master academic plan 2016 9.21.2016
TRANSCRIPT
Master Academic PlanningFall Semester
2016
Pre-Plan: Need & “Givens”
Need – Set our own course and put learning at the center
of all university activitiesGivensFinancially sustainable programmingGlobal / international expansionCreation of distinctivenessTie academic planning to USFSP Strategic Plan
Pre-Plan• Beliefs• Vision• Mission• Values• Priority Areas
Pre-Plan• Goal areas ≤ 5• Actions• Grow / Sustain / Revise (or create)
• Resources
5 PhasesI - Introduction of process & indicators w/ feedback Completed by September 30, 2016II - Review of existing programs, SWOT-Wish & summaries to Deans
Completed by October 31, 2016III - Program category decisions, planning & summaries to Deans
Completed by December 16, 2016IV - Master Academic Plan - First Draft
Completed by January 31, 2017V - Master Academic Plan – Final Version
Completed by February 28, 2017
Phase I:Review of Program
IndicatorsCompleted by 09/30/16• Deans will facilitate process
• All information is open and will be posted in Canvas
• Program and College meetings needed
• Campus updates and forums scheduled
Phase I:Review of Program
IndicatorsCompleted by 09/30/16• Use indicators to help assess current
majors• Quantitative and qualitative indicators draft
• Point system created later for each indicator with weights for those connected to performance funding
•Feedback on indicators due09/30/16
Proposed Quantitative Indicators
Undergraduate Programs• Student/Faculty FTE Ratio• FTIC Retention (Fall to
Fall)• Transfer Retention (Fall to
Fall)• Enrollment Growth Trend
– past 3 years by SCH• 4 & 6 Yr Graduation rate
(FTICs)• 2 & 4 Yr Graduation rate
(Tnfr)
• % of BA/BS graduates w/o excess hours
• Enrollment growth in underrepresented populations (African American & Hispanic) over 3 years
Proposed Qualitative Indicators - Undergraduate ProgramsSelf Assessment Area 1Level of faculty engagement with
students outside of classNumber of external partnershipsInternational / global activities &
connectionsFaculty release timeFaculty credentials & recognition among
national peersQuality Matters implementation for
online coursesSelf Assessment Area 2
Currency of program reviewCurrency of accreditation (including
USFSP SACS-COC efforts)Currency of student assessments
Self Assessment Area 3Mission essentiality (alignment with
USFSP Strategic Plan)
Proposed Quantitative Indicators
Graduate Programs• Student/Faculty FTE Ratio• SCH generation over past 3 years• Graduate completion rate by
program– 3 years– 4 years– 5 years
• % enrollment growth of underrepresented populations (African American & Hispanic) over 3 years
Proposed Qualitative Indicators - Graduate ProgramsSelf Assessment Area 1
Placement of graduatesQuality Matters implementation for online
coursesInternational / global activities & connectionsFaculty credentials & recognition among
national peersSelf Assessment Area 2
Currency of program reviewCurrency of accreditation (including USFSP
SACSCOC efforts)Currency of student assessments
Self Assessment Area 3Mission essentiality (alignment with USFSP
Strategic Plan)Level of interdisciplinarity
course contribution to other programsconsortial/ cooperative programmultiple pathways / options for students
Phase II: Department Review of Existing
Programs / SWOT-Wish Completed by October 31, 2016
• After Phase I – All quantitative indicators and current data will be shared
• As a department, consider qualitative indicators
• Confer with colleagues to draft SWOT – Wish List• Consider everything, exclude
nothing• All ideas should be considered• Generate best thoughts
2 SWOT-Wish Summary: Biology example Strengths
Fish and wildlife agency internships Alumni affiliated with Fish and Wildlife agencies Faculty collegiality Modern curriculum Facilities and equipment Success in grants Pre-professional health program Connections with external groups and Universities Pre-professional health clubs in the community Strength in Undergraduate research Commitment to undergraduate research Honors scholars New hires Support staff
o Laboratory managers o Administrative assistants
Faculty Success of the pre-medicine program compared to other campuses
Weaknesses
Open positions Need faculty Recruitment Students ETS outcomes assessment Banner
o Inability to enroll students o On-line registration process
Advisement Economics for students
o Cost of books o Other expenses
Lack of or poor student adjustment to College: transfer issue exacerbated Resources for promotional materials Funding for the graduate program Compensation level: need raise
Opportunities
Graduate program Online tutorials BA-transfer grants
Threats State government view of the value and purposes of Higher Education Communication issues within campus and system Retention Irregular and inconsistent enrollment patterns Scheduling Economy High school graduates requirement for remediation Lack of adequate college preparation for HS HB 1551: Educational Committee Jobs
Wishes
Laboratory credit hour/contact hour equivalency Journal subscriptions Better communication:
o Between campuses o Department annual/semi-annual retreat
8 hrs Pre-professional day
Pre-professional support resources o Library in BA o Information
Funds for seminar in BA. Smaller classes Distance programming Tuition waiver option for grad students TA’s
Phase II: Department Review of Existing
Programs / SWOT-Wish Completed by October 31, 2016Confer with colleagues to complete
a SWOT-Wish Summary.
What does your program do to…a)maintain strengthsb)deal with weaknessesc)handle threatsd)capitalize on opportunitiese)realize wishesCompleted by 10/31/16
Phase III: Department / Programs
Decision MakingCompleted by December 16, 2016Use data from the program
indicators and SWOT-Wish analysis to categorize each program:Grow Sustain Revise / CreateSee sheet 4: Areas for Consideration when Planning
Phase III: Department / Programs
Decision MakingCompleted by December 16, 2016 As a general rule, programs that are
below the average expectation on the majority of indicators should be considered for revision. There may be cases that do not conform to this. What are those?
Plans for programs to grow, revise or create new should be submitted to Deans by December 16, 2016.
In January, the Dean’s Council will meet to review all program information and develop a final program plan draft.
Phase IV: Master Academic Plan – First
DraftCompleted by January 31, 2017 Dean’s Council will review all
information and begin to draft the Master Academic Plan Continual vetting/feedback/revision
Comment period through January 31, 2017 Faculty Senate Canvas site & surveys Dean Council Members (verbal or
email) Campus Forums Directly to Deans or Provost
Phase V: Master Academic Plan – Final
VersionCompleted by February 28, 2017The Deans’ Council will be
responsible for: Revisions Timeline Work plan, with assignmentsAn electronic copy of the MAP will
be made available by February 28, 2017.
The Master Academic Plan will be continuously assessed, evaluated, and revised as needed.
Critical Plan Elements Consensus sought during entire
planning process All information posted and shared Draft builds upon all
feedback/information from meetings/forums/planning sessions, and from open calls for comments
Two majors per college can move forward ASAP and not wait until plan draft
One 80/20 program per college as a pilot may be proposed ASAP now and not wait until plan draft