The University has indicated the intention to move as many professional programs as possible to self support on the basis of a combination of matriculation and professional fees (see rec. 1). As a result, enrollment planning has become an increasingly critical component of institutional survival; however, the University’s Office of Institutional Research has fallen into disarray, and the analysis of student data now resides in the Registrar’s Office. Enrollment planning currently manifests itself in recruitment and retention efforts (page 7; see rec. 2).

With 271 of the University’s 680 faculty members . . . the College [of Arts and Sciences] offers more than 80 different degree programs to roughly 5,000 students, or about 40 percent of the University’s total enrollment. The Interim Dean has initiated a review of all programs with the intention of obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of the state of the College. The University’s program review process has not functioned as outlined for a few years, and the Office of Institutional Research provides virtually no assistance with reliable and useable data (page 12; see rec. 2, 3, 5 and 7).

At both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the Committee encourages the College to examine the wide range of programs offered with the intent of reducing the number by eliminating programs with lower enrollments. In that regard, the Committee identified no University incentive for action of this kind. However, such a review appears critical to allow the Colleges to make the best use of limited resources (page 13; see rec. 1, 2, and 5).

The Departments also provide yearly assessment reports that include a description of the data gathered through assessment efforts and how they apply those data to the analysis of the effectiveness of Department curricula. Again these reports vary considerably in depth, detail, and usefulness across Departments, with little consistency in data elements, analysis, and use. The motivation to participate in assessment efforts diminished in large measure because of the lack of feedback on Department efforts. The Director of Institutional Research and the Council on Teaching and Learning neither read nor responded to the Department reports, and nothing happened. The new Interim Director of Institutional Research has started the process of repair, but that work will take some time. The Interim College Dean has not responded to the Department assessment plans, instead encouraging the Departments to meet the requirements of developing the plans. Deans typically have not commented on the plans themselves in the past, although some change is in process. Without some oversight for performance and accountability, assessment will not have its intended purpose of improving quality (page 17-18; see rec. 2, 5, and 7).

Graduate programs in the social and behavioral sciences face many challenges as well as opportunities. The faculty members committed to graduate programs find they must take time away from undergraduate education and their own research to support graduate students. Allocations of teaching and research assistants (along with attendant Library resources) reflect historical patterns rather than a comparative analysis of Department needs. Such an analysis will mitigate the perceived inequities in the current allocation process. In addition to research and educational functions, the graduate programs provide needed assistance to Departments in teaching undergraduate courses. Without such support, some undergraduate programs will suffer. The faculty and the Chairs urge the development and implementation of a planning process based upon a vision and plan for the University and the College (page 18; see rec 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8).

Tenure-track faculty in the social and behavioral sciences have the appropriate education and credentials. A dedicated and committed group, they share a deep concern about the degree to which Departments must rely on non-tenure track and adjunct faculty to teach needed courses, particularly in General Education. Because of recent budget reductions, some Departments have perhaps gone too far in that reliance, according to several who spoke on the issue. Once again, however, the lack of definitive information or a plan makes it difficult to evaluate the contention (page 18; see rec 1, 2, 5).

Assessment of student learning outcomes also occurs at the graduate level, although not to the same extent. Focusing currently on assessing student-learning outcomes from the core curriculum courses in the master’s and doctoral programs, the College has not yet carried the work to the desired conclusions. However, the College will soon have a database for use in analyzing student outcomes and graduate program effectiveness (page 23; see rec. 2 and 5).

Each program has an assessment coordinator who conducts assessment activities and provides information to the Curriculum Committee or the faculty as a whole. Even considering turnover among assessment coordinators, each program has demonstrated continued assessment activities. However, assessment coordinators uniformly indicate that surveys of alumni conducted by the University do not meet their needs because of low response rates, inflexibility and unreliability on the part of the Office of Institutional Research that rejects all suggested adaptations of survey instruments, and other problems (page 26; see rec. 2). Most coordinators now send out their own surveys which generally yield higher return rates, but constitute a duplicative effort. They all indicated a need for additional staff support to assist them in these survey efforts. All assessment plans use multiple instruments and indicators, with as many as eleven different assessment sources in use for some programs. The Committee reviewed evidence presented by virtually all programs showing the use of assessment data to refine curricula.

The procedures and requirements for the University educational program assessment appear in the “Handbook for Academic Program Assessment (revised 1999),” more appropriately identified as an out-dated guide rather than a plan. Institutional responsibility for the supervision of assessment rests with the Director of Institutional Research, working with Deans, Department Chairs, and faculty. However, this Office has fallen into disarray. Across the University, the assessment of the effects of the educational program upon students varies in type and frequency. Some Colleges and programs have extensive assessment strategies based on a set of student learning outcomes. Others have only begun to develop such strategies, and some have yet to move from more traditional indicators to student outcomes. The relationship between Department and program level assessment policies, procedures, and documents and the University’s institutional assessment plan remains in transition. The Committee found no evidence of the integration of College and Department assessment policies, plans, and procedures into an overall University strategy and plan (page 32-33; see rec. 2, 5 and 7).

As mentioned, the “Handbook,” last revised in 1999, describes the format and policies regarding program assessment. According to the statements in this document, each degree program must develop and submit an assessment plan no later than the end of June of each academic year, sending the aggregated College plans to the Office of Institutional Research. In the past, the Office posted some reports on the web for public dissemination. However, the increasing dysfunctionality within the Office in recent years virtually terminated the process (page 33; see rec 2).

ISU graduate programming has shifted over the past ten years. While total graduate student enrollment has remained flat, doctoral program enrollments have increased. The increase in doctoral program enrollments reflects stated institutional objectives, but the University did not plan for a decline in master’s program enrollments. The Office of Graduate Studies has analyzed the enrollment trends by College and degree to inform academic planning and marketing. ISU has experienced a decline in graduate student applicants as well. The reason for the decline remains unexplained, although speculation identifies the fewer international applicants after 9-11 as a significant factor, particularly in the sciences and engineering. The evidence suggests that institutional directives to expand graduate programs but without direct linkage to the ISU vision of how expansion contributes to the mission has created confusion. Planning and assessment have also become complicated by difficulties associated with obtaining meaningful and consistent data and analysis from the Office of IR (page 39; see rec 1, 2, 3, and 5).

The University has installed an automated degree audit program to facilitate the advising process, but it currently does not function effectively. Thus, many departments and programs rely on their own homegrown degree checkout systems not compatible across platforms or software packages. The Committee urges immediate attention to this important system in campus consideration of long-term student information system solutions (page 47; see rec 2 and 3).

The Library has a history of several years of careful evaluation and assessment of resources, and annually reviews its strategic plan. While concern exists about the need for adequate funding to assure that the Library reaches the potential for excellence in collections and services, the current faculty and staff have focused on appropriate goals and worked on ways to improve external funding. The inclusion of information literacy requirements in a revised general education plan will enhance the work of the Library by improving student skills in retrieving, evaluating, and using information and ideas. Much planning remains for the changing vision of Computing Services – the dedicated group of people working on this process, and the impending need for hardware and software changes will make change inevitable. The challenge requires making the best choices for the future of computing at Idaho State University (page 57; see rec 1, 2, 3 and 5).

With budget and planning institutionalized at the Department and College levels, some confusion persists over the budgetary process (and the budget itself) at the University level. While most Departments and Colleges have conducted some forms of assessment and planning, no evidence exists of such activities in the academic support and administrative departments and entities. Little evidence exists to support a finding of planning, budgeting, and assessment performed in concert for the University as a whole. Weaknesses in the Office of Institutional Research and the lack of a relational database management system exacerbate this problem (page 61; see rec 1, 2, 3 and 5).