1 / 34

KEY ELEMENTS IN THE APPRAISAL BRIEF

KEY ELEMENTS IN THE APPRAISAL BRIEF. David Leyton-Brown Executive Director OCGS. Member Institutions of OCGS. Unit of Analysis. Appraisal of the Graduate Program Not the administrative unit (i.e. department, school). Template. Follow the template Not a previous brief. The Program.

flo
Download Presentation

KEY ELEMENTS IN THE APPRAISAL BRIEF

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. KEY ELEMENTS IN THE APPRAISAL BRIEF David Leyton-BrownExecutive Director OCGS

  2. Member Institutions of OCGS

  3. Unit of Analysis • Appraisal of the Graduate Program • Not the administrative unit (i.e. department, school)

  4. Template • Follow the template • Not a previous brief

  5. The Program • A coherent program of study and research • Academic content and appropriate requirements • Curriculum • Different than undergraduate education

  6. Characteristics of Graduate Education • Advanced • not undergraduate; based on some prior level • Focused • discipline/field/issue (depth) • Scholarly • critical analysis of existing knowledge • creation of new knowledge

  7. Research Component • A graduate level research component is essential • Must be demonstrated • Analytical/interpretive skills • Even in: • professional programs • coursework-only programs

  8. Faculty Provide intellectual leadership in the disciplinary area(s) of the program • Research active • Peer reviewed publication • Research funding • Graduate education involvement • Supervision – experience and activity • Program activities (intellectual community)

  9. Faculty Data • CV (OCGS format or approved alternative) • Faculty By Field Table • Category 1, Category 3

  10. Fields “The public declaration of an area of research strength (or an area of concentration or an area of specialization …..) within a program, and represents an area that a university wishes to advertise within a given discipline or program.”

  11. Fields 2 “The characteristic and distinctive strengths for which the program wishes to be known, and for which it is appraised”

  12. Fields 3 For appraisal purposes any such is considered to be a field, whatever term is used: • Streams • Subfields • Areas • Sub-areas • Concentrations • Specializations • Themes • Options

  13. Fields 4 The duck test • If it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!

  14. Fields 5 • Only three levels of analysis in the appraisal process • Program • Field • Individual (professor, course, etc.) • No such thing as a subfield in the appraisal process • If it is an area or strength in the program that the university wants to advertise, for appraisal purposes it is a field

  15. Fields 6 Truth in Advertising • If a student enters the program because of the promise of strength in their particular area of interest, they had better find that strength when they arrive • Strength • Faculty • Courses • Fellow students • Intellectual activities

  16. Fields 7 How many faculty? • Critical mass – supervision, teaching, intellectual community • 1 is not enough • 2 is not enough • 3? 4? 5? …. • No benefit in maximizing the number of fields

  17. Fields 8 Field Names • Simple, descriptive, coherent • No residual categories (e.g. “other ….”) • Single field names not the same as the program • Exceptions – onus on program to establish

  18. Fields 9 • Master’s program – optional • Doctoral program - mandatory

  19. Fields 10 Identify and approve explicitly in appraisal • Standard • Periodic • Can propose new/changed fields at any time

  20. Fields 11 Consequences of field identification • CAN include a faculty member whose expertise is not in one of the fields • CAN offer a course outside the fields • CAN permit a student to write a thesis on a subject outside the fields • But not explicitly recruit the student to do so • CAN name each faculty member’s expertise • CANNOT advertise other program strengths

  21. Outcomes • Learning objectives and learning outcomes • Student data • Completion rates and times to completion • External scholarships and awards • Outputs – productivity, quality, success • Publications – from thesis research • First employment or further study • Awards

  22. Objectives (10.1.2) • Degree level expectations (how demonstrate) • Nature of graduate education experience • Intended career preparation • Learning objectives • What do you want your students to learn or be able to do by the time they complete the program? • How will you know if they have/can?

  23. Undergraduate-Graduate Courses (10.4.4) “The number of undergraduate courses, or combined courses in which undergraduate students predominate, should be no more than one third of the total course requirement for the degree” • Program requirements – i.e. maximum number of combined courses • Course enrolment data • Number of graduate courses offered

  24. 10.4.4 2 The issue • Quality of the graduate learning experience • NOT the level of the material covered • Presume additional requirements, graduate standards

  25. 10.4.4 3 FINANCIAL PRESSURES ARE NO EXCUSE • Line in the sand • Necessary level of resource commitment if the university wants a graduate program

  26. Consultants • In all standard and periodic appraisals • Benefits - provide feedback • 2 for master’s • Normally 2 (perhaps 3) for doctoral • Committee’s questions to consultants • Helpful to provide material to consultants (and Committee)

  27. Consultants 2 • Joint visits – “joint visits are the norm, provided the university is able to organize them expeditiously” • Individual or joint reports • In theory the university has the option to request a joint report or individual reports • In practice the consultants decide – usually joint

  28. Consultants 3 Response to consultants’ report(s) • University response, not program response • Respond – don’t cherry-pick or cheerlead • Address all the consultants’ points • Address Committee questions (if needed)

  29. Distance Delivery • Section 31 • Information required • Face to face component – community of scholars

  30. Interdisciplinarity • Assure faculty availability • Effect on home program(s)? • Truth in advertising • Deliver what you claim • Financial support • Especially TAs – spillover effects?

  31. Part-Time • Section 10.4.3 • Principle – content and educational experience should not be inferior to that for full-time students • Time path – mapping progress through the program

  32. Admission Requirements • Section 10.4.2 • Doctoral-steam (research) master’s • Honours degree – four year • Professional master’s • Four year degree or equivalent • Exceptional admission • State criteria • Report on proportion admitted exceptionally

  33. Graduate Diplomas • Section 20 • Types • Type 1 • Type 2 • Type 3 • Type 4 • Information required

  34. Irritants • Denial • Concerns expressed in the previous appraisal • Major issues – elephant in the room • Sloppiness • Tables and text don’t match • Required data incomplete

More Related