The Vice President for Academic Affairs shares the responsibility with the Deans for academic program planning and assessment in a decentralized process. 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 (page 9). (See Recommendations Number 5 and 7.)

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1999 exists, with no updates or revisions, it cannot serve as an institutional assessment plan, since it has gone badly out of date, relates only to the academic sector of the University, and offers little by way of current information or guidance.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. Finally, the assignment of oversight to assure performance has proven inadequate (see pages 10-11). (See Recommendations Number 3, 5, and 7.)

The Departments in the College of Arts and Sciences offer a typical range of undergraduate programs at the baccalaureate level. A review of the curricula in College reveals solid programs that reflect national standards in each discipline. Enrollments appear generally strong, though some Departments rely heavily on General Education courses for student enrollment. Representatives of several Departments expressed the fear that their programs will atrophy and ultimately disappear if they cannot find ways to tie into the Health Professions mission of the University. As discussed below, the faculty of the College feel a strong need for a clearly articulated College vision and plan that includes a role and mission for each Department within the larger whole (page 12). (See Recommendations Number 1 and 7.)

In accordance with University policy, the arts and humanities Chairs evaluate all faculty members (including instructors and adjuncts) formally and extensively on a yearly basis. The arts and humanities faculty find these evaluations helpful. However, they report a less than clear relationship of the annual evaluations to promotion and tenure decisions (page 14). (See Recommendations Number 7 and 8.)

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 (page 15). (See Recommendations Number 5 and 7.)

In the division, the faculty evaluation process occurs annually for all faculty members. The Department Chairs have the responsibility to conduct and monitor the annual evaluations, which vary across the Departments, with some Departments using different approaches with different classifications of faculty. Recently, concerns have surfaced about the evaluation of research faculty appointed through the Office of Research but assigned to the Departments. Promotion and tenure policies and procedures and faculty development opportunities and procedures appear widely understood by faculty members (page 15). (See Recommendations Number 7 and 8.)

During the campus interviews, a common theme across the division involves a set of issues surrounding insufficient support for graduate education, particularly for graduate students. Insufficient graduate student support leads to higher faculty teaching loads, thus preventing faculty members from involvement in directing the work of graduate students in the research programs. The time crunch also affects the time available to work on grant proposals. Accepting graduate students without identifying the sources of support in advance leads to work on a “for-hire” basis which affects the students’ ability to complete their programs on time. The Interim Dean and the Chairs know of and understand these issues, but require assistance in developing creative solutions. In general, the faculty of the division respect ISU’s obligation for community college through doctoral programming. They also know, generally, but not in detail, the continuing budgetary issues facing the University. They believe, however, that institutional aspirations towards quality graduate education and concomitant research require responsive planning activities to allocate financial support to achieve those aspirations (page 16). (See Recommendations Number 1 and 7.)

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 (page 17). (See Recommendations Number 1, 5, and 7.)

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 (pages 17- 18). (See Recommendations Number 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 Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.)

The primary issue in faculty evaluation results from the inconsistency of requirements and application of requirements across Departments. Some Departments take evaluation very seriously and have very detailed procedures, while others have less systematic approaches. While all faculty members undergo annual and periodic summative evaluations, a portion of the faculty regards the inconsistencies across Departments and even within Departments as unfair. Other faculty, however, see the system as a reinforcement and as a help in their career progress. Increased consistency and cohesiveness, with attention to performance and accountability for the program itself, will improve the University’s faculty evaluation program (page 18). (See Recommendations Number 7 and 8.)

The Department Chairs also confirmed the Department use of assessment data to inform curricular revision. Each Department prepares an annual report to the Dean, which the Dean aggregates to provide a College annual report. Not as a University requirement, the Dean voluntarily provides a copy of the report to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The annual reports from the Departments summarize and document progress in achieving Departmental and curricular goals as revealed by assessment data. The Committee found the reports especially useful for the campus visit (page 26). (See Recommendation Number 7.)

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 (pages 32- 33). (See Recommendations Number 2, 5, and 7.)

The University has yet to attain its goal for the new Continuing Education Center to become self-sustaining and revenue producing. Without authority to operate some of the programs originally envisioned as components of its portfolio, however, attainment of that goal appears problematic. Moreover, considerable confusion persists regarding the relationship of Continuing Education to the College-centered programs. At the very least, collaboration between the Center and the Colleges with strong “continuing education” programs appears essential for the development of non-threatening and mutually beneficial partnerships to promote the University’s aspirations. Achieving that outcome will require clear direction and priorities from the University (pages 37-38). (See Recommendations Number 7 and 9.)

In sum, the Committee found no evidence of the institutional assignment of responsibility for advanced approval and subsequent monitoring of Continuing Education and Special Learning activities, programs, or courses offered for academic credit. The Curriculum Council has approval responsibility for degrees, certificates, and program changes. However, the approval of Continuing Education and Special Learning activities does not appear to fall within its purview. The University must assign that responsibility explicitly (page 38). (See Recommendations Number 7, 9, and 10.)

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 (page 47). (See Recommendations Number 5 and 7.)

Other Departments and Colleges, particularly those without the motivation and guidance of outside accrediting agencies, appear more varied in their attention to evaluation. The Evaluation Committee found the process in the Psychology and Political Science Departments exemplary, while some other Arts and Sciences Departments lacked clarity or understanding. Humanities faculty, for example, reported finding the evaluations helpful but did not understand their relationship to promotion and tenure decisions. The absence of clear and consistent statements of policy, criteria, and procedures, and the lack of systematic oversight has left the process in limbo in some areas (pages 53-54). (See Recommendations Number 7 and 8.)

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 (page 54). (See Recommendations Number 1, 5, and 7.)

When functioning according to theory and design, the decentralized approach works quite well. However, delegation without provision for discussion of and agreement on common goals, objectives, and policies, and without specific assignment of oversight and accountability, can lead to unanticipated problems. For example, the failure of the Office of Institutional Research to keep the program review process on track, with no apparent oversight, deprived the University of valuable and essential information about program effectiveness. Similarly, the lack of agreement on definitions of common data elements, and no apparent responsible agency to bring about discussion and agreement, interfered with access to and use of critical information. Finally, the lack of assigned oversight to assure development of outcomes assessment across the campus resulted in unevenness and disparities in performance (page 59). (See Recommendation Number 7.)