree or certificate programs in clock hours OR that must be reported to the U.S. Department of Education in clock hours for Title IV purposes even though students may earn credit hours for graduation from these programs. Non-degree programs subject to clock hour requirements (an institution is required to measure student progress in clock hours for federal or state purposes or for graduates to apply for licensure) are not subject to the credit hour definitions per se but will need to provide conversions to semester or quarter hours for Title IV purposes. Clock-hour programs might include teacher education, nursing, or other programs in licensed fields.

For these programs Federal regulations require that they follow the federal formula listed below. If there are no deficiencies identified by the accrediting agency in the institution’s overall policy for awarding semester or quarter credit, accrediting agency may provide permission for the institution to provide less instruction provided that the student’s work outside class in addition to direct instruction meets the applicable quantitative clock hour requirements noted below.

Federal Formula for Minimum Number of Clock Hours of Instruction (34 CFR §668.8)

1 semester or trimester hour must include at least 37.5 clock hours of instruction
1 quarter hour must include at least 25 clock hours of instruction

Note that the institution may have a lower rate if the institution’s requirement for student work outside of class
combined with the actual clock hours of instruction equals the above formula provided that a semester/trimester
hour includes at least 30 clock hours of actual instruction and a quarter hour include at least 20 semester hours.

Worksheet on Clock Hours

A. Answer the Following Questions

Does the institution’s credit to clock hour formula match the federal formula?

____ Yes ____ No

Comments:

If the credit to clock hour conversion numbers are less than the federal formula, indicate what specific requirements there are, if any, for student work outside of class?

Did the team determine that the institution’s credit hour policies are reasonable within the federal definition as well as within the range of good practice in higher education? (Note that if the team answers “No” to this question, it should recommend follow-up monitoring in section C below.)

____ Yes ____ No

Comments:

Did the team determine in reviewing the assignment of credit to courses and programs across the institution that it was reflective of the institution’s policy on the award of credit and reasonable and appropriate within commonly accepted practice in higher education?

____ Yes ____ No

Comments:

B. Does the team approve variations, if any, from the federal formula in the institution’s credit to clock hour conversion?

____ Yes ____ No

(Note that the team may approve a lower conversion rate than the federal rate as noted above provided the team found no issues with the institution’s policies or practices related to the credit hour and there is sufficient student work outside of class as noted in the instructions.)

C. Recommend Commission Follow-up, If Appropriate

Is any Commission follow-up required related to the institution’s clock hour policies and practices?

____ Yes ____ No

Rationale:

Identify the type of Commission monitoring required and the due date:

Higher Learning Commission

Form

Multi-Campus Reviewer Form

After conducting the electronic and on-site portions of the Multi-Campus Evaluation, the assigned peer reviewer completes a Multi-Campus Reviewer Form. Peer reviewers should complete a separate template for each campus reviewed as part of a Multi-Campus Evaluation. The reviewer then e-mails
completed forms to the rest of the evaluation team, who then discuss and integrate the findings into the final comprehensive evaluation report in the Assurance System.

After the visit, the team chair should ensure that HLC receives a copy of all Multi-Campus Reviewer Forms, as they cannot yet be uploaded into the Assurance System. The completed forms should be sent to finalreports@hlcommission.org. The Multi-Campus Report from the institution and the Multi-Campus Reviewer Forms become part of the institution’s permanent file and are shared as appropriate with future evaluation teams.

Instructions

A Multi-Campus Reviewer Form should be no more than five pages. The Form begins with a brief description of the campus and its operations to provide the context for the on-site team’s deliberations.

For each review category, provide 2-3 evidence statements that make clear the team’s findings in relationship to the Criteria and Core Components. Check one of the following for each category:

• The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the review category. (The reviewer may cite ways to improve.)
• The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the review category. 

This form does not request a recommendation from the reviewer(s). Instead, the full evaluation team is expected to include a discussion of the evidence related to the Multi-Campus Evaluations in its deliberations about the oversight, management, and educational quality of extended operations of the
institution. The team will incorporate evidence on extended operations into the final team report. Further, the full team may determine that a pattern of concern exists across multiple categories of a single campus or more than one campus and may result in a recommendation for additional monitoring or
sanction.

Report Template

Name of Institution: Ohio University

Name and Address of Branch Campus: 1425 Newark Rd, Zanesville, OH 43701

Date and Duration of Visit: Nov 3, 2015, 12:00-5:00 PM

Reviewer(s): Jim Perry

1. Campus Overview

Provide a brief description of the scope and operations of the campus. Include information about consortial or contractual arrangements, if applicable.

Ohio University operates five campuses and several additional locations. Each of the campuses is about a one to two hour drive from the main campus in Athens. All regional campuses are administered though one office, that of the Executive Dean of Regional Higher Education (RHE). This review of the Zanesville campuses was conducted in association with Ohio University’s first CQR visit. On the Zanesville campus, more than 50 full-time faculty offer courses leading to Associate's and Bachelor’s degrees. At Zanesville, OU is co-located with Zane State College. OUZ owns and operates a combined classroom/office building and owns a large library building that is shared with Zane State. The two institutions have articulation agreements that facilitate cooperation and allow students to take advantage of the strength of each
institution.

2. History, Planning, and Oversight

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the effectiveness of the institution’s planning, governance and oversight processes at the campus and in relationship to the broader systems of the institution, particularly as they relate to enrollment, budgeting, and resource allocation at the institution.

Evidentiary Statements:

OUZ has conducted an extensive and engaging strategic planning process. Campus faculty, staff, students and administrators recently completed a 2015-2020 strategic plan. The plan had clear involvement by all sectors of the community. Each of the major subsets of the plan contains priority recommendations, as well as ideas for funding those recommendations. As an example of forward looking recommendations, faculty have recognized that global education is a critical part of a student’s education today but very few OUZ students will be able to study abroad. Therefore, several efforts are
being developed and implemented to increase the international aspect of resident classes at OUZ. As an example, a new program links faculty and students among OUZ, Salzburg and Potsdam. One class has begun the collaboration, five are planned for 2016. There are limited funds for students to travel. Effort like internationalizing the curriculum and the collaboration with EU universities, by their very nature also will increase the multi-cultural aspects of educational programming at OUZ.

All regional OU campuses (i.e., all but Athens, the main campus) are open access. As a result, enrollment is determined by student interest and marketing. The administrative structure of the University includes an Executive Dean of Regional Higher Education (RHE), a person who oversees all regional campuses. Each regional campus is overseen by a Dean of that campus. The Zanesville campus administration has clear planning and oversight structures in which the Dean of the campus consults regularly with the Dean of Regional Higher Education, and with the administrative team on site. OUZ has an articulation agreement with Zane State College, which facilitates student movement between the two institutions. Many students complete their Associate's degree at Zane State and transfer to OUZ to complete their Bachelor’s degree. OUZ also has an MOU with Zane State which provides structure for the use of shared resources (e.g., library space).

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

3. Facilities and Technology

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s facilities and technology at the campus and their suitability to the needs of the students, staff and faculty, as well as the educational offerings. Consider, in particular, classrooms and laboratories (size, maintenance, temperature, etc.); faculty and administrative offices (site, visibility, privacy for meetings, etc.); parking or access to public transit; bookstore or text purchasing services; security; handicapped access; and other (food or snack services, study and meeting areas, etc.).

Evidentiary Statements:

OUZ owns and operates several buildings; one of those is a large library and teaching center, shared through lease with Zane State College. All facilities are modern, with well-equipped classrooms and offices. The campus has wireless technology throughout, providing students full access. Most classrooms have flexible seating arrangements, allowing faculty to teach with active learning strategies. The campus does not have residential facilities; all students are commuters, many of whom are on campus for evening classes. Parking is ample and well maintained. All parking lots and exterior walkways are well-lit and there is on-site security to ensure safety. All buildings are fully ADA compliant.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

4. Human Resources

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on appropriateness of faculty and staff qualifications, sufficiency of staff and faculty for the campus, and the processes for supporting and evaluating personnel at the campus. Consider the processes in place for selecting, training, and orienting faculty at the location, as well as the credentials of faculty dedicated to the campus and other faculty.

Evidentiary Statements:

OU uses a four-group faculty structure. Group I faculty are tenure track, and have a research expectation. Group II faculty are teaching faculty on renewable contracts. OU recently instituted a new policy allowing Group II faculty to be promoted, following a path of Instructor, Associate Instructor, Senior Instructor. Group III faculty are adjuncts, brought in from the community for specific teaching assignments. Group IV faculty are visitors from other institutions or other special appointments. Faculty are hired through competitive processes and each participates in an annual review and evaluation. Student evaluations of teaching are a core component of each person’s annual evaluation. OUZ has 126 faculty members, 51 of whom are full time (Group I and II). OUZ also has 24 administrators and 32 staff members. The team interviewed faculty members, staff members, students and administrators, and reviewed position descriptions for all levels. Staffing levels and student/faculty ratios at OUZ are consistent with best practice and are similar to most other regional OU campuses.

Involvement of OUZ faculty in the life of the main campus varies among programs. OUZ faculty from the Departments of Early Education, Communication Studies and Nursing, are each fully integrated into the fabric of their respective main-campus departments, participating in faculty meetings and committees. The College of Education holds college-wide faculty meetings twice per semester; those meetings include regional faculty. Similarly, academic advisors in the College of Education routinely meet
collectively with Athens and regional staff. OUZ from other departments report little interaction with the main campus. All OUZ faculty report extensive and very positive interaction with peers within the Zanesville community.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

5. Student and Faculty Resources and Support

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the student and faculty services and academic resources at the campus, as well as the processes to evaluate, improve, and manage them. Consider, in particular, the level of student access (in person, by computer, by phone, etc.) to academic advising/placement,
remedial/tutorial services, and library materials/services. Also, consider the level of access to admissions, registration/student records, financial aid, and job placement services, as well as attention to student concerns. Finally, consider the resources needed by faculty to provide the educational offerings.

Evidentiary Statements:

OUZ has an excellent campus library that provides study space, computer terminals, Internet access, hard copies of books and journals and reference librarian assistance. That facility is co-managed with Zane State College. The library subscribes to Ohio-link, which provides extensive inter-library loan
privileges and access to on-line journals. OUZ community members also have access to the electronic journal collections for which the main campus has subscription access.

Students on the OUZ campus have full access to advising, financial aid and career placement. Remedial assistance is available on campus for students that need such. One excellent example of offering remedial assistance was offered by the nursing program. The department has recognized that
traditionally in-depth remedial assistance is offered to students on an ad hoc basis, as a part of a faculty member’s position. The degree of assistance offered varies among faculty members. Therefore, the department has decided to pay each faculty member the equivalent of a one credit course specifically to offer remedial assistance to students. In another example, the OU main campus Center of Teaching and Learning recently awarded support to OUZ faculty to develop a peer mentoring program that both assists
struggling learners, and helps more mature students understand the material more deeply by teaching someone else.

The campus is evaluating vendors for an enterprise-wide retention tool that identifies students in need and which it hopes to have in place in fall 2016. Faculty also are responsive to the characteristics and needs of the OUZ student population.

Students on the Zanesville campus conduct “The Bobcat Blitz”, a welcome event that helps new students get oriented to campus life. Students are very dedicated to and rightfully proud of the commitment to and the contribution made by that program. The program increases the sense of identity and the strength of the OUZ community.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

6. Educational Programs and Instructional Oversight

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s capacity to oversee educational offerings and instruction at the campus. Identify whether the institution has adequate controls in place to ensure that information presented to students is ample and accurate. Consider consistency of curricular expectations and policies, availability of courses needed for program and graduation requirements, performance of instructional duties, availability of faculty to students, orientation of faculty/professional development, attention to student concerns.

Evidentiary Statements:

OUZ is a regional campus inside the RHE structure of Ohio University. All educational programming at OUZ is fully compliant with all educational policies of the main campus. That includes credits for graduation, design of curricula, and performance of faculty in their teaching. Some curricula (e.g.,
nursing) are developed in collaboration with the home department on the main campus. When such is the case, curricular structure and expectations are one and the same at the main and regional campuses. Other curricula are designed to meet the needs of OUZ’s surrounding communities and the
commuter nature of its students. In that case, all courses and curricula are submitted to full curriculum committee review, similar to main campus practices. Student/faculty ratios at OUZ are similar to those on other OU campuses, providing adequate availability of faculty to students.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

7. Evaluation and Assessment

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s processes to evaluate and improve the
educational offerings of the campus and to assess and improve student learning, persistence, and
completion sufficiently to maintain and improve academic quality at the campus. Consider, in particular,
the setting of outcomes, the actual measurement of performance, and the analysis and use of data to
maintain/improve quality. Identify how the processes at a campus are equivalent to those for assessment
and evaluation on the main campus.

Evidentiary Statements:

OUZ continually assess student progress and attempts to facilitate retention and completion. One recent change involves class scheduling. Faculty recognized that many OUZ students are professionals who have compressed schedules, and that OU’s Eastern campus is only an hour away. In response, OUZ conducted a large-scale schedule-coordination effort to target classes at times most convenient for commuter students, and to share classes with Eastern, allowing students to take classes at the other campus as appropriate. OUZ also has developed an MOU with Zane State to share facilities, has
developed two articulation agreements with other colleges and has two more in progress, all intended to facilitate student progress.

As another example of attempts to maintain quality, OU had an accredited business program that was also available at OUZ. That program did not meet the needs of OUZ’s rural, non-residential population. It was difficult for commuter students to meet the class schedule, and the OUZ students bring different life experiences and have different professional aspirations than do most resident, main-campus students. As a result, a new, non-accredited Bachelor of Science in Applied Management was developed in conjunction with the OU College of Business which serves most OUZ students. At the same time OUZ retains access to the accredited program through the main campus for any OUZ student who desires that avenue.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

8. Continuous Improvement

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements that demonstrate that the institution encourages and ensures continuous quality improvement at the campus. Consider in particular the institution's planning and evaluation processes that ensure regular review and improvement of the campus and ensure alignment
of the branch campus with the mission and goals of the institution as a whole.

Evidentiary Statements:

OUZ has conducted an extensive and engaging strategic planning process. Campus faculty, staff, students and administrators recently completed a 2015-2020 strategic plan. The plan had clear involvement by all sectors of the community. Each of the major subsets of the plan contains priority
recommendations, as well as ideas for funding those recommendations.

OUZ has a regional coordinating committee (as does each of the OU regional campuses). That committee meets three times per year and serves as an avenue for involvement by community members from the local area, beyond the university. Further, the Dean of the OUZ camps serves on several local
boards, further linking the University to the community, and ensuring that university programs remain sensitive to the needs of the region. This effort also serves internally to ensure that the University has a continual planning and quality improvement process, continually evaluating programs and ensuring that they remain consistent with the mission if the campus and university.

As a result of the new strategic plan, OUZ has decided to collapse some administrative positions and to hire new people to fill the newly structured position in order to better track and advance quality improvement. Staff mentioned that the University OFfice of Institutional Research is especially helpful with requests to developing data sets and analyses that assist these new people in identifying and supporting areas of quality improvement.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.
 

Higher Learning Commission

Form

Multi-Campus Reviewer Form

After conducting the electronic and on-site portions of the Multi-Campus Evaluation, the assigned peer reviewer completes a Multi-Campus Reviewer Form. Peer reviewers should complete a separate template for each campus reviewed as part of a Multi-Campus Evaluation. The reviewer then e-mails
completed forms to the rest of the evaluation team, who then discuss and integrate the findings into the final comprehensive evaluation report in the Assurance System.

After the visit, the team chair should ensure that HLC receives a copy of all Multi-Campus Reviewer Forms, as they cannot yet be uploaded into the Assurance System. The completed forms should be sent to finalreports@hlcommission.org. The Multi-Campus Report from the institution and the Multi-Campus Reviewer Forms become part of the institution’s permanent file and are shared as appropriate with future evaluation teams.

Instructions

A Multi-Campus Reviewer Form should be no more than five pages. The Form begins with a brief description of the campus and its operations to provide the context for the on-site team’s deliberations.

For each review category, provide 2-3 evidence statements that make clear the team’s findings in relationship to the Criteria and Core Components. Check one of the following for each category:

• The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the review category. (The reviewer may cite ways to improve.)
• The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the review category.

This form does not request a recommendation from the reviewer(s). Instead, the full evaluation team is expected to include a discussion of the evidence related to the Multi-Campus Evaluations in its deliberations about the oversight, management, and educational quality of extended operations of the
institution. The team will incorporate evidence on extended operations into the final team report. Further, the full team may determine that a pattern of concern exists across multiple categories of a single campus or more than one campus and may result in a recommendation for additional monitoring or
sanction.

Report Template

Name of Institution: Ohio University

Name and Address of Branch Campus: Ohio University Chillicothe,101 University Drive, Chillicothe, OH 45601

Date and Duration of Visit: November 3, 2015

Reviewer(s): Dr. Mary Moore

1. Campus Overview

Provide a brief description of the scope and operations of the campus. Include information about consortial or contractual arrangements, if applicable.

The Chillicothe campus was the first regional campus established in Ohio in 1946 and at present, is one of five of Ohio University's regional campuses. Chillicothe (OU-C) offers Associate degrees (11) and Bachelor degrees (11) as well as general education for those seeking to transfer into four-year programs. Also offered are certiciate and dual credit offerings for students in the South Central Region of Ohio. Approximately 2,300 students study in a campus of five buildings, including a gymnasium to support athletics and an early childhood center that serves as a resource for its Early Childhood degree program.

2. History, Planning, and Oversight

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the effectiveness of the institution’s planning, governance and oversight processes at the campus and in relationship to the broader systems of the institution, particularly as they relate to enrollment, budgeting, and resource allocation at the institution.

Evidentiary Statements:

The Chillicothe campus is part of the Office of Regional Higher Education which oversees the regional campus system. Regional Higher Education (RHE) is overseen by the Executive Dean, to whom the five regional campus deans report. The campus has a Stratgeic Plan (2013-18) aligned with the larger 4X4
Strategic Plan for Ohio University; the campus plan looks across all programs, facilities, and operations and guides current status, current and projected needs, environmental scanning and competitive analysis for each program. Nursing and social work, two large degree programs at Chillicothe, have
recently acquired additional investments in faculty, facilities and infrastructure. At the time of the visit, the team observed changes described in the Strategic Plan including a centralized Student Success Center, technology investments in classrooms and expanded student commons space. The Office of Regional
Higher Education through the Executive Dean, develops processes and facilitates participation in structures which allow communication and representation at the main campus and across the regional system. An April 2015 report, from a task force focused on improving communication and operations between the College of Arts and Sciences and the regional campuses, was shared with the team and serves as an example of the initiatives of RHE.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

3. Facilities and Technology

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s facilities and technology at the campus and their suitability to the needs of the students, staff and faculty, as well as the educational offerings. Consider, in particular, classrooms and laboratories (size, maintenance, temperature, etc.); faculty and administrative offices (site, visibility, privacy for meetings, etc.); parking or access to public transit; bookstore or text purchasing services; security; handicapped access; and other (food or snack services, study and meeting areas, etc.).

Evidentiary Statements:

OU-C is an attractive campus with up-to-date facilities. The five buildings comprising the campus appear well maintained, refurbished to meet current needs, and well supported by technology. For example, there is a kiosk system with flat panel touch screens located at building entries allowing campus
information to be continually available. The team visited art classrooms, nursing labs and wired classrooms hosting video conferencing for distance delivery. The Ohio University Learning Network (OULN) is a live, compressed video instructional system which has been available on the regional campuses for years but has now been upgraded through recent investments in equipment and training. Cultural venues at OU-C include an auditorium for theatre productions and a campus art gallery. The Strategic Plan describes the opening of the Technology and Business Development Center at OU-C in
2012, which has allowed expansion of the business management curriculum to now include business development and entrepreneurship.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

4. Human Resources

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on appropriateness of faculty and staff qualifications, sufficiency of staff and faculty for the campus, and the processes for supporting and evaluating personnel at the campus. Consider the processes in place for selecting, training, and orienting faculty at the location, as well as the credentials of faculty dedicated to the campus and other faculty.

Evidentiary Statements:

As of fall 2015, there are 23 full-time faculty, 31 part-time faculty, 140 adjunct faculty, and 41 staff members to support the eudcational programs and campus operations at OU-C. As noted in the Strategic Plan and as shared with the team, there have been increases in faculty lines, including Group I tenure-track faculty, as programs have grown. Regional, full-time faculty carry heavier teaching loads as prescribed by their faculty category and, as shared with the team, also maintain active professional and scholarly commitments. It was noted that this scholarship allows faculty to mentor students who, at the
OU system wide campus Expo for student research, have received top awards. Students reported small classes and faculty availability as reasons for choosing Chillicothe as their campus. Staff are available in numbers appropriate to the size of campus with offices often combined into centralized services. Financial aid, for example, holds campus workshops, posts information on the kiosks across campus and provides one-on-one counseling.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

5. Student and Faculty Resources and Support

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the student and faculty services and academic resources at the campus, as well as the processes to evaluate, improve, and manage them. Consider, in particular, the level of student access (in person, by computer, by phone, etc.) to academic advising/placement,
remedial/tutorial services, and library materials/services. Also, consider the level of access to admissions, registration/student records, financial aid, and job placement services, as well as attention to student concerns. Finally, consider the resources needed by faculty to provide the educational offerings.

Evidentiary Statements:

Faculty and staff participate at both the system and campus levels. The memberships of OU’s Faculty Senate and University Curriculum Council are inclusive of regional campus faculty members, as required by the Faculty Handbook. As an example, new full-time faculty participate in a campus oreintation, are invited to the larger orientation hosted at the Athens campus, and have the opportunity through a Regional Higher Education Conference to interact with peers on other campuses. Similarly, staff are connected to the system offices as well as fulfilling their respective roles on the regional campus.

Quinn Library provides needed support for information literacy and hosts extensive data bases that expand student access to the OU system electronic holdings. The library maintains an interlibrary loan system making resources available beyond their physical holdings. There is a centralized Student
Success Center that supports student learning with accessibility services, advising and tutoring.

Faculty are responsive to student needs, as demonstrated, for example, by career guidance provided to students who are seeking professional opportunities and advanced degrees in their fields. Students spoke positively of faculty availability outside of class to ensure student success; students reported that their relationships to faculty contribute to their persistence and success.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

6. Educational Programs and Instructional Oversight

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s capacity to oversee educational offerings and instruction at the campus. Identify whether the institution has adequate controls in place to ensure that information presented to students is ample and accurate. Consider consistency of curricular expectations and policies, availability of courses needed for program and graduation requirements, performance of instructional duties, availability of faculty to students, orientation of faculty/professional development, attention to student concerns.

Evidentiary Statements:

The curriculum at OU-C is the responsibility of the faculty in concert with the wider OU faculty community. Each campus maintains a local, faculty curriculum committee. Faculty from each campus then comprise the membership of the regional campus curriculum committee. Faculty from each campus also serve on the University Faculty Senate and engage in discipline-specific work with their colleagues across the regional system and in Athens.

Curricular and graduation requirements are consistent across the OU system. However, while some programs are system-wide like nursing and social work, other programs may be offered only on the regional campuses like the Associate degree in Business Management Technology. As such, programs
may tie into the Athens campus or have Program Directors at the regional campus responsible for oversight.

There is one Faculty Handbook articulating expectations of faculty across the system. The variations in responsibility come through the assignment of faculty group (I,II,III or IV) because categories describe tenure-track, extended appoinments and contractual bases of faculty appoinments. A positive change
cited by faculty was the recent opportunity for promotion offered to Group II, non-tenure track faculty.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

7. Evaluation and Assessment

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s processes to evaluate and improve the educational offerings of the campus and to assess and improve student learning, persistence, and completion sufficiently to maintain and improve academic quality at the campus. Consider, in particular,
the setting of outcomes, the actual measurement of performance, and the analysis and use of data to maintain/improve quality. Identify how the processes at a campus are equivalent to those for assessment and evaluation on the main campus.

Evidentiary Statements:

Assessment and evaluation are a recognized responsibility of faculty on the regional campus. The need to convert all courses in the Action Project involving the move to semesters (Q2S) involved campus Program Directors at OU-C in the redesign of programs and all faculty in the redesign of their courses. The preparation for the Comprehensive Quality Review was noted in the Multi-Campus Report as showing the need for a RHE Assessment Committee to continue the focus on assessment at the regional campuses. The Office of Institutional Research maintains rates of retention, graduation and transfers for each branch campus as well as aggregate data for the system.

Each campus has access to eProgress reports which at OU-C function as an early warning system to monitor the progress of at-risk students. Extensive developmental testing and courses are offered at Chillicothe as it, like the other regionals, has "open admission," while at the same time admitting students to programs that maintain system-wide standards. OU-C has a higher number of students as reported by Institutional Research enrolled in developmental math courses; this is due to the large pre-nursing program offered at this campus. The developmental program is organized to fit the needs of the students and the programs at the campus.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

8. Continuous Improvement

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements that demonstrate that the institution encourages and ensures continuous quality improvement at the campus. Consider in particular the institution's planning and evaluation processes that ensure regular review and improvement of the campus and ensure alignment
of the branch campus with the mission and goals of the institution as a whole.

Evidentiary Statements:

Numerous examples of continuous improvement were provided by staff who seek to break down barriers to student success. These initiatives are outlined in the campus Strategic Plan in a "Flow Chart of Stop Points/Barriers for OU-C Students" with current and future strategies included

The Ohio University Responsibility Centered Management planning and budgeting approach provides a systematic way of responding to the requests for new programs. As the regional campuses are successful with current programs, there will be requests for new programs like the ones heard by the
team from students for additional choices of majors in the bachelor degrees and the addition of some master's degrees at OU-C.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

Higher Learning Commission

Form

Multi-Campus Reviewer Form

After conducting the electronic and on-site portions of the Multi-Campus Evaluation, the assigned peer reviewer completes a Multi-Campus Reviewer Form. Peer reviewers should complete a separate template for each campus reviewed as part of a Multi-Campus Evaluation. The reviewer then e-mails
completed forms to the rest of the evaluation team, who then discuss and integrate the findings into the final comprehensive evaluation report in the Assurance System.

After the visit, the team chair should ensure that HLC receives a copy of all Multi-Campus Reviewer Forms, as they cannot yet be uploaded into the Assurance System. The completed forms should be sent to finalreports@hlcommission.org. The Multi-Campus Report from the institution and the Multi-Campus Reviewer Forms become part of the institution’s permanent file and are shared as appropriate with future evaluation teams.

Instructions

A Multi-Campus Reviewer Form should be no more than five pages. The Form begins with a brief description of the campus and its operations to provide the context for the on-site team’s deliberations.

For each review category, provide 2-3 evidence statements that make clear the team’s findings in relationship to the Criteria and Core Components. Check one of the following for each category:

• The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the review category. (The reviewer may cite ways to improve.)
• The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the review category.

This form does not request a recommendation from the reviewer(s). Instead, the full evaluation team is expected to include a discussion of the evidence related to the Multi-Campus Evaluations in its deliberations about the oversight, management, and educational quality of extended operations of the
institution. The team will incorporate evidence on extended operations into the final team report. Further, the full team may determine that a pattern of concern exists across multiple categories of a single campus or more than one campus and may result in a recommendation for additional monitoring or
sanction.

Report Template

Name of Institution: Ohio University

Name and Address of Branch Campus: Ohio University Chillicothe,101 University Drive, Chillicothe, OH 45601

Date and Duration of Visit: November 3, 2015

Reviewer(s): Dr. Mary Moore

1. Campus Overview

Provide a brief description of the scope and operations of the campus. Include information about consortial or contractual arrangements, if applicable.

Ohio University Southern (OUS) is one of five regional campuses, and is located in southeastern Ohio close to the borders of West Virgina and Kentucky; as such OUS draws students from the tri-state area.

The Southern campus enrollment is approximatley 2,000 students with about half under the age of 25. The Southern campus has an additional location in Proctorville which provides limited degrees and course offerings to students who may be some distance away from OUS. The Proctorville Center is
located in eastern Lawrence County across the bridge from Huntington, West Virginia. OUS and Proctorville are partners with Mountwest Community and Technical College through which Associate degree graduates are offered admittance into the Bachelor of Technical and Applied Studies, Bachelor of
Criminal Justice or Applied Management degree programs. In 2014, Ohio University hosted a Higher Learning Commission review of three additional locations which included the Proctorville Center. The report was positive and raised no issues to be addressed by the campus visit.

One unique program at OUS is the Associate degree in Equine Studies, which is housed at the Ohio Horse Park, a facility founded in 1995, as an academic division of Ohio University Southern. The park is a center of learning and opportunity for Ohio University students and the general public.

2. History, Planning, and Oversight

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the effectiveness of the institution’s planning, governance and oversight processes at the campus and in relationship to the broader systems of the institution, particularly as they relate to enrollment, budgeting, and resource allocation at the institution.

Evidentiary Statements:

Established in 1956 to offer two-year evening courses for teachers at Ironton High School, Ohio University Southern has grown to more than 30 degree and certificate programs. Southern's mission is "to educate, empower, and inspire" by providing quality higher education opportunities for those whose commitments to jobs and families inspire them to remain within their communities while attending college.

The Office of Regional Higher Education and Executive Dean provide oversight and convene the regional structure within which each individual campus participates and through which it receives guidance in planning and budgeting. The Southern campus has a Strategic Plan (2013-18) and tracks its
performance through dashboard indicators; both documents were shared with the team.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

3. Facilities and Technology

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s facilities and technology at the campus and their suitability to the needs of the students, staff and faculty, as well as the educational offerings. Consider, in particular, classrooms and laboratories (size, maintenance, temperature, etc.); faculty and administrative offices (site, visibility, privacy for meetings, etc.); parking or access to public transit; bookstore or text purchasing services; security; handicapped access; and other (food or snack services, study and meeting areas, etc.).

Evidentiary Statements:

The campus is an attractive setting that consists of four academic buildings that are interconnected and surrounded by green space. Each building houses classrooms, labs, multi-purpose space and service areas to support the eudcational mission of the campus. One goal of the 2013-18 strategic plan is to update the campus master plan. As reported by RHE, the Southern campus is well maintained and up-to-date. For example, it was reported to the team that the science labs are sufficient to meet the curricular needs of the campus. The team visited the labs and it is apparent that they are active teaching spaces that support undergraduate offerings. Computer labs and enriched technology classrooms that support video conferencing are available throughout the four buildings. The Campus Map shows the location of various support services like the bookstore, a café for food and snacks, and study and
meeting areas.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

4. Human Resources

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on appropriateness of faculty and staff qualifications, sufficiency of staff and faculty for the campus, and the processes for supporting and evaluating personnel at the campus. Consider the processes in place for selecting, training, and orienting faculty at the location, as well as the credentials of faculty dedicated to the campus and other faculty.

Evidentiary Statements:

According to the fall 2015 Fact Sheet, there are 19 full-time faculty, 23 part-time faculty, 125 adjunct faculty, 37 full-time staff, 2 part-time staff, and 6 temporary staff. Employing highly qualified faculty and staff is a priority for the regional campus system. As affirmed in Southern's Strategic Plan, Goal 1,
Objective 8, OUS strives to ensure quality academic programing. To this end, there are four listed actions including one to assure that there are qualified faculty for all course offerings.

Hiring processes are consistent with university policy and procedures. Regional campuses utilize the same hiring systems and staff performance evaluations as the Athens campus as evidenced in the Faculty Handbook. As reported, faculty evaluations typically include a combination of course evaluation data, scholarly activity and accomplishment, and service to the campus, to RHE, to Ohio University, to the profession, and to the greater community. Faculty credentials meet guidelines articulated by the Commission; for example, high school teachers hired for dual credit are required to have master's level preparation and at least 18 hours in the teaching area.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

5. Student and Faculty Resources and Support

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the student and faculty services and academic resources at the campus, as well as the processes to evaluate, improve, and manage them. Consider, in particular, the level of student access (in person, by computer, by phone, etc.) to academic advising/placement,
remedial/tutorial services, and library materials/services. Also, consider the level of access to admissions, registration/student records, financial aid, and job placement services, as well as attention to student concerns. Finally, consider the resources needed by faculty to provide the educational offerings.

Evidentiary Statements:

Student support services on the regional campuses are comparable to those available on the Athens campus but are localized on a given campus. Policies and procedures for each are established at the university level, but each campus has the autonomy to engage in pre-admission through admission
services. Each campus has the ability to uniquely tailor their marketing efforts. One recruiting advantage reported by students at Southern is tuition reciprocity for the tri-state area in which Soutern is located.

Academic support services are available to regional campus students in person and online. Those include academic advising, placement, retention services, remedial coursework, tutoring services, library services, and career services. The Southern campus staff spoke of new strategies in these areas such as testing Saturday hours and increased cross-training of office staff to better respond to student needs. The day-to-day role of the retention or student success staff is campus-specific.

Staffing shows appropriate positions such as a First year Program Coordinator, Technology Director, and Student Success Center Coordinators to provide support for campus-wide programs and services. Each regional campus has dedicated staff who focus on student retention.

Regional Higher Education supports faculty development through a number of programs, the most significant of which is the Course Release Program for scholarship, which enables faculty members to maintain a 4-3 course load for continual scholarly production.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

6. Educational Programs and Instructional Oversight

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s capacity to oversee educational offerings and instruction at the campus. Identify whether the institution has adequate controls in place to ensure that information presented to students is ample and accurate. Consider consistency of curricular expectations and policies, availability of courses needed for program and graduation requirements, performance of instructional duties, availability of faculty to students, orientation of faculty/professional development, attention to student concerns.

Evidentiary Statements:

As listed on the Campus Fact Sheet, there are 16 Associate degrees and 13 Bachelor degrees offered at the Southern campus. All academic programs are approved through the same university processes as exist for programs available on the Athens campus. Many of the undergraduate educational offerings are similar across the regional campuses, while some programs are unique to an individual campus such as

Equine Studies at Southern. Another program that fills a unique niche is Southern's Electronic Media program which provides significant applied learning opportunities for students through production projects and broadcast programs, while also greatly increasing the media services available to the
surrounding communities.

Expectations for faculty are articulated in the Faculty Handbook and are specified by type of faculty appointment. Full-time, part-time and adjunct faculty are oriented at the local campus and full-time faculty are invited to participate in the Athens faculty orientaition.

Students reported satisfaction with the availability of faculty, and went beyond this to speak about the importance of the mentoring relationships with faculty because many are first generation students or are returning to higher education as non-traditional students.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

7. Evaluation and Assessment

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements on the institution’s processes to evaluate and improve the educational offerings of the campus and to assess and improve student learning, persistence, and completion sufficiently to maintain and improve academic quality at the campus. Consider, in particular, the setting of outcomes, the actual measurement of performance, and the analysis and use of data to maintain/improve quality. Identify how the processes at a campus are equivalent to those for assessment and evaluation on the main campus.

Evidentiary Statements:

Retention and graduation rates, and satisfactory academic progress through course completion are tracked, measured against targets in the Campus Strategic Plan, and reported in the campus dashboard. All courses were revised including a review of learning goals in the quarter to semester transition in 2012. Programs are evaluated thorugh enrollment trends, advisory boards and the tracking of graduates to assure that student interests and workforce needs are being met.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

8. Continuous Improvement

Provide 2-3 evidentiary statements that demonstrate that the institution encourages and ensures continuous quality improvement at the campus. Consider in particular the institution's planning and evaluation processes that ensure regular review and improvement of the campus and ensure alignment
of the branch campus with the mission and goals of the institution as a whole.

Evidentiary Statements:

Through Strategic Planning and Responsibility Centered Management, which aligns budgeting and planning, there is continuing effort at improving the effectiveness and growing the impact of the regional campuses. There is great flexibility required of the regional campuses as they fill significant education
needs in developmental education, certificate programs, continuing education and dual credit with high schools, in addition to providing degree programs. State funding formulas focused on degree completion may not recognize the critical role that this spectrum of educational services provides to the region. As such, the regional campus must be continually engaged with evaluating and identifying sources of funding for their programs and services. For example, at Southern, the Campus Dean shared that they had joined with area partnters and successfully competed for $400,000 from a workforce development grant for environmental health programs.

Judgment of reviewer(s) (check one):

X The evidence indicates that the institution fulfills the expectations of the category.

The evidence indicates that there are concerns related to the expectations of the category.

Higher Learning Commission

A commission of the North Central Association

Internal Procedure 

Statement of Affiliation Status Worksheet

INSTITUTION and STATE: Ohio University OH

TYPE OF REVIEW: Comprehensive Quality Review

DESCRIPTION OF REVIEW: A multi-campus visit will occur in conjunction with the Comprehensive Quality Review to Chillicothe Campus (101 University Drive, Chillicothe, OH 45601), Southern Campus (1804 Liberty Ave, Ironton, OH 45638), and Zanesville Campus (1425 Newark Rd, Zanesville, OH 43701).

DATES OF REVIEW: 11/02/2015 - 11/04/2015

No Change in Statement of Affiliation Status

Nature of Organization

CONTROL: Public

RECOMMENDATION: No Change
DEGREES AWARDED: Associates, Bachelors, Doctors, Masters, Certificate

RECOMMENDATION: No Change

Conditions of Affiliation

STIPULATIONS ON AFFILIATION STATUS:
International degree programs are limited to the Master of Business Administration offered at three sites.

RECOMMENDATION: No Change

APPROVAL OF NEW ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS:
The institution has been approved for the Notification Program, allowing the institution to open new additional locations within the United States.

RECOMMENDATION: No Change

Recommendations for the
STATEMENT OF AFFILIATION STATUS

APPROVAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION DEGREES:
Approved for distance education courses and programs. Approved for correspondence education courses and programs.

RECOMMENDATION: No Change

ACCREDITATION ACTIVITIES:

AQIP, Comprehensive Quality Review: 11/02/2015
A multi-campus visit will occur in conjunction with the Comprehensive Quality Review to Chillicothe Campus (101 University Drive, Chillicothe, OH 45601), Southern Campus (1804 Liberty Ave, Ironton, OH 45638), and Zanesville Campus (1425 Newark Rd, Zanesville, OH 43701).
AQIP, Systems Appraisal: 11/01/2018
AQIP, Systems Appraisal: 11/01/2022

RECOMMENDATION: Delete above.

Summary of Commission Review

YEAR OF LAST REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION: 2008 - 2009

YEAR FOR NEXT REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION: 2015 - 2016

RECOMMENDATION: 2023-2024

Higher Learning Commission

A commission of the North Central Association

Internal Procedure 

ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE WORKSHEET

INSTITUTION and STATE: 1589 Ohio University OH

TYPE OF REVIEW: AQIP: Comprehensive Quality Review

DESCRIPTION OF REVIEW: A multi-campus visit will occur in conjunction with the Comprehensive Quality Review to Chillicothe Campus (101 University Drive, Chillicothe, OH 45601), Southern Campus (1804 Liberty Ave, Ironton, OH 45638), and Zanesville Campus (1425 Newark Rd, Zanesville, OH 43701).

No change to Organization Profile

Recommended Change:

Off-Campus Activities:
In State - Present Activity
Campuses:
Chillicothe Campus - Chillicothe, OH
Southern Campus - Ironton, OH
Lancaster Campus - Lancaster, OH
Eastern Campus - St. Clairesville, OH
Zanesville Campus - Zanesville, OH

Additional Locations:
Cambridge - Cambridge, OH
Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine - Dublin, OH
 

ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE WORKSHEET

Pickerington - Pickerington, OH
Proctorville - Proctorville, OH
South Pointe Hospital - Warrensville Heights, OH

Recommended Change:

Out Of State - Present Activity
Campuses: None.

Additional Locations: None.

Recommended Change:

Out of USA - Present Activity
Campuses: None.

Additional Locations: None.

Recommended Change:

Distance Education Programs:
Present Offerings:
Bachelor 24.0199 Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies and Humanities, Other Bachelor of Specialized Studies Internet

Bachelor 11.0103 Information Technology Bachelor of Technical and Applied Science Internet

Bachelor 45.0401 Criminology Bachelor of Criminal Justice Internet

Bachelor 51.3801 Registered Nursing/Registered Nurse Bachelor of Science in Nursing Internet

Master 51.0701 Health/Health Care Administration/Management Master of Health Administration Internet

Master 31.0501 Health and Physical Education/Fitness, General Master of Coaching Education Internet

Master 31.0501 Health and Physical Education/Fitness, General Master of Athletic Administration Internet

Master 14.0101 Engineering, General Master of Engineering Management Internet

Master 44.0401 Public Administration Executive Master of Public Administration Internet

Master 52.0201 Business Administration and Management, General Masters of Business Administration Internet

ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE WORKSHEET

Master 45.0601 Economics, General Master of Financial Economics Internet

Master 13.0401 Educational Leadership and Administration, General Master of Education Principal Preparation Program Internet

Master 45.0101 Social Sciences, General Master of Social Sciences Internet

Master 13.0406 Higher Education/Higher Education Administration Master of Education in Higher Education Internet

Master 14.0801 Civil Engineering, General Master of Civil Engineering Internet

Master 14.1001 Electrical and Electronics Engineering Master of Electrical Engineering Internet

Master 13.1101 Counselor Education/School Counseling and Guidance Services Clinical Mental Health Rehabilitation Counseling Internet

Master 09.0901 Organizational Communication, General Master of Arts in Organizational Communication Internet

Master 11.0901 Computer Systems Networking and Telecommunications Master of Information and Telecommunication Systems Internet

Master 44.0701 Social Work Master of Social Work Internet

Master 31.0504 Sport and Fitness Administration/Management Professional Master of Sports Administration Internet

Master 50.0903 Music Performance, General Master of Music Education Internet

Bachelor 52.0201 Business Administration and Management, General Bachelor of Science in Applied Management Internet

Bachelor 52.1001 Human Resources Management/Personnel Administration, General Bachelor of Science in Customer Service Management Internet

Master 13.0301 Curriculum and Instruction Master's in Curriculum and Instruction Internet

Master 52.0201 Business Administration and Management, General Professional MBA Internet

Master 31.0501 Health and Physical Education/Fitness, General Master of Education--Soccer Coaching Internet

Master 51.3801 Registered Nursing/Registered Nurse Master of Science in Nursing Internet

Bachelor 09.0101 Speech Communication and Rhetoric Bachelor of Applied Communication Internet

Bachelor 11.0103 Information Technology Bachelor of Science Technical Operations Management Internet

Master 31.0504 Sport and Fitness Administration/Management Master of Athletic Administration Internet

ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE WORKSHEET

Recommended Change:

Correspondence Education Programs:

Present Offerings:
Associate 52.1201 Management Information Systems, General Associate in Applied Business

Associate 24.0103 Humanities/Humanistic Studies Associate in Arts--Arts & Humanities Emphasis

Associate 24.0101 Liberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies Associate in Arts--Social Sciences Emphasis

Associate 30.9999 Multi-/Interdisciplinary Studies, Other Associate in Individualized Studies

Associate 24.0101 Liberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies Associate in Science

Recommended Change:

Contractual Relationships:

Present Offerings:
None.

Recommended Change:

Consortial Relationships:

Present Offerings:
None.

Recommended Change: