Report from the Ad Hoc Institute Review Committee (IRC) T. Russell Gentry, Ph.D., PE Associate Professor College of Architecture Architecture Program

Report from the Ad HocInstitute Review Committee (IRC)

T. Russell Gentry, Ph.D., PEAssociate Professor

College of ArchitectureArchitecture Program / AWPLAtlanta, Georgia 30332-0155

404.894.3845404.894.0572 [email protected]

Presented 8 April 2003

Georgia Tech Executive Board Meeting

Russell Gentry, Architecture

Joseph Hoey, Office of Assessment

J. Jospeh Hoey, Ed.D.Director of Assessment

Office of AssessmentGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, Georgia 30332-0325

404.894.0510404.385.1421 [email protected]

Ronald Arkin

Kent Barefield

Brent Carter

Russell Gentry

Mark Guzdial

Joseph Hoey

Jeff Jagoda

Jim McClellan

John McIntyre

Farrokh Mistree

Gary Parker

Steve Usselman

Paul Wine

Brian Woodall

Computing

Chemistry

MSE

Architecture

Computing (IUCC Liaison)

Office of Assessment

Aerospace (GCC Liaison)

ECE

Management

Mechanical Engineering

ISYE

HTS

Chemistry

International Affairs

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia

TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 2

Outline

• Background

• Institute Review Committee

• IRC Recommendations for the Future

• Hughes/Green Proposal

• IRC and CIAPRA

• IRC Operations going forward



Background: GT Experience with Program Review

• SACS visit problems in 1994 and 1998 – certain programs on campus are not being assessed

• IUCC and GCC not reviewing curriculum per statutory requirements in 1980’s and 1990’s – no process in place to enable this review

• Board of Regents Mandate in 2000 – periodic program review required

• Dean Rosser report recommends formation of IRC

• IRC formed as an ad-hoc appointed committee with two year life



IRC Operations: Fall 2001 to Spring 2003

• 8 members on the IRC with the Director of Assessment acting as Chair

ROLE

• Develop infrastructure: schedules, templates, procedures

• Police/enable the process

• Liaison with colleges and schools

• Assess the process: How is it working and how can it be improved?

• April 15 summary presentations



IRC Requests to EB

• Late Fall 2002: If IRC operations are to go forward, then the EB will need to appoint additional members to the IRC (operational)

• Spring 2003: Disband IRC – its mission is complete (strategic)

IRC members feel that the committee need not continue if its role is solely to administer the program review process – this is an administrative function that is well-handled by the Office of Assessment.



Hughes/Green Proposal

• Expand IRC role to assist with the curriculum review

• Charge IRC with condensing and commenting on review materials and providing a summary for the Provost’s use

• IRC to become a faculty committee or standing sub-committee of the curriculum committee(s)

IRC Reaction:

Generally positive. Role of curriculum review piece and IUCC/GCC interaction needs clarification.



Future Operations: IRC and CIAPRA

• CIAPRA: Council on Institutional Accreditation, Program Review, and Assessment• High level committee – administrators, organized to address

SACS and other Institute-wide issues• Policy-level advice to the Provost• Ability to look across the program review process to identify

problems and opportunities

• IRC: Institute Review Committee

Support policy-making functions of CIAPRA within the context of periodic program review and the scope of the IRC charter.



IRC Role going Forward

1. Infrastructure: provide templates, instructions, flowcharts, and schedules for program review

2. Liaison: act as a bridge between the program review process and the individual units undergoing review

3. Policing: Set dates for key milestones in the program review process and ensure that elements of the program review are routed to and received from appropriate members of the GT community (Deans, IUCC, GCC, Office of Assessment, CIAPRA, Provost)

4. Curriculum Review: Provide or enable curriculum review of undergraduate and graduate components as appropriate.

5. Synthesis: Provide a final synthesis of each program review that reflects key findings and recommendations from the elements of program review: (1) self-study, (2) external visitors’ report, (3) Dean’s letter, and (4) curriculum review report.



IRC Makeup

• Minimum of 8 members, one from each college with one additional from Engineering

• Ability to add additional members during years when a large number of programs are undergoing review (minimum 2 members for each program review)

• Liaison members from IUCC, GCC, and CIAPRA

• Membership for 3 years with 1/3 rotating off each year

• Director of Assessment to chair committee with a faculty co-chair



EB Decision-Making

• Elected or appointed committee?• Position within faculty governance structure?• Relationship with IUCC and GCC?

• Two roles of collaboration at expressed preference of IUCC and IGC: (1) IRC forwards curriculum-related information to curriculum committees who review the curriculum component and report back to the IRC or (2) the curriculum committees appoint liaison members who sit on the IRC and complete the curriculum review component “in house”.

Dean Reviews SelfStudy

Dean's Responseto External Report

IRC InformsUnits of Upcoming

ReviewMarch Year -1

IRC Liaison toUnit

Kick-off MeetingApril Year -1

Unit AssemblesSelf-Study

Document andIdentifies Visiting

TeamNovember Year 0

External Reviewers

1. Review Self-Study2. Site Visit3. Write Report

February Year 0 Note (1)

Dean Transmit Self-Study to IRC

January Year 0

Dean Transmits RemainingMaterials to IRC

1. External Report2. Unit Response3. Dean Response

March Year 0

IUCCreviews

undergraduatecurriculum

GCCreviews

undergraduatecurriculum

Institute ReviewCommittee1.Reviews Documentation2. Hosts Unit Presentations3. Synthesize Findings4. Report to:

ProvostEBCIAPRABoard of Regents

April Year 0

Program Review ProcessInstitute Review Committee (IRC)

8 April 03

NOTES:(1) In many cases, the external review team isselected by a national accrediting agency and visitsat a time of its own choosing. It is hoped thatexternal review reports will be available by March .If this is not the case, then the review summarymay not be complete until the Fall of Year +1.

Board of RegentsReport

Provost/CIAPRASummary Report

Academic FacultyReport

Reports Forwarded to Unit for Annual Reviews and for Future Program Reviews

Documents

Report from the Ad Hoc Institute Review Committee (IRC) T. Russell Gentry, Ph.D., PE Associate Professor College of Architecture Architecture Program