Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Toggle Navigation Menu
Linfield University banners on the McMinnville campus in spring

Year Seven Report

The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) explains that institutional self-studies are a part of “an ongoing process to understand, evaluate, and improve quality and effectiveness.” The goal of the process is to provide an evaluation of the overall quality of Linfield’s educational programs with a specific focus on student learning outcomes.

Data focused on student learning outcomes was compiled in a Year Seven Self-Study and submitted to external evaluators in early 2019.

Self Study Report

Linfield College Seven Year Self-Evaluation Report

Standard 1: Mission and Core Themes
Co-Chairs: Shaik Ismail and Jennifer Nordstrom

“The institution articulates its purpose in a mission statement and identifies core themes that comprise essential elements of that mission. In an examination of its purpose, characteristics, and expectations, the institution defines the parameters for mission fulfillment. Guided by that definition, it identifies an acceptable threshold or extent of mission fulfillment.”

Standard 2: Resources & Capacity
Co-Chairs: Laura Brener and Susan Barnes Whyte

“By documenting the adequacy of its resources and capacity, the institution demonstrates the potential to fulfill its mission, accomplish its core theme objectives, and achieve the intended outcomes of its programs and services, wherever offered and however delivered. Through its governance and decision-making structures, the institution establishes, reviews regularly, and revises, as necessary, policies and procedures that promote effective management and operation of the institution.”

Standard 3: Planning & Implementation
Co-Chairs: Charlotte Goddard and Chris Keaveney

“The institution engages in ongoing, participatory planning that provides direction for the institution and leads to the achievement of the intended outcomes of its programs and services, accomplishment of its core themes, and fulfillment of its mission. The resulting plans reflect the interdependent nature of the institution’s operations, functions, and resources. The institution demonstrates that the plans are implemented and are evident in the relevant activities of its programs and services, the adequacy of its resource allocation, and the effective application of institutional capacity. In addition, the institution demonstrates that its planning and implementation processes are sufficiently flexible so that the institution is able to address unexpected circumstances that have the potential to impact the institution’s ability to accomplish its core theme objectives and to fulfill its mission.”

Standard 4: Effectiveness & Improvement
Chairs: Michael Huntsberger, Jeff Mackay, and Melissa Robinson

“The institution regularly and systematically collects data related to clearly defined indicators of achievement, analyzes those data, and formulates evidence-based evaluations of the achievement of core theme objectives. It demonstrates clearly defined procedures for evaluating the integration and significance of institutional planning, the allocation of resources, and the application of capacity in its activities for achieving the intended outcomes of its programs and services and for achieving its core theme objectives. The institution disseminates assessment results to its constituencies and uses those results to effect improvement.”

Standard 5: Mission Fulfillment & Sustainability
Chairs: Susan Agre-Kippenhan, Michael Hampton, and Susan Hopp

“Based on its definition of mission fulfillment and informed by the results of its analysis of accomplishment of its core theme objectives, the institution develops and publishes evidence-based evaluations regarding the extent to which it is fulfilling its mission. The institution regularly monitors its internal and external environments to determine how and to what degree changing circumstances may impact its mission and its ability to fulfill that mission. It demonstrates that it is capable of adapting, when necessary, its mission, core themes, programs, and services to accommodate changing and emerging needs, trends, and influences to ensure enduring institutional relevancy, productivity, viability, and sustainability.”

Steering Committee

Jackson Miller, Accreditation Steering Committee Chair
Susan Agre-Kippenhan
Jennifer Ballard
Laura Brener
Kainoa Cuttitta
Charlotte Goddard
Michael Hampton
Susan Hopp
Michael Huntsberger
Shaik Ismail
Chris Keaveney
Jeff Mackay
Tom Mertes
Jen Nordstrom
Asa Richerson
Melissa Robinson
Susan Barnes Whyte