The University of Tennessee

Institute of Agriculture

AgResearch

College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources

College of Veterinary Medicine

UT Extension

Unit Reviews

Office of the Chancellor, UTIA

UTIA Manual v12.docx

1

FOREWORD

Academic Program Reviews at The University of Tennessee date back to 1974, when a regular review of doctoral programs was initiated. In 1979, this was expanded to include undergraduate and master’s-level work, and since then the program has evolved to a comprehensive examination of each academic unit held once every ten years.Beginning with FY 2009-2010 the Institute of Agriculture (UTIA) assumes the responsibility of conducting program reviews for its units. The review process developed by the UTIA draws from the review processes of University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Office of the Provost and the US Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.

Unit Review is the primary means we have to evaluate the effectiveness of our units in teaching, research, creative activity, Extension/outreach and service. The UTIA administration participates in the reviews and treats both the process and the outcomes very seriously. Documents from the reviews, including the self-study, reviewers’ reports, and follow-up discussions, are archived in the Office of the Chancellor, UTIA, and the various deans’ offices and are referred to frequently. Even though availability of funds limits implementation of all recommendations, Unit Review reports are considered when budget allocations are being made.

The people whose work makes each review happen — the academic units that participate in the process, the staff members who organize schedules, and the external and internal reviewers who share their expertise and judgment — are fulfilling an important role for the university. To them, we extend our appreciation for their contributions to improvement of the academic mission of The University of Tennessee.

Office of the Chancellor
UTIA

The University welcomes and honors people of all races, genders, creeds, cultures, and sexual orientations, and values intellectual curiosity, pursuit of knowledge, and academic freedom and integrity.

The University of Tennessee does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age,disability or veteran status in provision of educational programs and services or employment opportunities and benefits. This policy extends to both employment by and admission to the University.

The University does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex or disability in its education programs and activities pursuant to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

Inquiries and charges of violation concerning Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, ADA or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or any of the other above referenced policies should be directed to the Office of Equity and Diversity (OED), 1840 Melrose Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37996-3560, telephone (865) 974-2498 (V/TTY available) or 974-2440. Requests for accommodation of a disability should be directed to the ADA Coordinator at the UTK Office of Human Resources, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN 37996-4125.

1

Table of Contents

Section I • Unit Reviews

Background

Responsibilities

Review Coordinator

The UTIA Administrative Team

The Unit

The Review Team

Performance Funding

Components of the Unit Review Self-Study Document

Timetable for Review

Ten-Year Full-Cycle Unit Review Timeline for Planning and Conducting Review

Reports Generated By the Unit Review and Responsible Entity

Section II • Mid-Cycle Reviews

Responsibilities

The Coordinator

The UTIA Administrative Team

The Unit

The Review Team

Mid-Cycle Review Timeline for Planning and Conducting Review

Appendix I • Self-Study Document: Narrative and Common Data Sets

Table 1. Alignment of student outcomes with courses in the curriculum.

Table 2. Fourteen-day enrollment for courses taught over the past five years.

Table 3. Summary course evaluations over the past five years.

Table 4. Regional, national and international awards received by faculty since last review

Table 5a. Faculty turnover history since the last review.

Table 5b. Faculty hires since the last review

Table 6. Faculty profile over the past 5 years as of August 1 of each fiscal year.

Table 7. Undergraduate and graduate/professional student profile for the past 5 years.

Table 8a. Undergraduate, graduate and professional student recognitions over the past five years.

Table 8b. Undergraduate student awards, fellowships, and other competitions (team or individual) over the past five years.

Table 8c. College and university honors theses completed by undergraduate students over the past five years.

Table 8d. Graduate/professional student awards, fellowships, and other competitions (team or individual) over the past five years.

Table 8e. Graduate student theses and dissertations and non-thesis master-level students completed over the past five years.

Table 9a. Placement of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students upon graduation over the past 5 years.

Table 9b. Placement of graduate/professional students into academic and post-doctoral positions over the past 5 years.

Table 10a. E&G budget expenditures on June 30 over the past five fiscal years.

Table 10b. Grant and contract budget expenditures on June 30 over the past five fiscal years.

Table 10c. Development and gift account budget expenditures on June 30 over the past five fiscal years.

Table 10d. Total unit expenditures on June 30 over the past five fiscal years

Table 10e. Total unit expenditures on June 30 over the past five fiscal years

Table 11a. Diversity represented by the unit’s faculty over the past five fiscal years.

Table 11b. Diversity represented by the unit’s staff over the past five fiscal years.

Table 11c. Diversity represented by the unit’s students over the past five fiscal years.

Appendix II • Checklist for Undergraduate Programs

Appendix III • Checklist for Graduate Programs

Appendix IV • Suggested Outline for Review Team Report

Appendix V • Summary of Responsibilities for Full-Cycle Unit Reviews

Appendix VI • Summary of Responsibilities for Mid-Cycle Reviews

Appendix VII • Full-Cycle Unit Review Model Schedule

Elements of the Review Schedule

Appendix VIII • Mid-Cycle Review Model Schedule

Elements of the Review Schedule

Appendix IX • List of Participating Offices and Administrators

Appendix X • Schedule of Full-Cycle, Mid-Cycle, Department Head, and Accreditation Reviews

1

Section I • Unit Reviews

Unit reviews[1] are designed to improve the unit’s standing within its discipline(s), service to clientele and programs in research, teaching, Extension, and outreach, to achieve the best use of available resources, and to foster cooperation among all units. Reviews serve as a means to evaluate quality, productivity, need, and demand within the university, state, and region; to determine effectiveness and consider possible modifications; and to facilitate planning and budgeting. They bring to each unit the advantages of assessment from the perspective of peers outside the institution and colleagues from other units within the university. In the case of those units which undergo accreditation review, these reviews may meet those needs, as well.

Background

UT’s structure for academic program reviews has evolved over the last three decades, with the first comprehensive program review begun in October 1974. From then until 1979, reviews were conducted on behalf of the Graduate Council and administered by the Dean for Graduate Studies. While the initial focus was on doctoral programs, in late 1979 the review process was expanded to include master’s and baccalaureate programs as well. Program reviews werecoordinated by the Provost’s Office, sharing the planning, conduct, and follow-up process with the academic unit and its college. Beginning in September 1987, an eight-year cycle for program reviews was adopted, along with a system for mid-cycle evaluations. A ten-year cycle for full reviews was initiated in 1998, with a mid-cycle evaluation occurring approximately three years after each full review. In 2008, the Office of the Provost transferred authority to the Office of the Vice President (now Chancellor) for all faculty-led programs in the Institute of Agriculture. With the transfer, unit reviews include all missions of the units, and includes those units that do not offer baccalaureate, graduate or professional degrees and mid-cycle reviews were scheduled to occur five years after the full-cycle review.

Unit review teams examine programs in depth, and the recommendations contained in their reports are important in supporting change and a process of continual improvement. The emphasis of the review process is on improving quality through candor, cooperation, and communication. A summary document outlining unit, department, Deans’ offices, Chancellor’s Office, and university commitments to program improvements is one outcome of the review and follow-up meetings. Implementation of proposed changes is evaluated by the mid-cycle review.

Responsibilities

The unit review process requires close collaboration by numerous offices and individuals. The successful conduct of a review therefore involves shared responsibilities, as does the subsequent implementation of recommendations.

Review Coordinator

From initial planning through implementation, reviews are a joint responsibility of the Office of the UTIA Chancellor, the individual unit under review, and the respective deans’ offices. A member of the UTIA administrative team is named by the Chancellor to serve as Review Coordinator. Dates for individual reviews are established in consultation with the unit administrator within the general timeframe set by the unit review calendar.

The Coordinator then holds initial planning sessions with the unit administrator and other appropriate individuals, and appoints internal and external reviewers. The Coordinator works with the unit to establish the review team schedule. The Coordinator receives the self-study document for distribution to the UTIA Administrative Team, appropriate UTK administrators, and the review team. The Coordinator receives the report of the review team, distributes it to participating individuals and units, and schedules and participates in the follow-up process (in concert with the unit administrator and the Deans and Chancellor).

The UTIA Administrative Team

The UTIA Administrative Team is composed of the Chancellor, Deans, Associate/Assistant Deans, and Directors, as appropriate for the unit under review. The appropriate Deansand Chancellor, or their designates, participate in the initial planning of the review, setting review objectives, and nominating individuals to serve as external and internal reviewers, and meeting with the review team during the review itself. After the distribution of the reviewers’ report, the Deans and Chancellorreceive a copy of the unit’s response to the report and may provide additional commentary. The Chancellorchairs the follow-up meeting, helps to incorporate the review findings into the annual planning and budgeting process of the Institute, and has primary responsibility for implementation of the plan of action. The Deans and the Coordinator share responsibility for planning and implementation of the mid-cycle review.

The Unit

The UTIA recognizes that units under review may not necessarily align with the organizational chart (e.g., cross-department interdisciplinary teams). Therefore, a unit may be

  1. an academic department with research, teaching, Extension and/or outreach functions
  2. interdisciplinary units that cross existing administrative units such as departments or colleges; examples being the biofuels initiative or the CVM Hospital
  3. non-degree granting units; examples being 4-H, Family and Consumer Sciences, or a Research and Education Center.

In planning a review, the unit administrator participates in establishing the review dates. When feasible, these may be adjusted to coincide with accreditation or other reviews by external agencies or pentannual review of the unit administrator. The unit administrator engages faculty and staff in a self-study of the unit (see self-study guidelines and forms in Appendix I, page 18), recommends a list of appropriate external and internal reviewers, prepares a draft schedule for confirmation by the Coordinator, and plans reviewers’ travel, hotel accommodations, and local transportation. The unit administrator oversees the final preparation and duplication, as a CD or bound-paper document, of the self-study document and meets with the review team during the review.

After receipt of the review team report, the unit administrator,in consultation with the faculty and/or staff, responds in a written statement to the Coordinator and participates in the follow-up session.

Faculty and staff members in the program under review are an integral part of the review process. They have the responsibility to make significant contribution and input and to present information in the self-study document and are encouraged to participate in all aspects of the review process, including the review and its follow-up.

The Review Team

Two or three external reviewers and two or three internal reviewers normally compose the five-member review team. Team composition and size is based on the nature and needs of the unit being reviewed. External reviewers are professionals in the field under review, and at least one is from a university. In cases of accreditation and/or professional certification or licensure, the second reviewer may be a practicing certified or licensed professional outside of academe. External reviewers from other universities should be from peer or aspirational peer institutions of the unit. Internal reviewers are often selected from disciplines closely related to the program under review, although this is not a requirement, and may come from UT units outside the UTIA. The wisdom and experience of a faculty member from a “distant” discipline may provide a valuable perspective.

The unit administrator, in consultation with the faculty, provides a prioritized list of potential reviewers to the Coordinator. The dean(s) and Chancellor also nominate reviewers. The Coordinator will finalize the list with the unit administrator. The Coordinator will then extend invitations to the potential reviewers.

The review team has the following responsibilities:

  1. Before the review visit, all team members are expected to read carefully the self-study document and to note questions and concerns to be addressed during the review visit.
  2. All team members participate fully in the meetings.
  3. For those units under review that have responsibility for academic degree programs, at the conclusion of the review, external reviewers complete and sign the checklist forms required as part of program evaluation related to Performance Funding (see Appendices II, page 55, and III, page 59, for copies of these forms).
  4. The team agrees upon an outline of its report, develops a draft of the report, and shares its major findings and recommendations in separateConcluding Sessions with 1) unit faculty and staff and 2)UTIA administration and appropriate UTK administrators, all before adjourning on the last day of the review.
  5. All team members contribute to a singlefinal written report, which is sent to the Coordinator within three to four weeks of the conclusion of the review. A suggested report outline is included in Appendix IV (page 62).

Performance Funding

Initiated by the state of Tennessee in 1979, Performance Funding offers a means of rewarding public institutions of higher education according to indicators established in consultation with campus representatives and staff of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC). State appropriations for Performance Funding amount to several millions of dollars for UT annually. The comprehensive evaluation of academic programs for Performance Funding comes through unit reviews, where the external reviewers complete forms contained in Appendices II (page 55) and III (page59) that are submitted with UT’s annual Performance Funding Report.

Components of the Unit Review Self-Study Document[2]

  1. Unit characteristics
  2. Coverage of the discipline: general or focused/specialized
  3. Emphasis: basic, theoretical or applied; teaching, research, Extension programming, and professional service
  4. Curriculum including student learner outcomes, assessment and improvement
  5. Unique features
  6. International dimensions or perspectives: faculty, students, curriculum
  7. Off-campus, non-traditional teaching beyond Extension programming
  8. Admissions and retention: standards, attrition, enrollment trends
  9. Centrality of the unit to the UTIA and university mission
  10. Relationship to other units and possibilities for cooperative arrangements with other units
  11. Contribution to general education for undergraduates
  12. Inter-institutional relationships
  13. Unit quality
  14. Unit goals/objectives for instruction, research, Extension and professionalservice
  15. Status of accreditation and other outside assessments of the unit and its programs
  16. Quality of instruction and advising
  17. Nature and quality of the faculty and staff, if appropriate
  18. Nature and quality of the students
  19. Nature and quality of the curriculum and/or courses in non-traditional or distance education formats
  20. Nature and quality of Extension programming
  21. Quality of the unit as reflected by student evaluations, peer evaluations, standardized tests, alumni and/or employer evaluations, client and/or stakeholder evaluations, national rankings or status within region, achievements of students and alumni, or other appropriate measures.
  22. Unit support and resources
  23. Financing: institutional (state, Federal, and private giving) and external (grants and contracts)
  24. Support personnel
  25. Laboratory facilities and equipment
  26. Library resources
  27. Computer services
  28. Space and facilities maintenance
  29. Unit administration
  30. Organization, committee structure, management, direction
  31. Faculty contribution; evidence of shared governance
  32. Strategic planning process and actions
  33. Student contribution
  34. Staff contribution
  35. Diversity issues
  36. Faculty, staff, students, curriculum, Extension programming
  37. On-going efforts
  38. Achievements and plans
  39. International infusion
  40. Curriculum
  41. Research initiatives
  42. Extension programming
  43. Intellectual environment
  44. Support for professional development of faculty and/or staff
  45. Overall effectiveness

Timetable for Review

The following are major steps in the review process. A summary of responsibilities for the entire process is included as Appendix V (page 64).