Academic Program Review Committee Report AU Senate January 17, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Promotion and Tenure Faculty Senate May 8, To be voted on.
Advertisements

AUBURN UNIVERSITY FACULTY & STAFF ATHLETIC TICKET POLICY
Academic Program and Unit Review at UIS Office of the Provost Fall 2014.
UMR’s Accreditation Self-Study. The Value of Accreditation  Institutional Reputation  Standard of Quality  Vehicle for Self Improvement  Transferability.
Proposal for the Process of Faculty Selection to Committees in the School of Undergraduate Studies History As the School of Undergraduate Studies (UGS)
Fall 2012 General Faculty Meeting – Provost Boosinger  Major Accomplishments Faculty Handbook revisions Revised Promotion and Tenure Process.
Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct Executive Summary (see WSU Policy 2101 for Details)
The University of Arizona Academic Program Review Orientation April 2015.
All-Campus Meeting of Faculty & Staff Monday, August 19, 2013 G. Michael Pratt, Ph.D Associate Provost, Miami University Dean, College of Professional.
2015 Workshop Permanent Status and Promotion Policy and Procedures Overview.
TCNJ Program Review Overview. Purpose Meet Middle States (MSCHE) Expectations Provide structure of periodic review and update of strategic plans Provide.
Teaching Effectiveness Committee & CoursEval Implementation Committee Status Update to University Senate October 4, 2011 October 4, 20111TEC/CIC University.
Fixed-Term Faculty Committee Chair Jean DeSaix. Committee Charge (from Resolution ) monitors implementation of policies and recommendations concerning.
Update 11/9. Academic Senate University Appointments and Promotions Committee Policies and Procedures (approved ASLC 10/20/10)
Accreditation Update COLLEGE of Alameda Spring 2015.
Program Review and General Education Assessment at the University at Albany: Past, Present and Future Barbara Wilkinson Assistant Director for Assessment.
Curriculum Overview Office of the Registrar University Curriculum and Catalog Rev. 12/12.
Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Program Review Orientation 1.
Developing the Self-Study Document Using Integrated Assessment Briefs Millersville University of Pennsylvania Presented by: Dr. Thomas Burns, Associate.
5 Sept 2013 Graduate Studies Committee  Overall GSC  Curriculum Sub- Committee: Issues and Directions.
AUBURN UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW University Senate July 8, 2008.
Dean Search Forums College of Design / /
COURSE FLAG IMPLEMENTATION Paul Woodruff, Dean School of Undergraduate Studies Report to the Faculty Council May 11, 2009.
Accreditation Update COLLEGE of Alameda Fall 2014.
Recommendations on Professional Improvement Leave.
PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS AT UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL Office of the Provost Hélène David, associate vice-rector academic affairs Claude Mailhot, Professor.
University of Idaho Successful External Program Review Archie George, Director Institutional Research and Assessment Jane Baillargeon, Assistant Director.
Grade Change & Incompletes Policy/ Procedure Auburn University Office of the Provost.
03 December 2012 Provost's Report to College Senate.
University of Central Florida Assessment Toolkit for Academic, Student and Enrollment Services Dr. Mark Allen Poisel Dr. Ron Atwell Dr. Paula Krist Dr.
1 Faculty Motivation and Policies Steven R. Hall Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Chair of the MIT Faculty.
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science Review and Planning Process Fall 1998.
Mission College Program Review Report.
Updates to Program Approval Process and Graduate Faculty Nominations Dr. George Hodge Assistant Dean for Program Development.
A Journey through the Seas of Tenure, Permanent Status, and Promotion at the University of Florida 2012: Angel Kwolek-Folland, Associate Provost for Academic.
Curriculum at SCC and Role of the Senate Presented by Craig Rutan and Joyce Wagner SCC Academic Senate Fall 2013 Retreat.
Proposal Development by Faculty in an Academic Unit College, School, Department, or Program Proposal Preparation Office of Academic Programs, Assessment,
Faculty Handbook Review Committee Proposed revision to and
2012 Middle States Accreditation Report Review Chapter 1: Institutional Excellence Standards 1 and 6.
Updates to Program Approval Process and Graduate Faculty Nominations Dr. George Hodge Assistant Dean for Program Development.
Academic Program Review Committee Report Faculty Senate meeting November 11, 2008.
Evaluation of Teaching Recommendations of the Teaching Effectiveness Committee University Senate Meeting May 1, 2007.
Report of Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Goals, Timelines and Requirements Catherine F. Andersen Associate Provost for Academic Affairs.
Update to the Faculty Senate Faculty Enhancement Opportunity Summary to Date April
Proposal Development by Faculty in an Academic Unit College, School, Department, or Program Proposal Preparation Office of Academic Programs, Assessment,
1 Establishing a New Gallaudet Program Review Process Pat Hulsebosch Office of Academic Quality CUE – 9/3/08: CGE – 9/16/08.
Academic Program Review Workshop 2017
Academic Program Review
New Program Proposal Workflow Chart
Report of the Personnel Committee on Promotion and Tenure Procedures
We’re going to follow the chronological order of the process.
Curriculum at SCC and Role of the Senate Presented by Craig Rutan and Joyce Wagner SCC Academic Senate Fall 2013 Retreat.
OUHSC Graduate College Program Review Overview and Timeline
Administrative Review
Substantive Change Full Category I Proposal Workflow
Extend an Existing Degree Program to a New Location
New Certificate Program
Terminate an Academic Unit
Reorganize (Merge, Split, Move) an Academic Program or Academic Unit
New Degree (Undergraduate, First Professional, Graduate) Program
Establish a New Academic Unit
Suspend a Degree or Certificate Program
Rename an Academic Program (Degree or Certificate) or Academic Unit
To achieve improvement through: Self assessment Benchmarking
Administrative Review Committee
Faculty Senate President’s Report
Cyclical Program Review
FA Review and Clarification of Appendix 15A
UND’s Promotion & Tenure Process: Electronic Submission and Next Steps
Faculty Governance at NU
Presentation transcript:

Academic Program Review Committee Report AU Senate January 17, 2006

Committee Members Art Chappelka- Forestry & Wildlife Sciences – Chair David Wilson – Continuing Mike Moriarty – Continuing Steve McFarland – Continuing Henry McCurley – Library Wendy Duncan-Hewitt – Pharmacy Randy Bartlett – Architecture Peter Stanwick – Business Sareen Gropper – Human Sciences David Sutton – Liberal Arts Barbara Wilder – Nursing Steve Silvern – Education Larry Myers – Vet. Medicine Robin Huettel – Agriculture Yasser Gowayed –Engineering Steve Kempf – COSAM

Academic Program Review (Proposed Committee Recommendations) Program reviews will be coordinated through the Office of the Provost. As the fundamental units of responsibility, academic departments or schools (academic degree granting programs) are the basic unit of academic program review at Auburn University. The review has two main components: a self- assessment (self-study) and an external assessment.

Academic Program Review (Proposed Committee Recommendations) The self-study is conducted by the unit under review. The unit in consultation with the Dean and Provost is responsible for defining its own mission, developing assessment methods and tools, and reporting the results. –Criteria will be composed of established measures, eg., student credit hrs., FTEs, national or regional rank of the program (if available), etc., consistent among all AU units, and metrics unique to each unit. –Possible performance indicators may include, but are not limited to: centrality, efficiency, diversity, productivity, quality, vitality, competitive advantage, compelling need/uniqueness, demand, adequacy of resources, etc.

Academic Program Review (Proposed Committee Recommendations) The external assessment is conducted by outside reviewers. These reviewers will be a combination of those external to the department/college and University. These reviewers are nominated by the unit head and selected by the Dean in consultation with the Provost. The outside reviewers will review the self-assessment, conduct interviews, and issue a final report to the Dean. This final report will then be forwarded to the Office of the Provost accompanied by the Dean’s recommendations. Provost will make recommendations and discuss with the APR committee before implementation.

Academic Program Review (Proposed Committee Recommendations) What if an academic unit already undergoes an accreditation process by an external agency? An accreditation report may serve as proof of an external assessment. At the discretion of the department head/chair, Dean and/or Provost, additional external assessments may be warranted.

Results of a review What happens next? After the external review the Dean and Unit Head make a recommendation which forwarded to the Provost Dean and Unit Head discuss recommendation with Provost Provost makes recommendation and informs the APR committee APR committee reviews recommendation and agrees or disagrees with it, and sends findings to Provost Final recommendation then sent to the President for approval

Synopsis of reviewer comments Major points- no order of importance Need more definitions of APR Better flow of the document Be clear on differences between self-study and external review Be clear on the use of external assessments Timing of recommendation to APR-should it be before or after Provost approval? Shorten the Appendix Clearly deliniate chain of command

Tentative Timeline Committee meetings bi-weekly beginning May 05 Bi-weekly meetings with Provost beginning June 05 Present status report to Provost Council Met with Dean’s – September-October Present status report to General Faculty Draft document - Oct./Nov. Presentation to BOT (Heilman) Sent document out for review – Nov./Dec. 05 Received all reviews January 3 Present report to University Senate for discussion Senate vote 2-06 Beta test procedure (test procedure on a voluntary basis with one or two units) Spring 06 Get feedback-Summer 06 and revise the process Implement procedure Fall 06

List of Reviewers Conner Bailey Nels Madsen Holly Stadler Drew Clark

Contact Person Art Chappelka Chair APR Committee