NDSU GUIDELINES FOR SELF STUDY PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT September 11, 2015

Transcription

1 NDSU GUIDELINES FOR SELF STUDY PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT September 11, 2015 The purpose of preparing the self study report is to Meet the requirements of the State Board of Higher Education NDSU policy (SBHE ) Provide the department an opportunity to self evaluate the mission, productivity, quality of its program(s) Share pertinent information with various stakeholders about the progress of the program(s) Provide a basis for external department review recommendations to the department/program, college, graduate school, /or Provost when appropriate, based on an analysis of that review. The report should be a maximum of 15 single spaced pages, no smaller than 10 pt type (excluding appendices). The report should be reflective of faculty input; as such, faculty should participate in the compilation of the report, in conjunction with the department head/chair. The participation should be defined at the department level, e.g., committees, subcommittees, initial writers, verifiers, reviewers. The report should follow the template on the attached page, it should use the headings numbering/lettering system provided in the template. Tables lists are encouraged, but they should be introduced in the text with orienting information. 1

2 UNIVERSITY PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE: TEMPLATE FOR DEPARTMENT SELF STUDY REPORTS 1. Introduction 1.1. The period covered by the report. What was the date of the last report? How did your department use this self study opportunity to reflect on the state of your program(s)? 1.2. Has your program(s) responded to the recommendations from the last program review? 1.3. What is your department most proud of? 1.4. Department description, including such things as mission organization, department size, facilities 1.5. What role does your department/program play in contributing to NDSU s mission? How does your department/program fit in the university context of NDSU? 2. Detailed description 2.1. Programs (describe all programs in the department) Purpose of each program Program assessment methods, outcomes, use of findings What are other programs on campus that your department s courses serve, how does your department manage these course offerings? 2.2. Faculty Profile: (e.g., number, gender, rank, specializations, tenured, untenured; describe this section in relation to Appendix A1) What has the department done to promote diversity in the faculty profile? Aggregate of research scholarly activity (describe this section in relation to Appendices B2, B3, C1, C2) Contributions to academic programs (describe this section in relation to Appendix A2) What are challenges the faculty members in your department encounter that prevent them from advancing professionally, what has the department done to help the faculty overcome such challenges? 2.3. Undergraduate Students (describe this section in relation to Appendix B1) Profile (e.g., admission criteria, number, gender, degrees) What has the department done to promote diversity in the undergraduate student profile? Graduates: profile (e.g., number, time to degree, placement) 2.4. Graduate Students (describe this section in relation to Appendix B1) Profile (e.g., admission criteria, number, gender, degrees) What has the department done to promote diversity in the graduate student profile? Graduate assistantship (e.g., process to determine who will receive graduate assistantship, process to determine the graduate assistants pay levels, performance review process for graduate assistants) Process of changing graduate students advisors Graduate student productivity (i.e., conference presentations, journal publications, scholarly outreach work) Graduates: profile (e.g., number, time to degree, placement) 2.5. Major objectives to accomplish specific timelines to accomplish them Research scholarship objectives Teaching curricular objectives Outreach objectives Other major objectives How has the department allocated resources to facilitate the timely accomplishments of those major objectives? 2

3 3. Self appraisal 3.1. Appraisal in regards to program mission, disciplinary professional context, clients, or student needs How well does your program reflect your mission? How well does your program progress toward your major objectives listed in the 2.5 section? How well does your program compare to those at your peers at your aspirants? Who are your peers your aspirants? Please select 4 5 peers 4 5 aspirants from the NDSU s peer institution list on the next page, provide a brief rationale why they are selected. If there are peers or aspirants appropriate to your programs, which are not on the list, please indicate provide a brief rationale Does your program have distinctive features that separates your program from those at your peers? If so, please describe Reflect on how your program compares to those at your peers /or aspirants Appraisal based on your department s strengths weaknesses What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses? What are the constraints that limit you? What opportunities are potentially available to your department? What are possible threats to your department s mission ability to achieve your major objectives? 4. Conclusion: Action plan based on section The department s most promising future direction 4.2. Action plan activities based on this self study Appendices (please see details on pages 5 8) 3

4 Auburn University Clemson University Colorado State University Iowa State University Kansas State University Louisiana State University Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University New Mexico State University North Carolina State University Oregon State University South Dakota State University University of Alaska Fairbanks University of Arkansas University of Connecticut University of Delaware University of Idaho University of Kentucky University of Maine Oromo University of Nebraska University of Nevada Reno University of North Dakota University of Tennessee Knoxville University of Vermont University of Wyoming Utah State University Virginia Tech Washington State University NDSU S NATIONAL PEER INSTITUTIONS FOR PROGRAM REVIEW PURPOSES 4

5 APPENDICES Appendix A: Faculty Resources, Supporting Staff Resources, Financial Resources A1 Use the provided sample table to report the faculty profile by rank, assignment, diversity. All Faculty in the Department (FTE) All Faculty in the Department (FTE) by Assignment All Faculty in the Department (FTE) by Diversity Track Asso. Assist. Instructor Lecturer FTE Teaching Research Service Admin. Others Male Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Others 5

6 A2 Use the provided sample tables to report the faculty profile by major/program assignment. (Note: the sample table is for a department with two majors/programs) Faculty in Major/Program 1 (FTE) Faculty in Major/Program 1 (FTE) by Assignment Track Asso. Assist. Instructor Lecturer FTE Teaching Research Service Admin. Others Faculty in Major/Program 2 (FTE) Faculty in Major/Program 2 (FTE) by Assignment Track Asso. Assist. Instructor Lecturer FTE Teaching Research Service Admin. Others A3 Briefly describe the number type (e.g., administrative assistant, research staff, etc.) of supporting staff, the change in the composition the number over the reporting period. Description can be in narrative form or additional table(s). A4 Briefly describe the financial resources that the department/program uses to cover faculty/staff salaries, graduate student (TA/RA) stipend health insurance, operating expenses, conference travels. Description can be in narrative form or additional table(s). 6

7 Appendix B: Student Enrollment/Degrees Conferred, Research, Outreach B1 Use the provided sample tables to report student enrollment degrees conferred by majors programs. (Note: the sample table is for a unit with two majors in each of UG, master, PhD programs) Undergraduate Enrollment Undergraduate Degrees Conferred Major 1 Major 2 Enrolled Major 1 Major 2 Degrees Master Program Enrollment Master 1 Master 2 Enrolled Master's Degrees Conferred Master Master 1 2 Degrees PhD Program Enrollment PhD Degrees Conferred PhD 1 PhD 2 Enrolled PhD 1 PhD 2 Degrees 7

8 B2 Use the provided sample table to report scholarship outcomes creative works. Other indicators of scholarship outcomes/accomplishments creative works can be described in narrative form or additional table(s). # of Refereed Journal Publications (RJP) # of Refereed Conference Presentations/ Proceedings # of Other Publications # of Other Presentations Mean RJP per Faculty B3 Briefly describe outreach engagement activities of the units during the reporting period. Median RJP of Faculty Appendix C: Grant External Funding Reports C1 Use the provided sample table to report grants, contracts, other external funding awarded. Federal Grants ($) EPSCoR Grants ($) Others 1 ($) ($) Note 1 : If there is external funding reported in the Others column, please provide a brief description in Appendix C2. C2 Briefly describe other external funding included in the table above. 8

9 GUIDELINE FOR PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC) REVIEW PROCESS May 5, 2015 Once the PRC has received the self study reports, the PRC subcommittees perform review related activities follow these steps below: 1) The subcommittee contacts (a) the college dean, (b) the department chair/head or the program director, (c) faculty representatives of the department/program, asks them: what would they like to learn from this review? 2) When the department s self study report comes in, individual members on the subcommittee review the report. They make a list of observations, comments questions about the department/program, share it with other members. Certain specific observations, comments, /or questions may be made in relation to what the college dean, the department chair/head or the program director, the faculty representatives would like to learn from this review. 3) The subcommittee meets to: a. discuss finalize the list of questions for the department chair/head or the program director, b. discuss generate a list of some initial observations comments about the department/program for the subcommittee. 4) The subcommittee may also seek external benchmarks /or inputs from external reviewers that are relevant to the discipline of the department/program are useful in the review process. 5) The subcommittee chair sends the list of questions to the department chair/head or the program director, schedules a meeting with the department chair/head or the program director faculty representatives of the department/program (e.g., representatives from different disciplines in the department, program coordinators, etc.). This meeting includes a tour of the department s facilities. 6) During the meeting visit, the department chair/head or the program director will address the questions, while the subcommittee members can make further inquiries additional observations. 7) The subcommittee meets to: a. update the list of initial observations comments, b. generate a list of recommendations, c. write up, review, revise the draft report. 8) The subcommittee brings the draft report to the whole committee for discussion, revises the draft reports based on the comments from the committee. 9) The subcommittee chair sends the revised draft report to the department chair/head or the program director for comments cross checking. 10) The subcommittee meets to discuss the responses from the department chair/head or the program director revise the draft report if appropriate. 11) The subcommittee brings the revised draft report to the whole committee for discussion, then makes final edits to the draft report, which will be used for the PRC meeting with the dean department chair/head or program director. 12) Based the discussion with the dean department chair/head or program director, the report may be further edited if appropriate before the PRC finalizes it. 13) The subcommittee gathers feedback from the department chair on possible improvements to the overall review process production of the reports. 9