SELF-STUDY REPORT: THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
submitted to the
MIDDLE STATES COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION (MSCHE)
January, 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of Maryland, College Park has chosen a special topics model for its institutional self-study. In this model, some of the fourteen standards for accreditation are addressed through documentation and the remainder in a more focused self-study report. The plan for the overall self-study was described in a self-study design submitted to MSCHE on November 23, 2005 and approved by John Erickson for MSCHE on December 22, 2005.
Following this plan, we assembled appropriate documents (and brief roadmaps through the documents) to demonstrate compliance with the following full MSCHE Standards for Accreditation:
Standard 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
Standard 5: Administration
Standard 6: Integrity
Standard 8: Student Admissions
Standard 9: Student Support Services
We also provided documents (and the corresponding roadmap) to demonstrate compliance with selected elements of Standard 10: Faculty.
These documents were assembled and roadmaps prepared by the Self-Study Working Group with the participation, advice, and assistance of many individuals from across the University community. All these materials were made available to two generalist reviewers before and during their visit to the University on November 16 and 17, 2006. The report of the generalist reviewers and copies of the roadmaps are appended to this executive summary. In their report the reviewers provide their assessment that each of the standards that they considered has been met. Brief institutional responses to some questions posed in the report are included with it.
The University’s self-study report treats two special topics. Topic A, Institutional Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation, addresses Accreditation Standards 2, 3, and 7. Topic B, Educational Offerings and Effectiveness, addresses Standards 11, 12, 13 and 14 as well as major portions of Standard 10.
Topic A concerns the University’s mechanisms for resource allocation and assessment, how the University deploys resources in furtherance of its mission, and how it has responded to the challenges of reduced state support, increased student expectations, and burgeoning costs for maintaining and operating facilities. Material addressing this topic was put together in a draft report by a working group (WG1) convened for the purpose. The Self-Study Working Group, with the advice of many other individuals, further developed this draft report into the Topic A narrative.
The introduction to Topic A provides an institutional context for what follows. Section I then gives a brief overview of the University’s current resource base and its sources, followed by a review of institutional missions and goals. Section II describes overall planning processes and related accountability measures, followed by a sampling in Section II.B of significant actions and achievements directly related to each of the major thrusts of the University’s strategic plan. Section III focuses on resource allocations. Section III.B describes the central allocation structures and Section III.C the operating and capital budgeting processes. Section III.D lists selected major building projects and initiatives that have received significant resource allocations in the past decade. Together, Sections II.B and III.D demonstrate that the University operates in ways that are designed to fulfill its stated mission and to achieve its stated goals.
The University delegates responsibility for the distribution of divisional resources to the corresponding vice presidents, who then are held accountable for achieving institutional goals. Section III.F describes the planning and review processes in place for resource allocation within the largest division, Academic Affairs.
Section III.G details the University’s direct response to a recent major reduction in the State’s budget allocation, as well as the planning efforts and actions undertaken to respond to the expectation that reduced state support is the new reality. Section III.H addresses significant remaining challenges. These include: the tension between limited state allocations and tuition revenue and real resources needs; the need for a comprehensive strategy that bases resource allocations more firmly on measured success in accomplishing the University’s mission; the difficulty of finding sufficient resources to address facilities maintenance and renewal; the difficulty of maintaining access to scholarly information resources in the face of rapidly escalating prices for journals and other library materials; and the need to assure that our individual graduate programs are appropriately sized and sufficiently supported to reflect fully our educational and scholarly goals.
Section IV addresses institutional assessment processes, omitting the assessment of student learning, which is covered in detail in Topic B. Section IV.A provides an overview of assessment processes in place. Because of the distributed nature of institutional leadership and detailed institutional decision making, the self-study describes assessment processes at the various leadership levels. Thus, Section IV.B describes assessment at the President’s level, in terms of his accountability to the General Assembly, the Board of Regents, and the Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, of his reports to the University Senate and other constituencies, and of the advice and reports that the president solicits from task groups and committees and from those individuals who are accountable to him. Similarly, Sections IV.C through IV.H describe assessment within the responsibility domains of each of the vice presidents. In each case assessment processes include reports to higher or outside authorities as well as advice and reports to the vice president from or concerning those within his or her domain.
Topic B of the self-study report addresses the quality, breadth, accessibility, oversight, and assessment of the University’s educational offerings and the quality of its faculty and its capacity to fulfill its educational responsibilities. Several working groups assembled materials addressing this topic. Working Group 2 (WG2) considered faculty issues (Standard 10), three subgroups of WG3 respectively handled Educational Offerings (Standard 11), General Education (Standard 12), and Related Educational Activities (Standard 13). WG4 was concerned with the Assessment of Student Learning (Standard 14). The Self-Study Working Group, with the advice of many other individuals, developed all these materials into the Topic B narrative. The narrative incorporates sections of some working group drafts. Where appropriate, other sections are included as appendices.
Topic B begins with a contextual introduction to the theme of Faculty, Educational Offerings, and Effectiveness. Section V is devoted to the faculty and their changing roles in the development of a modern research university. It analyzes the faculty size, composition, and selection process with regard to changing faculty demographics particularly in light of both “classic” and emergent areas of research, scholarship, and teaching. Section V also discusses faculty diversity as well as the scholarship of diversity and makes specific recommendations concerning the retention and promotion of underrepresented faculty.
Section VI begins the focus on undergraduate education with a description of the many enrichment programs and opportunities for student learning available outside the traditional classroom. These include living-learning programs, study abroad, undergraduate research, experiential learning, and academic transition programs. Section VII discusses the scope of the General Education program, significant curriculum changes over the past ten years, programmatic oversight, review, and assessment. Section VIII focuses on developments in undergraduate interdisciplinary programs. Section IX examines the institution’s effectiveness in undergraduate education with special attention paid to retention and graduation rates, to issues concerning transfer students, and to the use of information technology in the classroom and beyond.
Graduate education is the subject of Sections X through XII. Section X discusses how graduate education is evolving at the institution with a specific focus on interdisciplinary programs and research centers and institutes. Section XI addresses effectiveness in graduate education and developments in related policies and projects, while Section XII discusses the growth of graduate professional education programs at the University.
Section XIII describes the University’s continuing education and extension outreach programs, while Section XIV turns to off-campus programs with emphasis on those offered at the innovative Universities at Shady Grove, a University System of Maryland regional center, and those offered abroad, particularly in China. Section XV describes the University-wide initiatives and cultural shift in the assessment of student learning.
The self-study report includes a substantial number of specific recommendations for further analysis or action. These are found throughout the pertinent sections of the report and also have been collected into a single document that is included as part of this executive summary.
While the self-study report addresses all the areas relevant to the covered accreditation standards, many of the details are treated in a number of appendices. Furthermore, while each report section is designed to focus on a particular standard, material addressing each standard nevertheless is found throughout the report and in corresponding appendices. A series of indexes is appended to this executive summary to assist the review team in locating needed information. The indexes are organized by standards and by essential elements within each standard. They specify where each of the elements is addressed in the self-study report. Those standards and elements that were already covered through documentation are also indicated.
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation for Section III.C, Budgetary Processes:
The University should develop a process whereby the budget allocations among divisions and among units within each division are reviewed periodically and adjusted as appropriate for the furtherance of the institution’s mission and goals.
Recommendation for Section III.G, Budget Crisis and Response:
As part of its strategic planning effort, the University should establish goals for the resources required to fulfill its mission and each strategic objective. Continuing to work with the Board of Regents and state authorities, the University should adopt realistic strategies for achieving these resources.
Recommendations for Section III.H, Continuing Resource and Allocation Challenges:
Given that substantial increases in state appropriations and in tuition rates are unlikely to occur, the University must continue to explore alternative means to enhance its revenues while also determining how current resources will be used more efficiently.
As part of its ongoing strategic planning effort, the University should work to develop appropriate achievement measures and a resource allocation scheme that more effectively evaluate and reward unit productivity.
The University should work with the Board of Regents, the Governor, and the General Assembly to find the resources needed to address its significant facilities challenges.
The University should pursue vigorously its thorough analysis of the adequacy of its scholarly information resources and of the national landscape for access to such resources. It should develop a comprehensive plan to address its most pressing needs, including a strategy for the allocation of new resources and for the continuing reallocation of existing resources as appropriate. It should work with the University System and the State of Maryland to devise a plan for achieving the resources required.
The Graduate School Dean and Council should assume the lead in pursuing study and actions that address the optimum size of graduate programs, the allocation of resources to programs, the financial support of graduate students, and their working and living conditions.
Recommendations for Section IV.C.2, Internal Management, including Assessment of Deans, Department Chairs, and Academic Units:
The Academic Affairs division should ensure that future unit reviews include evaluation of learning outcomes goals and means for the assessment of student learning, as well as of the unit’s use of assessment findings in continual program development and improvement.
The University should examine the rationale for post-tenure review and its current implementation. If necessary, UM should amend the present process so that it accomplishes the aims of institutional and USM policies, provides an adequate return on the real investment of effort required, and can assure the Regents, the Maryland General Assembly, and the citizens of the state that the University deploys its resources responsibly.
Recommendation for Section V.C.1, Faculty Titles and Responsibilities:
As the heterogeneous category of Research Faculty now represents the plurality of faculty at the University of Maryland, the University should review the content and implementation of policies regarding these faculty. In order to fully recognize and appreciate their growing roles in the institution, UM must develop an accurate system of classifying Research Faculty. The Office of the Vice President for Research, in cooperation with the Dean of the Graduate School, should complete the ongoing examination of postdoctorals at the University of Maryland. By working with a task force that includes postdoctoral representatives, the University should develop a formal association to more fully integrate them into the University community, and to provide postdoctorals with peer and career mentoring and other forms of support.
Recommendations for Section V.C.2.a, Gender:
While there is growing attention paid to the mentoring of junior faculty in general, the University should make additional significant efforts to mentor women and underrepresented faculty to successful tenure and promotion to the associate professor level and beyond.
Recommendations for Section V.C.2.b, Race, Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation:
There is a relatively high rate of turnover among our minority faculty. The University should study and address the underlying reasons for this high turnover rate in order to fulfill institutional goals for a diverse community.
Recommendation for Section VI.A.1, Living-Learning Communities:
To ensure the continued success of our living-learning programs, the University should regularly review all of these programs. All living-learning programs should have current program missions, goals, and objectives, with associated student learning outcomes that can be measured and assessed.
Recommendation for Section VI.B, International Experiences: Study Abroad:
The Office of Study Abroad, in close collaboration with faculty, should articulate overall goals for international learning experiences. An evaluation process and assessment instruments should be developed for all international courses with sufficient feedback to faculty and academic units to ensure program improvement. The University Senate report on study abroad due in spring 2007 will provide further recommendations.
Recommendation for Section VI.C, Undergraduate Research:
Given the high value that the University of Maryland places on undergraduate research, the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment should lead efforts to find a way to track and report all the credit-bearing and other research experiences of our undergraduates.
Recommendation for Section VI.D, Experiential Learning and Internships:
The University, through its Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment, should gather more robust data concerning the credit-bearing and other experiential learning activities and internships pursued by our undergraduates.
Recommendation for Section VII.E, Committee Conclusions and Specific Recommendations for General Education:
The Learning Outcomes for CORE have been articulated and an assessment plan has been developed. The Office of the Dean for Undergraduate Studies and the Senate CORE Committee should work together to assure that assessment proceeds expeditiously.
Recommendation for Section IX.B, Improvements in Retention and Graduation Rates/Time to Degree and Undergraduate Four-Year Plans:
With the goals of providing our undergraduates with the most fruitful academic experience and of further improving their retention and timely graduation, ongoing monitoring is recommended to ensure that students are being measured against academic progress benchmarks and are being advised appropriately when they are not meeting those benchmarks.
Recommendation for Section IX.C, Transfer Student Numbers, Challenges and Initiatives:
The successful efforts to improve transfer recruitment and the climate for transfer students should continue and should integrate fully the process of recruitment and admission to off-campus transfer programs at The Universities at Shady Grove.
Recommendations for Section XI.D, Graduate Studies and Strategic Directions:
The University should continue to focus on the improvement of graduate education. Careful follow-up should occur concerning the Time- to-Degree Study and Report. Measures for improvement are being established and ongoing assessment of these and subsequent actions is recommended.
As the University proceeds with strategic planning, the improvement of graduate education should be considered a top priority if UM is to achieve institutional goals and objectives.
Recommendation for Section XII, Graduate Professional Programs:
The University should identify goals and challenges related to the rapidly expanding professional and executive programs. The new Advisory Council on Academic Planning and Policy (ACAPP) should review current academic policies to assure that they are consistent with the University’s strategic plan to expand these programs both domestically and internationally. ACAPP should recommend procedural and policy changes that will facilitate flexibility in program design and delivery of courses while assuring academic oversight and quality.
Recommendation for Section XIV.A, The Universities at Shady Grove:
The new Advisory Council on Academic Planning and Policy (ACAPP) should examine issues of enrollment management, student services, program offerings, and short and long-term plans for establishing College Park programs at the Universities at Shady Grove (USG). The University should collaborate closely with the USG administration and partner institutions to plan for and implement effective programmatic growth at the Regional Center.
Recommendations for Section XV, The Assessment of Student Learning:
Current structures and schedules for assessment should be confirmed as institutional infrastructure. The ambitious plan for accomplishing a full round of assessments within four years should remain a top priority for the University.
Programmatic learning outcome goals are publicly available on the University’s Web site and on some college and department Web sites. These learning outcome goals require wider dissemination, on all departmental Web sites, in the printed undergraduate catalog, and through links in the online undergraduate and graduate catalog descriptions of each academic program. The entire University community—as well as potential students, their parents and counselors— needs to be fully informed of the nature and purpose of outcome goals and of the process of assessment.
Course outcomes are not yet fully articulated with programmatic outcomes. Online course syllabi, in many cases already available and accessible through Testudo, should be required for all courses and should be given a standard format in which learning outcomes must be shown and be related to academic program, general education, and/or university-level learning goals.
The process for assessment of learning outcomes for general education and university-level goals needs additional development. Timely completion of the assessment plan for CORE will allow for meaningful adjustments to the University’s General Education requirements. CORE assessment results should be disseminated widely to the faculty who teach these courses and who will need to provide guidance for CORE revision.