The Vice President for Academic Affairs shares the responsibility with the Deans for academic program planning and assessment in a decentralized process. As a result of recent efforts by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the planning and budgeting processes within Academic Affairs have become more transparent. According to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the administration moves available funds to the Colleges and other costs centers for use as deemed necessary, with great discretion vested in the local managers. As a result, the faculty and staff in the various Colleges and offices indicate some understanding of the linkage between planning and budgeting at the local level. Deans and the Library and Museum Directors submit annual goals for their areas to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, who conducts annual evaluations of progress toward the achievement of the goals and reports the results to the President. As mentioned, new academic programs require the approval of the College Dean, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Faculty Senate, President, and SBOE. The proponents of new programs have the responsibility to identify the resources necessary to implement the programs, typically through use of any inflationary increases and reallocation of existing resources in recent years. Periodic and mandatory program reviews identify programs for discontinuance and highlight needs for additional resources to maintain quality, although the University has discontinued very few programs despite low enrollments and numbers of degrees conferred. In fact, the program review process became dysfunctional in recent years because of failings within the Office of Institutional Research, the Office charged to implement the process, with little or no apparent oversight. As a result, most of the completed reviews did not receive the attention of and discussion by the Dean, Vice President for Academic Affairs, President, and others mandated by the process and designed to produce an action plan in response to the review. A few reviews actually made it through the entire process, and those few indicate that the process – similar to the process used on other campuses – works when fully implemented. Whether the program reviews actually take into account the results of outcomes assessments remains unclear. (See Recommendations Number 5 and 7 in Conclusion below.) p.9

Some years ago, the University developed and implemented a limited approach to outcomes assessment in the academic sector. The results of the assessments had the intended purpose of informing the annual planning and budgeting processes while also helping to identify areas needing improvement. However, as happened on other campuses elsewhere, the definition of outcomes assessment data lacked the clarity required, with the result that a variety of collected information received that designation, including survey results, job placements, reviews of courses and programs for “currency and relevance,” faculty analyses of curricular design, and reports of focus interviews. While such information has value for the University, it does not constitute actual outcomes assessment data. Despite improvements and alterations over the interim, progress in assessment across the campus, even within the academic sector, remains uneven and the University has yet to institutionalize a culture of assessment. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.10

The annual planning process involves all stakeholder groups, with more or less success depending upon the group. The planning process also purportedly provides the mechanisms to assure that the results of outcomes assessment and program review inform resource allocations and affect budgets. However, the Committee found it difficult to identify the points of direct linkage between budget development and planning and outcomes assessment to assure the intended outcome. It remains unclear how outcomes assessment and program reviews affect annual budgets. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) In addition, the recognized weaknesses – not to say obsolescence – of the University’s data management system render it quite difficult for those responsible for planning to access and analyze the specific information required. This challenge affects enrollment analysis and planning as well as institutional and program planning and review and outcomes assessment. Personnel turn-over and staffing levels in the Office of Institutional Research have also interfered with planning and assessment. The University has recently announced the intent to appoint a faculty member for placement in the Office of Institutional Research as the part-time Director of Institutional Assessment, intending thereby to assure a faculty-driven process. However, the absence of a comprehensive institutional assessment plan remains problematic. While an assessment “Handbook” developed in 1999 exists, with no updates or revisions, it cannot serve as an institutional assessment plan, since it has gone badly out of date, relates only to the academic sector of the University, and offers little by way of current information or guidance. In addition, the program review schedule remains incomplete, even within its exclusive focus on the academic sector, and the description of the review process itself needs new thought and revision. p.10

Finally, the assignment of oversight to assure performance has proven inadequate. (See Recommendations Number 3, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.) p.11

Nonetheless, the planning process has enabled the University to address student services, library and information technology, and other needs over the years since the last accreditation visit. As mentioned, assessment efforts have not yet matured, even as the University has sought to assure quality control. In some Colleges and Departments, assessment has become quite meaningful and vital, typically in the fields affected by specialized accreditation (Business, Education, Engineering, Health Professions, and others). However, as the discussions above and below reveal, the connection between outcomes assessment, program review, program planning, quality control, and resource allocation remains less than clear. Moreover, the Committee found little or no evidence of substantive discussions occurring above the Department or College level about best practices in outcomes assessment. Finally, the University does not have a comprehensive outcomes assessment plan covering all sectors of the institution, although most sectors have initiated some assessment efforts. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) p.11

With 271 of the University’s 680 faculty members (184 of the 400 females), the College 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. (See Recommendations Number 2, 3, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.) In addition, despite some innovative activities in selected Departments, the College has not yet implemented outcomes assessment in a systematic manner. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.12

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. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, and 5 in Conclusion below.)p.13

Program assessment and planning vary in type, frequency, and regularity across the Departments. Program assessment results, self-study reports, and the results of external reviews all contribute to program review and planning. The Interim Dean of the College plans to establish a more regularized assessment and planning process, one that hopefully will include a regular cycle of externally assisted reviews. As it stands, other than program assessment results and the specialized accreditation requirements of Chemistry and Health Physics, an at best ad hoc approach to self-studies and external reviews exists. For instance, the Biology Department recently, on its own initiative, asked the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to assist the Department with an external review. Apparently this occurred without reference to either University or College policy and procedures for program review and outcomes assessment. (See Recommendations Number 5 and 7 in Conclusion below.)p.15

The division of social and behavioral sciences includes the Departments of Anthropology, Economics, History, Mass Communications, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice, and also houses the American Indian Studies, International Studies, Military Science, and Women’s Studies Programs. The Self- Study Report included sections on mission, vision, goals, and planning, and purports to describe the relationship of planning to assessment and program review, but never directly addresses strategic planning for the College and its divisions. For example, the Report mentions the role of the College of Arts and Sciences within the University, but does not articulate a specific vision for the College or for the programs within the three broad disciplinary divisions within the College. Similarly, the Report includes a number of somewhat useful but non-prioritized goals, but these loosely related goals do not constitute a strategic plan in the usual sense of the term. The assessment process for most Departments in the College assists in planning for instructional evolution, but not for long-range planning. Departments develop action plans as part of the program review process, when the program review process works – as it has not in recent years – but the action plans do not appear in either a Department or College strategic plan. Department Chairs, however, believe the action plans, when completed, have helped them to obtain new resources. The Interim Dean plans to work with the Department Chairs to develop clearer and more articulated plans, but little has occurred as yet. In addition, the College does not have an outcomes assessment plan. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.16-17

The division Department Chairs commented specifically about the lack of a College and, by extension, University vision. Chairs of Departments that have prospered (by comparison) under the current system still point out the lack of a shared vision and firmly believe in the need for one. The Interim Dean noted that he does not submit an annual budget request to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, but instead seeks resources when the needs arise in the Departments. While some budget initiatives reflect program review results, other requests do not. Frequently, a request will come from a Department, and the Interim Dean will present it to the Vice President for Academic Affairs who rules on each one individually with no apparent reference to an identified set of priorities. The priorities of the institution apparently manifest themselves in the flow of dollars, not from an articulated listing that reflects analysis, consultation, and decision. (See Recommendations Number 1, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.) p.17

The division Department Chairs identified a range of issues resulting from the positions lost in the budget reductions in 2000 and subsequently. Most believe that Department workload has remained and increased despite the reductions. The reduced number of faculty members remain responsible for an unreduced (and sometimes increased) Department workload. The Chairs, however, believe in good faith that the administration has provided assistance and positions when possible. However, these positive moves did not appear as integral elements of an overall institutional plan (See Recommendations Number 1, 5, and 8 in Conclusion below.) p.17

Each Department in the divisions must do assessments, although the approaches differ. Departments described their assessment programs for the Self-Study following a prescribed format. The plans include a description of learning goals, assessment methodology, use of results, and related points. A review of the Department submissions revealed inconsistent levels of response and detail to the queries of the Self-Study. A few Departments had well-developed responses to each question, but most did not. The responses indicated that not all Departments understand or effectively use the concepts and goals of assessment for measuring student learning outcomes. The Self-Study lists the student competencies expected for degrees and certificates in each field of study, but the clarity and specificity of the means to measure these outcomes varies considerably. More faculty development, group discussions and workshops, and plan critiques will assist Departments in the development and execution of the outcomes assessment plans. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.17

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. (See Recommendations Number 2, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.) p.17-18

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. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 in Conclusion below.) p.18

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. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, and 5 in Conclusion below.)p.18

The College began a comprehensive curriculum review of the undergraduate core curriculum in 2001. From that beginning, the College has developed four specific learning goals in written communications, oral presentation skills, technology skills, and solving open-ended problems. The faculty has in progress an effort to refine assessment methodologies. Feedback of current assessment data occurs annually and each Department or program considers the relevance of the data. Proposed changes that result go for review to the undergraduate or graduate Curriculum Committee, and then to the appropriate University committees. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.19

The College has identified the continuous assessment of student learning as its highest priority. The Assistant Dean, working with the Dean, Department Chairs, and faculty, has the major responsibility for program assessment. The assessment process involves the systematic collection and analysis of data, with the reports subsequently distributed and used for curriculum renewal. At the undergraduate level, the assessment directly links to student learning outcomes, uses multiple indicators, and focuses on the renewal of individual courses as well as the overall program. A curriculum team meets regularly to review the findings and to recommend changes in the curriculum. The representatives of the College cited evidence to demonstrate renewal efforts. The exemplary assessment program in the College has much to offer to the entire University by way of best practices and technical assistance. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.22-23

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 conclusion. However, the College will soon have a database for use in analyzing student outcomes and graduate program effectiveness. (See Recommendations Number 2 and 5 in Conclusion below.)p.23

The College does not have a long history of program assessment. Initial assessment activities for the undergraduate program begin in 1997 in anticipation on the ABET accreditation visit. The second major assessment of College programs occurred as part of the NWCCU visitation. The Dean and the members of the College understand that their assessment and planning activities need to become more systematic. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.24

In general, the faculty members have the appropriate earned degrees, and indicate a deep commitment to the programs and the College. As active scholars, they nonetheless evince enthusiasm about their courses and the students they serve. They also know and share the stated goals for the College of Engineering, although they have not yet demonstrated the same level of commitment to the College’s second goal of continuous assessment activities designed to strengthen the engineering program. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.24

The College planning, assessment, and instructional activities respond to the imperatives of professional program accreditation and generally exemplify best practices and can serve as models for other programs at ISU. The Directors and Chairs unanimously urge the University to plan carefully for continued growth in ways to assure adequate faculty, administrative, and operational resources to meet program objectives. (See Recommendations Number 1 and 5 in Conclusion below.)p.27

Students and faculty have had significant involvement in planning, implementing, and evaluating the new curriculum. A student management team meets weekly with faculty members to provide formative assessment of the modules, and the College collects end-of- module assessments from the students. The College did not describe any formative measures of student attainment of learning outcomes, aside from routine course grading procedures. The Committee found no other evidence of formative programmatic assessment. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.28

The COT can gain economies by reducing the number of sections offered of certain courses while also examining the possibility of integrating courses from one curriculum into another. Departments within the COT have commenced this process, and the Committee commends the effort and suggests emulation by other Colleges and Departments on campus. (See Recommendations Number 1 and 5 in Conclusion below.) The COT also has alternative delivery mechanisms for the courses under consideration. The examination will pay particular attention to insuring that students receive the experiential learning component integral to professional technical education. The delivery of courses in an alternative manner (i.e., distance delivery, evenings, and weekends) can overcome space constraints and allow for increased efficiencies in the delivery of courses. p.31

The Departments and programs have implemented assessment in a more or less systematic way, using numerous indices for faculty assessing students, students assessing faculty, and faculty assessing faculty. Programs accredited by specialized accrediting associations have taken the lead, with very positive results. The Committee suggests that programs not so accredited work with accredited programs in an attempt to improve assessment performance across the College. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.31

In addition, an outcomes assessment plan encompassing the General Education Program remains for development. The General Education Requirement Committee encourages assessment in the specific courses within the program. Even if done systematically, however, the use of the results, if any, remains unclear. Moreover, no systematic assessment plan and incomplete metrics exist for the expected General Education Program learning outcomes. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.32

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, Departments 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. (See Recommendations Number 2, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.) p.32-33

The Colleges and Departments have developed academic programs consistent with the mission of the institution. A variety of sources provide accurate descriptions of degree requirements and courses and present what faculty view as appropriate learning outcomes for students. Organizational structures exist for the creation, review, and elimination of programs and courses. However, the linkage between program planning, program review, outcomes assessment, and program budgeting never receive clear articulation. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) p.33

The assessment of learning outcomes and program review vary greatly across Colleges and Departments. Programs with specialized accreditation – such as Business, Education, Engineering, some of the health sciences, and technology, but with unevenness in these areas as well – collect and use data regarding student performance related to program goals. The best of the assessment plans in these areas assert the intent to collect, analyze, report, and use assessment data to review and renew programs. These programs collect multiple sources of data from which to make judgments about program effectiveness in terms of student learning. Some Departments and programs, however, have not yet begun to examine the differences between inputs and outcomes, or between satisfaction surveys and actual outcomes assessments. Still others rely simply on individual course evaluations and syllabus reviews for assessment. Even so, from the subset of Colleges and Departments with specialized accreditation, the University has a source of best practices to draw upon to develop and implement a comprehensive assessment plan. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) p.33

The national trend in outcomes assessment focuses directly on the impact of the program on specific student learning outcomes and, doing so, requires the collection of multiple indicators of performance over time. Traditional methods of using courses completed, grades received, and degrees earned no longer suffice. Nor do traditional surveys of graduate and employer satisfaction. In addition, accreditation bodies and policy makers demand evidence of the use of the data to assess the curriculum and for curriculum renewal purposes. Assessment plans, as a consequence, must focus on student outcomes in focused and comprehensive ways. The Committee recognizes that important elements of an effective assessment plan exist in some areas of the campus, but the University lacks a comprehensive plan that covers all sectors of the campus. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.)p.34

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 Institutional Research. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Conclusion below.)p.39

The Graduate Faculty consists of approximately 330 faculty members as the core graduate studies resource. Appointment to the Graduate Faculty results from a selective process that considers a candidate’s scholarly maturity and professional productivity. While the Graduate Faculty appears generally adequate in numbers and sufficiently diversified within disciplines to provide an effective education to students, some programs have too few resources to meet their obligations. Students report limited availability of graduate courses in some programs due to heavy undergraduate teaching by the faculty. Access to full-time faculty at outreach locations also needs careful monitoring. If resource limitations continue to prohibit growth in the number of faculty members, Colleges will have to look for efficiencies such as those gained through program reorganization, consolidation, or elimination. While occurring on a limited basis, cross discipline-program collaboration has some potential to address resource limitations while at the same time advancing the development of emerging programmatic needs. (See Recommendations Number 1 and 5 in Conclusion below.) p.40

Idaho State University reportedly awards 250 graduate assistantships at the Department or College level, with the number, allocation, and stipend relatively unchanged for the past 10-20 years. Several Departments have concern that the numbers have not kept pace with the need. Graduate assistantships provide essential financial support and practical experience to graduate students. Students reported satisfaction with their graduate assistantship experiences. Research assistantships have also become available through grant monies or other external sources. (Suggestion: The University should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the assistantship program to determine unmet programmatic and student need with a resultant balancing of allocations.) The University awards 26 Doctor of Arts Fellowships each year to outstanding student recipients. The Office of Graduate Studies also provides non-resident tuition waivers to students in areas of technical study, although it appears that the non-technical areas have the greatest need for such waivers because of having fewer assistantships and other forms of financial assistance. The Graduate Student Research Committee also has $25,000 annually for the award of small grants to support thesis and dissertation research. In the last fiscal year, the allocation covered all eligible applicants. Students recommend additional travel support for attendance at professional meetings, book allowances or bookstore discounts to help defray the cost of resources unavailable at the Library or important for their personal libraries, and meal cards. (See Recommendation Number 1 and 5 in Conclusion below.) p.40

ISU also offers a general interdisciplinary master’s degree program administered by the Office of Graduate Studies. The Committee found little available information on this small program with an enrollment of 3 students. However, an assessment of the role of interdisciplinary studies in meeting the University mission and an articulation of the goals and expectations of interdisciplinary studies programs appears needed. (See Recommendations Number 1 and 5 in Conclusion below.) p.41

Most student service units tie their mission statements and goals and objectives to SBOE and institutional mission and goal statements. Most offices or Departments also have written plans based on research and data related to their student constituents. Only a handful of the Student Affairs organizations have assessment plans that provide measurable performance standards. In this regard, the ADA and Disability Resource Center, TRIO Student Services, and the Janet C. Anderson Gender Resource Center indicate clear understanding of mission-based goal setting, assessment criteria and measurements, and planning processes. Other Student Services offices have also demonstrated some understanding of self-assessment and planning processes. The Student Union engaged in a national benchmarking process that led to planning and assessment activities included in the most recent annual report. The Office of Records and Registration has delineated summative and formative assessment measurements and timetables for review. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) p.43

Service delivery units maintain readily accessible policy and procedure manuals to describe and set guidelines for programming and services. Policy development involves student participation and reflects professional standards in each functional area. Staff member résumés indicate that professional staff members have the credentials or background education or experience to perform their current roles and responsibilities. A number of student affairs staff members graduated from either Idaho State University or another in the immediate region, but a significant number, particularly those in leadership and Director roles, possess broader experience at multiple institutions and have diverse educational backgrounds. The Dean of Students monitors a personnel evaluation process annually on the basis of achievement of goals set at the prior evaluation. The goal setting has no alignment with annual assessment and planning updates that tie back to institutional and divisional contributions to mission-critical objectives. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) p.43-44

The University does not currently have a systematic program review process for Student Affairs. Although personnel evaluation occurs annually, the documentation provided did not indicate the conduct of performance assessments of the several offices and Departments on a predictable schedule. Some units had undertaken either external or internal assessment projects (Admissions using Stamats, the Student Union using the EBI Benchmarking Survey and CAS self-assessment, TRIO using CAS self- assessment). Others indicate an awareness of measurable outcomes but have not identified a method of assessment. The demands of serving a growing population at multiple locations pose challenges to the assessment activity. The Dean of Students referred to plans to identify a leadership position for assessment in Student Affairs, but an assignment has not yet occurred. Any such effort will require considerable education and training of staff regarding assessment principles and the relationship to planning. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) p.44

The Center for Teaching and Learning also provides academic support services that assist students in progress toward degrees. This Center offers academic support in mathematics, writing, ESL, learning strategies, and tutoring in subject areas. First-year students may participate in clustered learning communities. As a very unique feature, the Center combines student academic services with support for faculty teaching improvement and the scholarship of teaching, thereby facilitating the development of assessment methods through practical application and informing student support services with scholarship about student learning. However, the University has not realized the full benefit of this unique opportunity because of the need for a University-wide outcomes assessment plan with designed oversight and accountability. (See Recommendations Number 5 and 7 in Conclusion below.) p.47

Career Planning has, in recent years, become more closely linked to Counseling and Testing Services. Staffing fluctuations and the need to provide services at Idaho Falls have resulted in a focus on fundamental programming. Broader assessment and goal-outcome setting need more attention for these areas to identify more clearly the developmental nature of their work with students and their support for institutional objectives. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) p.47

Students Affairs manages and encourages broad use of co-curricular and recreational opportunities, making provision for students to assume leadership roles in planning and implementing activities, programs, entertainment, and recreation. ASISU fees provide the revenue to support most of the staff involved in these roles to serve the students as facilitators, mentors, and advisers with particular attention to the developmental outcomes of student engagement and to risk management on behalf of the institution. ASISU students view these staff as highly accessible, open, and extremely helpful. Planning documentation of the Student Union, Campus Recreation, and other student activities related to student co-curricular programming and leadership development focus on affective learning outcomes appropriately evaluated by consistent participation in the NSSE survey. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.) The self-study outlines a number of specific programs, many traditional such as intramurals, club sports – with a nationally competitive Rodeo Club team – and others unique to the University. The Anderson Gender Resource Center involves students in advocacy and education while also engaging them in research. The Community Service Center works through the Bonner Scholars program to promote student engagement in the community. The IDEA program helps students develop a co-curricular transcript that documents learning outcomes related to intellectual, cultural, interpersonal, ethical, creative, and other developmental goals. A leadership program, LEAD, provides a leadership library (cited as particularly useful by an ASISU officer), an annual leadership academy, and community service projects. p.48

The faculty represents a major asset to the University, with clear commitment to the mission and goals, laboring under trying fiscal circumstances and exhibiting extraordinarily strong morale, while evincing exemplary dedication to meet the needs of students. In general, the faculty provides quality advising and positive encouragement to students. The University faces a clear challenge in assuring adequate staffing for its academic offerings, and this challenge has led to uneven utilization of different types of non-tenure track faculty with resultant uneven levels in quality and number of faculty used to meet the institution’s mission and goals. (See Recommendations Number 1 and 5 in Conclusion below.) p.51

Faculty development programs exist to support faculty in the fulfillment of their responsibilities. The New Faculty Orientation supports first-year faculty in their acclimation to the University. The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) provides an admirable model for faculty and student instructional support, unique in that it combines services that many universities segregate. CTL combines faculty instructional development with student support services such as tutoring, English as a Second Language and English for Speakers of other Languages, Math and Writing Centers, college learning strategies, First Year Seminar, Clustered Learning for Academic Student Success, and University Honors Program. Through this combination, CTL generates a synergy of services that effectively link both faculty and student development. Faculty development efforts relate strongly to student learning models and styles. Student support services give better advice to students as the Center staff, which includes faculty members, understands faculty goals. Faculty instructional support has the necessary grounding in student learning needs. The system works quite well and deserves continued University support and utilization. (See Recommendation Number 5 in Conclusion below.). p.51-52

Despite such successes and commitments, ISU’s goal of becoming a research-extensive university appears unrealistic in the near future, given the current budgetary limitations. Setting clear and realistic expectations and priorities will prove critical to the University’s success. A pattern of giving (in policy) and taking away (in practice) resources (e.g., Office of Research funding, unfunded weighting of graduate teaching) sends mixed messages and hinders the ability of faculty to maintain continuity in pursuit of research agendas. ISU has significant potential, particularly because of the dedicated and talented faculty, realizable only through strong leadership and a clear vision. (See Recommendations Number 1, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.) p.54

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. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Conclusion below.) p.57

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. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Conclusion below.) p.61