Approved
by the
Approved
by the Chancellor: December 12, 2008
GUIDELINES FOR
UNIT ACADEMIC PROGRAM
REVIEW
The
primary goal of the unit program review is to improve both undergraduate and
graduate education at
(1)
On-site review
(2) Outcomes assessment
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
PROCESS OF
REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
Introduction
Overview of Unit Program Evaluation at
Participating
Entities
Information for Faculty, Unit Graduate Program Coordinators,
Unit Undergraduate Program Coordinators, Chairs, and Deans (Topics
below will be accessed as pull-down headings)
Unit Program
Review Schedule
A Guide to
the Review Process for Faculty, Unit Program Coordinators, Chairs and Deans
Flow Chart
of the Unit Program Review Process
Checklist and
Timeline for Managing the Review Process
Unit
Program Self-Study Report Guidelines (Including Outcomes Assessment Guidelines)
A Guide for
Creating an Agenda
Biennial
Reports on Action Plan Implementation
Information for Reviewers (Topics
below will be accessed as pull-down headings)
Flow Chart of the Unit Program Review
Process
Composition and Roles of Unit Program Review Committee
The Unit Program Review Report
Writing the Unit Program Review Report
Travel and Expense Information for External Reviewers
References
Appendices
for the Self-Study Report
Appendix A. Graduate Faculty/Student Committees
Chaired Over the Last 5 Years
Appendix B. Student Placement
Appendix C. Degree Program/Degree Concentrations
Appendix D. Template for Faculty Sedona-generated CVs for the Self-study
Appendix E. Biennial Progress Report Format
PROCESS OF REVIEW OF UNIT
PROGRAMS
Introduction
Overview
of the Program Review
The principles of
academic program review, established at ECU, are the following:
- Quality
enhancement is an integral component of all ECU programs and is an
expected outcome of program review.
- Program
review is an ongoing process that contributes to refining ECU’s directions
and program priorities, which then shape resource allocations and other
governing decisions.
- Every
effort has been made to ensure that the key performance indicators used in
program review are clearly stated, uniform, and disseminated with
sufficient lead-time so that program faculty and administrators are aware
of them before the review process starts.
Program faculty may develop additional criteria that are unique to
an individual program.
- Program
review is intended to provide helpful information through a process that
is designed to be thorough yet not excessively burdensome to faculty and
administrators. In this light, the
data collected and reported in the academic program review process will be
that which has been collected in a systematic and routine manner and
specifically for the purpose of this report.
- A
university-wide organizational framework for program review has been
developed and will be consistently implemented. Program review is an integral part of
each program and plays a major role in the university’s ongoing assessment
and strategic planning processes.
It is noted that
effective unit program review at most institutions consists of a self-study conducted
by each program, followed by a review by a committee comprised of academicians
from both within and outside the university. The usual outcomes for such
reviews are the identification of program strengths and weaknesses with a
determination of overall program quality and specific recommendations for
improvement. Peer-review, when properly done, is a very effective way to
maintain and improve program quality if the university responds to the
recommendations for improvement as suggested by the Review Committee. In addition, the periodic review
could be used as a basis for a more effective allocation of resources by using
the program quality metrics as indicated by the review.
All unit programs
are subject to the review process, although it is recognized that some programs
and/or academic units at
The
unit academic program review at ECU consists of two interrelated activities.
The first is the on-site program review, which occurs
approximately every seven years for each program (See Timetable for On-Site
Review). The second is outcomes assessment, which is conducted on an
ongoing basis. Collection and analysis
of data related to outcomes, as well as resulting program changes, are reported
to the program units. These two forms of
program review are interrelated in two ways: (1) a description of the outcomes
assessment plan and a summary of findings from previous assessments are included
in the self-study for the on-site review and (2) in each report, faculty in the
program are asked to record progress in implementing the action plan from the
most recent on-site review.
The review process is comprised of six
major components:
(1) Self-Study prepared by the unit’s undergraduate and
graduate faculty
(2) On-site review by a Review Committee
(3) Review
Committee’s evaluative report and
recommendations
(4) Program faculty’s response to that report with
prioritized resource needs
(5) Negotiation with the college/school to attain
necessary resources
(6) Action plan that provides the focus for a post-review
meeting of the Review Committee chair
with the program, college/school,
Outcomes
Assessment: Three questions frame the work in any
assessment program which is evidence-centered. This approach provides a rich
context and conceptual framework for considering assessments of student
learning outcomes and for asking important questions about the types of claims
that can be made based on assessments.
1.
Claim: What do the faculty want or need to say about the
student in the academic program?
2.
Evidence: What does the student have to do to prove that he
or she has the knowledge and skills claimed by the academic program?
3.
Assessment Activities and Tools: What assessment tools and/or
activities will elicit the evidence that the program needs about students
knowledge and skills?
Participating
Entities
All reviews will
be conducted under the auspices of the Division of Academic and Student Affairs
and, as appropriate, the Division of Research and Graduate Studies and the
Division of Health Sciences, in conjunction with Institutional Planning and
Research and in cooperation with the individual unit programs under review and
the dean of the College or School in which that program is offered. The review
process will be jointly funded with the necessary EPA faculty, SPA staff, and
operating costs by the deans, the Division of Academic and Student Affairs, the
Division of Research and Graduate Studies, the Division of Health Sciences, and
the Chancellor’s Office. The roles of each participating unit are
described below:
Division of
Academic and Student Affairs
The Associate
Vice Chancellor for Academic Programs will function as the Coordinator for the
review process and will manage all aspects of the review process. He/she
will receive the Self-Study report from the program unit under review and
distribute them to the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs or
Health Sciences, and the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies, if
so indicated. In coordinating the individual program reviews, the Coordinator
will: conduct the initial planning sessions with the chairperson, the
unit undergraduate program coordinator (UUPC), the unit graduate program
coordinator (UGPC), the dean (and/or his/her designee), and the faculty of the
program under review (if requested by the unit chair); and ensure that the
Self-Study is initiated in a timely manner.
The Coordinator, working with the academic dean, chairperson and the
UUPC and UGPC, is responsible for establishing the review schedule. After the review, the Coordinator will
receive the report from the Review
Committee and will coordinate the response plan meeting and the follow-up
action plan report. The review committee
report will be disseminated to the submitting chair, dean, Provost, other
relevant vice chancellors, and to the
Institutional
Planning and Research (IPR)
IPR
produces the official data files for the university that are used in reporting
to state, federal, and other externals to the university. Standardized key
performance indicators, for use by unit programs in the academic review process
are produced from the official data files.
The unit chair in conjunction with the faculty charged with writing and
completing the program Self-Study will meet with the Executive Director of IPR
or an appropriate designee early in the unit’s self-study process to discuss
and outline requests for data sets necessary for program evaluation. IPR will provide
standard data (e.g., from Department Profiles; the University of Delaware Study
of Cost and Productivity; summaries of major counts; student evaluation of
teaching summaries; etc.) Some additional data may be provided by the
school/college dean’s office. Care must be taken to provide adequate data on
both undergraduate and graduate programs when a joint review is undertaken. In
some cases, the review team (see below) may request additional data. Reports
will be provided to the units under review in a timely manner.
The College
or School Having the Program Reviewed
The dean of the College
or School (or designee) will participate in the initial planning of the on-site
review, including providing a list of potential reviewers. The dean will meet
with the Review Committee and
participate in the exit interview. Following completion of the review, the dean
will receive a copy of the Review
Committee’s report from the Coordinator and meet with the unit chair, the
unit program undergraduate director (UUPC), the unit graduate program
coordinator (UGPC), the dean of the Graduate School if appropriate, and the
appropriate vice chancellors to develop a response plan for implementing the
recommendations of the Review Committee.
The dean, the academic Council (Vice Chancellors of Academic and Student
Affairs, Research and Graduate Studies, and Health Sciences if appropriate)
must approve the Final Action Plan prior to its implementation and provide the
necessary resources outlined in the plan.
The Review
Committee
The Review Committee will range from a
minimum of three reviewers (one internal reviewer, one external reviewer
focusing on undergraduate programs, and one external reviewer assigned to
graduate programs) to a maximum of five reviewers (one internal reviewer, two
external reviewers focusing on undergraduate programs, and two external reviewers
assigned to graduate programs). The
membership of the review committee will be dependent upon the levels
(undergraduate and/or graduate), size, and complexity of the programs. The actual membership of the Review Committee will be decided jointly
by the participating dean, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student
Affairs, and if appropriate, the Vice Chancellors for Research and Graduate
Studies or Health Sciences.
Unit Offering
the Undergraduate and/or Graduate Program
The unit chair is
responsible for consulting with IPR and for organizing unit faculty following
the procedures prescribed in the unit codes to write and complete the program
Self-Study; he/she forwards copies of the report through the appropriate dean
to the Coordinator. The unit chair will participate in planning the on-site
review by recommending, through the dean, a list of suggested
reviewers. Names of three
internal reviewers will be submitted, along with names of a minimum of five
external reviewers for undergraduate and five external reviewers for
graduate programs from peer institutions.
Additionally, the unit chair, after consultation with unit faculty, is
asked to recommend the review dates and coordinate the dates with accreditation
reviews if possible; and arrange the schedule of the review. The unit
chair will meet with the Review
Committee, and after the Review Committee Report is received, the unit
chair and the unit undergraduate program coordinator (UUPC) and unit graduate
program coordinator (UGPC) will: (1) work with the faculty to develop a Unit
Response Plan; (2) meet with appropriate dean and vice chancellors to present
the Unit Response Plan; (3) revise the Unit Response Plan and develop a Final
Action Plan. The Coordinator will
provide access to the Final Action Plan via the embedded web site to the
submitting dean, Provost, other relevant vice chancellors, and to the
In
interdisciplinary programs, the UUPC/UGPC should take responsibility for the
actions listed above, but they should coordinate these actions with the
appropriate chairs and deans.
Central
Administration
The Divisions of Academic and Student Affairs,
Research and Graduate Studies, and Health Sciences and the Chancellor, will
provide staffing and funds for expenses and honoraria. In addition, they will work with the unit
programs to develop final action plans in response to the on-site review report
recommendations and
Information for Faculty,
Unit Undergraduate Program Coordinators, Unit Graduate Program Coordinators,
Chairs, and Deans
Unit Program Review Schedule
Review Cycle
Each unit program should be
reviewed on a predetermined cycle of once every seven years. For programs with
professional accreditation, program reviews will follow the accreditation
cycle. The details of this cycle (month and year of site visit) will be
determined following consultation between the Coordinator, the Deans, and Vice
Chancellors for Academic and Student Affairs and/or Research and Graduate
Studies and Health Sciences. The deans, chairs or vice chancellors may
request early reviews.
A seven-year program review
schedule will be posted on the Office of Academic Programs,
A
Guide to the Review Process for Faculty, Unit Graduate Program Coordinators,
Unit Undergraduate Program Coordinators, Chairs, and Deans
The objective of the formal review is to improve the program. The improvement is the result of two final
products: (1) an internal evaluation involving self-study of the program by its
faculty and (2) an on-site review conducted by a Review Committee.
The major steps in planning and conducting a formal review are outlined
below (see also the Flow Chart of the
Review Process and the Checklist for
Managing the Review Process):
1.
The unit faculty consult with the chair and select possible
dates for the on-site review and propose external reviewers and internal
reviewers (such as faculty from ECU’s peer institutions who are familiar with
the discipline; internal reviewers from a related campus-based
discipline). Ideally, these arrangements
are completed 6 months prior to the date of the on-site review. If the unit program review is held in
conjunction with an accreditation review, the accreditation dates may be
predetermined. Invitations to the
external reviewers will be sent by the Review Coordinator (or college/school if
it is an accreditation review). At about
this same time, the Coordinator will set the date for a post-review meeting
with program, college/school,
2.
2. The unit faculty prepares a Self-Study (See
Self-Study Guidelines). Unless otherwise
specified by the unit code, the unit
undergraduate program
coordinator (UUPC), the unit graduate program coordinator (UGPC), and/or unit
chair coordinate the
preparation of the
Self-Study document, but it is important to have broad-based input from the
faculty. The Self-Study incorporates
not only an analysis of
data on incoming students, time to degree, attrition rates, etc. but also a
summary of the program’s outcomes
assessment, quality
enhancement, corrective efforts to address any concerns
identified in previous assessments, and the faculty’s
vision for the
program’s future. The Self-Study should be disseminated to the Review Committee at least four weeks
prior to the on-
site review date.
3.
The unit chair and/or the Unit Undergraduate Program Coordinator
(UUPC) and the unit graduate program coordinator (UGPC) work with the
Coordinator to develop the agenda and location(s) for the on-site review
meetings, which include meetings of the Review
Committee with the unit program administrators, faculty, undergraduate and
graduate students, college/school and division administrators, and dean of the
4. The Review Committee conducts its review of the undergraduate/graduate
programs. The committee composes the first draft of the Review Committee Report
before the external reviewers depart and then circulates drafts among members.
An electronic copy and a signed hard copy of the final Review Committee Report
should be completed and sent within a month after the review to the
Coordinator, who will provide web access to the unit program and college/school
administrators.
5. Program faculty respond to
each of the recommendations in the Review Committee Report, describing actions
they will take to implement the recommendations, who is responsible for the
actions and when they will occur. Faculty also prioritize the resource needs
that emerge from the recommendations.
Then the UUPC, the UGPC, and the unit chair prepare a Unit Response
Report and meet with college/school and division administrators to discuss
funding of the program’s top priorities.
6. After revising the
responses to reflect actions to be taken by the college/school and divisions,
the UUPC and UGPC, and/or chair develop a draft Final Action Plan based on the
Unit Response Report document and disseminate the plan to participants in the
upcoming Final Action Plan meeting.
7. At the Final Action Plan
meeting, the UUPC, the UGPC, and unit chair summarize the program faculty’s
response. The college/school dean summarizes actions to be taken by the
college/school. The UUPC, the UGPC, and unit chair revise the draft Final Action
Plan to reflect any new actions that emerge from the meeting, and the Final
Action Plan is forwarded by the Coordinator via the embedded web site to the
division vice chancellors, along with the Review Committee Report, and to all
participating administrators on university, college/school and program levels
and to the
8. The Final Action Plan,
along with the Self-Study, Review Committee Report, and the Unit Response
Report, are posted on the secure Embedded Web site maintained by the Division
of Academic and Student Affairs. The
UUPC, the UGPC, and/or the unit chair report on progress toward full
implementation of the action plan, explain any delays in or barriers to
implementation. Where appropriate, the divisions will work with the unit
program and the college/school and university administration to overcome any
obstacles to implementing the Final Action Plan.
Checklist
and Timeline for Managing the Review Process
1.
Unit undergraduate
program coordinator (UUPC), the unit graduate program coordinator (UGPC), and
unit chair, in consultation with the faculty, identify possible dates for
review, external reviewers, and internal reviewer (Coordinator will invite
reviewers). Program faculty begin to
compile Self-Study. (Minimum of 6 mo. in advance)
2.
Collaborating
with the Coordinator, UUPC/UGPC begin to prepare for on-site review: create
agenda, make sure deans’/directors meetings are on their calendars, organize
the various groups who will meet with reviewers, set up reviewers’ room,
etc. (2
mo. In advance)
3.
UUPC/UGPC,
chair, and dean send completed Self-Study to Coordinator, who places the
document on Embedded Web-Site whereby the Division of Academic and Student
Affairs provides access to: college/school, the
4.
Review Committee conducts review and drafts Review Committee Report. (1 mo.
after review)
5.
Review Committee sends final Review Committee Report to the Coordinator, who provides
access to it to deans, chairs, relevant vice chancellors, and the
6.
Unit program
faculty respond to each recommendation in the report describing actions to be
taken and resources needed to implement recommendations. Faculty prioritize the resource needs from
the responses. Unit chair and UUPC/UGPC
write Unit Response Plan. (2.5 mo. after review)
7.
Unit and
program administrators meet with college/school administrators to discuss the
resource priorities and their place, if appropriate, and other sources of
funding indicated in the Unit Response Plan.
(3 mo. after review)
8.
Unit chair
and UUPC/UGPC revise the Unit Response Report to reflect discussions with the
college/school and begin preparation of a draft of the Final Action Plan. (3.5 mo. after the review)
9.
The
Coordinator receives the draft Final Action Plan and provides web access
to it to the Provost/Vice Chancellor of
Academic and Student Affairs, and/or the Vice Chancellor for Research and
Graduate Studies, and the Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences, college deans,
school directors,
10.
Administrators
from program unit, college/school, and the
11.
The
UUPC/UGPC and unit chair revise the Draft Final Action Plan to reflect
discussions in post-review meeting and sends the Final Action Plan to the unit,
college/school,
Unit
Program Self-Study Report Guidelines
Instructions
Designed for the seven-year review of undergraduate and
graduate degree programs, the Self-Study described below should be completed by
each unit program undergoing program review. The completed Self-Study should be
submitted to the Coordinator six weeks before the Review Committee on-site review. The information submitted should
follow the format below. Please
introduce any additional information that you feel would be helpful in this
review.
A major purpose of the seven-year review is to engage unit
program faculty, other faculty inside and outside the University, the
Divisions, and the Graduate School in thoughtful and creative study and
evaluation of the overall program quality in relation to East Carolina University's
mission and to the program’s mission and vision, including the student learning
outcomes that the program is designed to foster, and leadership. The review is
intended to help faculty and administrators gain a clear understanding of the
following:
1.
The unit program's purposes and faculty activities to
achieve these purposes within
2.
The unit
program's effectiveness in achieving these purposes and outcomes
3.
The unit
program's overall quality
4.
The faculty’s
vision for the unit program, i.e., future aims for the program and any changes
necessary to achieve those aims
5.
The ongoing quality
enhancement efforts undertaken by the specific academic program
6.
In addition, the
Unit may consider in its Self-Study other issues which impact its operation.
I. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1.1 Exact Title(s) of Unit Program: Give
title(s) exactly as indicated in the university catalog.
1.2 Department or Interdisciplinary Group
Authorized to Offer Degree Program(s):
1.3 Exact Title(s) of Degrees granted: e.g.,
Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Arts, Master of Science, Doctor of Education,
etc.
1.4 College or School:
1.5 Brief
History and
1.6 Relationship of the Program to UNC’s Strategic Goals and to the ECU Mission and to ECU’s
Strategic Directions (Describe how each degree program relates to the UNC
system’s strategic goals, to ECU’s mission, and to ECU’s strategic directions.)
(Add a
hyperlink to each of these “documents” – UNC strategic directions, ECU Mission
Statement, and ECU’s Strategic Directions (currently ECU Tomorrow)
1.7 Degree Program Objectives,
Outcomes and Uniqueness: For each degree
program, list the objectives and outcomes (faculty expectations) from the
unit’s current assessment plan. Describe the breadth and depth of the program,
and indicate special features or innovations.
1.8. Program Enrichment Opportunities.
List and describe special events, activities and programs
(e.g., lecture series) that enhance the academic and research/creative activity
environment.
1.9 Responsiveness to Local and National
Needs: Describe the nature of the discipline and the type of educational
experiences provided by the degree program(s) in the unit. In what way is/are the program(s) responsive
to the needs of
1.10 Program Quality: Provide
an assessment of the quality of the unit program(s) as compared
to other programs in the Southeast and the rest of the nation, and explain the basis
of the assessment. How does the unit
program rank nationally? What is considered to be the best objective measure
for national comparisons in the field? What award recognition has the program
received?
1.11 Administration: Provide an organizational chart of the unit
including all personnel. Briefly describe the program's administrative
structure. List the major committees of the unit that relate to undergraduate
and/or graduate education and their structure and function. Address leadership
and describe any important formal and informal relationships the unit has with
other units, institutes, centers, etc. at ECU and beyond.
II. CURRICULUM/INSTRUCTION
2.1 Foundation
Curriculum: Indicate the contributions the unit program makes to the
Foundations Program and foundation course cognate requirements of other units
and the university. Describe the unit’s quality enhancement process for
Foundations courses. State the full-time
equivalents (FTE’s) utilized for Foundations courses and the student credit hours
(SCH) produced per 1.0 FTE for each academic year under review. Describe the
percentage of the unit’s resources (funding, time, faculty, other) supporting
Foundations courses per academic year under review and whether a greater or
lesser amount of resources needs to be allocated to Foundations courses.
2.2 Instructional Relationship to Other
Programs: Describe how instruction and research in this program supports or
is otherwise related to other programs (undergraduate, graduate, professional)
within unit and/or in other units or schools at
2.3 Curriculum
Assessment and Curricular Changes: Describe the assessment process and the
metrics involved in measuring learning outcomes and implementing quality
enhancement. Describe any significant changes in curriculum and instruction
in the unit program as a result of the quality enhancement process or since the
last self-study. Explain the reason for the changes, such as different needs of
students, shifts of emphasis in the discipline, changes in faculty, perceived
weaknesses in the program, problems with facilities, etc.
2.4 Bachelor’s
Degree: Describe the bachelor's degree curriculum, indicating the total
number of required credits and the credit distribution among various units. If
more than one concentration is available, then list the concentrations and
their curricula separately. (Use Appendix C for this purpose.) If there is
substantial dependence on some other unit program, describe and comment on the
relationship between it and the unit’s program. Indicate any associated
professional certification. Include any additional information concerning
curricular emphasis that would aid in characterizing the program as oriented to
practice or training.
2.5 Certificate
Programs: Describe the certificate curriculum, indicating the total number
of required credits and the credit distribution among various units as in 2.4
above. If there is substantial dependence on some other unit program, describe
and comment on the relationship between it and the unit’s program.
2.6 Master's Degree: Describe the
master's degree curriculum, indicating the total number of required credits and
the credit distribution among various units as in 2.4 above. If more than one
concentration is available, then list the concentrations or areas of emphasis and
their curricula separately. (Use Appendix C for this purpose.) If there is
substantial dependence on some other unit program, describe and comment on the
relationship between it and the unit’s program. Indicate any associated
professional certification. Include any additional information concerning
curricular emphasis that would aid in characterizing the program as oriented
toward practice-training. Describe the
research orientation of the thesis programs.
2.7 Doctoral Degree: Describe the
doctoral degree curriculum, noting the credit and general distribution of
requirements as in 2.4 above. When concentrations are offered, describe their
curricula separately. (Use Appendix C.).
Indicate whether the master's degree is required or usually completed
before proceeding to the doctoral program and note the most common minor fields
of study. Describe the preliminary examination requirements. Indicate any
associated professional certification. Include any additional information
concerning curricular emphasis that would aid in characterizing this program as
oriented toward practice or research.
III. STUDENTS
3.1 Enrollment: Provide student credit hour data on unit degree programs and, as
appropriate, on the unit’s contribution to the Foundations Program. Assess
the strength of student demand for the degree
program and for courses in the
Foundations Program. Utilizing
appropriate data, comment on student enrollment trends in the degree program and as appropriate in Foundations courses. What
are the implications of these trends for future unit planning?
3.2 Quality of Incoming Students: Comment
on how evaluation and assessment of the quality of students in the unit’s
degree programs and, as appropriate in Foundations courses, is accomplished. Referring
to appropriate data, comment on incoming student quality and trends over the
past 10 years. What specific measures does the unit use to evaluate the quality
of entering students? (For example, what use is made of the GPA or of
standardized test scores?). Is the quality of the enrolling students as good as
desired? What does the annual applications/acceptance ratio indicate about the
quality of entering students and the faculty's standards of student quality?
3.3 Quality of Current/Ongoing Students: Are
current students performing as well as desired? If not, what are the
contributing factors? (Briefly refer to the findings of the outcomes assessment
document, which is described in more detail in another section). Describe measures of student accomplishment
(ex. major field tests, licensure scores, course-embedded assessment,
etc.). List student recognition data
such as research/creative activity publications and exhibits, campus awards,
presentations, fellowships, and scholarships.
3.4 Degrees Granted: Using appropriate
data, comment on the trends in the number of degrees awarded annually and the
average length of time required to complete each degree program. What has been
the trend in attrition over the past seven years? If attrition has been increasing,
what measures, if any, have been taken to address that increase?
3.5 Diversity
of Student Population: Provide student profiles relative to gender, age,
minority, and international status.
Describe plans to promote diversity.
3.6 Need/Placement: Comment on the
strength of employers or others’ demand for students with the knowledge and
skills provided by the unit’s courses. Describe past, present and future need
for graduates from the program in the region, state, Southeast, and the nation.
Cite any pertinent studies. Present data on the placement of students who have
earned their degrees in the unit in the past seven years (Appendix B). Report
those that have entered into graduate or professional schools. Report any
information and data available on the level of employer satisfaction with unit
graduates. Describe the level and kinds of assistance provided by the unit in
placement of graduates.
3.7 Funding: Describe the scholarship and
stipend support packages available for students and the approximate annual
number of each type that have been received.
Include Graduate Teaching Assistantships (GTA’s),
Graduate intern Assistantships (GIA’s), and Graduate
Research Assistantships (GRA’s), fellowships,
traineeships, etc. Include the number of semesters the average master's and
doctoral student spends on a GTA or GRA. How are GTA/GRA positions publicized,
and how are students selected for those appointments?
3.8 Student
Involvement in the Instructional Process:
Indicate the degree of participation by students in formal or
informal teaching activities within the unit and/or in other programs on
campus. Describe any preparatory training and/or ongoing mentoring that
undergraduate or graduate students receive.
3.9 Professional Development Opportunities:
Describe any formalized research training that doctoral students in the unit
receive. How are these training experiences supported, and how are students
selected for them?
IV. FACULTY
4.1 Faculty List and Curricula Vita: As
attachments to the Self-Study narrative, provide:
a.
An alphabetical list of faculty members,
including the rank of each and the number of master's and doctoral advisory
committees that each member has chaired during the past seven years, and
b.
A current, brief, Sedona-generated curriculum
vitae for each faculty member covering the last 7 years. (See Appendix D).
4.2
Faculty Profile Summary: Provide summary
data on: tenured/non-tenured,
terminal/non-terminal degree, gender,
minority, and international status.
Describe hiring trends over the past 7 years and present hiring needs.
4.3 Visiting, Part-Time and Other Faculty: Describe
the extent to which visiting and part-time faculty participate in the
undergraduate and graduate programs. A list of graduate courses taught by
adjunct faculty for the last seven years should be included. Also, if faculty
members from other university units serve important roles in the program,
please specify.
4.4 Advising: Describe how and when
faculty advisors are assigned to students in the unit programs, as well as any
guidance that new faculty are given in directing undergraduate/graduate student
research.
4.5 Faculty Quality: Provide summary faculty productivity data
such as: books, articles, exhibitions, performances, presentations, awards,
grants, patents, service/outreach activities,
number serving as theses advisors, number serving on theses committees, and
number supervising honors and/or senior projects. Describe the ways in which the unit
evaluates the quality of its faculty (e.g., teaching evaluations, peer review,
publications, research grants, graduate students advised and their time to
degree, etc.) and how it uses the results of these evaluations.
4.6 Faculty Distribution: Describe the faculty workload relative to
teaching, research/creative activity, and service/community engagement. Is
the unit staffed adequately to meet the needs of various fields of
specialization in the discipline? If not, please explain how the unit could
achieve an appropriate distribution of faculty across specializations offered,
given no growth in resources.
V. RESOURCES
5.1 Budget: Provide data for: the unit
operating budget (expenditures), sponsored projects, F&A returns, fees, royalties,
special services, assistantships, scholarships, etc.
5.2 Space: Describe scope, quality, and
need-projections.
5.3 Technical/Equipment Support: Describe
equipment and technical personnel support provided to faculty, staff and
students.
5.4 Library Support: Provide assessment of
library holdings and services related to the unit program.
VI. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES/FACULTY
EXPECTATIONS
Introduction
The material in this portion of the Self-Study should
reflect the continuous and ongoing assessment of program outcomes:
planning, information gathering, self-review, and use of results for improving
the quality of the program.
Quality Enhancement Guidelines for Unit Programs
Outcomes assessment is a part of a broader
shift in higher education. Traditionally, academics have taken an
inputs-based perspective on what they do.
That is, they have designated a set of courses and other experiences
that students will have and simply assumed that graduates will possess the
knowledge, skills, and other attributes we expect of them. An outcomes-based perspective reverses that
relationship. Instead of beginning with inputs, one begins by defining the
knowledge, skills, and other attributes that are expected of graduates—program
outcomes—and then rethinks the curricula to better enable students to achieve
the expectations the faculty have placed before them. Program outcomes, then,
are a reflection of what faculty value for their students. Outcomes assessment
is a way of determining how effectively the unit programs enable students to
achieve unit program values. Outcomes
assessment may be understood as a process of asking and responding to the
following three questions.
6.1 What
are the unit program values of the faculty, that is, the knowledge, skills, and
other attributes faculty expect their graduates to attain?
Unit programs at
6.2 How
well is the program achieving faculty expectations?
Units have generated plans for
assessing their program outcomes: assessment data to be collected, the source
of the data, how often the data are to be collected, and when the assessment
results will be reported. Assessment
plans are provided by the unit. Unit
faculty are in the process of collecting and analyzing data and using the
results to evaluate their programs.
6.3 What changes should be made in the program so
that it can better achieve faculty expectations? What ongoing process does the unit utilize to
promote quality enhancement?
This is the most important of the three questions, focusing
on the goal of outcomes assessment: improving programs. Outcomes assessment
provides data that unit faculty can use to identify aspects of the program that
are not meeting their expectations and then to make decisions for improving the
program. Continuous collection of data
can provide unit faculty the information they need to determine the extent to
which changes they have made in their programs are having the desired effect of
improving outcomes. Summaries of what
unit faculty have learned about their programs based on outcomes assessment and
what changes in their programs they will make are given in their unit
outcomes/assessment reports.
The Review Committee report (including its recommendations)
will be shared with the academic unit to assist faculty in developing a planned
quality enhancement procedure.
6.4 Assessment Reports
In order to document the efforts of unit faculty to improve their
programs, each unit has instituted a report of the assessment of program
outcomes and the actions taken in response to the key findings of those
assessments. The report could consist of brief responses to a set of questions
with an emphasis on summarizing as opposed to providing details of assessment
results. Possible questions that units may
be posing are:
6.4.1
What outcomes were scheduled to be assessed during the
present reporting period? What outcomes were actually assessed? [Please refer
to the unit program assessment plan].
6.4.2 What data were collected? Summarize findings for
these data.
6.4.3 What did the unit program administration and the
faculty learn about the program and/or the students from the analysis of the
data? What areas of concern have emerged from the assessment?
6.4.4 As a result of the assessment, what changes, if any,
have the unit program administration and the faculty implemented or considered
implementing to address areas of concern? (These can include changes in the
program and in the assessment plan.) How will the effectiveness of these
changes be measured?
6.4.5
What outcomes
are being planned for assessment for the upcoming reporting period? (If they
are different from what have been proposed in the assessment plan, please
update the assessment plan to reflect the change).
6.4.6
If the program
has had an external review in the past 7 years, summarize progress in achieving
the Final Action Plan for the most recent review (The Final Action Plan from
the unit program can be located at the Embedded Web-Site). How many action items have been completed?
What items have yet to be completed? Briefly describe plans for completing these
items and/or obstacles to completion.
VII. CURRENT RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY
7.1 Current Research/Creative Activity: Provide
a brief description of significant ongoing research in the unit program. Indicate
the major strengths or emphases of this research. Describe any unique programs
that have national prominence. Describe three to five major research/creative
activity accomplishments over the past seven years by faculty and/or graduate
students in the unit and any new emphases planned for the near future (through
new faculty hires, redirection of current faculty’s research/creative activity,
etc.)
7.2 National Comparison: Briefly describe
how the research/creative activity effort in the unit compares to that in the
discipline nationally in terms of focus areas and breadth of coverage.
7.3 Interdisciplinary Projects: What
opportunities are there for carrying out interdisciplinary research/creative
activity projects with other units on campus and with other universities, state
or federal agencies, and industry? Are the present needs for interdisciplinary
research/creative activity being accommodated?
How successful are the efforts? Are there plans for increasing such
efforts in the future?
7.4 External
Research/Creative Activity Support: Evaluate the level of external funding
for research/creative activity in the unit program. Comment on any trends. Is
the unit program competing effectively for external support?
7.5 Research Development: What does the
unit do to encourage and develop research/creative activity collaborations with
faculty performing similar research/creative activities elsewhere in the
university? Also, please describe deficiencies in facilities and resources that
impede the unit's attempts to reach its objectives and any plans to address
these deficiencies.
7.6 Ethics Training: Describe any
education in research/creative activity and professional ethics that the unit
program provides for its students. Such education could include courses,
workshops, seminars offered by the unit program or by related programs or other
appropriate experiences, such as the use of resources provided by the
university.
VIII. SERVICE/OUTREACH
8.1 Consulting: To what extent are
faculty involved in outside consulting work, paid and non-paid? Provide a quantitative and qualitative
assessment of this type of work, and explain in what ways it contributes to the
unit's program and to the mission of ECU.
8.2 Community Service/Engagement: To what
extent is the unit's professional expertise made available to the community,
state and nation through formal service programs, lectures, exhibits, public
symposia, or concerts or through faculty service on governmental boards,
scientific/professional associations, etc.? Evaluate the quality of this
service, and indicate how it contributes to the unit's graduate instructional
and research programs.
8.3 Student Involvement in Community
Service/Engagement: To what extent are
students exposed
to formal or informal outreach activities?
IX. OTHER ISSUES FACED BY THE
PROGRAM/DEPARTMENT (not covered above)
X. ACCREDITATION
If accreditation has been attained, provide the name of the
accrediting agency, and indicate the date accreditation was granted and the frequency
of accreditation review. If accreditation has been denied or has not yet been
attained, describe the current status of the program in relation to gaining
accreditation.
XI. SUMMARY COMMENTS AND VISION FOR THE
FUTURE
10.1 Summarize the major strengths and
weaknesses of the unit program(s) and the challenges and opportunities it faces
in the foreseeable future. Indicate
options for change and specific concerns that prevail.
10.2 Briefly describe the program’s
vision/strategic plan for the immediate future: Review the unit's major goals
for the program(s) over the next five years, and describe their relation to the
University’s Strategic Plan and to a long-term strategy for resource allocation
or reallocation.
A Guide to Creating
an Agenda for the Review
The Review Committee will review the Self-Study document before the
on-site review takes place and identify the need for any additional
information. A draft schedule for the review should be developed
approximately five weeks prior to the on-site review by the coordinator, the
appropriate chairperson and the unit program director following the general
outline below:
Day 1 Review Committee meets over dinner with
the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, the Vice Chancellor for
Research and Graduate Studies, and/or Health Sciences, the dean, the chair, the
Unit Undergraduate Program Coordinator (UUPC), the unit graduate program
coordinator (UGPC) and the Coordinator. This is an introductory
orientation meeting. The dinner meeting
is scheduled and organized by the Coordinator.
Days 2 and 3 Review Committee meetings with
central administration officials, the chair, the UUPC, the UGPC, faculty
members, program support personnel, and students are held. A tour of the
facilities is usually given.
Day 4 Review Committee continues
meeting with anyone not available on Days 2 and 3. Review Committee prepares a rough draft of the Review Committee Report
and holds an exit interview with the appropriate vice chancellors, deans, and
unit program administrators.
NOTE: The Coordinator handles the lodging arrangements, and
payment and reimbursement of the external consultants. The unit under
review provides local transportation.
Biennial Reports on Action Plan
Implementation
Because the purpose of the Program Review is to improve the unit’s
programs, it is important that there be follow-up on the implementation of the
Final Action Plan that resulted from the review. To provide that follow-up, the
UUPC/UGPC will report on progress toward full implementation through biennial
reports.
The sixth question on the Unit
Program Biennial Report concerns the implementation of the Final Action
Plan. It is as follows:
If the unit program has had an external review in the past 7
years, summarize progress in achieving the action plan for the most recent
review (The unit’s action plan can be accessed from the program's Embedded
Web-Site page. How many action items
have been completed? What items have yet to be completed? Briefly describe
plans for completing these items and/or obstacles to completion. The UUPC/UGPC
will respond to these questions on the Biennial Report in the second, fourth,
and sixth years after the on-site review as long as any of the actions (by the
program, college, or university) have not yet been implemented. In the seventh
year when the next external review is scheduled, the UUPC/UGPC can use the
archived biennial reports to summarize progress toward full implementation over
the previous seven years when preparing the Self-Study for the next
review. Biennial reports are submitted
electronically to the Coordinator, who subsequently will provide web access to
the appropriate dean, vice chancellor, and to the
Biennial Reports and Final Action Plans on each program are archived and
are available to UUPC/UGPCs on the unit program’s
page on the Embedded Web-Site.
Information for Reviewers
Composition and Roles of the Unit
Program Review Committee
Members
The actual
membership of the Review Committee
will consist of the following persons:
(1)
A minimum of one external graduate reviewer:
Selected for expertise in graduate programs comparable to the one being
reviewed.
(2)
A minimum of one external undergraduate reviewer:
Selected for expertise in undergraduate programs comparable to the one being
reviewed.
(3)
One Internal Reviewer: Senior member of the
Faculty at ECU in a college/school other than the one in which the program
under review is administered.
The
external reviewers of both undergraduate and graduate programs should be from
similar or more advanced programs in the same field of study.
The
chair of the Review Committee will be
selected by the Review Committee or the unit’s accrediting organization.
Reviewers Roles
External Reviewer
1.
Provides the perspective of a senior faculty
member in the discipline of the particular undergraduate/graduate program under
review.
2.
Makes his/her own travel arrangements. Furnishes
the Division of Academic and Student Affairs with receipts necessary for
expense reimbursement, as well as SSN and home address. (Note: In cases where
the program review is held in conjunction with an accreditation review,
expenses are paid by the college/school where the review is taking place).
3.
Contributes information to the Review Committee, the dean of the
college/school, the dean of the
4.
Works with other Review Committee members to write the first draft of the Review
Committee Report during the on-site review, and afterward contributes to
revising the draft to produce the final Review Committee report.
Internal Reviewer
Provides the perspective of senior faculty member at ECU
familiar with the institution and the
needs and expectations of undergraduate and graduate programs. If requested, works with other committee
members to draft and revise the written report.
Review Committee
The Review Committee presents
a summary of their preliminary findings and recommendations (Review Committee
Report) at the exit meeting chaired by the Coordinator and attended by the Vice
Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs or Vice Chancellor of Health
Sciences, the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies, the dean of
the Graduate School, and administrators of the college/school and the unit
program. This session provides an
opportunity for the Review Committee
to clarify the report.
Writing
the Unit Program Review Report (Review Committee Report)
One of the primary responsibilities of the Review Committee is to produce a report
based on a careful reading of the program’s Self-Study and on what the
committee members learn about the program during the on-site review. In order to be one that provides greatest
benefit to the program, the Review Committee Report must be concise and to the
point, usually 5-10 pages in length.
Review Committee Report Format
The Review Committee Report typically consists of three or
four sections:
1.
Program Overview. This section
may include history, background, and administration of the program, providing
some context for it. Material for this
section comes from the unit program’s Self-Study.
2.
Program Strengths. The strengths
related to faculty, teaching, research/creative activity, leadership, students,
curriculum, etc. may be presented in bullet or paragraph format.
3.
Areas for Improvement. Generally, these areas for improvement are
given in bullet format describing weaknesses and providing indicators of each weakness
from the data the reviewers gathered during the review.
4.
Recommendations for
Improvement. These
recommendations may be presented as a list in a separate section or included
after appropriate areas for improvement (in this latter case there would be
only three sections of the report). Recommendations are the most important part
of the review report because they become the basis for a plan of action for the
program. Therefore, recommendations should be clear and concrete in their
depictions of what faculty in the program (or the college or the university)
should do to improve the program. It is helpful to organize the Areas for
Improvement and Recommendations into categories, such as Faculty, Students,
Curriculum and Instruction, Research, and Facilities.
Review Committee Report Writing Process
Writing the Review Committee Report involves all members of
the Review Committee. The agenda for
the program on-site review should provide time for the Review Committee to write a first draft of the report before the
external reviewers depart.
The following is a possible scenario for writing the
Review Committee Report:
1.
Together the committee members discuss areas for
improvement and one of the members makes a preliminary list of them.
2.
Together the committee members discuss
recommendations for each of the areas of improvement on the preliminary list.
One member makes a preliminary list of the recommendations for the graduate
programs, and another makes a list for the undergraduate programs.
3.
Together the committee members arrange the areas
for improvement and associated recommendations into appropriate categories,
such as Faculty, Students, Curriculum and Instruction, Research/Creative
Activity, Service/Community
Engagement, Resources, Leadership and
Diversity, and University Support.
4.
The Review
Committee divides the categories among the members and each member drafts
descriptions of the areas for improvement and associated recommendations for
his/her assigned categories.
5.
The committee members read what they have
written to each other (or display on a screen) and get comments for revision
from the other committee members. They revise their sections.
6.
Together the committee members discuss other
areas for improvement and recommendations that should be added to the list and
drafts them.
7.
Together the committee members discuss strengths
of the programs and one of the members makes a preliminary list. Together, the
committee members compose the list of strengths in bullet form arranged in
categories as appropriate.
8.
The Review
Committee composes a rough draft document in order for them to present
their findings and recommendations to vice chancellors, deans, chairs, the unit
graduate programs director, and the Unit Undergraduate Program
Coordinator.
9.
After the on-site review, one committee member
takes the rough draft and adds the opening Overview of the Program and revises
the report for clarity, concision, and grammatical correctness. He/she sends the next draft to the other
committee members.
10. The other
committee members add their revisions and send them to the member with the
original draft to incorporate those changes in the draft.
11. The process of
revising and circulating drafts continues until all committee members accept a
final draft.
12. The chair of
the Review Committee will send an
electronic copy and a hard copy (with the committee chair’s signature) of the
final draft of the report to the Coordinator, who will provide access to unit
faculty and administrators.
The
Unit Program Review Report
The report should place the program under review in
the larger context of ECU’s strategic priorities and of developments in the
program's discipline. It should take account of the program's role within the
university. It should address the major issues facing the program, comment on
the compatibility of the program's purpose, achievements, plans and goals with
those of the college and university strategic priorities, and suggest
strategies for achieving program and university goals. To accomplish these
purposes, the report should consider the following points as appropriate to the
mission of the program:
1. Competitiveness
·
Identify one or
two programs at other institutions that may be similar to the program being
reviewed.
·
Identify one or
two programs in other institutions that can serve as a model for future growth
of the program being reviewed in the next five to ten years.
·
In comparison to
similar programs at other institutions, what are the program’s strengths and
weaknesses?
·
What benchmarks
should be used to measure the program's effectiveness and efficiency in the use
of its resources?
·
What will the
program have to do to achieve or maintain national or regional competitiveness
in the next decade?
2. Undergraduate Program (if applicable)
·
How well is the
program performing its undergraduate teaching function?
·
Is there
evidence that the program has clear goals on undergraduate student learning
outcomes, assessment process(es) are in place, and
that the results are being utilized?
·
Are the
program's admissions criteria appropriate?
·
Do undergraduate
students receive appropriate mentoring and advisement?
·
Is the
curriculum sound and sufficiently rigorous?
·
Is the program
properly staffed to fulfill its undergraduate responsibilities?
·
Are classes the
appropriate size to accomplish its teaching and learning goals?
·
Is the program
fulfilling its responsibilities to majors and non-majors with regard to the
foundation curriculum initiative including first year experiences, study
abroad, undergraduate research, service learning and other discovery learning
programs, capstone course(s), distribution requirements, multicultural courses,
the Honors Program, and pre-requisites for other programs?
3. Graduate Program (if applicable)
·
How effective is
the program in performing its graduate teaching responsibilities?
·
Is there
evidence that the program has clear goals on graduate student learning
outcomes, assessment process(es) are in place and
that the results are being utilized?
·
Is the
research/creative activity and scholarly productivity of the program's faculty
appropriate to its graduate responsibilities?
·
Are the
program's admissions criteria appropriate?
·
Do graduate students
receive appropriate mentoring and advisement?
·
How successful
is the program nationally and regionally in attracting qualified graduate
students and placing graduate degree holders in professional employment?
·
How competitive
is the program nationally and regionally in attracting qualified graduate
students and placing graduate degree holders in professional employment?
·
Is the
curriculum credible and appropriate for the discipline?
·
Are students
receiving faculty mentoring and assistance in finding professional employment?
4. Faculty Research/Creative Activity
·
Are the research
and creative activity of the faculty appropriate to the program’s mission and
overall responsibilities with regard to quality and quantity?
·
Are research
facilities, computer facilities, and library resources appropriate to support
faculty research?
·
Are faculty
generating external funding to the degree that they might?
·
What role are
faculty playing in the university's research centers and interdisciplinary
research groups?
·
Are the faculty
engaged in regional and national professional organizations?
5. Faculty and Staff
·
How well are
faculty and staff resources being used?
·
Are promotion
and tenure policies appropriate to the program’s missions and aspirations?
·
Is the program
successfully hiring and promoting minority and women faculty?
·
Are faculty and
staff workloads equitable? Is the program’s workload appropriate and consistent
with the strategic priorities of the university?
·
How does the
program rank among those in similar institutions regarding research
productivity and quality, external funding, and teaching loads?
·
Are staff
positions and expectations clearly defined?
·
Does the program
provide development and training programs to faculty and staff?
6. Leadership
·
Does the
program’s leadership take appropriate and timely action to ensure the program’s
smooth functioning?
·
Does the
program’s leadership interact appropriately with other university units,
including the college dean's office?
·
Does the program
have an effective leadership development program in place?
·
Does the program
have a mission statement and long range plan that are endorsed by the faculty
and that are used as the basis for annual planning?
7. Service/Community Engagement
·
Is the program
meeting its service/community engagement expectations?
·
Is it performing
a satisfactory amount of service/community engagement research and assistance?
·
Is it, where
appropriate, making the effort to introduce students to professional
service/community engagement opportunities?
8. Diversity
·
Is the program
taking appropriate steps to meet the university's goals to achieve a diverse
faculty, staff and student body, to offer multicultural courses, and to promote
respect for all people?
9. University Citizenship
·
Is the program
providing good university citizenship?
·
Do its members
encourage and contribute to interdisciplinary activities?
·
Should it
concentrate its efforts and resources in a different way in order to create the
greatest possible synergy throughout the university?
10. University Support
·
Is the program
receiving adequate support from its college and from the university at large in
the context of budgetary constraints affecting higher education in general?
·
Are library,
computer and technology facilities, and other resources appropriate to support
the program?
11. Plans, Goals, and Resource Allocation
·
To what degree
is the program central to the strategic priorities of the university and to the
program's college priorities?
·
How do the
program's plans and goals serve to fulfill its mission?
·
Is the program
trying to do too much?
·
What, if any, of
the program’s requests for additional resources does the review committee support,
and why? How might the program’s resources be redistributed to realize its
goals and those of the university?
·
Evaluation of
resource requests and recommendations must be framed under three budget
scenarios, i.e., a 20% reduced budget environment, constant budget environment,
and a 20% increased budget environment.
12.Other
•
Provide feedback and/or recommendations regarding other issues raised
by the unit (per IX of the Unit
Self-Study).
Travel
and Expense Information for External Reviewers
External reviewers should make their own arrangements for
transportation to
The Office of Academic Programs will make hotel arrangements
for external reviewers.
External reviewers will be reimbursed for all related expenses and
provided with an honorarium for their participation in the review
process. The Division of Academic and Student Affairs, in conjunction
with the Division for Research and Graduate Studies and/or Health Sciences and
the Chancellor, will provide staffing and funds for expenses and honoraria of
the Review Committee. Reviewer social security number and home address must be
provided. These will be obtained while the reviewer is in
REFERENCES
1 Graduate
Program Review: Procedures for Graduate Program Review. Division of Research and Graduate
Studies. April 8, 2002.
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/gradschool/review.cfm
2
http://www.ncsu.edu/grad/faculty-and-staff/program-evaluation.html
3Assessment
and Review of Graduate Programs: A Policy Statement (2005). Council of Graduate Schools.
http://www.cgsnet.org
4Guide
for the Review of Existing Academic Programs (2007). Division of Academic
Affairs.
APPENDICES
(Order and Content of Materials To Be Included with the
Self-Study)
Appendix
A. Graduate Faculty/Student Committees Chaired
Over
the Last 5 Years
• Advisory Committees Chaired – Last seven Years
• Master’s and Doctoral: Faculty Name and Rank,
No. Completed, No. Current.
Appendix
B. Student Placement
Show the first post-degree position placements
of graduates for the past three years.
Type of position? In-State or Out-of-State?
1.
Elementary and/or Secondary Schools
2.
Two-Year Colleges
3.
4.
Government Agencies
5.
Self-Employed Professionals
6.
Business/Industry
7.
Graduate and Post-Doctoral Programs
9.
Other (Specify)
Appendix
C. Degree Program/Degree Concentrations
Degree Program/Degree Concentration
-Please provide brief descriptions of each
degree program, concentration, or area of emphasis.
-Enclose pamphlets or brochures that describe
your programs and program concentrations.
Degree(s)
Classification
of Instruction Programs (CIP) code
Descriptive
title
Annual
number of students who elect this program
Number
of FTEs in the unit who teach in the degree program(s)
Appendix D. Template for Faculty Sedona-Generated CV’s
for Self-Study
NAME
TITLE
UNIT OR PROGRAM
Room Number
TELEPHONE #
FAX #
E-MAIL ADDRESS
EDUCATION/TRAINING (Beginning with baccalaureate degree,
list institution, degree, dates of enrollment [e.g., 1974-77], and field of
study)
POSITIONS and EMPLOYMENT (List in chronological order
previous positions, ending with current position. List honors, ending with most
recent.)
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCES and PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
(List in chronological order, ending with most recent.)
HONORS (List in chronological order, ending with most
recent.)
SELECTED PEER-REVIEW PUBLICATIONS (Last 7 Years) (List in
chronological order, ending with most recent.)
RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY SUPPORT (Last 7 Years) (List
selected ongoing or completed projects [federal and non-federal support]).
COURSES TAUGHT (Last 7 Years) (Include course prefix,
number, and title.)
Attach
the Additional Information Below to the Faculty CV
RECENT GRADUATE STUDENT TRAINING EXPERIENCE (Last 7 Years)
[First, summarize students currently supervised, their degree levels, and
general area of research, e.g., “Currently supervise one Ph.D. student (L.
Young) and two M.S. students (J. Doe and B. Smith) in environmental toxicology
research.” Second, list graduate students supervised over the last five years,
giving name, year of graduation, title of thesis or dissertation, and whether
Ph.D. dissertation or Master’s thesis.]
Appendix E. Biennial Progress Report Format
Because the purpose of the external review is to
improve a program, it is important that there be follow-up on the
recommendations that were stated in that review. The purpose of the Biennial Progress Report
is to provide a format for stating what has transpired in response to the
review recommendations over the last two years.
The report has two components: (1) a unit action plan implementation report; and (2) a unit assessment plan
implementation report.
These two implementation plans will be archived and
can be accessed on each unit program’s reporting system web-site included in
the Embedded Web-Site. Access will be
provided to unit, college/school, division, and faculty senate officials.
Unit Action Plan Implementation
As a result of the Review Committee’s recommendations for improvement, an action plan
was developed by the unit program faculty in concert with discussions with
college/school, division, and university administrators. The unit action plan is posted on the
Embedded Website.
Every two years, each unit graduate program
coordinator (UGPC) and Unit Undergraduate Program Coordinator (UUPC) will be
asked to provide brief summaries on the “action item” responses to the Review Committee’s recommendations. The summaries should address the following:
1.
What progress has been made for
improvement?
2. What if any items are behind schedule, and what are
the hindrances to their timely completion?
3. What strategies have been developed to address these
hindrances? Has the action item been
modified? Have other resources been sought to fund the action item?
4. Is there need for input from the college/school
and/or other levels of the administration for completion of the action items?
5. What process is in place for ongoing review of action
items that will facilitate quality enhancement?
Unit
Assessment Plan Implementation
In order to document the efforts of faculty to
improve their unit programs, a biennial report of the assessment of undergraduate/graduate
program outcomes and the actions taken in response to the key findings of those
assessments. The report consists of brief responses to a set of questions with
an emphasis on summarizing as opposed to providing details of assessment results.
The questions are:
1.
What outcomes were scheduled to be assessed
during the present biennial reporting period? What outcomes were actually
assessed? [Please refer to the unit program assessment plan].
2.
What data were
collected? Summarize findings for these data.
3.
What did the
unit program administration and the faculty learn about the program and/or the
students from the analysis of the data? What areas of concern have emerged from
the assessment?
4.
As a result of
the assessment, what changes, if any, have the unit program administration and
the faculty implemented or considered implementing to address areas of concern?
(These can include changes in the program and in the assessment plan.) How will
the effectiveness of these changes be measured?
5.
What outcomes
are being planned for assessment for the upcoming biennial reporting period?
(If they are different from what have been proposed in the assessment plan,
please update the assessment plan to reflect the change).