Institutional Self-Study Design

Institutional Self-Study Design Submitted to: Middle States Commission on Higher Education November 3, 2008 Submitted by: University at Albany State University of New York Table of Contents Nature and Scope of Self-Study .1 Specific Goals and Objectives .2 Organizational Structure of the Self-Study Team Subcommittee Charges and Issues to Address .6 Inventory of Support Documents 30 Timeline 30 Editorial Style and Format of Subcommittee Reports 31 Format of the Self-Study Report 32 Profile of the External Evaluation Team 33 Nature and Scope of Self-Study The University at Albany has evolved rapidly, transforming itself from a distinguished college for teachers, founded in 1844, into a twenty-first century high-quality research University with an internationally recognized and highly productive faculty, an accomplished student body, and nationally recognized academic programs Its traditional missions of undergraduate and graduate teaching, research, and service are distinctively integrated to produce an intellectual and programmatic synergy that defines the University Today, the University at Albany is distinguished by excellence within distinctive disciplines and professions and by extensive scholarship and teaching across disciplines, including many combined accelerated degree options that meld knowledge and application The University’s stature and achievements have greatly accelerated over the self-study period (2000 – present) through increased capital investment, upgrades to its more recent Division I athletics program, and increased outreach and advancement efforts The Middle States reaccreditation process is therefore very much welcomed as a powerful opportunity to demonstrate the evidence behind the University at Albany’s continuing ascent to the upper echelons of American higher education Preparation for the University at Albany’s Self-Study process began in early 2007 when then Officer-in-Charge and Provost and Executive Vice President Susan V Herbst asked Dr Sue Faerman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, and Dr Bruce Szelest, Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness, to attend the November 2007 MSCHE Self-Study Institute By November 2007, Dr Herbst left UAlbany, and George Philip was appointed interim president Interim President George Philip agreed with the recommendation of Drs Faerman and Szelest, developed in consultation with our Middle States’ liaison, Dr Luis Pedraja, that despite a prolonged period of transition in senior campus leadership, the Self-Study process could nonetheless be a valuable vehicle to organize the campus to take stock of its strengths and areas for improvement in preparation for the eventual installment of its next president and leadership team Planning and preparation began soon thereafter and, in May 2008, interim President Philip issued a campus call for University community members to volunteer to participate on one of the various subcommittees that would help to draft the initial Self-Study document Interim President Philip also agreed with recommendations that a comprehensive Self-Study design would best serve the University’s interests at this time The comprehensive model, as stated in the MSCHE Self-Study, creates a useful process that “enables an institution to appraise every aspect of its programs and services, governing and supporting structures, resources, and educational outcomes in relation to the institution’s mission and goals.” This approach will be particularly beneficial in informing the next president about the many aspects of the complex organization that is the University at Albany In order to maximize the efficiency of the working groups, given our historical institutional culture and organizational relationships between faculty and the administration, some accreditation standards were grouped together in the formal selfstudy design, resulting in nine working subcommittees in all The nine subcommittees are: Mission and Goals - Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Institutional Resources Leadership and Governance - Administration (including Library and ITS) Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning Student Admissions and Retention Student Support Services Faculty Educational Offerings - General Education Related Educational Activities The University’s last accreditation occurred in 2000, six years prior to the publication of the current MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, which delineates the newly adopted accreditation standards by which the University at Albany will be judged That said, the University was cognizant of anticipated changes in accreditation standards and new emphases on assessment processes that emerged in the 2002 edition of Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, as well as the added emphasis that Middle States now places on the use of assessment results to inform decision making across the institution and to evaluate student learning objectives The University developed an institutional assessment plan prior to its 2005 Periodic Review Report (PRR) to MSCHE, began assessment of learning outcomes in both the major and in its General Education program in the early 2000s, and incorporated assessment processes across administrative and academic units in the compact planning process instituted by President Kermit Hall in the 2005-06 academic year UAlbany has been without a permanent president since President Hall’s untimely death in August 2006, which is another reason to inventory and assess the many aspects of UAlbany in preparation for the planning processes and action agenda of the next president A comprehensive model is also seen as eminently adaptable, should a new president be chosen sooner rather than later, and can be modified to focus on particular areas of emphasis should the eventual new president deem that approach desirable Specific Goals and Objectives Over the past decade, the University at Albany has experienced the vicissitudes of state financial support and frequent transitions in the upper levels of its administration Current interim President Philip, in consultation with the University Council and the University Senate, looks upon the Middle States’ self-study process as a timely opportunity to review thoroughly all units of the University, to examine our goals, and to examine how we continually assess progress towards achieving those goals Examining our current effectiveness across all aspects of the University, both administrative and academic, will be immensely useful to informing the agenda and planning needs of the next president It has been ten years since the development of the last formal strategic plan, and the University is now under the direction of its fifth chief executive over this time span, and thus we anticipate that the next president will wish to initiate a comprehensive strategic planning process A primary objective of this self-study is to inform that process While the execution of the University’s self-study will certainly identify areas of weakness, it is as important that it be viewed by University leadership as an opportunity to identify areas of resilience and fortitude The University’s goal is to produce a comprehensive and forthright reflection on its current state We fully expect that the resulting recommendations will strengthen the unity of the community, giving it greater insight and renewed purpose for carrying out its mission in the decades ahead Specific Goals and Objectives of the Self-Study Examine and assess the state of the institution’s current mission, goals, policies, procedures, structures, educational and related offerings and activities, research, teaching, assessment mechanisms, and resources Empower a broad University constituency to participate in all aspects of the self-study process to ensure the maximum representation of various constituencies within the University and ownership of the process, its contents, and recommendations Identify the institution’s strengths and weaknesses relative to each of the accreditation standards, in light of the University’s mission and goals Make specific recommendations for improvement, particularly in assessment, planning, and resource allocation processes The nine subcommittees and Steering Committee will be asked to complete the following activities to accomplish these goals and objectives: Review their general charges, the Middle States’ standards of accreditation, and their respective charge questions Further revise, expand, and refine their respective charge questions through the course of their examination, and with input from various facets of the University community Inventory and utilize major reports and planning documents and information generated within each vice presidential area and the schools and college to support analyses and conclusions Gather additional data and information, as needed, to address issues of interest Conduct interviews, focus groups, or surveys, as needed to support the information needs of the self-study process Communicate to and be responsive to the broader University community in addressing issues of import throughout the self-study process, culminating in a final self-study document built through consensus and shared understanding Organizational Structure of the Self-Study Team The University at Albany Middle States self-study effort is led by co-chairs Dr Sue F Faerman, Distinguished Teaching Professor and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, and Dr Steven F Messner, Distinguished Teaching Professor Interim President Philip appointed Drs Faerman and Messner, in consultation with the University Senate, which also assisted by nominating Steering Committee chairs and members Both Drs Faerman and Messner are past chairs of the UAlbany University Senate, and Dr Faerman was the chair of the University’s 2000 Middle States self-study Steering Committee Joining Drs Faerman and Messner on the self-study Steering Committee are the chairs of the nine subcommittees that are charged with examining UAlbany’s compliance with the Middle States standards of accreditation; Dr Reed Hoyt, Associate Professor of Music and the immediate past-chair of the University Senate; Glenn Pichardo, president of the Graduate Student Organization; and Daniel Truchan III, Student Association president Final selection of subcommittee chairs was made by Drs Faerman and Messner, with considered advice from the University Senate Most Steering Committee chairs were chosen from among those who answered interim President Philip’s call for participation However, in some cases, individuals were directly solicited to ensure an appropriate balance among faculty and staff on the Steering Committee As a result, one chair was actively solicited based on his leadership experience and reputation within the program review committee of the Council on Academic Assessment, and two additional subcommittee chairs were selected from nominations of senior faculty put forth by the Governance Council Dr Bruce Szelest, Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness, provides staff support to the Steering Committee and leads efforts to supply the subcommittees with the data and information needed to inform their work Additional staff support is provided by Ms Lana Neveu, Assistant to the President, and Ms Sally Mills, Secretary to the Dean, School of Business Also joining the support staff to the self-study effort is Hirosuke Honda, a graduate assistant from the Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies’ doctoral program, who will be solely dedicated to the self-study effort The Steering Committee will coordinate the work of the nine subcommittees, and provide appropriate guidance so that the subcommittees stay true to the overarching goal of basing all evaluations, policy assertions, and recommendations on data and observable evidence Due to the related nature of several standards of accreditation, particularly within the University at Albany context, it was proposed to and affirmed by the Steering Committee that the first subcommittee address Middle States standards pertaining to mission and goals, as well as standards addressing planning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal The third subcommittee is asked to address leadership and governance, as well as the administration, which also includes an assessment of library and information technology services, as they are critical elements thereof In order to forge a comprehensive discussion of UAlbany’s assessment processes and their use at both the institutional level and across academic and administrative units, the fourth subcommittee is asked to address standards relating to institutional assessment and the assessment of student learning The eighth subcommittee is charged with addressing Middle States standards related to the University’s educational offerings, the discipline-based curricula at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and also those relating to general education, as general education at UAlbany is intricately related and complementary to undergraduate programmatic offerings Because the Middle States’ standard of integrity manifests itself throughout the other thirteen standards, the integrity standard is integrated within each of the content areas To ensure content coverage, each of the eighteen fundamental elements of integrity outlined in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education is assigned to the subcommittee to which it is most closely aligned to stimulate the subcommittee to think about and report on the totality of the activities it is concerned with and the degree to which the University demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing support for academic and intellectual freedom As such, the standards of accreditation as related to integrity are not merely checklists to be covered, but rather themes of ethical and professional conduct than can be assessed in terms of the degree to which the University’s myriad actions to execute its mission mirror its stated policies In May 2008, interim President Philip issued a call for members of the University community to participate in the Middle States self-study process Eighty-seven faculty and staff members answered interim President Philip’s invitation to participate and, with only a few exceptions, volunteers were assigned to their first-choice subcommittee Each subcommittee has been provided with a charge and a guiding set of charge questions, as detailed below, which they will further refine based on additional input from the University community They will also be asked to identify their methodology for addressing the charge questions, as well as generate a list of required resources, both existing and new, needed to answer the charge questions The committees will meet regularly to draft their reports and provide regular updates to the Steering Committee The Steering Committee, through Dr Szelest, will coordinate efforts to obtain additional information, including any additional surveys of University faculty, staff, or students The Steering Committee has overall responsibility for reviewing and responding to the various components of the subcommittees’ reports, including purpose, charge, methodologies and recommendations It will compile the draft subcommittee reports into a comprehensive University-wide draft self-study document The Steering Committee also serves as a liaison to the University community, routinely informing it about the progress being made and ensuring that there is appropriate input from all constituencies The Steering Committee will use a variety of means of communication to ensure community ownership of the self-study process, content, and resulting recommendations, including regular updates to a wiki that has been created to support the self-study process (https://wiki.albany.edu/display/middlestates/Home) Subcommittee Charges and Issues to Address Subcommittee - Mission and Goals - Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Fundamental charge: This subcommittee is asked to review comprehensively UAlbany's compliance with the first two Middle States Standards: Mission and Goals; and Planning, Resource Allocation, and Renewal The work of this subcommittee is particularly important in documenting how effectively the University has functioned and been guided by its core mission and goals during the self-study time-frame (2000 through 2010), during which it experienced numerous transitions in presidential and other senior campus leadership positions, and varied approaches to planning and resource allocation As important, this subcommittee is asked to outline the challenges and opportunities that UAlbany faces in the current higher education environment, both nationally and internationally, and particularly within New York State, given its leadership situation, and to recommend steps and processes that will help ensure the future success of the institution when stable campus leadership eventually assumes the helm Charge questions: How clearly are the University’s mission and goals defined? To what degree are goals consistent with the University’s stated mission, and how are they reflected in the allocation of resources? How extensively the University’s mission and goals focus on student learning, other specific outcomes, and institutional improvement? How effectively UAlbany’s mission and goals support scholarly and creative activity, at levels and of the kinds appropriate to UAlbany's historical standing as a research University? To what extent were the institutional goals and mission developed through collaborative participation by the University community and faculty governance, and in what ways have they been periodically evaluated and formally approved? How effectively are UAlbany’s mission and goals publicized, and how widely known are they by the University community? How effective is the University’s mission in guiding faculty, administration, staff and governing bodies in making decisions related to planning, resource allocation, program and curricular development, and the definition of program outcomes? To what extent has UAlbany’s 1992 mission statement affected (positively and negatively) planning, resource allocation, and program and curricular development across the various levels of the University? To what degree UAlbany’s mission and goals address external as well as internal issues and constituencies? 10 How are the University’s mission and goals used at different levels within UAlbany (e.g., institutional level, by schools/colleges, or by departments), and how effective are they in guiding decision making? 11 How academic and administrative units plan, allocate resources, and renew themselves and how effective are they in those tasks with respect to the university’s mission and goals? 12 To what extent does UAlbany encourage and support academic and administrative units to reflect on their missions, goals, and to change, improve, and renew their programs and services? 13 How has the achievement of UAlbany’s mission and specific goals been assessed since the last self-study, and has this assessment been timely and effective? Issues to keep in mind and weave into discussions: How has the funding context for UAlbany influenced planning and resource allocation over the self-study period? What have been the effects on attempts at institutional renewal? Similarly, how have transitions in executive leadership affected (positively and negatively) UAlbany’s planning processes, resource allocation, and attempts at institutional renewal? To what extent are UAlbany’s mission and goals influenced by external contexts, including SUNY Central Administration policies and practices? Fundamental elements of integrity to weave into discussions: To what degree have changes and issues affecting institutional mission, goals, sites, programs, operations, and other material changes been disclosed accurately and in a timely manner to the institution's community, to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and to other appropriate regulatory bodies? How does UAlbany ensure that factual information about the University, including such information as the Middle States Commission on Higher Education annual institutional profile, the self-study or periodic review report, the team report, and the Commission’s action, is accurately reported and made publicly available to the University's community? Methodologies: This subcommittee will review the available data and documents, beginning with the currently approved mission and University goals School/college and departmental mission statements and goals (perhaps on a sampling basis) will also be reviewed for consistency with the overarching University mission and goals Interviews or requests for process documentation from campus officials such as deans, department chairs, governance chairs, Office of Management and Budget staff, and others involved with planning and resource allocation functions may also be considered Membership: Marcia Sutherland (chair) - Associate Professor and Department Chair, Africana Studies Kathleen Botelho - Personnel Associate, Human Resources Management Cynthia Brady - Assistant to the Vice President, Student Success Ray Bromley - Vice Provost for International Education; Professor, Geography and Planning Mary Fiess - Director of Executive Communications, Office of Media and Marketing Robert Geer - CNSE Vice President for Academic Affairs and CNSE Chief Academic Officer; Professor of Nanoscale Science Jil Hanifan - Director, Writing Center; Lecturer, English Kevin Kinser - Associate Professor, Educational Administration and Policy Studies Elaine Lasda Bergman - Reference Librarian and Bibliographer for Gerontology and Reference, University Libraries David Smith - Associate Professor, Finance Daniel Truchan III – President, Student Association Lynn Videka - Vice President for Research; Professor of Social Welfare Felix Wu - Director, Systems Management and Operations, Information Technology Services Subcommittee - Institutional Resources Fundamental charge: The allocation of resources among programs, units, and individuals is an indicator of institutional priorities and is therefore reflective of the institution’s mission and goals through linkages to financial planning It is expected that through the course of this subcommittee’s work, the University’s methods for reviewing, analyzing, and monitoring: a) resource availability, and b) resource allocation policies and procedures, will be documented and assessed for their adequacy, efficiency and effectiveness Charge questions: How does the University assess and plan for resource availability to the University and its constituent parts? To what extent resource assessment and planning inform annual budget and multi-year projections for the institution, as well as its constituents? What changes, if any, are needed in the resource allocation processes to better support the mission of the University? How are resource allocation policies, procedures, or models developed? How does this process involve stakeholders? How are conflicts among stakeholders addressed during this process? How we know that the decision-making process is conveyed to individuals of all constituents with accuracy and in a timely manner? Do the constituencies regard these processes as transparent and fair? How satisfactory are these policies, procedures, or models for determining the allocation of institutional resources? To what extent are these policies, procedures, and models able to incorporate changes in institutional resources, strategic plans, and priorities of the Universities various constituents? How does the University allocate financial resources to attract and retain graduate students? How has the University assessed past and current practice in order to change its allocation model? How does the University ensure diversity in its graduate student population, and what mechanisms exist for reporting back on our success? How effective are these mechanisms? What has the University identified as factors that affect graduate student success? Are there services and programs to promote graduate student success? How we assess the success of available programs and how have we used this assessment to revise programs and adjust resources? What are the various paths for non-matriculated graduate study provided by UAlbany? How these students use these opportunities? What promotes or limits the success of students who enter programs in non-matriculated status? Data available: Data and published policies include: Admissions policies in the Undergraduate and Graduate bulletins, SUNY five-year enrollment plans, internal campus enrollment management documents; transfer articulation agreements; Retention Committee minutes and annual reports; and assessment reports and retention/attrition data made available by the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness (IRPE) The compact plan and other supporting documentation from the Office of Academic Support Services will also be made available Methodologies: This subcommittee will begin its work by reviewing available admissions policies and procedures, at both the undergraduate and graduate level Review of the Retention Committee’s annual reports and IRPE data will also be invaluable to the subcommittee Additional information may be required, to be determined by the subcommittee, as well as potential interviews with faculty and staff, and with the leaders of various student support offices Membership: Carol Lee Anderson (chair) - Associate Librarian, University Libraries Ligil Abraham - Research Analyst, Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Christine Bouchard - Vice President, Student Success Patricia Chu - Assistant Professor, English Dawn Kakumba - Associate Director, Advisement Services Center Aaron McCloskey - Assistant Director Classified Staff Personnel Operations, Human Resources Management John Murphy - Associate Vice President, Student Success Michael Sattinger - Professor and Department Chair, Economics Joshua Sussman - Student Association Senate Chairman Subcommittee - Student Support Services Fundamental Charge: This subcommittee will determine the variety and scope of student support services, as well as examine the degree of access to these programs, coordination, and contribution made by these programs to the academic, personal, and social development and well being of students Charge Questions: To what extent are student support services available, and to what extent students utilize them? How does the university meet special access needs of, for instance, students who live off campus, transfer students, students with disabilities, international students? How effective are our methods for informing students of available support services both prior to enrollment and when needs arise? How does the university assess the effectiveness of support services? How does it determine which services to initiate, enhance, or reduce? Are the methods for coordinating services effective in avoiding duplication or gaps in service? To what extent the student support services acknowledge and meet the needs of the university’s diverse student population (e.g., international students, older/non-traditional students, graduate students)? To what extent the current services exhibit sensitivity to cultural differences and expectations? What are the services offered for students at academic risk? How effective are these programs in assisting students at academic risk? How are these students identified and notified of services available? Is there an adequate number of qualified professionals to staff the support services required to serve current and projected student populations? How does the University determine the appropriate number of necessary staff? To what extent the existing physical facilities and technology adequately serve current and projected student populations? Are the policies and procedures for addressing student complaints and grievances (pertaining to academic or non-academic matters) effective and known to students? How are these created, updated, assessed and disseminated to students, faculty and professional staff? How are records of student complaints maintained? 10 Are the safety policies and procedures for the campus accessible and known to students? How effective is the process for notifying students, faculty, and staff of emergency procedures, emergency resources and emergency situations? Are the policies and procedures appropriate for the size of the campus? What are the emergency procedures and resources for addressing a wide-impact violent incident or an outbreak of disease? How are these policies and procedures evaluated? 11 What is the current availability of campus housing (both on and off)? How does the university determine access to housing? Do students consider the existing processes for determining housing fair? What will the University to address the increasing demand for student housing (on and off campus)? 12 How effective is the University in working with the community officials and organizations to ensure the safety of students who live in off campus housing? 13 Are the policies, procedures, and resources available for the initiation and continuation of student-run clubs and organizations regularly assessed and modified, as appropriate? How such activities support the mission and goals of the University? 14 Are the policies, procedures, and resources available for the initiation and continuation of recreational, intercollegiate and intramural athletic programs regularly assessed and modified, as appropriate? How such activities support the mission and goals of the University? Data available: UAlbany primary and vice presidential organizational charts; Student Success planning and assessment documents; Student Opinion Survey; Academic Support Services operational policies and procedures, and compact plan; Student Association charter and roster of student groups; Admissions Office promotional materials Methodologies: This subcommittee will begin its work by categorizing and reviewing available information (e.g., academic services and non-academic services) made available by the division for Student Success, and the Enrollment Management office, which includes the Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions offices Interviews with the Student Success leaders about how their offices support student well being and development may also be conducted Membership: Clarence McNeill (chair) - Assistant Vice President for Student Success; Director, Office of Conflict Resolution & Civic Responsibility Joel Bloom - Associate Director, Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Tracy Bohl - Staff Assistant, Office of International Education Mary Jane Brustman - Head, Dewey Library; Bibliographer for Social Welfare and Criminal Justice, University Libraries Pinka Chatterji - Assistant Professor, Economics Courtney D'Allaird - Student Association Representative Lisa Grippo-Gardner - Lecturer, Educational and Counseling Psychology Karen Kettlewell - Assistant Executive Director, University Auxiliary Services Kelly Lamb - Transfer Experience Coordinator, Office of Undergraduate Education Martin Manjak - Information Security Officer, Information Technology Services Suzanne Phillips - Director, Advisement Servcies Center Daniel Smith - Assistant to Vice President for Student Affairs; Director of Student Services, College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Dianne Villar - Residence Hall Director, Student Success Benjamin Weaver - Assistant to the Provost, Academic Affairs Subcommittee - Faculty Fundamental Charge: The goal of this subcommittee is to determine how effectively the University recruits, utilizes, assesses and supports its faculty A quality faculty lies at the heart of a research university, and this subcommittee is charged to assess the extent to which the faculty and other qualified professionals are able to support the University’s programs and assure their continuity and coherence Charge Questions: What steps are being taken to attract and retain high caliber faculty at the University (high caliber to be defined in the response), and how effective have these steps been? How successful has the University been in diversifying its faculty? How comparable is the support of the faculty through grants, leaves, etc to support provided by peer institutions? What processes, in addition to tenure/promotion, are used on a regular basis to evaluate individual performance and provide feedback and follow-up? How well are these processes being translated into practices that improve the University? How does the University measure the productivity of its faculty as scholars and researchers? To what extent does the University support faculty professional development as researchers and as teachers? Are the policies and procedures that govern appointment, promotion, tenure, grievance, discipline and dismissal effective and executed in a timely fashion? Moreover, are they adequately reviewed and followed? How are the appointments of part-time and contingent faculty made? How consistent are practices for appointment and evaluation of these faculty across the University? How does the University award and encourage excellence in research, teaching and service, and how effective are these efforts? 10 How well academic freedom policies work, and how effective is the grievance process? 11 What mechanisms does the University have in place to protect the faculty against potential violence in the classroom? How well these mechanisms coordinate with other campus services to offer training and information to faculty for dealing with potentially harmful situations or abusive students? 12 Has the workload or the balance of the research-teaching-service workload changed in the past 10 years for untenured full-time and part-time faculty compared to that of fulltime tenured or tenure-track faculty? If so, what has been the impact, and what is the desired outcome if we continue the present trend or modify it? 13 How does the pay scale of part-time and full-time contingent faculty compare to tenured and tenure-track faculty, and what are the implications of any differentials? What protections does the University offer its contingent faculty (e.g., job security, academic freedom), and how effective are these protections? 14 To what extent graduate students serve as instructors of record for classes? What is the connection between the teaching obligations of graduate students and the time to degree? How well does the University protect graduate students from being “overused” as teachers? Are these issues governed by formal policies and procedures, and how well these policies and procedures work? 15 What training and support does the University provide for its graduate student teachers? 16 How does the University support and encourage its faculty to become engaged citizens through service to the University and community, and how effective are these efforts? 17 How has the current budget and the absence of sustained leadership at the University affected the ability of the faculty to conduct research, scholarship and teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels? Fundamental elements of integrity to weave into discussions: How does the University ensure that sound ethical practices and respect for individuals exist throughout its teaching, scholarship/research, service, and administrative practices? This would include the avoidance of conflict of interest or the appearance of such conflict in all its activities and among all its constituents How well does the University cultivate a climate of academic inquiry and engagement, supported by widely disseminated policies regarding academic and intellectual freedom? What provisions are in place to ensure commitment to principles of protecting intellectual property rights? Data available: Faculty hiring guidelines; Faculty Handbook; 2007 COACHE survey report on faculty policies and procedures; 2003 HERI faculty survey report; campus policies regarding professional ethics enacted by the University Senate and signed by campus presidents; campus Clery report, internal Clery safety audit, and crime statistics reported by the University Police Department (UPD); tenure and promotion (T&P) guidelines of the Council on Promotion and Tenure (CPCA) and campus tenure and promotion policy; aggregate statistics provided by the Provost’s Office on the number of T&P cases and their disposition over the self-study period; and other data, policies, and reports as requested by the subcommittee Methodologies: This subcommittee will begin its work by reviewing available information made available by the relevant administrative offices and University Senate Councils and committees Interviews with governance leaders and faculty at-large, and with administrative staff may also be conducted Membership: Eric Lifshin (chair) - Professor of Nanoscience; Director, Metrology & Electron Imaging Facilities; Co-Director, Center for Advanced Interconnect Science & Technology (CAIST) Hassaram Bakhru - Professor of Nanoscience; Head of Nanoscience Constellation; Chair, CNSE Faculty Council Laura Benson-Marotta - Research Associate, Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Rita Biswas - Associate Professor, Finance Alison Ciesielski Olin - Operations Officer, School of Education Sharon Dawes - Director, Center for Technology in Governement; Associate Professor, Public Administration Sandra Graff - Director of Personnel Operations, Human Resources Management Glyne Griffith - Associate Professor, and Department Chair, Latin American, Caribbean & U.S Latino Studies Nadieszda Kizenko - Associate Professor, History Lorre Smith - Librarian for Digital Library Initiatives, University Libraries Joette Stefl-Mabry - Assistant Professor, Information Studies; Assistant Research Professor, School of Education Subcommittee - Educational Offerings and General Education Fundamental charge: The University’s educational offerings at the undergraduate and graduate levels are the foundation for the University’s teaching mission This subcommittee will examine the Educational Offerings of UAlbany for the 1) extent to which they support the University’s mission and goals, 2) the appropriateness of their academic scope, content and rigor; 3) balance between the General Education requirements and the requirements of the undergraduate major/minor/interdisciplinary program, and 4) the level of support for current and potential educational offerings Charge Questions: Part I – Educational Offerings How well the current educational offerings, at the undergraduate and graduate level, support the mission and goals of the University? How does the University attempt to ensure that there is an appropriate number of qualified faculty so that students will be able to access the classes they need to complete their undergraduate or graduate degree in a timely manner, and how effective are these efforts? Are there sufficient numbers of qualified faculty to teach the current number of educational offerings? Given University guidelines, how does the understanding of “qualified” faculty differ across disciplinary areas and departments, and is the University able to draw upon the expertise available in the larger external community? How clearly have the expected learning outcomes of each of the educational offerings been defined and made known to current and prospective students? How does the University assess the extent to which students are meeting the learning objectives? How does it ensure that the measures are valid and reliable? What mechanisms are in place to identify and ameliorate academic difficulties of students? How does the University support faculty and programs wishing to make instructional and/or curricular improvements, and how effective is such support? Are there quality opportunities for interdisciplinary study available to students, and how well are these opportunities supported by the institution? Do current degree programs contain sufficient content, rigor and depth, and is there a clear distinction between undergraduate and graduate education? To what extent the educational offerings of undergraduate and graduate programs foster a coherent student learning experience? 10 How effectively does the University provide knowledge, skills and tools, and physical resources to use available information, new technology, and media for study, teaching, and research? 11 Are there sufficient learning resources such as library collections and facilities and information technology staffed by qualified professionals to support relevant academic activities at the graduate and undergraduate levels? 12 How well the institution’s extra-curricular (out-of-class lectures, study abroad programs) and co-curricular (service-learning, out-of-class lectures) offerings contribute to the overall curriculum? Are these opportunities widely available, well known, and valuable to students? 13 How clear are the policies and procedures for comparing graduate and undergraduate academic credits from other institutions? 14 How responsive are educational offerings to non-traditional students, adult learners, distance learners, and students with disabilities? 15 How effective are processes intended to foster and support the development of innovative educational offerings to meet changing needs? Part II – General Education To what degree are students provided with a well-rounded, quality, liberal arts education? How well does the General Education program support the mission and goals of the University? How sufficient are the number and variety of General Education courses to enable students to complete the requirements in a timely fashion? If General Education requirements present barriers, what mechanisms are in place to overcome these barriers? Is there an appropriate number of qualified faculty to teach General Education Courses, and is the composition of that faculty (e.g., tenure-track, non-tenure track, teaching assistants, etc.) appropriate? What opportunities students have to integrate their General Education program skills into their degree and certificate programs so that they can become more proficient in these skills within the context of their chosen fields, and are these opportunities sufficient? Is there an appropriate balance for students between general knowledge requirements of the General Education program and more specialized knowledge within chosen programs? How does the University measure that balance? How clearly have the expected learning outcomes of each of the educational offerings been defined and made known to current and prospective students? How has assessment been used to improve the General Education program? What are the mechanisms available to faculty and programs for introducing new courses or making instructional and/or curricular improvements to existing General Education courses, and these mechanisms receive sufficient support? Fundamental elements of integrity to weave into discussions: Are required and elective courses sufficiently available to allow students to graduate within the published program length? Is there reasonable, continuing student access to paper or electronic catalogs? When catalogs are available only electronically, does the University’s web page provide a guide or index to catalog information for each catalog available electronically, and are catalogs appropriately archived when sections or policies are updated? Data available: Basic data and reports to support the work of this subcommittee include items such as a roster of programs, by degree level, faculty headcounts by department or programmatic area, student/faculty ratios, departmental self-studies, and details about governance processes for addressing curricular matters The General Education assessment plan, as well as the University’s plan for Strengthened Campus-Based Assessment (SCBA) will also be made available, as well reports from the Council on Academic Assessment’s General Education Assessment Committee Methodologies: In addition to the initial data and reports to be made available to the subcommittee, the subcommittee will develop a listing of additional data and reports it requires to address the charge questions The subcommittee will also interview faculty and staff who have served on governance committees with purviews for curricular oversight and development, such as the Undergraduate Academic Council (UAC) and the Graduate Academic Council (GAC), the Council on Academic Assessment (CAA), and their committees, such as the General Education Committee, and/or the Academic Program Review Committee and the General Education Assessment Committee; as well as other University officials such as the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, as appropriate Membership: Karyn Loscocco (chair) - Professor, Sociology Mary Applegate - Assistant Professor, Health Policy and Management; Associate Dean, School of Public Health Gregory Bobish - Senior Assistant Librarian, University Libraries Gerald Burke - Bibliographer of Humanities, University Libraries Bruce Dieffenbach - Associate Professor, Economics Anne Hildreth - Associate Professor, Political Science Trudi Jacobson - Head of User Education Programs Richard Matyi - Professor, Nanoscience Constellation Christopher Moore - Instructional Developer, Information Technology Services Kellen Recquet - Student Association Representative Anita Rua - Academic Advisor, Advisement Services Center Gladys Santiago-Tosado - Senior Academic Counselor, Educational Opportunity Program Helene Scheck - Associate Professor, English; Director of English and Medieval/Renaissance Studies Programs Subcommittee – Related Educational Activities Fundamental charge: This subcommittee will determine 1) the extent to which related education activities support the mission and goals of the University; 2) if sufficient mechanisms are in place to demonstrate that activities contain sufficient content, rigor and depth in accordance with their purpose; and 3) whether they relate to and enhance the core educational offerings of the University Charge Questions: How are related educational activities defined at UAlbany? How well the related educational activities support the mission and goals of the University? How does the University determine that its related educational activities are appropriate for its particular student population? What are the mechanisms in place to assess the appropriateness, scope and rigor of related educational activities, and how effective are these mechanisms? How well are related educational activities integrated into the overall educational experience of the student? How clear are the policies and procedures that govern the introduction and administration of these related activities? How related educational activities benefit or enhance program and department core educational offerings? What mechanisms are in place to identify students that may benefit from or need certain types of related educational activities? How does the University know that the activities are meeting the needs of the students they were designed to meet? What procedures are in place to determine that related educational activities are offered by qualified faculty or professional staff? 10 How adequately supported are related educational activities by professional staff, administration, and how adequate are campus resources such as library holdings, meeting space, or access to technology for these activities? 11 How the goals of related educational activities relate to student learning outcomes? What mechanisms are in place to regularly assess related educational activities, and how effective are these mechanisms? 12 What impact does the involvement of students in related educational activities have on academic performance, retention and graduation rates? 13 If related educational activities are contracted out, how is the institution ensuring academic integrity and consistency with its mission and goals? 14 What procedures are in place for departments and programs to introduce new related educational activities to meet the changing needs of its students? Data available: Basic data and reports to support the work of this subcommittee include items such as an inventory of related educational offerings, number of students served, and a brief description of each These items will be expanded to include any additional data items requested by this subcommittee through the course of its work Methodologies: This subcommittee will review the available data and documents, and may interview campus officials responsible for overseeing educational programs that fall under this category Membership: Lisa Trubitt (chair) - Assistant to the CIO, Information Technology Services Joseph Aini - Assistant Director, Career Services Barbara Altrock - Assistant Director Professional Staff Personnel Operations, Human Resources Management Stacey Berkins - Student Association Representative Jane Domaracki - Staff Associate, Educational & Counseling Psychology Jeffrey Gerken - Assistant Director, Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Deborah LaFond - Social Sciences Bibliographer, University Libraries Eugene Monaco - Public Service Professor and Executive Director Professional Development Program, Rockefeller College Maria Panayotou - Academic Advisor, Advisement Services Center Jerusalem Rivera-Wilson - Senior Faculty Associate and Director of Clinical Training and Field Experiences, Educational Theory and Practice Christine Smith - Assistant Director of Graduate Admissions Services; Assistant to the Dean of Graduate Studies Inventory of Support Documents This section will detail the identification of data reports, policies, and other documents to support the work of subcommittees This inventory is intended to grow appreciably as the self-study process gets underway, and will be continually updated All support documents will be made electronically available to all subcommittee and Steering Committee members via the self-study web resources page, which will be maintained by the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Timeline The following comprehensive timeline will serve as a guide for the Steering Committee and the nine subcommittees, and also to inform the University community of important milestones to encourage all University faculty, staff, and students who wish to stay abreast of and/or provide input into the self-study process the opportunity to so in timely manner May 2008 Broadcast e-mail from interim President Philip soliciting nominations for subcommittees June 2008 Interim President Philip announces working subcommittee and Steering Committee assignments; charges provided to subcommittees Summer 2008 Subcommittees meet electronically or in-person to organize around their charges Summer 2008 Administrative offices begin to gather/produce data and information needed by subcommittees September 2008 MSCHE liaison visits campus, meet with president, University Council, and Steering Committee about self-study design and development Submit self-study design to MSCHE September December 2008 Subcommittees involve various campus constituencies, as appropriate, in their work Regular progress reports and drafts to be submitted to the Steering Committee October 2008 MSCHE selects evaluation team chair, UA approves; site visit dates for evaluation team and chair's preliminary visit scheduled; study design sent to evaluation team chair January - May 2009 Subcommittees continue to involve campus community, as appropriate, in their work Monthly progress reports and drafts to be submitted to the Steering Committee May - August 2009 Steering Committee compiles draft reports from subcommittees and develops draft self-study August September 2009 Substantial draft of self-study to be completed September October 2009 October November 2009 Review and comment on self-study report by campus community and University Council External evaluation team chair to review as well UAlbany formally prepares final version of self-study December 2009/ Evaluation team chair makes preliminary visit to UAlbany January 2010 January - February MSCHE selects evaluation team, UAlbany approves 2010 February 2010 UAlbany sends self-study to evaluation team and MSCHE six weeks prior to visit February 2010 UAlbany appoints and charges a hospitality logistics committee for the evaluation team visit (IT needs, transportation, airport/hotel pickups, etc.) March/April 2010 Evaluation team visits May 2010 Evaluation team report provided to campus June/July 2010 UAlbany response to evaluation team report submitted Summer 2010 MSCHE Committee on Evaluation Reports meets, and Commission action is rendered Editorial Style and Format of Subcommittee Reports All documents presented to Middle States will be editorially reviewed by the Steering Committee and support staff to ensure consistency in format, voice, and style Each subcommittee is requested to follow the format guidelines listed below to facilitate the creation of the final report: Software: Spacing: Font: Margins: Headings: Paragraphs: Length: Editorial Style: Microsoft Word 2003 Single spaced Times New Roman (12 pt) 1” top, bottom and sides Heading style Block style, left-justified 10 to 15 pages, except for subcommittees 1, 3, 4, and 8, which may expand to 20 to 30 pages to accommodate their multi-standard charges Third person, present tense, active voice, parsimonious text Guiding principle: Limit opinion, base all assertions on fact, as supported (and cited) by evidence provided in appendices The comprehensive self-study report will be initially edited by the self-study co-chairs and support staff, and will then be returned to the subcommittees for review Changes and suggestions from the subcommittees will be considered and incorporated into the document to the extent possible and, when not accommodated, reasonable explanations shall be provided The second draft will be made available to the Steering Committee and to all members of the subcommittees Additional comments for improvement will again be solicited, and accommodated to the extent possible Reasonable explanations will once again be provided for any suggestions not incorporated A third draft of the self-study will be posted on the University’s self-study home page on the world wide web for the campus community to review and comment on Notice will also be provided on the self-study website that hard copy of the draft self-study is available in the University Libraries, at both the uptown and downtown campuses Further comments received from the University community will be incorporated into the self-study as appropriate, and the Steering Committee will be provided with the reasons for not incorporating particular feedback All evidential reports and supporting documents used to develop the self-study will be made available to the University community and to the eventual external review team Format of the Self-Study Report The University will prepare its final Self-Study report according to the format outlined below: I Executive Summary II Overview of the Self-Study Process III Major Findings and Recommendations IV Institutional Profile V Chapter – Mission and Goals - Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations VI Chapter - Institutional Resources Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations VII Chapter - Leadership and Governance - Administration (including Library and ITS) Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations VIII Chapter - Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations IX Chapter - Student Admissions and Retention Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations X Chapter - Student Support Services Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations XI Chapter - Faculty Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations XII Chapter - Educational Offerings - General Education Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations XIII Chapter - Related Educational Activities Overview Analysis of Subcommittee Charges Summary of Findings Recommendations XIV Conclusion XV Index of Recommendations XVI Inventory of Supporting Documents XVII Appendices Profile of the External Evaluation Team The University at Albany suggests that the visiting evaluation team include faculty and administrators drawn from public research universities external to New York State For purposes of planning, UAlbany has developed a list of current peers and aspirational peers, which we include here, to give Middle States a sense of the institutions we use in assessing our academic effectiveness Current peers outside of New York State: Georgia Institute of Technology, Northern Illinois University, Old Dominion University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Connecticut, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, the University of Houston at University Park, the University of Vermont, and the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Aspirational peers outside of New York State: the University of California at Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz; the University of Oregon, and the University of Virginia Additional public research universities in the Middle States region from which members of the evaluation team would appropriately be drawn include: University of Delaware, University of Pittsburgh, Rutgers University – New Brunswick, and Temple University UAlbany would also like to request that the Chair of the Evaluation Tram be an experienced team chair, presidential level and from a peer or aspirational peer institution, or other institution with similar characteristics Faculty on the Evaluation Team members should include individuals with traditional arts and sciences backgrounds, as well as individuals from professional schools comparable to those at UAlbany In addition, UAlbany requests that several of the evaluation team members have some experience with the challenges associated with managing complex partnerships across sectors, i.e., managing major campus operations that involve government and private industry, as well as the campus Finally, we would like to request that several of the evaluation team members have experience with operating a multi-campus university ... meet with president, University Council, and Steering Committee about self-study design and development Submit self-study design to MSCHE September December 2008 Subcommittees involve various... - Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Institutional Resources Leadership and Governance - Administration (including Library and ITS) Institutional Assessment and Assessment... of the self-study process Communicate to and be responsive to the broader University community in addressing issues of import throughout the self-study process, culminating in a final self-study