1. Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research 2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research Assessment Review Committee Report Brody School of Medicine Rich Franklin 6/4/14 1 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research

2. Mentoring/Review Process ARC review process I contacted a number of individuals to see if they would be willing to serve on the ARC. The members contacted were chosen based on their experience as Graduate Program Directors and the assessment process. We started with a group of 8 but ended with a group of 6. Initially, each member of the groups were given 2-3 programs to review. We met as a group once and that was for the initial training. I had meetings with individuals in the group on numerous occasions and also had email exchanges to try and prompt them into action. The reviews were conducted individually. 22013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

3. 2012-13 Component Data DevelopingAcceptableProficient Outcome11442 Means of Assessment 44628 Criteria for Success 171537 Results171844 Actions Taken341135 Follow-Up to Actions Taken 292326 32013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

4. Data Visualization 42013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

5. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Outcome: Student is competent in the theory behind their proposed research, understands the technical tools necessary to conduct the research, and is prepared to conduct the experimental aims. Means of Assessment: Faculty committee must evaluate and approve of the NIH-style (R01) research grant proposal, written and orally defended. Criteria for Success: Writing and defending a NIH-style grant continues to provides important training for the students. –Develop skills on scientific writing and oral presentation –Become acquainted with the process of planning and developing a grant from the inception –Acquire strong knowledge of the literature related to the proposals field of research 52013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

6. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2012-2013 Results: During the 2012-2013 academic year one student presented his research proposals (Admission to Candidacy). He passed the examination with minor revision to the grant proposal. The proposal was of such high quality, that the committee recommended the proposal be submitted as an extramural fellowship application. The student followed through and was scored, but was not selected for funding. The other student due to prepare a Candidacy proposal withdrew from the PhD program for personal reasons prior to its preparation. Actions Taken: A new graduate course (BIOC/ANAT 7310, Research Proposal Strategies; Spring 2013) was offered for the first time by Drs. Keiper, Geyer and Shaikh to help second-year students meet the goals of the Candidacy Exam proposal defense. 62013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

7. Substantive Changes Program/Unit: MPH Program Description of Changes: Rewrote most outcomes and means of assessment. Justification for Changes: Changes did not necessarily improve student learning but brought the process more in line with what SACS suggested. Future Changes: Combination of the programs. 72013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

8. Rubric and Review Process Feedback Provide feedback on the rubric and review process. The good news is that it got done…..In retrospect, I would of chosen a different group of people than the program directors for the ARC. Describe your ARC’s process and progress towards addressing comments for “developing” and “acceptable” components received in the 2013 assessment review. Following the ARC review an email was sent offering to discuss concerns or questions if they had any. We also discussed the process and needs extensively in our Graduate Studies Committee but have left it largely up to the departments to follow through. 82013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research