Dean's Council Meeting

College of Arts and Sciences

February 4, 2009

Present: E. Boquet, M. Coleman, N. Dallavalle, D. Keenan, P. Lane, J. McCarthy,

D. McFadden, C. Naser, J. Orman, S. Peterson, L. Porter, D. Quintiliani, R. Rodrigues, G. Sauer, J. Simon, J. Shanahan, M. Sourieau, K. Steffen, R. Torosyan, D. Winn

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

Minutes

Approval of Minutes—Dr. Dennis Keenan moved to approve the January 14, 2009 minutes and Dr. Nancy Dallavalle seconded the motion. Dr. Rose Rodrigues asked that her comments relative to the change in registration procedures be recorded in the January minutes. Robyn Torosyn requested that the section about the MAT be revised to be perceived as a resource. Upon amendments, all approved the January minutes.

Set-up and Overview

The Dean introduced the discussion of Program Review—The last two NEASC reviews cited that the College lacked a systematic cycle of program review. The College should implement reviews of the programs to obtain continuous program improvement. It is important for colleagues to come together to discuss what they are doing, how it is working, what goals they would like to accomplish, how they can reach them, and how we could provide a good education for our students.

The Dean is interested in looking at how program reviews should take place, how searches could be conducted effectively, and how to obtain support and resources to conduct these reviews? In the Dean's attempt to move this process along, she created a Task Force composed of two program directors, two department chairs, and Dr. Curt Naser to look at ways program reviews are performed elsewhere and to see how these processes would fit into our College. A first draft document was created and distributed to both program directors and department chairs as a guideline for reviews. This was a composite of several documents reviewed from other institutions—some disciplinary based and some institutionally based. At the same time, the Dean noticed that the quality and improvement of curricular programs also falls under the purview of ASCC charge, so they elected two members to this Task Force. There should be a full collaboration in devising a system between the ASCC and the Dean's Office. The ASCC is looking to endorse the document once it's finalized. Once any particular program review is underway, it will be faculty who define and conduct it, supported by the Dean's Office, with external experts participating in the review. The key is to stay within national norms and relevant to our system.

Discussion of the Draft guidelines document and program review process:

A) Program Review and learning outcomes assessment task force progress reports—The Dean opened the floor to discuss the document distributed. She invited departments and/or programs, who have already engaged in external review—International Studies (full scale curricular review and revision); English (completed second half of full department curricular review); and Asian Studies (currently engaged in a program review and piloting the document distributed)—to share their experiences on how these reviews helped in terms of reaching department goals and developing collaborative conversation about managing goals. The following was discussed.

• All department and/programs will engage in a review over a course of a systematic cycle. Mathematics and Sociology have expressed interest in participating in a review beginning the Fall 2009.
• The Planning Committee will assist in determining how these reviews will unfold in cycles over the long term. The time table encourages two department and two to three program reviews per year. Over approximately an eight year period all department/programs would be reviewed starting the cycle over.
• The Dean is attempting to budget approximately 5,000 per department (totaling 25,000 per year). She requested an additional 25,000 new funding in the College budget to support program reviews citing NEASC's concerns.
• Smaller interdisciplinary programs, such as Asian Studies, may have one external reviewer, plus an internal member of the institution not involved with the program. For larger departments, there would likely be two external reviewers with the third being an internal member inside the institution, but outside of the department. There will be resources for the visiting teams and some intensive summer work for the department to come together and work on the recommendations.
• Professional organizations have a network of people who engage in these types of reviews. When requesting an external reviewer, we could specify our criteria—someone from a competitive school, someone who has recently revised a particular area of discipline, etc.
• Dr. Steffen mentioned that 2004-2005 the sciences engaged in a Science Cohort Review. He asked if there were interest in combining other areas to engage in a cohort review. The Dean mentioned that in the process of making a queue and attempting to be as consultative as possible, there are a number of factors that the Dean will consider. Where areas will queue and how is dependant on the goals.
• Department of Modern Language and Literatures held a review in April 2006. They had three external reviewers from various locations—Hawaii, Minnesota, and New England. Conducting the review at the end of April was a problem, because it was late in the academic year and there was no subsequent follow up. The Dean mentioned the review plan incorporated a calendar asking for a revised action plan; it provides a blue print for planning, for internal resource allocation, and advocating for additional resources. With the new proposed plan, the system should work for everybody. The first part of the system is asking for department/programs goals and what their focus should be. This will determine the data gathered, questions that should be asked, and external visitors they should consider.
• Naser mentioned that as reviews begin to take place utilizing these new guidelines, departments should keep in mind that there will be revisions along the way as this is a learning process for everyone. There needs to be a willingness to be flexible in setting guidelines in a way that meets appropriate needs.
• As programs and/or departments go through the review process they may recommend a more efficient approach through their experiences. Under these circumstances, the guidelines will be revisited the same way they were developed—program directors and chairs, the Dean, ASCC would review these changes and revise the document for continued use.

B. English Department Program Review Experience

Dr. James Simon shared information relative to the English Department's self-study and the current Literature review. The English department conducted two reviews resulting in a unified English department generating momentum and moving forward with some long overdue needs.

First Review 2003—Focus was EN 11 and EN 12 core freshmen courses. Simon shared the following.

• System was not working well in part due to the large number of adjuncts used (approximately 30 per semester), who were not mentored/managed properly. An outside consultant was recommended to assist in obtaining a resolution to their problems.
• The English review prior to the 2003 review was in 1994, so there were no guidelines to follow. The English department went to the national organization of writing programs, Writing Program Administrators (WPA) for a list of outside reviewers. The department participated in interview screening to obtain someone that would bring in a national prospective. Listed below is the process they followed:
• Pose questions to WPA of importance to the department
• External Reviewers required materials for assistance
• Questions were given back to the department
• Pulled together the University catalog, memos, syllabi, and a formal self-study
• Self-study was the key feature of the review as it forced collegiality among the department members working together, explaining and sharing their process with others outside of the department, dividing tasks, collecting information, and deciding on a representative to present the self-study.
• Review is a two to three day visit interviewing everyone including administrators.
• The feedback report was received in 2004 with two key recommendations—hiring a Director of Campus Writing and revising EN11 and EN12.
• The revisions of EN11 and 12 were prepared in 2004 and 2005 and designed and implemented in the preceding two years. Simon stressed that the implementation process took much longer then expected.
• Spring 2007, the English department received an authorization to hire a senior faculty with tenure. Dr. Cinthia Gannett was hired starting Fall 2008 as a Writing Program Administrator.

Second Review—A second department review took place during Spring 2008 focusing on the literature process bringing consultants to campus. They worked with the professional Modern Language Association to obtain names of external reviewers (supplying a list of seven to choose from). In additional to external reviewers, the English department utilized on-campus resources such as CAE and Dr. Kathy Nantz. The remainder of the search paralleled the WPA review in terms of the process.

Simon made some additional points.

• The consultant's report is important, but what occurs afterwards is more important. The report is a resource to follow, but implementation is necessary.
• The implementation process did take longer than planned. It took three years to obtain a hire for WPA and make necessary changes.
• Simon obtained endorsement from the entire department on implementing the new literature report. The literature faculty wanted to work on this themselves, so they engaged in a workshop last summer and worked through the fall semester. Other members of the department felt excluded; therefore the challenge was to get everyone involved in the process.

The Dean mentioned that the next English department review cycle should be much easier. It is not necessary to completely overhaul the department curriculum. They could work with the current case study asking the question of how well is it working. Being in a habit of program review could be a painless process and much more focused and incisive in terms of what accomplishments they are trying to be obtain.

• Simon mentioned that the English reviews had a more narrow focus on English department needs rather than the University mission of core integration, Jesuit learning, service learning, assessment, and reducing the number of adjuncts. Today they would build these issues into the fabric of the University's goals.

Dr. Lynne Porter shared that Visual & Performing Arts managed a department review approximately five years ago without the external reviewer piece. It was a curricular review prompted by issues that required getting courses approved by the ASCC. The department formed an internal curriculum committee represented by all five VPA programs. In many ways each member represented an external reviewer for the other programs within the department. They experienced positive curriculum and documentation outcomes. A second review for the Theatre program took place two years later. Porter mentioned this is a continual process within the department.

C) Curt Naser and Robyn Torosyan—Resources for assessment & data gathering

Robyn Torosyan introduced helpful resources for chairs to use for assessment. The Dean mentioned that a PDF of this information would be distributed to the chairs. Torosyan offered support during any phase of their review. He could assist with setting a model for core assessment and/or help throughout the process with possible areas of conflict. He mentioned the three steps emphasized in the guidelines and how at any point throughout these phases controversy could occur. The three steps are as follows:

• setting goals
• looking at evidence to see how well the students and the program is matching the goals
• planning for improvement

Dr. Curt Naser offered the following points and/or recommendations:

• A key to a self-study is for the department to set their own goals.
• An outside peer review offers an opportunity to leverage change.
• Honesty is important when writing a self-study. When bringing in an external review team, they will determine the problems the department is faced with, so it is best to be transparent from the start.
• Naser accumulated resources over the years as he supported approximately six accreditations throughout the University. He encouraged chairs to contact him for use of this information and/or to utilize his assistance during the development stages of their self-study.
• Plan well in advance to determine what you want to accomplish, interests, what colleagues value most, and what are the largest challenges?

The Dean mentioned that approaching departmental review will be organic to the history, experiences, and the personnel of the individual curricular area. She encouraged chairs to work with her, Torosyan, or Naser.

D) Next Steps—The Dean asked chairs to share what may be some great opportunities for their colleagues and/or be the biggest challenge while working on this process.

· Orman mentioned that the Politics Department participated in a self-study 25 years ago. Outside reviewers questioned how they could call themselves a Politics Department without having faculty who could teach African American Politics or research methods. The department attempted to gain a faculty position over the years to address this issue but was not successful in obtaining a new line. His concern is that similar recommendations will be offered, and with the present budget climate, the opportunity will not be possible.

· The Dean noted that the Politics department also did not define any open lines for African specialists, which was their option each time they conducted a search. As retirements surface within a department, conversations should focus on the curricular needs of the department, and what other opportunities may benefit the students/department. For example, sometimes you may choose to leave one area of the curriculum under-covered in order to add a new and particularly strategic or appealing area to the curriculum. She recommended that a resource neutral process be considered. What can departments do better or different with the resources they already have to find a way to be more effective with the kind of student learning we want to produce?

· Rodrigues mentioned that when a replacement line opens there may be a need to offer an additional area of concentration within a department, but the department may still need to teach the existing component within the department. In this case, while a shift offers the opportunity to address the demand of a new area; it then eliminates the opportunity to continue to meet current needs. These are difficult choices to make. The Dean acknowledged this point, adding that obviously, we can't do everything, so we have to make choices, and those should be goal oriented, strategic, etc

· Dr. Phil Lane asked what schools was the information for the guideline document drawn from—The Dean indicated the main documents that informed this document were from Santa Clara, Modern Language Association, American Association of Religion, and Loyola Maryland.

· The Dean shared that all disciplinary associations have guides that are specific to the discipline. The content of a self-study should be guided by your disciplinary association's document. They are valuable in helping to think about the meaning of your field at the liberal arts environment, general education, and the field today. They are much more specific in advising faculty how to leverage this process.

Registration Update

Ms. Susan Peterson addressed the changes in the University's registration process. A recent memo was sent out from the Academic Vice President relative to the changes in the registration procedures. Ms. Peterson mentioned that the most dramatic change is that registration will take place with one go around for each graduating class each having the opportunity to register for major, minor and core courses all in the same day. Seniors will begin this process followed by the other classes in graduating order with a day in between each class registration. This may present challenges for some students, especially in departments where courses are offered for majors and/or core. Students majoring in a specific area may have difficulty finding required courses for their major, because upper level students were given the opportunity to register for all courses—major, minor and core.

With this in mind, the Registrar's Office, along with the Registration Committee recommended the following:

· Tag courses, through banner, courses that are for majors only and/or seniors only.

· Roll over your enrollments placing a cap on enrollment for each graduating class. For e.g. the first day of registration may have a cap of 10 for seniors, followed by a cap of 5 for juniors etc…

· During the first week the wait list will not be in effective, so as to accommodate the courses where caps are placed for specific graduating years.

· Naser mentioned there was conversation to implement a way to designate the courses that will be rolled out and capped holding the wait list on these courses, but allowing the wait list to be in effect for all other courses.

· Lane mentioned that the course catalog lists pre-requisites but does not reference courses being open to majors only. He noted concerns that the new policy would be violating a contract by implementing the policy explained above. Ms. Peterson noted that only a certain number of seats in any course would be reserved spots for majors, unless the course is listed specifically for majors only in the catalog and coded as such in the computer. Dr. Lane added that this new registration policy could cause a cross-school issue; in particular, there are DSB courses that CAS students take for minors, etc. The Dean suggested that Ms. Peterson, Dr. Lane, and Ms. Petraglia, Assistant Dean in the Dolan School of Business, meet to discuss this concern finding a fair clear resolution for those areas where CAS students need access to DSB courses.

· Ms. Peterson mentioned that the driving force for these changes was the students. The previous registration system was not efficient. Very few student complaints emerged in the fall with the first round of changes.

· Rodrigues in consultation with the Registrar's Office created a plan for the Sociology Department to accommodate majors and minors in their discipline in terms of being able to obtain required courses. The department will conduct student advising approximately 10 days prior to registration alerting students of the changes in registration. During advising sessions, advisors will keep track of courses needed for major and minor students, so at the end of the advising period they could reserve the number of spaces needed to fulfill the needs of their majors and minors. Mr. Russo mentioned that after the spring semester, he will create a form for departments to give to their students indicating that they have permission to fill one of the reserved spaces allotted for majors/minors. This form will not be available for this registration period.

· Dr. Shanahan shared that the Communication Department has been holding pre-advising sessions and finds this to work well. He recommended being conservative about the number of spaces reserved for major/minor students relative to the size of the class. Shanahan commented on Lane's concerns by stating that because Communication has so many majors it uses a tiered curriculum with clear pre-requisites, so they do not have a problem with majors getting into their courses. In the new system, Banner allows phased coding/reserving of spaces in courses that are of concern for majors. Once the students are placed into the appropriate courses, the courses could be opened to the remainder of students.

· Sourieau shared her concerns about the wait list. She experienced situation where students were enrolled in a section, but placed their name on a wait list for another section in hopes to gain a more preferred time code. This caused confusion where additional sections were opened to accommodate the wait list, which resulted in adding to one course and removing from another. Ms. Peterson mentioned that Naser has a method to avoid these types of situations and could assist in managing this problem.

· Ms. Peterson mentioned that the deadline to submit courses was February 11. The information the Registrar is looking for is the maximum number of students. The due date for all other changes discussed (rollovers etc…) will follow.

· Departments who are interested in obtaining the one-page degree audits for their advisees should contact the Registrar's Office, in advance, and they will run these reports. This will help to determine the number of students needing a particular course to fulfill their major and/or minor requirements.

· The Dean mentioned that Ms. Peterson and Ms. Quintiliani will be organizing advising sessions for faculty to attend. Dates/times will follow.

· Advising materials can be obtained on-line under the Dean of Freshmen link and/or a hard copy through the Dean of Freshmen's office. These are useful resources in terms of advising tips for core requirements.

Announcement

Chair Selection—A copy of the College governance document language change addressing the issue of chair selection was shared with the department chairs. Sauer mentioned that this will be presented by the College Planning Committee at the

February 24 College of Arts and Sciences Faculty meeting. He invited the chairs to send any suggestions on the language to his attention or Dr. Susan Rakowitz. Additional revisions will be circulated to department chairs for review prior to the College Faculty meeting. Sauer explained that for the most part chair selection is straight forward with the key mechanism as faculty election. The Dean will have a collaborative relationship in chair selection as once the chair is selected the decision will be shared with the Dean. There may be few situations where there is a conflict with the selection of the chair. The new language includes procedures for these eventualities.

The Dean recommended that chairs talk to their colleagues about the chair selection procedures and encouraged them to attend the faculty meeting for discussion and voting. If there are comments and/or suggestions that develop within the department, these should be forwarded to the Dean or Drs. Sauer and/or Rakowitz.

Annual Performance Reviews—The Dean mentioned that while planning annual performance reviews, chairs should engage in informative and evaluative conversations. She shared that the Faculty Salary Committee is working hard on finding a framework for these review. They are engaged in collegial productive conversations. For this year's review, the chairs should utilize the present College of Arts and Sciences Merit Review system. She encouraged chairs to engage in a full assessment of faculty accomplishments. Even though there will be a zero percent raise this year, it is important to keep up-to-date evaluations as departments focus on a three year window for future Merit raises. The Dean will circulate the dates that Merit reviews will be conducted. There should be deadlines within each department for submission of annual reports in preparation for the review process.

Enrollments—The Dean shared the following information pertaining to enrollments.

• Undergraduate programs are down approximately 22 students between fall and spring semesters.
• Financial Aid budget is on target, because many withdrawal students obtained substantial awards
• Class of 2013 application activity is down by 5%.
• There are 105 students who received new financial aid. They are anticipating the need for financial aid to increase.
• The expectation for the Masters in Communication is slightly down.
• MFA Program has 10 more enrollments then projected
• American Studies and Mathematics Graduate Programs have been in a decline. Adjustments to projections were made to be more reasonable.

College Budget—The Dean is working with Ms. Jean Daniele on a budget exercise decreasing the College budget by 5%; this exercise is implemented throughout the University. The Discretionary money utilized to assist travel beyond the department allowance may not be too promising for next year. She recommended that department chairs talk to their colleagues about travel funds in terms of how they are distributed and how they will have the most impact.

The Dean discussed the following in terms of faculty lines.

• There will most likely be no funds for one-year visiting faculty. Chairs should count on having no additional faculty other than their current tenure-track positions.
• A search to replace retired faculty should be approved, but there are no guarantees.
• Giving the economic climate, there is no talk about losing current faculty lines; discussions are relative to keeping current personnel.
• She encouraged careful curricular planning; there should be no courses with low enrollments

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.