Assessment & Review of Graduate Programs

Assessment & Review of Graduate Programs
Duane K. Larick, NC State University David L. Wilson, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Council Of Graduate Schools Pre-Meeting Workshop December 8, 2004

Guidelines for This Presentation
Please turn off or silence you cell phones Please feel free to raise questions at anytime during the presentation We have included a set of discussion questions along the way We will also leave time at the end for general discussion. We are very interested in your participation

Agenda Introduction and Objectives Overview of Graduate Program Review
Reasons for Graduate Assessment General Process of Program Review Process or Processes for Development of a Program Review Procedure External program review Outcome based – continuous & ongoing review Comparative Data Sources Case Studies Southern Illinois University Carbondale North Carolina State University Summary and Discussion

Objectives Discuss various motivators for undertaking graduate assessment Increase overall awareness of recent trends in Graduate Program Review Demonstrate practical experience/knowledge gained related to development and implementation of external reviews and outcome-based continuous and ongoing procedures for Graduate Program Review Illustrate examples of data and managerial tools developed/utilized to improve the efficiency of the process

Why Assess Graduate Programs (external drivers)?
Improvement in the quality of graduate education To help satisfy calls for accountability Especially at the State level Requirement for regional accreditation, licensure, etc. Accreditation requirements: I can speak from the very unpleasant experience of Georgia Tech in 1998: SACS is very serious indeed about the need to assess graduate programs.

Why Assess Graduate Programs (internal drivers)?
Meet short-term (tactical) objectives or targets Meet long-term (strategic) institutional/departmental goals Funding allocation/reallocation Funded project evaluation (GAANN, IGERT) Understand sources of retention/attrition among students and faculty

Accreditation Agencies
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Western Association of Colleges and Schools Northwest Association of Colleges and Schools North Central Association New England Association of Schools and Colleges Middle States Commission on Higher Education

SACS Principles of Accreditation
Core requirement #5: “The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.”

SACS Criterion for Accreditation
Section 3 – Comprehensive Standards - #16 “The institution identifies outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.

SACS Principles of Accreditation
Section 3 – Comprehensive Standards: Standards for All Educational Programs “12. The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with the faculty” “18. The institution ensures that its graduate instruction and resources foster independent learning, enabling the graduate to contribute to a profession or field of study.” It is the faculties’ job to identify the program outcomes. Outcomes can be specific to a field of study.

Northwest Association of Colleges and Schools
Standard 2.B The institution identifies and publishes the expected learning outcomes for each of its degree programs The institution’s processes for assessing its educational programs are clearly defined, encompass all of its offerings, are conducted on a regular basis, and are integrated into the overall planning & evaluation plan The institution provides evidence that its assessment activities lead to the improvement of teaching and learning

Intent of Accreditation Agency Effort
The intent of the accrediting agencies is to “encourage” institutions to create an environment of planned change for improving the educational process.

State Mandated Reviews and Assessment
Illinois Board of Higher Education’s Priorities, Quality, and Productivity (P.Q.P.) Initiative (1992) IBHE’s Framework for Reviewing Priorities, Productivity, and Accountability (PPA) in Illinois Higher Education (December 2003)

So, The Questions We Need To Ask Ourselves Are?
What are we currently doing? Why are we currently doing it? Is what we are currently doing accomplishing the external goals just described above? Is what we are currently doing accomplishing the internal goals described above? Is there a “better” way? Who defines better? At least some/most of the objectives should be measurable.

General Procedure(s) for Review of Graduate Programs
External program review conducted on a 5 – 10 year cycle Standard practice at most Institutions Outcome-based continuous and ongoing program review Being implemented by many in response to regional and state accreditation requirements and institution needs

General Process for External Reviews
Operational Procedures: year review cycle Components Internal self-study External “team” review Review team’s report Program’s response Administrative Meeting

Administration:: Typically Administered by the Dean of the Graduate School or centrally through the Provost’s Office Initiated by program or the administrating office Often conducted at the Department level Includes multiple degrees/programs

Typical Objectives for External Reviews
Reviews are conducted to gain a clearer understanding of a program’s: Purpose(s) within the Institution Effectiveness in achieving purposes Overall quality Future objectives Changes needed to achieve objectives

Information Made Available at the Institution Level (examples include): Enrollment: numbers, demographic Applications numbers applied/admitted/enrolled quality indicators Number of degrees awarded, time to degree Financial support Exit interviews

Self-Study: Purpose Encourage “stakeholders” in a thoughtful and creative study and evaluation of the program’s academic performance in relation to the Institution’s mission Philosophy Review must cover all components of the program’s mission teaching, research, and outreach

Key Self-Study Components: Program description – including objectives Faculty – distribution & quality Students – need, enrollment, quality, degrees granted, support Curriculum/Instruction Masters & Doctoral degrees granted

Key Self-Study Components: Teaching, research, and service participation Current research – national comparison, external support, interdisciplinary projects Methods for internal program review Recent changes & why Strengths, Weakness & Opportunities

Review Team Make-up: On-Campus Representation Often a Graduate School and/or Graduate Faculty Representative One or more off-campus external experts Depends on scope of program(s) being reviewed Can add to expense

Review Team Visit: Often 2-4 days in length Generally meet with University and College administration in addition to faculty and students

Review Team Report: Generally includes some form of an analysis of the strengths, weakness, opportunities for and needs of the graduate program from the perspective of their peers

Final Administrative Meeting: Final meeting to discuss the “outcome(s)” of the review Should include proposed action items with a follow-up schedule

Discussion Questions? How many of your institutions have a graduate program review process similar to what was just described? What are some of the variations that exist? How often or what is the frequency of review – remember the words “continuous improvement”

Discussion Questions? continued
Who should coordinate the review of graduate programs? What should the role of the Graduate School be? Should the external review be comprehensive in nature i.e. encompass all roles of the program? Should the review be tied to other reviews – licensure, accreditation, etc.? Who pays for the external review and how much is reasonable?

Outcome-Based, Continuous and Ongoing Review of Graduate Programs
There are fewer Institutional models or norms to go by when it comes to designing and implementing this type of review process Goal is generally to establish an outcomes-based program that is continuous rather than sporatic The program periodically reports the nature and outcomes of the review process to the Institution and appropriate external agencies (State, accreditation agencies, etc) Results are used by the program and Institution for planning purposes

What Is Outcomes-Based Assessment?
The process of (1) determining the indicators of an effective program, (2) using those indicators as criteria for assessing the program, and (3) applying the results of the assessment toward the ongoing and continuous improvement of the program.

What Is Outcomes-Based Assessment?
Shift to student learning centered concerns “What do we want our students to know?” “How well does the program promote learning?” Moves from the “quality” of presentation to “How well did the student learn it?” Assesses achievement of the outcomes on a continuous rather than episodic basis

Potential Benefits of Assessment Planning Process
Gives faculty a voice in defining the program and thus a stake in the program Gives faculty an investment in assessing the program Provides faculty-approved indicators for gauging and improving the effectiveness of the program

Where Do We Start When Considering an Outcome-Based Process?
It Sometimes Helps to Ask the Following Questions? Do our graduate programs have a clearly stated objectives? Do we have departmental plans to evaluate the effectiveness of our degree programs? Do our degree programs have clearly defined faculty expectations (outcomes) for students? Are they measurable or observable? Do we use data to assess the achievement of faculty expectations for students? Do we make changes in our programs based on the outcomes of these assessments? Do we document that assessment is done and results are used to make change? At least some/most of the objectives should be measurable.

Outline of the Process Development of program specific objectives
Development of program specific outcomes Development of an assessment plan or a “Schedule” for assessing and reporting outcomes Development of the necessary database at the program and institutional level Development of the appropriate managerial tools

Keys to Success The department should want to do this process
The department must use the information collected Demonstrate change as a result of findings The institution must use the information collected It should somehow tie to resource decisions Use participation in the process as part of faculty reviews

What Are Objectives? Program objectives are the general goals that define what it means to be an effective program.

Three Common Objectives
Developing students as successful professionals in the field Developing students as effective researchers in the field Maintaining or enhancing the overall quality of the program

What Are Outcomes? Program outcomes are specific results the program seeks to achieve in order to attain the general goals defined in the objectives. These can be thought of as faculty expectations of students completing the degree program

Example for Outcome 2 – Effective Researchers
2. To prepare students to conduct research effectively in XXXX in a collaborative environment, the program aims to offer a variety of educational experiences that are designed to develop in students the ability to: a. read and review the literature in an area of study in such a way that reveals a comprehensive understanding of the literature b. identify research questions/problems that are pertinent to a field of study and provide a focus for making a significant contribution to the field gather, organize, analyze, and report data using a conceptual framework appropriate to the research question and the field of study interpret research results in a way that adds to the understanding of the field of study and relates the findings to teaching and learning in science

Objectives and Outcomes
Objectives: general, indefinite, not intended to be measured; they set the overall agenda for the program Outcomes: specific, definite, intended to be measured; they establish the particular means by which the agenda is achieved

Critical Questions for Assessment
What are the indicators of effectiveness for our program? Objectives and Outcomes How do we determine whether or not our program is meeting the outcomes? Outcomes Assessment Plan How effective is our program in terms of the outcomes? Outcomes Assessment What does our assessment suggest for improving the program? Continuous and Ongoing Improvement

Four Questions for Creating an Assessment Plan
What types of data should we gather for assessing outcomes? What are the sources of the data? How often are the data to be collected? When do we analyze and report the data?

Types of Data Used Take advantage of what you are already doing
Preliminary exams Proposals Theses and dissertations Defenses Student progress reports Student course evaluations Faculty activity reports Student exit interviews

Types of Data Used Enrollment statistics Time-to-degree statistics
2. Use Resources of Graduate School and Your Institutional Analysis Group Enrollment statistics Time-to-degree statistics Student exit data Ten-year profile reports Alumni surveys

Types of Data Used Use your imagination to find other kinds of data
Dollar amount of support for faculty Student cv’s Faculty surveys

Data: Two Standards to Use in Identifying Data
Appropriateness: Data should provide information that is suitable for assessing the outcome Accessibility: Data should be reasonable to attain (time, effort, ability, availability, resources)

What data should we gather for assessing outcomes? What are the sources of the data? How often are the data to be collected? When do we analyze and report the data?

Sources of Data Students Faculty Graduate School
Graduate Program Directors Department Heads Registration and Records University Information Technology University Planning and Analysis

Frequency of Data Collection
Every semester Annually Biennially When available from individual graduate students At the preliminary exam At the defense At graduation

Ordering Outcomes for Assessment
More pressing outcomes earlier and less pressing ones later Outcomes easier to assess earlier and outcomes requiring more complex data gathering and analysis later Approximately the same workload each year of the assessment cycle

Creating an Assessment Timetable
Standard practice appears to be to call for a short annual or biennial assessment report Longer cycles loose the impact on the continuous and ongoing nature When possible combining with an external review program i.e. including assessment reports as part of the self study is recommended

Discussion Questions? How many of your institutions have an outcome-based graduate program review process? How many of you are considering implementing such a review program? What are some of the variations that exist? How often are your assessment reports due?

Discussion Questions? continued
For those of you with an outcome-based review process, or for that matter, for those of you considering implementing such a process what was (is) the driving force in that decision? What has been the level of campus buy-in?

Case Studies Graduate Program Review At:
Southern Illinois University Carbondale North Carolina State University

Impact of State Mandates on SIUC
Illinois Board of Higher Education’s Priorities, Quality, and Productivity (P.Q.P.) Initiative (1992) IBHE’s Framework for Reviewing Priorities, Productivity, and Accountability (PPA) in Illinois Higher Education (December 2003)

P.Q.P. in Illinois Statewide Productivity Assessment of Graduate Programs Capacity in Relation to Student Demand Capacity in Relation to Occupational Demand Centrality in Relation to Instructional Mission Success of Graduates Program Costs

P.Q.P. Guidelines for Elimination of Degree Programs (IBHE, August 1992)
Institutions Should Consider Eliminating Programs: Whose credit hours, enrollments, and degree production significantly deviate from statewide or institutional averages … In fields … in which projected statewide job openings are low or projected to slow In fields that enroll a relatively small proportion of non-majors …

Elimination guidelines cont.
That have been found to have quality deficiencies based upon their most recent program reviews That exhibit low job placement rates, lack of student and alumni satisfaction and support, and low graduate admissions of pass rates on licensure exams Whose costs significantly deviate from statewide avg. expenditures per FTE in the discipline …

Role of IBHE, University Boards of Trustees and Campus … in Program Reviews (IBHE, Nov. 1994)
IBHE “has statutory authority to review public institution instructional programs and to communicate to governing boards any programs that the Board finds to be educationally and economically not justified Univ. Boards of Trustees have statutory authority to eliminate academic programs Each Univ. has a Mission Statement which “sets forth the campus’ values and aspirations”

Role of IBHE … cont. Each Univ. has a Focus Statement that “describes the distinctive strengths and contributions of each of the 12 public universities to Illinois higher education” Each … must annually produce a Priorities Statement which “should guide decisions to allocate current funds and develop new programs and budget requests.” These statements are to be included in each universities annual Resource Allocation and Management Plan (RAMP)

Role of IBHE … cont. “To integrate information from program review into campus governing board, and state-wide decision making in the P.Q.P. initiative, the public university academic program review process was revised (by IBHE) FOR ” The revised program review process requires that the 12 public universities Submit Reviews of Similar Programs the same year in an eight-year cycle and for IBHE staff to identify issues to be addressed in a Statewide Analysis Prior to Campus Reviews.

Elements of the Illinois Statewide Program Review Process (IBHE RAMP Manual, 1993)
The IBHE review schedule assures the “submission of reviews of similar programs by all (twelve public) universities at the same time.” Prior to the review, an IBHE statewide analysis, coordinated with the review schedule, “defines statewide issues, examines capacity in fields of study across universities, and provides comparative information for institutional reviews of individual programs.”

Elements of Program Review cont.
Illinois universities conduct the program reviews “according to campus-developed procedures and submit the results of reviews to the IBHE.” IBHE staff analyze the program review reports and provide “recommendations on the educational and economical justification of selected programs … in the staff’s annual Priorities, Quality and Productivity (P.Q.P.) report.” Universities must follow the coordinated review schedule but “may conduct reviews within a reasonable period (e.g. up to 3 years) prior to submission date in order to coordinate reviews with accreditation and other evaluations.”

Elements of Statewide Analysis for Each Program Area to be Reviewed (RAMP Manual, 1993)
Trends in enrollment and degrees granted Student characteristics Program costs Occupational demand Recommendations for expansion or reduction of programs on a statewide basis Universities will be asked to respond to the elements of the statewide analysis in their program reviews

Elements of the Program Review Reports to the IBHE (RAMP Manual, 1993)
A 1 to 2 page summary of the review, submitted by July 1st of each year, “should address the following questions and the key findings and recommendations in each of these areas should constitute its substance”: Student demand Occupational demand Centrality to instructional mission Breadth Success of graduates Costs Quality Productivity

P.Q.P. Impact on SIUC Graduate Programs
Graduate Council from examined all graduate programs on campus, using data supplied by IBHE and also generated by the Graduate School Programs scheduled for elimination or substantial reduction had the opportunity to respond to recommendations in a series of Graduate Council meetings and special forums

P.Q.P. Impact cont. 7 Ph.D. programs were eliminated or consolidated (Communication Disorders; Higher Ed.; Molecular Science; Physical Ed.; Special Ed.; Geology; and Geography Eventually, Geography (Liberal Arts), Geology (Science), and Agribusiness Economics (Agriculture) created a new interdisciplinary Ph.D. program in Environmental Resources and Policy within the Graduate School 5 master’s programs and several post baccalaureate specializations were eliminated Most of these eliminations occurred outside of regular review process, though some were informed by that process

SIUC Graduate Council Response
The P.Q.P. initiative illuminated flaws in the review process and especially problems with inconsistent data about programs GC Program Review Committee took a hard look at the problems and suggested substantial changes in the campus review process In 1999, a new review format was put in place (see handout)

Problems with IBHE Statewide Review of Similar Programs
Clearly, IBHE through P.Q.P. hoped to use the statewide review of similar programs as a vehicle to reduce or eliminate programs seen as duplicative, too costly, unproductive, etc. At first, IBHE wanted to appoint the reviewers—proved to be impractical Accreditation cycles did not march in sync IBHE went through several attempts to revise the review cycle mandated in P.Q.P.

IBHE Review cont…. IBHE creates the Illinois Commitment in February 1999, including including the stipulation that “By 2004, all academic programs will systematically assess student learning and use assessment results to improve programs.” IBHE “Redesign of Public Institution Academic Program Approval and Review Processes” (April 2002); see handout, especially p. 38 SIUC had created an annual “outcomes-based” assessment requirement for all programs in 1999, in part, because of the North Central accreditation process; see

IBHE … Priorities, Productivity, and Accountability (PPA, December 2003)
“Illinois’ system of higher education must have a clear sense of its priorities, ensure the efficient and productive use of existing resources, and demonstrate public accountability before seeking additional assistance from the taxpayer and student”

IBHE PPA in Action IBHE board chair indicates that focus of PPA will be on faculty productivity at the 12 publics and 50+ community colleges without regard for mission or focus of the institution 12 Publics indicate that this approach is not practical given the nature of their differing missions and focuses and board chair backs off Two subcommittees formed to begin the process

PPA cont. PPA in Action, cont. (Committee Minutes, May 25, 2004)
Subcommittee A is focusing on “mission/focus statements, program approval processes, and more qualitative issues,” including: Reviewing “statewide enrollment by program (all degree levels),new programs, degrees awarded, programs discontinued Considering Impact of Technology on faculty work

PPA in Action, cont. Faculty review includes
“Faculty roles in terms of: hours per week of formal class, preparation, conferences; supervising remedial or advanced work; keeping up with discipline; course design,…” “Measure of work (Quantitative): contact hours, release and/or assigned time, class size” “Promotion/Tenure: including research, teaching, service”

PPA in Action, cont. Subcommittee B is focusing on “state-level accountability mechanisms and processes” The subcommittees continue to meet and no recommendations have been made as of this date The saga continues …

Other Factors that Currently Impact or Inform the Review/Assessment Process at SIUC
Southern at 150: Building Excellence Through Commitment (2002; see “The goal … is to articulate a series of commitments and actions that will place us among the top 75 public research universities in the United States by the year 2019, our 150th anniversary, while we continue to provide the foundation of academic, economic, and social progress in Southern Illinois”

Southern at 150, cont. Commits to offering a “Progressive Graduate Education” and to “Lead in Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity” “By 2019, 25 percent of our total enrollment will be graduate students” (increasing from approximately 4,000 to 6,000 graduate students)

Southern at 150, cont. “Research and scholarship will be integrated into every decision made on campus. Building a culture where research becomes an integral part of all undergraduate and graduate programs is essential. Substantially enhance research and scholarly productivity.”

Southern at 150, cont. “A Review of the Research Enterprise” at SIUC, Washington Advisory Group (July 2003) Focused on Sciences, Engineering, and School of Medicine This review looked at all programs in these areas and recommended strategies.

Southern at 150, cont. “Research and Scholarship in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at Southern Illinois University Carbondale,” (Consultant Team Report, October 2004) SIUC’s “Faculty Hiring Initiative,” a long-term commitment of recurring resources each each year to meet the strategic goals set by Southern at Reviews/assessment play a key role in this program

Graduate Program Review at NC State – External Review
Current Process: Administration Administered by the Dean of the Graduate School Initiated by program or Graduate School Often at the Department level Includes multiple degrees/programs Partner with College and/or accreditation reviews

Current Process: Objectives Reviews are conducted to gain a clearer understanding of a program’s: Purpose(s) within NC State Effectiveness in achieving purposes Overall quality Future objectives Changes needed to achieve objectives

Current Process: Operational Procedures 10 year review cycle Components Internal self-study External “team” review Review team report – oral & written Program response prepared Administrative Meeting Graduate Dean, Provost, Vice-Chancellor for Research, College Administration, Department Head, Director of Graduate Programs, Review Team Chair

Current Process: Information Made Available Last program review report & response 5 year graduate program profile (updated annually) Enrollment: numbers, demographics Applications Numbers applied/admitted/enrolled Quality indicators Number of degrees awarded, time to degree Financial support Exit interviews All thesis and dissertation students

Questions We Began to Ask Ourselves?
Do each of our degree programs have clearly defined outcome goals? Are they measurable or observable? Do we obtain data to assess the achievement of degree program outcomes? Do we use assessment results to improve programs? Do we document that we use assessment results to improve programs?

Motivation For Change Growing culture of program improvement on our campus – both undergraduate and graduate Undergraduate Student Affairs had implemented an outcome-based review program that was now operational SACS was just around the corner

Ultimate Question for NC State Became
How could we create a hybrid that evaluated program quality and measured student learning? Accomplish administrative goals regarding evaluation of quality related to funding and institutional goals Accomplish graduate school goals related to program improvement The ultimate goal is to improve educational programs, not fill out reports to demonstrate accountability

Studying & Revising the Process
Graduate Dean Appointed a Task Force Made up of “stakeholders” Relied on on-campus expertise Focus groups with administrators, faculty, students, etc. Could not utilize Undergraduate Program Review personnel Work load issue New perspectives Bottom Line – The opportunity for change is at the faculty level, so we want the process to address improvement at that level.

Graduate Program Review at NC State
Task Force Goals: Study/revise the existing process Evaluate purpose and goals of review Examine current protocols, especially with respect to: Continuous and ongoing expectation Outcomes-based assessment requirement What should the role of the Graduate School and it’s Administrative Board be? How can the outcome of a review be most effective? What infrastructure is necessary to operate the process?

Task Force Key Findings: The current process is fairly typical Graduate program reviews typically are conducted on a 6- to 10-year cycle The current process follows Council of Graduate School guidelines (as outlined previously) An external review component should be continued Greater emphasis should be placed on student learning outcomes

Task Force Key Findings – continued: The revised process should be more continuous and ongoing The review process should result in appropriate follow-up Current resources do not allow review of all graduate programs on a 10-year cycle

What We Decided to Do Continue the traditional external review program on an 8 year schedule Continue to partner with external reviews already conducted for accreditation or other purposes Emphasize development of program specific student learning outcomes and assessment procedures to determine if they are being achieve

What We Decided to Do In addition to the External Program Review we will require each program to: Develop program specific objectives and outcomes Develop an assessment plan outlining the assessment activity(s) they will conduct annually Complete a biennial assessment report that is submitted on-line

What We Decided to Do Provide the training necessary for programs to implement these changes Development of objectives, outcomes, assessment plans Partner with University Planning and Analysis and other campus units to improve utility of centralized data collection and processing Assist in data collection for assessment plans at the institutional level

What We Decided to Do Increase efforts relative to follow-up after the graduate program review – assess progress on recommendations Tie the annual assessment and biennial reports to the external review by incorporating the changes made as a result of assessment into the self-study Development of an “Action Plan” Agreed upon by University, Graduate School, College and Department Administration

Revised Review Process
Initial Year 1 (Start-Up) Development of objectives, outcomes and assessment tools Identification of data sources and beginning of data collection Cycle Year 2 (also 4 and 6) Ongoing assessment & self-study by grad faculty Programmatic changes Brief biennial assessment report Cycle Year 3 (also 5 and 7) Continued data collection pertinent to outcomes and assessment measures Cycle Year 8 (program review) Self-study report External review Review report Program response Action plan Compact Initiatives

Training Workshops Provided
Workshops provide the training necessary for programs to implement: Graduate Program Review – Where we are, Where we are headed, and why? Assessing the Mission of Doctoral Research Universities A workshop on outcomes based assessment put on by outside experts Creating Outcomes and Objectives Creating and Assessment Plan Utilizing the Graduate School Managerial Tools Developing an Institutional Database for Assessment of Graduate Programs – to be developed

Managerial Tools Created for Program Review - Website

Managerial Tools Created for Program Review - Profile Data

Managerial Tools Created for Program Review – Review Document Management

What We Have Learned/ Discussion Points
The process of change takes time We have been at this for going on three year (since the start of the Task Force) and have not collected the first biennial report Communication is the key to success Clearly communicated goals and expectations are important Flexibility – faculty in many programs on our campus prefer to the word “faculty expectations” to “outcomes” – so be it

What We Have Learned/ Discussion Points continued
This kind of change has to be from the ground (faculty) up not top (administration) down Even then faculty are very skeptical about work loads verses value This type of a review process requires significant human resources Training, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, etc. A key to our success will e how much of this can be institutionalized

Assessment & Review of Graduate Programs

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Assessment & Review of Graduate Programs"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Assessment & Review of Graduate Programs

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Assessment & Review of Graduate Programs"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback