In April, using feedback from faculty, staff,
and students from the President's Advance (focused on the HLC),
the Criterion 2 team used those to examine how the criterion
statement and core components fit with the organizational units
and program activities at PVCC. The feedback also helped identify
resources, existing documentation, and strengths and weaknesses.
Judi and Casey, using feedback from the President's
Advance, using the core components of Criterion 2, created worksheets
that outlined each core component and created questions to be
answered by the sub-committee Core Component Specialists for
each core components.
Fall 2003
The co-chairs and sub-committee meet on a regular
basis throughout the fall semester to discuss the timelines,
the core components, and who would cover which core component.
There were some overlap on core components, i.e., not one person,
e.g., took only core component 2A. There could have been two
individuals working on 2A and the same two on 2B.
When all questions in the core components were
answered, i.e., documentation collected, meetings with specialists,
etc., the sub-committee turned in their completed
worksheets. Judi and I would use those to write up the part
for Criterion 2.
On November 14, 2003, there was an open forum
in which the college community was invited to get a report on
the progress made. The Criterion 2 "team" presented
its findings - emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses found,
challenges, trends, and opportunities to focus on (presentation)
in MS Powerpoint, PVCC History
in MS Word).
At the Open Forum, questions
based on Criterion 2 and its core components were provided to
the participants to aid the team in determining if all "bases"
were covered. The feedback from the participants was recorded
and given to the respective core component specialists for final
revision of their analyses. These revised documents were then
submitted to the co-chairs to begin to develop an outline of
the final report.
Spring/Summer 2004
A formal draft of the outline was submitted to
Rick Vaughn by the mid-February deadline. Included was a document
of how the feedback from the open forum was incorporated into
the process of the self-study report.
Based on the information gathered for us from
the sub-committee, and additional information gathered as the
writing occurred, Judi and Casey spent the spring and summer
months writing the report.
Fall 2004
The report was completed September 2004.
Once completed, the report was made available
to the sub-committee for their feedback regarding clarification,
changes, updates, modifications, etc.
On December 10, 2004, the self-study team met
to discuss the progress of the final documentation and final
revisisions and changes to be made.
