The Self Study Process and Report

The Self Study is a formal process by which an interpreter education program critically examines its structure and conceptual framework, judges the program's overall effectiveness relative to its mission, identifies specific strengths and weaknesses, and uses its assessment plan to indicated any necessary modifications and program improvements. The Self Study Report forms the basis of the accreditation process. The process should flow naturally out of a program's ongoing evaluation. It should include consideration of external factors influencing educational directions, as well as an assessment of the extent to which the program is in compliance with the National Interpreter Education Standards.

The Self Study Report is designed to address several questions in relation to the Standards:

  • What are the program’s mission, goals and objectives? Are they consistent with the mission, goals, and objectives of the institution? Are they appropriate to the current time, circumstances, and constituencies?
  • Is the conceptual model on which the curriculum is based (curriculum design) consistent with the mission?
  • Are all of the courses (objectives, teaching-learning strategies, evaluation methods) congruent with the curriculum design?
  • Is there empirical evidence that the objectives of the program are being achieved?
  • Are the human, physical, and fiscal resources needed to achieve the programs objectives available now? Are they likely to be available in the foreseeable future?
Interested programs are invited to view the National Interpreter Education Standards Rubric. In that document, one or more review questions appear next to each of the applicable National Interpreter Education Standards. These questions are intended to assist applicant programs in their evaluation of the extent to which they meet the Standards.

STEPS IN PREPARING THE SELF STUDY REPORT (SSR)

The Self Study Report preparation process should involve the various program stakeholders, including administration and faculty, practicum/internship mentors/supervisors, students, graduates, advisory committee members, and employers. The program has one year to complete the Self Study Report. The program may find it useful to appoint several committees, assigning to each the evaluation of aspects of program operations that relate to one or more of the Standards.

One individual, usually the program director, should serve as the coordinator and resource to the self study committees. Committee reports, each containing a summary of the findings relative to the Standards, including strengths and weakness, areas of concern, and commendations and recommendations, should then be used as a basis for completing the Self Study Report documentation. Participating programs should anticipate that after formally applying for accreditation and submitting the appropriate application fees, the following phases will occur.

  • The SSR process includes:
    • A list of program objectives
    • Identification of internal and external resources
    • Identification of individuals to be involved and delegation of responsibilities
    • Determination of appropriate time lines
    • Reporting mechanisms

  • The SSR process precedes the preparation of the final review and documentation. Although the requirements of the final review and report should be considered in the plan for the study, the initial focus should be on assessment and the evaluative process, not the document.

  • The SSR process should be comprehensive, examining in sufficient detail all aspects of the program, so that the peer review team can access program compliance with the standards.

  • The SSR process is both self evaluative and descriptive. It should include comments, suggestions for program enhancement, the resolution of current problems or weaknesses and plans for future change.

  • The SSR process relies on the participation of the entire faculty of the program. A small committee or a single individual is generally assigned responsibility for overseeing the process and the preparation of the report. The process must include input from faculty and administration, students, graduates, practicum/internship mentors/supervisors and employers.

  • The SSR process constitutes a substantial financial investment by the institution (see Fee Schedule). In addition, faculty time, clerical support, data gathering procedures, reproduction of the final document, and expenses associated with three site visitors are additional costs related to the accreditation process.

  • The SSR report also includes a statement of how the study was conducted, provides clear evidence that an identifiable process actually took place, and summarizes methods and findings. In this report, programs document how they satisfy the National Interpreter Education Standard.

SELF STUDY REPORT DOCUMENTATION

The program must provide specific details about how it satisfies each Standard. These details are sometimes in the form of specific documentation (job descriptions, faculty vitae, institutional catalogs, policies and procedures) and sometimes in narrative form (description of program facilities, assessment of the content of program curriculum, faculty professional development plans and institutional support).

Programs also have the opportunity to address areas that are not in compliance, stating their plans for ongoing improvement. The report contains a synopsis of relevant data, conclusions, and plans generated by the study.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

The lead reviewer of the external peer review team receives all documentation submitted by programs who have completed their respective Self Study Report. The peer reviewers conduct independent evaluations of the program. The lead reviewer collects the evaluations and determines if the reviewers are in consensus about a program’s compliance with the Standards. The review team's final report will include its determination of the program's compliance. If a program is determined to be in compliance, an on site visit will be scheduled. If a program is found to be not in compliance, they have the opportunity to remediated the deficiency and resubmit an SSR.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Peer reviewers and the on site team members must submit a list of all programs for whom it would be a conflict of interest to conduct a review. This list is submitted to the CCIE Board of Commissioners prior to to undertaking review of any programs. Reviewers and on site members are assigned to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

Updated June 2008