GUIDELINES
FOR
UNIT ACADEMIC PROGRAM
REVIEW
Ronald J. Newton
Interim Associate Dean
of the
Division of Research
and Graduate Studies
Linner Ward
Associate Vice
Chancellor for Academic Programs
Division of Academic
and Student Affairs
Patrick J. Pellicane
Dean of the
Division of Research
and Graduate Studies
Sandra H. Warren
Interim Assistant Dean
Michael J. Spurr
Professor
Department of
Mathematics
George Bailey
Associate Professor
and Chair
Department of
Philosophy
OCTOBER 15, 2008
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
The principles of
academic program review, established at ECU, are the following:
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?
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:
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 Faculty Senate (Educational Policies and
Planning Committee or EPPC).
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 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 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.
The unit chair is
responsible for consulting with IPR and for organizing unit faculty 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 Faculty Senate ((EPPC).
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.
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 Faculty Senate (EPPC) recommendations.
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.
The unit faculty prepares a Self-Study (See Self-Study
Guidelines). 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 Graduate
School over 2-3 days (see Guide to Creating Agenda). (If the unit program review
is a part of a comprehensive review, then coordination of the agenda will
involve other entities).
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 Faculty Senate (EPPC).
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 Faculty Senate (EPPC). (1 mo.
after review)
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, Faculty Senate (EPPC), and university
administrators. (6 mo. after review)
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 Faculty Senate
(EPPC).
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).