Graduate Program Review Tasks, Timelines & Responsibilities

Transcription

1 Graduate Program Review Tasks, Timelines & Responsibilities

2 Graduate Program Review Tasks, Timelines, and Responsibilities In accordance with the requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACACOC), each public institution of higher education shall have a process to review the quality and effectiveness of existing degree programs and for continuous improvement. This requirement is included in Texas Administrative Code Rule 5.52 requiring all masters and doctoral programs to evaluated with no more than 20% of an institution s programs being evaluated in a single year. Further defined in Rule 5.52 by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) are the 27 minimum criteria for doctoral degree program reviews and 19 minimum criteria for master s programs as well as other procedural guidelines. While compliance with SACSCOC and THECB requirements both drives and focuses the tasks of the graduate program review process, the process also provides a mechanism for maintaining and improving the quality of graduate education at Texas Tech University. Periodic program reviews give administrators, faculty and other academic leaders important information about the size and quality of a program, the program s future resource needs, recruitment, strengths and weaknesses, and its contribution to the strategic plan of the university. The outcome of the program reviews is used to give direction, to set goals for the future, and to ensure that general academic plans and budget decisions are based on solid information and priorities, which match closely to those of the university. To manage the graduate program review process across Texas Tech University, a six-year rotation of all graduate programs has been established and approved by THECB. For each graduate program reviewed, a three-phase process has been established. The initial phase is the completion of a self-study report. The second phase involves and on-site review process that involves individuals with subject matter expertise who are employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas and yields and evaluation of the current state of the graduate program and recommendations for improvement. The final phase is a review of the evaluation report(s) and the development of response to the report including an action plan for the program. What follows is the breakdown of the tasks for each phase of the graduate program review process, related timeline and the responsible party for the task. Graduate School staff involved in program review: Darina Brackeen Graduate Program Review Coordinator x darina.brackeen@ttu.edu David Doerfert, Ph.D. Associate Dean & Professor x david.doerfert@ttu.edu Mark Sheridan, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Graduate Affairs and Dean of the Graduate School x mark.sheridan@ttu.edu 1

3 PHASE 1: Self-study Report Created (Summer & Fall terms) Task Orientation 1. Graduate School Associate Dean contacts department chair and related college associate dean to schedule initial meeting with related participants invited. 2. Explanation of tasks, timelines and responsibilities are shared as well as self-study template and link to previous reviews Peer Institution List 3. Using approved Peer and Aspirational Peer Institutions list, identify a minimum of six institutions with similar programs and 2-3 alternative institutions. Data Collection 4. Internal information is gathered from Institutional Research and Information Management (IRIM), the office of Administration and Finance Information Systems Management (AFISM) and Graduate School records (scholarships and fellowships) for the previous six academic years. 5. Peer institution data is gathered on the following items. The Chair of the unit may obtain more peer institution information if desired. - number and type of degrees awarded - enrollment figures at all levels -number tenured, tenure-track and teaching assistants - external and internal grants and contracts awarded - other (as requested by Chair during orientation) 2 Timeline June June by July 15 th summer & early fall summer and early fall 6. All remaining required data collected by Department summer & fall 7. Graduate School commissions surveys anonymously administered by IRIM to the faculty and graduate student base. Data collected for a 3- week period only. September Reviewers Identified and Secured 8. Graduate School Associate Dean contacts department chair of programs being reviewed in next academic year for potential individuals to serve as a member of an internal review team. 9. Using approved Peer and Aspirational Peer Institutions list (excluding Texas-based institutions Appendix A), identify a minimum of six individuals from a peer institution to serve as an external reviewer. Self-study Report Written 10. Using template and data tables provided by the Graduate School, the narrative portion of the report is written for each section. - Narrative should describe administrative information of the unit s strengths, areas to strengthen, plans, and goals. - Unit is encouraged to additional data tables & charts outside the provided template to communicate status of programs (additions are placed in the Appendix section see Appendix B for examples) - All faculty members should be involved in the preparation of the selfstudy 11. Department Chair certifies the content, accuracy, and completeness of the self-study July by Sept. 1 st By Nov. 15 th by Dec. 1 st Responsibility Grad Dept. School

4 PHASE 2: Program Review Conducted (Fall & Spring terms) Invitation To Serve Task 1. Nominees are invited and secured to serve on internal review team (3 members: one from a closely related department, one from a closely related discipline, and one from a department 1-2 steps removed from program being reviewed). - Preferences are given to individuals from departments who will be completing a graduate program review in next 1-2 years. 2. Nominees are vetted, invited and secured to serve as external reviewers (2 required for doctoral programs; one for master s programs). Preparation for Review Event 3. Graduate School Associate Dean meets with internal review team to review process and identify committee chair for review process. 4. Graduate Program Review Coordinator completes travel accommodations for external reviewers (e.g. lodging, flights, transportation to and from airport). 5. Schedule for review process created. Guidelines include: hours planned for each group (e.g. faculty, students) - maximum of 3 hours for facility tour - meeting for committee with Graduate School staff (night before or lunch on first day costs shared between unit & Graduate School) - meeting locations are reserved 6. Reviewers provided with self-study report, schedule and Graduate Program Review Response Form template. Other materials provided by request. Review Event 7. Graduate School Associate Dean transports external reviewers from lodging location to review location. 8. Review team chair leads process as scheduled. Serves as point of contact for the review team s needs and information requests. 9. Transportation to tour facilities provided by department/college being reviewed. 10. External reviewers submit related travel expenses to Graduate Program Review Coordinator within two weeks after review (original receipts required) Report Created and Submitted 11. Reports are created by the review team members (one by internal members and one by each of the external review team members) using the Graduate Program Review Response Form template (Appendix C) and submitted to the Graduate School. Timeline by Oct. 1 st by Nov. 1 st by Dec. 1 st as soon as possible 1 month prior 2 weeks prior day of day of within 2 weeks within 2 weeks after review Responsibility Dept. Grad School Review Team 3

5 PHASE 3: Program Report and Action Plan Development (Spring and Summer terms) Assessment Meeting Task Timeline Responsibility Dept. Grad School Review Team 1. After reports are received, the Graduate School Unit Coordinator schedules a final program review meeting with the Provost, Vice President for Research, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Associate Dean of the Graduate School responsible for program reviews, the Graduate School Unit Coordinator, the Dean of the College of the academic unit being reviewed, the Chair of the as soon as individual schedules permits academic unit being reviewed, and the internal review committee members (one hour planned). 2. Graduate School Associate Dean facilitates meeting. Day of Response Report/Action Plan 3. The College Dean and Department Chair will submit a response report to the Vice Provost for Graduate Affairs and Dean of the Graduate School who signs off or obtains further corrections. The report should: - include specific action items to address the issues of concern found by the review committee. - include additional action items (including program marketing plans) to be taken based on the outcome of the review including a time-table of these intended actions - be formatted to indicate actions that will occur in the following year and those that will occur in the 5 years after that but prior to the next formal graduate program review. Wrap-up & Follow-up 4. The final response will be signed off by the Provost and forwarded to the Graduate School to be uploaded into the THECB program review system along with the summary of the self-study and the reviewers reports. 5. Department chair (or program director) provides the Graduate School with a report on changes based on action items made in response to the committee Program Response Forms, and any other items of importance. 6. A meeting is scheduled with the Department Chair (or Program Director), the Dean of the college, and the Graduate School Associate Dean overseeing the review to discuss the outcome of the review based on the submitted report. 2 weeks after meeting by end of Academic Year one year after the completion of the review of the program After report is submitted 4

6 Appendix A Peer and Aspirational Peer Institutions Peer Institutions Arizona State University Auburn University Clemson University Florida State University Georgia Institute of Technology Indiana University - Bloomington Iowa State University Kansas State University Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge Michigan State University Mississippi State University North Carolina State University Ohio State University - Columbus Oklahoma State University - Stillwater Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University - University Park Purdue University - West Lafayette Rutgers University - New Brunswick Texas A&M University University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa University of Arizona University of Arkansas - Fayetteville University of California - Berkeley University of California - Los Angeles University of Colorado at Boulder University of Connecticut - Storrs University of Florida University of Georgia University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas - Lawrence University of Kentucky University of Louisville University of Maryland - College Park University of Massachusetts - Amherst University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Mississippi - Oxford University of Missouri - Columbia University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill University of Oklahoma - Norman University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Rhode Island University of South Carolina - Columbia University of South Florida University of Tennessee - Knoxville University of Texas - Austin University of Virginia University of Washington University of Wisconsin - Madison Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Washington State University - Pullman West Virginia University State of Texas NRUF competitors University of Houston - University Park University of North Texas University of Texas - Arlington University of Texas - Dallas University of Texas - El Paso University of Texas - San Antonio Aspirational Peers, American Association of Universities Brandeis University (1985) Brown University (1933) California Institute of Technology (1934) Carnegie Mellon University (1982) Case Western Reserve University (1969) Columbia University (1900) Cornell University (1900) Duke University (1938) Emory University (1995) Georgia Institute of Technology (2010) Harvard University (1900) Indiana University (1909) Iowa State University (1958) The Johns Hopkins University (1900) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1934) McGill University (1926) Michigan State University (1964) New York University (1950) Northwestern University (1917) The Ohio State University (1916) The Pennsylvania State University (1958) Princeton University (1900) Purdue University (1958) Rice University (1985) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (1989) Stanford University (1900) Stony Brook University-State University of New York (2001) Texas A&M University (2001) Tulane University (1958) The University of Arizona (1985) University at Buffalo, The State University of New York (1989) University of California, Berkeley (1900) University of California, Davis (1996) University of California, Irvine (1996) University of California, Los Angeles (1974) University of California, San Diego (1982) University of California, Santa Barbara (1995) The University of Chicago (1900) University of Colorado at Boulder (1966) University of Florida (1985) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1908) The University of Iowa (1909) The University of Kansas (1909) University of Maryland, College Park (1969) University of Michigan (1900) University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (1908) University of Missouri-Columbia (1908) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1922) University of Oregon (1969) University of Pennsylvania (1900) University of Pittsburgh (1974) University of Rochester (1941) University of Southern California (1969) The University of Texas at Austin (1929) University of Toronto (1926) University of Virginia (1904) University of Washington (1950) The University of Wisconsin-Madison (1900) Vanderbilt University (1950) Washington University in St. Louis (1923) Yale University (1900) 5

7 Appendix B Additional Data that May Enhance Self-Study Report (as applicable) Overall: a. What are the objectives of the program(s) under review? Students: a. What basic guidelines are graduate students provided regarding the courses allowed for their program, and how many courses in their program are allowed to be taken outside the home department? What are the degree requirements? b. How many hours of courses are required for each program? What is the approximate time frame from start to finish (expected and actual) for the master and doctorate students to complete the program? Is there a way to reduce the time to completion without reducing the quality of the program? c. Are sufficient numbers of graduate level courses provided on a regular schedule for each program offered for your student population? Are there too many or not enough? d. What procedures exist to periodically review graduate course offerings and course content, and to review the teaching performance in those courses? e. Describe student recruitment, review of applicants, decisions on admittance of applicants, and how various financial assistance are awarded to both new and continuing students. f. What are the reasons graduate students leave the program prior to completion of their degree? g. How effective are the masters and doctorate recipients in publishing their thesis or dissertation? h. Are graduate students admitted into the program(s) if they are not receiving any assistantship? If not, please provide the policy for this process and the reasoning for the policy. i. Explain how students are allowed and encouraged to take classes from other departments. Department: a. Describe any Centers or Institutes within the unit and how they contribute to or benefit the graduate programs? b. What procedures or policies exist with regards to faculty supervision of graduate students (advising), committee obligations, and interdisciplinary teaching activities? c. How are students involved in the governance and administration of the program(s)? d. What is the maximum number of students allowed in each graduate class and explain why you had such a maximum. e. What mission and goals exist and how do they accord with those of the college and the university? f. What measures are used to identify the quality of the program(s)? g. What challenges would the program face in maintaining or becoming a highly ranked program? h. To what degree were faculty involved in writing the self-study and did they review the final copy? i. What is the current number of graduate students each faculty are advising or directing their program? j. How is the progress and ultimate success of the program(s) evaluated? k. What is necessary to reach the evolving future given where the program is currently? 6

8 Appendix C Graduate Program Review Response Form Program Reviewed: Onsite Review Dates: Name of Reviewers: Internal: (Please include Name, Title and Department) External: (Please include Name, Title, Department, and Institution) I. Academic Unit Description and Strategic Plan Please evaluate the following departmental factors by clicking and selecting the appropriate rating descriptor: Vision, Mission and Goals: 1 Strategic Plan: Please comment on the positive components and suggested areas of improvement. II. Program Curriculum Please evaluate the following program curriculum factors for the masters and doctoral programs by clicking and selecting the appropriate rating descriptor: Alignment of the program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes: Curriculum development coordination and delivery: Program learning outcomes assessment: Program curriculum compared to peer programs: 1 Each rating descriptor box is a pull-down menu with a four-point rating scale of Excellent, Very Good, Good, or Needs Improvement 7

9 Please comment on the positive components and suggested areas of improvement. III. Faculty Productivity Please evaluate the following faculty productivity factors by clicking and selecting the appropriate rating descriptor: Qualifications: Publications/Creative Works: Teaching Load: External Grants: Teaching Evaluations: Professional Service: Community Service: Please comment on the positive components and suggested areas of improvement. IV. Students and Graduates Please evaluate the following student- and graduate-related factors by clicking and selecting the appropriate rating descriptor: Time to degree: Retention: Graduate Rates: Enrollment: Demographics: Number of Degrees Conferred Annually: 8

10 Support Services: Job Placement: Student/Faculty Ratio: Please comment on the positive components and suggested areas of improvement. V. Facilities and Resources Please evaluate the following facilities and resources factors by clicking and selecting the appropriate rating descriptor: Facilities: Facility Support Resources: Financial Resources: Staff Resources: Please comment on the positive components and suggested areas of improvement. VI. Overall Ranking Please provide an overall rating of the masters and doctoral degree programs by clicking and selecting the appropriate rating descriptor: Overall Rating: Please provide summative conclusions based on the overall review. Please proved summative recommendations based on the overall review. 9