Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science Review and Planning Process Fall 1998

SEAS Review Review and planning process Integral part of achieving SEAS strategic plan Serves as preparation for ABET 2000 Covers academic and administrative departments

Purpose Assess overall SEAS performance Foster planning and improvement Provide guidance for academic and administrative decisions

Process Overview Designate Review Committees Conduct departmental level self study & generate draft report Hold External Visiting Team review Incorporate external review into self study and send draft to Academic Review Committee (ACR) ACR reviews and provides feedback to departments Departments complete final report and send back to ACR ACR writes summary report on findings and recommendations and submits to Dean Progress based on plans reviewed annually

Designate Review Committees Academic Review Committee –Department Chairs –Chaired by Vice Dean Internal Review Committee –Department Chair & two faculty members External Reviewers –Industrial and academic representatives

Conduct Self Study Departmental level self study Broad involvement of all members Comprehensive review of past and current performance Intensive dialogue on future plans (5 years) Generate organized self study report

Self Study Topic Areas Departmental overview and mission Description and evaluation of academic or administrative programs Faculty and resources Strengths and opportunities Five year plan Appendices

Overview and Mission Brief history of department Organization (internal structure) Outline major academic responsibilities Department’s mission and major educational objectives

Academic Programs Undergraduate Masters (including CVN) Doctoral How do these programs support department’s mission and objectives? Discuss enrollment, student performance, quality, and innovation For programs seeking ABET accreditation, describe how program achieves “a-k” learning outcomes.

Evaluating Academic Programs Enrollment/Performance –degrees offered and requirements (D) –number of majors (DO) –degrees conferred (DO) –service to non-SEAS students (DO) –course enrollment (DO) –ABET matrix where applicable (D) Quality/Innovation –curricular innovations (D) –interdisciplinary instructional efforts (D) –student perceptions (course evaluations, senior exit interviews, alumni survey, etc.) (DO) –national rankings (D) Data Sources: D=Department and DO = Dean’s Office

Faculty and Resources Research Teaching Facilities and support services External relations and linkages

Research Description of major research initiatives (D) Contracts and Grants: under review (D), granted past 5 years (DO), to be submitted (D) Average grant and ICR per faculty member (DO) Faculty stature: publications, citations, awards, etc. (D) Average GRA’s supported by external funding (D) What plans do you have to support School’s Goal of 50% grant volume increase 5 years? (D) Data Sources: D=Department and DO = Dean’s Office

Teaching Average number of students per course taught during each of the past five years (DO) Review of course evaluation and other relevant data (D) Plans to improve quality of teaching and increase curricular innovations (D) Data Sources: D=Department and DO = Dean’s Office

Facilities/Support/Linkages Summarize space, personnel and other special facilities and resources used to support academic programs (D) Describe linkages within Columbia University, Barnard, Teachers College (D) Identify external linkages that support program, including industrial relationships and alumni initiatives (D) Data Sources: D=Department and DO = Dean’s Office

Strengths and Opportunities Provide an accurate and comprehensive description of strengths and opportunities within each of the key review areas –Academic programs –Faculty and resources Identify improvement opportunities based on existing resources versus those requiring additional resources. Describe major barriers that diminish department’s ability to capitalize on strengths or opportunities

Five Year Plan Identify major departmental objectives, addressing how they support SEAS strategic plan and capitalize on department’s strengths and opportunities –For each objective, describe specific strategies and actions to be implemented –For each strategy/action, identify expected outcomes* (quantify when possible) –Clearly state timetables for each strategy –Describe how outcomes will be measured and strategies evaluated. * For programs seeking ABET accreditation, incorporate “a-k” criteria

Appendices External Visitors’ Report Data tables Samples of any departmental specific surveys used Other supporting materials, such as extended descriptions of major research programs, major faculty awards, interdisciplinary and external collaborations, etc.

External Visiting Team At least two individuals selected by Internal Review Committee in consultation with Dean Visiting team provided with self study report and review guidelines prior to visit. Department sets agenda and schedule in consultation with Vice Dean Visiting writes report within two weeks of visit and sends copies to department and Dean.

Report to Academic Committee Once self study is complete: –draft report is sent to Academic Review Committee (department chairs and Vice Dean) –Academic Review Committee reviews self study reports and provides feedback to departments –Departments make changes based on feedback and submits final report to Academic Review Committee

Findings and Recommendations Academic Review Committee prepares a final report that reflects their thinking regarding department assessments and plans. This Report, along with departmental self studies, is submitted to Dean Each department chair receives a copy of the Academic Review Committee’s Report which is put on reserve for faculty review.

On-Going Progress Departmental five year plans will be reviewed annually by Executive Committee Departments will be asked to submit progress reports based on their plans prior to the annual review

Key Milestones