TM
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business & Technology Fifth Year Maintenance Report Prepared for AACSB International Fall 2012 D. Harold Doty, Ph.D. Dean THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
CONTENTS Executive Summary Page 1 Section 1: Situational Analysis Page 7 Section 2: Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review Page 13 Section 3: Strategic Management Page 18 Section 4: Participants Page 35 Section 5: Assurance of Learning Page 40 Section 6: Other Material Page 46 Standards Tables Appendices THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: East Texas State Planning Region Page 7 Exhibit 2: College of Business and Technology Vision and Mission Page 15 Exhibit 3: 2007-2008 Mission and Vision Statement Page 16 Exhibit 4: Definitions of Core Values Page 18 Exhibit 5: Five-Year Strategic Planning Committee Charges Page 21 Exhibit 6: College of Business & Technology SWOT Analysis Page 22 Exhibit 7: Five-Year Goals 2013-2017 Page 24 Exhibit 8: Business Majors: Fall 2007 - Fall 2012 Page 37 Exhibit 9: AOL Curriculum Management Process Page 40 Exhibit 10: BBA Conceptual Model Page 42 Exhibit 11: MBA Conceptual Model Page 43 TABLES Table 1: Degrees Awarded for 2008-2012 Page 11 Table 2: AACSB Accredited Degree Programs Page 12 Table 3: College Resource Base Page 13 Table 4: Total Semester Credit Hours 2007-2012 Page 14 Table 5: AACSB Financial Strategies Table Page 26 Table 6: Ethnicities of Relevant Populations Page 35 Table 7: Demographic Characteristics of Select Geographic Markets Page 35 Table 8: AACSB Program Enrollment Fall 2007 - Fall 2012 Page 37 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
STANDARDS TABLES Standard Table 2-1 Standard Table 2-2 Standard Table 9-1 Standard Table 10-1 Standard Table 10-2 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
APPENDICES Appendix A: Searching for Empirical Validity in an AOL System Appendix B: Recruiting & Retention Appendix C: CBT Credentialing & Qualification Expectations Appendix D: Participating Faculty & Supporting Faculty Definitions Appendix E: CBT Performance Evaluation Guidelines Appendix F: CBT Annual Performance Evaluation Material Suggestions Appendix G: Statement of Approximate Tenure & Promotion Expectations Appendix H: Annual MOA Reports Appendix I: Assurance of Learning (AOL) Appendix J: Assurance of Learning Models - BBA & MBA Appendix K: Summaries of Assessment Activities & Results 2010-2011 Appendix L: Summaries of Assessment Activities & Results 2011-2012 Appendix M: Unit Assessment Report Appendix N: Unit Assessment Report - MBA THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The University of Texas at Tyler (UT Tyler) is a co-educational, public University located in Tyler, Texas. It was established in 1971 as the Tyler State College. It was granted University status in 1975 and was renamed the Texas Eastern University. In 1979 the institution joined The University of Texas System and was given its present name. The University's campus stretches over nearly 204 acres of suburban land. Current University enrollment is just under 7,000 students. Enrollment in the College of Business and Technology (CBT) currently exceeds 1,300 students. UT Tyler Vision UT Tyler will be nationally recognized for its excellent programs in the professions and in the humanities, arts, and sciences. Guided by an outstanding and supportive faculty, its graduates will be known for the quality of their knowledge and for their integrity, leadership ability, communication skills, technological competence, and global awareness. UT Tyler Mission The University of Texas at Tyler is a comprehensive institution of higher education offering undergraduate and graduate degree programs as an institution of the renowned University of Texas System. The University of Texas at Tyler s vision is to be nationally recognized for its high quality education in the professions and in the humanities, arts and sciences, and for its distinctive core curriculum. Guided by an outstanding and supportive faculty, its graduates will understand and appreciate human diversity and the global nature of the new millennium. They will think critically, act with honesty and integrity, and demonstrate proficiency in leadership, communication skills, and the use of technology. The University is committed to providing a setting for free inquiry and expects excellence in the teaching, research, artistic performances and professional public service provided by its faculty, staff, and students. As a community of scholars, the University develops the individual s critical thinking skills, appreciation of the arts, humanities and sciences, international understanding for participation in the global society, professional knowledge and skills to enhance economic productivity, and commitment to lifelong learning. Within an environment of academic freedom, students learn from faculty scholars who have nationally recognized expertise in the arts and sciences, in such professions as engineering, public administration, education, business, health sciences, and technology. The faculty engages in research and creative activity, both to develop and maintain their own scholarly expertise and to extend human knowledge. The results of that research and other creative efforts are made available to students in the classroom and to the general public through publication, technology transfer, and public service activities. The institution also seeks to serve individuals who desire to enhance their professional development, broaden their perspectives, or enrich their lives. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 1
UT Tyler Guiding Principles and Beliefs University We will promote inquiry and academic freedom. We will work together to be productive and achieve excellence. We will serve the public interest. We will promote stewardship of all resources. We will display ethical behavior. People We will display civility in all relationships. We will foster respect for all individuals and all racial and ethnic groups. We will be honest in all interactions and value integrity highly. We will be accountable for results and professional behavior. Process We will share governance and promote cooperation throughout the institution. We will promote openness and trust in all relationships. We will commit to quality and continuous improvement. We will recognize personal and professional development and accomplishment. College of Business and Technology Key Accomplishments College Restructuring. At the time of the last AACSB visit, the College was structured as two distinct schools, one for the business disciplines and one for Human Resources Development (HRD) and Technology. This separation was so severe that business students were not allowed to take HRD and TECH courses and vice versa. Today the College is structured as a single integrated college with three departments, a single administrative team, a single advising function for undergraduate programs, a separate advising office for graduate programs, and most students take at least a few courses from each area. This change is as much a cultural shift, as an administrative change. As we continue to implement this cultural shift, we are achieving greater integration of our programs, our students, and our faculty. This integration supports many efforts in the College including the outreach programs and focused activities of the centers. Faculty Hiring. Over the last three years, the College has devoted significant time and resources to faculty hiring and has experienced great returns on our efforts. We have hired three new department chairs and over half of the current faculty. As a consequence, the leadership structure of the College has completely changed in the last three years including the Dean, Associate Dean, and all Department Chairs. This hiring was the result of faculty growth to handle increased enrollment numbers and a decision on the part of the University to replace supporting faculty in the College with tenure track participating faculty members. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 2
Doctoral Program. The doctoral program in HRD is not part of our AACSB accredited programs but will have a very positive effect on the business school because the program will raise the profile of the College throughout the region. The first class of students was admitted for the 2011-2012 academic year. The program is an executive format program designed for career professionals but will recruit a limited number of more traditional doctoral students interested in pursuing academic careers. Curriculum Revisions. The curriculum for the College has undergone two sets of catalog revisions in the last three years, one for the 2010-2012 catalog and one for the 2012-2014 catalog. The first revision resulted in a complete overhaul of the undergraduate business courses including updating course content and descriptions, repositioning courses in the curriculum, and allowing flexibility in course selection across disciplines. The 2012-2014 revisions were more focused on changes needed to address AOL issues and new programs, particularly in non-aacsb programs. We are continuing to monitor our course offerings and will continue to make changes as needed. Facility Upgrades for Faculty and Staff and Students. Over the last three years, the College has invested over $250,000 in facility upgrades for faculty and students. These upgrades have included new furniture for the student space in the Business Administration building (both the atrium and the student tutor room), new classroom furniture in two buildings, new furniture in the student advising office, new furniture in the Dean s suite, new furniture in the faculty resource office, and new furniture in over half of the faculty offices. This is an ongoing initiative that should be completed over the next two to three years. Outreach Centers. The College has developed a long range strategy to implement a set of outreach and research centers that provide a focal point for faculty research interests, products and services relevant to the regional business and government communities, and support initiatives for development activities. The Hibbs Institute for Business and Economic Research is currently in its third year and is the first named center at The University of Texas at Tyler. The Center for Retail Enterprises is in its second year and has generated sufficient corporate support to develop the retail lab and host several relevant speaker events. The Center for Family and Small Enterprises Paula E. Anthony, second year doctoral student in Human Resource Development, Vice President and CIO of East Texas Medical Regional Healthcare System, and President and CEO of HealthFirst says she began the College of Business and Technology s (CBT) PhD in HRD program to gain insight into workforce issues including, How does an organization, particularly one in a service industry, leverage technology to further its strategic objectives not because of the technology, but because the technology supports the transformation of its workforce? She continues that she is very excited to gain the perspective of the theoretical constructs that shape human resource development and to determine its application to my future work-related experiences. Within the CBT, Paula finds that the doctoral program is blessed with both extraordinary faculty and vision. My experience thus far? Exceptional. Paula has served on a wide variety of boards and committees including: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Tyler Economic Development Council, and the Better Business Bureau of Tyler and Longview. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 3
launched this fall when our new center director officially joined the University. The Texas Productivity and Performance Center is still in the development stages, but we expect to move forward for formal approval this academic year. Corporate Partnerships for the Retail Center and Lab. We have been able to develop the current retail program because of the level of corporate interest and support the program has generated. This support has included the contributions of Brookshire Grocery Company which has donated time, money, personnel, software and expertise; software companies that have generously donated industry software for student training; and other corporations that support the program. Additionally, we have received financial support from the Texas Retailers Educational Foundation. Program Reviews. In addition to the upcoming review by the AACSB our Industrial Technology program was successfully reviewed by ATMAE, and we expect to have that accreditation formally extended this fall when the association meets. Our HRD curriculum was reviewed by SHRM and determined to be in alignment with SHRM guidelines. College of Business and Technology Effective Practices Strategic Planning Process. The College has implemented an annual strategic planning process that involves faculty, administration, and the business community. The process is structured around the Annual MOA updates that are no longer included in the accreditation process. Each year the Dean (in collaboration with the management team) prepares an annual update during the early summer. Over the summer this report is distributed to the faculty for review and additions. The feedback is incorporated where appropriate, and the report is sent to the Provost for comments. After revision the emerging annual plan is presented to the Corporate Advisory Board for input. The intended outcome of this process is not a finished document, but rather an ongoing process that results in regular review and updating of the strategic direction of the College. Reduced Disciplinary Silos. The College has committed to operating as a single integrated College rather than as a business school and others. This process has resulted in significant overlap between the business, HRD, and technology curriculums. Students in all programs in the College typically take some classes from each discipline. More important, the level of faculty sharing across disciplines is increasing. We have not yet accomplished a free flow of resources across administrative lines in the College, but we have significantly increased the level of resource sharing. This has allowed us to accomplish much for such a small faculty. Balancing Change with Stability Processes. The repositioning strategy the College implemented resulted in a stream of rapid changes that has spanned several years. These changes included revising our vision and mission statements, refreshing our curriculum, changing our performance evaluation standards, rewriting our promotion and tenure documents, and rebuilding and growing our faculty. To maintain a sense of THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 4
stability and continuity during this rapid change period, we have emphasized the shared governance and faculty participation processes that define academic administration. Our tenure and performance documents continue to undergo faculty and administrative review, with suggestions from all parties incorporated in our annual revisions. Our search processes are conducted by teams of faculty members who worked in consultation with the chairs and the dean to insure that the target candidate fills our academic needs and fit with the mission and culture of the College. Generally consensus is reached before any offers are made. All curriculum changes are conducted through traditional faculty processes and approved by vote in a College-wide faculty meeting. We believe that this rigid adherence to the principles of shared governance and participation have created a sense of stability and trust that have allowed the College to manage the rapid changes of the last few years in a sustainable environment. Core Values as Learning Outcomes. The College has developed an AOL system that intentionally uses the College s core values as higher order constructs in our AOL system. Using the core values as learning outcomes insures direct linkages between our mission and our student learning outcomes. Integrated Performance Management System. We have worked diligently to enhance the consistency and alignment between our statements of AQ/PQ qualifications, annual performance evaluation standards and cumulative review expectations (especially tenure and promotion). As part of our annual evaluation process the Dean, Associate Dean, and Department Chairs meet as a group to review the annual evaluation of each faculty member to insure fairness and consistency across the faculty. Regional Outreach. As discussed above, the College has implemented a regional outreach strategy designed around four research centers relevant to the needs of the faculty, regional governmental agencies, and the regional business community. AOL Validity Assessment. The College has developed an initiative to assess the empirical validity of our AOL measures. This initiative has not only raised faculty awareness of our AOL process but has also resulted in better understanding of our AOL processes and modifications to our AOL measures. The results of our process have been presented at both professional and academic conferences (see Appendix A). Increase Global Awareness. The College has integrated the use of Bloomberg BusinessWeek across the curriculum to enhance the global awareness of students. Currently all students in the College are exposed to BusinessWeek in multiple classes. This effort was an AOL response to limited global awareness across the student population. The initial results indicate that we have raised students global awareness. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 5
Learning Laboratories. The College has developed three distinct learning laboratories: our Retail Lab, our Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) Lab, and our Business Information Lab (BIL). Each of these labs is designed to give students hands-on experience with current industry practices and software. The Retail Lab is currently fully functional, the CIM Lab is being completely modernized with new equipment during the Fall 2012 semester, and the BIL is expected to be fully functional with 12 Bloomberg Information Terminals beginning in the Spring 2013 semester (pending final approval and funding). Faculty training on all new equipment is being conducted during the Summer and Fall 2012 semesters. Career Preparation for Students. The College is actively focused on preparing our student body for their upcoming participation in the professional workforce. This effort is especially important at UT Tyler because many of our students are first generation College students whose parents do not come from professional backgrounds. Specific activities include a required credit/no credit class titled How To Get A Job, required participation with University Career Services, and many opportunities for professional internships, mock interviews, multiple career fairs, and so on. Recruitment and Retention. Our Undergraduate Advising Office developed our first ever plan for student recruitment and retention (see Appendix B). This plan was developed to be responsive to the increased emphasis placed on recruiting and retention by the University. Our plan is serving as a model for other areas within the University and will be fully implemented in the Fall 2012 semester. Steven Goad, President of the College of Business and Technology Ambassadors, President of the Financial Management Association, and senior Finance major, says his experience in the College of Business and Technology (CBT) has been amazing. Steven continues, The professors in the CBT are brilliant and all find ways to uniquely challenge students to rise to their potential. These instructors really do consider students to be more than just a number in a classroom and welcome you to come to them with any issues that may arise. The staff in the College of Business and Technology are able to help organizations facilitate events and are instrumental in overcoming the challenges that UT Tyler often has in this area. Steven attributes his success to getting involved on campus and the CBT s global perspective, Students in principles classes are expected to look at things from a global perspective and be able to apply what they are learning. Steven considers this valuable because as a senior finance major, it is imperative that I am able to use what I have learned... THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 6
SECTION 1: SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS Historical, National, State, and Other Factors Shaping Mission and Operation The University of Texas at Tyler was created as Tyler State College on June 10, 1971, when Governor Preston Smith signed Senate Bill 419. The name was changed to Texas Eastern University by the 64 th Texas Legislature through House Bill 630 that became effective September 1, 1975. The institution became The University of Texas at Tyler when it entered The University of Texas System on September 1, 1979, as one of the nine academic components of the system. The institution is governed by the nine-member Board of Regents of The University of Texas System. The University is the only public degree-granting University in the 14 county East Texas State Planning Region which has a population base of over 1 million (see Exhibit 1). This 14 county area is the state mandated service area for the University. The 30-mile area population is estimated to be 365,412 for all ages and 272,978 for ages 18 and over. The 50-mile area population is estimated to be 721,045 for all ages and 542,711 for ages 18 and over. The University operates two branch campuses in Palestine and Longview. Palestine, a city of 20,000 people, is 55 miles southwest of Tyler. Longview, a city of just under 100,000, is located 40 miles east of Tyler. Both campuses are served via interactive television and hybrid teaching technology. The University of Texas at Tyler has offered four year undergraduate classes since 2001. Upper level undergraduate classes have been offered since 1971. Graduate programs have been offered since 1975. The first BBA degrees were awarded in Spring 1974. The first MBA degrees were awarded in Fall 1980. Exhibit 1: East Texas State Planning Region THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 7
Relative Advantages and Disadvantages in Reputation, Resources, and Supporters Membership in the UT System. The greatest advantage enjoyed by UT Tyler and our business school is we share the UT brand. As a part of The University of Texas System, we benefit from the name recognition associated with each of the 9 academic and 6 medical institutions that comprise the UT System. The name recognition associated with the UT brand raises the visibility of UT Tyler over a much larger geographic area than most regional universities can expect. We are also currently the only UT academic component east of Dallas and the I 35 corridor. This provides some distinction to our brand and provides some advantage when recruiting students in East Texas. We believe we can further exploit this brand advantage when we begin to introduce our MBA program into the Houston market. A second advantage of membership in the UT System is that UT Tyler has access to infrastructure that a smaller University usually would not have. The greatest benefit currently involves our information infrastructure, but less visible advantages include system HR benefits, purchasing power, and so on. It should be noted that membership in the UT System is not without costs. We are blessed with an extra level of bureaucracy that sometimes proves burdensome, and as one of the smaller universities in the system; we do not always receive the attention we deserve. Pricing Structure. Another disadvantage we face is the pricing structure of higher education in East Texas. Currently our tuition costs are some of the lowest in the state. This low pricing means that we earn significantly less revenue per student than many other universities, and this low revenue restricts our funding. Despite this low tuition price, however, our tuition prices are significantly above the surrounding community colleges thereby restricting our ability to raise tuition prices and recruit lower division students. We realize this pricing trap is common to many regional universities. Underfunded University Development. Another key disadvantage we struggle with is an underfunded development office and a relatively small and young alumni population. Our current development office does a great job with the available resources and typically outperforms the other development operations in the system in terms of return on dollars invested. Our College has benefited greatly from the help and support we receive from our development staff. Additionally, the development office is growing slowly and making inroads into the current alumni base and has had significant success with community members. Our relatively small and young alumni base is typical of a smaller, younger University but reduces our development potential compared to some of the older and larger universities in East Texas such as Stephen F. Austin State University and Sam Houston State University. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 8
Internal, Environmental, and Competitive Challenges State Funding. A key competitive challenge we face is the uncertain funding environment as the state enters a legislative year (Texas has a biannual legislative process). Prior to the 2011 legislative session, Texas universities had largely avoided the budget cuts that affected other universities nationwide. This situation changed in 2011 when the legislature significantly reduced the allocations to higher education. The UT System was able to mitigate the magnitude of the cuts for UT System members, but UT Tyler still received a significant cut. The current budget year is very uncertain and will be determined to a significant extent by federally mandated state spending. At the current time the Texas economy is recovering faster than much of the nation. However, the state faces a huge Medicare burden that may increase state costs well above the gains provided by our economic recovery. At the current time we are unable to predict whether we will see a flat budget or will again face budget cuts. Physical Space. The College of Business and Technology also suffers from inadequate physical space. Our current classrooms are not well suited to modern teaching approaches. For example, there are no case teaching classrooms on campus. We also lack adequate space to house all of our outreach centers, and the growth in our faculty has eliminated our excess capacity of faculty office space. We currently have business faculty housed in two buildings across campus from each other, and most of our classes are scheduled in rooms outside of the Business Building. The University is aware of this space shortage and is trying to respond. The President has made additional space for the business programs the highest new space priority for the University, and requests for significant state funding to expand our operations are already in the works. While we remain hopeful, these are state level decisions that the University can influence to some extent, but cannot control. Relying solely on private funds to address our space needs is not realistic. Higher Education Participation Rates. Another challenge faced by all universities in East Texas is that the region has the lowest higher education participation rate in the state. In UT Tyler s region the participation rate is improving slowly in the Tyler and Longview metropolitan regions, but rates remain well below state averages. Additionally, the region suffers from a long tradition where community college, and an AA degree, was considered enough. Again this cultural perspective is eroding and will continue to do so as East Texas continues to urbanize. Demographic Change. Over the next decade East Texas, and especially Tyler and Longview, will undergo a dramatic shift in the ethnicity of the College-age population. Specifically, there will be a significant increase in the Hispanic portion of the College-age students. Given current trends this is likely to benefit UT Tyler. College participation rates are increasing for this demographic sector, and these students are more likely to attend college closer to home. However, UT Tyler will also face the challenges associated with marketing and servicing an ethnic sector that is currently underrepresented in our student population. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 9
Opportunities to Enhance Degree Offerings At the current time we are in the process of pursuing three new degree options. The first is a Master of Accountancy (MAcc) degree. This degree is targeted to better meet the needs of the accounting community. The 30 hour degree is designed to provide the additional accounting courses and total credit hours required to meet the requirements for the Uniform CPA exam. Offering this graduate level degree will also allow us to align the undergraduate degree to more closely resemble the other undergraduate business majors and will allow us to eliminate both the Accounting Certificate program and the BBA/MBA degree. This degree has been approved and will be formally offered beginning Fall 2013. A few students who are currently enrolled in our BBA/MBA program will be allowed to officially enter the program in the Fall 2012 semester to aid in the transition between programs. The BBA/MBA program, which was designed for accounting students planning to sit for the CPA exam, will be eliminated. A second new degree program under development is an MS in Management. This program is intended for persons who do not have an undergraduate business degree but function in supervisory positions. The degree provides an introduction to business fundamentals by requiring the 15 semester credit hours used to prepare non-business undergraduates for the MBA program. The remaining 21 hours of the 36 hour degree program require graduate level management and human resource development courses designed to enhance managerial knowledge and supervisory skills. The third program currently in development is a BS in Retail Management. This program was designed in collaboration with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Texas Retailers Association, Brookshire Grocery Company, and the UT Tyler College of Business and Technology. The program is designed to focus on the specialized skills necessary for the retail industry. It is differentiated from the BBA degrees because it does not require the traditional common business core. However, the number of credit hours within the traditional business disciplines exceeds 25% of the total credit hours so it is intended as an AACSB degree. The greatest opportunity to enhance our current portfolio of degrees (both AACSB accredited and other degree offerings) is to expand our use of hybrid and online delivery formats. Over the last three years, we have made significant progress increasing the number of business courses offered online. We expect to continue Laura Rasor, Master of Business Administration student, began in the College of Business and Technology (CBT) with the intention of taking coursework to be eligible for the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exam. Laura feels that, Each faculty member in the CBT has exceptional education and work experience to bring to the classroom. Laura continues that she is encouraged by the addition of MANA 5360, Global Business Perspectives, to the MBA program stating, We are not only required to be knowledgeable about what is going on around the world, but we are required to relate this information to our course studies. I have learned more about global markets and perspectives this semester than I have my entire time at UT Tyler. When asked what she feels makes a successful graduate student, Laura attests that, A successful student is not satisfied with doing the bare minimum on any assignment or exam they go into a classroom with the intent to receive an A. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 10
with our efforts until most of our courses are delivered in multiple formats including online delivery. We also see great potential for hybrid course mixes wherein a portion of the course is online and a portion delivered face-to-face. We will experiment with alternative delivery formats over the next several years to determine market reaction. Programs Under Review The current UT Tyler catalog specifies a variety of different undergraduate and graduate degrees offered by the College. The list of degrees and the number of degrees awarded over the last five years is presented in Table 1. While the University awards a single BBA and an undifferentiated MBA, the degrees are offered via classes taught in different formats and at different locations, and the MBA can be coordinated with degrees in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences as well as the College of Engineering and Computer Science. More details about the specific programs under review are included in Table 2. Table 1: Degrees Awarded for Academic Years 2008 2012 Degrees 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Undergraduate BAAS 18 23 16 5 6 BBA 204 268 264 261 194 HRD 12 23 26 20 20 Industrial Technology Graduate 28 28 45 40 25 MBA 35 37 47 94 74 HRD 9 26 18 31 28 Industrial Management 3 5 9 8 10 PhD - HRD 0 0 0 0 1 Totals 309 410 425 459 358 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 11
Table 2: AACSB Accredited Degree Programs Degree Program Level Location Date Established # of Credit Hours Required for Degree Completion Average Time to Complete Degree Bachelor of Business Administration Bachelor of Business Administration¹ Bachelor of Business Administration¹ Accounting BBA- MBA² Master of Business Administration U Tyler 1972 120 4 years U U Longview (via Interactive TV) Palestine (via Interactive TV) 1990 120 N/A 1990 120 N/A U/M Tyler N/A N/A 5 years M Tyler 1979 36 30 Months Master of Business Administration³ Master of Business Administration³ Master of Business Administration Online 4 M M M Longview (via Interactive TV) Palestine (via Interactive TV) UT TeleCampus 2009 36 N/A 2009 36 N/A 1999 48 41 months Master of Science in Nursing-MBA 5 M Tyler N/A 57 N/A Master of Science in Mechanical M Tyler N/A 57 N/A Engineering-MBA 5 1 This is not a separate degree. Students may take any combination of face-to-face, online, or interactive television courses. 2 Students receive both a traditional BBA and an MBA. This program is being replaced with a Master s in Accounting 3 This is not a separate degree. Students may take any combination of face-to-face, online, or interactive television courses. 4 This degree was a UT system degree that has been eliminated. 5 The MBA degree is awarded as separate degrees not differentiated from our other MBA degrees. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 12
SECTION 2: PROGRESS UPDATE ON CONCERNS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEW Concern: Due to external budget constraints, the Business Administration Department s fiscal needs must be addressed by the University s Executives. This concern has been addressed in several ways. First, the College of Business and Technology engaged in a restructuring process and moved from the previous structure of two schools to a more traditional model with a single College divided into three departments: Accounting, Finance, and Business Law; Management and Marketing; and Human Resource Development and Technology. As part of this restructuring, a significant resource pool was reallocated from the previous School of HRD and Technology to the traditional business disciplines. The reallocation included both faculty and staff salary dollars and a more limited amount of annual operating budget dollars. Additionally, curriculum changes were made so that business students could enroll in courses offered by the Department of Human Resource Development and Technology. Filling the excess capacity in the HRDT department with business students increased the efficiency of the HRDT group and acted as a resource buffer within the business school. More important, the University has significantly increased the personnel budget for the College of Business and Technology over the last several fiscal years (see Table 3). During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the University added a new budget line to hire the current dean and supported expanding multiple administrative positions (three department chairs, two program directors [one undergraduate, one graduate] and an associate dean) from 9 month to 12 month appointments. The administration approved for the 2010-2011 fiscal year five new tenure-track faculty lines and two new full-time lecturer lines in the traditional business disciplines. These additional lines constitute an increase of approximately 30% in size of the traditional business faculty without reducing the faculty headcount for the Human Resource Development and Technology Department. During the 2011-2012 academic year, four tenure track lines were added to the business disciplines in the College. Additionally, two new staff lines have been added to the College beginning in the Fall 2012 semester, one administrative assistant for the Dean s office and a Research Analyst to support the Hibbs Institute for Business and Economic Research. Year FT faculty Table 3: College Resource Base Factbook Total Fall Enrollment Salary Expenditures Non-Salary Expenditures THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 13 Total 2007-2008 15 1,426 $1,772,583 $48,628 $1,821,211 2008-2009 18 1,510 $1,799,339 $48,628 $1,847,967 2009-2010¹ 25 1,359 $3,927,917 $321,706 $4,249,623 2010-2011 31 1,291 $3,373,973 $258,491 $3,632,464 2011-2012 32 1,313 $3,813,751 $374,483 $4,188,234 2012-2013 37 1,354² 0 0 $4,409,710³ 1 Year HRD Faculty added, endowment value increased and ASO started recording the BSQ figures 2 OBIEE not Factbook 3 Budget Submitted
A third change has been a small increase in operating dollars allocated by the University. During the 2009-2010 academic year, the University provided approximately $100,000 in supplemental budget dollars to supplement costs associated with faculty travel and faculty recruiting. This supplemental increment is particularly notable in the current budget cutting environment. Unfortunately, the budget cutting environment did eventually catch up with the UT system. During the 2011-2013 fiscal biennium, UT Tyler suffered a significant budget cut that resulted in a 6% decrease in the College budget and appears likely to reduce or eliminate the supplemental funding we enjoyed over the past several years. It is noteworthy that the academic side of the University has not been hit as hard by budget cuts as some other parts of the University. Current projections are that the University budget will be flat over the next biennium, but the Texas Legislature is somewhat unpredictable. Another change that has been proposed, and implemented at least as an experiment, has the potential to address many of the operating-level funding issues faced by the College. Beginning in the Summer 2012 semester, the University appears to be moving toward a self-funding summer school model. The proposed model would allow the College of Business and Technology to retain a significant portion of the tuition revenue generated by summer school students. As currently proposed, the new funding model should generate between $100,000-$150,000 per year that can be used to supplement the College operating budget. For example, during the Summer 2012 session the College earned approximately $135,000 in summer school profit. This increase will more than replace the cut to the College operating budget as a result of state funding reduction during the 2011-2013 biennium. Finally, the College took strong academic actions that were intended to cause steep short term decreases in enrollment but should actually result in long term growth. Specifically, we began enforcing a revised set of course prerequisites, increased the rigor and relevance of our business core curriculum, and restructured the curriculum to facilitate student degree completion and introduced a focused set of minors designed to appeal to non-business students. As the credit hour production data in Table 4 indicate, our efforts appear to be bearing fruit. Table 4: Total Semester Credit Hours 2007-2012 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 BBA 19,054 19,330 18,837 15,057 15,506 MBA 1,632 1,599 2,352 2,892 3,348 Non-AACSB 5,850 7,087 4,511 6,425 6,481 TOTAL 26,536 28,016 25,700 24,374 25,335 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 14
Concern: Revisit Mission Statement to better define Business Administration s vision, values, and purpose. The revised Vision and Mission Statement is included as Exhibit 2. The previous statement follows as Exhibit 3. The revised mission statement helps to clarify our vision, values, and purpose. The separate statement of Vision clearly indicates how we would like to be known and demonstrates our commitment to furthering the economic interests of our students and our region. The revised Mission Statement highlights the importance of teaching to our purpose and emphasizes the importance of undergraduate education relative to graduate education that is currently appropriate for our geographic region. At the time of this report, we are again in the process of reviewing our mission statement and accompanying materials to determine if additional refinement is appropriate. Exhibit 2: College of Business and Technology Vision and Mission Creating Leaders for a Better Tomorrow: The UT Tyler College of Business and Technology Vision To be recognized throughout our service region as an important provider of business and technology related educational offerings including: outstanding graduates well prepared for leadership positions in professional, managerial and service settings, contributions to basic knowledge that enhance human productivity and organizational performance, applied contributions that advance the development, production, distribution, and profitability of a wide range of goods and services, pedagogical contributions that increase the efficacy of delivering management education to the citizens of Texas, and entrepreneurial activities that contribute to regional economic development. Mission The College of Business and Technology provides high quality management education to the citizens of East Texas and beyond through a strategic mix of face-to-face, hybrid, and online channels from our Tyler campus and through remote sites at Longview and Palestine. We pride ourselves on creating a learning environment that helps students at all levels attain the knowledge and skills they need to be successful as professionals and as citizens of the region. Our primary teaching focus is at the undergraduate level, but we also serve our region by providing a range of general and specialized master s degrees and a niche doctoral program. We maintain a balance between teaching and research that values the creation of both basic and applied knowledge, but not at the THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 15
Exhibit 2: College of Business and Technology Vision and Mission (Continued) expense of teaching excellence. We value service both to our professions and to our local communities and expect our students to develop as leaders who engage in service activities. In support of the UT Tyler mission, we emphasize the following five core values: Professional Proficiency Technological Competence Global Awareness Social Responsibility Ethical Courage Exhibit 3: 2007-2008 Mission and Vision Statement Department of Business Administration Mission Statement 2007-2008 The primary mission of the Department of Business Administration is to support the College of Business and Technology and The University of Texas at Tyler by providing high quality instruction to students from primarily the East Texas region. This emphasis on teaching enables students to have a quality educational experience and will contribute to the development of successful careers in business and related fields. The mission of the Department of Business Administration encompasses continuous improvement of the following: A. Educating students by emphasizing ethical values, conceptual knowledge, analytical, technical, and managerial skills, and leadership abilities needed in both domestic and international organizations. Educational opportunities include courses delivered on- campus, through distance learning including interactive television and web-based instructions, and on the UT Tyler Longview University campus and Palestine campus. B. Partnering with junior/community Colleges in the area to meet the educational needs of transferring students. C. Engaging in intellectual contributions through applied research, instructional development, and limited basic research. D. Providing professional service to the University, the College, the Department, the professions, and the community. Department of Business Administration Vision The Vision of the Department of Business Administration is To be the center for leadership and management education in our served market (East Texas and 150 mile radius from Tyler). THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 16
Concern: Continue to align the scholarship requirements for Promotion and Tenure (P&T) with those of Academically Qualified (AQ) and Professionally Qualified (PQ). To address this concern, we have developed an integrated performance management system which includes formal statements of our qualification standards, our annual performance expectations, our tenure and promotion expectations, and an initial journal list. We have completely revised our Statement of Approximate Tenure and Promotion Expectations and our criteria for tenure and promotion decisions. We will continue to refine these standards on an annual basis as we gain experience implementing the revised standards. The most current documents are included in Appendices C-G. Finally, we have revised our journal quality guidelines. Perhaps the greatest difference is that we are implementing a philosophical shift from viewing the maintenance of AQ status from acceptable performance to minimal performance. In other words, under the revised P&T standards a faculty member minimally meeting the standards for AQ is not making satisfactory progress toward promotion and tenure. A faculty member that is not making sufficient intellectual contribution to comfortably maintain AQ status (or PQ where appropriate) is a candidate for a professional development plan to improve performance. Failure to maintain AQ (PQ) status may be grounds for termination. Concern: Increase faculty and resources in support of the Business Administration Department s rapid growth. The University has provided a significant increase in the personnel budget for the College of Business and Technology in the form of increased personnel lines. Additionally, the move toward a self-funded summer school model that allows us to retain summer school profits will create significant slack in our operating budget. Given current economic conditions, we believe the investment the University has made in the College of Business and Technology, particularly in the business disciplines, is substantial and directly responds to the concern expressed during our last review. Concern: Continue to develop the assessment model to ensure consistency among all disciplines for articulated learning objectives. During the 2009-2010 academic year, we initiated a redesign of our Assurance of Learning (AOL) system to integrate our revised curriculum and new core values as the heart of the AOL system. The most significant change was to adopt our five core values as our primary learning domains across all programs in the College. During the Spring 2010 semester, we invited Dr. Karen Tarnoff, Assistant Dean for Assurance of Learning and Assessment, College of Business and Technology, East Tennessee State University, to campus to conduct an AOL workshop for our faculty. We implemented the new AOL system during the Fall 2010 semester. The decision to delay the implementation of the new AOL system until Fall 2010 was based in large part on our SACS reaffirmation visit in the Spring 2010 semester. Additional details are provided in Section 5 of this report. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 17
SECTION 3: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Mission Statement and Strategic Framework As discussed above, this statement has been modified based on feedback the College received during the last AACSB peer review. The Vision and Mission Statements have been presented earlier in this report as Exhibit 2. Exhibit 4 presents the core values of the College and our operational definitions of our core values. These core values are further refined in our presentation of learning outcomes. These core values are prominently displayed in the two buildings that house our students and faculty. Exhibit 4: Definitions of Core Values College of Business and Technology Definitions of Core Values Professional Proficiency: Students have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do the job and understand how to manage the sequence of jobs that constitute a career. Technological Competence: Students understand how to use the tools of their trade and are familiar with the key information sources of their profession. Global Awareness: Students understand that there are great social, cultural, political, ethical, economic, and religious differences among the many nations of the world. Social Responsibility: Students understand that they need to pursue the common good and not just self-interest. Ethical Courage: Students have the knowledge and wherewithal to make sound ethical decisions not only when their actions go against the crowd, but also when no one is looking. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 18
Strategic Management Planning Process and Outcomes The preparation of the Fifth Year report coincides with a planned transition in the strategic management cycle for the College. The context of our strategic management process was largely determined by three critical factors: Specific feedback from the AACSB peer review team on the last maintenance visit that the College needed to engage in strategic clarification; a new Provost (2008-2009 academic year); and a change in the Dean of the College (Spring 2009). Responding to this context has required three different types of strategic processes: developing a short term repositioning plan, implementing the initial plan within the Annual Maintenance of Accreditation Update model, and developing a new strategic plan for the next five years. Initial Repositioning Strategy. The processes used to develop the initial positioning strategy actually began as part of the hiring process for the new Dean in the Spring 2009 semester. Both the President and the Provost offered specific suggestions about areas of improvement for the College and issues from the previous Maintenance of Accreditation visit that had not been addressed. Additionally, the Provost agreed to incorporate four administrative outcomes in the initial repositioning strategy: rebuilding the faculty including hiring new department chairs, supporting the development of a more explicit and rigorous performance management system, reprioritizing the intellectual contribution portfolio to a balance of basic and pedagogical contributions with a lesser focus on applied contributions, and restructuring the College to a single integrated College with three departments rather than the existing model with two autonomous schools. The process continued during the summer of 2009 with the arrival of the new Dean who initiated three strategic projects: articulation of the College core values, revision of the existing mission statement, and the development of the Annual Maintenance of Accreditation Update (though no longer required, the Dean determined that the document continued to play an important role in the annual strategic planning process). The core values, already presented in Exhibit 4, were developed in an iterative process between the Dean, senior members of the faculty, and the Provost. Initial drafts of the core values were circulated to the faculty throughout the summer of 2009 for comments and feedback. Once we had an articulation of the core values, we presented our work to the business community through individual and organized meetings such as Chamber of Commerce breakfasts, the Kiwanis Club, the Rotary Club, and so on. Given the generally positive feedback received, the core values were adopted with minor revisions suggested by the business community. The planning activities in the summer also identified five areas that needed to be advanced over the next 2-3 years: Revising the existing curriculum Growing selected programs THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 19
Establishing outreach activities Enhancing student placement activities Initiating a development program Annual Planning Process. The annual strategic planning process followed the process associated with the Annual Maintenance of Accreditation Update (MOA) that was at one time required as part of the maintenance process. The resulting reports are included as Appendix H. We are aware that these reports are no longer required, but we believe they provide excellent documentation of our annual planning process. Each July the Dean develops an initial draft of the Annual MOA Update and circulates the draft to the Management Team for feedback and initial suggestions about annual priorities. After discussion with the Management Team, the document is revised and circulated to all faculty members for review and feedback. Faculty feedback is channeled through the Management Team and incorporated in the report as appropriate. The Annual MOA Update is finalized in the late summer and shared with the Provost. To date, no Provost has asked for revisions to the document. Copies of the final Annual MOA Update are then distributed to the faculty. New Five-Year Planning Process. As documented in our Annual Maintenance of Accreditation Update, the College has made tremendous progress toward the repositioning requested by the President and the Provost. We have a rejuvenated faculty that functions as an integrated unit. We have a performance management system that specifies and rewards faculty development and helps to guide faculty to success in the promotion and tenure process. Additionally, we have accomplished completely or made significant progress toward most of the initial objectives identified in our first effort to establish 2-3 year goals. Given this progress it was time for the College to shift from a repositioning strategy to a moving to the next level strategy. To begin the planning process, three faculty committees were appointed: a vision committee, a mission committee, and a SWOT committee. The membership of each committee included six members, one from each discipline within the College. Thus, over half of the College faculty served on a key planning committee. Each committee was provided with the set of specific charges included as Exhibit 5. Committee members were asked to serve as a representative of his or her discipline and to consult with other faculty members as appropriate. The committees were convened immediately following spring break and asked to deliver the committee reports at the end of the semester. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 20
Exhibit 5: Five-Year Strategic Planning Committee Charges Vision Committee and Mission Committee Please develop a short report that answers the questions posed for your committee. The length of the report should not exceed about 5 pages. Please talk to the faculty within your respective departments so we get a general sense of the faculty. My sense is that our current vision and mission don t require major revision, but we need to determine if some fine tuning is needed. Vision Committee 1) What do we want to look like in 5 years? 2) Do we need to revise our current vision or is it sufficiently forward looking that it will sustain us over the next 5 years? 3) We need to flesh out some end state descriptions for: a. Program Profile (mix and sizes) b. Research Profile (mix of 3 types) c. Student Profile (size, mix across programs etc.) d. Outreach activities e. Student services i. Advising ii. Career iii. Other (internship here) f. Course delivery format mix f2f, hybrid, online 4) GAP analysis what are the roadblocks that are preventing us from achieving this vision Mission Committee 1) Is our mission consistent with the University mission and our state mandate? 2) Does the mission statement reflect the things that we are doing? 3) Does the mission statement include things we shouldn t be doing? 4) Does the mission statement reflect the balance of research, other scholarship, and teaching that we have targeted? 5) Does the mission statement provide enough scope to include all of the things we are doing? a. Programs b. Centers c. Other outreach 6) GAP analysis are we fulfilling our current mission and what additional factors would be required by revisions to our mission? THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 21
Exhibit 5: Five-Year Strategic Planning Committee Charges (Continued) SWOT Committee I generally do not favor SWOT analyses because they are very subjective. However, we have seen enough change in our environment and change in our College that the exercise might prove useful. Develop a one page SWOT and try to limit the explanation to an additional four pages. Do not exclude things we are already doing or planning to do. Try to provide enough detail that we know what you are talking about. Again we need to have you talk to others so we get a sense of the faculty. The general consensus of the planning process was that the College needs to continue our current trajectory. The next 3-5 years need more focus on sustainability and less effort directed toward expanding our scope. The SWOT committee conducted a detailed analysis and produced the summary table included as Exhibit 6. Key strengths include the faculty s commitment to scholarship and community engagement, cornerstones of our mission. Not surprisingly the major themes across the identified weaknesses included concerns about our regional student base and the resource environment both within the University and the state. Key threats focused on similar issues: the significant possibility of ongoing state budget cuts and concerns about program quality as we respond to pressures for enrollment growth. Exhibit 6: College of Business and Technology SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses Committed student-oriented faculty. Strong professional organizations for student involvement PhD Program in HRD Positive support from East Texas Business/Government and NFP Enterprises Relationship with East Texas Economic Development Community Strong leadership commitment to quality learning and research, including: Assurance of Learning AACSB International ATMAE Lack of control on preparation of entering students, especially Math and Statistics Budgetary/resource limitations for faculty development Smaller size endowments and according higher tuition dependence Space limitations (in both offices and classrooms) Not active (noticeable) career service function Faculty is stretched very thin with research, teaching, and service requirements (are we trying to do too much with too little?) THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 22
Exhibit 6: College of Business and Technology SWOT Analysis (Continued) Opportunities Threats Increased globalization opportunity with Center for Global Education: especially under depreciating US dollar Quality growth of student body Located in the area where the health care industry is strong Increase funding for faculty development Develop faculty research incubators between HRD & TECH-BUSINESS MBA Healthcare program could increase enrollment and visibility PhD program-increasing national/international visibility in HRD field State budget limitations: shrunk over last decade Loss of accreditation MBA Healthcare due to rapidity of implementation and a desire for numerous students, if not handled properly could give CBT a black eye Open enrollment especially in grad courses growing suspicions students are entering as could not get accepted at other universities Increased competition for MBA candidates from online and private sector alternatives The Vision and Mission committees each concluded that neither our vision nor our mission should be changed significantly. Each committee did conclude that the articulation statements could benefit from revision. The consensus was that the current articulation of our vision and mission are somewhat wordy, failed to indicate that we strive for national notice in some of our niche programs, and could be more inspirational. As part of the committee report, each committee offered revised versions of the relevant statement. In consultation with the committee chairs, the Dean integrated the feedback about our vision and mission statements, and the documents produced by the committees into a new and improved mission statement. This was an iterative process that went through multiple drafts prior to agreement on a final draft. Once a consensus was reached, the new and improved statement was presented to the Corporate Advisory Board for discussion. The consensus of our corporate partners was that the revised statement lacked focus, was too wordy, and needed to be more inspirational. Based on this feedback the College will continue efforts to refine our vision and mission during the 2012-2013 academic year. We take some comfort in the fact that no one seems to believe the content of the statements is wrong, but rather that the presentation of the content should continue to be improved. New Goals Statement. A second intended outcome of the strategic planning process was to identify a new set of long range goals for the College. During the previous three years, the College has systematically progressed on the goals identified in the repositioning effort. The AOL system has been updated, the curriculum has been through multiple revisions, and significant progress has been made on rebuilding the faculty ranks. As a consequence of this progress, the College needed to establish a new set of long range objectives to guide our development over the next five years. Based on the information provided by the SWOT, Mission, and Vision committees, the Management Team began to formulate the 5 Year Objectives presented as Exhibit 7. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 23
Exhibit 7: Five-Year Goals 2013-2017 Faculty 2 HRM faculty members to begin in Fall 2013 1 new marketing/retail faculty based on growth and AP program 1 new accounting faculty based on growth/macc needs AOL Revise system to meet new AACSB requirements Tie more closely to changes in curriculum Continue to search for empirical validity; the process has been informative and the disciplined inquiry has focused faculty attention on AOL Expand Student Professional Certification Implement MACC Technology Certification Six Sigma / black belt Safety where appropriate SHRM for HR professional SAP Bloomberg (incorporates development of Business Information Laboratory below) Program Development BS in Retail MS in Management (online) Logistics/Distribution? (already approved at UG and Grad levels) Prepared for separate AACSB Accounting Accreditation Implement Quality Matters guidelines in online programs Develop hybrid course degree path for one graduate and three undergraduate programs (majors) Faculty Development Increased faculty support for professional activities Continued updates of P&T and AQ/PQ standards Change in annual evaluation policies to include more industry interaction in anticipation of new AACSB standards Professor in Practice program Development Redevelop Corporate Advisory Board; initial target of 36 members THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 24
Exhibit 7: Five-Year Goals 2013-2017 (Continued) 1 additional professorship 1 endowed chair 1 additional center named (new name, but not a new center) $30,000 - $45,000 discretionary available to support faculty, staff, students, and programs Annual cost of Bloomberg terminals covered ($60,000 / year) Placement Accurate placement data for our students Half time CBT employee for placement/internship coordination Accurate data about our employers Feedback necessary for separate accounting accreditation Feedback necessary for new AOL guidelines especially systematic indirect measures of student learning Space/Facility New building is a possibility this will change the equation completely Create Business Information Laboratory (BUS 152) Complete the replacement of faculty furniture (over half completed now) Growth and Retention Formalize and implement retention plan 10% increase in retention over 5 years Grow undergraduate enrollment 20% over the next 5 years Grow graduate enrollment 30% over the next 5 years Financial Strategies Financial strategies associated with our annual strategic planning process are included with each Annual Maintenance of Accreditation Update presented in Appendix H. Financial strategies associated with our current five year strategic planning process are presented in Table 5. The five year planning process is not complete therefore Table 5 should be viewed as in progress rather than final form. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 25
Table 5: AACSB Financial Strategies Table College of Business & Technology The University of Texas at Tyler Academic Year 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds STUDENT OUTCOMES Growth and Retention Implement Undergraduate Retention Program Develop and implement undergraduate marketing plan Develop and implement graduate marketing plan 7% increase (from 73% to 80%) 20% increase in UG enrollment 30% increase in Graduate enrollment 2012-2013 2012-2013 2012-2013 $1,500 $2,500 $1,500 $2,500 $1,500 $2,500 AVP of Student Affairs, Dean s operating budget AVP of Student Affairs, Dean s operating budget Dean s summer school revenue Professional Certifications for Students Implement MAcc for CPA career track ATMAE Certification Six Sigma (Black Belt) OSHA Safety Cards SHRM Certification 30-45 students in program 1/3 of Technology students 50% of Industrial Management students 95% of all Technology students 25% of Human Resource Development students Fall 2013 No cost No cost Ongoing No cost No cost Department Budget 2013 Paid No cost College Budget Ongoing Paid No cost College Budget 2013 No cost? THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 26
Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds Category Management Certification Investigate feasibility 2013 No cost? SAP Certification Bloomberg Certification Implement certification Implement certification 2012-2013 2012-2013 $8,000 $8,000 Corporate Sponsorship No cost No cost Business Information Center; see Bloomberg Information Terminals Student Placement Develop accurate placement data (both students and employers) Half time placement/internship director Increase student internships Increase student placement By the end of the cycle have an accurate and complete data base of employers and student placement numbers By 2013-2014 academic year initiate database and begin developing metrics By 2013-2014 academic year initiate database and begin developing metrics 2012-2013 2014-2015 No cost $20,000 plus benefits No cost $20,000 plus benefits Will be in collaboration with new University-level Director of Career Services. Costs to be determined. Wage account from department; Dean s budget Ongoing $1,000 $1,000 Dean s budget Ongoing $1,000 $1,000 Dean s budget THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 27
Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds FACULTY OUTCOMES Faculty Positions and Promotion Hire two new HRD Faculty Hire one new HRD Faculty Hire one new Management Faculty Hire one new Marketing faculty Hire one new Accounting Faculty Replace any departing faculty Faculty progress toward tenure Faculty progress toward promotion 25% of untenured faculty achieve tenure Promote 30% of tenured Associates Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2013 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Ongoing Ongoing $165,000 plus benefits $75-$85,000 plus benefits AACSB median AACSB median AACSB median Previous Salary $165,000 plus benefits (and raises) $75-$85,000 plus benefits (and raises) Initial salary + raises Initial salary + raises Initial salary + raises Initial salary + raises Allocated from University Budget Allocated from University Budget Allocated from University Budget Allocated from University Budget Allocated from University Budget Rollover plus funds from University Budget See Faculty Development See Faculty Development Faculty Development Increased support for faculty research 2012-2013 $45,000 $45,000 Departmental Summer School Revenue THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 28
Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds Increased support for faculty teaching 2012-2013 $15,000 $15,000 Departmental Summer School Revenue Updates to performance management documents Ongoing Review Increase level of industry interaction Implement Professor In Practice program 3-5 Professors per year in field sites for one week. Fall 2013 Fall 2014 $5,000 $5,000 Private Donations Corporate Advisory Board Space/Facility New building? Create Business Information Laboratory Faculty furniture upgrade Computer Integrated Manufacturing Lab Two Notebooks in BUS 152 Begin with two, move to 12 by Jan. 2013; maintain 12 All faculty upgraded by 2015 Operational Fall 2012 Jan. 2013 Aug. 2012 $10,000 $60,000 $60,000 Contingent on President s success with System Dean s Strategic Fund Private Donations Student Course Fees Private Donations Ongoing? Year-end leftovers Fall 2012 $180,000 $5,000 Equipment from University and student fees; operations from student fees and department budget; Corporate support THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 29
Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds CURRICULUM Degree Development BS in Retail 2013 No cost No cost MS in Management (online) Three UG hybrid degree paths Program Development 2013 No cost No cost $5,000 $5,000 Anticipated hybrid funding from State; Dean Summer School Revenue; course fees Evaluate launch of Logistics/Distribution degree (already approved) Determined in consultation with Provost $120,000 New line requested for 2013-2014 from Provost Implement Quality Matters in online graduate courses Develop scorecard, review all online classes by 2015 $3,000 $15,000 Private Donations; Course fees; Dean Budget Implement Quality Matters in UG courses Develop scorecard, review half of classes annually by 2016 $2,000 $10,000 Private Donations; Course fees; Dean Budget Implement compressed format MBA classes Move MBA program to seven week courses in all delivery formats Fall 2013 Prepare for AACSB Accounting Accreditation $10,000 $3,000 Department/College/ University Budget THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 30
Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds RESEARCH Doctoral Program Five business faculty serve on dissertation committees Five refereed publications from HRD PhD students One or more PhD students placed in academic setting Faculty $50,000 in CBT research grants to faculty Annual research professorships for 5 faculty Journal Support 2014 $10,000 $10,000 2014 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Summer School Revenue (may require President s approval) Private Donations, Dean s strategic fund, Summer School Revenue Editor of HRD Journal Continue 2013 $5,000 $5,000 Research Initiates Account Editor Chinese HRM Continue Ongoing No cost No cost Funding from agency, Editor SW Regional $2,000 plus Initiate Journal release time if necessary Journal release time reallocated from College Editor Marketing Education Journal 2014-2015?? THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 31
Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds OUTREACH Centers Hibbs Summit Hibbs Research Analyst Hibbs information webpages implemented Hibbs Newsletter CRE Corporate Board established Scope of Retail Lab expanded beyond grocery Center for Family and Small Enterprises implemented Texas Productivity and Performance Center Continue to sell out summit; consider larger venue By end of cycle complete data for all entities in NE Texas Quarterly Economic Report ongoing $15,000 $15,000 Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 2012-2013 2012-2013 $40,000 plus benefits $40,000 plus benefits and raises Self-funding; produces excess revenue for Institute Allocated from University $5,000 $5,000 Hibbs Summit Revenue $3,000 $3,000 Hibbs Summit Revenue No cost No cost? $5,000 Retail Summit; private donations Develop Agenda 2012?? Dean; other? Obtain Permission, Develop Agenda 2012-2013??? Development Corporate Advisory Board redeveloped Initial target 36 members in three years 2012 + $12,000 +$30,000 Annual Corporate Advisory Board gift THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 32
Activity Metric/Goal over five Years Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue Ongoing Annual Cost or Revenue Source or Disposition of Funds Naming gift for CRE or Retail Lab $1-3 million One additional endowed professorship $100,000-$500,000 Private Donation First Endowed Chair $1 million + Private Donation $30,000 Annual Giving Up to $30,000 over 5 years 2012 Annual Giving; support from Development and Alumni Affairs Naming Gift for College $10-$25 million Naming Gift THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 33
New Degree Programs No new AACSB degrees have been officially launched since the last Maintenance of Accreditation visit. However, several new degrees are in process. These include a Master of Accountancy that has been approved and will be accepting students for the Fall 2013 semester (a few students currently in our BBA/MBA will be allowed to enroll in the program offering as early as Fall 2012 to protect the students as we transition to the MACC program), an MS in Management, and a BS in Retailing. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 34 Dr. Kerri Camp, Director of the Center for Retail Enterprises and Director of Undergraduate Programs has pressed for the Bachelor of Science (BS) in Retailing in response to industry s needs. The BS in Retailing has been approved by the Department of Management and Marketing, but is pending College approval; the hope is to initiate this degree for the Fall 2013 semester. Dr. Camp notes that with a Bachelor of Science in Retailing, students will receive a degree focused on the compelling service and information needs of the retailing industry. It is the College s intention that these students be able to complete a certificate in Category Management as well. As with any new degree offering, it will take time for the benefit of the degree to reach the community, but Dr. Camp notes that students who are currently or have previously worked in a retail organization and need a four year degree to advance within their company, are our most likely market. Dr. Camp continues that she is excited for the opportunity to work with the students, faculty, and industry to make sure the curriculum reflects the current and relevant needs of all.
SECTION 4: PARTICIPANTS Student Demographic Diversity The primary market for UT Tyler consists of 14 counties in the Piney Woods of East Texas and includes the cities of Tyler and Longview. Dallas and Harris counties are important secondary markets that include the Dallas and Houston metro areas. Ethnicity data for the Texas College student population is presented in Table 6. Demographic data for these different market areas, along with the two-county area surrounding our closest competitor, Stephen F. Austin State University, are presented in Table 7. The data indicate that African American and Hispanic students are significantly underrepresented in our UT Tyler student population relative to the overall state, but less so when compared to the 14 county area. The distribution of ethnicity across Texas College campuses varies dramatically, particularly for Hispanics. It appears minority participation rates in higher education are improving statewide, but this improvement is happening more slowly in areas with more rural populations such as East Texas. Table 6: Ethnicities of Relevant Populations UT Tyler CBT TX College Students 14 County State % Asian 2.3 6.9 0.6 3.5 % Black 9.6 12 15.5 11.9 % Hispanic 6.8 25.1 12.3 36.5 % White N/H 77.8 49.2 70.3 47.4 Table 7: Demographic Characteristics of Select Geographic Markets CBT UT Tyler 14 County Region Tyler - Longview SFA Home 1 Dallas County Harris County State Population 1,359 6,117 805,746 170,670 145,806 2,412,827 3,984,349 24,326,974 % Persons 18-65 99.80 99.40 60.41 59.35 61.50 63.20 63.40 62.20 % Female 46.40 60.70 50.12 52.50 51.20 49.30 49.80 50.10 % Asian 2.40 2.30 0.62 0.90 0.80 4.60 5.60 3.50 % Black 9.00 9.60 15.53 24.35 15.70 20.70 18.70 11.90 % Hispanic 7.10 6.80 12.33 13.05 16.95 38.90 39.30 36.50 % White/Non Hispanic 77.60 77.80 70.28 66.00 65.65 35.20 36.00 47.40 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 35
Table 7: Demographic Characteristics of Select Geographic Markets (Continued) CBT UT Tyler 14 County Region Tyler - Longview SFA Home 1 Dallas County Harris County State % Bachelor's Degree or higher Median Household Income 2008 % Persons below poverty level 2008 15.00 18.70 16.00 24.05 18.75 27.00 26.90 23.20 $43,679 $34,010 $37,110 $47,155 $52,391 $50,049 15.42 16.40 20.70 17.30 15.30 15.80 1 This consists of Angelina and Nacogdoches counties. Stephen F. Austin State University is located in the city of Nacogdoches. Student Enrollments Enrollment data for both the MBA and BBA programs are presented in Table 8 and Exhibit 8. The data indicate that the effort the College took to reduce enrollments was effective. Our effort to reduce undergraduate enrollment was a direct response to AACSB feedback that we needed to achieve better balance between the number of business faculty and the number of students. This production is much more pronounced in the credit hour production data previously presented in Table 4. It is important to note that we are now returning to a growth phase. Over the past several years, the University has allowed the College to convert both adjunct and instructor positions into full time tenure track positions and has added several additional tenure track positions to our faculty roster. These changes will allow us to begin to re-expand our undergraduate enrollment and continue to grow our graduate enrollment. Our current growth plans are based not only on students majoring in a business discipline but also on greatly increasing the number of nonbusiness students who pursue a minor in business. We will begin to publicize the available minors during the 2012-2013 academic year and begin to market these minors more aggressively in the 2013-2014 academic year. This ramp-up schedule will help us maintain a better faculty-student balance as we continue to bring new faculty to the University. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 36
Table 8: AACSB Program Enrollment Fall 2007 - Fall 2012 Fall 07 Spring 08 Fall 08 Spring 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Fall 10 Spring 11 Fall 11 Spring 12 Fall 12 BBA 923 965 1037 977 996 907 858 808 828 739 772 MBA 113 100 114 100 158 157 193 215 232 221 325 TOTAL 1,036 1,065 1,151 1,077 1,154 1,064 1,051 1,023 1,060 960 1,097 Exhibit 8: AACSB Program Enrollment Fall 2007 - Fall 2012 1200 Business Majors: Fall 2007 - Fall 2012 1000 800 600 400 BBA MBA 200 0 Fall '07 Spring '08 Fall '08 Spring '09 Fall '09 Spring '10 Fall '10 Spring '11 Fall '11 Spring '12 Fall '12 Faculty The most important faculty matter since the last review has been rebuilding and increasing the faculty ranks. Since the last review 76% of the faculty are new to the College and 50% of the faculty were hired over the last three years. This hiring has been the result of replacing adjuncts and instructors with tenure track faculty and faculty growth intended to achieve a better student faculty balance. The faculty recruiting process is handled at the department level. Once new lines or replacement positions are approved by the Provost, the relevant Department Chair appoints a search committee and begins a national search. Over the course of the year, the position will be advertised, preferred candidates invited to campus for multi-day visits, and the names of acceptable candidates forwarded to the Dean for action. All searches THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 37
are monitored by the Office of Human Resources to insure that the process is open and fair, and that all system, state, and federal rules and regulations are followed. Faculty mentoring is handled at the department level and is a primary responsibility of the Department Chair. The mentoring process begins by insuring that each new faculty member has and understands the criteria for annual performance reviews and the expectations for promotion and tenure. All faculty receive extensive performance feedback each year. In addition to the annual review, faculty undergo cumulative reviews in the third and sixth year as part of the tenure process and every sixth year thereafter as part of the System Post Tenure Review Process. As part of the performance management system the Management Team, and where appropriate the College Promotion and Tenure Committee, review and revise the performance management documents. These documents, which are included in Section 6 and Appendices C-F, include: Tables Initial Draft of Faculty Committee Design and Processes CBT Credentialing & Qualification Expectations Participating Faculty and Supporting Faculty Definitions CBT Performance Evaluation Guidelines CBT Annual Performance Evaluation Material Suggestion Statement of Approximate Tenure and Promotion Expectations Tables 9-1, 10-1 and multiple versions of 10-2 are presented in the Standards Tables Section of this report. For Table 10-2 we have attempted to present the data for the full 2011-2012 academic year. We have also presented separate tables for each of three semesters, Fall 2011, Spring 2012 and Fall 2012. We realize this third semester of data is not formally required for our report. However, we believe this third semester of data documents that our faculty recruitment and faculty management policies are well designed to insure sustainable faculty growth and development. We have also included the entire faculty in the College in each of these tables. As we have moved to a more integrated College, many of our faculty teach classes that push the boundaries between the traditional business disciplines and Human Resource Development. Several of our faculty members cross administrative lines to teach one or more courses in a different discipline within the College. Our approach to managing this problem has been to develop a single set of qualification standards that meet the THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 38 Serena Bryant, junior Marketing major and Project Chair for Enactus (formerly SIFE), began in the College of Business and Technology (CBT) in fall 2011 as a transfer student. Serena is passionate about the availability and concern of the faculty. Having originally begun at UT Tyler as a Nursing major, Serena was thrilled to be able to transfer into the CBT. Serena says, I was an unhappy junior-level Nursing major and was so worried that I would be stuck being unhappy, but then came the perfect opportunity for me to change to Marketing and not have to worry about hunting for a top notch business school it just happened to be the next building over. Serena continues, The CBT professors really try to give you a real world learning experience; most professors I have had in the past strictly focuses on textbook material, but our professors pull material from a variety of locations Serena feels the coursework in the CBT is challenging, but You are gaining so much real world, hands-on learning you do not even realize how hard it could be unless you were at a different college.
constraints of AACSB, SACS, and ATMAE and hold each faculty member accountable to this set of standards regardless of discipline. We believe this approach is a strength of the College. To facilitate the committee s review, we have presented the data for the traditional AACSB disciplines separately, but we encourage the committee to consider our entire faculty when evaluating the quality of our faculty. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 39
SECTION 5: ASSURANCE OF LEARNING Overview Assurance of Learning (AOL) in the College of Business and Technology is a faculty-driven process. Oversight of this process is charged to the AOL Committee, a committee comprised of a Department Chair, the Undergraduate Program Director, the Graduate Programs Coordinator and four at-large faculty members. The composition of the Committee provides cross-sectional representation of all disciplines and programs in the College. The Committee works closely with the faculty to ensure that each learning objective is measured periodically, at least twice during each five-year period but generally more often. The faculty employs a variety of measurement strategies, including major field tests, embedded test questions, case analyses, observation of student presentations, activity logs, simulations and other class assignments and/or projects. Analyses of results guide the Committee in its work with the faculty to develop and implement appropriate actions to ensure that curricula and pedagogy are managed in a manner that enhances student learning and development. Appendices I-N provide summaries of the most recent AOL activities and action plans. Binders with examples of assessment activities, student work, and rubrics will be made available for the AACSB visit. Exhibit 9 below illustrates how the AOL assessment process operates in a continuous improvement mode. Exhibit 9: AOL Curriculum Management Process THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 40
Assessment Context for the College of Business & Technology During the last five years, the CBT has conducted a complete redesign of its AACSB Assurance of Learning system. To understand the rationale for this design change it is important to explore several key drivers of this decision, especially in light of the fact that our AOL system was cited as one or our best practices during our last Maintenance of Accreditation visit. At the time of the last visit, the college actually operated three different and largely unrelated assessment systems, one for the AACSB, on for ATMAE, and one for SACS. In some ways these independent assessment systems simplified accreditation reporting: each system was tailored to the specifics of a single accrediting body and the data associated with one system were not considered in collaboration with data collected for a different accrediting body. For example AACSB and SACS assessment procedures were treated as completely independent. This approach simplified reporting, but hindered integrating the different assessment data in the larger curriculum management process. A second major contextual factor relevant to our AOL process was the feedback from our last AACSB visit recommending that we revise the Vision and Mission Statements for the College and also revise our AACSB AOL processes. As part of that revision process, the College clarified its mission as described earlier in this report and identified the five core values of the College. Based largely on these contextual factors, the faculty determined that we were at an ideal point to design a new single assessment model that would meet the needs of each of our accrediting bodies. Further, we determined that the new system should be linked to the new mission by incorporating the core values as learning outcomes and that we should attempt to assess the validity of the system in terms of both the theoretical model used to design the system and the measurement model used to organize the data collection. These additional steps would allow more confidence in the evidence based changes we were making in program structure and course curriculum. The final contextual factor was the timing of the SACS reaccreditation visit in 2010. Given the timing of this SACS visit, we felt it would be imprudent to implement a large scale change prior to the conclusion or our SACS reaccreditation process in late 2010. Thus, we spent the 2009-2010 academic year designing our new system but delayed full scale implementation until the 2010-2011 academic year. We describe this new system in the remainder of this section. Implementing a Redesigned AOL Model The AOL system in the College is based on a set of shared core values: professional proficiency, technological competence, global awareness, social responsibility and ethical courage. These mission-based core values form the framework for our comprehensive, empirically-validated AOL models for the Bachelor in Business Administration program and the Master of Business Administration program, as well as other College programs that are outside the scope of AACSB accreditation. The AOL in the College has evolved to the point where our current system is second-generation, that is, it is the culmination of an THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 41
assessment of the AOL system itself. Many of the best features of the prior system were retained, including assessment of discipline-based knowledge, communication skills, and the use of quantitative tools and business technology. The result of this process is a valuebased conceptual framework whose efficacy can be tested empirically using confirmatory factor analysis. To our knowledge the College is the first AACSB-accredited program to design an empirically-validated AOL system. Exhibits 10 and 11 below depict the conceptual framework of our AOL system for the BBA and MBA programs, respectively. Exhibit 10: BBA Conceptual Model College of Business & Technology Creating Leaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Proficiency Technological Competence Global Awareness Social Responsibility Ethical Courage Learning Goal: Graduates have the knowledge and communication skills to succeed in the business profession. Learning Goal: Graduates use the information sources and tools associated with their chosen profession. Learning Goal: Graduates incorporate global considerations in business activities. Learning Goal: Graduates evaluate the social consequences of alternative outcomes when making business decisions. Learning Goal: Graduates understand ethical considerations and their impacts. Cognitive: PP1 - Students demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about current business theory, concepts, methodology, terminology, and practices. PP2 - Students can prepare a business document that is focused, wellorganized, and mechanically correct. Behavioral: PP3 - Students are able to deliver a presentation that is focused, wellorganized, and includes the appropriate verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Cognitive: TC1 - Students demonstrate an understanding of information systems and their role in business enterprises. Behavioral: TC2 - Students are able to use business software, data sources, and tools. Cognitive: GA1 - Students demonstrate awareness of global issues and perspectives. Behavioral: GA2 - Students are knowledgeable of global issues and perspectives that may impact business activities. Behavioral: SR1 - Students exhibit an understanding of the social consequences of business activities. Cognitive: EC1 - Students understand legal and ethical concepts. Behavioral: EC2 - Students make ethical decisions. Bachelor of Business Administration THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 42
Exhibit 11: MBA Conceptual Model College of Business & Technology Creating Leaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Proficiency Technological Competence Global Awareness Social Responsibility Ethical Courage Learning Goal: Graduates are leadership ready and have an understanding of the business discipline that is both broad and deep. Learning Goal: Graduates possess the technical, research, and quantitative skills to solve business problems. Learning Goal: Graduates think critically and can analyze business decisions with awareness of global considerations that may impact decisions. Learning Goal: Graduates have a fullydeveloped philosophy of social responsibility and are prepared to be good citizens. Learning Goal: Graduates make ethical decisions. Cognitive: PP1 Students demonstrate both breadth and depth in their comprehension of current business theory, concepts, methodology, terminology, and practices. Behavioral: PP2 - Students analyze and critique their personal change leadership styles. Cognitive: TC1 - Students comprehend tools such as decision models, statistical analyses, forecasting, and supply chain logistics. Behavioral: TC2 - Students apply these tools and research skills effectively when resolving business decision problems. Cognitive: GA1 - Students demonstrate awareness of global issues and perspectives. Behavioral: GA2 - Students can assess and critique alternative sets of actions in a global context. Behavioral: SR1 Students demonstrate knowledge of and can apply various Corporate Social Responsibility concepts. Behavioral: SR2 - Students demonstrate good citizenship by engaging in a service activity. Cognitive: EC1 - Students analyze and critique ethical behavior. Behavioral: EC2 - Students compare ethical codes and make ethical decisions. Master of Business Administration Closing the Loop : Summary of Significant Recent Actions Resulting from AOL Processes Students in the BBA program completed the Global Awareness Profile (GAP) test (for test information see www.globablawarenessprofile.com) during their enrollment in either Managing People in Organizations (MANA 3311) or Human Relations (HRD 3333) in Fall 2010 or Spring 2011. MBA students took the GAP test during their enrollment in Human Resources Management (MANA 5350) in Spring 2011 or Summer 2011. The GAP test profiles global awareness of seven contexts (Environment, Culture, Politics, Geographic, Religion, Socioeconomics and Global) and seven regions (Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Middle East, Europe, and Global). BBA students scored below the global mean in all fourteen areas. MBA students scored above the global mean in all fourteen areas but were weakest in geographic, religion and, interestingly, North America. These results led the faculty to approve the following actions and follow-up: The College purchased each undergraduate and graduate student a subscription to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, effective Fall 2011. With the subscription each student receives a hard copy of the weekly magazine. Faculty also receive a hard copy of the magazine plus access to Bloomberg s Education Resource Center, which THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 43
provides Instructor Guides, online quizzes, and other materials to assist faculty in incorporating this resource. Faculty teaching each section of the seven undergraduate (Cost Accounting, International Finance, International Management, International Marketing, Managing People in Organizations, Principles of Finance and Principles of Marketing) and five graduate courses (Accounting for Managerial Control, Advanced Financial Management, Leading and Managing People, Advanced Marketing Fundamentals, and Formulating and Implement Strategy) were required to incorporate global/international content from BusinessWeek into their course on at least a bi-weekly basis. Faculty adopted a variety of approaches to incorporate BusinessWeek: quizzes, in-class discussions, article summaries, blogs, discussion boards, and other assignments. Our intent was not to determine the approach, but rather to focus additional attention on the global/international content embodied in our BusinessWeek intervention. To assess whether this initiative has increased students global awareness, we will administer the GAP test again in Spring 2013 to graduating BBA and MBA students. Bloomberg BusinessWeek has been so impressed with this initiative that they have requested sample materials of how some of our faculty have integrated BusinessWeek into their courses to include on their faculty website and in marketing materials. The College administers the Educational Testing Service Major Field Exam in the BBA capstone course, Strategic Management (MANA 4395), each semester as a measure of students mastery of the business disciplines. To address areas of concern, a faculty task force will consider various options to provide students with a comprehensive review of the primary disciplines either as a co- or pre-requisite to the capstone course or as a component of the course. The task force will make its recommendation to the Curriculum Committee and full faculty at the end of Fall 2012 semester. Faculty concerns that exceptional results from assessments of written communication in the Business Writing and Oral Presentations (MANA 3370) course were the result of assessing assignments that were too structured and simplistic led to two initiatives. Dr. Roger Lirely, Department Chair of Accounting, Finance, and Business Law and Assessment of Learning (AOL) Committee Chair, joined the College of Business and Technology (CBT) in July 2010. As the AOL Committee Chair, Dr. Lirely works directly with the faculty committee and the faculty as a whole to ensure that the assessment processes are understood, represent the College s shared vision, and are providing the kind of information the CBT needs to keep the programs learningfocused. Dr. Lirely notes that the new Assessment of Learning program impacts students to ensure our core values are instilled across all programs and that our curricula are managed in a systematic manner consistent with those values. The program is also designed to impact faculty by ensuring the curriculum is current, relevant and mission-driven. When asked about future Assessment of Learning changes, Dr. Lirely states, AOL is a process of continuous-improvement. We will see changes to the curricula and to the assessment system as information we receive indicates change is necessary. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 44
First, the faculty of each discipline will agree on an upper-level required major course for assessment of an unstructured, complex writing assignment. These assessments will be completed during 2012-2013. Second, a pilot study commenced in Summer 2012 using Write Experience, a Cengage Learning product that is available by subscription as an additional resource to accompany select textbooks. Write Experience provides two unique learning experiences for students. First, it gives students real-time feedback on draft versions of writing assignments. Second, it evaluates the final submitted version of a writing assignment using the same software that is used to score the Analytical Writing Assessment Section of the Graduate Management Admissions Test. Students in Business Writing and Oral Presentations (MANA 3370) and in Principles of Managerial Accounting (ACCT 2302) will participate in the pilot study. If the results of the pilot study warrant, Write Experience may be incorporated into additional courses. MBA students met expectations in only two of five sets of questions targeted at measuring their understanding of the various schools of thought about corporate social responsibility (CSR). During Fall 2011, the management strategy faculty developed a comprehensive module of readings on corporate social responsibility and a test bank of questions designed to assess students understanding of CSR and their abilities to compare, contrast and evaluate CSR concepts, philosophies and issues. The modules and test bank were designed to be versatile enough that an instructor can modify them to be suitable for either undergraduate or graduate students. Between 68% (65%) and 82% (88%) of the test bank questions were answered correctly by MBA (BBA) students in Spring 2012. These results will serve as a baseline for assessments to be conducted in 2012-2013. MBA students exhibited weaknesses in their understanding of scheduling and quality models in Decision Making in Operations Management (MANA 5305) and in their presentation of decision-making output in a manner that is informative in problem resolution in Quantitative Management Tools (MANA 5315). The faculty felt that students would benefit from a single redesigned course that incorporated the most important topics from both courses and approved the elimination of MANA 5315 from the MBA program effective Fall 2012. The redesigned MANA 5305 course will retain its name but will incorporate both quantitative and qualitative approaches to management decision making. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 45
SECTION 6: OTHER MATERIALS The Initial Draft of Faculty Committee Design and Processes The mission of the CBT is achieved through the efforts of its administration, faculty, and staff members. The success of our efforts depends on open communication, teamwork, and service. Much of the work of the faculty to help the CBT achieve its vision hinges team work. In the spirit of teamwork and cooperation, the following are guidelines for the structuring of CBT committees. All members of faculty are expected as part of their service to serve on committees. This service is crucial to the department, college, and university to achieve shared governance. Three types of committee service are needed: university, college, and department. This document outlines CBT committees. CBT has three types of committees: (a) standing, (b) ad hoc, and (c) departmental. Standing Committees. Standing Committees are divided into (1) proscribed, (2) selected, and (3) elected membership committees. Proscribed. Membership on these committees is determined by position in the college. These committees are: Leadership Team Dean Associate Dean Department Chairs Graduate Program Coordinator ex officio Director of Undergraduate Programs ex officio Faculty Awards Committee Charge to select winners of Dean s award via the proscribed measurements Winner of the previous year teaching Winner of previous year service Winner of previous year research Faculty Council Charge to assign membership to selected committees (with the input of Department Chairs) To oversee the election of members to the Tenure and Promotion Committee To meet with the Dean to determine committee charges for the upcoming year, except Promotion and Tenure To act as a sounding board for the leadership team as needed Chair of Assurance of Learning Chair of Undergraduate Curriculum Chair of Graduate Curriculum THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 46
Chair of Promotion and Tenure Dean ex officio Selected Committees. At the beginning of each academic term, faculty will rank order potential committee service for the three selected committees. These rankings will be given to the faculty council and department chairs for the creation of committees. Faculty service on committees varies in length from two to four years. The chair will serve a one year term and then may rotate off the committee or continue as a member. The vice chair will serve two years, one as vice chair and the next as chair. Members may serve up to four years if they are elected to vice chair or chair after during their service. All members serve, at minimum, a two year term on any selected committee. Tenured faculty may apply to the Dean for a sabbatical from selected committee membership. The granting of this sabbatical is at the Dean s discretion. The Dean will establish the committee change in consultation with the committee chair. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Director of Undergraduate Programs ex officio Dean ex officio Member from Management and Marketing Member from Accounting, Finance, and Business Law Member from Human Resource Development and Technology Chair of Graduate Curriculum Graduate Program Director ex officio Dean ex officio Member from Management and Marketing Member from Accounting, Finance, and Business Law Member from Human Resource Development and Technology AOL (Assurance of Learning) Department Chair in Charge of Assurance of Learning ex officio Dean ex officio Staff member coordinating AOL ex officio Member from Management and Marketing Member from Accounting, Finance, and Business Law Member from Human Resource Development and Technology Elected Committees. The Promotion and Tenure committee is an elected committee of five members: one member from each department and two at large members. To be elected to this committee, you must be tenured and hold the rank of associate professor or higher. The faculty council will conduct the elections. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 47
Tenure and Promotion Committee The committee provides results directly to the Dean as per the Tenure and Promotion Expectations (Appendix G). There are no ex-officio members of this committee. The chair is elected by committee members. The previous year s chair will call the first meeting and conduct the election. At large member At large member Member from Management and Marketing Member from Accounting, Finance, and Business Law Member from Human Resources Development and Technology Faculty Senate Faculty Senate members will be elected. Nominations will be sought and voted on. Currently per the HOP each college has 3 senators and the term is for 3 years (http://www.uttyler.edu/ohr/hop/documents/3.6.0facultysen ate.pdf). Ad Hoc Committees Ad hoc committees are created as needed and cannot exist more than one year. Ad hoc committee membership may be appointed or elected. Ad hoc Committee members, depending on the charge of the committee, may come from CBT administration, faculty, staff, as well as other members of the University and local community. The Dean creates and develops the charges for ad hoc committees. Committee Duties and Roles Committee Chairs: Review committee charge with Dean Call first meeting Hold election for Vice Chair 1 st meeting with members create process and timeline for committee work Ensure that all deliverables are created as per charge Work with department chairs to solve member nonparticipation in committee work Provide committee reports as requested at faculty meetings Produce an annual report Denis Svyatun, MS in Human Resource Development recipient in May 2009 and current Master of Business Administration student, returned to the College of Business and Technology (CBT) for the high quality of instruction he received. Denis currently serves as the public relations director for the CBT s Society of Human Resource Management. As an international student, Denis is excited about the new global initiatives the CBT is implementing. I think the CBT is doing a great job: keeping high academic standards and maintaining its core values. I am very pleased with the decision to implement Bloomberg BusinessWeek subscriptions for all students; it s a great tool to make students more aware and interested in what happens here locally in East Texas and around the world. From that point of view, adding new courses such as International Management as part of the MBA curriculum is a fantastic decision. Overall, I believe that the College of Business and Technology is on the right path to creating leaders for the modern global workforce. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 48
Vice Chairs: Assist Committee Chair Run meetings in Chairs absence Provide committee reports at faculty meetings in the absence of the Chair Members Attend all meetings, if possible Discuss non-attendance with Chair Provide all requested deliverables on time Actively participate in the committee work Departmental Committees Each department will determine its needed committees and membership for these committees. A minimum of three standing committees at the department level are required: Journal List, Curriculum, and Promotion and Tenure. Search Committees are created on an ad hoc committee. Other standing or ad hoc committees are at the discretion of the Department Chair. Faculty may apply to their department chair for a sabbatical from departmental committee service. The granting of sabbaticals is at the discretion of the chair and is based on departmental needs. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology 49
Table 2-1
Peer Reviewed Journals Research Monographs Books Chapters Peer Reviewed Proceedings Peer Reviewed Paper Presentations Faculty Research Seminar Non-Peer Reviewed Journals Others Learning & Pedagogical Research Contributions to Practice Discipline-Based Research Standard 2: Table 2-1 Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions Summary of Types of ICs Faculty List alphabetically by academic discipline as defined in the organizational structure that is used by the school identifying each faculty member Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) Cowart, Tammy 5 0 0 0 3 8 1 0 1 3 2 13 Fischer, Mary 15 0 0 0 29 58 2 0 191 15 243 37 Gardner, Ryan 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 0 Gordon, Gus 10 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 3 11 4 Kapka, Kathy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lirely, Roger 7 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 9 0 5 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda 4 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 8 0 4 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 45 0 0 0 42 76 3 1 199 38 265 63 Finance Hsieh, Chialing 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 13 Pandey, Vivek 6 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 12 Shin, Hwan 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) Wu, Chen 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 TOTAL FINANCE 19 1 0 0 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 36 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Peer Reviewed Journals Research Monographs Books Chapters Peer Reviewed Proceedings Peer Reviewed Paper Presentations Faculty Research Seminar Non-Peer Reviewed Journals Others Learning & Pedagogical Research Contributions to Practice Discipline-Based Research Standard 2: Table 2-1 Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions Summary of Types of ICs Faculty List alphabetically by academic discipline as defined in the organizational structure that is used by the school identifying each faculty member Management Astakhova, Marina 2 0 0 3 1 10 6 0 2 0 4 20 Avery, Sherry 2 0 0 0 2 13 0 0 0 6 0 11 Beal, Brent 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 1 3 0 6 Browne, James 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Bushardt, Stephen 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 Cater, Jim 19 0 0 0 17 17 0 8 0 8 0 53 Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) Doty, Harold 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 4 2 4 Fagan, Mary Helen 4 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 Gopalakrishna, Venu 1 0 0 0 2 6 3 0 12 3 12 9 Hicks, Jennifer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Napier, Randall 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 1 7 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) Tarter, Jim 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Young, Marilyn 12 0 0 0 14 3 0 0 6 4 12 19 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 56 0 2 4 44 65 9 9 24 32 32 149 Marketing THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Peer Reviewed Journals Research Monographs Books Chapters Peer Reviewed Proceedings Peer Reviewed Paper Presentations Faculty Research Seminar Non-Peer Reviewed Journals Others Learning & Pedagogical Research Contributions to Practice Discipline-Based Research Standard 2: Table 2-1 Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions Summary of Types of ICs Faculty List alphabetically by academic discipline as defined in the organizational structure that is used by the school identifying each faculty member Camp, Kerri 4 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 7 21 0 0 Jones, Robert 2 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 8 Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) Rutherford, Jana 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 Swimberghe, Krist 7 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 1 1 0 18 Wooldridge, Barbara 13 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 0 13 0 11 Human Resource Development (HRD) Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) TOTAL MARKETING 26 0 0 3 15 23 0 0 10 35 1 41 Ellinger, Andrea 9 0 0 7 20 22 0 1 0 1 1 57 Fazarro, Dominick 13 0 0 2 3 26 0 2 10 15 18 23 Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) Gilley, Jerry 12 0 3 28 3 3 0 0 0 0 36 13 Lawrence, Heshium 4 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 1 6 3 5 McWhorter, Rochell 5 1 0 1 20 0 6 0 18 19 7 25 Miller, Mark 1 0 7 0 1 10 0 0 0 2 7 10 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Peer Reviewed Journals Research Monographs Books Chapters Peer Reviewed Proceedings Peer Reviewed Paper Presentations Faculty Research Seminar Non-Peer Reviewed Journals Others Learning & Pedagogical Research Contributions to Practice Discipline-Based Research Standard 2: Table 2-1 Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions Summary of Types of ICs Faculty List alphabetically by academic discipline as defined in the organizational structure that is used by the school identifying each faculty member Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) Roberts, Paul 2 4 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 9 3 4 Sun, Judy 12 0 0 2 18 21 0 0 0 4 3 46 Wang, Greg 15 1 0 6 23 26 10 3 0 16 3 65 Willis, Terry (Adjunct) TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 73 6 10 47 96 118 16 6 29 72 81 248 TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 219 7 12 54 199 296 28 16 262 177 379 537 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Table 2-2
Standard 2: Table 2-2 Peer Reviewed Journals Number of Articles Academy of Business Disciplines Journal 2 Academy of Strategic Management Journal 2 Accounting Horizons 1 Accounting, Organizations and Society 1 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13 Advances in Management 1 Advances in Production Engineering and Management 1 Annual Advances in Business Cases 6 Business Horizons 1 California Journal of Operations Management 1 Campus-Wide Information Systems 2 China Human Resource Management 1 Contemporary Issues in Education Research 1 Cost Management 2 Economics of Human Resource Development: 2 Emerging Trends in Computing, Informatics, Systems Sciences and Engineering 1 Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management, Volume 1 2 Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration 1 European Journal of Training and Development 1 Family Business Review 2 Financial Services Review 2 Human Resource Development International 5 Human Resource Development Quarterly 4 Human Resource Development Review 2 Human Resource Encyclopedia 2 Human Resources Development Review 2 IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine 1 IMA Educational Case Journal 1 International Journal of Business and Social Science 3 International Journal of Business Competition and Growth 1 International Journal of Business Strategy 2 International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 1 International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 1 International Journal of Human Resources: Development and Management 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 2: Table 2-2 Peer Reviewed Journals Number of Articles International Journal of Intercultural Relations 1 International Journal of Manpower 1 International Journal of Modern Engineering 1 International Journal of Services and Operations Management 1 International Journal of the Academic Business World 1 International Journal of Training and Development 2 International Journal on Engineering Education Instructional Technology, Assessment, and E-Learning 1 Investment Management and Financial Innovations 1 Issues in Accounting Education 1 Issues in Information Systems 3 Issues in Innovation 1 Journal of Academy of Business and Economics 1 Journal of Accounting and Finance 5 Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 1 Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 1 Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 1 Journal of Business and Management 1 Journal of Business and Training 1 Journal of Business Case Studies 1 Journal of Business Cases and Applications 5 Journal of Business Ethics 4 Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management 3 Journal of Computer Information Systems 2 Journal of Computing in Higher Education 1 Journal of Consumer Marketing 2 Journal of Empirical Finance 1 Journal of Employment and Labor Law 1 Journal of Entrepreneurship and Applied Management 1 Journal of European Industrial Training 4 Journal of Family Business Management 1 Journal of Finance and Accountancy 2 Journal of Global Business Development 2 Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 1 Journal of Industrial Technology 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 2: Table 2-2 Peer Reviewed Journals Number of Articles Journal of Instructional Pedagogies 3 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies 1 Journal of International Business and Economics 1 Journal of International Finance and Economics 2 Journal of International Finance Studies 1 Journal of International Management Studies 1 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 1 Journal of Learning in Higher Education 3 Journal of Managerial Issues 1 Journal of Marketing at Retail 1 Journal of Nursing Management 1 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 1 Journal of Organizational Culture 1 Journal of Organizational Leadership and Business 1 Journal of Philosophical Economics 1 Journal of Product and Brand Management 1 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1 Journal of Service Sciences 1 Journal of stem Teacher Education 3 Journal of Technology Studies 3 Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies 2 Lexicon of Online and Distance Education 1 Management Decision 1 Management Learning 1 Management Research Review 1 Marketing Education Review 4 Midwestern Business and Economic Review 4 National Forum of Education Administration and Supervision Journal 1 Oil, Gas & Energy Quarterly 9 Pacific Basin Finance Journal 1 Performance Improvement Journal 2 Performance Improvement Quarterly 2 Perspectives in Higher Education 1 Psychology and Marketing 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 2: Table 2-2 Peer Reviewed Journals Number of Articles Research in Accounting Regulation 1 SAM Advanced Management Journal 1 Small Business Institute Journal 3 Southern Law Journal 1 Southwest Business and Economics Journal 3 Tax Notes 1 Technology Intergration and Foundations for Effective Technology Leadership 1 The Journal of Business Research 2 The Journal of Legal Studies Education 2 The Journal of Mangerial Psychology 1 The Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 3 The Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development 2 The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 1 Workforce Education Forum 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Table 9-1
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Fall 2011 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S 129 Cowart, Tammy P 396 Fischer, Mary P 90 Gardner, Ryan P 165 Gordon, Gus P 306 Kapka, Kathy P 519 Lirely, Roger P Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S 105 Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda P 228 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 1,704 234 88% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P Pandey, Vivek P 147 Shin, Hwan P 378 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 138 Wu, Chen P 375 TOTAL FINANCE 900 138 87% Management Astakhova, Marina P Avery, Sherry P 147 Beal, Brent P 399 Browne, James P 330 Bushardt, Stephen P Cater, Jim P Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S 39 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Fall 2011 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Doty, Harold P Fagan, Mary Helen P 411 Gopalakrishna, Venu P Hicks, Jennifer P 324 Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P 104 Napier, Randall P Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S 165 Tarter, Jim P 249 Young, Marilyn P 507 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 2,471 204 92% Marketing Camp, Kerri P 408 Jones, Robert P Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 267 Rutherford, Jana P 231 Swimberghe, Krist P 189 Wooldridge, Barbara P 54 TOTAL MARKETING 882 267 77% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) Ellinger, Andrea Fazarro, Dominick Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) Gilley, Jerry S S S S S P P S THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Fall 2011 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Lawrence, Heshium P McWhorter, Rochell P Miller, Mark P Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) P Roberts, Paul S Sun, Judy P Wang, Greg P Willis, Terry (Adjunct) P TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 5,957 501 92% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Fall 2011 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S Cowart, Tammy P Fischer, Mary P 48 Gardner, Ryan P 63 Gordon, Gus P Kapka, Kathy P Lirely, Roger P 144 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S Scarborough, Mary S Willis, Veronda P TOTAL ACCOUNTING 255 0 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P Pandey, Vivek P 105 Shin, Hwan P Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S Wu, Chen P TOTAL FINANCE 105 0 100% Management Astakhova, Marina P Avery, Sherry P 213 Beal, Brent P 3 Browne, James P 114 Bushardt, Stephen P 276 Cater, Jim P Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S Doty, Harold P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Fall 2011 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Fagan, Mary Helen P Gopalakrishna, Venu P Hicks, Jennifer P Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P Napier, Randall P Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S 96 Tarter, Jim P Young, Marilyn P 105 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 606 201 75% Marketing Camp, Kerri P Jones, Robert P Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S Rutherford, Jana P Swimberghe, Krist P 90 Wooldridge, Barbara P 201 TOTAL MARKETING 291 0 100% OVERALL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 1,257 201 86% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) Ellinger, Andrea Fazarro, Dominick Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) S S S S S P P S THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Fall 2011 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Gilley, Jerry P Lawrence, Heshium P McWhorter, Rochell P Miller, Mark P Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) S Roberts, Paul P Sun, Judy P Wang, Greg P Willis, Terry (Adjunct) S TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 1,257 201 86% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Fall 2011 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S 129 Cowart, Tammy P 396 Fischer, Mary P 138 Gardner, Ryan P 228 Gordon, Gus P 306 Kapka, Kathy P 519 Lirely, Roger P 144 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S 105 Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda P 228 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 1,959 234 89% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P 0 Pandey, Vivek P 147 Shin, Hwan P 378 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 138 Wu, Chen P 375 TOTAL FINANCE 900 138 87% Management Astakhova, Marina P 0 Avery, Sherry P 60 Beal, Brent P 402 Browne, James P 444 Bushardt, Stephen P 276 Cater, Jim P 0 Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S 39 Doty, Harold P 0 Fagan, Mary Helen P 411 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Fall 2011 Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Gopalakrishna, Venu P 0 Hicks, Jennifer P 324 Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P 104 Napier, Randall P 0 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S 0 Tarter, Jim P 249 Young, Marilyn P 612 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 2,882 39 99% Marketing Camp, Kerri P 408 Jones, Robert P 0 Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 267 Rutherford, Jana P 231 Swimberghe, Krist P 189 Wooldridge, Barbara P 255 TOTAL MARKETING 1,083 267 80% OVERALL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 6,824 678 91% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) S 120 Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) S 228 Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) S 36 Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) S 0 Crook, Laura (Adjunct) S 21 Ellinger, Andrea P 210 Fazarro, Dominick P 351 Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) S 0 Gilley, Jerry P 174 Lawrence, Heshium P 294 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Fall 2011 Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) McWhorter, Rochell P 252 Miller, Mark P 225 Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) S 123 Roberts, Paul P 297 Sun, Judy P 351 Wang, Greg P 198 Willis, Terry (Adjunct) S 159 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 2,352 687 TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 9,176 1,365 87% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S Cowart, Tammy P 234 Fischer, Mary P 105 Gardner, Ryan P 414 Gordon, Gus P 222 Kapka, Kathy P 579 Lirely, Roger P 150 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda P 276 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 1,980 0 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P Pandey, Vivek P 195 Shin, Hwan P 270 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 123 Wu, Chen P 357 TOTAL FINANCE 822 123 87% Management Astakhova, Marina P Avery, Sherry P 471 Beal, Brent P 174 Browne, James P 153 Bushardt, Stephen P 300 Cater, Jim P Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S 51 Doty, Harold P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Fagan, Mary Helen P 438 Gopalakrishna, Venu P Hicks, Jennifer P 396 Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P 98 Napier, Randall P 501 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S Tarter, Jim P 162 Young, Marilyn P 594 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 3,338 0 100% Marketing Camp, Kerri P 300 Jones, Robert P Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 168 Rutherford, Jana P 351 Swimberghe, Krist P 228 Wooldridge, Barbara P 246 TOTAL MARKETING 1,125 168 87% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) Ellinger, Andrea Fazarro, Dominick Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) Gilley, Jerry Lawrence, Heshium McWhorter, Rochell S S S S S P P S P P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Miller, Mark P Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) P Roberts, Paul S Sun, Judy P Wang, Greg P Willis, Terry (Adjunct) P TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 7,265 291 96% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S Cowart, Tammy P Fischer, Mary P 72 Gardner, Ryan P Gordon, Gus P 147 Kapka, Kathy P Lirely, Roger P Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S Scarborough, Mary S Willis, Veronda P TOTAL ACCOUNTING 219 0 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P Pandey, Vivek P Shin, Hwan P Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S Wu, Chen P TOTAL FINANCE 0 0 0% Management Astakhova, Marina P Avery, Sherry P 301 Beal, Brent P 153 Browne, James P 303 Bushardt, Stephen P 153 Cater, Jim P Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S Doty, Harold P Fagan, Mary Helen P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Gopalakrishna, Venu P Hicks, Jennifer P Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P Napier, Randall P Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S Tarter, Jim P Young, Marilyn P TOTAL MANAGEMENT 910 0 100% Marketing Camp, Kerri P Jones, Robert P Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S Rutherford, Jana P Swimberghe, Krist P Wooldridge, Barbara P 90 TOTAL MARKETING 90 0 100% OVERALL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 1,219 0 100% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) Ellinger, Andrea Fazarro, Dominick Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) Gilley, Jerry Lawrence, Heshium S S S S S P P S P P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) McWhorter, Rochell P Miller, Mark P Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) S Roberts, Paul P Sun, Judy P Wang, Greg P Willis, Terry (Adjunct) S TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 1,219 0 100% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S 0 Cowart, Tammy P 234 Fischer, Mary P 177 Gardner, Ryan P 414 Gordon, Gus P 363 Kapka, Kathy P 579 Lirely, Roger P 150 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S 0 Scarborough, Mary S Willis, Veronda P 276 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 2,193 0 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P 0 Pandey, Vivek P 195 Shin, Hwan P 270 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 123 Wu, Chen P 357 TOTAL FINANCE 822 123 87% Management Astakhova, Marina P 0 Avery, Sherry P 471 Beal, Brent P 327 Browne, James P 456 Bushardt, Stephen P 300 Cater, Jim P 0 Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S 51 Doty, Harold P 0 Fagan, Mary Helen P 438 Gopalakrishna, Venu P 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Hicks, Jennifer P 396 Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P 98 Napier, Randall P 501 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S 0 Tarter, Jim P 162 Young, Marilyn P 594 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 3,743 51 99% Marketing Camp, Kerri P 300 Jones, Robert P 0 Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 168 Rutherford, Jana P 351 Swimberghe, Krist P 228 Wooldridge, Barbara P 339 TOTAL MARKETING 1,218 168 88% OVERALL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 7,976 342 96% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) S 0 Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) S 81 Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) S 39 Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) S 93 Crook, Laura (Adjunct) S 60 Ellinger, Andrea P 144 Fazarro, Dominick P 336 Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) S 273 Gilley, Jerry P 216 Lawrence, Heshium P 438 McWhorter, Rochell P 272 Miller, Mark P 255 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Spring 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) S 0 Roberts, Paul P 129 Sun, Judy P 396 Wang, Greg P 225 Willis, Terry (Adjunct) S 0 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 2,411 546 TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 10,387 888 92% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Fall 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S Cowart, Tammy P 417 Fischer, Mary P 96 Gardner, Ryan P 321 Gordon, Gus P 87 Kapka, Kathy P 540 Lirely, Roger P 108 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda P 285 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 1,854 0 100.00% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P 231 Pandey, Vivek P Shin, Hwan P 285 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 57 Wu, Chen P 567 TOTAL FINANCE 1,083 57 95% Management Astakhova, Marina P Avery, Sherry P 321 Beal, Brent P 189 Browne, James P Bushardt, Stephen P Cater, Jim P 309 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Fall 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S 195 Doty, Harold P Fagan, Mary Helen P 468 Gopalakrishna, Venu P 225 Hicks, Jennifer P 285 Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P 82 Napier, Randall P Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S Tarter, Jim P 210 Young, Marilyn P 558 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 2,647 195 93% Marketing Camp, Kerri P 456 Jones, Robert P 255 Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 75 Rutherford, Jana P 471 Swimberghe, Krist P 126 Wooldridge, Barbara P TOTAL MARKETING 1,308 75 95% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) Ellinger, Andrea Fazarro, Dominick S S S S S P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 BBA Fall 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) P Gilley, Jerry S Lawrence, Heshium P McWhorter, Rochell P Miller, Mark P Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) P Roberts, Paul S Sun, Judy P Wang, Greg P Willis, Terry (Adjunct) P TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 6,892 327 95% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Fall 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S Cowart, Tammy P Fischer, Mary P 42 Gardner, Ryan P 111 Gordon, Gus P 45 Kapka, Kathy P Lirely, Roger P 51 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S Scarborough, Mary S Willis, Veronda P TOTAL ACCOUNTING 249 0 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P Pandey, Vivek P 153 Shin, Hwan P Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S Wu, Chen P TOTAL FINANCE 153 0 100% Management Astakhova, Marina P 216 Avery, Sherry P 141 Beal, Brent P 63 Browne, James P Bushardt, Stephen P 297 Cater, Jim P Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S Doty, Harold P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Fall 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Fagan, Mary Helen P Gopalakrishna, Venu P Hicks, Jennifer P Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P Napier, Randall P 87 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S Tarter, Jim P Young, Marilyn P 108 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 912 0 100% Marketing Camp, Kerri P Jones, Robert P Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S Rutherford, Jana P Swimberghe, Krist P 255 Wooldridge, Barbara P 225 TOTAL MARKETING 480 0 100% OVERALL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 1,794 0 100% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) Ellinger, Andrea Fazarro, Dominick Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) S S S S S P P P THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 MBA Fall 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Gilley, Jerry P Lawrence, Heshium P McWhorter, Rochell P Miller, Mark P Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) S Roberts, Paul P Sun, Judy P Wang, Greg P Willis, Terry (Adjunct) S TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 1,794 0 100% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Fall 2012 Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) S 0 Cowart, Tammy P 417 Fischer, Mary P 138 Gardner, Ryan P 432 Gordon, Gus P 132 Kapka, Kathy P 540 Lirely, Roger P 159 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) S 0 Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda P 285 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 2,103 0 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing P 231 Pandey, Vivek P 153 Shin, Hwan P 285 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 57 Wu, Chen P 567 TOTAL FINANCE 1,236 57 96% Management Astakhova, Marina P 216 Avery, Sherry P 462 Beal, Brent P 252 Browne, James P 0 Bushardt, Stephen P 297 Cater, Jim P 309 Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) (F'11, S'12, F'12) S 195 Doty, Harold P 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Fall 2012 Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Fagan, Mary Helen P 468 Gopalakrishna, Venu P 225 Hicks, Jennifer P 285 Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) P 82 Napier, Randall P 87 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) S 0 Tarter, Jim P 210 Young, Marilyn P 666 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 3,559 195 95% Marketing Camp, Kerri P 456 Jones, Robert P 255 Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) (S'11, F'11, S'12, F'12) S 75 Rutherford, Jana P 471 Swimberghe, Krist P 381 Wooldridge, Barbara P 225 TOTAL MARKETING 1,788 75 96% OVERALL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 8,686 327 96% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) S 0 Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) S 0 Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) S 75 Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) S 0 Crook, Laura (Adjunct) S 0 Ellinger, Andrea P 162 Fazarro, Dominick P 354 Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) (S'11, S'12) S 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 9 - Using Student Credit Hours as metric: Name Standard 9: Table 9-1 Full Program Fall 2012 Participating or Supporting (P or S)¹ Amount of teaching if P (blank if S) Amount of teaching if S (blank if P) Gilley, Jerry P 186 Lawrence, Heshium P 393 McWhorter, Rochell P 357 Miller, Mark P 261 Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) S 0 Roberts, Paul P 303 Sun, Judy P 570 Wang, Greg P 168 Willis, Terry (Adjunct) S 150 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 2,754 225 TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 11,440 552 95% ¹ Please see Appendix D for details on school's policies for determining participating and supporting faculty THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Table 10-1
Name Highest Degree Earned and Year Date of First Appointment to the School Percent of Time Dedicated to the School s Mission Academically Qualified Professionally Qualified Other Intellectual Contributions Professional Experience Consulting Professional Development Other Professional Activities Normal Professional Responsibilities Standard 10: Table 10-1 Five-Year Summary of Development Activities Supporting AQ or PQ Status Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) MBA 2002 2004 12.5 Yes 1 5+ UG Cowart, Tammy JD 1994 2008 100 Yes 18 4 15 1 UG/GR RES SER Fischer, Mary PhD 1990 1990 100 Yes 295 13 UG/GR RES SER Gardner, Ryan LLM 2004 2010 100 Yes Yes 6 3 43 5+ UG/GR RES SER Gordon, Gus DBA 1988 2008 100 Yes Yes 18 1 1 2 UG/GR RES SER Kapka, Kathy MBA 2003 2010 100 Yes 1 11 32 10 UG Lirely, Roger DBA 1996 2010 100 Yes 14 7 UG/GR RES SER ADM Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) JD 2006 2010 12.5 Yes 1 5+ UG Scarborough, Mary MBA 1995 1997 22 UG Willis, Veronda PhD 2005 2009 100 Yes 12 20+ UG/GR RES SER Finance Hsieh, Chialing PhD 2012 100 Yes 13 UG/GR RES SER Pandey, Vivek DBA 1994 1999 100 Yes 12 1 UG/GR RES SER Shin, Hwan PhD 2001 2001 100 Yes 5 UG/GR RES SER Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) MBA 1987 2000 25 Yes 1 UG Wu, Chen PhD 2009 2009 100 Yes 6 UG/GR RES SER Management Astakhova, Marina PhD 2012 2012 100 Yes 24 UG/GR RES SER Avery, Sherry PhD 2010 2010 100 Yes 17 UG/GR RES SER Beal, Brent PhD 2001 2010 100 Yes 9 UG/GR RES SER Browne, James PhD 1981 2008 100 Yes 5 UG/GR Bushardt, Stephen DBA 1981 2010 100 Yes 5 UG/GR RES SER ADM Cater, Jim PhD 2005 2012 100 Yes 53 UG/GR RES SER ADM Clark, Kerrie Anne (Excluded because course not counted in business program) MBA 2011 2011 25 Yes UG Doty, Harold PhD 1990 2009 100 Yes 10 UG/GR RES SER ADM Fagan, Mary Helen PhD 1995 1999 100 Yes 9 UG/GR RES SER Gopalakrishna, Venu PhD 2012 2012 100 Yes 24 UG/GR RES SER Hicks, Jennifer (excluded - business communications MA 2011 2011 100 Yes UG Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) MBA 2001 2005 25 Yes 2 UG ADM Napier, Randall ABD 2012 2011 50 Yes 8 UG/GR RES SER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Name Highest Degree Earned and Year Date of First Appointment to the School Percent of Time Dedicated to the School s Mission Academically Qualified Professionally Qualified Other Intellectual Contributions Professional Experience Consulting Professional Development Other Professional Activities Normal Professional Responsibilities Standard 10: Table 10-1 Five-Year Summary of Development Activities Supporting AQ or PQ Status Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) PhD 1975 2003 25 Yes UG/GR Tarter, Jim PhD 1972 1995 100 Yes 4 UG/GR RES SER Young, Marilyn PhD 1974 100 Yes 35 UG/GR RES SER Marketing Camp, Kerri PhD 1998 2008 100 Yes 21 UG/GR RES SER ADM Jones, Robert PhD 2012 2012 100 Yes 8 UG/GR RES SER Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) MBA 2000 2001 25 Yes UG Rutherford, Jana PhD 2010 2008 100 Yes 4 UG/GR RES SER Swimberghe, Krist DBA 2009 2010 100 Yes 19 UG/GR RES SER Wooldridge, Barbara PhD 1999 2007 100 Yes 24 UG/GR RES SER Human Resource Development & Technology Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) MED/PhD student 2011 2011 12.5 Yes Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PhD 1996 2003 37.5 Yes Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) MA 1994 1997 25 Yes Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) MS 2011 2011 12.5 Yes Crook, Laura (Adjunct) MS 2005 2011 25 Yes Ellinger, Andrea PhD 1997 2007 100 Yes 59 UG/GR RES SER Fazarro, Dominick PhD 2001 2010 100 Yes 45 UG/GR RES SER Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) PhD 1971 1976 25 Yes UG Gilley, Jerry EdD 1985 2010 100 Yes 49 UG/GR RES SER ADM Lawrence, Heshium PhD 2010 2009 100 Yes 10 UG/GR RES SER McWhorter, Rochell PhD 2010 2011 100 Yes 44 UG/GR RES SER Miller, Mark PhD 1993 2005 100 Yes 19 UG/GR RES SER Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) MA 2001 12.5 Yes Roberts, Paul EdD 1994 1994 100 Yes 16 UG/GR RES SER Sun, Judy PhD 2011 2009 100 Yes 53 UG/GR RES SER Wang, Greg PhD 1997 2009 100 Yes 84 UG/GR RES SER Willis, Terry (Adjunct) MS 2005 2007 25 Yes THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Table 10-2
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Fall 2011 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ 25 Cowart, Tammy AQ 100 Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ 100 Lirely, Roger AQ Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ 25 Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda AQ 100 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 500 150 Finance 0 77% 100% Hsieh, Chialing AQ Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ 100 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Wu, Chen AQ 100 TOTAL FINANCE 300 25 0 92% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 Browne, James AQ 100 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Fall 2011 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Bushardt, Stephen AQ Cater, Jim AQ Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) O Doty, Harold AQ 100 Fagan, Mary Helen AQ 100 Gopalakrishna, Venu AQ Hicks, Jennifer O Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ 25 Napier, Randall AQ Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O 50 Tarter, Jim PQ 100 Young, Marilyn AQ 100 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 600 125 50 77% 94% Marketing Camp, Kerri AQ 100 Jones, Robert AQ Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ 25 Rutherford, Jana AQ 100 Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 400 25 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 1,800 325 50 94% 100% 83% 98% Human Resource Development THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Fall 2011 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PQ Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ Ellinger, Andrea AQ Fazarro, Dominick AQ Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) O Gilley, Jerry AQ Lawrence, Heshium AQ McWhorter, Rochell AQ Miller, Mark AQ Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O Roberts, Paul AQ Sun, Judy AQ Wang, Greg AQ Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ TOTAL FOR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 1,800 325 50 83% 98% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Fall 2011 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ Cowart, Tammy AQ Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ Kapka, Kathy PQ Lirely, Roger AQ 100 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda AQ TOTAL ACCOUNTING 300 0 0 100% 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ Wu, Chen AQ TOTAL FINANCE 100 0 0 100% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Fall 2011 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Browne, James AQ 100 Bushardt, Stephen AQ 100 Cater, Jim Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) Doty, Harold Fagan, Mary Helen Gopalakrishna, Venu Hicks, Jennifer Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) Napier, Randall AQ O AQ AQ AQ O PQ AQ PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O 50 Tarter, Jim Young, Marilyn AQ 100 PQ TOTAL MANAGEMENT 500 0 50 QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 91% 91% Marketing Camp, Kerri AQ Jones, Robert AQ Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ Rutherford, Jana AQ Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 200 0 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 1,100 0 50 100% 100% 96% 96% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Fall 2011 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PQ Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ Ellinger, Andrea AQ Fazarro, Dominick AQ Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) O Gilley, Jerry AQ Lawrence, Heshium AQ McWhorter, Rochell AQ Miller, Mark AQ Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O Roberts, Paul AQ Sun, Judy AQ Wang, Greg AQ Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 1,100 0 50 96% 96% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Fall 2011 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ 13 Cowart, Tammy AQ 100 Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ 100 Lirely, Roger AQ 100 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ 13 Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda AQ 100 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 600 125 0 83% 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ 100 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Wu, Chen AQ 100 TOTAL FINANCE 300 25 0 92% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 Browne, James AQ 100 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Fall 2011 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Bushardt, Stephen AQ 100 Cater, Jim Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) Doty, Harold AQ 100 Fagan, Mary Helen AQ 100 Gopalakrishna, Venu Hicks, Jennifer AQ O AQ O PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ 25 Napier, Randall AQ OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O 50 Tarter, Jim PQ 100 Young, Marilyn AQ 100 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 700 125 50 QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 80% 94% Marketing Camp, Kerri AQ 100 Jones, Robert AQ Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ 25 Rutherford, Jana AQ 100 Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 400 25 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 2,000 300 50 94% 100% 85% 98% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ 13 Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Fall 2011 PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PQ 38 Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ 25 Ellinger, Andrea AQ 100 Fazarro, Dominick AQ 100 Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) Gilley, Jerry AQ 100 Lawrence, Heshium AQ 100 McWhorter, Rochell AQ 100 Miller, Mark AQ 100 O OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O 25 Roberts, Paul AQ 100 Sun, Judy AQ 100 Wang, Greg AQ 100 Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ 25 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 913 113 2,913 413 25 75 QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 87% 98% 86% 98% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ 25 Cowart, Tammy AQ 100 Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ 100 Lirely, Roger AQ 100 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ 25 Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda AQ 100 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 600 150 0 80% 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ 100 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Wu, Chen AQ 100 TOTAL FINANCE 300 25 0 92% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Browne, James AQ 100 Bushardt, Stephen AQ 100 Cater, Jim AQ Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) O Doty, Harold AQ 100 Fagan, Mary Helen AQ 100 Gopalakrishna, Venu AQ Hicks, Jennifer O Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ 25 Napier, Randall AQ 100 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O Tarter, Jim PQ 100 Young, Marilyn AQ 100 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 800 125 0 86% 100% Marketing Camp, Kerri AQ 100 Jones, Robert AQ Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ 25 Rutherford, Jana AQ 100 Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 400 25 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 2,100 325 0 94.12% 100.00% 86.60% 100.00% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PQ Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ Ellinger, Andrea AQ Fazarro, Dominick AQ Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) O Gilley, Jerry AQ Lawrence, Heshium AQ McWhorter, Rochell AQ Miller, Mark AQ Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O Roberts, Paul AQ Sun, Judy AQ Wang, Greg AQ Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 2,100 325 0 86.60% 100.00% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ Cowart, Tammy AQ Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ Lirely, Roger AQ Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda AQ TOTAL ACCOUNTING 300 0 0 100% 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ Pandey, Vivek AQ Shin, Hwan AQ Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ Wu, Chen AQ TOTAL FINANCE 0 0 0 0% 0% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 Browne, James AQ Bushardt, Stephen AQ 100 Cater, Jim AQ THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) O Doty, Harold AQ Fagan, Mary Helen AQ Gopalakrishna, Venu AQ Hicks, Jennifer O Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ Napier, Randall AQ Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O Tarter, Jim PQ Young, Marilyn AQ TOTAL MANAGEMENT 300 0 0 100% 100% Marketing Camp, Kerri AQ Jones, Robert AQ Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ Rutherford, Jana AQ Swimberghe, Krist AQ Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 100 0 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 700 0 0 100% 100% 100% 100% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) AQ PQ PQ THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ Ellinger, Andrea AQ Fazarro, Dominick AQ Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) O Gilley, Jerry AQ Lawrence, Heshium AQ McWhorter, Rochell AQ Miller, Mark AQ Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O Roberts, Paul AQ Sun, Judy AQ Wang, Greg AQ Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 700 0 0 100% 100% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ Cowart, Tammy AQ 100 Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ 100 Lirely, Roger AQ 100 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda AQ 100 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 600 100 0 86% 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ 100 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Wu, Chen AQ 100 TOTAL FINANCE 300 25 0 92% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 Browne, James AQ 100 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Bushardt, Stephen AQ 100 Cater, Jim AQ Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) O Doty, Harold AQ 100 Fagan, Mary Helen AQ 100 Gopalakrishna, Venu AQ Hicks, Jennifer O Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ 25 Napier, Randall AQ 100 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O Tarter, Jim PQ 100 Young, Marilyn AQ 100 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 800 125 0 86% 100% Marketing Camp, Kerri AQ 100 Jones, Robert AQ Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ 25 Rutherford, Jana AQ 100 Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 400 25 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 2,100 275 0 94% 100% 88% 100% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Spring 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PQ 38 Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ 13 Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ 25 Ellinger, Andrea AQ 100 Fazarro, Dominick AQ 100 Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) O 25 Gilley, Jerry AQ 100 Lawrence, Heshium AQ 100 McWhorter, Rochell AQ 100 Miller, Mark AQ 100 Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O Roberts, Paul AQ 100 Sun, Judy AQ 100 Wang, Greg AQ 100 Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 900 100 25 TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 3,000 375 25 88% 98% 88% 99% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Fall 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ Cowart, Tammy AQ 100 Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ 100 Lirely, Roger AQ Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ Scarborough, Mary O 25 Willis, Veronda AQ 100 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 500 100 25 80% 96% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ 100 Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ 100 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Wu, Chen AQ 100 TOTAL FINANCE 400 25 0 94% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ 100 Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 Browne, James AQ THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Fall 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Bushardt, Stephen AQ Cater, Jim AQ 100 Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) O Doty, Harold AQ 100 Fagan, Mary Helen AQ 100 Gopalakrishna, Venu AQ 100 Hicks, Jennifer O Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ 25 Napier, Randall AQ 50 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O Tarter, Jim PQ 100 Young, Marilyn AQ 100 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 850 125 Marketing 0 87% 100% Camp, Kerri AQ 100 Jones, Robert AQ 100 Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ 25 Rutherford, Jana AQ 100 Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 500 25 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 2,250 275 25 95% 100% 88% 99% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 BBA Fall 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PQ Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ Ellinger, Andrea AQ Fazarro, Dominick AQ Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) O Gilley, Jerry AQ Lawrence, Heshium AQ McWhorter, Rochell AQ Miller, Mark AQ Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O Roberts, Paul AQ Sun, Judy AQ Wang, Greg AQ Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ Yarema, Lance O TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 2,250 275 25 88% 99% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Fall 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ Cowart, Tammy AQ Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ Lirely, Roger AQ Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ Scarborough, Mary Willis, Veronda AQ TOTAL ACCOUNTING 300 0 0 100% 100% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ Wu, Chen AQ TOTAL FINANCE 100 0 0 100% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ 100 Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 Browne, James AQ THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Fall 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Bushardt, Stephen AQ 100 Cater, Jim AQ Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) O Doty, Harold AQ Fagan, Mary Helen AQ Gopalakrishna, Venu AQ Hicks, Jennifer O Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ Napier, Randall AQ 100 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O Tarter, Jim PQ Young, Marilyn AQ 100 TOTAL MANAGEMENT 600 0 0 100% 100% Marketing Camp, Kerri AQ Jones, Robert AQ Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ Rutherford, Jana AQ Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 200 0 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 1,200 0 0 100% 100% 100% 100% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Standard 10: Table 10-2 MBA Fall 2012 NAME QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) PQ Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) PQ Crook, Laura (Adjunct) PQ Ellinger, Andrea AQ Fazarro, Dominick AQ Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) O Gilley, Jerry AQ Lawrence, Heshium AQ McWhorter, Rochell AQ Miller, Mark AQ Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) O Roberts, Paul AQ Sun, Judy AQ Wang, Greg AQ Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 1,200 0 0 100% 100% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Fall 2012 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 Accounting Clayton, Carrie (Adjunct) PQ Cowart, Tammy AQ 100 Fischer, Mary AQ 100 Gardner, Ryan AQ 100 Gordon, Gus AQ 100 Kapka, Kathy PQ 100 Lirely, Roger AQ 100 Mazingo, Jason (Adjunct) PQ Scarborough, Mary O 13 Willis, Veronda AQ 100 TOTAL ACCOUNTING 600 100 13 84% 98% Finance Hsieh, Chialing AQ 100 Pandey, Vivek AQ 100 Shin, Hwan AQ 100 Woolverton, Jerry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Wu, Chen AQ 100 TOTAL FINANCE 400 25 0 94% 100% Management Astakhova, Marina AQ 100 Avery, Sherry AQ 100 Beal, Brent AQ 100 Browne, James AQ Bushardt, Stephen AQ 100 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Fall 2012 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Cater, Jim AQ 100 Clark, Kerrie Anne (Adjunct) Doty, Harold AQ 100 Fagan, Mary Helen AQ 100 Gopalakrishna, Venu AQ 100 Hicks, Jennifer O O PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Johnson, Gail (Adjunct) PQ 25 Napier, Randall AQ 50 Smith, Palmer (Adjunct) O Tarter, Jim PQ 100 Young, Marilyn AQ 100 Marketing TOTAL MANAGEMENT 950 125 OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) 0 QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 88% 100% Camp, Kerri AQ 100 Jones, Robert AQ 100 Roge, Carroll (Adjunct) PQ 25 Rutherford, Jana AQ 100 Swimberghe, Krist AQ 100 Wooldridge, Barbara AQ 100 TOTAL MARKETING 500 25 0 TOTAL FOR BUSINESS DISCIPLINES 2,450 275 13 95% 100% 89% 100% Human Resource Development Baxter-Smith, Demetra (Adjunct) AQ THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
NAME Cathcart, Sharon (Adjunct) Standard 10: Table 10-2 Full Program Fall 2012 QUALIFICATION (ACADEMIC-AQ, PROFESSIONAL-PQ OTHER-O) (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ AQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) PQ FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Cowan, Terry (Adjunct) PQ 25 Cowell, Charles (Adjunct) Crook, Laura (Adjunct) Ellinger, Andrea AQ 100 Fazarro, Dominick AQ 100 Gilbreath, Tommy (Adjunct) Gilley, Jerry AQ 100 Lawrence, Heshium AQ 100 McWhorter, Rochell AQ 100 Miller, Mark AQ 100 Parks, Tracy (Adjunct) Roberts, Paul AQ 100 Sun, Judy AQ 100 Wang, Greg AQ 100 Willis, Terry (Adjunct) PQ PQ O O PQ OTHER FACULTY- % OF TIME DEVOTED TO MISSION (FROM TABLE 10-1) Yarema, Lance O 25 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FOR COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY 900 25 25 3,350 300 38 QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER STD 10 95% 97% 91% 99% THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
APPENDICES Appendix A: Searching for Empirical Validity in an AOL System Appendix B: Recruiting & Retention Appendix C: CBT Credentialing & Qualification Expectations Appendix D: Participating Faculty & Supporting Faculty Definitions Appendix E: CBT Performance Evaluation Guidelines Appendix F: CBT Annual Performance Evaluation Material Suggestions Appendix G: Statement of Approximate Tenure & Promotion Expectations Appendix H: Annual MOA Reports Appendix I: Assurance of Learning (AOL) Appendix J: Assurance of Learning Models - BBA & MBA Appendix K: Summaries of Assessment Activities & Results 2010-2011 Appendix L: Summaries of Assessment Activities & Results 2011-2012 Appendix M: Unit Assessment Report Appendix N: Unit Assessment Report - MBA THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER College of Business and Technology
Appendix A: Searching for Empirical Validity in an AOL System
Searching for Empirical Validity in an AOL System D. Harold Doty Roger Lirely Sherry Avery The Faculty of the College of Business and Technology The University of Texas at Tyler
Parameters for the New System Driven by strategic planning process Mission Driven Simple enough that even the Dean can understand it A single system for the entire college, and also for AACSB, ATMAE, and SACS A system that incorporates the methodological rigor we expect in research Presented as a traditional measurement model with circles and arrows
Core Values of Mission Statement as Learning Objectives Professional Proficiency Technological Competence Global Awareness Social Responsibility Ethical Courage
Original AOL Model
Professional Proficiency Core Value: Professional Proficiency Graduates have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do the job and understand how to manage the sequence of jobs that constitute a career. Learning Goal: Graduates can locate, apply for, obtain, and perform a job in their chosen field. Cognitive Learning Objective PP1 Students demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about current business theory, concepts, methodology, terminology and practices. PP2: Students can prepare a business document that is focused, well-organized and mechanically correct. Behavioral Learning Objective: PP3 Students prepare a compendium of evidence (skills and behaviors) to market themselves as professionals. PP4: Students are able to deliver a presentation that is focused, well-organized and includes appropriate verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Affective Learning Objective: The CBT has decided to defer delineation of affective learning goals.
Professional Proficiency Cognitive Cognitive Learning Objective: PP1 Students demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about current business theory, concepts, methodology, terminology and practices. - Overall Score on Major Field Test PP2: Students can prepare a business document that is focused, well-organized and mechanically correct. - Rubric measuring Ideas and Content, Organization, Voice, and Conventions
Professional Proficiency Behavioral Behavioral Learning Objective: PP3 Students prepare a compendium of evidence (skills and behaviors) to market themselves as professionals. - Rubric measuring resume, mock interview, and appearance PP4 Students are able to deliver a presentation that is focused, well-organized and includes appropriate verbal and nonverbal behaviors. - Rubric measuring introduction, progression, projection, delivery, eye contact, gestures, pace, conclusion, and gap fillers
ACCT ECON MGMT QUANT FIN MKT LEG INF INTL Professional Proficiency CFA Model - Original.59.70.64.23.72.74.54.55.9.5.4.5 PP1 PROF PP4 PP3.84.4 PP2 Appearance.3.3 Resume Interview.4.5.2.9.7.7.5.9.5 INTRO PROG CONCL PROJ DEL EYE GEST PACE Ideas Organization Voice Convention FILL
ACCT ECON.70.59 Professional Proficiency CFA Model - New MGMT.64.23 PP1 PROG QUANT.72.9 FIN MKT.74.54 PROF PP3.7 DEL LEG INF.55.84.7 EYE INTL PP2.9.9.5.4.5 PACE Ideas Organization Voice Convention
New AOL Model
Curriculum Changes Activities Timeline Bloomberg Business Week Fall 2011 Rating changes for written communication rubric Fall 2011 Eliminated Personal Marketing rubric (PP3) Fall 2011 Change oral communications rubric Spring 2012 International Candidate Fall 2012 Introduction to Management Class Next Accountingtextbook that includes interactive homework manager Piloting hybrid class that will include internally developed of faculty owned manufacturing plant. Will be used to illustrate cost accounting principles. In Finance, adopt a common textbookand syllabus with common learning objectives RedesignAcct 3300 to target non-accounting business majors Under discussion Fall 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2013
What We Have Learned The system still gets complicated quickly Our intentions may be better than our design Developing valid AOL measures is very difficult We need to get deeper into our implementation before we make?? strategies
What We Would do the Same, What We Would Change Best Tip: the scantronrubric form for data collection The CFA approach simplifies presentation but not process Our approach is still too complex Our desire for research rigor comes at a significant price Do we need to move from face validity to statistical conclusion validity in AOL systems
Appendix B: Recruiting & Retention
CBT RECRUITMENT & RETENTION PLAN The University of Texas at Tyler The College of Business and Technology CBT Undergraduate Advising Office
1 CONTENTS CBT RECRUITMENT & RETENTION PLAN (2012-2014) MISSION STATEMENT The purpose is to design, implement and evaluate methods of reaching incoming freshmen for the greater goal of retaining them as students at UT Tyler, particularly within the College of Business and Technology OBJECTIVES To increase CBT freshmen retention rate from % to % by MM- DD-YY. To recruit in Longview and Palestine highschools and community colleges on a more consistent basis so that students are more aware of our satellite campuses and better prepared academically to transfer to UT Tyler. To cultivate interaction between upper classmen and lower classmen for the purpose of helping the lower classmen adjust to college responsibilities. To identify reasons for CBT freshmen retention and attrition, to share this information within the college and The University, and to act on those findings. Ultimately, to create and proliferate such a positive reputation of the CBT that highschool seniors come to UT Tyler with the intent of completing their education here. Mission..1 Objectives..1 SWOT...2 Advisor Initiatives...3 Faculty Initiatives..7 Student Initiatives.8 Illustrations.9 Timeline.TBD
2 SWOT ANALYSIS Strengths Enthusiasm and support of college and university leaders Conscious effort to retain freshmen where there was previously little to no effort Easily identified target audience: all CBT freshmen Weaknesses CBT offers neither freshmen classes nor freshman advising Inexperience in the particular area of freshmen retention Risk of personnel turn-over (staff as well as students involved in retention efforts) Inability to control major factors that contribute to attrition: financial, family obligations Opportunities Implementation of students ideas for retention Relationship building: student to student, staff to students Research opportunities Threats Other colleges and universities Non-CBT organizations, initiatives and plans with more activities and sometimes more funding
3 ADVISOR INITIATIVES Advising Syllabus The advisors have developed a draft of a syllabus to give to each student and to post on the website. The syllabus clearly outlines advisor and advisee responsibilities and provides a schedule with important enrollment and graduation dates. Advising Folders Advisors give all first-time advisees a folder with the following: Personal degree plan Rolling schedule Business card CBT brochure One-Stop-Shop brochure Registration brochure Description of CBT programs Survival Guide FAQs h/o Student organization h/o Latest CBT newsletter CBT Advising Checklist DONE! CBT Newsletter The advising office sends a monthly, 1-page newsletter to all undergraduate CBT students and to all students who sign up for our Job Postings distribution list. Job Postings from employers who have contacted us for graduates Internship Postings from employers in the community Course and Program information from the advising office Calendar and Contact info Customer Service Training Students will often change majors or universities if they do not have positive experiences in the advising office. Therefore, CBT advisors would like to invite CBT faculty (MANA, MARK or HRD) to do a Customer Service workshop for advising staff and student workers so that they will know how to maintain the highest professional standards even during the most stressful interactions with students. DONE!
4 ADVISOR INITIATIVES CONT D Facebook Page The College of Business and Technology has created a Facebook page. We plan to use this page to promote job and internship postings, important University dates, faculty profiles and pictures of CBT activities. Longview and Palestine Recruiting As in 2011-2012, advisors plan to visit Longview and Palestine highschools and community colleges in Fall and Spring semesters. These visits will be planned before Preview Days so that we can invite students. DONE! Meet Your College (Freshmen and Transfer Orientation) Advisors have redesigned the MYC presentations to review ALL degree options within CBT, projected job demand for graduates with CBT degrees, advising policies, internship opportunities, and student organization activities. We invite faculty and students to participate in the presentations. Potential Leavers Survey Advisors send all CBT freshmen students a brief email in April and in November asking Do you plan on returning next semester? If not, Why? And tell us your overall impression of CBT advising or UT Tyler. We also recruit staff/student workers to help us call all of these students. We collect the answers and respond to students complaints and questions in an effort to prevent attrition. DONE! DONE!
5 ADVISOR INITIATIVES CONT D Preview Days Advisors will continue to participate in Preview Days each fall and spring semester. They have redesigned the presentations to review ALL degree options within CBT, projected job demand for graduates with CBT degrees, advising policies, internship opportunities, and student organization activities. Reminders Emails to Students Not too late to enroll DONE! Drop date reminder DONE! Customized Student Organization reminder DONE! Rolling Schedules Advisors take the rolling class schedules provided by the department chairs and build 2- year rolling schedules based on degree for students to use. These rolling schedules are posted online and handed out to each advisee. Student Learning Communities & Freshmen Patriot Connection Advisors are signed up for and prepared to assist in Student Learning Communities and Freshmen Patriot Connection (led by Student Life and Leadership). DONE! DONE!
6 ADVISOR INITIATIVES CONT D Welcome and Congratulatory Letters Advisors send welcome letters from the dean to all newly admitted students (freshmen & transfer). Advisors send congratulatory letters from the dean to all students on the Dean s List and President s List each semester. DONE! Advisors will send admittance letters to students admitted to a particular BBA program Advisors may develop informational packets for 1 st time freshmen, undecided freshmen and prospective students.
7 FACULTY INITIATIVES Faculty Advisors Faculty will continue to participate in Student Organizations as faculty advisors. Students build healthy, long-lasting relationships with their faculty this way, and it ensures that students know they have somewhere to turn when they seek academic and personal assistance. Holiday Greeting Cards CBT will order greeting cards to send to freshmen in December. These cards will be printed with dean s signature and other faculty and staff will be encouraged to submit signatures. DONE! DONE! Identification of Struggling Students Faculty will continue to work closely with advisors to notify them of struggling students. DONE!
8 STUDENT INITIATIVES CBT Ambassadors CBT Ambassadors is a new student organization of juniors and seniors dedicated to building relationships with CBT freshmen to help them adjust to college responsibilities through the following: Assisting advising office during peak registration periods; Participating in SLL activities; Classroom visits to freshmen classes to recruit students into organizations; Going Green recycling initiative; Peer Mentors program; Q&A sessions (without the grown ups around!). All CBT Student Organizations All CBT Student organizations are joining forces to recruit freshmen into their organizations. Accounting Society Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering (ATMAE) Financial Management Association (FMA) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Society of Manufacturing Engineers Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) CBT Coffee Break (Welcome Breakfast) Students (CBT Ambassadors) would like to host a coffee break sometime after the fall semester gets started. All CBT faculty, staff and students will be welcome to meet and greet and enjoy some coffee and donuts in a relaxed informal environment.
9 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Initial Retention Analysis Why Students Stay Current Initiatives Proposed Initiatives Feel Connected to People Feel Supported Financially Reputation of Organization and Programs Job Opportunities for Graduates Aware of expectations and procedures Peer Mentors-SLL* Meet Your College- SLL and CBT* SLL Activities (such as Homecoming)-SLL Student Learning Communities- SLL Student Organizations-CBT Facebook Page-CBT Financial Aid-University Marketing-University, Beverly Golden Marketing-CBT, Jana Belzer Pre-Business initiative-cbt (pre-business) Career Services-University CBT Newsletter CBT Student Organizations-CBT Connecting Students to Internships-CBT Peer Mentors-SLL Enrollment Services-University CBT Newsletter CBT CBT Ambassadors-CBT Classroom Visits-CBT Participation in SLL Activities CBT Participation in Student Learning Communities--CBT Welcome Breakfast-CBT Sense of ownership Student Organizations Student-led activities (CBT Ambassadors) *SLL=Student Life and Leadership *CBT=College of Business and Technology
10 Figure 2: Touch Points (orange=direct contact with CBT students; blue=indirect contact) CBT Newsletter Patriot Talon Holiday Greeting Cards SLL Activity Participation Facebook Page Student Organizations
11 Figure 3: Distribution of Duties CBT Ambassadors Advisors Faculty CBT Staff CBT Leadership Welcome B-fast Welcome B-fast Welcome B-fast Welcome B-fast Welcome B-fast Meet Your College Meet Your College Meet Your College Meet Your College SLL* Activities SLL Activities SLL Activities SLL Activities SLL Activities Student Learning Communities Class Visits Recruit for Student Organizations Recruit for Student Organizations Recruit for Student Organizations PFC* Mentoring PFC Mentoring PFC Mentoring Holiday Greeting Cards Holiday Greeting Cards (signatures) Potential Leavers Survey Potential Leavers Survey Recruit for CBT Amb. Recruit for CBT Amb. Recruit for CBT Amb. Welcome & Congratulatory Letters Welcome & Congratulatory Letters Peer Mentors *SLL=Student Life and Leadership *PFC=Patriot Freshman Connection NOTE: Meet Your College is Freshmen Orientation.
Appendix C: CBT Credentialing & Qualification Expectations
CBT CREDENTIALING AND QUALIFICATION EXPECTATIONS 1 Draft 10/19/10; Revised 8/15/2012 Reviewers will consider all faculty members in determining the currency and relevance of information brought to teaching and learning. This includes all faculty members who are a part of the teaching faculty at the term reported in the Self-Evaluation Report or the Maintenance of Accreditation Report. Regardless of the contractual arrangement of a teaching faculty member with the school, each will be included--full-time, part-time, visiting, clinical, etc. All faculty members are expected to demonstrate activities that maintain the currency and relevance of their instruction (AACSB Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation, July 2, 2009 revision, page 47; emphasis added). The credentials of our faculty and administrators play a central role in our efforts to achieve and maintain overall high quality programs. We expect a large majority of our faculty to exceed the minimal qualification standards articulated by the AACSB and SACS. Further, we expect each of our full-time faculty, whether employed in tenured, tenure-track, visiting, or non-tenure track appointments to exceed the minimal standards of Academically or Professionally Qualified as articulated by the AACSB and interpreted below. However, minimal maintenance of an individual s qualification status is not indicative of a pattern of satisfactory performance. Satisfactory performance requires each of our full-time faculty members and administrators, whether employed in tenured, tenure-track, visiting, or non-tenure track appointments to significantly exceed the minimal standards of Academically or Professionally Qualified (AQ/PQ). Classification as academically or professionally qualified will be lost if there is inadequate evidence of development activities within the past five years that demonstrate currency and relevancy in the field of teaching. Loss of AACSB qualification status requires a mandatory professional development plan and may be cause for termination. Our objective is to obtain a 100% AQ/PQ coverage rate. We realize that unexpected personnel changes will sometimes prohibit us from achieving this goal, and this standard exceeds the minimal requirements of AACSB accreditation (i.e., 90%). Further, our self definition as an institution with a higher emphasis on teaching, a moderate emphasis on theory, and a lower emphasis on practice requires a higher concentration of AQ faculty than some of the other profiles we might have chosen 2. As a consequence of this choice and our niche doctoral program we require 100% AQ status for doctoral faculty, 75% AQ status across the college (excluding the accounting 1 Much of the language in this document is excerpted directly from the AACSB Accreditation Standards. Please refer to the standards for further clarification and examples. 2 See the Final Report of the AACSB Impact on Research Task Force.
discipline), and 60% AQ status within our accounting faculty. We anticipate that most of our Professionally Qualified faculty will serve in part-time, non-tenure track roles. Academically Qualified Faculty Members Academic qualification requires a combination of original academic preparation (degree completion) augmented by subsequent activities that maintain or establish preparation for current teaching responsibilities. The following descriptions are not meant to be exhaustive, but indicative, of the meaning of academic qualification. 1. A doctoral degree in the area in which the individual teaches. 2. A doctoral degree in a business field, but primary teaching responsibility in a business field that is not the area of academic preparation. Normally, persons meeting this condition will be considered to be academically qualified if they maintain active involvement in the areas of teaching responsibility through writing, participation in professional meetings, or related activities. 3. A doctoral degree outside of business, but primary teaching responsibilities that incorporate the area of academic preparation. Normally, faculty meeting this condition will be considered academically qualified, provided they maintain active involvement in areas of teaching. 4. A doctoral degree outside of business and primary teaching responsibilities that do not incorporate the area of academic preparation. To be considered academically qualified, an individual meeting this condition must have completed additional coursework or personal study sufficient to provide a base for participation in the mix of teaching, intellectual contribution, and service sought by the school. Additionally, for persons meeting this condition to be considered academically qualified, they must maintain active involvement in the areas of teaching responsibility through writing, participation in professional meetings, and other related activities. 5. A specialized graduate degree in taxation. Individuals with a graduate degree in taxation or a combination of graduate degrees in law and accounting will be considered academically qualified to teach taxation and entry-level accounting courses. 6. Substantial specialized coursework above the masters level in the field of primary teaching responsibilities, but have not yet completed a research doctoral degree.
One group of individuals included in this category are Doctoral students teaching classes related to their primary area of study who have not yet advanced to candidacy. These individuals are to be considered academically qualified but their number should be limited in each discipline, and they are subject to a 10 percent limit of total faculty resources. A second category includes Doctoral students in research doctoral programs who have completed all but the dissertation in their program of study. Such students are considered academically qualified for a period of no more than three years beyond the most recently completed graduate comprehensive examination or other milestone that puts the student into the dissertation stage. Doctoral students in this category are not subject to the 10 percent limit. Doctoral Faculty Qualifications As part of the growth and development of The University of Texas at Tyler, The College of Business and Technology is responsible for one of the two Ph.D. programs at the University The Doctoral Program in Human Resource Development. As a consequence of this program, we provide the following guidelines for faculty who desire to teach at the doctoral level 3. Doctoral Faculty are required to 1) maintain a stream of basic research; 2) have demonstrated the ability to publish basic research in not only the home discipline, but also in journals relevant to the HRD discipline; 3) have significant review experience for important journals that focus on basic research (i.e., service as an editorial board member is preferred); and 4) have significant experience coauthoring conference papers at national level academic conferences such as AHRD, AOM, SIOP, SMS, AMA, AAA, FMA, and others. The decision to award Doctoral Faculty Status with the College of Business and Technology will be made by the Dean in consultation with all members of the CBT faculty who have been awarded full graduate status by the UT Tyler Graduate School. Professionally Qualified Faculty Members Professionally qualified faculty can be an important component of the total faculty resources deployed by the business school. The deployment of professionally qualified faculty within the context of these standards should be viewed as an appropriate strategic decision that is consistent with supporting high quality academic programs and the mission of the business school. Academic preparation and relevant professional experience will be required to establish a faculty member as professionally qualified. Normally, the academic 3 Admission to the graduate faculty is a prerequisite for faculty to achieve doctoral qualifications within the college. Permission to serve as Dissertation Advisor is also determined by the Graduate School and exceeds the standards necessary for qualification within the college as Doctoral Faculty.
preparation should consist of a master s degree in a field related to the area of teaching assignment 4. Normally, the professional experience should be relevant to the faculty member's teaching assignment, significant in duration and level of responsibility, and current at the time of hiring. We interpret significant duration to mean approximately five or more years of service, and significant level of responsibility to be an upper-level executive in a large corporation or government operation. Further, we expect the level of experience to rise with the level of the class being taught. As a consequence of this expectation, we have lower duration and responsibility expectations for persons teaching lower-level classes versus persons teaching upper division classes. 5 Professionally Qualified Administrators Professionally qualified and/or academically qualified administrators in the roles of Dean, Associate Dean, Departmental Chairs and Directors are critical to achieving the mission of the College of Business and Technology. Academic preparation and relevant professional experience will be required to establish an administrator as professionally qualified. Normally, the academic preparation should consist of a doctoral degree relevant to the program being supervised. Normally, the professional experience should be relevant to the mission of the College and focus on interaction and service within the business community and appropriate accreditation organizations. Furthermore we expect the level of experience and involvement to rise with higher level administrative responsibility. MAINTENANCE OF ACADEMIC OR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS While entry qualifications (academic or professional) are important, the world of business changes very rapidly and faculty members must be involved in continuous development throughout their careers to stay current. Regardless of their specialty, work experience, or graduate preparation, faculty members are required to maintain their competence through efforts to learn about their specialty and how it is applied in practice. The intent is that all students at all levels, in all programs, across all disciplines, and in all locations are exposed to faculty members who are well versed in the current practice of business as well as current research and theory. Maintenance of Academic Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators 4 As a SACS accredited school, this Master s degree should include 18 graduate hours of the teaching discipline. An MBA degree does not always satisfy SACS accreditation 5 To comply with state law we are required to accept 1000 and 2000 level courses from all in-state junior colleges which are driven by SACS rather than AACSB accreditation standards. Thus our qualification requirements for supporting faculty teaching lower division classes will be guided by SACS requirements rather than the more rigorous AACSB standards we will apply to participating faculty.
The simplest way for a faculty member or administrator to document ongoing maintenance of Academic Qualification is to provide evidence of refereed intellectual contributions over the time period. Consistent with our mission, we place greater emphasis on refereed publications, and define our maintenance of Academic Qualification guidelines accordingly. While there are many acceptable forms of intellectual contributions, we require each faculty member to have a minimum of two peer refereed publication, and a total of three quality intellectual contributions within a five year window. Three publications in peer reviewed journals over a five year period is considered prima fascia evidence of AQ status. Examples of other combinations of intellectual contributions that are sufficient to document maintenance of Academic Qualifications include: 6 Two peer reviewed journal articles and a conference proceeding from a national academic conference. Two peer reviewed journal articles and a scholarly book chapter. Two peer reviewed journal articles and a significant level of review activity (e.g., editorial board member or frequent reviewer) for an exceptional or meritorious research journal. Two peer reviewed journal articles and the publications of significant teaching materials such as a textbook or a business case in a widely used textbook. Two peer reviewed journal articles and a professional consulting report (nonproprietary) approved by the Dean. Two peer reviewed journal articles and service as an officer in a national level academic society. Maintenance of Professional Qualifications for Faculty Defining the set of professional activities that are appropriate for the maintenance of Professional Qualifications is a complex task because a much broader set of activities can be used to maintain the PQ status. In the simplest case, an individual who has attained PQ status via full-time work experience can maintain his or her PQ status by ongoing tenure in the same position in the current firm, a similar position in the same or a different firm, or a position of greater responsibility in the same or a different firm. After separation from such full-time 6 The list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to denote the types of activities that might also be used to demonstrate maintenance of Academic Qualifications. The responsibility for presenting the case falls on the individual faculty member in consultation with the Department Chair and Dean.
employment, individuals have a five (5) year extension of their PQ status. During this five year period individuals are expected to engage in significant professional development activities to maintain their PQ status. A second method for PQ individuals to maintain their qualifications is to engage in the production of intellectual contributions to their field. If such individuals are doctorally qualified and meet the maintenance standards for Academic Qualification, the individual s status may change from PQ to AQ. If the person is not doctorally qualified but meets the maintenance standards for Academic Qualification, then their AQ status will be extended. A third method for an individual to maintain his or her academic qualifications is to engage in a series of professional development activities. Generally, we would expect individuals to engage in a variety of different activities at the rate of one or more activities per year and about three different types of activities across the five year period. The quality and intensity of individual activities will be considered when evaluating the extent of professional development. Such activities include, but are not limited to 7 : Participating in continuing education such as is required for CPA s and CFA s. Creating and delivering executive education as approved by the Dean. Obtaining new professional certification relevant to teaching area. Serving as an officer in a regional or national professional association. Significant role on local government organization such as city council member. Participating in select AACSB seminars and workshops. Maintenance of Professional Qualifications for Administrators Defining the set of professional activities that are appropriate for the maintenance of Professional Qualifications for administrations is a complex task, because a much broader set of activities can be used to maintain the PQ status. An administrator who engages in the production of intellectual contributions to their field, is doctorally qualified, and meets the maintenance standards for Academic Qualification, the individual s status may change from PQ to AQ. Administrators can maintain their PQ status by engaging in a series of professional development activities. Such activities include, but are not limited to Participating in continuing education such as is required for CPAs and CFAs. Serving as an officer in a regional or national professional association. Significant role on local government organization such as city council member. Participating in select AACSB seminars and workshops. 7 The list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to denote the types of activities that might also be used to demonstrate maintenance of Professional Qualifications. The responsibility for presenting the case falls on the individual faculty member in consultation with the Department Chair and Dean.
Serving on the boards of companies and philanthropic organizations. Involvement with the Chamber of Commerce. Involvement with appropriate accreditation agencies relevant to the College.
Appendix D: Participating Faculty & Supporting Faculty Definitions
Participating Faculty and Supporting Faculty Definitions A. Participating Faculty definition A participating faculty member actively engages in the activities of the school in matters beyond direct teaching responsibilities. B. Supporting Faculty definition A supporting faculty member does not, as a rule, participate in the intellectual or operational life of the school beyond the direct performance of teaching responsibilities.
Appendix E: CBT Performance Evaluation Guidelines
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES Initial Draft 10/22/2009 Revised 8/08/2012 Preamble The College of Business and Technology (CBT) faculty believe that a fair and systematic performance evaluation system is a necessary condition for guiding an individual faculty member s professional development and is a critical element of our efforts to implement our mission and improve the quality and reputation of the CBT. Based on the policies defined in the University Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP) Sect 3.3.2, the performance evaluation system specified in this document attempts to describe our shared beliefs about the activities, behaviors, and outcomes that will help the CBT become and remain competitive with other doctoral-granting colleges and schools in the United States. The philosophy guiding the performance evaluation system incorporates the following six basic beliefs: The ongoing review and improvement of the performance evaluation system will help us continually examine the activities, behaviors, and outcomes that are necessary to achieve the mission and goals of the departments and the CBT. This process will help ensure that we monitor changes in our industry and remain competitive. A well-defined performance evaluation system will serve as a guide for new and existing faculty to improve their job performance and professional development. This document helps specify the activities, behaviors, and outcomes that we value as a college. Our performance evaluation system explicitly recognizes that individual faculty members can make a significant contribution to the CBT in many ways. Thus, we recognize that different weightings of the evaluation criteria are appropriate for different faculty members and that alternative sets of activities, behaviors, and outcomes may result in the same level of overall performance. There are many forms of scholarly activities that are important to our profession and to various stakeholders. Each of these diverse forms of scholarship is valued. Consequently, one or more scholarly activities must be explicitly incorporated in each dimension of performance. The annual performance evaluation process should provide consistent and accurate feedback about job performance. The job performance and formative feedback history documented in the annual review process constitute key information that will be incorporated in promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review decisions. 1
We recognize that professional performance is very complex and cannot be accurately and reliably measured on simple interval scales. Thus, we place great confidence in the professional judgment and integrity of our colleagues serving on departmental peer review committees, our Department Chairs, and our Dean. These individuals are charged with insuring that the performance evaluation process is conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Purpose The annual performance review is designed to provide both summative and formative information. The summative information will provide input into decisions about annual merit pay increases, contract renewals, and faculty workloads. In most cases, these summative decisions will be based on the performance review conducted by the Department Chair. The formative information generated during the performance review process is expected to play an important role in the ongoing career development of each faculty member. It is the responsibility of the departmental peer review committee and the Department Chair to provide each untenured faculty member in a tenure track position with ongoing professional development feedback and guidance. The peer review committee shall consist of all tenured faculty in the department or an elected subcommittee of not less than three tenured faculty as determined by the tenured faculty in the department. In the event that there are fewer than three tenured faculty within a department, the Dean will appoint the appropriate number of tenured faculty from other departments on a temporary basis to the committee. Each faculty member should carefully consider the formative comments provided by the chair and the peer evaluation committee. The annual performance evaluation does not replace the role of the cumulative review processes in the department. Thus, in addition to the annual performance reviews, untenured faculty members will receive a third-year review prior to being reviewed for tenure, and post-tenure reviews following tenure. Faculty members are expected to include copies of each annual review in the materials submitted for cumulative reviews. Process and Timetable 1. At the beginning of each academic year, the Dean will distribute a copy of the performance appraisal document that will be in effect for the current academic year to all faculty members. This can also be found on the shared computer drive. This document will be accompanied by a memo summarizing changes in the performance review guidelines from the previous year. 2. All faculty members will receive an annual performance review each year. The approximate timeline follows: a. Oct 15. Peer review committee for nontenured faculty for the department is forwarded to the Dean. 2
b. Jan 15. Individual faculty member provides dossier of accomplishments to Department Chair. c. Feb 7. Developmental feedback for untenured faculty developed by departmental peer review committee is provided to the Department Chair. d. Feb 8-28. Chair meets with individual faculty members to discuss evaluation dossier and peer review committee feedback. e. Mar 1. Completed faculty evaluations are due to the Associate Dean. f. Mar 15. Leadership team completes discussion of individual faculty evaluations. g. Mar 21. Department Chairs provide each faculty member a copy of their performance evaluation and copies are submitted to the Dean s office. 3. The summarized portion of the annual performance review will be conducted by the Department Chair in consultation with the Dean. For tenured and tenure track faculty: The annual performance review will be based on teaching, research, and service. The respective weights of 50% teaching, 40% research and 10% service or 40% teaching, 50% research and 10% service will be used in evaluations with some deviation as approved by consultation with the Dean. The evaluations on these dimensions will be aggregated into a single, overall evaluation that is used for summative purposes. The overall evaluation is a holistic evaluation and not merely an additive function of the individual evaluation dimensions. However, large differences between the weighted average of the individual dimensions and the overall evaluation require justification. For lecturers and senior lecturers: The annual performance review will be based on teaching, scholarship & professional activities, and service. The respective weights of 70% teaching, 20% scholarship & external professional activities, and 10% internal service will be used in evaluations with some deviation as approved by consultation with the Dean. The evaluations on these dimensions will be aggregated into a single, overall evaluation that is used for summative purposes. The overall evaluation is a holistic evaluation and not merely an additive function of the individual evaluation dimensions. However, large differences between the weighted average of the individual dimensions and the overall evaluation require justification. 4. On each dimension, a faculty member will be evaluated on a nine-point scale with the following anchors: 0 unsatisfactory; 2 minimal; 4 good; 6 meritorious; 8 exceptional. The odd numbers between each anchored scale point are used to describe faculty productivity that is between behavioral descriptions. Each of these anchors refers to a behavioral description that acts as an example of how a faculty member rated at the specific level might perform. An individual faculty member need not demonstrate each of the activities in a category to achieve the corresponding level of performance and exhibiting a single activity, behavior or 3
outcome in a category does not automatically place the faculty member s performance in that category. We rely on the professional judgment of the Department Chair and Leadership Team to fairly and accurately evaluate the performance of each faculty member. 5. A rating at or below the minimal level on any performance dimension triggers an automatic professional development process for the relevant faculty member. This plan is developed in consultation with the Department Chair and provides specific actions that the relevant faculty member will take to improve his or her performance on the appropriate dimension(s). The initial draft of the professional development plan will be submitted to the Department Chair by April 1, and the final version approved by the chair will be submitted to the Dean by May 1. Failure to submit and implement a professional development plan after a rating at or below the minimal level may be cause for termination. 6. Repeated performance evaluations that indicate a faculty member s performance is at or below the minimal level on any single dimension or as the overall performance rating may be cause for termination. 4
TEACHING DIMENSION OF PERFORMANCE Teaching is a core activity for all members of the faculty and the primary revenuegenerating activity for the College of Business and Technology. As such, it is imperative that all members of the faculty contribute to the continuing improvement and integration of our curriculum, instructional delivery, and collective learning environment. Despite the importance of teaching, mechanisms for evaluating teaching effectiveness are underdeveloped; no single instrument, method, or data source has been demonstrated to provide a valid and reliable approach to evaluate teaching performance. Thus, teaching performance in the CBT will draw on multiple sources of information including those provided by the faculty member, students, peers, and administrators. The minimum documentation required for evaluating teaching performance includes copies of the student teaching evaluations for each class, a syllabus for each class, and a clear statement of learning objectives for each class. Faculty members are encouraged to submit additional information as appropriate. Examples might include course exams, class notes, special assignments, and so on. Performance Criteria for Teaching 1 0 Unsatisfactory 2 Minimal Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials show they: Regularly fail to meet classes at the scheduled times Regularly fail to meet office hours at the scheduled times or do not hold adequate office hours Typically receive student teaching evaluations below 3.5 on a scale of 5.0 Do not cover materials in their course that are consistent with approved course content Fail to provide course syllabus Generate excessive student complaints Do not maintain a current and relevant Blackboard page for each course Do not cooperate with activities to support AACSB Assurance of Learning program or SACS assessment model. Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: 1 The student evaluation of teaching numbers assumes an overall college average of 3.75 on a 5 point scale. The numbers in the criterion statements may require adjustment based on the distribution from the new student evaluation instrument. 5
4 Good Regularly meet classes as scheduled and holds appropriate office hours Ensure that course content is consistent with the CBT curriculum Ensure that course materials are current and relevant Provide students with a current course syllabus Typically receive student teaching evaluations above 3.5 on a scale of 5.0 Maintain a current and relevant Blackboard page for each course Cooperate with activities to support both AACSB Assurance of Learning program and the SACS assessment model. In addition to performing the activities necessary to earn a 2 or minimal performance rating, a person evaluated as good will provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Integrates their current research with the course content when appropriate Creates an active learning environment through the appropriate use of exercises and assignments, lectures, and other instructional strategies and techniques Integrates and incorporates the CBT core values into course content where appropriate Participates in or coordinates multiple section courses in the core Remains competent in and instructs multiple courses, Typically receives student teaching evaluations above 4.0 on a scale of 5.0. 6 Meritorious In addition to performing the activities necessary to earn a 4 or good performance rating, a person evaluated as meritorious will provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Create updated course materials on a yearly basis Engage in new course development or significant revisions to existing courses Engage in significant efforts to initiate program revisions with the CBT Publish a case in widely used text book Publish pedagogical materials in refereed outlets Typically receive student teaching evaluations above 4.25 on a scale of 5.0. 8 Exceptional In addition to performing the activities necessary to earn a 6 or meritorious performance rating, a person evaluated as exceptional will provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Publish multiple pedagogical articles in refereed outlets Publish a textbook or casebook that is widely used 6
Receive a teaching award from the department, the CBT, the University, or a professional association Typically receive teaching evaluations above 4.5 on a scale of 5.0. (Please refer to Appendix A for a standard UT System Student Course Evaluation Form.) 7
8 RESEARCH DIMENSION OF PERFORMANCE Research activities are the primary mechanism through which faculty members make intellectual contributions to the College of Business and Technology and to their respective professions. Typically, the evaluation of research will focus on the creation of new knowledge (basic scholarship) and the application, transfer, and interpretation of knowledge to advance the practice of management (applied scholarship) that is disseminated through refereed scholarly journals, scholarly books, and high quality practitioner journals. Other types of scholarly activities, such as instructional development, business cases, consulting activities, and publications in trade journals, are explicitly incorporated in other areas of the annual performance review document and, thus, do not contribute to the research dimension of performance. Minimum documentation required to evaluate research performance includes a current vita (with a complete chronological listing of the research record including title, authors, and date of publication or presentation of research), a summary of current research activities, and a brief statement of future research plans. Faculty members are encouraged to submit additional materials as appropriate. It should be noted that an ongoing pattern of minimal research contributions is not sufficient for a given faculty member to maintain his or her status as being considered AACSB Academically Qualified. Thus, a rating of minimal does not indicate acceptable research productivity and an ongoing pattern of minimal ratings on the research dimension constitutes unsatisfactory cumulative performance. Performance Criteria for Research 0 Unsatisfactory 2 Minimal Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials provide: No evidence of ongoing systematic research activities No significant evidence of efforts to remain current in professional area No documentation of efforts to collaborate on research with others No current vita No current dossier documenting AACSB academic or professional qualifications status. Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Created a substantial draft of a new paper for submission to an academic conference or journal
4 Good Created a substantial draft of a new scholarly book chapter Gathered new data for an ongoing research project Made significant revisions that demonstrate progress on existing working paper(s) Renewed IRB approval to continue research on prior research study Submitted at least one scholarly paper to an academic conference Presented at least one intellectual contribution at a regional academic conference Submitted at least one scholarly paper to an academic journal for blind peer review Responded to at least one revise and resubmit editor letter by revising and resubmitting a scholarly paper to an academic journal Presented research at a department, college, professional or academic seminar Published research or a position paper in practitioner outlets. Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Engage in significant ongoing research activities Submit manuscript(s) or manuscript revisions to academic journal(s) Present at national or regional conference appropriate for discipline Provide evidence of work under review at major journals Publish one manuscript in peer reviewed journal appropriate for discipline Publish chapters in scholarly books Complete technical reports to funding sources Apply for a research or grant funding. 6 Meritorious Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Publish in a scholarly journal Submit manuscripts to national conferences appropriate for discipline Publish edited scholarly book(s) Obtain internal research funding Apply for significant external research funding Supervise doctoral students in ongoing research activities Receive a best paper or best track award Receive a research award from a department, the CBT, or UT Tyler or a professional/academic association. 9
8 Exceptional Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Publishes multiple blind peer review articles in journals that are ranked as good or meritorious on one of the CBT departmental journal classification lists Publishes a paper in a journal that is ranked exceptional on one of the CBT departmental journal classification lists Presents multiple papers at national conferences Receives external research funding Receives a research award from a regional or national professional organization Publishes scholarly book(s) (as author not editor). Working drafts of journal classification lists are available for each department to serve as a guide for research expectations. 10
SCHOLARSHIP & PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES DIMENSION OF PERFORMANCE (Lecturers and Senior Lecturers only) Scholarship and professional activities are the primary mechanism through which lecturers and senior lecturers maintain Professional Qualification (PQ). Typically, the evaluation of scholarship and professional activities will focus on development activities that demonstrate currency and relevancy in the field of teaching. The set of professional activities that are appropriate is a complex task encompassing a wide range of activities including peer reviewed journal articles, publications and presentations at professional meetings, relevant work experience including consulting, participating in continuing education such as is required for CPAs and CFAs, creating and delivering executive education as approved by the Dean, obtaining new professional certification relevant to teaching area, serving as an officer in regional or national professional association, serving in a significant role in local government organization such as a city council member and participating in select AACSB seminars and workshops. Minimum documentation required to evaluate scholarship and professional activities includes a current vita (with a complete chronological listing of scholarship and professional activities including the dates and location of the activities and, in the case of publication, the title, authors, and date of publication or presentation of research), a summary of current scholarship and professional activities, and a brief statement of future plans. Faculty members are encouraged to submit additional materials as appropriate. It should be noted that an ongoing pattern of minimal scholarship and professional activities is not sufficient for a given faculty member to maintain his or her status as being considered AACSB Professionally Qualified. Thus a rating of minimal does not indicate acceptable scholarship and professional activity and an ongoing pattern of minimal ratings on the scholarship and professional activities dimension constitutes unsatisfactory cumulative performance. Performance Criteria for Scholarship and Professional Activities 0 Unsatisfactory Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials provide: No evidence of ongoing systematic scholarship and professional activities No significant evidence of efforts to remain current in professional area No current vita No current dossier documenting AACSB academic or professional qualifications status Three additional bullets for P.Q. status will be added 11
2 Minimal Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Maintain P.Q. status Participate in the delivery of continuing education Participate in continuing education as required for CPAs, CFAs or other professional certifications Attend regional professional meeting in discipline Submit at least one manuscript to a regional conference Present research at a brown bag seminar Direct a major development effort within the department Participate in select AACSB seminars and workshops Three additional bullets for P.Q. status will be added 4 Good Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Engage in relevant work experience to maintain PQ status Serve as an officer in a regional or national professional organization Submit manuscript(s) to journal(s) Present at a national or regional conference appropriate for discipline Apply for internal funding Create and delivers executive education as approved by the Dean Publish materials in lower-tier practitioner outlets Three additional bullets for P.Q. status will be added 6 Meritorious 12 Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Publish in peer reviewed journals Submit manuscripts to national conferences appropriate for discipline Develop and execute a major program for the College of Business and Technology approved by the Dean Obtain internal research funding Three additional bullets for P.Q. status will be added
8 Exceptional Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Publish scholarly journal publication publications in refereed journals Present multiple papers at regional and national conferences Receive external research funding Receive a research award from a regional or national professional organization Publish scholarly book(s) (as author not editor) Three additional bullets for P.Q. status will be added Working drafts of journal classification lists are available for each department to serve as a guide for research expectations. 13
14 SERVICE DIMENSION OF PERFORMANCE Service is an important and valued activity that is a key responsibility for each faculty member. Each member of the faculty is expected to provide significant service to his or her home department, the College, and the University. In addition, faculty members are expected to engage in other service activities to the broader community including service to professional organizations, business organizations, government organizations, and/or community organizations. Given the large assortment of service options, we expect great variations in the service dossier of individual faculty members. No single type of service dossier is preferred, and many different types of service are valued. We also expect the amount and type of service contributions to vary with an individual s career stage. Junior faculty members often have lower service requirements and are likely to focus more on internal service activities. More senior faculty members are expected to make greater overall service contributions and are likely to focus on more external service activities. Thus, the Department Chair and the Leadership Team may shift the behavioral descriptions somewhat to adjust for the career position of the individual faculty member. Documentation required to evaluate service performance includes a list of service contributions provided by the individual faculty member. Faculty members are encouraged to submit additional documentation as appropriate. Behavioral Descriptions on Service Dimension 0 Unsatisfactory Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials provide they: Do not willingly provide service to the department and the College of Business and Technology Are rarely present in office and meetings Do not regularly attend graduation convocations. 2 Minimal Faculty members will earn this performance rating when their annual evaluation materials clearly provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Regularly attend department and CBT faculty meetings Provide service to department Conduct some consulting activities that benefit the department or College Provide oversight to student groups when asked Is regularly present in office and meetings Attend graduation convocations when possible.
4 Good In addition to performing the activities necessary to earn a 2 or minimal performance rating, a person evaluated as good will provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Actively serves on at least one CBT committee or taskforce Serves as faculty sponsor of a student organization Serves on the Faculty Senate Actively participates in departmental efforts Supervises doctoral students if applicable Conducts significant consulting activities that benefit the CBT, department, University, community or national professional organization Conducts significant review for scholarly journals in their discipline Actively participates in professional associations Serves as coordinator for one or more of the multiple section, core, or interdisciplinary courses Edits and/or reviews papers for colleagues Reviews papers for Proceedings and journals Serves on major University and CBT and department committees Provides support to colleagues by attending their presentations. 6 Meritorious In addition to performing the activities necessary to earn a 4 or good performance rating, a person evaluated as meritorious will provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: Actively participates on multiple CBT or University committees Chairs a Faculty Senate Committee Reviews for two or more major journals Chairs (or co-chairs) a major CBT committee or taskforce Serves on an editorial board for a major journal Helps with Development and Alumni Relations Serves as an active mentor for junior faculty members Provides economic development activities Represents CBT at University and Community events.* 8 Exceptional In addition to performing the activities necessary to earn a 6 or meritorious performance rating, a person evaluated as exceptional will provide evidence that they have achieved a number of the following outcomes during the previous year: 15
Serves as Editor or Associate Editor for a major journal Serves as an officer or program chair in a professional association Holds an officer position in a regional or national professional organization Provides outstanding leadership within the CBT * Examples of these events include: University College/Departmental Community Distinguished Alumni Business Expo booth Better Business Bureau Awards Dedication and Open Houses Patriots Day Meetings Sponsored by CBT centers Chamber of Commerce activities 16
17 COLLEGIALITY DIMENSION OF PERFORMANCE FROM: The University of Texas at Tyler Handbook of Operating Procedures, SECTION: 3.3.4 TENURE (http://www2.uttyler.edu/ohr/hop/documents/3.3.4tenure.pdf ) Item 4 - Performance Standards for the Granting of Tenure - paragraph b. iv. Collegiality. U.T. Tyler defends the concept of academic freedom, which assures each faculty member the freedom to criticize and advocate changes in existing theories, beliefs, programs, and policies, and guarantees faculty the right to support any colleague whose academic freedom is threatened. Collegiality is a professional, not personal, criterion relating to the performance of duties within a department. Collegiality should not be confused with sociability, likability or conformity to certain views. Instead collegiality addresses such issues as the faculty member s compatibility with department missions and goals, an ability and willingness to work cooperatively within the department and college, a willingness to engage in shared governance, and a high standard of professional integrity in dealing with colleagues and students on a professional and personal level. The University subscribes to the following description of collegiality from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on professional ethics: As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas, professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution College of Business and Technology Collegial Activities: Demonstrates an ability and willingness to work cooperatively within the department and college Engages in shared governance Demonstrates high standards of professional civility and integrity in dealing with colleagues and students Contributes to a collegial department environment. Non-Collegial Activities: Willingly violates important department or CBT policies Does not participate in a positive fashion Intentionally creates a hostile work environment
18 Engages in workplace violence; i.e., behaviors ranging from harassment (verbal abuse, aggressive behavior, physical contact, and violence) Does not contribute to a collegial environment.
APPENDIX A. UT System Student Course Evaluation Survey Items below are subject to revision by faculty and Faculty Senate Questions 1-6 use the same response scale as Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree. 1. The course was well organized. 2. The instructor communicated information effectively. 3. The instructor showed interest in the progress of students. 4. The tests/assignments were usually graded and returned promptly. 5. The instructor made me feel free to ask questions, disagree, and express my ideas. 6. At this point in time, I feel that this course will be (or has already been) of value to me. For questions 7-11, choose the appropriate response from those given for each question 7. Overall, this instructor was: (very unsatisf., unsatisf., satsf., very good, Excellent) 8. Overall, this course was: (same response options as above) 9. In my opinion, the workload in this course was: (excessive, high, ave. light, insuf) 10. My overall GPA at UT is: (<2.0, 2.00-2.49, 2.50-2.99, 3.00-3.49, 3.50-4.00) 11. My probable grade to date in this course is: (A, B, C, D) Note: UT System requires the numerical ratings of each course be published on University website for students making decisions on course selection starting from fall 2010. UT Tyler Faculty Senate determined to implement it from fall 2009. Additionally, each college/department is encouraged to supplement with additional questions. However, the results of the additions will not be published online. 19
Appendix F: CBT Annual Performance Evaluation Material Suggestions
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATERIAL SUGGESTIONS Draft 12/8/10 As faculty members prepare the materials they will submit for review with respect to annual performance evaluations there are always questions about the amount of detail that should be included. Our general observation has been that the most productive people often find they can document their performance adequately with a fairly simple package of materials. Given this observation we suggest that individuals should plan on being able to submit the materials for the annual review in a one inch binder. To facilitate the process, reduce the burden of preparing materials, and create greater similarity across individuals and departments we have identified the documentation requirements specified in our performance evaluation document and added some interpretive guidelines and suggestions. Teaching The Performance document states: The minimum documentation required for evaluating teaching performance includes copies of the student teaching evaluations for each class, a syllabus for each class, and a clear statement of learning objectives for each class. Faculty members are encouraged to submit additional information as appropriate. Examples might include course exams, class notes, special assignments, and so on. Research The Performance document states: Minimum documentation required to evaluate research performance includes a current vita (with a complete chronological listing of the research record including title, authors, and date of publication or presentation of research), a summary of current research activities, and a brief statement of future research plans. Faculty members are encouraged to submit additional materials as appropriate. Service The Performance document states: Documentation required to evaluate service performance includes a list of service contributions provided by the individual faculty member. The Annual Performance Portfolio We believe that greater consistent across the annual performance portfolios submitted by faculty will increase the ability of the chairs to insure that the performance guidelines are 1
applied consistently across the college. Thus we would like to suggest materials be submitted according to the following template: 1. Professional Vita: A current that includes chronological list of publications, conference papers, and other intellectual contributions. We would prefer a current copy of your full vita rather than the version stored in Fac180. 2. Teaching Effectiveness. 3. Research: 4. Service: a. A list of teaching awards won during the calendar year. b. A summary table that includes a grade distribution for each course, enrollment, and the student evaluation of teaching on 3 items: I feel this course will be of value to me, Overall instructor was and Overall course was. c. The full item report on student evaluations of teaching for each class. d. A syllabus for each class. e. A statement of course level learning objectives for each class. f. Other specialized materials relevant to your teaching performance in the current year. a. A list of research awards won during the calendar year. b. A listing of research proposals submitted during the calendar year and the status of the funding request. c. Full citation for articles published or accepted in the calendar year. d. Full citation for other scholarly publications for the calendar year. e. List of articles submitted for publication f. List of conference papers i. Presented or Accepted ii. Submitted a. A list of service awards won during the calendar year. b. Participation in service positions of Academic Societies i. Officer roles ii. Review activities c. Participation in Community Service Activities d. List of University, College, and Department committees 5. Other Awards, Honors or Etc. 2
Appendix G: Statement of Approximate Tenure & Promotion Expectations
STATEMENT OF APPROXIMATE TENURE AND PROMOTION EXPECTATIONS Initial Draft 10/22/2009 Revised 8/8/2012 This document is based on the requirements described in the UT Tyler HOP Sects 3.3.4 for tenure and 3.3.5 for promotion and represents an attempt to articulate the tenure and promotion expectations. We believe that a clear statement of tenure expectations is valuable to both current and new faculty. However, this statement of standards MUST BE interpreted and applied correctly. Thus, before articulating the expectations, we offer some guidance about how this statement of expectations should be interpreted and applied. 1. The tenure and promotion guidelines set by the College and/or The University of Texas system may change during a faculty member s probationary period. The faculty member will be notified of such changes and will be expected to meet any new guidelines. 2. These expectations are not a statement of minimum standards. Failure to meet the expectations does not automatically result in a negative tenure recommendation, and meeting or exceeding the expectations does not guarantee a positive tenure recommendation. Instead, these expectations are intended to guide performance and decision making. 3. These expectations are based on the assumption that untenured faculty will be on a 3-3 teaching load in each of the years prior to the tenure decision. 4. These expectations are designed for faculty applying for tenure in the sixth year following their date of hire. Other factors such as employment at other universities or previous employment at UT Tyler in non-tenure track position may create exceptions to the presented guidelines. Rationale for Statement There are a variety of reasons for developing a statement of tenure expectations. Some of the more important reasons include: A clear statement of research expectations is important to the CBT s effort to move to the next level of national recognition. Teaching excellence remains central to our mission and our competitive position. A clear statement of teaching expectations reaffirms our commitment to teaching excellence. Documentation of clear tenure expectations is an important factor in our AACSB review process and ongoing continuous improvement efforts. A clear statement of tenure expectations will help guide the performance of recently-hired faculty.
General Guidelines for Research We believe there are significant differences across the various academic fields within the College of Business and Technology. Therefore, the specific details, such as which journals should be classified as exceptional, meritorious, good quality, and peer reviewed journals, should be determined at the department level. Consequently, we have articulated the general expectations for the CBT and request that each department provide a more concrete operational definition of research expectations as well as identify exceptional, meritorious, good quality, and peer reviewed journal categories for the respective academic field. Working drafts of departmental journal classification are available as guidelines to assist faculty in developing their research agenda. The approximate research expectations for receiving tenure consists of six publications in refereed journals and evidence of an active stream of scholarship. We value the quality of research over the quantity of publications. As a result, an increase in the number of exceptional and/or meritorious publications may decrease the expected number of good quality/peer reviewed publications. Increases in the number of good quality peer reviewed publications, however, does not necessarily reduce the number of expected exceptional/meritorious publications. We believe that the standards for tenure somewhat exceed the standards for promotion to Associate. Thus, we might promote to Associate someone we would not tenure, but we will never tenure someone we would not promote to Associate. Statement of Approximate Research Expectations Our approximate research expectations are that a person in his or her sixth year will have the following research record: (1) At least six publications in refereed journals; (2) Ideally, three of the six publications will be in exceptional or meritorious journals and some will be in good quality journals as described in the departmental journal classification list; (3) Multiple presentations at appropriate conferences for the discipline (e.g., the national meetings of the Academy of Management (AOM), the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD), the Financial Management Association (FMA), the American Marketing Association (AMA), and the American Accounting Association (AAA) and so on); (4) Evidence of ongoing high quality research activities. *Working drafts of departmental journal classifications are available.
General Guidelines for Teaching The mix of teaching activities assigned to new faculty members will be affected by the unique requirements of each department. Thus, it is incumbent on each department to explain the pattern of course assignments assigned to untenured faculty members if the resource requirements in a department preclude an untenured faculty member from meeting course coverage guidelines. All faculty members seeking tenure are expected to have demonstrated teaching competency in multiple levels of a department s core course offerings. Any combination of undergraduate, masters, doctoral, and executive teaching is acceptable. Untenured faculty members are expected to regularly receive acceptable teaching evaluations from students. We expect untenured faculty members to develop as teachers in the early stages of their careers. Thus, we may weigh the student evaluations received in later years more heavily than those received in earlier years. We also expect and encourage faculty members to engage in innovative teaching practices and expect that not all of these innovations will be successful. Thus, our decisions will be based on an overall pattern of teaching evaluations rather than on the evaluations received from any single course or section. We explicitly recognize that there are many ways to evaluate teaching effectiveness and that demonstrating teaching effectiveness requires data from sources other than students. Thus, we encourage new faculty members to develop a teaching dossier with multiple indicators of teaching performance. Faculty may also solicit observations of teaching from peers. Statement of Approximate Teaching Expectations As a College we recognize that there is not a generally accepted definition of teaching excellence. Thus, we are open to alternative methods of demonstrating teaching effectiveness and encourage individual faculty members to develop a teaching dossier that is consistent with his or her beliefs about and approach to teaching. In addition, we will consider more traditional measures of teaching effectiveness including course coverage, rigor and content, assessment techniques, and student evaluations of teaching. Prior to the tenure decision, all faculty members are expected to demonstrate teaching effectiveness in multiple courses and at multiple levels. We realize that teaching loads are determined by departmental needs. Thus, deviations from this expectation are acceptable when dictated by resource constraints in the department. All faculty members are expected to support the College s doctoral program. Contributions may include participation in brown bags and other research seminars, doctoral seminars, service on doctoral committees, and other forms of active participation in the doctoral program outside of formal doctoral courses offered by the department.
All department members are expected to view the design and delivery of multi-section courses as a collaborative effort and willingly contribute to coordination efforts for multisection courses. Such coordination efforts might include covering jointly determined content, participating in common assessment techniques, and using jointly determined educational materials in multi-section courses. All faculty members are expected to generate an acceptable pattern of student evaluation of teaching. While it is impossible to specify completely what constitutes an acceptable pattern of student evaluation, we generally expect (1) most teaching evaluations to be consistent with the school mean, or above 3.5 on a scale of 5.0, (2) very few bad teaching evaluations, defined as below 3.0 on a scale of 5.0, and (3) at least some very good teaching evaluations, defined as about 4.0 or above on a scale of 5.0. We also expect untenured faculty members to improve their teaching as they gain experience, and thus will look at longitudinal trends as we interpret patterns of student evaluation of teaching. General Guidelines for Service Service expectations are expected to vary in nature across departments and to vary across the probationary period of an untenured faculty member s career. Generally, new faculty members should expect to be protected from internal service commitments during their first year or two and to engage in limited internal service activities prior to tenure. External service activities that bring recognition to the CBT, such as review activities for major journals or conferences and participation in professional organizations, are encouraged. Statement of Approximate Service Expectations As a College we believe that new faculty members should be protected from excessive internal service commitments for the first year or two. The single most important service activity for a new faculty member is to become engaged in the research and teaching agenda of the department. We encourage new untenured faculty members to reduce their focus on service and increase their focus on launching their careers. As a faculty member moves toward review for tenure, his or her service contribution should increase. However, internal service commitments should not detract from teaching, research, or external service that enhances the reputation of the department or the College of Business and Technology. We especially value service to the relevant academic society, ad hoc reviewing for major journals, and participation on the editorial boards of major journals. All department members are expected to participate regularly in department and College faculty meetings and other department and College activities. Prior to tenure review, untenured faculty members should serve on at least one College of Business and Technology committee or taskforce. All department members are expected to contribute to developing a collegial environment in the department.
All department members are expected to be available for regular informal interactions with other department members and doctoral students (where appropriate). Participation as an ad hoc reviewer or membership in the editorial boards of major journals is highly desirable. Participation as a reviewer for regional or national research conference is also highly desirable. General Guidelines for Collegiality The CBT promotes strong collegiality as defined in the HOP. Collegiality addresses such issues as the candidate s compatibility with department missions and goals, an ability and willingness to work cooperatively within the department and College, a willingness to engage in shared governance, and a high standard of professional integrity in dealing within colleagues and students (HOP, Revised, 2001). All faculty are expected to demonstrate collegiality. An ongoing and systematic effort to engage in collegial behavior is a requirement for tenure and promotion. General Guidelines for Promotion to Professor Rank According to HOP 3.3.5, appointment or promotion to the rank of Professor is recognition of demonstrated achievement and distinction over the span of a faculty member's academic career in teaching and research/scholarship. Therefore, to be qualified for promotion to Professor rank, a faculty member must exceed all expectations defined for Associate Professor with additional strong evidence demonstrating performance in teaching, research and services since the promotion to Associate rank. The faculty member must also have actively participated in professional service and been actively involved in department, College and University service. Evidence of strong research/scholarship should be documented not only through peer-reviewed publications and professional presentations, but also through input of colleagues in the department as well as peer recognition of the candidate s reputation by independently-known scholars nationwide. Consequently, external letters of review from peers outside the University will be required for faculty members applying for Professor rank. Process and Timetable for Promotion and Tenure Decisions The tenure and promotion committees in each department shall consist of the following: 1. The tenure committee for each department shall be composed of all tenured faculty in the department and is responsible for making recommendations to the Department Chair regarding tenure for individual candidates and for reviewing the tenure-track faculty in their third year review. 2. The promotion committee shall consist of all members of the department who have academic rank at least one level above the candidate. Where there are fewer than three
eligible faculty in a department, the Dean in consultation with the candidate, will select eligible faculty from similar or related departments. Chairs of the departmental committees on tenure and promotion may be appointed by the Department Chair or elected with a secret ballot by members of the committee at the discretion of the Department Chair. 3. The College Committee on Tenure and Promotion shall consist of one faculty member from each department elected with a secret ballot by all members of the department. In addition, two at-large members from different departments shall be elected by secret ballot to the committee by the faculty in the College. To be eligible to serve on the College Tenure and Promotion Committee, the faculty member must be tenured and hold the rank of Associate Professor or higher. Members of the committee will serve a twoyear staggered term with election being held before the end of September. Election of the at-large members will be conducted by the Associate Dean of the College by secret ballot. 4. The Chair of the College Tenure and Promotion Committee will be determined annually by a vote with secret ballots among the elected members of the committee. Members of the College Promotion and Tenure Committee who hold the rank of Associate Professor may not vote on candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor. The Department Chair and the Dean do not participate in the department or College tenure and promotion committee meetings. The Chair offers an independent recommendation regarding tenure and promotion after receiving input from the department committee. No individual shall serve as a voting member of any promotion committee during an academic year in which he or she is under consideration for promotion, nor shall any individual make a vote or recommendation on his or her promotion. External letters of review from peers outside the University will be required for tenure-track faculty members applying for Associate Professor and/or tenure or promotion to the rank of Professor. All letters from outside reviewers need to be received by the Department Chair no later than October 1. The process for the selection of outside reviewers is discussed in the Handbook of Operating Procedures sects 3.3.4 and 3.3.5. The criteria and process for selecting outside reviewers should be reviewed by all candidates for promotion and tenure. At no time after the deadline for submission of the materials may candidates for promotion and tenure add additional materials or withdraw materials from the file without the permission of the Dean. All members of the personnel committee involved in tenure and promotion decisions are expected to respect the confidentiality of the proceedings at all times. Candidates will be notified in writing of the decision at each stage of the process. Timetable for tenure and promotion decisions. 1. September 1: Each faculty member who will be a candidate for promotion and/or tenure will notify their Chair of their intent.
2. October 15: Candidates for tenure and/or promotion will submit materials to the Chair of their department. 3. October 21: Department committees on tenure and promotion will submit their materials for each candidate to the Chair of the department. 4. November 7: Department Chairs forward candidates supporting materials and recommendations to the Dean of the College. 5. December 1: The College Tenure and Promotion Committee will submit their recommendations to the Dean. 6. January 7: The Dean of the College submits candidate s supporting materials and recommendations to the Provost. 7. February 1: The Provost notifies President of tenure and promotion recommendations. 8. March 1: The President notifies faculty of decision on promotion and tenure. Third year review for tenure progress 1. September 1: Candidates are notified at the beginning of their third year of their pretenure review. 2. February 1: Candidates for the pre-tenure review must submit materials to the committee. 3. February 22: Department Tenure Committee reports results to the Department Chair. 4. March 1: Department Chair forwards recommendation and materials to the College Tenure and Promotion Committee. 5. March 15: College committee forwards recommendations and materials to the Dean. 6. April 1: Dean of the College informs candidates of the decision. Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenure faculty The purpose of this policy is to provide for the periodic evaluation of tenured faculty as set forth in HOP. A discussion of the guidelines and procedures for post-tenure review are identified in HOP Sect 3.3.6.
Tenure and Promotion Dossier Format 1. Each promotion or tenure dossier may consist of no more than two volumes. If two actions are under consideration (e.g., to Associate Professor and tenure), a single dossier is acceptable, but two separate transmittal forms are required. 2. Volume 1 must be a standard, three-ring black binder with a spine no thicker than one inch and materials organized into six sections separated by labeled dividers. The applicant s name and the action (e.g., tenure, promotion to Associate Professor, promotion to Professor) must be clearly indicated on both the front cover and the spine of the binder. A. Section A consists of promotion and/or tenure transmittal sheet. B. Section B consists of candidate s letter requesting tenure/promotion and highlights special accomplishments. C. Section C should include current Curriculum Vitae and a separate summary of citations. D. Section D consists of evaluations originating at the various levels of review. Letters from external reviewers should also be included. E. Section E consists of the third year pre-tenure review, if applicable, and the annual performance evaluations. 3. Volume II must also be a standard, black three-ring binder with a spine no more than three inches thick. The applicant s name and the action (e.g., tenure, promotion to Associate Professor, Promotion to Professor) must be clearly indicated on both the front cover and the spine of the binder. It should contain all supporting documentation and be divided into three sections. The method of presentation of this material is left to the discretion of the candidate, but care should be taken to ensure that it can be viewed easily by persons involved in the evaluation process. Normally, the most recent information will be presented first. Section A Teaching. This section includes a brief statement of teaching philosophy, documentation of teaching effectiveness and should contain at least the printed summaries of mandatory student evaluations. Additional student evaluations, student comments, course syllabi, etc., may also be included. Section B Research and Scholarship. This section includes a statement of one s research stream and intended contribution as well as items such as reprints of journal articles, copies of book chapters, successful grant applications, etc. Section C Service. This section will include a summary of University, professional, community service activities, as well as the economic development activities. Also include documentation supporting the value and effectiveness of the service. Additional information regarding documentation is available at http://www.uttyler.edu/academicaffairs/dossier.pdf
TENURE RECOMMENDATION FORM FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013 Faculty Member Name College Department Present Rank Highest Degree Year Awarded Institution Initial Appointment at UT at Tyler: Date: Rank: Years in Tenure Track While Employed at UT Tyler Prior to 2012-2013 Academic Year Total Years Applicable to Tenure Including 2012-2013 Academic Year ACTION OF COLLEGE RECOMMEND Yes No NO. OF VOTES Yes-No-Abstain-Recuse CANDIDATE NOTIFIED ON DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL (By October 21, 2010) DEPARTMENT CHAIR/DIRECTOR (By November 7, 2010) COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (By December 4, 2010) DEAN (By January 07, 2010) Signatures Chair, Department Recommending Body Date Chair, College Committee Date Department Chair Date Dean Date
PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION FORM FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013 Faculty Member Name College Department Promotion Rank Sought Have You Previously Applied for This Rank? (Y/N) What years(s) Highest Degree Year Awarded Institution Initial Appointment at UT at Tyler: Date: Rank: Present Rank or Title Have You Received Tenure (Y/N) If So, Year Tenured Total Years at Present Rank Applicable to Promotion Including 2012-2013 Academic Year ACTION OF COLLEGE RECOMMEND Yes No NO. OF VOTES Yes-No-Abstain-Recuse CANDIDATE NOTIFIED ON DEPARTMENT (By October 21, 2010) DEPARTMENT CHAIR (By November 7, 2010) COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (By December 1, 2010) DEAN (By January 7, 2011) Signatures Chair, Department Recommending Body Date Chair, College Committee Date Department Chair Date Dean Date
RECOMMENDATION FORM FOR THIRD-YEAR REVIEW Faculty Member Name College Department Present Rank or Title Highest Degree Year Awarded Institution Initial Appointment at UT at Tyler: Date: Rank: Full-Time Professional Experience: (Including current academic year) Non-College/University: Non-UT Tyler College/University: UT Tyler Total: ACTION OF COLLEGE RENEWAL RECOMMENDED RENEWAL NOT RECOMMENDED DEPARTMENT TENURED FACULTY* (Assessment Attached) DEPARTMENT CHAIR (Assessment Attached) COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEAN Signatures Chair, Department Recommending Body Date Chair, College Committee Date Department Chair Date Dean Date *Attach written assessment of faculty member s performance in each of the three areas-teaching-research/creative activity, and service. APPENDIX A: Journal Classifications* Journal lists to be developed by departments in consultation with the Dean; new category labels Exceptional, Meritorious, Good Quality, Peer Reviewed
Appendix H: Annual MOA Reports
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF ACCEDITATION REPORT AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2009 20010 July, 2009 The School of Business Administration in the College of Business and Technology at The University of Texas at Tyler underwent a successful Fifth Year Maintenance of Accreditation Review during the Fall, 2007 semester and received notice of an extension of accreditation in January, 2008. Shortly thereafter the university experienced significant leadership changes that affected the College of Business and Technology. First, during the Spring, 2008 semester, Dr. Peter Fos was named as the new Provost. During the 2008-2009 Dr. Jim Tartar announced that he would be resigning as Dean of the College and returning to a full time faculty position. For much of the 2008-2009 academic year Dr. Mary Fischer served as interim dean. In April, 2009 Dr. Harold Doty accepted the position of Dean of the College of Business and Technology and his appointment began in the Spring 2009 term. As a consequence of this leadership change the School of Business Administration failed to document its strategic planning process during the Summer 2008 session and the 2008 Annual Report was not generated. Thus, the current report will not document progress on last year s strategic priorities. However, the 2007 Team Visit Report and Consultative Report contain items that were informative to the 2009 strategic planning process and deserved mention in this annual report. 2007 Team Visit Report: Opportunities for Continuous Improvement Relative to the Accreditation Standards: 1. Due to external budget constraints the Business Administration Department s fiscal needs must be addressed by the University s Executives. In response, the administration added one new personnel line to the budget during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, and is attempting to add three additional lines during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. These new lines are contingent on the ability of the University President to extract additional resources from the UT System or from the State during a flat to declining budget year. We remain hopeful at this time.
2. Revisit Mission Statement to better define Business Administration s vision, values, and purpose. We have not formally included revising the mission statement in this year s strategic priorities. However, we are in the process of revising our core values and incorporating these core values as primary learning outcomes in our assessment system. Successful reexamination or our core values is likely to result in revising the mission and/or vision statement in subsequent years. Thus, we fully expect to include revision of the formal vision/mission statement in the 2010-2011 strategic priorities list. 3. Continue to align the scholarship requirements for Promotion and Tenure with those of Academically Qualified (AQ) and Professionally Qualified (PQ). These issues will be specifically addressed the activities associated with the strategic priority discussed as the performance management system. 4. Increase faculty resources in support of the Business Administration Department s rapid growth. Activities associated with continuous improvement in this area are included in two activities. First, the University is attempting to add new personnel lines to our budget to support new department chairs. Second, the college will initiate a systematic development program to raise additional faculty support resources. 5. Continue to develop its assessment model to ensure that it is consistent among all disciplines for articulated learning objectives. The current problems identified during the SACS reaffirmation of accreditation process also indicate that our assessment model requires updating. Reexamination of our assessment system, including our core values, learning outcomes, and measurement approach are a high priority for the 2009-2010 academic years as indicated in the attached strategic priority table. 2007 Consultative Report 1. Mission Statement Update in light of this suggestion we are revisiting our entire strategic planning process. Prior to revising the mission statement, we are reconsidering our statement of core values. We believe this process precedes mission statement development. We hope to complete our revision of our core values statement in the Fall, 2009 semester. 2. Degree Offering Enhancements The faculty lines that have been added to the business faculty have somewhat mitigated the faculty shortage. However, we believe our personnel resources are still sufficiently limited that program development must proceed very slowly. We are considering some options, especially disciplinary minors that can be constructed by selective packaging of existing courses. Additionally, we will investigate the feasibility of an entrepreneurship track that might require very limited commitment of new or existing resources.
3. Infrastructure and Culture of Assessment of Student Learning As discussed in other places in this annual report, our assurance of learning system occupies a prominent position in our 2009-2010 strategic priorities.
2009-2010 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES SUMMARY 1. SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Processes. By far, the most important activity for the college this year is to contribute to the university s SACS accreditation processes. Our initial SACS reports are due on June 1, 2009, and the university s initial report is due to SACS in July, 2009. Thus our strategic plan must allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate any necessary actions based on feedback from the SACS review team. Our initial concern is that we may need to adjust our Assurance of Learning System to the level of aggregation required by SACS rather than relying only on our AACSB Assurance of Learning system. 2. Structural Simplification for the College. During the 2009-2010 academic year the College will be moving away from its current structure based on two Schools and returning to a more traditional structure based on a single college unit with disciplinary departments. Currently three departments are planned with one housing accounting, finance, and business law, a second housing management, marketing, and information systems, and a third housing human resource development and technology. This structural simplification will support a reduction in the current duplication of many policies and procedures so that the entire college operates using a single set of policies and procedures. Additionally some services, including faculty an undergraduate services, may be integrated across the existing two schools. 3. Written Performance Management System. Over the next academic year the college will begin developing an integrated performance management system that articulates our definition of good annual performance and clearly states our expectations of the accomplishments necessary for an assistant professor to achieve tenure. 4. Curriculum Review and Integration. The goals of the curriculum review will be to insure that our course and program offering is consistent with the new college structure, reflects and encourages the core values of the college, encourages students to experience multiple disciplines within the college, and provides course and program offerings attractive to students in other colleges. 5. Development Initiative. Over the course of the year the college will reinitiate its development activities and begin the process of reestablishing its executive advisory board. These activities will be conducted in close collaboration with the Office of University Advancement and coordinated with the university s current capital campaign.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2009 2010 ACADEMIC YEAR College of Business Technology Strategic Priority Implementation Steps Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets SACS Reaffirmation Complete draft reports in TracDat Revise SACS assessment system Dean and current Associate Deans, other faculty and staff as identified by college leadership Dean, Asst. VP of Assessment, relevant disciplinary faculty Financial resources have been provided by the university and include both software and personnel support. Redeployment of administrator time; faculty service Draft reports submitted by June 1, 2009. Reports due to SACS Fall, 2009. Timing, tasks, and activities expected to vary based on feedback from SACS reviewers. Develop new SACS assessment to be consistent with AACSB AOL system during academic year. Structural Simplification Submit notification through appropriate state channels Develop new leadership and support structure Dean through Associate Provost to THECB Dean in consultation with Provost and President None None (this step intended only for the redeployment of existing resources; incremental resources Initial approval from University received 6/1/09. Necessary paperwork for state processes will be submitted according to state timetable in consultation with the Provost. Ongoing according to needs. Flexibility required as process unfolds
Strategic Priority Implementation Steps Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets New Department Chairs in 2 new departments; internal appointment from HRD. Consolidation of By Laws Integration of student advising and career services Decanal decision, Marilyn Young to chair search committees. Formal appointment by President in consultation with Provost. Faculty Committee Staff Committees addressed below) Central administration has agreed to provide 2 new lines to the college to support new department chairs (pending budget finalization). Estimated expense 250K plus fringes. The expectation is that the Chair for the HRD area will be filled with existing personnel. To partially fulfill service obligation of appointed faculty No new resources required, staff time allocated from existing duties Recruiting process to begin in Summer, 2009; new chairs to be in place summer, 2010. Committee to be appointed late summer 2009. Plans developed during Summer, 2009; implementation during academic year. Performance Management System Annual Performance Appraisal Tenure Expectations Faculty committee in consultation with the Dean Faculty committee in consultation with the Dean Faculty Service Faculty Service Conversation expected to last throughout academic year; possible completion by May, 2010 Conversation expected to last throughout academic year; possible completion by May,
Strategic Priority Curriculum Review and Integration Development Initiative Implementation Steps Faculty Qualifications Journal List Development of discipline minors Clarification of technology and engineering courses Opening of courses to all students in college Develop Branding Image Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets Faculty committee in consultation with the Dean Faculty committee in consultation with the Dean Disciplinary faculty Paul Roberts, Mark Miller, 2 engineering faculty Faculty Service Faculty Service Faculty Service for design, Provost committed to allowing 1 additional new line to support increased students (125K) Faculty service Dean, faculty None Fall, 2009 2010 Conversation expected to last throughout academic year; possible completion by May, 2010 Conversation expected to last throughout academic year; possible completion by May, 2010 For approval in 2009-2010 Dean, Faculty and PR None Initiated May, 2009 to be an ongoing activity throughout accreditation cycle.
Strategic Priority Implementation Steps Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets Develop Branding Strategy Meet 30 new community contacts Recruit12 person advisory committee for annual accountability report Redevelop Corporate Advisory Board Dean, Development, Public Relations, in consultation with Provost and President Dean, Development officer Dean, Associate Dean, VP of Advancement, Development Officer Dean, Development Officer, 12 person advisory committee Redeploy staff and administrator time Redeploy staff and administrator time Time redeployed from other activities Time allocated from existing resources; funds from Burke Professorship Initiated Summer, 2009 Summer, 2009 Ongoing through 2009, recruit for new Executive committee for 2010-2011 Academic year, accountability report due in May/June 2010. First meeting September, 2009
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF ACCEDITATION REPORT AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2010 20011 Summer, 2010 Progress on 2009 2010 Strategic Priorities The College of Business and Technology established five strategic priorities for the 2009-2010 academic year: SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Processes Structural Simplification for the College Written Performance Management System Curriculum Review and Integration Development Initiative In addition to these five objectives which are addressed below we had the unanticipated opportunity to significantly enlarge and reposition our faculty profile. We discuss this unexpected opportunity as a sixth strategic priority. SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Processes 1 2009-2010 Priority. By far, the most important activity for the college this year is to contribute to the university s SACS accreditation processes. Our initial SACS reports are due on June 1, 2009, and the university s initial report is due to SACS in July, 2009. Thus our strategic plan must allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate any necessary actions based on feedback from the SACS review team. Our initial concern is that we may need to adjust our Assurance of Learning System to the level of aggregation required by SACS rather than relying only on our AACSB Assurance of Learning system. The goal was accomplished. The decision about SACS accreditation will be made in December, 2010, but all indicators are very positive. The SACS visitation team raised no significant issues with respect to compliance with the standards, and raised only five issues with respect to the QEP. Structural Simplification for the College. 2009-2010 Priority. During the 2009-2010 academic year the College will be moving away from its current structure based on two Schools and returning to a more traditional structure based on a single college unit with disciplinary departments. Currently three departments are 1 The statement of 2009 2010 priorities is copied directly from the 2009 AACSB Annual MOA Update. 1
planned with one housing accounting, finance, and business law, a second housing management, marketing, and information systems, and a third housing human resource development and technology. This structural simplification will support a reduction in the current duplication of many policies and procedures so that the entire college operates using a single set of policies and procedures. Additionally some services, including faculty an undergraduate services, may be integrated across the existing two schools. This structural changes has been fully accomplished, but is not yet fully implemented. Approval for the structural changes was granted by the University Administration and other state agencies, administrative lines for each department have been created, and Department Chairs for each department have been hired. These new chairs will be on campus mid-summer 2010 so we can begin orientation and training prior to the 2010-2011 academic year. We will spend a significant amount of energy decentralizing the college and empowering the new chairs during AY10-11. Written Performance Management System. 2009-2010 Priority. Over the next academic year the college will begin developing an integrated performance management system that articulates our definition of good annual performance and clearly states our expectations of the accomplishments necessary for an assistant professor to achieve tenure. This priority was fully accomplished. A faculty committee, in collaboration with the Dean developed a new performance management system including AQ/PQ definitions, annual performance standards, and revised P&T guidelines. These new procedures were piloted during the 2009-2010 academic year in parallel with the previous systems. Henceforth the previous system will be dropped and the college will rely on the new system and standards. As part of the performance management process the system itself will be examined on an annual basis and revised as needed. The initial annual review of the revised system has already begun and should be finalized prior to the beginning of the Fall, 2010 semester. Curriculum Review and Integration. 2009-2010 Priority. The goals of the curriculum review will be to insure that our course and program offering is consistent with the new college structure, reflects and encourages the core values of the college, encourages students to experience multiple disciplines within the college, and provides course and program offerings attractive to students in other colleges. A great deal of progress has been made on this objective and the catalog and course offerings for the entire college have been revised greatly. There are some changes that were approved by the college but fell through the cracks in the catalog revision process. We will follow up on these changes. We believe, however, that this is not an 2
objective that can be accomplished but rather is a process that must be ongoing. Thus we believe the most important outcome from addressing this strategic priority is to establish an ongoing curriculum review that incorporates not only incremental curriculum revision driven by the AOL system, but also periodic revolutionary changes driven by the strategic management processes in the college. Development Initiative. 2009-2010 Priority. Over the course of the year the college will reinitiate its development activities and begin the process of reestablishing its executive advisory board. These activities will be conducted in close collaboration with the Office of University Advancement and coordinated with the university s current capital campaign. We have had only mixed success with the development initiative. On the primary outcome measure, dollars raised, we have not performed well. Very little money has been raised by the college during the 2009-2010 academic year. On the positive side the B school has begun to reinsert itself into the business community. The Corporate Advisory Board has been reestablished and has provided advice and guidance to the college including input to the mission revision process and AOL development. We anticipate continuing this effort during the next academic year. Expansion and Repositioning of Faculty In response to the previous AACSB Fifth Year Maintenance report s concern about the teaching ration in the College the University significantly expanded the personnel budget for the College of Business and Technology. This expansion allowed the college to add five new professorial lines and two new Senior Lecturer positions to our personnel roster. In addition to the seven new lines the college filled six existing lines that were vacant or vacated during the year. In combination the 13 positions allow the college to rebuild the faculty ranks with a strategic mix of assistant, associate and full professors. In many cases the new hires are much more research oriented than the previous job incumbents. Thus we have significantly enhanced the research potential of the entire college through the hiring process. 3
College of Business and Technology Strategic Priorities for the 2010 2011 Academic Year The College of Business and Technology has identified 5 strategic priorities for the 2010-2011 Academic year: Continue Development Initiative Partnership with Career Services Expand Graduate Education Establish Research Centers AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation Activities Continue Development Initiative Events /Visibility. During the academic year the College will host two high visibility events to facilitate engagement between the College and target groups. The first event will be the initial Economic Forecasting Summit. The second will be a dedicated development event and will likely be a an alumni lunch event either in Dallas or Houston or an event coordinated with the existing University level development schedule. College Speaker Series. The goal for the current AY is to host one large alumni lecture event in each of the two long semesters. The fall speaker is likely to be Brett Sheldon, an BAAS alumnus from Dallas who happens to be a high level development prospect. The second speaker will be identified in cooperation with central development office. Prospect Contacts. During the 2010-2011 AY the Dean of the College to make initial calls on 20 new high priority development prospects. This will involve working with the development office to identify the target list. Special emphasis is to begin prioritizing alumni. Solicitations. The initial proposal is for the College to make 10 $125K solicitations this year for faculty professorships. We are currently in conversation with the development office to assess the feasibility of this plan and to identify solicitation targets. Initial plans focus on regional businesses and gifts over a 5 year payout. Partnership with Career Services Internships. Relocate internship coordination from the college to Career Services. Turn control of coordination over to new internship coordinator in Career Services and provide supplemental funding. All internships to require an instructor of record that is a full time faculty member. Assessment. Identify assessment activities associated with the interview process and develop measures and procedures to implement. Of special interest are rubrics completed by corporate interviewers. 4
Expand Graduate Education Online MBA. Launch a free standing online MBA program that is completely compatible with the current f2f program and withdraw from the UT Telecampus MBAO. The goal is to create complete portability between f2f and online MBA education with no distinction between the two programs. Most students are expected to graduate with a mixture of online and f2f courses. Initiate PhD Program. Recruit a full student class and offer the initial courses beginning in the Fall, 2011 semester. Consolidate Masters HRD f2f and online. Adjust one or both programs so course requirements are identical. Organize courses so two delivery formats compliment each other. Allow students to move freely between f2f and online classes. Establish Research Centers Center for Retail Enterprises. Develop a plan and implementation timetable for this center; conduct at least 2 service events for the community. Center for Small and Family Businesses. Develop a plan and implementation timetable for this center; conduct at least 2 service events for the community AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation Activities Strategic Management. Documents strategic planning process and development of new mission statement during 2009-2010 AY. Determine documentation needs for AACSB Fifth Year Maintenance visit. AOL. Consolidate the work conducted by the 2009-2010 faculty committee into a simplified format so simple that even a dean can understand it. Develop causal model representation of overall AOL system. Develop necessary rubrics and implement new system. Faculty Sufficiency. Create initial drafts of Tables 2, 9, 10, and 10A. Identify existing deficiencies and formulate plans to correct deficiencies. 5
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2010 2011 ACADEMIC YEAR College of Business Technology Table current shrunk to 2 point font to save space; may not even need table Strategic Priority Continue Development Efforts Implementation Steps Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets Partner with Career Services Fund Intern Coordinator General Financial Support Transfer internship courses to Career Services Dean $3K salary for coordinator Course Fees Chairs, Dean Summer 2010; Funding from 2009-2010 course fees Expand Graduate Education Establish Research Centers Retail center Kerri Keech as Director $3K seed money from Dean Sept 1. Proposal outline October 31 approach first potential 6
Strategic Priority Implementation Steps Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets funding source YR1 host 2 events College Speaker Series AACSB Activities Strategic Harold Doty Management AOL Roger Lirely $5K plus standardized test expenses from student fees Faculty Sufficiency Mary Fischer Training Associate Dean and Department Dean s budget Chairs to attend Accreditation Conference Lou Ann Berman to attend Advanced Student Fees AOL seminar Dean to Attend Dean Conference Dean s Budger Dean to attend Southern and Southwest Deans Meeting Dean s Budget / Burke Chair 7
CHARGES TO DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS Associate Dean 1) Complete the first cut of an impact study of faculty research for all CBT faculty. 2) Conduct AACSB audit to determine both informational and operating deficiencies for all standards; begin building hardcopy information resources. 3) Prepare draft Tables 2, 9, 10A and 10B. Accounting, Finance, and Business Law 1) Articulate strategic plan 2) Review of curriculum to insure that all needed corrections and updates were made and implemented last year. Verify progress with CPA community. 3) Plan for initial offering of required continuing professional education for Accountants (and lawyers?). 4) Classes for small business area Mom and Pop Finance? Management and Marketing 1) Articulate strategic plan 2) Complete curriculum revision initiated last year 3) Develop small/family business initiative (will subsume entrepreneurship) 4) Focus on retail, may need advanced classes 5) Take lead in designing faculty student mentor system Human Resource Development 1) Articulate strategic plan 2) Successfully launching the PhD program with the option C executive format; 3) Improving the curriculum rigor across the portfolio of programs in your department; and 4) Repositioning the department and creating sufficient cultural change to firmly anchor the department in a business school rather than in a College of Education. I realize that asking for cultural change in a short period of time is a great challenge. Were it not for the large number of new faculty in the department I would not consider the request unreasonable. I understand that you may need to use large scale intervention techniques up to and including renaming the department and revising the departmental vision, mission, and positioning statements to accomplish the quantum change. Keep me posted, but you have considerable discretion as you determine how to accomplish this third charge. Director of Masters Programs 1) Develop collateral materials for all programs 8
2) Guide effort to align f2f and online masters programs 3) Guide technology infrastructure for online programs 4) Be mindful of and guide a branding look for online masters programs Director of Undergraduate Programs 1) Outline the process of developing online sections of each course we offer; let the MBA program lead and avoid the pitfalls when possible. 2) Begin working to redesign the advising process to allow faculty to conduct much of the preregistration advising for routine cases 3) Major cultural shift so that advising typically means we review the career planning that students have developed; students need to explain to us how their course selection facilitates their graduation. 9
College of Business and Technology Committee Structure and Membership Charges to Committees - Academic Year 2010-2011 P&T (Standing) Description: This will be an elected committee that is elected by the faculty and will function with complete autonomy for the administration. This is the only committee on which the Dean does not serve in an ex-officio role. Charge: Conducting P&T evaluations in Fall 2010 and Third Year Review evaluation in Spring 2011. Make suggestions about cumulative review processes to Performance Management Committee or Management Committee as appropriate. Individuals with administrative appoints are not eligible to serve on this committee. Chair: Elected from committee by members At large: Acct. Finn Mana. Mark Human Resource Development To be elected Fischer Fagan To be elected Undergraduate Curriculum (Standing) Charge: Coordinate the integration of the various undergraduate programs into a single undergraduate degree unit that is responsible for oversight of all undergraduate programs. Oversee the curriculum revision process including managing college approved changes through the larger university process. Suggest curriculum changes to departments as appropriate. Examine advising process to integrate a single model across the college. Suggest revisions to current advising process as appropriate. Chair Keech Wooldridge Tarter Willis Wu Fazarro McWhorter Masters Committee (Standing) Charge: Coordinate the integration of the various master s programs into a single Master s degree unit that is responsible for oversight of all master s programs. Oversee the curriculum revision process including managing college approved changes through the larger university process. Suggest curriculum changes to departments as appropriate. 10
Chair Roberts Gordon Pandey Miller Wang Beal Swimberghe 11
AOL/Assessment (Standing) Charge: Developing an AOL system and a SACS assessment system based on our current core values. Will seek consultation with Lou Ann Berman as needed. Chair Roger Lirely Miller Keech Roberts Benchmark Schools (Ad hoc) Charge: Examine the proposed set of benchmark schools for strategic fit and determine if other schools need to be included in then peer or aspiration set. Contact the schools for key information especially 1) AQ/PQ standards, 2) Journal lists 3) tenure expectations This committee completed its charge in 09-10 and will not continue unless needed later in the year. Performance Management (Ad hoc) Charge: Review the process changes implemented by the Management Committee over the summer and the existing guidelines. If necessary suggest changes to the Management Committee. Chair: Doty All Full Professors who hold full graduate status (in 2010 Doty, Fischer, Gilley, Bushardt, Wang, Ellinger) Management Committee (Standing) Charge: Strategic Planning and Management; general oversight and coordination. Chair Doty Fisher Bushardt Lirely Gilley Roberts Cowart/Keech 12
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF ACCEDITATION REPORT AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2011 20012 Summer, 2011 Progress on 2010 2011 Strategic Priorities The College of Business and Technology identified 5 strategic priorities for the 2010-2011 Academic year: Continue Development Initiative Partnership with Career Services Expand Graduate Education Establish Research Centers AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation Activities Continue Development Initiative Events /Visibility. This objective was accomplished, although not exactly as planned. The college hosted two events, an Economic Forecasting Summit and a Retail Summit. College Speaker Series. The college achieved partial success on this objective. Brett Sheldon served as an alumni speaker in the Spring Semester. Progress will continue and we expect to hold this speaker series once each long semester. Prospect Contacts. Very limited success can be reported on the initial objective, but that is the result of emerging priorities rather than lack of effort or attention. Accurate alumni data are apparently not available and other development initiatives with higher priority emerged. Significant effort was devoted to contacts with the Texas Retail Association, Brookshire s Grocery Company, and Hibbs-Hallmark. The decision to change priorities was intentional based on local conditions. Solicitations. Good progress was made on efforts to increase solicitations, but the nature of the planed solicitations changes based on changes in the development strategy discussed above. Three major solicitations were made during the year for a total of $11.5 million dollars. To date we have been successful with one gift in the amount of $.5 million. Partnership with Career Services Internships. We have successfully relocated the central location for internships to career services. The college remains very involved with the internship process and college faculty remain the faculty coordinators for student internships. However the process of 1
posting and selecting interns is now conducted by Career Services. We continue to build and strengthen our partnership with Career Services. Assessment. At this time we have made significant progress toward incorporating career readiness into our AOL System. We have not shifted assessment data collection to corporate interviewers and may decide not to move in that direction. Expand Graduate Education Online MBA. This goal is largely accomplished. We have a rollout schedule for an online MBA program in place. We will implement the series of online MBA courses over a two year period. We allow perfect substitution between online and F2F classes. Initiate PhD Program. Goal accomplished. The first Ph.D. class will enter this fall. Consolidate Masters HRD F2F and online. Goal accomplished. Online courses will roll out over the next 2 years. We will allow perfect substitution between online and F2F classes. Establish Research Centers Center for Retail Enterprises. This center has been initiated. Activities include the Retail Summit held in April, the retail lab currently in construction, a proposal for a retail major in development, and coordination with the Texas Retail Association. Center for Small and Family Businesses. The establishment of this center was delayed because priority was shifted to creating the Hibbs Institute for Business and Economic Research. The Hibbs Institute has moved forward and is the first named center in the college. AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation Activities Strategic Management. Document strategic planning process and development of new mission statement during 2009-2010 AY. New mission statement completed. Less progress was made on the AACSB documentation than was planned, but confirmation of a Spring 13 visit reduced the urgency on this priority. AOL. We have made great progress on the AOL system. Initial system design has been completed, initial data collection completed, and some changes made in response to assessment. Our framework and process were presented as a session at the 2011 Southwest Deans Association Meeting, June 2011 and will be presented at a national AACSB conference in September 2011. Faculty Sufficiency. Goals largely accomplished. We should complete first drafts of AACSB tables during the summer of 2011. We have revised relevant AQ/PQ documents 2
and have identified the need for AQ/PQ guidelines for administrators. The administrative guidelines should be developed during summer 2011. 3
Strategic Priorities for 2011-2012 In addition to continuing progress on current activities, we fill focus efforts on the following five priorities in 2011-2012: Catalog and Curriculum Revisions AACSB and ATMAE Accreditation Activities Tracking Student Job Placement and Internships Ongoing Development Initiatives Continuing Center Development Catalog and Curriculum Revisions The university publishes a new catalog next year for the 2012-2014 academic years. As a consequence the Fall, 2011 semester is the semester in which curricular revisions need to be processed through the university system. Lists of routine continuous improvement items have been collecting in the departments and advising offices. In addition we anticipate major revisions to the HRD and Technology area, and new degree proposals in the other departments. We anticipate changes as part of the AOL processes and suggestions, such as opening minors to all business students, that originate from our advising offices. Specific items are included in charges to programs and departments. AACSB and ATMAE Accreditation Activities This is a key year with respect to accreditation. Highest priority goes to a successful ATMAE visit this spring. Additionally the college needs to complete an initial draft of the AACSB accreditation report before the beginning of the Fall, 2012 semester. Contact with the visitation team and a pre-visit will be coordinated during the Fall, 2011 semester. Tracking Student Job Placement and Internships This priority will be addressed largely by the accounting program which will serve as a pilot project for the College. At the current time we have no placement data within the college, and are unsure of the placement data collected by the Career Services office. The goal for the current academic year is to identify and implement a plan to collect the appropriate data. This project will require continued close collaboration with Career Services. Ongoing Development Initiatives 1. Expand CBT advisory board, it is time to make this board function with broader representation and add participation fee. 2. Facilitate advisory boards for the two centers. 3. Sponsoring partners for centers. 4
4. Solicitations for endowed professorships but these must be coordinated with overall comprehensive campaign. Recognize that needs of overall university may slow us down a little here. 5. Both a Spring and Fall speaker. 6. Begin to put together award programs with Development office probably a Business Alumnus of the Year and a Texas Business Leader Award. These awards need to be part of the moves management matrix. Continuing Center Development In addition to the center funding addressed above significant development needs to occur in each of the centers. Ideas include: 1. Hibbs Institute of Business and Economic Research a. Website development for relevant regional economic regions b. Second economic summit c. Initial contact with regional economic development/chamber of Commerce entities d. Outline for deliverable products such as regional reports 2. Center for Retail Enterprises a. Begin building advisory board b. Add Fall event to annual calendar 3. Productivity Improvement Center we have agreed to conduct a feasibility study during the upcoming academic year. We have committed to hosting a speaker event next spring. During the Spring 2012 semester we will decide whether to pursue this initiative as an ongoing center. 4. Family Owned and Closely Held Businesses initiative. We will attempt to hire a person with personal interest and professional qualification to pursue this initiative. 5
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2011 2012 ACADEMIC YEAR College of Business Technology Due to the change in Summer School funding the financial model for the college is unstable. If the new summer school funding model holds the college should realize a net increase if approximately 250K with will allow us to move forward more rapidly with several initiatives. If the new summer school model doesn t stick all increases in activity will require funding from the central administration. Several things are in the works but uncertainty levels are two high to formally articulate as strategies. Further while we have planned for the announced budget reductions without significant damages the college will suffer significant setbacks if additional mid-year cuts are announced. Additional cuts will require strategic withdraw from some planned activities. As a consequence of these two factors I have not identifies specific financial strategies at this time but will likely include a mid-year update if the situations stabilized. Strategic Priority Implementation Steps Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets 6
Strategic Priority Implementation Steps Parties Accountable Financial Resources Timing and Targets 7
CHARGES TO DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS Associate Dean 1) 2 nd round of impact study of faculty research for all CBT faculty. 2) Complete AACSB audit to determine both informational and operating deficiencies for all standards; begin building hardcopy information resources. 3) Complete and update Tables 2, 9, 10A and 10B. Accounting, Finance, and Business Law 1) Formalize and implement strategic plan. 2) Review of curriculum to insure that all needed corrections and updates were made and implemented last year. Verify progress with accounting community as appropriate via advising board. Consider proposing a minor in accounting. 3) Assess success of efforts at professional education. Develop recommendations about whether and how that initiative should proceed. 4) Classes for small/family business area? Consider other changes to finance curriculum and consider proposing a finance minor. 5) Design and move through UT Tyler approval a master s degree in accounting. Prepare and be ready to submit documents necessary for state approval process. We will run this degree through the approval process even if we don t pull the trigger for a year or so. Go ahead and prepare catalog copy knowing that it might not be included in the 12-14 catalog. Management and Marketing 1) Formalize and implement strategic plan 2) Complete curriculum revision initiated last year and other changes appropriate for catalog year (including open management minor and thinking about marketing minor. 3) Develop a focus on Marketing. 4) Continue developing family owned / closely held business (this may subsume entrepreneurship in the short run). 5) Focus on retail, formally propose BS in retail and prepare all necessary forms for the state approval process. 6) Design and implement an MS in Management degree for online delivery. This requires a state approval process. 7) Faculty recruiting. Human Resource Development 1) Formalize and implement strategic plan 2) Refocus the curriculum across the portfolio of programs in your department; 8
3) Continue cultural repositioning process. Consider allowing SHRM review of undergraduate program and repositioning undergraduate degree from HRD to HRM as part of the process. Such an HRM degree need not be a BBA. 4) Finish curriculum development for the PhD program. All the remaining necessary classes need to be approved this fall. 5) First complete draft of ATMAE report ready by Sept 1. Remember that this report needs to be reviewed by the Dean, Provost, and President before submission 6) Sept 1 have a curriculum revision plan for managing the department s curriculum process this fall. Remember that this is a catalog year. We will need to have everything finished by about Nov. 1. Director of Masters Programs 1) Develop collateral materials for all programs 2) Guide effort to align f2f and online masters programs; work with chairs to expand online offering 3) Guide technology infrastructure for online programs. 4) Be mindful of and guide a branding look for online masters programs on class blackboard pages. Part of this is implementing policy of graduate program committee. 5) Based on experiences with students and problems encountered suggest revision to Graduate Committee and Management Team. Director of Undergraduate Programs 1) Oversight of curriculum revision process; coordinate with departments and program committee. 2) Develop a market approach and plan to attract more students; may emphasize transfer students. 3) Continue contribution to AOL 9
College of Business and Technology Committee Structure and Membership Charges to Committees - Academic Year 2011-2012 Governance (ad hoc) Charge: Propose modifications to the current governance model to better align college management processes with a shared governance structure compatible with the metaphor of a community of scholars. Model must be developed in consultation with the Dean and Leadership team. Chair: Barbara Wooldridge; Members: by invitation of the chair. Ethics Statement (ad hoc) Charge: Complete the process of revising and updating the CBT ethics statement. Move a final draft through the faculty approval process during the upcoming academic year. Chair: Tammy Cowart Members: by invitation of the chair. P&T (Standing) Charge: 1. Conducting P&T evaluations in Fall 2011 and Third Year Review and Post Tenure Review evaluations in Spring 2011. Changes to be made in consultation with Stephan Bushardt who is working on first draft of 6 th year review and coordinating with Leadership Team. Make suggestions about cumulative review processes to Management Committee as appropriate. 2. Review Journal Lists as submitted by departments and provide constructive criticism. Chair: Elected from committee by members. Individuals with administrative appoints are not eligible to serve on this committee. Members elected per P&T rules Undergraduate Curriculum (Standing) Charge: Oversee the curriculum revision process including managing college approved changes through the larger university process. Suggest curriculum changes to departments as appropriate. This is a catalog year so expect a heavy workload. Chair Cowart Masters Committee (Standing) 10
Charge: Coordinate the integration of the various master s programs into a single Master s degree unit that is responsible for oversight of all master s programs. Oversee the curriculum revision process including managing college approved changes through the larger university process. Suggest curriculum changes to departments as appropriate. Chair 11
AOL/Assessment (Standing) Charge: 1. Develop and document recommendations for changes to a) learning goals or outcomes as necessary from the first year experience, b) curriculum structure and c) curriculum content. Be sure to document the measures and data that lead to recommendation and then track the change through the curriculum revision or AOL revision process. 2. Complete the pictorial presentation of the process, the methodology, and produce the first set of complete results. This will be coordinated with the AOL presentations we are making at regional and national meetings. 3. A finalized implementation plan. Probably a pretty picture of a chart so we all know where every measure is both taught and measured. 4. A timetable of the process including knowing when results will (should) be noticeable. 5. A matrix explaining what is measured when and how it will look if we move to a sampling process instead of measuring everything every semester for every student. Chair Roger Lirely Members Awards Committee (Standing) Design and implement a structure and process that will facilitate the awarding of a service, teaching, and research award Chair: Mary Helen Fagan Management Committee (Standing) Charge: Strategic Planning and Management; general oversight and coordination. Chair Doty Roberts Bushardt Lirely Gilley Keech Russo 12
Appendix I: Assurance of Learning (AOL)
TM College of Business & Technology Assurance of Learning Measure Modified Objectives Responsible Parties: Faculty with AOL coordination Reevaluate Goals and Objectives Responsible Parties: Faculty and AOL Committee Identify and Implement Action Items Responsible Parties: Faculty, AOL Committee, and Curriculum Committee as appropriate Analyze Results Responsible Parties: Faculty and AOL Committee Measure Objectives Responsible Parties: Faculty with AOL coordination Determine Goals and Objectives Responsible Parties: Faculty