Comments received:
-----
• Perhaps just some clarity here on how will the "to what extent’s be determined? Is this determined at each level of prioritization in a relative manner? So all CSNS programs are scored relative to each other first, not compared with all other programs on campus as the scoring rubric says.
-----
The commenter rewrote this criteria as:
A. You will be provided with:
o Quintiles of entering majors
o Quintiles of grad majors
o 5 year trend lines of majors
B. Please make a statement regarding your perceptions of the external demands to continue the program.
C. To what extent is this program unique in its contribution to our state and region?
-----
Data provided: quantiles of entering majors, and grad majors, and 5 year trend lines of majors.
Here it’s easier to see how the data will be used, but the matrix needs to be cleaned up to fit the data requested.
I don’t know if one can answer item E. Statewide data comparisons? Are such data even available?
------
• Question B is asking for opinion which, of course, all programs will have hundreds of students just waiting in the wings to attend, if only the program had more faculty or equipment or scholarships or… I think we need to stress some data-driven ‘opinion’ here.
• Question E asks for statewide data and, esp since we are a border city, I think we should also look at ‘regional’ comparisons IF students come here from ND, SD, WI, IA. As we move into the ‘online’ formats, the geographic location of the student will only be an issue as it relates to ‘out of state’ tuition and/or licensure issues (for example, nursing faculty must be licensed in the state where they are supervising students). The ‘market’ for a particular major may be significantly outside of MN but still be very viable (i.e. we have literally hundreds of international students currently).
-------
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Criteria 2: External Demand for Program
A. You will be provided with:
o Quintiles of entering majors
o Quintiles of grad majors
o 5 year trend lines of majors
B. Please make a statement regarding your opinion of potential for future enrollments
C. Please make a statement regarding the resources needed to continue support (majors/minors)
D. Please make a statement regarding your perceptions of the external demands to continue the program.
E. Please include any statewide data comparisons you feel are pertinent
o Quintiles of entering majors
o Quintiles of grad majors
o 5 year trend lines of majors
B. Please make a statement regarding your opinion of potential for future enrollments
C. Please make a statement regarding the resources needed to continue support (majors/minors)
D. Please make a statement regarding your perceptions of the external demands to continue the program.
E. Please include any statewide data comparisons you feel are pertinent
My suggestion for Criteria 1
My summary of comments:
Points A and B will be very hard to write accurately and, in any event, it is unclear how to score.
Points C and F are redundant.
Point D, which asks for data, has a couple problems:
Point H should not simply include total courses. Number of sections or enrollment is more relevant.
Suggested draft as of 11AM, 2/4/09:
A. Put your department in the context of the university. This brief statement might include information about your department's history, evolution, or the extent to which your department meets the expectations of students. Put differently, this is the place to introduce yourself to the president and those on the review committees who are not familiar with your department.
B. Please make a statement regarding the maturity of the program. Could it be expected to grow with existing resources or is your department at capacity? The purpose is to set expectations and provide a context for interpreting enrollment data.
C. The data provided should include enrollments in courses. Number of courses alone does not measure teaching load.
Points A and B will be very hard to write accurately and, in any event, it is unclear how to score.
Points C and F are redundant.
Point D, which asks for data, has a couple problems:
- The five year time period seems arbitrary. It also isn't clear what the desirable outcome is here. For some programs growth is desirable, but for others flat enrollment means the program is operating at capacity.
- This should be dropped because it is a very incomplete attempt at measuring program success in retaining students and because MSUM goes out of its way to educate students of all abilities.
Point H should not simply include total courses. Number of sections or enrollment is more relevant.
Suggested draft as of 11AM, 2/4/09:
A. Put your department in the context of the university. This brief statement might include information about your department's history, evolution, or the extent to which your department meets the expectations of students. Put differently, this is the place to introduce yourself to the president and those on the review committees who are not familiar with your department.
B. Please make a statement regarding the maturity of the program. Could it be expected to grow with existing resources or is your department at capacity? The purpose is to set expectations and provide a context for interpreting enrollment data.
C. The data provided should include enrollments in courses. Number of courses alone does not measure teaching load.
Criteria 1: Comments from campus
Suggestion are below, separated by a dashed line.
-------
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
-------
- 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
Criteria 1: History, Development and Expectations of the Program
A. Please make a brief statement regarding the establishment of the program and its evolution.
B. Please make a brief statement regarding MSUM’s original expectations of the program and how the program has evolved to meet current expectations.
C. Please describe the program has adapted to meet the expectations of students today. You may wish to include the number of courses outside prime time, the number of on-line courses, the number of developmental courses offered (or allowed for in course planning).
D. You will be provided with:
a. Enrollment and major trends over a 5 year period
b. Persistence by program year one to year two
E. Please make a statement regarding the maturity of the program. To what extent does the program show potential for growth? What is the comparative advantage regionally?
F. Please make a statement regarding the adaptability of the program especially addressing: to what extent is the program adapted to the needs and expectations of today’s students?
G. Please make a statement regarding the congruence of the program to institutional expectations. To what extent does the program support broad institutional outcomes? Is the program an area that supports the vision of the institution?
H. 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,
B. Please make a brief statement regarding MSUM’s original expectations of the program and how the program has evolved to meet current expectations.
C. Please describe the program has adapted to meet the expectations of students today. You may wish to include the number of courses outside prime time, the number of on-line courses, the number of developmental courses offered (or allowed for in course planning).
D. You will be provided with:
a. Enrollment and major trends over a 5 year period
b. Persistence by program year one to year two
E. Please make a statement regarding the maturity of the program. To what extent does the program show potential for growth? What is the comparative advantage regionally?
F. Please make a statement regarding the adaptability of the program especially addressing: to what extent is the program adapted to the needs and expectations of today’s students?
G. Please make a statement regarding the congruence of the program to institutional expectations. To what extent does the program support broad institutional outcomes? Is the program an area that supports the vision of the institution?
H. 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,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)