1 / 11

Report from the Ad Hoc Institute Review Committee (IRC)

Report from the Ad Hoc Institute Review Committee (IRC). J. Jospeh Hoey, Ed.D. Director of Assessment Office of Assessment Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0325 404.894.0510 404.385.1421 fax joseph.hoey@oars.gatech.edu. T. Russell Gentry, Ph.D., PE

bob
Download Presentation

Report from the Ad Hoc Institute Review Committee (IRC)

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. Report from the Ad HocInstitute Review Committee (IRC) J. Jospeh Hoey, Ed.D. Director of Assessment Office of Assessment Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0325 404.894.0510 404.385.1421 fax joseph.hoey@oars.gatech.edu T. Russell Gentry, Ph.D., PE Associate Professor College of Architecture Architecture Program / AWPL Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0155 404.894.3845 404.894.0572 fax russell.gentry@arch.gatech.edu Presented 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech Executive Board Meeting Russell Gentry, Architecture Joseph Hoey, Office of Assessment

  2. Outline • Background • Institute Review Committee • IRC Recommendations for the Future • Hughes/Green Proposal • IRC and CIAPRA • IRC Operations going forward

  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

  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

  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.

  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.

  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.

  8. IRC Role going Forward • Infrastructure: provide templates, instructions, flowcharts, and schedules for program review • Liaison: act as a bridge between the program review process and the individual units undergoing review • 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) • Curriculum Review: Provide or enable curriculum review of undergraduate and graduate components as appropriate. • 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.

  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

  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”.

More Related