overview of the adpr process - welcome to the …€¦ · web viewmathematical sciences decided to...
TRANSCRIPT
New Mexico State UniversityAcademic Departmental Program Review Handbook for Departments and Colleges
(Click or Ctrl + Click on a section title to go to that section)
I. Overview of the ADPR Process.............................................................................................. 2
II. Timeline for ADPR Process: 2017-18 Cycle.......................................................................4
III. Self-Study Report....................................................................................................................... 5Guidelines.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5Data Sources.....................................................................................................................................................................9
IV. Review Team............................................................................................................................. 10Formulation of the review team...........................................................................................................................10Expectations of the team..........................................................................................................................................11Report Guidelines........................................................................................................................................................12
V. Site visit...................................................................................................................................... 13Itinerary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 13Expenses and reimbursements.............................................................................................................................14Welcome Packet...........................................................................................................................................................15
VI. Action Plan................................................................................................................................. 15
VII. Annual Progress Reports...................................................................................................... 16
VIII. Links to Resources and Contact Information..............................................................16
IX. Appendix: Sample Documents............................................................................................17Sample budget sheet..................................................................................................................................................17Sample reviewer candidate memo......................................................................................................................18Sample e-mail reviewer invitations....................................................................................................................22Sample itinerary.......................................................................................................................................................... 24Sample flight arrangement e-mail.......................................................................................................................28Sample invoice..............................................................................................................................................................29Sample welcome letter from college dean.......................................................................................................30Sample note-taking pages (for welcome packet)..........................................................................................31Sample Action Plan.....................................................................................................................................................36
Approved by NMSU Academic Deans Council 9-11-17
document.docx 1
I. Overview of the ADPR Process
The purpose of Academic Departmental Program Review (ADPR) is to evaluate and enhance overall program effectiveness in a way that supports institutional accreditation and strategic planning. The process involves substantial self-scrutiny and planning that should focus broadly on ways to achieve program goals rather than simply on identifying needs for additional resources. The process is collaborative in nature, involving faculty, campus administrators, external specialists in the discipline, students, and other stakeholders such as community members or employers. This document provides a summary of the ADPR process. Guidelines for criteria to be addressed in the self-study report are provided separately.
Program review is conducted on a departmental basis except for interdisciplinary programs that span departmental boundaries. Programs with external accreditation that meet the overall expectations of Academic Departmental Program Review, including those using an accreditor recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), may be exempted from the program review requirement at the discretion of their college dean and the provost. All other programs are reviewed on a five-year cycle according to the schedule determined by the college deans and posted on the ADPR webpage (http://assessment.nmsu.edu/program-review/).
There are three phases to Academic Departmental Program Review:1. Self-study report. The self-study is intended to give program faculty an opportunity to
reflect on the program’s purposes and to critically evaluate its effectiveness in a way that guides planning and supports improvement. The self-study process is coordinated by the department head or, for interdisciplinary programs, the program head. During this process, the department or interdisciplinary program gathers information, examines and analyzes its activities, and prepares an evidence-based self-study report. The department will consult with the ADPR Office to ensure the self-study adequately addresses all criteria. The college dean reviews the self-study report, provides feedback to the department head, and approves the final report.
2. External Review. A review team comprised of three external reviewers and one internal reviewer (from outside the department) is identified by the department head and approved by the dean. Care should be taken to avoid potential conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers. The team’s responsibilities include reviewing and analyzing the self-study report and completing an on-site visit.
o Members of the review team are provided with the self-study report, program review criteria, and a reviewer-reporting template at least one month prior to the on-site visit. One team member selected by the dean and with their approval will be designated the team leader. The Office of the Provost will provide funding of reviewer expenses including a fee of typically $1000.
o The department schedules and coordinates a site visit for the review team. During the site visit, the team meets with administration, faculty, students and staff, and examines program facilities. The review team consults to determine
document.docx 2
preliminary findings that are then discussed in an exit interview with the dean and provost.
o The review team synthesizes available information and evaluates how well the program addresses and provides evidence of success for each criterion. Using the reviewer-reporting template as a guide, the team reports their findings including judgments about overall program quality and recommendations for action in a written report submitted to the ADPR Office (with copies sent to the dean and department head within one month of the site visit.
3. Plan of Action and follow-up. o Within one month of receipt of the review-team report, the
department/program head will share and discuss review-team findings with program faculty and, in consultation with the dean, create a plan of action to be implemented over a five-year period. A document describing this plan of action will be forwarded through the Program Review Office to the provost for final review and approval. Once approved, the plan of action will be posted publicly on the ADPR webpage.
o The department/program head reviews Action Plan progress annually and reports to the dean. The dean forwards this report through the ADPR Office to the Office of the Provost. Annual progress reports are maintained in the Office of the Provost and are posted on the ADPR webpage.
o The plan of action and annual progress reports should also be posted to the departmental/program webpages. Posting of the self-study document and review-team report is at the discretion of the department and college.
The ADPR Office provides coordination and logistical support to departments and colleges during each ADPR cycle. Its responsibilities include communication about the process timeline and deadlines, distribution of resources and guidelines, and collection of documents for review and storage in the ADPR Document Repository. ADPR Office contact information is given at the end of this document.
[Back to Table of Contents]
document.docx 3
II. Timeline for ADPR Process: 2017-18 Cycle
document.docx 4
document.docx 5
[Back to Table of Contents]
III. Self-Study Report
Guidelines
Program review is generally administered at the academic department level. It should address the qualities of each of the department’s academic degree programs separately to the extent that the programs are independent or distinct. For simplicity, the term “department” is used throughout this document to represent the academic department and all of its component programs.
The self-study report should include a 2-3 page preface that Summarizes self-study findings regarding department strengths, weaknesses, and
challenges Suggests 5-year goals including recommendations for change Identifies “focus points” for the review team’s attention. These are the critical
questions or issues the department wants addressed through the program review Describes the self-study process including how department faculty and other
stakeholders contributed to formulation of its focus points, conclusions and recommendations
As appropriate, identifies other institutions with peer or aspirant departments.
The remainder of the report should be organized according to the following sections. Colleges may choose to add additional sections if needed. The “Reviewer Questions” included with each section are the questions the review team will respond to in preparing that section of their report. Bullet points below each section detail recommendations on information to be included in the self-study report. Additional information may be included as desired. Wherever possible, provide evidence in support of answers to questions, and strive to integrate content with identified focus points and departmental mission, vision, and values.
To keep the reviewers’ task reasonable, limit the length of the main body of the self-study to no more than 40 pages. Additional information may be included through appendices.
Mission, Vision, and Values (Reviewer Questions) Are the mission, vision and values clear and sufficiently articulated? Do they align with and contribute to those of the college and university? Do they address significant global, national and regional needs?
Provide a general overview of the department including its organizational structure, degree programs, and student population.
Summarize the department’s mission, vision, and values and how they are communicated to departmental stakeholders (faculty, students, parents, alumni, employers, etc.)
Describe emerging developments in the discipline. How do these provide
document.docx 6
opportunities for growth or need for change? Describe the mission, vision, and values of the college and the university. How do
the department’s mission, vision, and values align with and contribute to those of the college and university?
How do the department’s programs support/contribute to the department’s mission? How are they linked with or meeting needs of other departments and programs on campus?
Describe characteristics of ideal graduates from the department and discuss the external need for such graduates from employers, graduate programs, professional schools, etc.
Budgets and Resources (Reviewer Questions) How does availability of resources impact program quality including faculty recruitment and retention? Are fundraising efforts effective?
Provide an overview of the resources the university provides to the department and its faculty and students
Describe how the following resources are aligned with and used to support teaching, research, and other aspects of the department’s mission and goals.
o Facilities and equipment both within and outside the departmento Library/information resourceso Salaries and operating budgets o Staffingo Graduate student financial allocations. Describe the responsibilities of
funded graduate students (i.e., TA’s) and how are they allocated. Describe and prioritize the department’s needs for additional resources and link
priorities to the department’s mission and goals. Summarize other budgetary information that is pertinent to the department’s
mission and goals. Describe how departmental budgets and resources are impacted by grant writing
efforts and achievements. How is fundraising used to support departmental mission and goals? How are
alumni relationships fostered for financial support?
Faculty (Reviewer Questions) Are faculty composition and recruitment & retention efforts consistent with the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? How does faculty composition impact program quality? Are faculty development efforts sufficient and effective?
Describe faculty composition (by rank, tenure, demographics, etc.), continuity, and efforts toward faculty retention.
Describe policies for hiring and evaluation of faculty (tenure- and college-track, regular and temporary) including the promotion and tenure process. How are these policies communicated to faculty? Are they applied consistently?
How do recruitment and retention efforts contribute to the enhancement of diversity of faculty?
document.docx 7
Describe faculty professional development and mentoring opportunities at early, mid, and late career stages.
Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities (RSCA) (Reviewer Questions) What is the broad impact of RSCA efforts in the department? How do they support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? How do levels of productivity compare with those for similar departments and programs at other institutions? Are students involved appropriately?
Describe research, scholarship, and creative activity in the department, highlighting areas of strength and emphasis. What is the broad impact of these activities? How do they contribute to the mission and goals of the department, college, and university?
Quantify the productivity of the department in terms research, scholarship, and creative activities. How is productivity measured, acknowledged, and rewarded?
Describe opportunities for students to participate in research, scholarship, and creative activities, highlighting significant accomplishments. How have program graduates impacted the discipline either academically or professionally?
Describe how activities such as the following support the department, college, and institutional missions: - Participating in cross-campus and/or interdisciplinary activities - Recognizing and acting on strategic opportunities- Effectively pursuing funding opportunities with federal, state and local agencies - Actively pursuing opportunities and relationships with businesses, foundations
and institutions - Actively pursuing opportunities with international governments and entities - Collaborating to develop departmental, college, and university support for
startup and bridge funding - Etc.
Teaching and Learning (Reviewer Questions) Do program curricula and learning objectives reflect and support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? Are the curricula realistic and sustainable? Are courses and programs in the department current and competitive with respect to their disciplines? Does the department engage students in “collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments?” Is student learning assessed effectively? Is assessment information used for curricular and other program improvements?
Describe the curricular structure of the department’s programs. Describe program-level learning objectives. How were they developed? How are
they communicated to students? How do they align with college- or institution-level learning objectives such as the Baccalaureate Experience?
NMSU’s institutional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, expects that “Every degree program offered by the institution engages students in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative
document.docx 8
work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments.” (Criterion 3.B.3) o Do learning objectives for the department’s programs currently reflect these
expectations? If not, describe a plan to incorporate them into program-level objectives.
o Describe how the department’s programs currently engage students in these activities, or will engage them in the future.
Describe efforts at assessment of student learning including how assessment data are regularly used to inform curricular change. Describe how program faculty are involved in all stages of the assessment process.
Describe faculty teaching loads and student/faculty ratios for program courses. If applicable, describe how the department assures program quality and learning
objectives are consistent across all modes of delivery (i.e., distance education) or delivery locations.
Describe how program curricula reflect diverse and international themes as appropriate given program/department mission and goals.
Describe how students are trained in ethics appropriate to the discipline including the ethical uses of information and resources.
Student Mentoring, Support, and Success (Reviewer Questions) Are departmental goals and achievements related to enrollment, retention, persistence, completion, and diversity appropriate given NMSU’s student population? Are they consistent with the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? Are processes for student support, advising, development, and career placement effective?
Describe the department goals related to enrollment, retention, persistence, completion, and diversity.
Describe enrollment trends and the composition and success of students in the department’s programs.
Describe and analyze recruitment and outreach activities including strategies for supporting or improving student diversity.
Describe scholarships and other financial support provided to students. Describe student support and advising efforts including
o Community building activities o Mentoringo Prescriptive advisingo Enforcement of prerequisiteso Interventionso Use of predictive analytics, where available
Describe experiential learning and other student development opportunities such as:
o Internships o Service learning or community service o Attendance and presentation at conferences and meetings
Describe how graduates of the department/program are supported by the department and successful in obtaining graduate, professional school, employment,
document.docx 9
or other career placement.
Service (Reviewer Question) Do service efforts support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
Define what constitutes “service” in your college. Describe service activities and accomplishments in the department. How is the value of service activities measured? How does the department acknowledge and reward service efforts and
accomplishments?
Outreach (Reviewer Question) Do outreach efforts support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
Define what constitutes “outreach” in your college. Describe outreach activities and accomplishments in the department. How is the value of outreach activities measured? How does the department acknowledge and reward outreach efforts and
accomplishments?
Other Sections may be defined by each college for things such as extension, community engagement, economic development, etc.
Conclusions and Recommendations (Reviewer Questions) What are the most important practices or activities of the department that should be maintained and enhanced? What are your top concerns that impact program quality? (If more than five concerns are identified, please prioritize the top five.) Provide specific recommendations for feasible change that would lead to program improvement.
Summarize the department’s strengths, weaknesses and challenges related to: (a) teaching and learning; (b) research, scholarship, and creative activity; and (c) service and outreach.
Describe proposed 5-year goals and priorities for the department including recommendations for change.
Data Sources
1. The Office of Institutional Analysis will provide departments/programs with the following information over a five-year period. Additional information is available by request.o Student information by program including (as appropriate) gender, class, full-
time/part-time status, ethnicity, Pell eligibility, student enrollment category,
document.docx 10
semester and cumulative GPA, undergraduate GPA (graduate programs), ACT composite scores, and high school GPA.
o Student retention and graduation rates (5-year period) o Degrees awarded, minors awarded, and degrees awarded among peer institutionso Employee information including employee category, FTE of faculty by tenure status,
rank by tenure status, gender by tenure status (faculty), ethnicity (faculty), position annual salary by tenure status, position annual salary by rank, gender (staff), and ethnicity (staff)
o Resources including course enrollments, student credit hours (SCH) generated, SCH percentages by instructor type, average SCH per faculty FTE, student/faculty ratio, total direct expenditures for research activities, and peer average instructional expense per student SCH and FTE.
2. The NMSU Library will provide a report assessing the use of its holdings, research tools, and services relevant to the department/program under review including: monographs, serials, databases, information delivery services, and instruction and reference. When appropriate, the report will also include Government Documents, Archives and Special Collections, and digital projects. The assessment will cover a five-year period, when data is available. Based on the assessment, NMSU Library will develop recommendations for optimizing the use of Library resources and services and will provide a statement on the Library’s ability to adequately support the program under review.
3. Departments/programs are encouraged to gather information from other entities as needed including but not limited to the Graduate School, International and Border Programs, the offices of the Vice President for Research and Vice President for Economic Development, Student Affairs and Enrollment Management, the Honors College, etc.
4. Budget information should be accessible from departmental records or from the college. A sample budget sheet is provided in the appendix.
[Back to Table of Contents]
IV. Review Team
Formulation of the review team
For most departments, the review team will be composed of three external reviewers and one internal reviewer. The external reviewers are from institutions with a department or program(s) similar to the one(s) being reviewed. The internal reviewer is from NMSU but outside the department. The internal reviewer is intended to provide the review team with insight into NMSU and college policies and procedures and to serve as a resource for answering questions or gathering information for the team. The internal reviewer serves as a full member of the review team with respect to formulation of recommendations and writing of the review team report.
document.docx 11
Candidates for the review team are identified by the department head in consultation with department faculty and approved by the college dean. Internal reviewer candidates should be tenured faculty members from the same college as the department being reviewed. For external reviewer candidates, departments may wish to identify three sub-disciplines or areas of study within the department and develop a separate list of external candidates for each.
Information about review team candidates and the process by which they were selected should be provided to the dean when requesting approval of the candidate list. Once the list is approved, a memo with this information should be sent to the provost and the ADPR Office. The memo should include a description of how the reviewer candidates were selected and the following information:
1) Each candidate’s full name, title, and qualifications including a brief description of how their qualifications make them a suitable reviewer candidate.
2) Brief descriptions of each candidate’s home institution and department and how they compare to NMSU and the department being reviewed.
3) A description of relationships department faculty may have with any of the candidates beyond mere acquaintance (e.g., the reviewer and a faculty member published together). In order to assure an unbiased review, candidates should generally not have collaborations or other substantive relationships with faculty from the department being reviewed.
A sample memo is provided in the appendix.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Expectations of the team
At least one month prior to the site visit, the department head will provide the review team with electronic copies of the final self-study report, a complete itinerary, and reviewer report guidelines. Expectations of the review team include the following:
Prior to the site visit, review the department’s self-study report and itinerary and, if needed, request meetings with additional stakeholders. The itinerary will include meetings with administration (the provost, college dean, graduate dean and department head) and with program faculty, program coordinators (if applicable), students, and others as appropriate.
During the site visit, listen carefully to the perspectives of individuals in the department, college, and university and ask questions to help inform your analysis and recommendations.
At the conclusion of the site visit, present preliminary findings and recommendations to the college dean and university provost. Time will be allotted
document.docx 12
during the site visit for the review team to discuss and develop these findings and recommendations.
Prepare a collaborative review-team report following the guidelines given below. Please offer your evaluation in a manner that is inclusive of different perspectives and realities, maintaining an impartial view and not favoring any particular individual agenda that may have been presented during the visit. The final report should be submitted within one month of the conclusion of the site visit.
Note: Sensitive or confidential information related to personnel or issues should not be included in the reviewer report as the report will be shared with departmental faculty and others. If necessary, such information should be communicated directly with the college dean.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Report Guidelines
Recommended length: no more than 10 pages
Title Page:Academic program, college, time span of reportPrepared by: [insert name(s) of reviewers] Date submitted
Executive Summary:Briefly summarize the review process, the academic program description, and key points from the report sections outlined below.
Response to Departmental Goals: Provide feedback on departmental goals and recommendations (as detailed in the self-study report). This may either be included as a separate section of the report or embedded in the report sections described below.
Report:
1. Mission, Vision, and Values: Are the mission, vision and values clear and sufficiently articulated? Do they align with and contribute to those of the college and university? Do they address significant global, national and regional needs?
2. Budgets and Resources: How does availability of resources impact program quality including faculty recruitment and retention? Are fundraising efforts effective?
3. Faculty: Are faculty composition and recruitment & retention efforts consistent with the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? How does faculty composition impact program quality? Are faculty
document.docx 13
development efforts sufficient and effective?
4. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities (RSCA): What is the broad impact of RSCA efforts in the department? How do they support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? How do levels of productivity compare with those for similar departments and programs at other institutions? Are students involved appropriately?
5. Teaching and Learning: Do program curricula and learning objectives reflect and support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? Are the curricula realistic and sustainable? Are courses and programs in the department current and competitive with respect to their disciplines? Does the department engage students in “collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments?” Is student learning assessed effectively? Is assessment information used for curricular and other program improvements?
6. Student Mentoring, Support, and Success: Are departmental goals and achievements related to enrollment, retention, persistence, completion, and diversity appropriate given NMSU’s student population? Are they consistent with the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university? Are processes for student support, advising, development, and career placement effective?
7. Service: Do service efforts support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
8. Outreach: Do outreach efforts support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
9. Conclusions and Recommendations: What are the most important practices or activities of the department that should be maintained and enhanced? What are your top concerns that impact program quality? (If more than five concerns are identified, please prioritize the top five.) Provide specific recommendations for feasible change that would lead to program improvement.
[Back to Table of Contents]
V. Site visit
Itinerary
document.docx 14
Site visit dates should be determined well in advance in order to facilitate scheduling of reviewers and on-campus meetings. Dates must be arranged so that the dean and provost can attend the site visit exit meeting. Reviewer invitations should be issued after the candidate memo is approved by the dean and possible site visit dates are identified. Sample reviewer invitations are provided in the appendix.
The itinerary, prepared by the department, should be approved by the college dean with a copy provided to the ADPR Office in advance of the site visit. A sample itinerary is included in the appendix.
The itinerary should include the following elements: An exit meeting with the college dean and provost in which the review team
presents preliminary findings and recommendations. (Schedule this first: it is mandatory that the site visit be arranged so that the dean and provost can attend the exit meeting.)
A welcome session for orienting the review team and reviewing expectations for the site visit. This session should be attended by the department head, the ADPR Coordinator (David Smith, [email protected]) and others as desired by the college.
Meetings with- the graduate dean (for departments with graduate programs)- college associate dean(s) - the department head- program faculty- program coordinators (as applicable)- students- others as appropriate
Working session(s) for reviewers. It is essential the review team be given adequate time to develop their preliminary conclusions and recommendations prior to the exit meeting. Review teams often benefit from multiple working sessions.
Other elements as desired
Expenses and reimbursements
Program review expenses of up to $10,000 associated with the site visit will be reimbursed to departments from the provost’s office at the conclusion of the review. A sample summary of expenses and payment methods is given in the appendix. Expenses should be processed as you would normally in your department, keeping track of the expenses (preferably in an I&G index). At the conclusion of the review, provide Kim Rumford ([email protected]) with expense details and you will be reimbursed through a budget transfer. If you believe the site visit expenses will exceed $10,000, please provide a detailed estimate of expenses to Kim Rumford and the ADPR Office for consideration. If funding issues lead to a need for incremental reimbursements before the conclusion of the review, please communicate these needs to Kim Rumford.
document.docx 15
Travel: It is preferred for department to book and pay for air travel expenses directly rather than through reimbursement of the reviewers. A sample flight arrangement e-mail is provided in the appendix.
Lodging: Hotel Encanto and Hilton Garden Inn are good options for lodging because of the available amenities and proximity to the University. A purchase order for each external reviewer’s room needs to be submitted at least 1-2 months BEFORE they arrive. Call the day they are scheduled to arrive and confirm their reservation and payment. Include breakfasts in hotel purchase orders and request the hotel give breakfast vouchers to each guest upon check-in (approximately $15 per day, per person).
Vendor contract: Reviewers are paid $1,000 each for their consulting work with respect to a program review.
o Internal reviewers are paid through a supplemental compensation request, via ePAF.
o External reviewers must fill out a vendor questionnaire form and submit an invoice (see sample) to receive payment via PO. The vendor questionnaire form has a green check mark next to the fields that should be completed by the external reviewers. Please have external reviewers complete and sign these forms either in advance or while on campus for the site visit. Reviewers may also be reimbursed for miscellaneous expenses such as airport parking, etc. Note: payments to reviewers will be processed only after the final review team report is approved by the college dean.
Direct deposit form: External reviewers may wish to complete a direct deposit form to expedite payment.
Welcome Packet
A welcome packet should be provided for reviewers during their welcome session. Items recommended for inclusion in the welcome packet include:
1. Letter from college dean (sample)2. A clean notepad3. Finalized itinerary4. Finalized self-study report5. Vendor questionnaire form (link) and direct deposit form (link) if not filled out
electronically in advance6. Sample invoice (external reviewers only) to submit for $1,000 consulting fee 7. A copy of the review team expectations and final report guidelines (see above)8. Note-taking sheets (sample)9. Business cards or a page with contact information for the department head,
departmental administrative assistant, and the ADPR Office director. This will assist reviewers in submission of expenses, invoices, and the final report.
[Back to Table of Contents]
document.docx 16
document.docx 17
VI. Action Plan
Within one month of receipt of the review-team report, the department/program head will share and discuss review-team findings with program faculty and, in consultation with the dean, create a plan of action to be implemented over a five-year period. This document, referred to as the Action Plan, will be forwarded through the Program Review Office to the provost for final review and approval. Once approved, the action plan will be posted to the ADPR webpage. Departments are encouraged to also post these on a departmental/program webpage.
A sample Action Plan is provided in the appendix.
[Back to Table of Contents]
VII. Annual Progress Reports
The department/program head reviews Action Plan progress annually and reports to the dean. The dean forwards this report through the ADPR Office to the Office of the Provost. Annual progress reports should be submitted by September 15th in the fall semester of each academic year. Annual progress reports are maintained in the Office of the Provost and are posted on the ADPR webpage. Departments are encouraged to also post these on a departmental/program webpage.
[Back to Table of Contents]
VIII. Links to Resources and Contact Information
Resources: ADPR Webpage: http://assessment.nmsu.edu/program-review. This webpage hosts
an electronic copy of this handbook and a contains a five-year ADPR schedule organized by college and department.
Document repository: https://eltnmsu.sharepoint.com/sites/NMSUPT/ADPR. This SharePoint site contains documents from all prior program reviews. It is accessible only to NMSU faculty and staff who are involved in the ADPR process. Please contact the ADPR Office (see below) to request access.
Contact Information: Office of Institutional Analysis for assistance with self-study data: Judy Bosland –
646-6131; [email protected]. Library Liaison for assistance with library reviews: Katherine Terpis – 646-3279;
[email protected]. Academic Departmental Program Review Office for any other additional information
or assistance needed
document.docx 18
o David Smith ([email protected]), (575) 646-7621o Laura Grant ([email protected]), (575) 646-1908
[Back to Table of Contents]
document.docx 19
IX. Appendix: Sample Documents
Sample budget sheet
Budget Spreadsheet for xxx Department for Program ReviewNOTE: a year represents an Academic Year
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
Faculty Salaries
Admin. Asst. Salary(ies)
Other Permanent Staff SalariesNumber of Staff MembersGrad. TA SalariesNumber of Grad TA'sStudent Equipment FeesDepartment Discretionary FundsExternal Funding (total grant and contract funding received)Grant/Contract Expenditures (Grant and Contract funds spent)SURF (IDC funds that department received)ERR funds received (Equipment Replacement and Renewal)
BRR funds received (Building Renewal and Replacement)CFR (Course funding requests that are fulfilled)Start-up costs (total)Department AwardsSabbaticalsNOTE: all budget items are independent and not summable as there may be duplications across some budgets.
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Self-Study Data Sources Section]
document.docx 20
Sample reviewer candidate memo
To: Daniel Howard, Executive VP and ProvostFrom: Enrico Pontelli, Dean, College of Arts and SciencesSubject: Reviewers for Department of Mathematical Sciences Program ReviewDate: _____________Cc: David Smith, Director of Assessment; and Joe Lakey, Department Head,
Department of Math______________________________________________________
Below is the proposed list of External and Internal reviewers needed to complete the Department of Math’s Program Review. The lists of reviewers and alternates were recommended by the faculty and Department Head of the Math Department and approved by Dean Enrico Pontelli.
Nominees for Mathematical Sciences Internal Review Team, Fall 2017 (in order of preference):(1) Dom Simon, Department Head, Department of Psychology(2) Julia Barello, Department Head, Department of Art(3) Tim Cleveland, Department Head, Department of Philosophy
Nominees for Mathematical Sciences External Review Team, Fall 2017:
Mathematical Sciences decided to partition potential reviewers in the following three categories, broadly reflective of the department's research and teaching missions: Pure Math, Analysis and Applied Math, and General Math. The rank ordered nominees is as follows. Further details about nominees and about the process are given below.
Pure Math:(1) Irena Swanson, Reed College ([email protected])(2) Bernd Schroeder, University of Southern Mississippi ([email protected])(3) James Madden, Louisiana State University ([email protected])
Analysis and Applied Math:(1) Loredana Lanzani, Syracuse University ([email protected])(2) Cristina Pereyra, University of New Mexico ([email protected])
General:(1) Keri Kornelson, University of Oklahoma ([email protected])(2) Luca Capogna, Worcester Polytechnic Institute ([email protected])(3) William McCallum, University of Arizona (currently on leave) ([email protected])
document.docx 21
Most nominee's vitas can be found by Googling the name and university as listed and proceeding to the nominee's web page. Swanson and Madden don't have their vitas on the pages but have a lot of other biographical information posted.
Nomination Process:After a call for nominations for potential external reviewers, the department met on March 15 to discuss each nominee. Nominees were to be categorized in one of three categories, as agreed in an earlier meeting of the departmental Advisory Committee: Pure Math/Analysis and Applied Math/General. Nominees in the general category were intended to have experience consistent with understanding the whole picture of running a department of Mathematical Sciences.
Tenure-track faculty were then polled (via Surveymonkey) on preferences and acceptability of the different nominees. The Borda method was used to rank order the candidates. The nominees as listed were determined by this rank ordering. Other nominees were not in the top three or were deemed unacceptable, which is why we only have two Analysis nominees.
Information on the nominees:
Pure MathIrena Swanson (http://people.reed.edu/~iswanson/): Reed College is a small liberal arts college. Irena was nominated partly because she was a member of the faculty at NMSU from 1995--2006(?). Irena attained the rank of Professor at NMSU and directed the Graduate Program in Mathematical Sciences. She did a rotation as Department Chair at Reed a few years ago; she has served on several committees of the American Mathematical Society; she is on the editorial board of the Journal of Commutative Algebra; and is a highly respected scholar. Although she is a former colleague, she would not hesitate to point out ways in which we can improve.
Bernd Schroeder (https://www.usm.edu/math/faculty/bernd-schroeder) Schroeder is currently a department chair at U. Southern Miss. since 2014. USM is not a land grant. His department is about half the size of NMSU's department of Mathematical Sciences but it does have a PhD program. Schroeder had prior experience at Louisiana Tech in various departmental administrative roles. He has a very active research program in Foundations and Discrete Math., which overlaps some work done at NMSU.
Jim Madden (https://www.math.lsu.edu/~madden/) Madden is the The Patricia Hewlett Bodin Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at LSU which is a land-grant institution and has a somewhat similar math department. He does research in commutative algebra and outreach that overlaps interests in the department. A few years ago he had major NSF funding from the same program that funded the MC^2-LIFT grant at NMSU.
Analysis and Applied Math [more Analysts can be nominated if necessary]Loredana Lanzani (http://asfaculty.syr.edu/pages/math/lanzani-loredana.html)
document.docx 22
Loredana is a professor of Mathematics at Syracuse University since 2014. Syracuse is not a land grant university. She was a program director in Analysis at NSF, 2011-2013. Her early career (1997-2008) was at University of Arkansas where she attained the rank of Professor. U. Ark is land grant, its math department is similar in several respects to NMSU's and faces many of the same challenges. Besides NSF, she has been heavily involved in service to the profession and outreach (while at U. Ark.). Loredana was working on her PhD at Purdue at the same time Profs. Giorgi and Smits were there.
Cristina Pereyra (http://www.math.unm.edu/~crisp/) Cristina is a Professor of Mathematics at UNM where she has been a faculty member since 1996. UNM is not land grant but it is a peer institution that has several similarities to NMSU. Pereyra has served on most departmental committees and chaired its Graduate Committee (2006-2009 - she had major NSF funding during this period specifically to support the program), and ran its high school math contest (1999-2006) and has done a variety of service for UNM and the profession. On the potential conflict side, she wrote some papers with Lakey, the last published in 2004, and Pereyra, Lakey and others at NMSU worked together organizing the annual New Mexico Analysis Seminar (usually with NSF support) until 2009. Cristina recently led a team that did a self-study of her department which just had a site visit in Spring 2017.
GeneralKeri Kornelson (http://www2.math.ou.edu/~kkornelson/). Keri is a professor of Mathematics at U. Oklahoma (at OU since 2008). She is currently interim Associate Dean for Research in Arts and Sciences there. She was also an A&S Faculty fellow for STEM initiatives, 2014-2016. OU is not land grant but the department is similar to NMSUs in some ways. Keri did a research sabbatical at NSA 2012-2013 and has been involved in several undergraduate research mentoring programs, including an REU at TAMU that led to the book "Frames for Undergraduates." She has been very active in university and professional service. Lakey is familiar with Keri from conferences but hasn't done any work with her.
Luca Capogna (https://www.wpi.edu/people/faculty/lcapogna)* (NB: spouse of Loredana Lanzani above) Luca Capogna is currently department chair at Worcestor Polytechnic, which is not land grant. The department is a little bigger than NMSUs and teaches more high-level math. Before WPI, Luca was Associate Director of the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications in Minneapolis, 2011-2013. Along with Loredana, he was on the faculty at U. Arkansas, 1999-2014 (on leave from Fall 2011). His research has been funded by NSF and other sources. While at U. Ark. he designed and coordinated an outreach program that had math majors tutoring in schools. Luca was at Purdue working on his PhD at the same time as Giorgi and Smits were.
Bill McCallum (http://math.arizona.edu/~wmc/)Currently President and CEO of Illustrative Mathematics since 2014 (on leave from U of Arizona). UA is one of NMSUs peers and land grant, but the department is much larger than and very different from NMSU’s. McCallum was very involved in math education in the
document.docx 23
latter part of his career, though still somewhat active in research. He was very involved in the Common Core Standards initiative.
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Review Team Formulation Section]
document.docx 24
Sample e-mail reviewer invitations
Note: invitations to potential reviewers should not be sent until after the college dean approves the review team candidate list.
Internal reviewer e-mail
HELLO Carlos!!
We would like to invite you to be an INTERNAL Reviewer for the Sociology Dept. as it completes its Program Review. You were the dept.’s top pick for an Internal Reviewer. I know you are really busy so if this is asking too much, just let me know.
Details:
1. Dates: November 6, 2017 in the evening through November 8, 2017 in the afternoon.
2. Consultant fee: We provide a consultant fee of $1,000 (it comes in as supplemental pay)
3. The itinerary usually includes meetings with department faculty, students, the Graduate School Dean, the Deans in the college undergoing review, time for the team to work on the final report, and an exit meeting with Provost Howard and Dean Pontelli.
Carlos, what questions do you have?
Thank you, again, and we hope that you are able to serve as an INTERNAL Reviewer for our Sociology Department.
Sincerely,
Anne
Anne P. Hubbell, Ph.D.Dean FellowCollege of Arts and SciencesNew Mexico State University
document.docx 25
External reviewer e-mail
Dear Dr. Bradatan,
We at NMSU are conducting a Program Review on our Department of Sociology.
We would like to invite you to be an External Reviewer for the Dept. as it completes its Program Review. You, Dr. Bradatan, are listed as one of the scholars our Sociology faculty most want to serve as an External Reviewer and we are hopeful that you may be able to join our review team. The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and the Provost of NMSU also consider you to be an excellent potential reviewer. You are well respected as an accomplished colleague.
Details:
1. Dates: November 6 – November 9, 2017 – Reviewers (3 external reviewers are on the team) to fly in on Monday, November 6 to El Paso, TX and we provide transportation to and from Las Cruces (about 45 min. drive). You would then fly out the morning of November 9 (Thursday).
2. Consultant fee: We provide a consultant fee of $1,000
3. Travel, Lodging, & Food: We provide coverage of all meals, travel, and hotel. We also provide transportation to and from airport and within Las Cruces,
4. The itinerary usually includes meetings with department faculty, students, the Graduate School Dean, the Deans in the College of Arts and Sciences, time for the team to work on the final report, and an exit meeting with Provost Howard and Dean Pontelli.
Dr. Bradatan, we appreciate you considering our request. I will contact you through email and/or phone in the next few days to see if you have other questions about the process, but just in case attached you will find information on the report reviewers would provide. The Sociology Department is finishing its self-study and that will be provided to you as well (it will be about 50-60 pages long with additional appendices). My phone number is (575) 646-2003 if you have questions as well.
Thank you, again, and we hope that you are able to serve as an External Reviewer for our Sociology Department.
Sincerely,
Anne
Anne P. Hubbell, Ph.D.Dean FellowCollege of Arts and SciencesNew Mexico State University
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Site Visit / Itinerary Section]
document.docx 26
Sample itinerary
NMSU Program ReviewDepartment of Art
New Mexico State UniversityNovember 14 - November 17, 2016
Contact Person, Dr. Julia Barello (575) 496-2129
Monday, November 14
Activity LocationTransportation
by
1:00 – 5:00 pmPick up reviewers and bring
to Hotel
Hotel Encanto705 S. Telshor, Las
Cruces, 88011(575) 522-4300
See below
Gary Setzer, driving in from Tucson
3:31 pm Arrival
Jeanne Hulen,Flight from Dallas Forth
Worth:American Airlines 2310
El Paso Airport Julia Barello
5:01 pm ArrivalScott Montgomery,Flight from Denver:
United Airlines 5607El Paso Airport Meg Goehring
6:30 – 8:00 pm Dinner with Art Dept. faculty
Aqua Reef Julia BarelloMeg Goehring
Tuesday, November 15
Activity LocationTransportation
by
8:15 am Transport to NMSU,Breland Hall
Hotel Encanto Julie Fitzsimmons
8:30-9:00 am Welcome, brief profile of NMSU, and expectations of review and report Attendees: Reviewers David Smith, Director of
Assessment, NMSU Anne Hubbell, Dean
Fellow Julia Barello, Dept. of Art
Breland 333 Julia Barello
document.docx 27
Head9:00-10:00 am Meet with College Assc.
Deans: Jim Murphy Beth Pollack
Breland 333Miriam Chaiken to
escort to Williams Hall
Tuesday, November 15
Activity LocationTransportation
by
10:00-10:15 am Break DW Williams Rm. 12210:15-11:30 am Tour of Department of Art DW Williams Hall and
AnnexJulia BarelloAdam Labe
11:45-1:00 pm Lunch with Graduate Students
Santorini’s Madison Manning, Jeff Erwin and others
1:10-3:00 pm View Courses: 1:00-1:50: ART 300,
Special Topics in Art History: China, Prof. Margaret Goehring
ART 350: 2:00-3:00: Intermediate Drawing, Prof. Craig Cully
1) Center for the Arts, Rm 209
2) Williams Annex, RM 106
Prof. Barello to meet reviewers and walk to
CFTAMiriam Chaiken will escort Reviewers to
Prof. Cully’s class.
3:00-3:30 pm Break DW Williams Rm. 1223:30-5:00 pm Meet with Faculty in
DepartmentDW Williams Rm. 122 All faculty
5:00-6:00 pm Return to hotel/break Hotel Encanto Wes Kline6:00-8:00 pm Dinner with Faculty TBD Jessika Edgar
Wednesday, November 16
Activity LocationTransportation
by
8:00-9:00 am Working session if needed or Reviewers have Breakfast on their own
Hotel Encanto, charge breakfast to hotel
roomElizabeth Zarur
9:30-10:30 am Meeting with Departmental Collaborators, Meg Goerhing to facilitate introductionsCollaborators:
Lea Wise-Surguy Connie Hines Ammu Devasthali Dr. Nancy McMillan Assc. Dean Patricia
Sullivan Dr. Fumi Arakawa
DW Williams, Rm 122 Meg Goerhing
10:30-10:45am Break DW Williams Rm. 12210:45-11:30 am Meet with Dept. of Art University Art Gallery Julia Barello,
document.docx 28
UNDERGRAD studentsIntroduction
11:30 am-12:30 pm
Tour of University Art Gallery and Conservation Lab
University Art GalleryMichelle Lanteri,
Silvia Marinas
Wednesday, November 16
Activity LocationTransportation
by
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH and Working Meeting for Reviewers (Lunch brought in by dept. and reimbursed by college)
University Art Gallery Lisa Brain
1:30-2:30 pm Meet with Art Dept. GRAD students University Art Gallery
Tauna Cole-Dorn,Introduction
2:30-3:00 pm Break and walk to Graduate School Tauna Cole-Dorn
3:00-4:00 pm Meet with Dean of Graduate School, Dean Reyes
Graduate School, Dean Reyes Office
Miriam Chaiken
4:00-5:00 pm Meet with Department Head, Julia Barello
DW Williams, Rm 100 Julia Barello
5:00-6:00 pm Return to Hotel/Break Craig Cully6:00-8:00 pm Reviewer’s dinner with
facultyZeffiro’s downtown
Craig Cully + Julia Barello
Thursday, November 17
Activity LocationTransportation
by
6:30-7:00 am Breakfast at hotel, prepare for exit meeting with Dean and Provost – CHECK OUT
Hotel Encanto, charge breakfast to hotel
room
Rachel Stevens, breakfast
Transport with Julie Fitzsimmons as well.
7:15 – 8:00 am Exit session with Provost Dan Howard and Dean Enrico Pontelli – presentation of initial findings External reviewers flying out
Hadley Hall, 130
8:00–9:00 am
External reviewers leaving for airport and flights home.
Flights starting at 10:07 am (Hulen at
10:07 am; Montgomery at 12:40
pm)
Julie Fitzsimmons – pick up reviewers at Provost
office, Anne will get parking in front of
Hadley
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Site Visit / Itinerary Section]
document.docx 29
Sample summary of expenses and payment methods
All charges on dept index # xxxxxx (preferably an I&G index)Item Amount Method of
PaymentAdd’l Details
Fee for ReviewersWw (internal reviewer) 1,000 ePAF internal, may be paid before report is
submittedXx (external reviewer) 1,000 PO external, paid after report is submittedYy (external reveiwer) 1,000 PO “Zz (external reviewer) 1,000 PO “
Airfare for ReviewersXx xxx.xx PCard arranged by dept, without agentYy xxx.xx PCard “Zz xxx.xx PCard arranged through agent, $xxx.xx flight +
$xx.xx agent’s fee
Hotel for ReviewersXx xxx.xx PO, all on one rooms and breakfastsYy xxx.xx “ “Zz xxx.xx “ “
Reimb for ReviewersXx xxx.xx direct pay taxis to and from home airportYy xxx.xx direct pay rental vehicle (reviewer helped shuttle
other reviewers around)Zz xxx.xx direct pay parking at home airport
P/U at ELP by Faculty xx.xx reimbursement to pick up Yy
4 x Binders xx.xx PCard NMSU bookstore binders for reviewers’ paperwork
5 x Gift Cards xxx.xx PO NMSU gift cards, $xx ea. - incentive to 5 grad students to meet with reviewers
Lunchesrestaurant/date xxx.xx PCard reviewers + grad students (includes tip)restaurant/date xx.xx PCard reviewers only (includes tip)
Dinnersrestaurant/date xxx.xx reim (faculty
name)food/meal
restaurant/date xx.xx reim (faculty name)
food/meal
restaurant/date xx.xx reim (faculty name)
food/meal
document.docx 30
Snacks for Reviewersstore/date xx.xx PCard coffee creamer, bottled water, iced tea, etc.store/date xx.xx PCard cookies, drinks, etc.
Total $x,xxx.xx
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Expenses and Reimbursements Section]
document.docx 31
Sample flight arrangement e-mail
HELLO Dr. Kornelson AND Patty (from Atlas Travel):
Patty, Dr. Kornelson will be traveling from the OKC airport (see below) for our Mathematical Sciences Program Review this October. We will be running the payment of the flights for this review through the Math dept and the admin, Dawn, is included in this email.
OK, times/dates:
Travel from OKC to ELP: Monday, October 9, arrival before 4 pm, if possible
TRAVEL home from ELP to OKC: Thursday, Oct. 12, AFTER 2 pm (cannot be earlier because of meetings at NMSU in the morning)
THANKS!!!!
Anne
Anne P. Hubbell, Ph.D.Dean FellowCollege of Arts and SciencesNMSU
-----
Note: I booking flights directly without the assistance of a travel agent, you will need to obtain the following information from each passenger:
- Name and ID # exactly as they appear on their identification to be used for travel (driver’s license, passport, etc.)
- Birth date- Gender- Window or aisle seat preference- Name of their home airport or airport code (preferred if their departure city has
multiple airports)
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Expenses and Reimbursements Section]
document.docx 32
Sample invoice
Example INVOICE
XXXXX, Ph.D.Department of English, University of Colorado Boulder
226 UCB, Hellems 101Boulder, CO 80309-0226
303-555-5555
Bill To:
New Mexico State University - Accounts Payable
INVOICE NUMBER 0001
PO Box 30001 - MSC 3AP INVOICE DATE April 25, 2017Las Cruces, NM 88003QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1 External Reviewer for
NMSU ENGLISH Department
1,000.00 $1,000.00
Program Review INSERT DATESUBTOTAL 1,000.00TAX 0.00FREIGHT 0.00TOTAL $1,000 PAY THIS AMOUNT
XXXXXX, Ph.D.303-555-5555Email: [email protected]
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Expenses and Reimbursements Section]
document.docx 33
Sample welcome letter from college dean
November 7, 2016
Dear ________________,
On behalf of the College of Arts and Sciences at NMSU, I would like to thank you for serving as an External Reviewer for the Department of Art as they complete their Program Review.Please allow me to provide you with some context information about the College of Arts and Sciences:
The College of Arts and Sciences is home to 24 academic departments and two ROTC programs
The faculty of the College received $18.6 million in grants awarded in 2015-2016 The College is committed to support faculty and students in their pursuit of
discovery and in their research efforts; in 2015-16, the College awarded $16,000 for graduate student travel and $26,000 for faculty travel
The College serves almost every student on campus at some point in their academic careers – e.g., by providing the majority of the general education courses in the university
Our college mission is to “promote life-long discovery and improvement in society through cutting edge research and creative activity and by fulfilling the land grant mission through outreach and engagement with the larger community.”
The process of Program Review, that is now required for all of our departments, is a critical instrument to allow us to learn more about strengths and opportunities for improvement in our programs, and an essential step in the continuous enhancement of how we serve our students and community.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your feedback and your effort in the review of the Department of Art.
Sincerely,
Enrico Pontelli, Ph.D.Interim Dean, College of Arts and SciencesNew Mexico State University
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Welcome Packet Section]
document.docx 34
Sample note-taking pages (for welcome packet)
1. Mission, Vision and Values Notes
Are the mission, vision and values clear and sufficiently articulated?
Do they align with and contribute to those of the college and university?
Do they address significant global, national and regional needs?
2. Budgets and Resources Notes
How does availability of resources impact program quality including faculty recruitment and retention?
Are fundraising efforts effective?
document.docx 35
3. Faculty Notes
Are faculty composition and recruitment & retention efforts consistent with the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
How does faculty composition impact program quality?
Are faculty development efforts sufficient and effective?
4. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities (RSCA):
Notes
What is the broad impact of RSCA efforts in the department?
How do they support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
How do levels of productivity compare with those for similar departments and programs at other institutions?
Are students involved appropriately?
document.docx 36
5. Teaching and Learning Notes
Do program curricula and learning objectives reflect and support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
Are the curricula realistic and sustainable?
Are courses and programs in the department current and competitive with respect to their disciplines?
Does the department engage students in “collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments?”
Is student learning assessed effectively?
Is assessment information used for curricular and other program improvements?
document.docx 37
6. Student Mentoring, Support, and Success Notes
Are departmental goals and achievements related to enrollment, retention, persistence, completion, and diversity appropriate given NMSU’s student population?
Are they consistent with the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
Are processes for student support, advising, development, and career placement effective?
7. Service Notes
Do service efforts support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
8. Outreach Notes
Do outreach efforts support the department’s mission, vision and values, and those for the college and university?
document.docx 38
9. Conclusions and Recommendations Notes
What are the most important practices or activities of the department that should be maintained and enhanced?
What are your top concerns that impact program quality? (If more than five concerns are identified, please prioritize the top five.)
Provide specific recommendations for feasible change that would lead to program improvement.
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Welcome Packet Section]
document.docx 39
Sample Action Plan
MEMORANDUM
To: Daniel Howard, Executive Vice President and ProvostFrom: Enrico Pontelli, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences & Carol Campbell,
Department Head, Department of GeographySubject: Program Review Action Plan for Department of GeographyDate: May 19, 2023______________________________________________________
Dear Provost Howard,
Interim Dean Pontelli, Dr. Carol Campbell, and Dr. Hubbell met on March 22, 2017 to discuss the Reviewers’ Final Report for the Geography Departmental Self-Study. The meeting was productive and together we determined the proposed 5 year plan (see below).
It is important to note that the report developed by the reviewers was considered by Dean Pontelli to be well organized and a good example of how other reviewer reports could be written. Also, the reviewers noted that the Department of Geography is well organized, respected on campus and by external agencies, and that the proposed PhD program with UNM may increase research productivity and grant opportunities for the department’s faculty and students.
Also, some of the below goals are contingent on potential future funding sources and all departmental decisions are to be among faculty in the department, perhaps as topics for department faculty meetings.
Proposed Five-Year Plan for the Department of Geography:1-year goals (2017-2018):
Develop a strategic long-term staffing/faculty plan for potential future hires Continue to work with Foundation to gain funding for a new departmental
van/vehicle Talk to other departments, such as Computer Science, about helping teach
programming classes identified as needed by reviewers Encourage more research collaboration among faculty with Graduate Students Encourage more grant writing among faculty. One need identified by reviewers
was for GIS grade GPS units, these could be part of a grant
2-year goals (to be accomplished between 2017-2019): Faculty will review Graduate Program:
Create more structure such as develop expectations for number of hours students work per week on each task
Standardize core courses so that faculty teach similar skills/theories/programs in core courses
document.docx 40
Discuss and develop expectations for how often graduate students should meet with mentors.
Discuss how many graduate students each faculty member should mentor and develop a strategy for more equitable distribution of graduate student responsibilities among faculty
For classes with graduate and undergraduate students, specify what is required of graduate students over and above requirements for undergraduate students
Continue efforts toward a joint PhD program with UNM Develop a more structured mentoring plan for faculty to help Assistant and
Associate professors to advance to the next level Work on an Internship/Capstone course to encourage more Experiential
Learning and/or portfolio development Review recruitment of graduate and undergraduate students as well as faculty
recruitment to determine if these can be improved Encourage more FLiPs for students to continue to support diversity of thinking
among students and provide them international training that can help facilitate their career prospects
2-5 year goals (2018-2023 - ongoing with 5 years to be the goal for completion): Work toward gaining 1-2 new faculty lines (strategically planned for based on
goal in first year) Continue to work toward gaining more resources such as new computers that
will run the programs needed for students (Windows machines potentially) Encourage Faculty to have grants written and submitted and to have increased
research productivity.
On behalf of the Geography Department and Dean Pontelli, we would like to thank Provost Howard for the opportunity to conduct this Program Review.
[Back to Table of Contents] [Back to Action Plan Section]
document.docx 41