The Impact of Accreditation on Innovation, Educational Quality, and the Identity of Teacher Education Program by Su Yamin Latt A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 20, 2024 Approved Louise R. Moulding, Ph.D. Shernavaz Vakil, Ph.D. Sheryl J. Rushton, Ph.D. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 10 Nature of Accreditation..................................................................................................... 10 Crucial Role of Quality Assurance Process ...................................................................... 11 CHEA - Council for Higher Education Accreditation .......................................... 12 Accreditation Process............................................................................................ 12 Defining Continuous Improvement and Innovation ......................................................... 14 Accreditation Bodies ......................................................................................................... 15 CAEP - Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation ........................... 15 AAQEP – Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation .............. 17 Accountability ................................................................................................................... 19 Quality............................................................................................................................... 21 Transparency ..................................................................................................................... 22 Identity and Autonomy ..................................................................................................... 23 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 24 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 25 Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 25 Spring 2019 Questions .......................................................................................... 26 Spring 2020/ Fall 2020 Questions......................................................................... 26 Spring 2021/ Fall 2021/ Spring 2022 Questions ................................................... 27 Fall 2022/ Spring 2023 Questions......................................................................... 27 Innovation and Continuous Improvement 3 Included Data .................................................................................................................... 28 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 29 Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 30 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Discussions ................................................................................................................................... 38 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 39 Future Research ................................................................................................................ 40 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 40 References ..................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A: Approval from AAQEP........................................................................................... 45 Appendix B: IRB Approval .......................................................................................................... 45 Innovation and Continuous Improvement 4 Acknowledgement This project would not have been possible without love and support from my amazing professor and a chair to my project, Dr. Louise Richards Moulding and my amazing family in Utah and in Myanmar. I am immensely grateful for all the kindness and support they have shared with me throughout my journey in academia. With them in my life I was motivated to complete my project and graduate with my master’s which I had never imagined myself achieving in the first place. They are the people who bring light to my life and make me believe that everything is possible. First, I would like to express how grateful I am to have met professor Dr. Louise Richards Moulding. I have never expressed my gratitude to her in person and I always feel bad about it. She is my first ever professor who made me feel seen, heard, and valued. She never hesitates to go out her way to help me in every way possible and I am eternally grateful for that. She gave me motivation to strive for more and do better in everything I do. I honestly have never seen such a humble and inspiring person before, and I truly want to be a professor like her one day. I would like to thank you for giving me all the opportunities which I may or may not deserve and like to thank you for helping me complete my project with your genuine advice and feedback. I can really see that you care about the work I do, and it makes me feel valued. Secondly, I would like to thank my AAQEP team for supporting me with the data sources to complete my project. I would also like to thank Dr. Shernavaz Vakil and Dr. Sheryl J. Rushton for being wonderful committee members. With their sincere advice and feedback, I was able to incorporate better ideas and amend my project into a better version. I really appreciate how flexible and supportive they are. And I was delighted that we all made a good team for my Innovation and Continuous Improvement 5 project, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. I also would like to thank all the faculty and staff at Weber State University for being so helpful and kind. Finally, for my parents and family who supported me with their unconditional love in accomplishing my goals, I will be forever grateful. I have never imagined myself getting a Masters in the United States, but it has all been possible with great people around me. I promise myself, that this girl from a small country called Myanmar/ Burma will keep on striving for the betterment in her life until she become a professor one day or become an advocate for the underrepresented children who also dream of having an opportunity to thrive in their life just like me. Every child has a dream, and I would want to be a part of it by helping them fulfill it. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 6 Abstract Accreditation of the institutions and programs plays a significant role in maintaining the reputation of the institutions as well as to assure the quality of education to the candidates. Although the process is found to be time consuming and scrutinized the framework and identity of the programs and institutions that has already been in place, many of the institutions believe that accreditation ensures the success by strengthening the quality, accountability, and transparency of their programs. The increase in demand for programs and institutions being accredited is undeniable. More and more programs and institutions in the US are participating in accreditation and self-study processes under various accreditation bodies for the same reason which is to prove quality of education they offer. This project investigated the impact of accreditation processes specific to teacher education preparation programs by the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) on continuous improvement efforts and innovative practices. Additionally, the project looked at the challenges that programs and institutions went through while participating in the accreditation process. The survey results analyzed in this study were based on a member survey distributed by AAQEP to 83 participating institutions across three academic years. The results show that there were continuous improvement efforts by 47% and innovative practices by 36% by the responding EPPs. Continuous improvement efforts and innovative practices in areas such as logistics of accreditation (collecting, managing data, and teamwork) as well as in building external relationships are significant. While student support was reinforced as innovative practices according to the survey data. The accreditation process is somewhat challenging since 6% of the survey response indicates obstacles that programs and institutions faced in the process of getting their teacher education preparation programs accredited. Innovation and Continuous Improvement Keywords: accreditation, quality, self-study process, teacher education preparation program, identity, continuous improvement efforts, innovative practices, scrutinized 7 Innovation and Continuous Improvement 8 The Impact of Accreditation on Innovation, Educational Quality, and the Identity of Teacher Education Program Higher Education program quality is critical to the success and image of institutions. Accreditation bodies serve the purpose of quality assurance and help universities gain trust from the societies to their program through the process of accreditation and the results of program evaluation. Accreditation is a process for quality assurance of higher education which encourages success, improvement, and innovation of the institutions (Eisenberg & Rafanello, 1998). The quality of teaching and learning is enhanced through the process of accreditation which sets core academic values through quality indicators such as criteria, standards, and targets of evaluations (Hamalainen, 2003). Eaton (2010) claimed that “Today more than seven thousand colleges and universities and more than twenty thousand programs serving some twenty-four million students willingly undergo periodic accreditation review by nineteen institutional accreditors and sixty-one programmatic accreditors” (p. 21). A study highlighted a prominent role of accreditation and the self-study process that ensures institutions gain trust from societies in their programs and quality of education they offer (Hamalainen, 2003). A set of standards, criteria, expectations, and indicators are a core framework of the accreditation bodies that are prominent in evaluation process to determine the quality of the programs and institutions. To receive accreditation, institutions must provide evidence of meeting the standards, using measures that are deemed acceptable for a given period. The intensity of the supervision and evaluation process strengthens the accountability, transparency, and competency of the institutions (Hamalainen, 2003). Some studies suggested that the impact of accreditation on institutions and programs is subject to changes and improvements (Perveen et al., 2021). Even so, being accredited by an accrediting agency is not a simple task as it requires Innovation and Continuous Improvement 9 institutions to meet expected outcomes and certain levels of standards and fulfill the objectives (Hamalainen, 2003). Most of the time the conditions are applied to areas such as quality, attainment, effectiveness, financial viability, outcomes, sustainability, and so on (Hamalainen, 2003). One of the studies highlighted that accrediting agencies maintain control of the selfregulation process of the institution undergoing accreditation based on the standards and policies (Romanowski, 2022). Educational institutions seeking accreditation are continually influenced and controlled by the accreditation agencies according to some studies, and this includes consideration of cultural aspects in the policies of education system (Romanowski, 2022). It is apparent that the standard procedures of the accreditation process require institutions to develop valid and reliable evidence to demonstrates the program having been met the standards which consequently undermine the innovation of the institutions (Romanowski, 2022). Accreditation and quality assurance of programs and institutions are sophisticated and include so many details that it can be difficult for the institution seeking accreditation to have a clear idea about quality and the expectations for the process (Hamalainen, 2003). The frameworks of the evaluation process specifically for accreditation and standardization involve potentially challenging requirements and undermine different cultural contexts. If the requirements of the accreditation process are too complicated, particularly ignoring the identity and autonomy of the programs and institutions, then innovation is inhibited in the name of accreditation (Aronson & Anderson, n.d.). Therefore, this study examined the perceptions of Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) accredited by the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) on issue of innovation and continuous improvement as a result of the accreditation process. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 10 Literature Review Nature of Accreditation The nature of the accreditation process is evaluative which involves a process of critical evaluation of each component of the teacher education programs and institutions with a predetermined set of standards, criteria, and indicators. Idris et al. (2022) explained that accreditation is a formal process that ensures the effectiveness of an institution or selfassessment system, which is measured by a third party and forms a development plan of the grey area with the attention and develops a sense of improvement in terms of set standards in which grey area refers to the infrastructure, vision, and mission of the institution. The accreditation process emphasizes quality assurance of the programs and assures that programs and institutions are maintaining the quality of their educational practices, services, and their organizational structure. Romanowski (2022) claimed that “The role of accreditation is to assure that the standards that uniquely define institutions and programs are adhered to so that their increasingly high cost produce solid value” (p. 201). Hall (2012) exemplified the role of the accreditation agencies as “… a gatekeeper role in determining the eligibility of institutions and programs to receive federal and state grants and loans” (p. 233). Accreditation reflects several different core values of higher education which signifies quality control of the programs and institutions. The core values of higher education pivoted around academic quality, institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and peer and professional review (Eaton, 2010). The impact of accreditation strengthens the success of higher education programs and institutions as it sustains the quality of educational practices and encourages continuous improvement and innovation of the programs (Hou, 2011). The accreditation process facilitates multiple services like on-site visits and support by supervisors, workshops for the Innovation and Continuous Improvement 11 staff, classroom observations, conducting assessments, working closely with faculty, staff, and directors, etc. (Eisenberg & Rafanello, 1998). Critical elements of the accreditation process are accountability, transparency, and quality which are then reviewed by the accreditation agencies to evaluate and determine the quality of the programs and institutions. Crucial Role of Quality Assurance Process The quality assurance process promotes networking, self-study process, staff development workshops and many other crucial features that hold significance to improving the quality of higher education programs and institutions (Eisenberg & Rafanello, 1998). Romanowski (2020) highlighted how accreditation process specifically the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), promotes excellence in educator preparation through evidence-based accreditation based on two objectives. The two objectives that Romanowski (2020) mentioned were “to raise the performance of candidates as practitioners in the nation’s P-12 schools” and “to raise the stature of the profession; by raising standards for the evidence the field relies on, to support its claims of quality” (p. 2). The majority of the people and institutions are attentive to accreditation and the quality of education that they will be attaining. The institutions seek accreditation to attract students through the educational quality and their transparency of the policy and practices in place. On the other hand, students seek higher education at institutions that are accredited and offer education with strong quality control (Hall, 2012). One study conducted in Pakistan claimed that the accreditation process significantly enhanced the structure of the programs or institutions and the quality of education (Perveen et al., 2021). As global competitiveness intensifies, all countries are seeking additional support through third-party agencies to improve their school and to keep up with higher social and economic expectations. It is also stated in some studies that accrediting Innovation and Continuous Improvement 12 bodies drive innovation and changes through their standards and quality control procedures (Hamalainen, 2003; Solbrekke & Surgue, 2013). The prominence of higher education accreditation is profound in the study in which Mitchell (2015) asserted that “Most professions rely heavily on higher education accreditation to help ensure that graduates have the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies as determined by a set of national professional standards” (p. 56). Accreditation and self-study process thus encourages programs and institutions to engage in continuous improvement and innovation. CHEA - Council for Higher Education Accreditation The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is a major national voice and advocate for higher education accreditation and quality assurance. It recognizes U.S. accrediting organizations, including regional, national career-related, national faith-related and programmatic accrediting organizations (Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2023). CHEA accreditation and recognition are not limited to specific programs or professions in higher education since it is an institutional accreditation body. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) and many other accrediting bodies are specifically accredited and managed by CHEA. Standard 1: Academic Quality and Student Achievement Standard 2: Accountability and Transparency Standard 3: Accreditation Structure and Organization Standard 4: Capacity and Compliance for International Accreditation Accreditation Process Self-study. Self-study process is an initial phase of the quality assurance process where a self-study report is required to be submitted as a primary document of the program. It Innovation and Continuous Improvement 13 demonstrates in what area or aspects of the program are align with the compliance standards and criteria for accreditation (ABET, 2021). CHEA (1998) stated that “Academic program conduct a self-study using the accrediting association’s set of expectations about quality as their guide”. Peer-review, Monitoring and Site Visit. Watermark (2024) claimed peer-review as “A trained accrediting team of higher education professionals from accrediting body visits the institution to observe, validate the self-assessment, and create reports” (p. 2). On-site evaluations are conducted during peer review and site visit phase where a trained accrediting team observes class lectures, learning activities and other areas such as operations, resources, program facilities and etc. CHEA (1998) similarly stated peer-review process as “A team of peers selected by the accreditation association to review the evidence, visits the campus to interview the faculty and staff, and writes a report of its assessment including a recommendation to the commission of the accrediting association” (p. 2). Action (Judgment) of Accrediting Organization. Action which is also known as judgement of accreditation process is mainly guided by a set of expectations about quality and integrity. The judgement is propelled by the evidence provided and assessments performed while the programs undergo accreditation process. A group of peer faculty and professionals makes judgement and communicates the decision to the institution (CHEA, 1998). The process prescribed by CHEA is summarized in Figure 1. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 14 Figure 1 CHEA Accreditation Process Cycle Accreditation Process Cycle Initial Accreditation Process Submission of SelfStudy Report Assessement of the Report/ Peer Review Continuing or Re-accreditation after 5 or 7 years Site Visit by Accrediting Team Review and Feedback Site Visit by Accrediting Team (Observation) Decision and Action Decision and Action Defining Continuous Improvement and Innovation For the purposes of this report, continuous improvement is defined as a modification or enhancement of the processes and practices in place, while innovation involves shifting towards a new direction. Institutions participating in the self-study process under Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation seek continuous improvement by consistently striving for positive changes to a pre-existing system. Sometimes these efforts lead members to generate innovative paths and new directions. One of the articles from Easley II (2017) stated continuous improvement as “… a value-driven and people-centered framework aimed at Innovation and Continuous Improvement 15 continual learning and quality improvement within a system through iterative methodologies bound by time and context” (p. 1). Innovation emerges when the programs and institutions embrace the transformative power of accreditation which propels a new realm of creativity and progress beyond the traditional role of ensuring quality standards (IAO, 2019). Accreditation Bodies Because the literature emphasizes on accreditation bodies and accreditation process of teacher education programs and institutions, this section will provide some of the general information and standards of some of the existing accreditation bodies for teacher education programs in the US. CAEP - Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) merged to form CAEP in September 2014. NCATE is recognized only by CHEA and not the United States Department of Education (USDE). The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards are embedded in CAEP standards. CAEP bylaws require a review standards every seven years. Review of standards and changes include consolidation, clarification, and removal of extraneous language (CAEP, 2020). CAEP accreditation is granted for 7 years to Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) once they have completed their final report and have met all CAEP’s standards and components, even if areas of improvement (AFIs) are identified. Probationary accreditation is granted for EPPs that does not meet one of the CAEP standards. Probationary accreditation is granted for 2 years which allows EPPs to submit and response to the standards they have not met during that time frame. Failure to respond to the requirements will result in automatic revocation of accreditation (CAEP, 2023). Innovation and Continuous Improvement 16 Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge Candidates of the program demonstrate content and pedagogical knowledge by applying critical concepts and principles to accommodate learner’s development and learning differences. Candidates create safe and supportive learning environments for diverse P-12 students and their families. Candidates take responsibility for student learning and collaborate with others, act ethically, and engage in professional learning (CAEP, 2023). Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice Provider works with partners to design and implement clinical experience and coconstruct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements for clinical preparation. Partners support high-quality clinical educators, both provider and school-based (CAEP, 2023). Standard 3: Candidate, Recruitment, Progression and Support Recruitment of high-quality candidates from diverse backgrounds. Providers creates and monitors transition points from admission through completion and ensures candidate possess academic competency to teach effectively with positive impacts on diverse P-12 student learning and development (CAEP, 2023). Standard 4: Program Impact Program completers effectively contribute to P-12 student learning growth and apply the professional knowledge and skills in P-12 classrooms. Employer are satisfied with the completers’ preparation for their assigned responsibilities (CAEP, 2023). Standard 5: Quality Assurance System and Continuous Improvement Providers implement effective data and record keeping system to generate reports and engage in regular and systematic performance assessment. Provider includes relevant internal and external stakeholders in program evaluation and continuous improvement (CAEP, 2023). Innovation and Continuous Improvement 17 Standard 6: Fiscal and Administrative Capacity EPP has fiscal capacity, administrative capacity, and resources to support high-quality work within the EPP and its school partners and to operate coherent programs of study. EPP has professional education faculty that have earned doctorates or equivalent P-12 teaching experiences (CAEP, 2023). Standard 7: Record of Compliance with Title IV of the Higher Education Accreditation Only for EPPs seeking access to Title IV funds (CAEP, 2023). The CAEP accreditation process is summarized in Figure 2. Figure 2 CAEP Accreditation Process Annual Reporting Self-Study Process Formative Review Visit AAQEP – Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation The Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) is a membership association and quality assurance agency whose mission is to promote and recognize quality educator preparation. AAQEP is recognized as a national accrediting organization for educator preparation programs by the CHEA and works with its members to support excellent educator preparation that is engaged in meeting local needs. AAQEP was founded in 2017 and was created to provide accreditation services and formative support to all types of educator preparation providers. AAQEP mission is to strengthen the education profession’s ability to serve all students, schools, and communities, and to do so equitably. Over 200 educator preparation providers in 36 states and other jurisdictions are Innovation and Continuous Improvement 18 members of AAQEP. Out of 200 providers, 108 providers in 24 states and territories are currently AAQEP accredited (AAQEP, 2024). Most providers complete a Quality Assurance Report in application for 7-year accreditation status. AAQEP also provides an option known as Initial Accreditation Pathway (IAR) to facilitate providers transitioning from another accreditor and for providers with new or newly revised programs. Providers who chose IAR will be granted 5 years accreditation status after completion of IAR report and accreditation decision. Standard 1: Candidate/ Completer Performance Completers of the program support learning development and success of all learners as a professional educator (AAQEP, 2023). Standard 2: Completer Professional Competence and Growth Completers of the program engage in professional development and growth. Completers of the program adapt to working in a variety of contexts (AAQEP, 2023). Standard 3: Quality Program Practices The program has the capacity to support completers in meeting standards 1 and 2 (AAQEP, 2023). Standard 4: Program Engagement in System Improvement Programs engage in strengthening the P-20 education system to fulfill local needs and in keeping with the program’s mission (AAQEP, 2023). The process for AAQEP accreditation is summarized in Figure 3. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 19 Figure 3 AAQEP Accreditation Process Getting StartedScope and Design The Accreditation Proposal The Quality Assurance Report Appendices to the Quality Assurance Report Professional Engagement in Peer Review The Quality Assurance Review The Accreditation Decision Maintaining Accreditation Accountability Accountability refers to the responsibility of teachers, faculty, staff, and any other members in the program for the students and their learning progress and can be related to an individual member or teacher education program. Accreditation bodies support the programs and institutions by observing and taking students learning and competence into account to meet the standards and expectations of the policymakers. A study suggested that the process of improvement in the programs and institutions was apparent as they continued to engage in the accreditation process by validating and reflecting on their core values and supporting student learning and engagement (Mitchell, 2015). Accreditors observe students’ outcomes, the assessment system in place, graduates’ impact on P-12 students and pedagogical practices. The Innovation and Continuous Improvement 20 moral and social responsibilities of an obliged professional in the programs and institutions were controlled in a form of predetermined standards by accreditors to achieve quality control (Solbrekke & Surgue, 2013). However, one study highlighted that accountability could also go other way when Romanowski (2022) explained “Colleges of education are held accountable for developing systems that efficiently collect, manage, and interpret reliable and valid evidence that can be used for continuous improvement” (p. 406). A study explained the emphasis on greater accountability from accreditation demanded explicit quantitative standards for student achievement and more involvement in the work of accreditation (Eaton, 2010). Although accountability reflects the core value of an accreditation process, a study found that faculty, teachers, and staff feel pressured due to high expectations and accountability measures from the accreditor. Moreover, they confess to being scrutinized on their job responsibilities and being questioned for their integrity and quality of work (Eaton, 2010). Solbrekke and Surgue (2013) also mentioned in their study that “A deconstruction of the concepts of professional ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’, enables us to identify the rationale of the accreditation process and the tensions between the different logics embedded in the accreditation process” (p. 13). Another study also claimed that federal government involvement had pushed accreditor not only to require that institutions set expectations for student achievement but also to judge whether the expectations themselves met accreditation standards which signifies the challenges in participating quality assurance and accreditation process (Eaton, 2010). Moreover, Aronson and Anderson (n.d.) suggested that the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standardizations and accountability practices are not helping institutions to produce more competent teachers but rather scrutinizing the teacher education practices and limiting their independence in implementing related coursework and Innovation and Continuous Improvement 21 pedagogy. On the other hand, some studies found that accreditation and accountability practices helped improve knowledge, skills and competencies of obliged professionals involved (Eisenberg & Rafanello, 1998; Hamalainen, 2003). Quality Quality of teacher education programs and institutions was assessed by accreditors based on self-regulation, improvement of knowledge and skill being assessed, improvement in classroom quality, improvement in organizational climate, autonomy, students’ outcomes and many more (Eisenberg & Rafanello, 1998). Idris et al. (2022) stated that quality “…refers to the progress of a pre-determined level of quality of result, usually by the center of attention at very useful delivery procedure” (p. 669). Quality assessment is a critical phase of the accreditation process that ensures whether the program or institution will attain accreditation or a benchmark by achieving a set of standards and criteria determined by quality assurance agencies. The effectiveness of the accreditation system also correlates to the quality improvement of the programs and institutions participating in the self-study process (Lamarra, 2003). On the other hand, maintaining the quality of the education, policies, and practices in addition to adhering to the standards and criteria under the name of being “accreditized” evidently places programs and institutions under the pressure of accreditation ‘s control (Romanowski, 2022). High expectations from the public and global market resulted in programs and institutions desperately seeking higher education accreditation to assert the quality of educational services they offered, to perceive positive recognition and to develop competitive economies (Romanowski, 2022). All the programs and institutions participating in the accreditation process were obligated to develop valid and reliable evidence which was also known as a quality assurance report. It is to demonstrate that they had met the accreditation standards which could Innovation and Continuous Improvement 22 be a challenging task and often involved reforming standard procedures and frameworks in place to maintain the quality control measures determined by the accreditors (Idris et al., 2022). Some of the studies also found that the intense quality control measures of the accreditation agencies often compromise the autonomy and academic freedom of the programs, institutions and the individuals involved (Aronson & Anderson, n.d; Eaton, 2010; Romanowski, 2022). However, Eisenberg and Rafanello (1998) stated that quality control and evaluation process empowered the programs and institutions to engage in continuous improvement and innovation. Moreover, a study in Pakistan found that the accreditation process significantly enhanced the structure of the programs or institutions and the quality of education (Perveen et al., 2021). Transparency Transparency in teacher education involves public access to information, coursework and design of the programs and institutions, and most importantly the information about the learning outcomes that the students can expect. Transparency supports student success by making information about the programs easily accessible and actionable so that it can be easily understood and pursued knowing what it takes to earn them and which career pathway they can lead. The institutions seek accreditation to attract students through the educational quality and their transparency of the policy and practices in place whereas students seek higher education at the institutions that are accredited and offer education with strong quality control (Eaton, 2010; Hall, 2012). Eaton (2010) asserted that accreditors considered transparency as an explicit quantitative measure of students’ achievement which is accessible to the public and for the administrative system of the programs and institutions to disclose critical information that plays a prominent role in quality assurance reports. He further explained that faculty and staff felt indifferent regarding the concept of transparency embedded in the process of accreditation, as Innovation and Continuous Improvement 23 some of them said that it is rather demanding and intrusive when it comes to the quality of their work and the information of the students. However, some of the studies suggested that transparency is a key to the success of the programs and institutions in both global and local market economies since students are curious about what quality education they will be receiving and whether it will be worth their investment (Hou, 2011; Solbrekke & Surgue, 2013). Therefore, transparency is crucial for the programs to ensure the quality of their education which is also exhibited through making coursework, administrative structure, quality reports and many other accessible to the public (Hall, 2012). Identity and Autonomy Eaton (2010) highlighted the involvement of the federal government in terms of accreditation and the implications it has on the institution seeking accreditation. The pressure and scrutiny of federal recognition process on accreditation bodies has impacted the academic freedom and self-study process of the institutions. Neocolonialism of CAEP not only impacts the institutions and programs inside the US but also outside of the US as CAEP assert control over the policies and practices of institutions through its standards and neglecting the cultural contexts of the institutions outside of the U.S. CAEP standards and criteria exhibit high expectations and inflexibility according to the study. It expects the institutions and programs to strictly follow the guidelines they have provided which also impacts the innovation and the existing policies and practices of the institutions and programs (Romanawski, 2022). According to Hall (2012), it is apparent that the programs and institutions must compromise their identity and innovation in the name of accreditation under the accreditors. One of the studies found that due to critical accountability practices and demands teachers required exposure to social justice ideology and progressive teaching practices to make Innovation and Continuous Improvement 24 changes in the future which also results in teachers having a hard time adjusting to changes, especially in diverse and multicultural classrooms. Moreover, NCATE standardizations and accountability practices are not helping institutions to produce more competent teachers but rather scrutinizing the teacher education practices and limiting their independence in implementing related coursework and pedagogy (Aronson & Anderson, n.d.). Romanowski (2020) explained that control is exerted over employees through guidelines and training, resulting in CAEP controlling the process, knowledge, educator preparation programs (EPPs), and candidates. The result is the reduction of employee knowledge and skills or the de-skilling of workers. Some studies highlighted that accreditors fail to acknowledge the cultural context of the international programs and institutions since all the standards are applied as U.S. education systems without considering the adjusting and changes, they need to make depending on the cultural background of the programs and institutions (Hall, 2012; Hou, 2011; Murray, 2012; Perveen, 2022; Romanowski, 2020; Romanowski, 2022). Purpose The literature affirms that further investigation is needed to evaluate the process of accreditation for teacher education programs and institutions. The purpose of the study was to gain insight into the role of accreditation on EPP innovation and continuous improvement. A bulk of studies claimed that the quality assurance and self-study process has compromised the autonomy and the identity of the programs and institutions which will also be another interest of this study. The objective of this project is to investigate innovation and continuous improvement as part of the accreditation process. The three questions are used to help address the objective: Innovation and Continuous Improvement 25 1. To what extent do programs and institutions engage in continuous improvement and innovation? 2. What are the changes that educator preparation programs undertake in the process of accreditation? 3. What are the challenges that educator preparation programs faced in the process of accreditation? Methods This project was an investigative study which was based on a survey questionnaire conducted by AAQEP with the programs and institutions participating in their self-study and quality assurance process. The programs and institutions prepared a self-study report based on the standards and criteria established by AAQEP. Additional guidance, site visits, assessments, reviews, and feedback are provided by AAQEP and their professional team to the participant in a timely manner. Instrument The survey questionnaire was distributed to the primary contact at participating institutions upon receiving their accreditation decision who was asked to reflect on the AAQEP quality assurance process. The survey responses included details of the experience from the stakeholder’s side which AAQEP can utilize to reflect on their standards and to incorporate additional support and guidance needed for the betterment of the quality assurance process. The questionnaire consisted of multiple open-ended questions and Likert scale questions in the form of reflection from the participating institutions and programs on their experience with AAQEP accreditation. These responses were analyzed further to determine a common theme. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 26 The survey questionnaire was collected across different school years and semesters. This research focused on the survey collected in Spring 2019 through Spring 2023. The survey was conducted across 83 institutions that were public, private (not-for-profit) and private (for-profit) providing Associates, Baccalaureate, Master’s, Doctoral, Special Focus and Non- Institutions of Higher Education (IHE)-based programs. The AAQEP Provider Survey was sent to the primary contact of each member institution undergoing the AAQEP accreditation process (self-study, site visit, and review) within a week of receiving their accreditation decision. The survey consisted of the following open-ended questions: Spring 2019 Questions - In what ways has AAQEP’s accreditation process led to program improvement? - What else would you like AAQEP to know about your experience with the quality assurance review process? Spring 2020/ Fall 2020 Questions - What else would you like AAQEP to know about your experience with the quality assurance review process? - Reflecting on your experience with the AAQEP accreditation process, please comment on the ways in which it impacted (a) The academic quality of your program(s); (b) The success of candidates in your program(s); (c) The success of completers of your program(s); and (d) Your engagement with stakeholders or partner schools. - Reflecting on your experience with the AAQEP accreditation process, please comment on the ways in which it supported or encouraged innovation in your program. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 27 Spring 2021/ Fall 2021/ Spring 2022 Questions - If you completed the optional accreditation proposal, in what ways did it assist you as you moved forward in the self-study process? - Reflecting on your experience with the AAQEP accreditation process, please comment on the ways in which it impacted the academic quality of your program(s). - Reflecting on your experience with the AAQEP accreditation process, please comment on the ways in which it impacted the success of candidates in your program(s). - Reflecting on your experience with the AAQEP accreditation process, please comment on the ways in which it impacted the success of completers of your program(s). - Reflecting on your experience with the AAQEP accreditation process, please comment on the ways in which it impacted your engagement with stakeholders or partner schools. - Reflecting on your experience with the AAQEP accreditation process, please comment on the ways in which it supported or encouraged innovation in your program. - What do you wish you had known that would have helped you feel better prepared for any stage of the AAQEP process? - What else would you like AAQEP to know about your experience with the quality assurance review process? Fall 2022/ Spring 2023 Questions - In what ways did that accreditation proposal process assist you as you moved forward in the self-study process? - To what degree did the process impact the academic quality of your program(s)? - Please comment on the ways in which the process impacted the academic quality of your program(s). Innovation and Continuous Improvement 28 - To what degree did the process impact the success of your program completers? - Please comment on the ways in which the process impacted the success of your program completers. - To what degree did the process impact your engagement with stakeholders or P-12 partners? - Please comment on the ways in which the process impacted your engagement with stakeholders or P-12 partners. - To what degree did the process support or encourage innovation in your program? - Please comment on the ways in which the process supported or encouraged innovation in your program. - What do you wish you had known that would have helped you feel better prepared for any stage of the AAQEP process? - What else would you like AAQEP to know about your experience with the quality assurance review process? Included Data The survey was optional, therefore the data collected is from those primary contacts who chose to participate. The provider survey was distributed by AAQEP to institutions that initially agreed to participate (see Appendix A). It was conducted across different school years such as Spring 2019 through Spring 2023 and among them were public, private (not-for-profit), and private (for-profit) institutions. During the time frame from Spring 2019 to Spring 2023, 123 programs and institutions were accredited. The first survey was conducted in Spring 2019 where 9 institutions participated. The second round of survey was conducted in Spring 2020 and Fall 2020 where 11 institutions participated. The third survey was conducted in Spring 2021, Fall Innovation and Continuous Improvement 29 2021 and Spring 2022 where 36 institutions participated, and the most recent survey was conducted in Fall 2022 and Spring 2023 where 27 institutions participated. The survey responses were documented in an excel spreadsheet which was then utilized for in-dept data analysis for this project. Data Analysis The selected survey data was collected into a spreadsheet for in-depth analysis. For the first analysis, the spreadsheet was collectively reviewed to identify survey responses that described innovative practices or continuous improvement efforts or challenges that compromise identity of the program or institutions. Although there were specific questions that prompted a response about innovation or continuous improvement, all responses from the same institution were coded for further data analysis if the response indicated potential continuous improvement efforts, innovative practices, or challenges. Responses of interest were then collected into a second Excel spreadsheet for further analysis. In the second analysis, responses were coded as continuous improvement if it described the modification of an existing practice and as an innovation if it described the initiation of a new practice. Coded responses were further analyzed to identify the specific innovation or continuous improvement effort, as well as the most likely catalyst for the change (AAQEP Staff, AAQEP Reviewer, external partner, institutional staff/leadership, or other). As the second round of analysis was engaged, the data indicated that the institutional innovation and continuous improvement efforts could be sorted into the following five categories, which reflected the area of work that the effort addressed: • Logistics of Accreditation Process (changes to collecting, managing, reporting, and using programmatic data, collaboration within quality assurance team) Innovation and Continuous Improvement • 30 Internal Relationships (building relationships within the educator preparation program – leaders, faculty, staff, students) • External Relationships (building relationships with individuals or entities external to the educator preparation program – external partners, program completers, etc.) • Student Support (providing support to current students/candidates) • Programmatic (changes to curriculum, admission standards or processes, etc.) The third round of analysis was focused on identifying the categorical placement of each of the coded responses. Many responses contained multiple categories of work and were marked appropriately to reflect this fact. Procedures After receiving IRB approval (Appendix B), the initial phase of the research involves analyzing survey questions and the pattern of the responses by the institutions. The survey questions were open ended questions that anticipate descriptive answers from the respondents. The data collected from the survey were documented in a spreadsheet which were then closely observed to identify any activity done by the institutions during the self-study process that reinforces the quality of continuous improvement or innovation to the program or describe any challenges during the process. The survey conducted on a multitude of institutions reflect on the success of candidates, engagement with stakeholders or partner schools, academic quality, the quality assurance review process, and the ways in which AAQEP review process supported or encouraged innovation to the program. The spreadsheets were divided into 4 sections for 4 data sets from Spring 2019 through Spring 2023. Each of the data sets contains columns for data analysis. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 31 The spreadsheets created for in-depth data analysis contains columns with headings as follows: - Spring 2019/ Spring 2020, Fall 2020/ Spring 21, Fall 21, Spring 22 / Fall 2022, Spring 2023 (Year of data being analyzed) - Institution (Code names for institutions such as A, H1, K1, B) - Control (Public, Private not-for-profit or Private-for-profit) - Provider Type (Master’s large/small/medium, Baccalaureate, Doctoral very high research, Doctoral high research, Doctoral/professional, Associate, Special Focus, NonIHE-based) - Highlighted Column (Response from the survey that was highlighted on the initial spreadsheet) - Question (Questions being asked for that response) - Innovation or Continuous Improvement (Decided whether it was innovation or continuous improvement based on the data analysis of the highlighted column) - Catalyst: AAQEP (staff, reviewer), External, Internal, Other (What triggered the innovation or continuous improvement? Was it AAQEP (staff, reviewer), External, Internal team, or Other) - Innovation (If it is decided as an innovation, what was the key word in the survey response?) A tally point system was used to categorize where an innovation or continuous improvement belongs. - Logistics of accreditation process (collecting, managing data, teamwork) - Internal relationships (within Educator Preparation Program) Innovation and Continuous Improvement 32 - External relationships (partners, completers etc.) - Student Support - Programmatic (curriculum, admission) - Continuous Improvement (If it is decided as an innovation, what was the key word in the survey response?) - Logistics of accreditation process (collecting, managing data, teamwork) - Internal relationships (within Educator Preparation Program) - External relationships (partners, completers etc.) - Student Support - Programmatic (curriculum, admission) The data related to challenges that the programs or institutions encounter which could potentially affect their identity was analyzed from the survey response spreadsheet and annotated by highlighting the column in different color apart from the columns that had already be highlighted for innovation or continuous effort. On a spreadsheet code name for provider type were documented as follows: - Associate as Associate’s - Baccalaureate as Baccalaureate - Master’s large as M1 - Master’s medium as M2 - Master’s small as M3 - Doctoral, very high research as R1 - Doctoral, high research as R2 - Doctoral/Professional as D/PU Innovation and Continuous Improvement - 33 Non-IHE-based as Non-IHE-based Results Data analysis was conducted on responses from 83 different institutions that participated in the AAQEP accreditation process, received their accreditation decision in Spring 2019 through Spring 2023, and chose to complete the follow up AAQEP Provider Survey. The analysis revealed that nearly all the participating institutions included responses that referenced either continuous improvement, innovation, or for both. Of all the survey responses reviewed, 36% indicated engagement in innovation, 47% indicated engagement in continuous improvement, and 11% indicated engagement in both practices. According to the data analysis 6% indicated challenges of accreditation process. See Figure 4. Figure 4 Engagement in Continuous Improvement Efforts and Innovative Practices Engagment in Continuous Improvement Efforts and Innovative Practices by Stakeholders According to the Data Analysis Continuous Improvement 6% 11% 47% 36% Innovation Both Challenges The institutional responses were further categorized into five thematic areas of work: Logistics of Accreditation Process, Internal Relationships, External Relationships, Student Supports, and Programmatic Changes. Some responses spanned multiple themes and were thus counted in multiple thematic areas. The thematic analysis of responses indicates distribution Innovation and Continuous Improvement 34 across the five main categories in both innovation and continuous improvement examples (Table 1 and Table 2), with the greatest concentrations of examples found in Logistics of Accreditation Process (both Innovation and Continuous Improvement), External Relationships (both Innovation and Continuous Improvement), and Student Supports (Innovation). Table 1 Innovation Practice by Institution Type Innovation Logistics of accreditation process (collecting, managing data, teamwork) Private (notfor-profit) Internal External Relationships Relationships Student Support Programmatic (curriculum, admission) 7 3 8 6 4 5 1 10 8 3 Private (forprofit) 1 0 0 1 0 Total 13 4 18 15 7 Public Innovation and Continuous Improvement 35 Table 2 Continuous Improvement Effort by Institution Type Continuous Improvement Logistics of accreditation process (collecting, managing data, teamwork) Private (notfor-profit) Internal External Relationships Relationships Student Support Programmatic (curriculum, admission) 11 5 10 4 6 13 3 6 2 8 Private (forprofit) 1 0 0 1 0 Total 25 8 16 7 14 Public While the five themes emerged directly from the analysis of the data, the responses contained within the themes – describing the institution’s specific innovation and continuous improvement efforts – were closely aligned with the AAQEP Accreditation Standards (Figure 5). The bullets below illustrate this concept by describing selected examples of efforts in each category, naming the associated standard(s), and explaining how the two are connected. For the sake of simplicity, the examples below reference selected efforts that reflect a single standard; however, multiple standards were associated with each thematic category, reflecting the breadth of efforts that were presented by the institutional responses. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 36 Figure 5 AAQEP Standards and Expectation Dimensions (AAQEP, 2023, p. 13) • Institutional efforts in the Logistics of Accreditation Process category included taking local control of data for deeper examination and developing systems for consistent data collection and analysis. These efforts align with Standard 4: Program Engagement in System Improvement, as institutions must develop strong data capacity to effectively inform system improvements over time. • Institutional efforts in the Internal Relationships category included new collaborations between faculty from different programs within the education department, and new partnerships between the education department and the office of institutional research. These efforts align with Standard 4: Program Engagement in System Improvement, as cross-program and cross-division relationships allow institutions to foster innovative action in a way that is not possible absent this type of collaborative effort. Innovation and Continuous Improvement • 37 Institutional efforts in the External Relationships category included convening focus groups of program completers and collaborating with external partners to develop a candidate “pipeline”. These efforts align with Standard 2: Completer Professional Competence and Growth, as conversations with program completers allow institutions to gather data on their growth, and the development of a pipeline in collaboration with external partners serves as a framework to track completer growth over time. • Institutional efforts in the Student Supports category included instituting new admissions processes to increase the diversity of the candidate population and restructuring the program’s field experience for more relevancy. These efforts align with Standard 3: Quality Program Practices, as they both impact the program’s capacity to meet the needs of its students and local community. • Institutional efforts in the Programmatic Changes category included implementing higher quality content and increasing clinical experience options for candidates. These efforts align with Standard 1: Candidate/Completer Performance, as building more robust content and experiential opportunities for candidates are programmatic steps that institutions take in service of elevating student performance. According to the data analysis, 6% of the survey response indicated challenges along with the participation in the accreditation process under AAQEP. Challenges that were found significant during the accreditation process mostly related to time constraints and stressful deadlines. Some of the response from the survey stated that “We had pretty compressed timeline.”, “Our rushed cycle made this challenge….”, “My only wish that the timetable had not been so short/tight for our process.”, “Generally the time commitment is quite extensive, beyond the QAR generation the additional steps such as off-site response, site visit set up, final report Innovation and Continuous Improvement 38 response etc.”, and etc. Challenges related to AAQEP accreditation process scrutinizing the identity of the programs and institutions were not apparent or in fact not significant according to the data analysis. Although some programs claimed the process of accreditation on a small faculty limited the ability to be innovative in their own course design and that their programs felt validated and challenged by the process. Discussions The results from the in-depth survey data analysis confirmed that AAQEP is fulfilling their mission for fostering, encouraging, and supporting innovation and continuous improvement practices in educator preparation. Of the 83 participating institutions, 94% reported engaging in innovation and or continuous improvement whilst only 6% reported having faced challenges during the process of accreditation. Five categories of influence for innovation and continuous improvement were identified: logistics of the AAQEP accreditation process, internal relationships of educator preparation programs, external relationships of educator preparation programs, student support for educator preparation program candidates and graduates, and the programmatic enterprise of educator preparation programs. Each of these and the outcomes espoused by educator preparation programs align with the current AAQEP accreditation standards. As such, and at face value, it follows that all examples of innovation and continuous improvement are informed by the standards for accreditation either directly or indirectly. Yet, several categories stand out more than others. Logistics of the accreditation process, external relationships, and student support were more frequently associated with innovation than continuous improvement Most incidents for innovation leveraged by the logistics of the accreditation process focused on data systems and Innovation and Continuous Improvement 39 use, while external relationships drove innovations for partnership development and completer, or alumni relations. Logistics for the accreditation process and external relationships were also more frequently noted for informing continuous improvement compared to all other categories. Data systems and use and strengthening communication were cited as the primary examples of continuous improvement for each category respectively. These results underscore the magnitude to which the AAQEP accreditation process guides innovation and continuous improvement across educator preparation programs. For the participating institutions, logistics for the accreditation process, which includes adherence to the association’s standards, was more likely to drive innovation and continuous improvement above all other categories of influence. Challenges related to the overall accreditation process do not necessarily impact the identity of the educator preparation programs although there were some time constraints and deadlines that hinder the process from running smoothly. Limitations This research has unique limitations because the survey questionnaire does not necessarily include questions specific to challenges along the way of accreditation process. Participation was voluntary and all evidence for what constitutes innovation and continuous improvement for the educator preparation programs were self-reported without external validation. Participants were not provided with a working definition for the concepts of innovation and continuous improvement. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 40 Future Research These limitations inform that further research in the context of the impact of accreditation on the identity of educator preparation programs could be conducted by incorporating survey questions pivoted around that concept for more precise and accurate results. Also, further research can be conducted on how educator preparation programs operationalize the concepts of innovation and continuous improvement on their campuses. Conclusion An investigative study was conducted on the impact of AAQEP accreditation process on the innovative practices, continuous improvement efforts, and the identity of educator preparation programs. Continuous improvement was defined as a modification or enhancement of the processes and practices in place while innovation involves shifting towards a new direction. A survey data provided by AAQEP was utilized for further data analysis for the research. The survey questionnaire focused on success of candidates and program completers, engagement with stakeholders or partner schools, the quality assurance review process, the way in which AAQEP accreditation supported or encouraged innovation to the program and the impact it had on the academic quality of the program. As data were analyzed from the survey questionnaire of 83 institutions, it is apparent that the Innovation or Continuous Improvement falls into five categories which are Logistics of Accreditation Process (collecting, managing data, teamwork), Internal Relationship (within Educator Preparation Program), External Relationship (partners, completers, etc.), Student Support, and Programmatic (curriculum, admission, etc.). The major objective of this research is to look closer to the outcome of the AAQEP accreditation process on the institutions and whether the institutions are engaged in innovation, continuous improvements, or both. The research also looks at the challenges the programs and Innovation and Continuous Improvement 41 institutions encountered during the process of accreditation under AAQEP which potentially scrutinizes the identity of the participating programs and institutions. The result of the survey and data interpretation indicates that 36% of responses specify engaging in innovation by building external relationships, launching new programs and generating new objectives for future development to the program, and incorporating innovative measures in student support. Moreover, 47% responded to emphasize continuous improvement to the program by improving data management systems, teamwork, logistics, and most importantly by building external relationships. Only 6% of the data indicated challenges of the accreditation process which is mostly due to time constraints and deadlines. Innovation and Continuous Improvement 42 References Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation. (2024). About us. Retrieved January 16, 2024, from https://aaqep.org/about-us. Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation. (2023). Guide to AAQEP accreditation. AAQEP, 6-10. https://aaqep.org/files/2023%20Guide%20to%20AAQEP%20Accreditation.pdf Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (2021). Self-study report. Retrieved March 4, 2024, from https://www.abet.org/accreditation/get-accredited/accreditation-step-bystep/self-study-report/ Aronson, B. & Anderson, A. (2013). Critical teacher education and the politics of teacher accreditation: Are we practicing what we preach? Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 11(3), 244-262. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (1998). What is accreditation? Retrieved March 4, 2024, from https://www.chea.org/what-is-accreditation Easley II, J. (2017). Lessons from project management: Improvement of a continuous improvement framework in education. Xcelerated Excellence Consulting. Retrieved March 7, 2024, from https://www.xeconsulting.org/en/single-post/lessons-from-projectmanagement-improvement-of-a-continuous-improvement-framework-in-education Eaton, J. S. (2010). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education. Academe, 96(5), 2124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25799818 Eisenberg, E. & Rafanello, D. (1998). Accreditation facilitation: A study of one project’s success. Young Children, 53(5), 44-48. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00205-x Innovation and Continuous Improvement 43 Hall, J. (2012). Higher-education accreditation: Market regulation or government regulation?. The Independent Review, 17(2), 233-238. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563103 Hamalainen, K. (2003). Common standards for programme evaluations and accreditation?. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 291-300, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1503505 Hou, A. Y. (2011). Quality assurance at a distance: International accreditation in Taiwan higher education. Higher Education, 61(2), 179-191. http://www.jstor.com/stable/41477814 International Accreditation Organization. (2019). How accreditation can drive innovation in higher education. Retrieved March 7, 2024, from https://blog.iao.org/how-accreditationcan-drive-innovation-in-higher-education Lamarra, N. F. (2003). Higher education, quality evaluation and accreditation in Latin America and MERCOSUR. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 253-269. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1503502 Mitchell, M. C. (2015). Higher education accreditation: Embracing accountability and continuous quality improvement in higher education. YC Young Children, 70(5), 56-57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/ycyoungchildren.70.5.56 Murray, F. B. (2012). Six misconceptions about accreditation in higher education: Lessons from teacher education. Change, 44(4), 52-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23594927 Perveen, U., Idris, M., & Zaman, A. (2021). Impact of accreditation on improvement of the teacher education program/institution in Pakistan. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(1), 194-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v8i1.518 Perveen, U. Idris, M. & Zaman, A. (2022). An investigative study of transformative & transitional impact of accreditation of teacher education programs in Pakistan. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(10), 668-684. http://journalppw.com Innovation and Continuous Improvement 44 Romanowski, M. H. (2022). CAEP accreditation: Educational neocolonialism and non-US teacher education program. Higher Education Policy, 35, 199-217. Romanowski, M. H. (2022). Internationalization and CAEP accreditation: replicating US teacher education programs abroad. Teaching Education, 33(4), 404-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2021.1948991 Romanowski, M. H. & Alkhateeb, H. (2020). The McDonaldization of CAEP accreditation and teacher education programs abroad. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103028 Solbrekke, T. D. & Sugrue, C. (2013). Professional accreditation of initial teacher education programmes: Teacher educators' strategies- Between 'accountability' and 'professional responsibility'?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37(2014), 11-20. Watermark. (2024). How to prepare for an accreditation peer review. Retrieved March 4, 2024, from https://www.watermarkinsights.com/resources/blog/how-to-prepare-for-anaccreditation-peer-review Innovation and Continuous Improvement Appendix A: Approval from AAQEP Appendix B: IRB Approval 45 Innovation and Continuous Improvement 46 Masters Project (Su Yamin Latt) Final Audit Report Created: 2024-05-01 By: Ellynn Raynor (ellynnraynor@weber.edu) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAOia9-z0CJciJy2B61fBfJhaqePshngAK 2024-05-05 "Masters Project (Su Yamin Latt)" History Document created by Ellynn Raynor (ellynnraynor@weber.edu) 2024-05-01 - 5:20:20 PM GMT- IP address: 67.172.248.200 Document emailed to Louise Moulding (lmoulding@weber.edu) for signature 2024-05-01 - 5:21:04 PM GMT Email viewed by Louise Moulding (lmoulding@weber.edu) 2024-05-01 - 5:21:56 PM GMT- IP address: 66.102.6.230 Document e-signed by Louise Moulding (lmoulding@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2024-05-01 - 5:22:08 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 47.38.247.165 Document emailed to Shernavaz Vakil (svakil@weber.edu) for signature 2024-05-01 - 5:22:09 PM GMT Email viewed by Shernavaz Vakil (svakil@weber.edu) 2024-05-01 - 5:23:30 PM GMT- IP address: 66.102.6.233 Document e-signed by Shernavaz Vakil (svakil@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2024-05-01 - 5:23:48 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 137.190.162.139 Document emailed to Sheryl Rushton (sherylrushton@weber.edu) for signature 2024-05-01 - 5:23:50 PM GMT Email viewed by Sheryl Rushton (sherylrushton@weber.edu) 2024-05-01 - 5:35:58 PM GMT- IP address: 104.28.48.169 Document e-signed by Sheryl Rushton (sherylrushton@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2024-05-05 - 3:51:58 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 24.2.94.113 Agreement completed. 2024-05-05 - 3:51:58 AM GMT