Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Room 432 Wimberly


Present: Georges Cravins, Kurt Czerwinski, Carla Graham, Mike Hoffman, Gary Konas, Bob Krajewski, Haixia Lan, Jasmine Saros, [Tammy Fisher-Conference in Chicago; Paul Keaton-Doctor’s appointment]

Consultant: Betsy Morgan, Intern to the Provost

Guest: Teri Thill, Director of Institutional Research


Meeting was convened at 8:08 am

  1. Teri and Betsy explained the rationale for some proposed changes to the existing Academic Program Review Unit Data Sheets: the removal of #2a and #2b because the way to measure workload had changed, the removal of #3, “financial support,” because data was not obtainable, and the expansion of the rest of the data because it was now possible to obtain more detailed, accurate, and therefore helpful data. The new Academic Program Review Data Sheets would take the form of 5 tables that Teri and Betsy proposed.

To collect data on financial support, Betsy proposed the following:

Please provide the following for the past 5 year per fiscal year:

a.      Annual supplies and expenses

b.      Annual non-GPR funding (Grants)

c.       Additional monies from the Dean (travel, computer replacement, etc). Gross total

After some questions and suggestions, Gary moved to forward both proposals (the 5 tables and the new method of collecting data on financial support as recommendations to the Faculty Senate; Mike seconded the motion, and the committee unanimously approved it. It was mentioned that the ways to incorporate the data further into the review process should be an important objective for future discussions.

  1. The committee discussed a deferment clause that Betsy had drafted and proposed for the committee to consider. Using Betsy’s draft, Carla moved for the Faculty Senate to adopt the following procedure for changes to Self-Study timelines:

Departments (or units or programs) wishing to request an official deferment of their review to the next academic year need to request a deferment in writing to their Dean. Reasons for deferment need to be non-trivial and justifiable. If the Dean concurs, he/she will request an approval from the Provost. Whether denied or accepted, the Dean and department will receive some official notification. Only an official deferment will alter the timeline; delays in the process do not alter it.

Georges seconded the recommendation, and the committee unanimously passed it.

  1. The committee discussed Betsy’s recommendation to require electronic versions of the self-study, the Dean’s letter, and APR reports. Georges moved, Carla seconded, and the committee unanimously approved the recommendation of the following policy to the Faculty Senate:
    1. Starting in Fall of 2006, all departments (or units or programs) will submit the following materials in pdf format: the self report, unit data sheets, reviewer’s recommendations, and the Dean’s letters. When the reports are submitted to APR, both the reviewer’s recommendations and the Dean’s letters also need to be submitted in hardcopy with original signatures. Finally, the APR report to Faculty Senate will need to be submitted to the Faculty Senate in pdf format.
  2. Committee members were updated on the development of the review and then volunteered to join and form three-member subcommittee as follows:

Update: December 2005


English (Richard Sullivan): under review

1.                   Georges Cravins

2.                   Mike Hoffman

3.                   Bob Krajewski


Psychology (Emily Johnson/Betsy Morgan): completed (December 1, 2005)

1.                   Tammy Fisher

2.                   Paul Keaton

3.                   ____________


Education Studies (Kent Koppleman): under review

1.                   Carla Graham

2.                   Jasmine Saros

3.                   Kurt Czerwinski


Physics (Gubbi Sudhakaran): under review

1.                   Jamine Saros

2.                   Gary Konas

3.                   Haixia Lan


ESS (Physical education, teacher certification [graduate], Pat DiRocco): Dean’s office as of December 2005

1.                   Haixia Lan

2.                   Bob Krajewski

3.                   Mike Hoffman


International Studies (Eric Kraemer): December 2005

4.                   Haixia Lan

1.                   Bob Krajewski

2.                   Kurt Czerwinski



Music (Gary Walth & Terence Kelly): December 2005

1.                   Georges Cravins

2.                   Paul Keaton

3.                   Carla Graham


Math (Bruce Riley): January 2006

1.                   Carla Graham

2.                   Georges Cravins

3.                   Paul Keaton


Chemistry (Aaron Monte): January 2006

1. Gary Konas

2. Mike Hoffman

3.Tammy Fisher



SCH of Health Ed/Health Promotion (Dan Duquette): January 2006

1.                   ­__________________

2.                   __________________

3.                   __________________


Theatre Arts (Billy Clow): January/February 2006

1.                   Tammy Fisher

2.                   Gary Konas

3.                   Kurt Czerwinski


History (Charles Lee): May 2006



Communication Studies (Rick Rodrick): June 2006


Meeting adjourned, 9:16 a.m.

Haixia Lan, Chair


UNIT DATA SHEETS (Revised 2006)

Definition:  The Unit Data Sheets are a complementary component of the self-study and are required as part of the review process. 

Procedure:  Units (departments or programs) receive an official notification of APR deadlines in the January prior to the summer during which their self-study is due.  During the Spring semester following the notification, the Office of Institutional Research generates Part B of the Unit Data Sheet and sends it to the unit under review.

Unit Data Sheets Format: There are two components of the data required. 

Part A:  Fiscal information.  The fiscal information for the report must be requested by the department from their college office.   Colleges provide financial information for each of the years since the last APR review.  The attached chart below is a mock-up of the information for a department with an external consultant visiting in the Fall of 2007.  The format of the table can vary as long as the requested information is included.

Part B:  Student and SCH information.  The Institutional Researcher provides five tables of information.  Detailed information regarding hoe the data is garnered is provided in Appendix A.

Table 1: Degrees Granted by FIscal Year

·        Shows number of graduates, average credits earned at time of graduation and average years to degree completion for every year since the last APR review.

Table 2: Enrollment by Major

·        Shows number of majors and minors by class standing broken out by programs within the unit.

Table 3: Academic Profile

·        Table 3a contains data on the average term GPA, SCH Load, and % of students on probation by major or program within the department. Table 3b provides comparative data for all students at the University by type of degree.

Table 4: Student Diversity

·        Table 4a contains demographic data (gender and ethnicity/race) for students in the department and Table 4b contains the comparative data for all undergraduate, graduate & special students at the University.

Table 5: Personnel & Instructional Workload

·        Table 5 provides information regarding student credit hour (SCH) production and instructional FTE in various categories. The comparative University total data is appended to the bottom of Table 5.




Unit Data Sheets – Fiscal Information Part A.


Round to the nearest dollar.







 1.  Annual supplies and expenses








2. Annual non-GPR funding (Grants)















3.Additional monies from the Dean (travel, computer replacement, etc).  Gross total.







Subtotal – Travel only







College Average per department















Appendix A: Part B Tables – additional information regarding the data

Table 1: Degrees Granted by FIscal Year

o       Average years to degree completion is calculated by subtracting a students first term attended from their degree term and may therefore include time that the student may not have been enrolled.  A fiscal year of number of graduates includes J-term, Summer, Fall and Spring.

o      Table 2: Enrollment by Major

o       Students can declare up to 6 majors/minors/concentrations in our current database; the data presented counts all majors regardless of the 6 database slots into which they are coded.

o       Additionally, data on minors is provided. Caveat - if a student has a major and a minor in the same department, they will be counted multiple times – once for each major and minor – in the Total Students line.

o      Table 3: Academic Profile

o       Table 3 is a new addition to the UDS in 2006.  On probation means “not in good standing.”  In 3b the university graduate total includes learning community students.

o      Table 4: Student Diversity

o       Table 4 is a new addition to the UDS in 2006.

o      Table 5: Personnel & Instructional Workload

o       Instructional FTE (IFTE) is based on Fall term departmental instructional appointments as of the October payroll, which is considered the Official record for personnel data. It has been adjusted back to Fall 2000 to include instructor overloads and release time.

o       Data on faculty with graduate status by department has not been maintained consistently over the past several years in the same place. Therefore, in order to provide some measure of graduate faculty presence in the department, the number of instructors who have taught at least one graduate-level course in a given year is reported. It is important to note that this is a headcount and not an FTE measure.

o       Total SCH production is based on the Official Day of Record for Fall terms (the 10th day of instruction). Undergraduate and Graduate SCH production is based on course number with courses numbered 499 and below counted as Undergraduate and courses numbered 500 and above counted as Graduate. General Education SCH is the SCH produced by the department faculty in General Education courses.

o       For most of the workload measures, SCH produced is divided by the departmental IFTE; however, because not all faculty are graduate faculty, the Graduate SCH is divided by the number of instructors who have taught at least one graduate-level course. Because this denominator is a headcount and not an FTE, it cannot be directly compared to the other workload measures.