Report of the Joint Task Force on Academic Prioritization Mike Eichholz (eichholz@siu.edu )
Natasha Zaretsky (Co-Chair, History ) Mike Eichholz (Co-Chair, Zoology ) Sarah Lewison (Chair of the Qualitative Subcommittee, Radio, Television, and Digital Media ) Julie Partridge (Chair of the Uniqueness Subcommittee, Kinesiology ) Tomas Velasco (Chair of the Quantitative Subcommittee, Engineering Technology ) Gary Apgar ( Animal Science ) Amanda Barnard ( Graduate Student ) Amy Boren ( Agriculture ) Sandra Collins ( Allied Health ) Judy Davie ( Molecular Biology, Microbiology, and Biochemistry ) William Drennan ( Law ) Johnathan Flowers ( Graduate Student ) Boyd Goodson ( Chemistry ) Darla Karnes ( Accounting ) Michael May ( Special Education ) Scott McEathron ( English ), Richard McKinnies ( Allied Health ) Aldo Migone ( Physics ) Prema Narayan ( Physiology ) Marcus Odom ( Accounting ) Cinzia Padovani ( Radio, Television, and Digital Media ) Charles Ruffner ( Forestry ) Mark Schultz ( Law ) Alison Watts ( Economics ) Peggy Wilken ( Health, Education and Recreation ) Wanli Zhao ( Finance ) Linda McCabe Smith ( ex-officio ) Jim Allen (ex-officio )
Received Charge and held our first meeting on 2 December 2015 During meeting Natasha and myself were selected as co-chairs 3 Sub-committees were formed to meet independently of the group Quantitative Sub-committee Qualitative Sub-committee Sub-committee on Identification of Characteristics Unique to SIUC * University mission: “SIU embraces a tradition of access and opportunity, inclusive excellence, innovation in research and creativity, and outstanding teaching focused on nurturing student success. As a nationally ranked public research university and regional economic catalyst, we create and exchange knowledge to shape future leaders, improve our communities , and transform lives.”
Entire committee met approximately every 3 weeks with Sub- committees meeting between Committee meetings The Qualitative Sub-committee and Sub-committee on Identification of Characteristics Unique to SIUC eventually joined
Criteria can be partitioned into 2 categories Quantitative – Criteria for which data are or will be available from a data system Scoring for quantitative criteria will be based on the mean ± SD > 1 SD from the mean exceptional Within 1 SD of the mean meets expectations < 1 SD from the mean below expectations Qualitative – Criteria that are important for program prioritization but are not available in a specific data system (data will come form questionnaire, Appendix B) Scoring for qualitative criteria will be based on a subjective score made by the Provosts office based on a questionnaire that will be submitted to the Chairs and Program Directors (exceptional, meets expectations, below expectations).
Each criteria for each program will be scored either Exceptional (1), Meets Expectations (0), or Below Expectations (-1) Strengths o Allows quantifiable and qualitative criteria to be combined into same scoring system o Appropriate precision for qualitative criteria Weaknesses o To broad for quantitative criteria o May not provide adequate separation among programs Criteria were weighted by importance as determined by consensus of the committee Either total score or average score will be used by the Provost’s Office as a prioritization metric
Discussed as a committee who should vote to approve final report (JTF or Faculty Senate and Graduate Council) Concluded, because FS and GC did not receive the benefit of almost 9 months of discussion, it made more sense for the JTF to vote on the final document. Recommend the FS and GC develop resolutions describing their support YES = 22 NO = 1 (Didn’t feel like the constituent groups received adequate time to provide input) ABSTAIN = 2 (Non-academic prioritization should be conducted and completed prior to academic prioritization)
Weighting 46% = Criteria the IBHE (and others) believe are important External Demand = 11% Financial Efficiency = 15% Internal Demand = 12% Student Success = 8% 54% = Criteria important for supporting high performing faculty and students, provide unique value to the university’s mission, maintain program diversity, support the region. Importance of Program to University Mission & Uniqueness = 8% Faculty research and creative activity = 15% Faculty Teaching = 15% Contribution to Diversity = 10% Regional Sustainability / Community Engagement = 6%
Stipulations and Concerns Currently no data available for: Faculty Research and Creative Activity “The JTF believes strongly that this document should not be used as a basis for either short- or long-term program prioritization or modifications until all data for all criteria identified in the document are available .” Activity Insight: clear d irection from the VCR and Provost’s office as to the specific data that should be entered into the program provided and, Recommend the Provost’s office or VCR hire undergraduate students to input data based on faculty CVs Use most recent 5 years of data for all criteria when available
Testing Lack of data prevented us from fully testing the scoring process Provosts office should conduct tests with small group of programs to ensure proper performance Score – 1 standard deviations vs 2 standard deviations Weighting
Criterion 1 Student Demand: 11 - Application data External % Demand Criterion 2.1 External Revenue: - Dollar value of external grants - Dollar amount of fund raising - Dollar amount of endowments - Dollar value of in-kind gifts - Level of alumni engagement Financial Efficiency 15% Criterion 2.2 Costs and Revenues: - Total Cost (Expenditure of $) / # of student credit-hours generated by the Program - Total Income = Total Revenues - Total Expenses - Profit/Loss Ratio = Total Revenues / Total Expenses
Criterion 3.1 Trends for Majors: - Number of student credit-hours taught by the program per year - Number of students enrolled in the program per year as Primary Major. - Number of students enrolled in the program per year as Secondary, Tertiary, Quaternary majors. Internal 12% Demand Criterion 3.2 Trends for Non-Majors: - Number of student credit-hours (from non-majors) taught by the program per year - Number of students enrolled in the program per year as minors, certificates, general education, or service purposes.
Criterion 4.1 Alumni Perceptions: - Data from most recent program review for undergraduate and graduate students separately. Criterion 4.2 Persistence and Graduation: - Number of graduates in the program per year as Primary Major/# enrolled at the ≥ 60 credit hour level - Number of graduates in the program per year as Primary Major. Student - Number of graduates in the program per year as Secondary, Success Tertiary, Quaternary majors, or minors. 8% - Number of graduates in the program per year as Secondary, Tertiary, Quaternary majors, or minors/# enrolled at the ≥ 60 credit hour level - Number of students graduating (Primary + Secondary + Tertiary + Quaternary) per year / Estimated Full-Time Equivalent Faculty Criterion 4.3 Student Engagement - from questionnaire question 3: Criterion 4.4 Student Recognition - from questionnaire question 1:
Question 3 (corresponds to criterion 4.3 - Student Engagement): Please provide, in table format, trends in student engagement in curricular and co-curricular activities (e.g., internships, Research Rookies, service learning, Study Abroad, etc.). Be sure to include both number of students involved and a brief description of outcomes of activities. Question 1 (Corresponds to Criterion 6.1 - Exemplary Recognition and Criterion 4.4 - Student Recognition): Please provide, in table format, forms of recognition (e.g., honors and awards) the faculty and students bring to the program and institution in the area of professional and public service and other exemplary performance. Examples: Number and quality of awards for professional, institutional, and public service and - exemplary service received by program faculty - Number of awards obtained by students and reasons. - Number of licenses obtained by students and brief descriptions. - Number of certifications obtained by students and brief descriptions. - Offices held in professional organizations.
Criterion 5.1 Teaching Centrality: - Student Credit-Hours from outside Program / Total # of Student Credit-Hours generated by the program - Student Credit-Hours from non-core curriculum courses Importance taught by the Program / Total # of Student Credit-Hours of Program generated by the program to 8% University Criterion 5.2 Research and Artistry (students) - from Mission & questionnaire question 4: Uniqueness Criterion 5.3 Uniqueness of the Program - from questionnaire question 5:
Recommend
More recommend
