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
IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 3
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 Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 4
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 Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 5
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.
IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 6
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.
IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 7
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 Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 8
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 Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 9
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
IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003Georgia
TechCollege ofArchitecture Pg. 10
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