1 / 17

Office of Academic Programs Orientation for Academic Program Reviews

Office of Academic Programs Orientation for Academic Program Reviews. Purpose of Program Reviews. Primary purpose is to evaluate academic excellence Emphasis on future-oriented strategic planning rather than retrospective accounting

ethel
Download Presentation

Office of Academic Programs Orientation for Academic Program Reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Office of Academic ProgramsOrientation forAcademic Program Reviews

  2. Purpose ofProgram Reviews • Primary purpose is to evaluate academic excellence • Emphasis on future-oriented strategic planning rather than retrospective accounting • Although reviews often identify resource issues faced by academic units, it is not a process for requesting new resources from UW • Program review is mandated by the State of Washington Higher Education Coordinating (HEC) Board and the University; reviews at intervals of 10 years • This is a review of CFR academic programs; not directly related to College of the Environment discussions

  3. Nature of the Review • A collaborative process involving CFR faculty, staff, and students; The Graduate School, and the Office of Undergraduate Academic Affairs • Combines self-assessment (self-study that engages faculty, students and staff) and external evaluation (site visit) • Involves identifying high-quality review committee members while avoiding conflicts of interest • The Graduate School conducts the review, but all academic programs are evaluated

  4. The Review Process [1] Notification of Scheduled Review • Dean, CFR Prepare Self-Study • CFR Academic Review Committee Initiate Review/Appoint Review Committee • UW Graduate Faculty for internal members • Peer institutions/programs for external members Charge Meeting • Internal reviewers, external reviewers by phone, CFR reps, Graduate School reps, and Office of Provost

  5. The Review Process [2] Site Visit • Review committee meets with unit faculty, students, staff, and others, as appropriate • Exit interview between review committee, CFR Dean, Associate Dean, Chair, Graduate School representatives, and Provost’s Office Review Committee Report (within 4 weeks) • Submitted to Office of Academic Programs Academic Unit’s Response (within 4 weeks) • Response letter to review committee report

  6. The Review Process [3] Graduate School Council Review • Discussion with internal review committee members, academic unit, GPSS, The Graduate School Council, CFR Dean, Associate Dean, and Chair Response of Dean, CFR Graduate School recommendations to Provost Provost instructions to CFR

  7. Review Committee • Thomas P. Quinn, Review Committee Chair. Professor, UW School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences • Donald H. Miller, Professor, UW Department of Urban Design and Planning • William H. Rodgers, Jr. Stimson Bullitt Professor of Environmental Law, UW School of Law • C. Tattersall Smith, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto • Richard B. Standiford, Associate Vice President, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley

  8. The Self-Study [1] limit of 25 pages Main Text • Executive summary • Organization and governance • Faculty, teaching, and degree programs • Diversity • Research and creativity • Collaborations and interdisciplinarity • Future directions

  9. The Self-Study [2] Appendices • Organization Chart • Budget Summary • Faculty • Office of Academic Programs Summary Data • Abbreviated Faculty Curriculum Vitae • Strategic Plan • Higher Education Coordinating Board Summary • Optional appendices

  10. Role of Graduate and ProfessionalStudent Senate (GPSS) in Review Process GPSS Survey and Roles • Catalyst survey to graduate students 4 weeks before site visit; encourage attendance at site visit • Survey results to committee 2 weeks before site visit • Facilitate site visit session with graduate students and committee GPSS sends report to: • Graduate School Dean/Vice Chancellor, CFR, and review committee • Graduate School Council (before Council meeting)

  11. The Site Visit • Includes meetings of review committee with faculty, students, and key staff • Office of Academic Programs staff attend site visit interview sessions with review committee • GPSS conducts pre-visit survey, encourages attendance at site visit meeting, and facilitates graduate student site visit meeting • Concludes with an exit discussion between Review Committee, Dean, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Chair, Graduate School reps, and reps from the Provost’s Office

  12. Visiting Committee Questions • Is CFR doing what they should be doing? • Is CFR doing these things well? • How might CFR do things better? • How should the University assist them?

  13. Site Visit Morning Day 1 Monday, February 23 8:00-8:45 Dean and Associate Deans (107A Anderson) 8:45-9:30 Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson) 9:30-10:30 Non-tenured Tenure-track Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson) 10:30-10:45 Break 10:45-12:00 Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson) 12:00-1:30 Lunch – Review Committee at Faculty Club (or catered to conference room)

  14. Site Visit Afternoon Day 1 Monday, February 23 1:30-2:15 Undergraduate Students (22 Anderson) 2:15-3:15 Graduate Students (22 Anderson) 3:15-3:45 Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson) 3:45-4:00 Break 4:00-5:15 Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson) 6:30 pm Dinner – Review Committee Working Session

  15. Site Visit Morning Day 2 Tuesday, February 24 8:00-9:00 Faculty Chair and Vice-Chair (22 Anderson) 9:00-10:00 Center Directors (22 Anderson) 10:00-10:30 Research and Center Staff (22 Anderson) 10:30-10:45 Break 10:45-11:30 Dean’s and Chair’s Office Staff (22 Anderson) 11:30-12:00 Dean (107A Anderson Hall) 12:00-1:00 Lunch – Review Committee at Faculty Club (or catered to conference room)

  16. Site Visit Afternoon Day 2 1:00-2:30 Review Committee Executive Session (22 Anderson) 2:30-4:00 Exit Discussion (22 Anderson): Dean, CFR; Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, CFR; Chair of the Faculty, CFR; Associate Dean, Office of Undergraduate Education; Provost or representative, Office of the Provost; Vice Provost for Academic Planning, Office of the Provost; Dean, The Graduate School; Associate Dean, Academic Affairs and Planning, The Graduate School; Senior Academic Programs Specialist, The Graduate School 4:00-4:30 Review Committee Debriefing (with the above)

  17. Review Process Timeline • Site Visit • Winter Quarter, 2009 • Review Committee Report (4 weeks) • Spring Quarter, 2009 • CFR’s Response (4 weeks) • Spring Quarter, 2009 • Graduate School Council Review • Autumn Quarter, 2009 (next academic year)

More Related