Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC)
University Curriculum Forum
Undergraduate Program Review Report: Geography - School of Arts and Sciences
February 10, 2011
The Geography Department in the School of Arts and Sciences submitted a self-study report to UCF - PRAC on November 24, 2010. PRAC met December 2, 2010 to discuss the program review and to meet with Dr. Eric West and Dr. Patrick Heidkamp, the department assessment coordinators, and Dr. Leon Yacher, the department chairperson. These three individuals represent the full-time tenure track members of the department. During this meeting, PRAC requested revisions and a revised program review was submitted on January 25, 2011. We met again February 10, 2011 to discuss the program review and to meet with members of the department.
The self-study covered Standards 1-17 of the Academic Program Review document. PRAC reviewed all submitted materials. All standards were met and PRAC recommends continuing approval of the program. PRAC's summary report is submitted to UCF for the February 17, 2011 meeting.
PRAC commends the hard work done by the Geography Department and appreciates their thoughtful engagement in the process. The following are some specific observations of Standards 1-17:
Standard 1: The department/program's mission supports the University's mission
Met
The mission of Geography Department is well articulated and supports key concepts from the University's mission statement. For example, Geography mentions how their mission supports instilling the value of liberal education, training new professionals, and empowering students with knowledge for active participation, ethical leadership, and life-long learning. Geography approached this standard in a novel way, and as such provides an interesting alternative example for other programs.
Standard 2: The department/program has clearly stated program goals and objectives
Met
The Geography Department identified three central program level goals that encompassed goals for student learning as well as goals for faculty within the department. Again, they have taken a slightly different approach than others have done so far, and thus serves as an informative model for how this standard can be developed.
Standard 3: The department/program has clearly stated program -level expected student outcomes and methods for measurement
Met
The Geography Department has identified three categories for expected student learning outcomes: geographic knowledge, geographic skills and methods, and geographic thought. "While these goals have been the focus of teaching in this department for years, it has not been until this program review was started that the department has been able to develop specific student learning outcomes that allow for the overarching goals to be addressed in more specific detail."
A curriculum map was developed to show how the learning outcomes are addressed and reinforced in the core curriculum and an assessment strategy and instrument have been planned (e.g., a pretest and posttest assessment at various points in the curriculum). Out of this discussion, the Geography has determined that key additions are needed to their curriculum in order to proceed with this assessment.
Standard 4: The department/program actively uses data about student learning to improve its programs
Met
The Geography Department has actively engaged in the review process, and while still in planning phases, has initiated plans that will make meaningful changes. "The program review process has helped us to realize that we should align our classes more closely with our goals. We would like to bring our courses current with the new program-level objectives... "
Standard 5a: Evidence of quality instruction
Met
The Geography Department provided a thorough description of their program and necessary narrative clarifications for various graphs provided as evidence. The appendices included an impressive collection of scanned pages with quality tables on assessment links, vitae and syllabi. PRAC hopes that having this set of documents helps them further plan and develop their program. One interesting comparison they made was between the evaluations of majors versus non-majors. For example, majors expected to work hard in Geography courses, to reason from evidence and to use outside resources to a greater extent than non-majors (see document for complete survey results). The Geography department also surveyed faculty and determined that a strength of the department was faculty member's dedication to communication and sense of community.
Standard 5b: Evidence of Teaching effectiveness
Met
The Geography Department presented results from an assessment of two courses (GEO 270 and GEO 371) that documented teaching effectiveness and the proficiencies students acquired from the experiences in these two courses. Survey of faculty indicated that interest in students' intellectual development, enthusiasm in classroom and use of engaging instructional methods are high.
Standard 6: The department provides evidence of a coherent and current program
Met
The Geography Department provided evidence to suggest that revisions to their curricular structure are needed. Such revisions are planned and are described in the appendices. These revisions will "bring the department to the cutting edge in terms of course offerings and meet work force needs as well as meet graduate school expectations."
Standard 6a: The Department clearly describes the relationship between graduate and undergraduate programs
Met
Standard 7: The department has an appropriate number of qualified faculty, students, and staff
Met
Faculty represent diverse backgrounds and expertise, but the department is understaffed. CVs were included in the report for this standard. Time committed to the program and courses taught were indicated; however, it is recommended that in later reports the allocation of faculty to courses be specified (i.e., majors are not taught all courses by same professor). Documentation of student enrollment patterns was provided and interpreted. Profiles of students and staff were provided. Recruitment strategies were developed, including participating in the Tier 1 of the LEP. Staffing is inadequate with only one part-time secretary and is an issue for labs. They provide rationale for a specialist in information technology who can serve the unique hardware and software needs associated with GIS, "a core platform in geospatial technology, which the US Department of Labor lists as one of 14 high technology growth areas."
Standard 8: The Department provides high quality student advisement and maintains adequate tracking procedures of its students
Met
Again, a thorough description of the high quality of student advisement and tracking. Faculty report strong commitment to students.
Standard 8a: Undergraduate Program Direction
Met
Standard 9: The department offers an appropriate number of courses and sections to meet the needs of students. Statistical data concerning admissions, graduations, courses offered and cancelled, and other relevant statistics are provided and analyzed
Met
The Geography Department provides detailed information about enrollment and graduation trends, including number of sections of courses offered per semester. They offer interpretations of these trends and the challenges faced due to the opposing forces of decreasing enrollments, increasing class sizes, and increasing need to diversify course offerings to better prepare majors.
Standard 10: The department/program demonstrates a climate of intellectual/professional curiosity and achievement among faculty and students
Met
The faculty of the Geography Department are extremely productive. The document provides an impressive summary of faculty achievement. We especially applaud them for encouraging part-time faculty to engage in scholarly activities. The level at which students engage in scholarly activities is also commendable.
Standard 11: There is evidence of faculty and student research, scholarship, and/or creative activity.
Met
The summary provided makes clear the level and nature or faculty research and scholarship. Examples of the types of student projects undertaken further document the extent to which the department (both faculty and students) engage in scholarship. Although the level of activity is not what is being evaluated here, we found it very impressive for a department of this size.
Standard 12: The department/program has adequate library resources to meet its needs
Met
The library report was very thorough and provided a clear picture of library resources allocated to the Geography Department. Standard 13: The department/program has adequate facilities and non-print resources, such as audio-visual, computers, labs, practica to meet its needs.
Met
The Geography Department identified some resource issues (e.g., teaching assistants, nonteaching personnel, IT and lab support), particularly to support programs like GIS &T, and GPS technology for research and teaching purposes.
Standard 14: Periodic Review and Evaluation
Met
The Geography Department provided a thoughtful analysis of issues associated with alumni and the alumni/employer surveys, and are honest about what will or will not work for their department. Feedback loop between assessment and implementation (and back to assessment) is still in formative stages, but they are making those plans particularly with how assessment relates to changes in curricular structure.
Standard 15: The department's activity in community service and outreach is appropriate to the mission of the program and the university
Met
The Geography Department has engaged in a variety of outreach and community service. Student clubs have worked in soup kitchens, beach clean-ups, etc. , while faculty members visit K-12 schools to expose students to geography. Finally Dr. West organized 15 2- and 3-day classes in GIS, reaching nearly 100 members of the community.
Standard 16: The department provides an analysis of program strengths and weaknesses
Met
The Geography Department offers an honest assessment of where they are, the challenges they have faced due to recent events (e.g., Urban Studies, steady loss of faculty positions), and where they are planning to go. They have an academically strong faculty committed to student learning. Their faculty are trained in cutting edge technologies that could bring the department to the forefront of many areas within the field given the right resources.
Standard 17: The department describes a vision and action plan for the future
Met
The Geography Department has a vision and action plan for the future that captures the strengths and weaknesses brought to light by their self-study.
Summary
PRAC appreciates the work that Dr. Eric West, and Dr. Patrick Heidcamp, the department assessment coordinators, and Dr. Leon Yacher, the department chairperson, have done in the preparation and presentation of this self-study report, and has evaluated standards 1-17 as "met." PRAC recommends to the University Curriculum Forum that Continuing Approval be given, and in doing so, understands that Standard 1-17 have been met.
