Minutes for PRAC meeting 10/1/09
Attendance: Imad Antonios, Gene Brady, Susan Clerc, Karen Cummings, Charlene Dellinger-Pate, Marybeth Fede, Susan Felsenfield, Martin Hartog, Yi-Chun Tricia Lin, Adam Abugri, Tom Radice, Scott Graves, Patricia Kahlbaugh
1. Timeline: Proposed changes from 5-7 year cycle
P. Kahlbaugh suggested that the 5-year timeline be kept in order to see how it would work. Then if problems were experienced, then we could seek options to rectify those problems. The committee agreed to keep the schedule and revisit the question later as needed.
2. Credit for assessment coordinators or money?
P. Kahlbaugh informed the committee that she had a meeting with Marianne Kennedy 9/30/09. At that time, Marianne informed P. Kahlbaugh that she has contacted assessment coordinators about this and that the option to receive money is not retroactive while the credits will be given retroactively. The committee requested that Marianne be asked to make sure that all department assessment coordinators are informed of this.
3. Expedited reviews: What departments fall under this category?
P. Kahlbaugh handed out copies of the scheduled reviews that indicated which programs would be undergoing either full or partial review from external bodies. The question of whether external reviewers for the School of Business were going to be brought in this year was discussed. That question will be posed to Marianne Kennedy.
4. Program assessment supplemental materials:
P. Kahlbaugh handed out sample assessment plans to let the committee see what rubrics we would be using to evaluate the standards under review this year. This led to a discussion about what happens if a department doesn't meet the standards. In that case the department receives conditional approval, is given 11 months to meet the standards, and at that time the results go to the dean of their respective school.
5. Political Science program review: Standards 1-3
The committee discussed the report submitted by the Department of Political Science. In order to do that, the committee discussed how Standards 2 goals and objectives and Standard 3 would be evaluated by the committee. The committee felt that more examples to meet the standards should be available to the departments. That could include rubrics on how outcomes are met.
For Standard 2, the committee felt that the goals needed to be stated so that the committee can see how the goals are satisfied for Political Science. The committee voted 13-0-0 that Standard 2 was met with conditions.
Issues related to meeting Standard 3 included course based assessment vs. program-level assessment. Some specific comments made were: outcomes based on review of student material from a single instructor, reliance on indirect measures, lack of rubrics, lack of criteria used to decide whether a student outcome is met or not met, no indication of level of achievement for student outcomes. Political Science indicated that measures aligned with student outcomes would be developed, but specifics were not offered. The committee voted 12-0-1 that Standard 3 was not met.
Submitted by M. Hartog: 10/02/09
Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC)
University Curriculum Forum
Undergraduate Program Review Report: Department of Political Science
October 1, 2009
The Department of Political Science submitted a self-study report to UCF on April 15, 2009. Professor John Critzer, Political Science assessment coordinator, met with PRAC for discussion of the self-study report on April 23, 2009 and revisions to the self-study report were requested. After discussions with Dr. John Critzer, PRAC suggested revisions which were incorporated into a revised submittal on April 28, 2009. Dr. Tricia Lin volunteered to assist the Department with revisions. Further revisions were requested and a revised report was submitted to PRAC on September 23, 2009.
The Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) reviewed the revised documentation for the Undergraduate Program in Political Science on October 1, 2009 and now has made the following evaluation of Standards 1-3:
Standard 1: The department/program's mission supports the University's mission
Met
The mission of the Department of Political Science is aligned with the University's mission of academic excellence, access, social justice and service for the public good. The report identifies specific examples of the Department's support of the University's mission in these areas.
Standard 2: The department/program has clearly stated program goals and objectives
Met with conditional approval
The Department of Political Science identified three learning goals and objectives for students in their major involving working knowledge, critical/analytic thinking, and oral and written communication in political science. PRAC voted "met with conditional approval". These learning goals and objectives represent a very good basis on which to build learning goals and objectives more specific to the domain of Political Science. Standard 2 would be improved by the addition of learning goals and objectives more closely identified with the content of Political Science.
Standard 3: The department/program has clearly stated program -level expected student outcomes and methods for measurement
Not Met
The Department of Political Science identified indirect methods for measurement, but work is still needed in order to move assessment from a course-embedded, instructor assessment approach to a program-level assessment. For example, direct methods of measurement of program-level expected outcomes would require independent evaluation of student learning (versus instructor/course evaluation of student learning), and rubrics for measuring student outcomes. PRAC voted "not met" for Standard 3.
Summary
The Program Review and Assessment Committee appreciates the work the Department of Political Science and Professor John Critzer, department assessment coordinator, has done so far in the preparation and presentation of their self-study report, but finds more work is needed in order for Standard 2 to be evaluated as met without condition and for Standard 3 to be evaluated as met. PRAC recommends to the University Curriculum Forum that Approval be given to this PRAC report for Political Science. In doing so UCF understands that Standard 1 has been met, Standard 2 has Conditional Approval, and Standard 3 has been unmet for Political Science. According to the program review document, if UCF approves this PRAC report, the Department of Political Science would have 11 months to address deficiencies identified by PRAC and to resubmit for review. If this was the course of action chosen, the new date for revision would be September 1, 2010. For other actions UCF may take, we would refer to the program review document.
