-------
- Again—which vision and mission are we addressing? How does the MnSCU strategic plan etc etc fit in here?
- Each dept should have a ‘mission’ statement and ‘outcomes’ for their graduates –check with the Student Learning Assessment committee (or whatever it’s called now). They should be listed in the Bulletin I think. Do we put this here too?
- I think Item G is way too vague—‘congruence of the program to institutional expectations’??? the ‘vision’ issue arises here again (see above).
Data provided: Enrollment and major trends over a 5 year period, persistence by program year one to year two (is this supposed to look at retention of students from 1st to 2nd year? Why not include infusion of students into a program, e.g. transfer students joining a program), ratio of total courses to major courses, ratio of total courses to courses in service to other majors, ratio of total courses to Dragon Core (what issues are we supposed to address with these data?)
It makes sense to examine whether or not the program is in congruence with MSUM’s expectations (item G) but it’s not clear to me what information will support that.
As for adaptability of the program (items C and F, which should be combined), it makes sense to examine if a program evolves to meet changes in its field, if it does then student needs (if one assumes that students expect to receive current training) should be met. Otherwise it’s not clear what “student needs” means. Unless these items reflect a program’s maturity and adaptability relates to flexibility in mode of delivery, hours courses are offered at etc. These issues need clarification.
How is one supposed to find information about MSUM’s original expectations of a program? (It’s easier to describe changes over a recent 5 or 10 year period, but the origins? Does anyone on campus keep data like that?)
-------
Using 5 year trends is not justified (actually, there is very little evidence at all provided in this book for any of the author's claims). I don't see the value in 5-year trends, especially in institutions like universities. When the trends turn around, you may need to retrench elsewhere and re-institute programs that were previously dropped. 5 year plans are generally short-sighted. (by the way, if you had looked at 5-year trends in housing values at the peak of the bubble and invested all your money in high priced houses, where would you be now?).
--------
On item C:
This statement makes implications about our students that may in fact not be true. For example, our student population in most programs is predominantly composed of traditional students. Our tuition and fee structure has actively discouraged non-traditional students from attending our campus. Programs should not be scored down for not offering classes outside of prime time that would have remained two thirds empty and been fiscally irresponsible. Capacity to offer non-prime time classes in the future might be a more accurate indicator.
The number of on-line courses is also a dubious indicator on our campus. Our university has a tradition of being an institution of access for individuals of lower economic status. Indeed, President Szymanski has indicated this in a town hall meeting. We have prided ourselves on helping people and the community to better themselves. People of lower economic classes are generally not well equipped to succeed at on-line coursework particularly early in their educational careers. On-line courses are most appropriate for wealthy suburban students who have a culture of digital access at home and in well-funded schools. Low income and rural students do not typically have access at the same levels. Also, on-line education is more successful for students involved in graduate and upper level coursework where students are more familiar with and independent in accessing information and building knowledge. A far more appropriate indicator would be programs providing students with appropriate digital instruction that helps them to bridge the digital divide, rather that burying them behind it through failure in on-line courses. The “Digital Native” student much talked about nationally has not yet reached our campus in large numbers. Widespread use of cell phones and social networking pages do not necessarily translate into computer-savvy learning skills. The situation may be different in years to come, but our current students should not have their needs neglected.
On item E:
This is largely the same question as subheading “C” it should be combined with it.
On item G:
The original working of this statement assumes that the institution had defined and communicated expectations of its programs. I believe this is not true on a broad scale.
On item H:
Is the number of courses a useful measure? Or might it be more useful to look at the number of sections or the number of seats offered?
-------
The commenter adapted this criteria to be:
A. Please make a brief statement regarding the establishment of the program and its evolution.
B. Describe recent changes to the program and their rationale. How has the program adapted to changing institutional expectations and/or the changing needs and expectations of today’s students?
C. You will be provided with:
a. Enrollment and major trends over a 5 year period
b. Persistence by program year one to year two
D. You will be provided with the ratio of total courses to major courses, ratio of total courses to courses in service to other majors, ratio of total courses to Dragon Core,
-------
• Clarification needed on how would the expectations of students today be determined? Anecdotally? NESSE data (from what years?). What is the time frame? Between now and 5 yrs ago, 10 yrs ago etc. Depending on how far back one looks, program adaptation to change may be marked or not at all.
• In the scoring rubric what is the difference between "program adapted to meet change" and "program adapted to meet needs of current students". Perhaps these could be merged into 1?
• Persistence from year 1 to year 2 can be strongly influenced by many factors outside of a student's major (preparation, housing, etc.). How do we account for this?
• Will we have a definition of broad institutional outcomes? It is clear that we will have a draft vision to work with but what are our BIO's? Are they found in our current mission statement (which will be revised)? Again, perhaps these two items on the scoring rubric could be combined
No comments:
Post a Comment