Self-Study Report Topic B

Topic B covers Standards 10-14. These five standards focus on the heart of the University’s academic enterprise—the quality, breadth, accessibility, oversight, and assessment of the institution’s educational offerings, and the ability of its faculty to meet those standards. As discussed in Topic A, the developments and challenges of the past ten years have had a substantial impact on the University’s complex educational enterprise. Therefore, the study of Standards 10-14 unfolds in the context of significant changes to our faculty, and to our undergraduate, graduate, and professional curricula as a result of these constraints. At the same time, the University effected many changes in its programs and faculty over the past ten years through deliberate strategic processes based on institutional mission and goals.

As the flagship institution of the University System of Maryland, the University has a distinct role as a public research-extensive institution within the state and the region. As producers of knowledge, we share our research, teaching, artistic endeavors, technology, and facilities with various communities, whether in terms of our traditional land-grant status or in emerging areas of entrepreneurial research and teaching. In short, the University of Maryland serves and collaborates with many constituencies in many different roles.

This second topic of the self-study highlights the principle strategic developments that have influenced the effectiveness of our faculty and our educational offerings over the past decade. The body of this report responds to the following dynamic tensions that mark change in institutional foci in two related areas—Faculty and Educational Effectiveness, and Educational Offerings and Effectiveness.

Having just commemorated its 150th anniversary, the University now is beginning a new strategic planning process as discussed briefly in Section I.B. This planning process undoubtedly will reaffirm much of the traditional academic enterprise, but also may require the University to rethink other portions of the model for a modern research university. The University regards the Middle States review process as a great asset to the strategic planning initiative. The self-study exercise, in particular, provides an opportunity to assess the broad spectrum of our research, scholarly, and educational enterprises, gauge their effectiveness in fulfilling our mission and goals, and present recommendations for future directions.

This discussion of the faculty is framed within the context of two aspects of our strategic plan: (a) to become a preeminent public research university providing excellence in scholarship, research, and teaching; and (b) to foster diversity by incorporating it into the curriculum, research and scholarly agenda, and composition of our faculty and students.The University has pursued these goals through a series of independent enterprises. At this critical juncture, we are beginning to systematize the policy and data infrastructure, in order to understand the impact of the changing composition and roles of the faculty.

A. The University of Maryland as a Modern Research University: Faculty Research and Scholarship

A fundamental component of the University’s mission and strategic plan has been to assure that faculty throughout the institution are of the stature to achieve national and international recognition in their fields. The University also has sought to develop preeminent disciplinary programs and provide for new scholarly opportunities for faculty and students that go beyond the “classic” disciplines of a university. These efforts have led to increased recognition of the quality of our research and graduate programs, including significant increases in the number of programs ranked highly in the annual reputational surveys of U.S. News and World Report. In 2005, thirty-one graduate programs or program specializations were ranked in the top ten and ninety-two in the top twenty-five (Appendix 116). These rankings are only one indicator of change and may reflect increases in research funding, major awards and fellowships, and the development of new centers and institutes devoted to scholarly activity and education. These changes have also prompted the development of a new online Faculty Activity Reporting (FAR) system (described in Appendices 70, 71, and 72) that will facilitate compilation of our data and increase the University’s ability to understand and assess the impact of our investment in faculty and programs.

In his 2006 Testimony to the Maryland General Assembly, President Mote stated, “The investment we make in our faculty and programs of high impact is leveraged into significant external funding and national/international recognition.” The President cited examples such as a grant to the Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise for the development of an interactive supply chain system for the U.S. military. Faculty expertise in second language acquisition played a significant role in the selection of UM to host National Foreign Language Initiative Programs in Arabic, Persian, and Russian. The National Science Foundation (NSF) renewed the University’s Center for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, and the new Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery was established in UMIACS (University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies). Other recent examples of external funding initiatives are described in Section II.B under Initiatives Two and Four, and in Appendices 12, 13, 14, and 15.

The University of Maryland has a strong record of funded research activity that continues to show healthy growth over time and across academic fields. Table 1, taken from the most recent National Science Foundation (NSF) Academic Research and Development Expenditures Report, shows that our institution-wide science and engineering research expenditures increased from close to $216 million in FY97 to over $325 million in FY04¹. Longitudinal data from IRPA on college-based research expenditures show that the A. James Clark School of Engineering (ENGR) increased from approximately $45 million in FY98 to over $73 million in FY06. In that same period, the College of Computer, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (CMPS) moved from close to $49 million to more than $81 million. The College of Chemical and Life Sciences (CLFS) R&D expenditures increased from $10.5 million to more than $17 million.

The University has made a commitment to enhance its work in the life sciences, and expects to strengthen its research funding accordingly, although NIH funding is becoming much more competitive. Steps in enhancement include the establishment of research centers such as the Maryland NanoCenter (Appendix 15), the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, and the Center for Biomolecular Structure and Organization. Other steps include the imminent completion of the new Bioscience Research Building, the establishment of the Bioengineering Department and associated programs, and the current development of a School of Public Health.

TABLE 1: NSF Science and Engineering R&D Expenditures at UM for Fiscal Years 1997-2004 (in thousands of dollars)
FY	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Sci/Eng	215,927	223,190	257,628	252,429	267,383	324,980	321,899	325,648

This growth is not confined to the physical and biological sciences. Within the last decade, research funding has also grown significantly in other areas. For example, the most recent (FY04) NSF R&D data (Table 2) show UM ranked second nationally in research expenditures in the social sciences. Over three years, our R&D expenditures in the social sciences increased by over $18 million. In FY04, the Department of Economics accounted for over $19 million in expenditures, ranking number one in the nation.

*TABLE 2: NSF Social Sciences R&D Expenditures at UM for Fiscal Years 2001-2004 with Subfields for 2004* *(in thousands of dollars)*
-	2001	2002	2003	2004 All Social Sciences	Economics	Political Sciences	Sociology	Other Social Sciences
UM	61,208	62,573	70,485	79,872	19,126	10,399	3,812	46,535

Table 3 shows research expenditures in non-science fields in FY04. The $25 million reported for the University of Maryland is the twelfth largest amount nationally, and is in addition to the $325 million reported in Science and Engineering (S&E) fields. The $10 million reported for the humanities is second nationally. The IRPA longitudinal data shows that R&D expenditures in the College of Arts and Humanities (ARHU) increased from a little over $1 million in FY98 to close to $11 million in FY05. Much of this comes from the research expenditures in the foreign languages, and in particular in the National Foreign Language Center. (Significant additional foreign language funding associated with the CASL is not included in the ARHU figure, for technical accounting reasons.)

TABLE 3: NSF Academic R&D Expenditures at UM in Non-S&E Fields for Fiscal Year 2004 *(in thousands of dollars)*
Institution	All S&E R&D Expenditures	Total Non-S&E	Business and Management	Communications, Journalism, and Library Science	Education	Humanities
UM	325,648	25,125	3,536	1,729	9,668	10,192

Also in ARHU, the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center (CSPAC), which houses the School of Music and the Departments of Dance and Theatre, received a $1.125 million grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation in 2006. CSPAC was one of only three institutions awarded a grant as part of the Foundation’s new Leading College and University Presenters Program.

Across disciplines, faculty members are being recognized nationally and internationally. A particularly exciting event in 2005 was the award of the Nobel Prize for Economics to Thomas Schelling of the Department of Economics and the School of Public Policy, the third Nobel laureate to be a faculty member of the University of Maryland. In 2006, this was followed with the award of the Nobel Prize for Physics to John Mather of NASA-Goddard, who is an adjunct faculty member. Other major awards received by University faculty members in the last few years include the Japan Prize awarded to James Yorke in 2003 and the Wolf Prize to Sergei Novikov, both faculty in the Institute for Physical Science and Technology (IPST). Queen Elizabeth II recently bestowed the Royal Medal on Michael Fisher, also of IPST. In addition, Benjamin Barber of Government and Politics and the School of Public Policy and David Poeppel of Linguistics and Biology won the Berlin Prize (2001, 2004). In 2001, two faculty members were awarded the prestigious Packard Fellowship (Victor Muñoz, Chemistry and Biochemistry and Sarah Tishkoff, Biology). Earlene Armstrong (Entomology) was recognized by the National Science Foundation with the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring.

Maryland faculty have earned many other honors as well. Among the most recent was the Computerworld Horizon Award for cutting-edge technologies, awarded to the Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS) in recognition of OASYS, a unique system for online opinion analysis developed under the leadership of Professor V.S. Subrahmanian. Another was to Michael Olmert (English) who won his third Primetime Emmy for documentary screenwriting. The University also has many Pulitzer Prize awardees in various fields, with six alone currently in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism. Table 4 enumerates the national academy memberships of University faculty, which have increased substantially over the past decade.

TABLE 4: National Academy Memberships of UM Faculty
-	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Am. Acad. Arts & Sciences	-	5	6	6	8	8	8	12	14	14	14
Nat'l Acad. Engineering	3	2	2	5	5	5	7	7	10	12	13
Nat'l Acad. Sciences	6	8	10	11	11	11	11	11	12	14	15
TOTAL	9	15	18	22	24	24	26	30	36	40	42

The challenge to a modern research university is to achieve the appropriate balance between a research enterprise and the core mission of the university—the education of students. In the past decade, this challenge to the University was exacerbated by an unfavorable fiscal climate that forced difficult strategic decisions regarding our educational and research enterprises. We concluded, however, that research should not be seen as a competing need, but rather as a source of enrichment of undergraduate and graduate education that could enhance both fiscal resources and programmatic offerings.

B. The University of Maryland as a Modern Research University: Excellence in Instruction

An integral part of the balance between the research and instructional enterprises of the University is determining instructional expectations in terms of quantity and quality. The instructional workloadfor University tenured/tenure-track faculty is subject to workload policy guidelines established in 1994 and amended in 1999 (Appendix 117). The University’s instructional workload was initially set at 5 course units per year. This was raised in 2004 to 5.5 course units as the Board of Regents addressed issues of meeting educational capacity in the state (Appendix 118, p.2 of the document). Course load expectations vary among USM institutions (Appendix 119, p.1 of the document) in accordance with their differing missions.

Faculty accomplishment in teaching is an integral component of salary merit decisions and promotion reviews. Faculty teaching performance is assessed in several ways. The revised APT process requires that the results of student course evaluations be included in the APT materials, and recommends the submission of a teaching portfolio that includes the faculty member’s course syllabi, student evaluations, and other indications of educational creativity and accomplishment (Appendix 120, pp. 45-46 of the document). While most units have been requiring reviews of courses for many years, and have used the resulting data as part of APT decisions, a policy adopted by the University Senate in 2004 requires the student evaluation of every course (Appendix 121) taught at UM. In 2006, the policy was modified (Appendix 122) to accommodate the development of an online course evaluation instrument, still in the pilot phase.

The University is committed to promoting quality teaching and has undertaken several actions to provide feedback and mentoring to junior faculty to enhance their effectiveness and the likelihood of their promotions in the APT process. (See Appendix 123 for the Report of the Senate Task Force on Mentoring and Success of Junior Faculty.) The Office of Faculty Affairs hosts an orientation program for all new faculty, mentors new faculty through the “Terps Teaching Tips” electronic messages, and publishes an Annual Teaching Guide (Appendix 124) listing relevant teaching policies and information about ordering textbooks, preparing syllabi, etc. All faculty also may take advantage of programs developed by the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) (Appendix 125), the Lilly-CTE Fellows program (Appendix 126) and the Academy for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (Appendix 127).

Teaching assistants are integral to the University’s ability to deliver quality instructional programs to undergraduates. Therefore, the University emphasizes the development and evaluation of TA performance in a variety of ways. TA training is conducted within departments and programs, with additional support from the Graduate School and the Center for Teaching Excellence, which provides an excellent TA Resource Guide (Appendix 128) as well as training for TAs. TAs are assessed within units, and in many cases there is considerable input to this assessment from the Center for Teaching Excellence. CTE also collaborates with the Graduate School and the Office of Undergraduate Studies to provide the University Teaching and Learning Program for TAs considering academic teaching careers. In addition, many departments have their own programs to ensure success of teaching assistants. One example is the participation of the Family Studies Department in the Preparing Future Faculty program, a national initiative between the Council of Graduate Schools and the Association of American Colleges and Universities that seeks to transform the ways that aspiring faculty are prepared for their future profession. The Family Studies iteration extends the mission to train both future faculty and family professionals (Appendix 129).

The University has many programs to honor excellence in teaching for both individual faculty and academic units. In addition to the Distinguished Scholar-Teacher award for senior faculty discussed below, individual instructor honors include the Distinguished Teaching Assistant Award (Appendix 130). The Kirwan Undergraduate Award recognizes faculty or staff who have made exceptional contributions to the quality of undergraduate education at the University. Most colleges designate teaching awards for both junior and senior faculty as well as for teaching assistants. Teaching awards for academic units include the CTE-Lilly Fellows Departmental Award for Excellence in Teaching and Innovation in Undergraduate Education (Appendix 131). Our faculty also have received USM teaching awards and national CASE Teacher of the Year awards.

The diverse missions of the University are reflected in the types of faculty positions that have been redefined since the last Middle States review. The changes in the fiscal climate and strategic goals are reflected in the relative distribution of faculty within these positions (Fig. 1). Currently, there are four major groups of faculty at the University: (a) tenured/tenure-track (T/TT) faculty; (b) instructors and lecturers; (c) research faculty; and (d) library faculty. These faculty members are responsible for carrying out the University’s missions of education, research, scholarship, and service to the community. Other faculty, including Professors of the Practice, College Park Professors, and adjunct faculty play important special roles as described below. Details of faculty titles and the corresponding responsibilities and regulations are described in the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT) Manual (Appendix 120, p. 5 of the document). The University has carefully considered, highly detailed, and strictly enforced policies concerning the recruitment, hiring, tenure, and promotion of faculty. These policies are consistent with and expand upon the corresponding USM policies. Both USM and UM policies are periodically reviewed and revised as needed. The most recent review culminated in 2004 with the approval of the revised University APT policy. Examination of the composition of the faculty over the last decade reveals two notable trends: (a) a 6% decline in tenured/tenure-track positions and (b) a growth in the number of research faculty. These added research faculty have enabled the University to greatly expand the breadth and depth of its scholarly activity while simultaneously improving its instructional activities through both curricular and extracurricular enhancements as evidenced in the following sections of this report.

FIGURE 1: Faculty Distribution Among Tenured/Tenure-Track, Instructional, and Research Ranks since 1996.
Left shows absolute numbers while right shows per cent of the total number of faculty.
(Data do not include adjunct or library faculty)

The core group of faculty at the University are those in tenured or tenure-track positions (T/TT). Over 94% of these faculty hold the terminal degrees in their disciplines (Appendix 132). T/TT faculty include Extension Agents who serve the state’s Cooperative Extension Service and who have titles that parallel the professorial ranks. There are also special designations that recognize faculty excellence, including Distinguished Scholar-Teacher (Appendix 133), Distinguished University Professor (Appendix 134), Elkins Professor (Appendix 135) and Regents Professor (Appendix 136).

The University’s APT policies have been continually revised to encompass these titles and to clarify expectations and procedures for mentoring and reviewing T/TT faculty. For example, the new APT policy requires that units explicitly describe the research, teaching, and service requirements for promotion, and mentor junior faculty to help them meet these expectations.

Additionally, there are 94 members of the Library staff who hold faculty positions. Of these, 77 (Librarians II-IV) have appointments analogous to those of T/TT faculty. Those at the Librarian I status are analogous to instructors. Those in the Librarian III and IV ranks may have permanent status. All library faculty hold the M.L.S. degree from an American Library Association-accredited program and/or a graduate degree in a specific discipline. All librarians holding library faculty ranks have professional and managerial responsibilities. Some have positions such as curator or subject specialist and many take part in the instructional program of the University.

The University and USM have policies delineating employment practices and benefits for all non T/TT instructional faculty (Appendix 137). Instructors are hired through regular academic searches, and they are reviewed annually. Instructors comprise approximately 20% of the total faculty (Fig. 1). The University also benefits from the expertise of professionals in the greater Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area who may serve in adjunct capacities. One noteworthy example of the quality of expertise that adjunct faculty bring to the University was mentioned above in the discussion of Nobel Laureate John Mather (Physics) from NASA Goddard. In 2005, the new title of College Park Professor was approved to allow recognition of the most distinguished of our adjunct faculty and to incorporate them more fully into graduate education (Appendix 138).

In 1998, the University created a special non-tenured faculty title, Professor of the Practice, for highly accomplished individuals from industry and government to assume faculty positions where their expertise can provide particular benefits to academic programs (Appendix 139). Current Professors of the Practice include a former county school superintendent, a former Social Security Commissioner, and the former CEO of a major railway system. Approval and renewal of their contracts requires the consent of the Provost and the President.

The Research Faculty is a rapidly growing group and comprises approximately 40% of all faculty (Fig. 1). (Titles and descriptions of qualifications and duties for these research positions are provided in Appendix 120 (p.7 of the document). They consist of three types of appointments as shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5: Composition of Research Faculty
Titles	2003-2004	2005-2006
Ranks Corresponding to T/TTFaculty Ranks	280	302
Research Associates	358	393
Faculty Research Assistants (Contractual)	797	771
Total (excluding faculty with unassigned titles)	1435	1466

Members of the first group of Research Faculty have titles that parallel the T/TT ranks of assistant professor through full professor. These include research scientists, research engineers, research scholars and artists-in-residence. Their responsibilities include research, scholarship, and creative endeavors. Many faculty in this group are recruited to work on specific research grants and contracts, but approximately 40% are also principal investigators on independent research grants. Some research faculty have had a long-term relationship with the University, oversee significant research portfolios, and mentor graduate students.

Research Associates are usually investigators who have recently completed the doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree and have come to the University for additional training within the research programs of specific faculty members. For the most part, these individuals are supported on research grants, through specific state funding, or through training grants and fellowships.

Faculty Research Assistants most often serve as technicians or have other roles on a research project. The minimum educational requirement for this title is generally a bachelor’s degree.

While all of the above Research Faculty appointments are governed by UM policies, the University needs to examine the current implementation of these policies across the institution to ensure uniform application and to address issues that are unique to each constituency. A particular case is that of the postdoctoral population who are both students and professionals. Individuals in the postdoctoral category are assigned a myriad of titles, with broad differences in compensation and benefits. The Office of the Vice President for Research has been examining the status, roles, and support of postdoctorals at the University. As indicated at the outset, the University has experienced appreciable growth and productivity in its research faculty. This change necessitates a review of relevant policies and practices to ensure that they appropriately address the implications of this growth. One such review by the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources resulted in the recently approved change to the definitions of Associate Agent and Faculty Extension Assistant (Appendix 140).

Diversity is integral to the excellence of the University of Maryland. This section analyzes faculty diversity with particular focus on the T/TT faculty. Diversity here is broadly defined as the full inclusion of women, racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with different sexual orientations. In addition to studying the recruitment, appointment, retention, and promotion success for some of the groups mentioned, this section also examines factors that contribute to the general “campus climate” for all faculty. It also documents the contributions of the University to the study and scholarship of diversity.

A goal of the University has been to increase the number of women in T/TT positions and at all academic ranks. There have been some successes along these lines in the past ten years, and efforts continue to assure further successes. At the same time, a number of challenges beset our University as well as comparable institutions nationwide. First, there are far fewer women in the physical sciences and engineering than in other disciplines. Second, it has proven more difficult to retain women than men in the junior ranks, and for women to attain full professorships.

TABLE 6: Composition of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty
Gender	Title	1995			2000			2005
Gender	Title	#	% gender	% Total Faculty	#	% gender	% Total Faculty	#	% gender	% Total Faculty
Female	Professor	106	30%	7%	120	31%	8%	134	33%	9%
	Associate Professor	151	42%	10%	151	39%	10%	159	39%	11%
	Assistant Professor	101	28%	7%	117	30%	8%	111	27%	8%
	Total Female Faculty	358	-	24%	388	-	26%	404	-	28%
Male	Professor	624	54%	41%	576	53%	39%	553	54%	39%
	Associate Professor	394	34%	26%	327	30%	22%	319	31%	22%
	Assistant Professor	144	12%	9%	192	18%	13%	157	15%	11%
	Total Male Faculty	1162	-	76%	1095	-	76%	1029	-	72%
-	Total Number of Faculty	1520	-	100%	1483	-	100%	1433	-	100%

From 1995 to 2005, the number of female T/TT faculty increased by 13% (358 to 404) while the number of male T/TT faculty has declined by almost the same percentage (1,162 to 1,029). In this period, women have moved from 24% to 28% in these ranks. As shown in Figure 2, there also has been an increase of women in Instructor/Lecturer and research positions.

A recent report published by the Council of Graduate Schools shows some indication that the national trends have begun a modest reversal in that female students have grown to represent 58% of the total graduate student population (Appendix 141, p.5 of the document). Because women continue to comprise a small proportion of students and faculty in several scientific disciplines, the University continues to promote responsive initiatives like the Women in Engineering Program (Appendix 142) to recruit undergraduate and graduate students to the field. Data on women faculty in the sciences and engineering suggest that what we are seeing at the University of Maryland is not very different from national trends.²

Institutional data show that there are more men in the higher than lower ranks, while the largest number of women are associate professors, and that the distribution of women, like that of men, has not changed appreciably since 1995 (see Table 6). These institutional data also indicate a lower rate of promotion of women hired as assistant professors to associate professor rank. The data on 398 female faculty members hired between 1993 and 1999 (see Table 7) show that women are more likely then men to leave the University before the completion of their tenure review. As a consequence, a smaller proportion of women hired as assistant professors are being promoted to associate professor than for men, although for the women who come up for tenure, the rate of promotion is the same as for men. Thus, the issue is not one of securing tenure, but of retention of women during their formative years at the University.

The distribution of men and women in various faculty ranks is shown in Table 6. Unlike men, women tend to be more evenly distributed across the academic ranks, with a slightly higher percent as associate professors than assistant or full. The University has not developed data to explain this difference, but U. S. Department of Education data suggest that what we are seeing at Maryland is not very different from national trends, at least in the sciences.³ The larger proportion of women as assistant professors can be explained by increased hiring of women over the past decade. The fewer full professors as compared to males may reflect fewer hires of women years ago when women would now be coming into the Professor ranks. Another contributing cause is an apparently lower rate of promotion for women from the associate professor ranks.

These trends in the distribution among ranks merit close attention and the development of clear strategies to ensure that women faculty have the same opportunities as men do for full professional advancement at the University of Maryland. At least two factors have been identified that may be of relevance in retention of junior female faculty. The first is mentoring and the second is achieving a balance between career and family.

Mentoring as a factor in retention was recognized in the report to the 2005 campus Task Force on Mentoring of Junior Faculty (Appendix 123) and five years earlier in the Report of the President’s Diversity Panel (Appendix 143, p. 6 of the document). Mentoring also is an integral part of the revised APT procedures as discussed earlier. The Task Force on Mentoring of Junior faculty concluded, however, that while there are numerous University, college, and department programs, “there is no systematic campus-wide effort tailored to underrepresented groups, even though members of these groups may face both greater demands from students and higher service expectations” (Appendix 123, p. 8 of the document). This is in contrast to programs at other universities cited in the Task Force report that initially target women and faculty from underrepresented groups, but are open to all faculty.

The University continues to assess climate and practices to monitor the institution’s progress in eliminating barriers to faculty development and promotion. As an example, the University continues to formulate policies related to balancing work and family. The Provost, in cooperation with the University Senate, set up a Task Force (Appendix 144) in 2005 to examine family life issues. Immediately, the Task Force generated a revision of the tenure delay policy, subsequently passed by the University Senate (Appendix 145) that automatically grants faculty a year’s extension of the tenure clock for the arrival of a new child and allows two such tenure postponements. These efforts are ongoing.

In addition, the President’s Commission on Women’s Issues, in collaboration with IRPA, has performed an intensive study of teaching loads and salary for T/TT women in three science colleges. Salaries in the three colleges were analyzed in a regression analysis against many variables, including gender, rank, time in rank, grants, publications, etc. According to the standard statistical tools, faculty rank, time in rank, grants, and publications significantly influenced the salary figures while the influence of gender was not statistically significant.

Parallel analyses have examined faculty demographics in relation to race and ethnicity and have shown outcomes for African-American faculty similar to those for women. The data indicate a gradual increase in diversification of the total faculty. In 1995-1996, about 16% of T/TT faculty members were people of color, with an increase to about 20% in 2000-2001, and 22% in 2005-2006.

Although the composition of our faculty has become more diverse, the University is having difficulty recruiting and retaining African-American faculty. This is a national challenge, because the total number of doctorates awarded to African-Americans still is relatively small. Additionally, and again as a part of a national trend, there is a high rate of turnover among African-American faculty, particularly at the junior level. Table 8 shows that the highest rates of denial of tenure or withdrawal before the tenure review were among African-Americans.

TABLE 8: Percentage of Faculty Hired between 1993-1999 with Different Tenure Outcomes
Ethnicity	Promoted	Denied	Resigned/Withdrew	Pending
Asian-American (56)	57%	7%	30%	5%
African-American (41)	34%	15%	51%	0%
Hispanic (23)	61%	4%	35%	0%
White (278)	60%	6%	30%	4%

The University recognizes the difficulties of recruiting and retaining minority faculty and employs strategies to increase the future pool of minority faculty through recruitment, retention, and graduation of minority undergraduate and graduate students. Effective, sustained efforts by academic support units such as the Center for Minorities in Science and Engineering (Appendix 146) and by departments such as Physics (Appendix 147) to recruit minority and female students play significant roles in establishing the population of graduate students from which minority faculty emerge. Their efforts have begun to show positive results. For example, the Department of Mathematics received national acclaim in 2000 when three African-American women graduated with their doctorates: Tasha Inniss, Sherry Scot Joseph, and Kimberly Weems. Three years later, the NSF, the Henry Luce Foundation and the American Association of University Women recognized CMPS’s STAND program (Appendix 148) and the college’s commitment to diversity with awards and grants of more than $1.2 million. These funds supported the college’s comprehensive efforts to recruit, retain and more swiftly graduate talented undergraduate and graduate female and minority students. The Graduate School’s Office of Graduate Recruitment, Retention, and Diversity (Appendix 149) works comprehensively with units across the institution to promote the academic success of minority graduate students.

As indicated above, the University periodically assesses climate issues to determine whether and how its policies and practices affect the performance of the various sectors of the campus community. The previously mentioned Report of the President’s Diversity Panel (Appendix 143), presents one example. In response to this report, the University has developed a wide range of additional programs to support virtually all minority groups on campus. Efforts housed in the Office of the Provost, include the Provost’s annual series, “Conversations on Diversity, Democracy, and Higher Education;” the publication “Diversity at the University of Maryland” (Appendix 150); the new initiative, “Building Intellectual Community Between Undergraduate Students & Faculty Outside the Classroom Context” and the Web site maintained by the Associate Provost for Equity and Diversity (Appendix 151). This site features a searchable Faculty of Color Directory (Appendix 152) and supports a site that includes a variety of equity and diversity resources. In addition, the Office of Human Relations Programs sponsors a broad range of programs that focus on wide areas of diversity that affect faculty and students. The President’s Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (Appendix 153) and the Center for Leadership and Organizational Change have been instrumental in expanding the institutional and community awareness and understanding of diversity as it relates to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the campus community (Appendix 154).

In addition to increasing faculty and student diversity, the University takes pride in its strength in the scholarship of diversity. Important units dedicated to the teaching and research of diversity-related subject matter include the Departments of African American Studies and Women’s Studies, the Meyerhoff Center for Jewish Studies, the Asian American Studies Program, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Program, and the Latin American Studies Center, as well as academic programs, institutes, and centers within and across departments and colleges. Units such as the Institute for Minority Education also work collaboratively with faculty and students across disciplines on campus and in outreach efforts in the K-12 and surrounding communities. As discussed in Section VII.A, the University also has mandated a required general education diversity course.

One important institutional exemplar of the scholarship of diversity is the Consortium on Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (CRGE) (Appendix 155). Established in 1998, CRGE is a consortium of academic units and individual faculty who promote and conduct research on intersections of difference. CRGE also mentors junior faculty and graduate students through the Consortium of Interdisciplinary Scholars Program (CrISP) (Appendix 156). In the advancement of the scholarship of diversity at the University of Maryland, CRGE published a “Campus Report on Race, Gender and Ethnicity at UM” in 2004 (Appendix 157), which featured the work of more than a dozen units and more than 60 faculty significantly concerned with new conceptualizations of “diversity.” These research centers help spark and support new directions in the scholarship of diversity. For example, the Curriculum Transformation Project, which holds regular seminars to help faculty integrate new approaches to diversity into their teaching and research, held its first seminar series on disability in summer 2006. Similarly, the David C. Driskell Center was established in 2001 to bring together the fields of visual arts and African Diaspora studies through an active agenda of research, artistic production, community outreach and mentoring of artists and scholars of color through graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

Over the past decade, there has been steady growth in the number and quality of students applying for admission to the University of Maryland. This trend testifies to our progress in fulfilling our institutional mission to become the university of choice for the most talented and outstanding Maryland and out-of-state students. Between 1995 and 2005, we experienced a 50% growth in first-year applicants, from approximately 16,000 to almost 25,000. Concurrently, SAT scores at the 75th percentile for matriculated first-year students increased from 1260 to 1360. The average first-year students in 2005 had an un-weighted high school GPA of over 3.86, in contrast to their 1995 counterparts who had an average of 3.23.

The quality of our academic programs resides at the heart of our undergraduate educational mission and is undoubtedly the primary reason for this improving student profile. Undergraduate applicants at the state, regional, and national levels also value the wide breadth of programs available at a research-extensive flagship institution and respond to great improvements in rankings such as those released by U.S. News and World Report. While we celebrate our institutional achievements, an important challenge undertaken over the past decade has been to translate the growing excellence and prominence of our academic programs, faculty, and facilities into strategies to meet the needs and demands of our increasingly talented undergraduate students.

Our University mission and strategic plan call for continued efforts to elevate the quality of undergraduate education and to provide enriched and challenging educational experiences for all students. As a result of such efforts, the University has gained national prominence for signature learning communities, research opportunities, innovative study abroad programs, experiential learning, and leadership in civic engagement. Capping this decade-long process is a pledge made by President Mote in 2004, appropriately called “The President’s Promise” (Appendix 158). As a collaborative initiative of the Academic and Student Affairs divisions, the President’s Promise guarantees to all students the opportunity for an enrichment experience such as those mentioned above, starting with the 2005 first-year class. Rather than being unrelated “add-ons,” these experiences complement and enhance students’ academic programs. In the initiative’s inaugural year, a study undertaken by the President’s Promise steering committee showed that 54% of all new first-year students already had participated in an enrichment experience during their first semester, as had over 70% of 2005-2006 graduates. While the initiative has set a goal of 90% participation by spring 2009, the baseline data demonstrate that great strides have already been taken. The following sections highlight some of the related areas of programmatic enrichment and change since the last Middle States review.

A. Living-Learning and Learning Communities and the Undergraduate Experience

Ranked nationally in this category by U.S News and World Report, the University of Maryland has long recognized that living-learning programs enhance academic programs and “make the big store small.” For the purposes of this self-study, we define living-learning programs as education units organized around an academic theme or approach that integrate academic learning and community living. Of the close to 4,000 freshmen who entered the University in fall 2006 over 1700 enrolled in living-learning programs. In the past decade, three new programs available for first-year students have been added—CIVICUS (Appendix 159), Jiménez-Porter Writers’ House (Appendix 160), and Global Communities (Appendix 161). New living-learning programs for upper-level students include Hinman CEOs (Appendix 162) and Beyond the Classroom (Appendix 163).

Long established and nationally recognized programs such as University Honors (Appendix 164) have set the standard for creating challenging niche curricula for engaged undergraduates. University Honors has spun off two additional smaller programs to meet the changing needs of talented undergraduates. Gemstone (Appendix 165) was established in 1996 as a four-year community devoted to issues surrounding technology and society while Honors Humanities (Appendix 166) was initiated in 1997 for students with strong interests in the arts and humanities.

As “invitational” programs, all of which incorporate rigorous academic seminars, University Honors, Gemstone, and Honors Humanities are recognized by applicants, parents, and high school counselors as part of the quality package of undergraduate education at Maryland. Building on the success of University Honors, the University spread the benefits of living-learning communities to a broader group of undergraduates. Established in 1994, College Park Scholars (Scholars) now comprises twelve programs: Advocates for Children; American Cultures; Arts; Business, Society, and the Economy; Earth Life, and Time; Environmental Studies; International Studies; Media, Self, and Society; Public Leadership; Science, Discovery, and the Universe; and Science, Technology, and Society (Appendix 167). Scholars, like the Honors programs, is invitational and builds community through specialized curricular experiences and dedicated residence halls.

An important value of these programs is the development of university-level skills in research, team-building, oral and written communication, and technology fluency. These learning experiences prepare undergraduates for upper-level research and capstone projects, whether they are team-based, such as those in Gemstone, or individual, such as the departmental Honors Programs (Appendix 168), as well as for participation in faculty-sponsored research projects. Some of the University’s best faculty are engaged in these programs as directors, seminar instructors, and project mentors. In addition, the location of the campus facilitates the participation of renowned professionals and scholars who serve as adjunct faculty. A case in point is that of Dr. Doug Lewis, former Curator of Sculpture at the National Gallery of Art, who for many years taught Honors seminars in art, photography, and the design of Washington, D.C. However, while the University of Maryland values faculty direction of and teaching in living-learning programs, these activities do not necessarily factor fully into promotion and merit decisions, so recruiting faculty for participation remains a challenge.

The more recent living-learning programs represent core values for undergraduate learning at the University of Maryland, particularly in the areas of civic engagement and international studies. CIVICUS, housed in BSOS, introduces students to important issues in civil society, community building, and leadership. While focusing academically on the social and historical foundations of civil society and contemporary social issues, students also engage in service learning projects during the two-year program. Although not exclusively for first-year students, Global Communities and the Jiménez-Porter Writers’ House share a residence hall as well as the common goal of promoting cross-cultural learning and understanding. Global Communities has student participants from over 30 countries and the United States who participate together in academic colloquia, service-learning, and research. In support of its learning goals, the program sponsored a community service course in Costa Rica in Winterterm 2006. The Jiménez Porter Writers’ House brings together creative writers in English and Spanish who participate jointly in colloquia, workshops, and a variety of literary activities. In January 2007 the program sponsored a winterterm course in Chile focusing on the works of that nation’s contemporary writers and their role in the reformation of civil society following the military dictatorship. A more established living-learning program, the Language House, is open to second semester students and beyond. This is a true immersion program with clusters in various target languages that provide participants with opportunities to develop communication and cultural skills in both academic and daily life through organized activities, colloquia and coursework in the target language. (See Appendix 169 for a description of the Language House and its various programs and activities.)

Recent reviews of several of the more established living-learning programs have identified best practices and have pointed towards revitalized mission-based strategies to enhance academic rigor, co-curricular experiences, and faculty engagement in the programs. The University should ensure that the recommendations of the review committees are fully considered in processes to improve UM’s living-learning programs.

The enhancement and growth of the University’s living-learning programs responds broadly to our institutional goal to increase the number and percentage of undergraduates who participate in enrichment programs. The specialized programs, moreover, incorporate more focused goals of internationalization, civic engagement, and community outreach and partnerships at the undergraduate level. The continued success of the living-learning programs is contingent on faculty oversight, close working relationships with various units in the Student Affairs division—including Resident Life and the Career Center—and a dynamic process of assessment and feedback to improve and further enrich the undergraduate experience particularly as new strategic goals and outcomes are articulated in the next two years.

The University of Maryland offers a wide range of non-residential learning communities that extend well beyond the living-learning groups described above. Recent programs offer four-year learning community models with a focus on particular majors. The following developments since 1997 demonstrate the University’s continued commitment to enriching undergraduate education in broad and creative ways:

Markets & Society: Established in 1999, the Markets & Society curriculum is designed to help students expand their knowledge and gain skills necessary to pursue business, both academically and professionally. Students take a group of courses (a “cluster”) together during their first year of enrollment. Cluster courses provide students an opportunity to engage in a community of learners who share common goals. In addition, cluster courses help break down the size of the institution and provide ample opportunities for interaction, learning, and growth. For more information, see Appendix 170.

Inventis: Created in 2004 as an Academy of Engineering Scholars program, Inventis is a four-year learning community that follows engineering majors through their undergraduate careers (Appendix 171). As juniors and seniors, Inventis students participate in guided research or teaching experiences, working very closely with faculty mentors. Approximately 10% of first-year engineering students are admitted into the Inventis academy.

The Smith Fellows Program: In fall 2006, the Robert H. Smith School of Business began offering a choice of Fellows Programs for all first year students directly admitted into majors in BMGT (Appendix 172). The Fellows Programs combine active learning with rigorous coursework and professional development in areas such as international business, ethics, and leadership. Junior/Senior Fellows learning communities more closely tailored to the specific academic programs are being developed for fall 2007. Programmatic opportunities for fellows will be available in the areas of supply chain management, entrepreneurship, electronic marketing, and Reuter’s financial certification.

In his 2005 State of the Campus address to the University Senate, President Mote placed particular emphasis on international issues (Appendix 59). While noting that there had been an increase of 50% in the number of students in study abroad programs during 2004-2005, he also called for greater participation and stated, “Our goal is to facilitate an international experience for every undergraduate student.” A campus-wide committee charged by the President with reviewing International Programs issued a report in April 2005 (Appendix 62). A subcommittee devoted to undergraduate issues proposed several changes that would allow international curricula, activities, and experiences to take a more central place in the University’s mission and strategic plan. Those recommendations included establishing a Web-based clearinghouse for international programs and opportunities relating to undergraduate education, enhancing the Study Abroad Office, and working closely with academic units in the creation of international strategic plans. The Office of International Programs is working to accomplish these goals. Given the high institutional priority of international education, the University Senate has directed its standing Committee on Education Affairs to further examine study abroad programs and deliver recommendations in Spring 2007 that assess “where the University stands in meeting the President’s goal and what steps could be taken to reach this goal in the near future” (Appendix 173).

As cited by the President, the University has developed innovative study abroad course offerings both to increase student participation in University of Maryland international academic programs and to allow faculty to offer these programs in their areas of expertise. In addition to the traditional semester, year-long, and a wide selection—twenty-five in 2006—of summer offerings, a three-week academic session in January known as “Winterterm” has proven to be an optimum time for offering short-term study abroad courses. Eighteen international courses are available in January 2007 in Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Appendix 174). Faculty who have developed specialized courses and lead the international experiences represent a variety of disciplines including Family Studies, Anthropology, English, Economics, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Education, and Languages, Literatures and Cultures. Student evaluations have been overwhelmingly positive. An additional benefit has been the increased participation of minority students in these courses. Many students who would have employment or other obligations during the summer are able to take advantage of these short-term international courses. This success in facilitating study abroad opportunities was cited in U.S. News and World Report’s 2007 “Best Colleges” listing. For the first time the University of Maryland was ranked among “America’s Best” in the area of Academic Programs: Study Abroad (Appendix 175). See Appendix 176 for the full range of UM’s 2006-2007 Study Abroad Programs.

The University takes great pride in its development as a modern research university and, within this context, its creation of opportunities for undergraduates to engage in the campus research agenda. Curricular and extracurricular experiences range from individual departmental honors research theses to projects associated with learning communities such as those described above—Gemstone’s team-based research projects, Honors Humanities “Keystone Project,” or College Park Scholars’ “Discovery Project.” Many individual faculty members invite formal and/or informal participation in their research projects. The Maryland Center for Undergraduate Research (MCUR) (Appendix 177), a unit within Undergraduate Studies, serves as a clearinghouse for students and faculty and provides a comprehensive listing of campus-wide research programs (Appendix 178). MCUR also administers the Maryland Student Researchers program, which matches faculty with undergraduates interested in doing research (Appendix 179). Students spend four to six hours per week working with a faculty mentor on the faculty member's own research, and receive an Undergraduate Research Assistant notation on their transcript. In 2005-2006, 239 students participated in the Maryland Student Researchers program, a small portion, however, of all undergraduates involved in research projects.

University institutes and centers such as the Joint Institute on Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (JIFSAN) (Appendix 180), the Institute for Physical Sciences and Technology (IPST) (Appendix 181), and the Institute for Systems Research (ISR) (Appendix 182), among others, also provide opportunities for formal undergraduate engagement in state-of-the-art research projects. The Maryland Technology Enterprise Institute (MTECH) (Appendix 23), a division of the A. James Clark School of Engineering, matches undergraduate engineering majors with research opportunities through its ASPIRE Program (Appendix 183). Students perform research during the regular semesters or summer sessions, receive an ASPIRE stipend, and receive a transcript notation as an undergraduate researcher.

The University also has been successful in obtaining external funding such as the Howard Hughes Undergraduate Research Fellowship funds (Appendix 184). Close to 400 students and 139 faculty have participated over the past 10 years, and the success of the University is seen by its being one of only a limited number of institutions in the U.S. to have received HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) funding through four successive grant periods. Fellows in the program have co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed publications, produced original scholarship, and participated in research projects at the University and at leading institutions in the area. Post-graduation data demonstrates that close to 85% of participants have pursued graduate degrees in the life sciences and related fields.

In addition to obtaining funding for programs such as HHMI, UM faculty have been active in finding support for undergraduates through individual and program-level Research Experience for Undergraduate (REU) programs. While these often are added to faculty NSF research grants, there are several broader REU programs on campus supported by NSF grants and the Sea Grant Program (Appendix 185). Of particular note is the University of Maryland Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) under the direction of Ellen Williams (Physics). MRSEC has been funded by three consecutive NSF grants to support cutting-edge research and innovative outreach activities. The associated REU program affords undergraduates paid research opportunities with MRSEC faculty on interdisciplinary projects (Appendix 186).

While there are many excellent programs for undergraduate research, an ongoing concern has been the ability of the University to capture adequately the full range and extent of the credit- and non-credit-bearing research experiences of our students. Research programs and experiences for undergraduates are very diverse and vary by course number and credit status across campus.

The University of Maryland encourages all students to challenge themselves and enrich their education through experiential learning opportunities. Many of the living-learning communities incorporate experiential learning as an important programmatic component. In the general University curriculum, almost all academic units offer undergraduate credit-bearing experiential learning courses that usually carry 286 or 386 numbers. During 1997-98, the standing Committee on Education Affairs of the University Senate presented a report on experiential learning courses. At the time, the Career Center, a unit within the Student Affairs division, had administrative oversight for these courses. Based on the Committee’s recommendations, the University Senate passed a proposal (Appendix 187) that transferred the administration of the experiential learning courses to the individual academic departments that offer the courses and indicated that the individual units should be “responsible for the academic integrity of the course and any modifications of it, as consistent with University policy.” The experiential courses are carefully regulated by academic units and stipulate minimum hours per credit requirements and academic components, as exemplified by ARHU286, an Arts and Humanities college-based experiential course (Appendix 188). Students must complete contracts, similar to the one for PSYC 386, that require faculty sponsorship, on-site supervision, and the development of learning objectives (Appendix 189). The Career Center maintains institution-wide information for students on the departmental experiential courses and faculty internship coordinators (Appendix 190).

One of the challenges in ascertaining the impact of experiential learning and internships on undergraduate education resides in collecting accurate data. Student registration in program-specific 286 or 386 courses represents only one vehicle for credit-bearing experiential learning and internships. Having said this, in AY04, 1071 students registered for 286 or 386 credits. For AY05, that number is 1054. There are also numerous departmentally sponsored internship and experiential opportunities linked to other learning experiences (Appendix 191). For example, the English Department oversees an internship program with the Maryland General Assembly. Students engage in a writing internship with state representatives and complete a specialized course in professional writing to prepare for the experience. As this program is open to all majors, students pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Community and Public Health, for instance, could have opportunities to write drafts of health policy as part of their internship. A second example is that of the Anthropology Department, where students participate with faculty in a service-based experiential learning course working with immigrant populations in the nearby Langley Park community.

The Coalition for Civic Engagement and Leadership (CCEL) (Appendix 192) was formed in 2004 as a collaborative project of the divisions of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. Consistent with the University’s mission, CCEL proposes to prepare students to become conscientious and involved citizens, scholars, and leaders. The work of CCEL builds upon civic and leadership learning in living-learning programs such as College Park Scholars and CIVICUS, leadership education in the Maryland Leadership Development Program (Appendix 193) and the Academy of Leadership (Appendix 194), and in community service-learning courses and activities. It also incorporates the work done in research centers like the Democracy Collaborative (Appendix 195) in the School of Public Policy and the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. CCEL is comprised of University programs and has the following goals:

Selected CCEL objectives for AY06 demonstrate the ways in which these goals are being met:

As stated in its Mission and Goals Statement, the University is committed to recruiting students who will contribute to and benefit from an enriched educational environment; improving the conditions for their enrollment and success, including expert advising; and increasing retention and graduation rates for all undergraduate students. To fulfill these goals, the University has a number of programs that reach out to potential students prior to their formal admission and to those admitted students who need assistance.

The University System of Maryland (USM) Policy on Undergraduate Admissions outlines minimum qualifications for undergraduate admission to any of the USM schools (Appendix 198). These criteria include a high school diploma or its equivalent, standardized test scores, a minimum of a C grade point average, and minimum content core proficiency requirements. Each USM institution may add other admission criteria to address the rigor of the high school curriculum as demonstrated by advanced-level coursework; academic electives; performance on high school assessments; trends in performance, citizenship and leadership; special talents; or personal circumstances. In addition, the USM policy states, “Each institution may admit, to a maximum of 15 percent of its entering freshman class, students who do not meet the minimum qualifications outlined… but who show potential for success in postsecondary education.” The UM Policy on Admission Exceptions builds on the USM regulations with added reference to specific programs (Appendix 199).

The University of Maryland has two programs that address the USM policy guidelines for freshmen admissions exceptions. The first is the federally sponsored Academic Achievement Programs (AAP), established in 1990 and located within the Office of Undergraduate Studies. Through its Student Support Services/Intensive Education Programs, AAP serves students who meet one or more of the following criteria as stipulated by federal guidelines: 1) low-income status; 2) first generation college student; 3) disabled; or 4) part of a traditionally underrepresented group. The Office of Admissions refers qualifying first-year applicants who do not meet the requirements for direct admission to AAP for further review. AAP evaluates these students in mathematics, English, reading and study skills. The results from these assessments are reviewed by members of a multidisciplinary team, along with individual applications, essays and high school recommendations. After individual reviews, the team jointly makes recommendations to the AAP Executive Director, who authorizes enrollment in the Summer Transitional Program (STP) (Appendix 200). Students who successfully complete the STP program are accepted into the University. Once admitted, students remain in AAP until they achieve 60 college credits. AAP works closely with students in continuing to develop academic skills. In fall 2006, the University admitted over one hundred individuals as first-year students after successful completion of the STP program.

Ongoing assessment of different aspects of the AAP helps to ensure that the program remains dynamic and responsive to students’ needs, as required by federal reporting regulations. Both qualitative and quantitative measures are used in the assessment where appropriate. In 1995, 75.2% of AAP students were retained after the first year. In 2004, this figure rose to 92.1%, a level that is comparable to the University-wide first-year cohort. Fifty-one percent of the 1999 cohort graduated within six years as compared to just over seventy-six percent for the six-year graduation rate of the entire 1999 first-year cohort. The University is committed to making significant progress towards closing this gap and improving the graduation rates for all of its students.

Like AAP, the Scholastic Transitions Educational Program (STEP) (Appendix 201) is located in the Office of Undergraduate Studies. STEP provides enhancement of basic skills in mathematics, writing and reading that are fundamental to the achievement of other University requirements. This program is directed at students who have been admitted to the University with the understanding that their preparation in basic writing and/or math skills will require enhancement. STEP incorporates the innovative Developmental Math Program (Appendix 202).

The STEP program was first offered in summer 2003. Comparison data have been assembled regarding students’ performance, and changes to the program have been made based on assessment information. By early 2005, 85% of all STEP participants were in good academic standing.

The University of Maryland offers non-credit-bearing basic skills programs in developmental mathematics (Appendix 202) and English language for non-native speakers through the Maryland English Institute (Appendix 203).

Based on principles established in 1987 and approved by the University Senate in 1988, the University’s general education CORE Liberal Arts and Sciences Studies Program has been in effect since May 1990 (Appendix 204). The CORE program helps the University provide a quality liberal arts education embedded within a major research university setting. The curriculum, comprising 43-46 credits, exceeds State of Maryland requirements for General Education Programs and is organized by disciplinary areas and academic level. The CORE Curriculum (Appendix 205) consists of four areas: Fundamental Studies (Introduction to Writing, Professional Writing, and an introductory mathematics course); lower-level Distributive Studies (Humanities and the Arts, Science and Mathematics, Social Sciences and History); (upper-level) Advanced Studies; and Human Cultural Diversity (one course at either the lower or upper level). Effective fall 2005 in recognition of the strategic role of interdisciplinary studies at the University, the Senate added Interdisciplinary and Emerging Issues (Appendix 206, p. 3 of the document) as an optional Distributive Studies category. Creation of the new CORE category encourages the development of innovative courses and collaborations across the campus.

Many CORE courses fulfill major, departmental, or college requirements, as well as serve as basic requirements for majors. The following examples identify the gateway courses for the indicated majors: Geography — GEOG 201: Geography of Environmental Systems and GEOG 202: The World in Cultural Perspective; both Business and Economics — ECON 200: Principles of Micro-Economics and ECON 201: Principles of Macro-Economics; Government and Politics — GVPT 100: Principles of Government and Politics and Economics 200; and Architecture — ARCH 170: Introduction to the Built Environment and PHYS 121: Fundamentals of Physics I. All of the aforementioned courses also fill CORE requirements. Most minors also build on general education courses. Such interrelationships ensure depth as well as breadth.

Courses must be approved for CORE status by the University Senate’s CORE committee, which includes faculty representatives from across the institution and two student representatives. As elaborated in D.1 and 2 of this section, the CORE committee incorporates faculty subcommittees that have been charged with the periodic review of general education courses and the development outcomes for the assessment of student learning.

Providing CORE courses for approximately 25,000 undergraduate students requires watchful management. Approximately 80% of departments and programs contribute CORE courses. In academic year 2004-05, the University offered approximately 92,400 CORE seats. To ensure availability and the appropriate distribution of courses, the Provost conducts an annual Planning Cycle process (Section III.F) to provide funds when there are shifts in enrollment. Rapid growth in the number of students in a major will affect enrollment in required major courses that also count for CORE. For instance, the total number of majors in Kinesiology grew from 559 in fall 2003 to 667 in fall 2005. To accommodate this growth, new sections were needed in BSCI 201: Human Anatomy and Physiology I, a CORE course offered by CLFS. This growth was accommodated by adding sections through funding from the Planning Cycle process.

Potential and current students access accurate and comprehensive information about CORE General Education requirements in Chapter 5 of the Undergraduate Catalog in both online and paper versions. Requirements and course listings also are published in the Schedule of Classes. Students receive the CORE Academic Planner and Record Keeper at mandatory advising sessions. Additionally, information on CORE is included in 4-year plans. See also Section IX.C.2 for transfer policies that include CORE.

C. Examining CORE for this Report: Student Learning Across Educational Areas

For the purposes of this self-study, the working group inquired into whether and how the University’s general education curriculum assures proficiencies in the essential areas designated by Standard 12. They focused on selected high-enrollment, high-impact CORE courses, identified by the University’s enrollment management process as those taken by at least 10% of undergraduates. A survey was distributed to faculty who teach those courses, asking whether and how each of these courses develops proficiencies in: diversity, ethics, and values; oral and written communication; quantitative and scientific reasoning; technological competency; and information literacy and critical analysis and reasoning. Given the importance of research to the University’s mission, the survey also included a question on student research. This survey gives a focused view of the accomplishments of the general education program and gathers information about a group of courses in which the stakes are indeed high, given the number of students they serve. In general, the working group found that the high-impact CORE courses cross-develop proficiencies. While this is to be expected in an area such as diversity (because most CORE diversity courses also fulfill one of the distributive studies categories), findings demonstrated that non-diversity CORE courses also expand students’ knowledge beyond Western content. A case in point is PSYC 100: Introduction to Psychology, which addresses the influence of diverse cultures on the development of cognition, personality, and emotion. Cultural differences in human motivation and the impact of these diverse perspectives also are discussed in this course. Many other CORE courses build competencies beyond their central discipline. For example, CORE science courses with integrated writing components build upon the CORE Fundamental Studies required writing courses.

The survey responses and college syntheses are available as Appendix 207. The findings of the survey materials serve as a review of CORE to determine how essential competencies are developed across the curriculum.

Since 1992, the institution has conducted periodic review of approved general education courses, a process overseen by the University Senate Committee on CORE. Normally, courses become eligible for review five years after approval. If the original approval or subsequent review of a CORE course raises concerns with the committee, the course may be reviewed again the following year to determine whether and how the concerns have been addressed. Periodic Review has helped to keep the CORE program vigorous and flexible, with many positive results. Over 26 semesters, the CORE Committee completed 361 reviews through its faculty subcommittees. The Committee used initial semesters of “trial” reviews to establish the review process. After that, the number of reviews conducted varied based on committee workload and eligible course offerings. Reviews were suspended in fall 2004 for development of the CORE Learning Outcomes. It is expected that CORE outcomes assessments will facilitate and become an integral part of a redefined periodic review process.

Periodic review portfolios contained syllabi, sample assignments, and examinations, along with statements from faculty about the status of the course, changes over time, responses to questions raised previously, and plans for the future. These statements helped the CORE Committee understand the ways in which individual courses adapted in response to changes at the University (enrollment patterns, resources, etc.), world events, new discoveries and research, and experience gained from student progress in the courses.

In their CORE portfolio statements, faculty reported course improvements as based on closing the feedback loop from the prior review. In THET 110: Introduction to the Theatre, this included the addition of problem-based learning modules, library resources and WebCT (Appendix 208) For SOCY 100: Introduction to Sociology, faculty developed a training seminar for teaching assistants and increased active learning to include a variety of writing assignments and class presentations. In MATH 140: Calculus I, faculty instituted a new “close contact” version of the course with a small-group setting and Web-based homework called “WebAssign” that gives students “instant feedback” (Appendix 209). Periodic review of general education courses allows faculty, departments, and the committee to reconsider the place of any course in an ever-changing curriculum and acknowledge their oversight of the course.

Like the rest of the University, the CORE General Education program is in the process of transitioning to a student learning outcomes environment, a move that will enhance the assessment measures already in place. In 2004-2005, in the context of the ongoing work of the Provost’s Commission on Learning Outcomes Assessment, the CORE faculty subcommittees developed CORE Learning Outcomes (Appendix 210) for all Distributive Studies categories and for Human Cultural Diversity. At the same time, faculty in the Freshman Writing Program, the Professional Writing Program, and the Department of Mathematics wrote statements for CORE Fundamental Studies. The Senate CORE committee also articulated broad General Education Goals for the CORE curriculum.

Shortly after the approval of the CORE General Education goals and objectives, the Dean for Undergraduate Studies appointed a multidisciplinary CORE assessment planning team to develop a preliminary assessment plan. Taking full advantage of resources at a January 2006 Middle States-sponsored workshop on next steps in learning outcomes assessment, the team produced an accompanying Power Point presentation on the assessment of CORE, available as Appendix 211. The team recommended that CORE assessment begin with the CORE Human Cultural Diversity outcomes, given the importance of diversity to the University’s educational mission. Planning for the assessment of the other outcomes will follow soon after.

The CORE Diversity Assessment Working Group was formed in May 2006 to plan and conduct assessments of student learning from the CORE courses in Human Cultural Diversity. Chaired by the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, the working group has ten members from disciplines ranging from music and women’s studies to engineering. During fall 2006, the group developed an assessment instrument consisting of a pictorial writing prompt and a brief list of questions that were completed by more than 300 students. The questions confirmed such independent variables as the students’ credit levels and what diversity courses they had taken. Sampled students were in one of four classes, two of which were CORE Diversity Courses, one in music and one in journalism, and two of which were not CORE Diversity courses, one in aerospace engineering and one in English literature.

Responses to the Diversity writing prompt will be evaluated in January and February 2007 through use of a rubric that was also developed by the working group in its fall meetings. In addition, the CORE Diversity Working Group has plans to conduct several small focus groups of students in February to help with interpretation of the results. A protocol for the focus groups will be developed based on the essay results. A final report will be submitted to the Dean for Undergraduate Studies by March 1, 2007.

As proposed in the CORE Assessment Plan (Appendix 211), two new assessment projects for Distributive Studies categories will begin in spring 2007. The categories selected for study are LL and LS, lab and non-lab courses in life sciences. With the help of the College of Chemical and Life Sciences, where a majority of LL and LS courses reside, a single working group has been appointed to handle these two closely related assessments. This group will begin meeting in February and will produce a final report by July; then, in fall 2007, assessment of two additional Distributive Studies categories will begin. Two more categories will be assessed in spring 2008, two more in fall 2008, and so on until all CORE categories have been assessed.

As assessments proceed across campus, more help can be expected with CORE assessment from departments and colleges where expertise is developing. Many of the departmental assessments will offer useful instruments and data for CORE assessment. For example, CORE staff discovered that the Department of Mathematics has extensive data on student progress in the category of Fundamental Studies Mathematics that may fully meet the need for assessment of this CORE category (Appendix 212).

In fall 2005, upon review of the newly published outcomes for the CORE program, the Provost surveyed academic departments on how well these outcomes were satisfied by our present courses. Each faculty member responsible for a CORE course was asked to complete a checklist of the learning outcomes for the category (or categories) in which the course was approved and to indicate which of the listed outcomes were addressed and which were “most significant” for the course. Responses were due by March 15, 2006.

More than 330 checklist forms were returned. Both overall CORE outcomes and category-specific outcomes were checked. All responses were entered in a SPSS dataset and analysis is underway. These data allow for mapping of the CORE program in terms of CORE learning outcomes. These data also permit comparisons between and among CORE categories, as well as between colleges. They will provide a powerful and useful overview for CORE planning and assessment processes.

The following specific and focused recommendations for the University are excerpted from the Standard 12 working group’s report, which also contains many recommendations of a more general nature. The full report, including the working group’s list of programmatic strengths, challenges, conclusions, and recommendations is available as Appendix 213.

If one of the University’s strategic goals has been to provide enriched and challenging educational opportunities for all undergraduates, an important purpose has been to prepare our students to be lifelong learners and engaged citizens in an increasingly complex and interrelated world. Some of the objectives discussed above, including the enhancement of learning communities, undergraduate research, and international learning, as well as the incorporation of information technology in the learning process, have profoundly changed undergraduate education at the University and greatly enhanced our effectiveness at producing high quality experiences for all students. Another significant development in ensuring that our graduates obtain the academic knowledge and skills to engage in the larger world has been the campus-wide enhancement of the curricula through interdisciplinary studies. In Section X.B, the self-study report provides an analysis of the significant changes in interdisciplinary studies in graduate education. However, the shifts in undergraduate education also are substantial, and often reflect the interdisciplinary programs initially developed for graduate education, or the research centers developed by faculty in response to the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of their scholarly activities. Some of the highlights in interdisciplinary undergraduate education include:

CORE-General Education: A new distributive studies area, Interdisciplinary and Emerging Issues, was added to the CORE General Education curriculum (Appendices 206 and 214).

World (WRLD) Courses: These interdisciplinary team-taught courses have included WRLD 125: The Creative Drive (Architecture, Music, and Mathematics) and WRLD 235: The Power of Water: Politics, Technology, and Development of the Mekong River (Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics, Civil Engineering, Government and Politics).

Environmental Science and Policy (ENSP): The ENSP major (Appendix 215) was established in 1997 as a collaborative academic program across four colleges: Agriculture and Natural Resources; Behavioral and Social Sciences; Chemical and Life Sciences; and Computer, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The approval process for this program included a lively Senate debate in 1996 about the meaning and impact of “interdisciplinarity” in a campus divided into traditional disciplines. Since its inception, the program has grown to more than two hundred students and draws faculty and courses from twenty different departments. This growth reflects the faculty’s increasing interest in the scholarship of environmental science and policy, and has led to the hiring of new interdisciplinary faculty. Students in the ENSP major complete core courses in science and policy, then specialize in one of eleven current program concentrations that range from Environmental Economics to Wildlife Ecology and Management, with oversight by the appropriate college. The program has gone through several significant refinements since it started, particularly in defining effective concentrations that meet the rigor of traditionally focused scientific disciplines while also providing students with the broad interdisciplinary background and skills to master the program goals. For instance, the concentration in Wildlife Resources has been replaced by one in Wildlife Ecology and Management, with a curriculum that prepares graduates for careers as wildlife biologists. Similarly, the administrative structure also has been revised. Initially, students entering the major were temporarily housed in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources until they chose a specific college-based concentration. In 2006, the University approved the creation of a Department of Environmental Science and Technology in AGNR, and ENSP has moved into a departmental home while still maintaining its interdisciplinary status.

Undergraduate Minors: In spring 2004, the University approved minors as a new category of secondary study for undergraduates. Minors have 15-24 credits with at least nine at the upper-level. Previously, course groupings known as “citations” fulfilled a similar role, but were not recognized outside the institution. Since 2004, over fifty minors have been approved (Appendix 216). Some of them represent conversions from citations, but all minors, whether new or developed from an existing citation, were approved in separate actions by faculty review committees. Some undergraduate minors represent subsets of existing majors, such as Computer Science or Linguistics. Others are truly interdisciplinary in nature and allow for deep collaboration among faculty and undergraduates across departments and colleges. Examples include Black Women’s Studies (African American Studies and Women’s Studies) (Appendix 217), and Nanoscience and Technology (Materials Science and Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Chemistry and Biochemistry) (Appendix 218).

Interdisciplinary Certificates: An official University award recognized by the state, upper-division undergraduate certificates require a minimum of 21 credits. In 2000, the University added a new undergraduate certificate in Asian American Studies (Appendix 219). The product of several years of active engagement and planning on the part of faculty, staff, and students, the Asian American Studies Certificate comprises 21 credits in interdisciplinary coursework in history, sciences, technology, literature, anthropology, sociology, and related fields. For effective management of such an interdisciplinary cross-college certificate, the Asian American Studies Program resides in the Office of Undergraduate Studies. Faculty appointments, however, reside in college-based departments with commitments to teach in the program. In 2002, the University approved an upper-division undergraduate certificate in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Studies (Appendix 220). Similarly housed in the Office of Undergraduate Studies, LGBT Studies draws upon an interdisciplinary curriculum that includes history, philosophy, literatures, and social sciences.

All of the University’s academic programs are approved following rigorous reviews at several levels on campus in accordance with shared governance and, if applicable, by the BOR and MHEC. The program approval and review guidelines mandate: 1) congruency of the proposed academic program to the UM institutional mission, and 2) compliance with all UM, USM, and state mandated academic policies regarding sufficient content, breadth, length, and appropriate rigor. Revisions to existing academic programs also are reviewed on campus and, if the changes are significant, at USM and MHEC as well. Procedures, guidelines, and policies for academic programs appear in the Programs, Curricula, and Courses (PCC) Manual (Appendix 221).

Academic unit and program review are carried out on a regular basis and according to UM and USM policies and guidelines. See the University of Maryland Policy on the Review of Academic Units (Appendix 82), the University System of Maryland Guidelines for External Program Reviews (Appendix 222) and the Schedule for Review of Academic Units and Programs (Appendix 223). Reviews include recommendations from the unit, the Dean, and the Provost to ensure feedback and continuing programmatic improvement. See also Section IV.C.2.

Reviews of co-curricular and extracurricular programs offered by the divisions of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs also occur on a regular basis and include recommendations for improvement and change.

B. Improvements in Retention and Graduation Rates/Time to Degree and Undergraduate Four-Year Plans

See Appendices 8, 9, and 10 for a discussion of the Student Academic Success-Degree Completion Policy, the President’s Task Group on Undergraduate Graduation Rate/Student Success Rate and its complete report, recommendations, and the resulting policy statement. The policy establishes provisions to guide all undergraduates to baccalaureate completion in a reasonable period, usually understood as four years. The provisions include the development of four-year graduation templates for all undergraduate majors, yearly academic progress benchmarks in those majors, and enhanced advising. The policy further stipulates that those students who do not meet progress benchmarks may be assisted in identifying and enrolling in an alternative major.

Over the past fifteen years, the University of Maryland has been increasingly successful in retaining students and graduating them in a timely fashion. Table 9 shows that, beginning with the first-year cohort that entered UM in fall 1992, our one-year retention rates have improved almost steadily from less than 85% to close to 92% for the fall 2005 cohort. The four-year graduation rate for the 1992 group was 32%. For the cohort entering 10 years later, in 2002, that rate had improved to close to 59% with a corresponding five-year graduation rate increase from 58% to almost 76%.

While first-year admits comprise the majority of undergraduates at the University, the institution also accepts a significant number of transfer students. Table 10 shows the unduplicated headcount of all undergraduates who matriculated in the fall semesters from 1998-2005, based on their original status upon entrance to the University. (Note: The new first time and transfer numbers are a subset of the total unduplicated headcount numbers.)

As Table 10 demonstrates, the first-time and transfer undergraduate populations have remained relatively stable, while there has been a substantial drop in the number of part-time students.

TABLE 10: *Number of Registered Undergraduates in the Fall Semesters 1999-2006*
-		Fall 1999	Fall 2000	Fall 2001	Fall 2002	Fall 2003	Fall 2004	Fall 2005	Fall 2006
Unduplicated Undergraduate Headcount	Full-time	21,845	21,951	22,412	22,763	23,016	22,933	23,263	23,124
	Part-time	2,872	2,687	2,687	2,477	2,430	2,207	2,179	2,030
	New first-time	3,937	3,980	4,380	3,917	4,066	4,200	4,212	3,962
	New transfer and others	2,552	2,134	2,123	2,317	2,304	2,137	2,652	2,335
	Total	24,717	24,638	25,099	25,240	25,446	25,140	25,442	25,154

Table 11 provides data on the retention and graduation rates of full-time, degree-seeking transfer students who achieved junior status in the indicated fall semester. The figures demonstrate a marked improvement over time in the retention and graduation rates for transfer students achieving junior status in the fall semesters.

TABLE 11: Retention and Graduation Rates for Juniors who Transferred to *UM from Other Institutions and Were Retained to Their Junior Year*
-	Retained or Graduated		Graduated
-	Cohort Size	After 1 year	After 2 years	After 3 years	After 4 years
Fall 1996	1,094	82.1%	35.3%	65.5%	72.5%
Fall 1997	992	83.1%	35.1%	62.8%	70.6%
Fall 1998	1,060	84.5%	36.5%	65.1%	72.8%
Fall 1999	1,016	82.7%	40.4%	68.4%	74.4%
Fall 2000	1,017	86.3%	43.9%	71.3%	76.9%
Fall 2001	1,023	89.1%	46.1%	75.2%	80.0%
Fall 2002	750	88.0%	51.5%	74.4%	79.9%
Fall 2003	861	87.6%	52.8%	73.2%	-
Fall 2004	913	89.9%	54.3%	-	-
Fall 2005	895	88.4%	-	-	-
Fall 2006	960	-	-	-	-

Tables 12 and 13 show, respectively, the total number of undergraduate students by class and the percentages of bachelor’s degrees awarded to first-year admit and transfer students by cohort. In FY1999, 57.7% of all bachelor degrees awarded were to students who first matriculated as freshmen; in FY2005, that rose to 68.9%. While the number of first-year students has remained relatively stable, the numbers of sophomores and juniors have increased due to increased transfers at those levels and increased rates of retention for both first-year admit and transfer populations. The decreased time to graduation translates effectively to increased throughput and to lower numbers of “senior” students. The data also demonstrate the significant decrease in the fraction of bachelor degrees awarded to those students who entered the University as transfers. In other words, there are fewer such students at any given time, but they are more successful.

TABLE 12: *Number of Undergraduates by Class*
Class	Fall 1998	Fall 1999	Fall 2000	Fall 2001	Fall 2002	Fall 2003	Fall 2004	Fall 2005
1. Freshman	5722	5599	5351	5524	5676	5522	5584	5824
2. Sophomore	5217	5308	5429	5379	6138	6147	5842	6079
3. Junior	5768	6033	5938	6168	6049	6361	6313	6141
4. Senior	6944	6725	7007	7067	6404	6478	6585	6599
5. Post-bacc	451	363	353	311	350	323	266	233
6. Special UG	674	689	484	581	562	548	475	497
7. Applied Ag.	-	-	76	69	61	67	75	69
Total	24776	24717	24638	25099	25240	25446	25140	25442

TABLE 13: Bachelor Degrees Awarded by First Matriculation Classification
Year	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
Freshman	57.70%	59.20%	59.30%	63.30%	64.50%	65.50%	68.90%
Transfer	42.30%	40.80%	40.70%	36.70%	35.50%	34.50%	31.10%

Policies and procedures relating to the transfer of undergraduate credits are accessible at the Web site maintained by the Transfer Credit Center (Appendix 224) including guidelines for obtaining credit through Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB) and College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) exams. Other resources include the University System of Maryland Transfer Web site and ARTSYS, the University System of Maryland Articulation System that facilitates the transfer of Maryland community college students to baccalaureate programs in Maryland 4-year public institutions. The Maryland Transfer Web site also provides information on MHEC policy on the transfer of general education courses within Maryland (Appendix 225). This policy guarantees that general education courses completed at one Maryland public college are transferable to another and will apply towards general education requirements.

Students may also obtain credit for prior learning through successful completion of College Park Departmental Proficiency Examinations (or "credit by exam"), most often in mathematics or foreign language. For adult learners, the University offers programs at the Counseling Center’s Learning Assistance Services (LAS) for returning students, as well as Financial Aid for Returning Students. The Golden Identification Card Program allows retired adults ages 60 and above to enroll in up to three courses per semester with tuition waived (Appendix 226).

Undergraduate transfers to the University face many challenges, most of which are endemic to large, diverse, state institutions. These challenges include fewer scholarship opportunities and limited access to residential community housing and special academic programs. New transfers generally register after the regular registration period for returning students. Many seats already have been taken by the returning students, thus placing transfer students at a disadvantage in access to upper-level courses. As Tables 11 and 13 demonstrate, transfer student success as indicated by retention and graduation rates has improved significantly in the past ten years, although the perception of transfer students as academically less capable still prevails across the institution. In September 2005, the Campus Assessment Working Group (CAWG) completed an in-house qualitative report (Appendix 227) on transfer students’ perceptions titled “Transfer Students at the University of Maryland.” The study focused on areas important to educational enhancement and success, such as advising, undergraduate learning outcomes, internships, and information technology. The results of this report have been shared with offices and divisions across the institution and have informed current efforts.

Concrete steps have been taken to improve the quality of experience and services for transfer students to ease their transition and assure their continued academic success. The Maryland Transfer Advantage Program (MTAP), for example, is a partnership between the University of Maryland and area community colleges—Montgomery College (MC), Prince George’s Community College (PGCC), Anne Arundel Community College and the College of Southern Maryland—to provide structured support and ensure academic success for transfer students. The Hillman Entrepreneurs Program partnership between UM and PGCC is a four-year program that provides financial support to students in the field of entrepreneurship (Appendix 228). A summary of recent initiatives is available in “Transfer Matters” (Appendix 229). An additional ongoing initiative is “Transfer Profiles,” a cooperative data project by IRPA and four Maryland community colleges to track the academic success of transfers and provide opportunities for dialogue, feedback, and improvement. The University also offers two scholarships expressly for transfer students, as described in Appendix 230, with plans for additional scholarships currently underway.

In the area of academic support services, Learning Assistance Services, part of the Counseling Center in the Student Affairs division, offers a one-credit orientation and skills course (EDCP108G) for transfer students every semester (Appendix 231).

The systematic integration of information technology into undergraduate instructional programs is an important strategic goal at the University of Maryland. The responsibility to meet this objective is shared among the individual academic departments and colleges, the University Libraries, the Office of Information Technology (OIT), and Facilities Management. Over the past decade, the University has made great strides towards enabling all faculty and students to utilize fully the new technologies in teaching and learning. The following section highlights some of the key developments in this area. (See also Section III.B, Teaching Facilities Committee, for a description of improvements in classroom technology.)

OIT, and particularly its Academic Support unit, provide institutional leadership in the integration of technology with pedagogy (Appendix 232). Key areas of service and collaboration include the enhancement of physical and virtual learning environments and the formation of faculty-centered design and development teams. Through OIT, faculty have access and training to best utilize technology classrooms, teaching theaters, and instructional lab and design facilities. OIT also offers classes for faculty and graduate assistants in a state-of-the-art Faculty Technology Center (Appendix 233).

Until recently, the University used several different course management systems to support faculty who put course materials online. In 1998, when WebCT was selected as the central course management system, it began by supporting 14 instructors using 28 course spaces for a total of 1,335 seats. Most recently, WebCT Campus Edition accommodated 710 course spaces and 554 instructors (both faculty and graduate teaching assistants) and served over 18,500 unique students in over 40,000 course seats, which means that most students were enrolled in more than one WebCT-enhanced course during the semester. At the same time that most units were using WebCT, others, such as BMGT and ENGR, provided teaching support through Blackboard Learning Systems. The use of multiple platforms presented a challenge for both faculty and students, so the University undertook a year-long selection process to choose a single enterprise-level learning management system. In late spring 2006, the University selected the Blackboard Academic Suite to be its Enterprise Learning Management System (ELMS) (Appendix 234). The 2006-07 academic year will be one of transition as users and courses are migrated to the new system. On the administrative side, the UMEG (University of Maryland Electronic Grading) system provides a vehicle for faculty to submit grades electronically, download class information and roster photos, and automatically create course e-mail reflectors to communicate with students.

OIT collaborates with other units to advance the use of instructional technology in teaching and learning. One such collaboration is with the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) to organize its fifteenth annual Teaching with Technology Conference in 2007. This conference series highlights University faculty and departmental innovations in classroom technology and provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on how rapid advances in technology can best be harnessed to meet the needs of faculty and students. With the University Libraries, OIT has co-sponsored a speaker series on Teaching, Learning and Technology.

Other collaborative committees and projects that advance the use of instructional technology include:

The Teaching Facilities Committee (TFC): The Teaching Facilities Committee reports to the Facilities Council and includes representatives from the Provost’s Office, Plant Maintenance; Plant Engineering, OIT, Facilities Planning, the Registrar’s Office, and the Center for Teaching Excellence. See Section III.B on TFC procedures and significant projects and Appendices 31 and 32 for details concerning the TFC.

Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH): Founded in 1999 as a collaborative venture between ARHU, OIT, and the Libraries, MITH is an applied think tank for the digital humanities (Appendix 235). In the 2000 Strategic Plan, the recently established MITH was forecast as a national model for integrating cutting-edge technology into the liberal arts. Since its establishment, faculty MITH fellows have completed digital projects in history, languages, philosophy, and literatures that have led to numerous undergraduate and graduate humanities courses hosted by MITH.

Clicker Project: Clickers are wireless transmitters that enable students to respond individually to questions posed by an instructor in the classroom. In BMGT, clickers were initially used in four graduate courses in fall 2004. An assessment report by BMGT faculty recommended continued usage and expansion of the clickers in the graduate program (Appendix 236). A parallel two-year “clicker project” by CTE and OIT to assess the use of clickers on undergraduate student learning and engagement more broadly is currently underway (Appendix 237).

The University Libraries are the knowledge portal for the University community. They provide leading-edge information services and collections to support the University’s mission and to further the creation of new knowledge and fields of research. Over the past ten years, the Libraries have reinvented themselves in highly imaginative ways. Through innovative uses of the newest technologies, the Libraries have moved from being a storehouse and cataloger of books and journals to being both a physical and a virtual source of information readily available to faculty and students twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, no matter where the user might be located geographically.

Consistent with the flagship status of the University, the Libraries help create research and scholarly information communities on campus. They are a model for client-centered service excellence, providing information resources that enhance teaching and learning, in physical and virtual environments that are inviting and user-friendly. The Libraries encompass seven libraries across the campus, holding more than three million physical volumes. In fall 2006 there were approximately 240 FTE staff (or 264 headcount).

Beyond the campus, the Libraries have developed effective and useful partnerships with many major libraries and archival repositories in the Washington metropolitan area, including the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and the National Agricultural Library. The unparalleled quality of these national resources provide faculty and students with unique and exciting access to specialized collections and services that enhance our campus-held resources. The University Libraries, moreover, serve as the hub for the University System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions (USMAI) Consortium of State University Libraries (Appendix 238).

A major change for the University Libraries was the shift, beginning in 2004, to exclusively electronic access to numerous journals. During FY05, the Libraries continued to subscribe to approximately 6,500 journals, both print and electronic. However, in less than two years, 27% of that total—1,800 journals—became exclusively electronic subscriptions.

In FY05, close to 5.8 million searches were recorded for 241 databases, ranging from ArtSTOR to Medline. This represents an increase of one million in the number of searches over FY04, and an 18% increase in the number of databases available. The Libraries receive accolades from both faculty and students for making access to these databases user-friendly and highly effective. Digital reference services, desktop article delivery, user empowerment capabilities, and digital library initiatives are means by which the Libraries reach out electronically to all user groups.

In January 2003, the Libraries launched a new online catalog (Appendix 239) that substantially improves access to the collections of the UM Libraries, other USM libraries, and the aforementioned partners in our region. Research Port’s “My Account” capability enables UM and USM users to save searches and results and to access library account information (Appendix 240). Most importantly, the interface to electronic materials is very robust, with capabilities to search across databases, along with a transparent link from search to source.

The Libraries are encouraging electronic-only access to articles and book chapters placed on course reserve. By fall 2005, all campus libraries were included in this service enhancement.

The phenomenon of the continuing importance of “library as place,” in an era when the location of information matters less, is a reality supported by gate counts for all libraries (e.g., figures for the past several years: 1,637,000 in FY02; 1,665,000 in FY03; 1,813,000 for FY04). Since the last Middle States review, the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library facility was constructed as an integral component of the new Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center on campus. Significant renovations have been completed in the central McKeldin Library, and in Hornbake Library, formerly the Undergraduate Library.

The Libraries have a long history of instruction. During 2005-06, 1,027 classes, tours, workshops and seminars were offered to 23,518 participants, a 10% growth in activities compared to the previous year. The Libraries are notable for their systematic outreach (Appendix 241) to large programs, such as University Honors and the Professional Writing Program. The Libraries have successfully reached first-year students through large “gateways” such as the living-learning programs (HONR100), and first-year courses such as ENGL 101, ENES 100, Gemstone 100 and UNIV 100/101.

The Libraries have structured the information literacy program to increase in complexity throughout a student’s university career. Subject specialist librarians work closely with academic departments to integrate information literacy skills throughout the major, focusing on courses such as research methods courses or capstone experiences. Due to the technological innovation occurring both inside and outside academia, providing a cutting-edge education depends in part on helping students to develop information literacy of sufficient breadth.

In addition to face-to-face instruction, new technologies provide opportunities to reach students in different ways through stand-alone and course-related online tutorials, and to integrate information literacy skills and resources into courses using WebCT and other course management software. The Terrapin Information Literacy Tutorial (TILT) (Appendix 242) is an online tutorial developed by the Libraries’ User Education Services and the Information Technology Division specifically for ENGL101 students, and is used heavily by instructors to prepare students before coming to the library.

The Libraries have also been involved in a project testing assessment instruments such as the Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills (SAILS). In 2004, SAILS was administered to 32 library instruction sessions for the Professional Writing Program where 503 students agreed to have their responses reported. The results are available in the 2004 SAILS final report included as Appendix 243. The test has been in revision and testing on the national level, and has just been released again. The University intends to use the test again in spring 2007, and is exploring discipline-specific assessments for use by 2008.

As the flagship institution of the University System of Maryland, the University is the primary public state academic institution for graduate education and research. It has a mandate to gain national and international recognition for excellence in the advancement of knowledge. Because of its stature as a research institution, and its outstanding faculty, the University is able to compete for, and attract, the most talented students in the state, regional, national, and international arenas in many scholarly disciplines.

TABLE 14: Graduate Students by Full-Time vs. Part-Time Status and by Degree Program
Student Type	-	Fall 1998	Fall 1999	Fall 2000	Fall 2001	Fall 2002	Fall 2003	Fall 2004	Fall 2005
Advanced Special (qualified post-bacc. students with no degree objectives)	Full-time	32	31	47	40	48	37	24	45
	Part-time	655	693	678	723	783	698	570	567
	Total	687	724	725	763	831	735	594	612
Doctorate	Full-time	2237	2337	2394	2580	3398	3621	3850	4119
	Part-time	1480	1355	1318	1376	761	745	732	570
	Total	3717	3692	3712	3956	4159	4366	4582	4689
First Professional (Veterinary –Medicine Joint Program with Virginia Tech)	Full-time	-	-	119	119	120	119	115	114
	Part-time	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Total	-	-	119	119	120	119	115	114
Masters	Full-time	1910	2086	2406	2693	2782	2726	2366	2364
	Part-time	1835	1645	1589	1530	1669	1937	2136	2148
	Total	3745	3731	3995	4223	4451	4663	4502	4512
-	Total	8149	8147	8551	9061	9561	9883	9793	9927

Table 14 provides data from fall 1998 to fall 2005 on graduate students by degree program classification. As the data show, the number of doctoral students has increased by approximately 1,000 students in this period. The change in the distribution of full- and part-time doctoral students, however, is due to the adoption of definitional changes that impacted the registration status of Ph.D. students who had advanced to candidacy (Appendix 244). The growth in the number of students seeking master’s degrees, however, is evenly distributed between full- and part-time students. This trend is deliberate, and corresponds to the development of several part-time masters’ programs that respond specifically to market demand and need (Appendix 245).

In significant programmatic developments, this self-study highlights the strategic increase in interdisciplinary academic programs and two new degree programs in Professional Studies with oversight in the Graduate School. In the international arena, graduate programs in business and criminology were created in Shanghai, Beijing, Nanjing, and Zurich.

The strategic goals for continuing to build a culture of excellence in graduate and professional education include several important initiatives addressed in the faculty section (Section V) of this self-study. Undoubtedly, faculty strength is central to graduate excellence in a research-extensive university and our accomplishments in that area speak to the commitment of the University to develop national and international eminence within and across the disciplines. Accordingly, the University supports intellectual exchange, research, and graduate teaching across academic fields. Collaborative scholarly interactions produce new knowledge and create a dynamic and emergent curriculum that forges new frontiers in research and teaching.

Specifically, the University has strengthened graduate offerings through strategic interdisciplinary programmatic developments in bioengineering, neuroscience and cognitive science, second language acquisition and application, bioinformatics and computational biology, and other interdisciplinary fields including nanotechnology and applied mathematics and scientific computation. The growth of interdisciplinary graduate programs has been deliberate, particularly in the multidisciplinary BioSciences Initiative, as evidenced in the examples of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Bioengineering, Neuroscience and Cognitive Science (NACS), and Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. As shown below using NACS as just one example, these initiatives help to attract outstanding faculty who are seeking the opportunities afforded by being in an environment that supports interdisciplinarity. This section highlights the growth of interdisciplinary programs in the past decade.

Bioengineering: In spring 2002, the University approved new interdisciplinary graduate (M.S. and Ph.D.) programs in Bioengineering. At the time, faculty expertise was spread out across four departments in the A. James Clark School of Engineering (Chemical, Electrical and Computer, Mechanical, and Materials Engineering), as well as in other colleges (AGNR, CLFS, CMPS). The initial group of five students in fall 2003 has grown to thirty-three in fall 2006. With the establishment of a graduate program, opportunities to develop new areas of research, and a sizeable donation from inventor and entrepreneur Robert E. Fischell, the University established the Fischell Department of Bioengineering in 2006. Several engineering faculty from various units were joined by colleagues from AGNR’s former Biological Resources Engineering (ENBE) program in a reorganization that moved, modified, and renamed the undergraduate program (from Biological Resources Engineering to Bioengineering) into the new department. The new department, still interdisciplinary in focus, is the tenure home of ten faculty members and includes over fifty affiliate faculty from other units in ENGR, and from CLFS, CMPS, HLHP, the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute (UMBI), and the University of Maryland Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy.

Bioinformatics and Computational Biology: The Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (CBCB) (Appendix 246) is affiliated with CLFS and CMPS, and is located within the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS). While there is no Ph.D. program specifically in Bioinformatics, the Center’s faculty mentor and supervise doctoral students in Computer Science; Applied Mathematics and Scientific Computation; Bioengineering; Biology; Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics; Molecular and Cell Biology; and Behavior, Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. Graduate students are included in research teams and bioinformatics courses are offered in the individual academic units. CBCB sponsors a semester-long seminar series that bring leading researchers and scholars to the University of Maryland. This also provides Ph.D. students with an opportunity to present their research as part of the series.

Neuroscience and Cognitive Science: The Neuroscience and Cognitive Science (NACS) Ph.D. program was created in 1996. NACS currently is training over forty doctoral students and has faculty from fourteen departments in eight colleges. These faculty pursue active cross-disciplinary research collaborations and foster similar training not only for graduate students, but also for the many undergraduates and postdoctoral fellows in NACS laboratories. One major outcome of the NACS program has been the addition of over 30 new faculty to the University in the past ten years, all of whom sought the collaborations offered by the interdisciplinary nature of the program. For example, the program has helped attract David Poeppel (Linguistics and Biology),Timothy Horiouchi (Electrical and Computer Engineering), Jonathan Simon (Electrical and Computer Engineering and Biology), Amanda Woodward (Psychology), Monita Chaterjee (Hearing and Speech Sciences), Jose Contraras-Vidal (Kinesiology), and Peter Carruthers (Philosophy). A second outcome has been the strong ties that have developed with investigators at the National Institutes of Health. This has enhanced faculty research on campus and, more importantly, provided unique and interactive research opportunities for the many graduate students who can take advantage of the expertise and facilities at both institutions. The NACS program highlights for 2005-06 are exemplary of the success in recruiting high quality graduate students into the program and placement of graduates following successful completion of the Ph.D. (Appendix 247).

Second Language Acquisition: The Ph.D. program in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) was approved for fall 2005 as an initiative of the recently formed School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures (SLLC). Although housed in SLLC, the program has a strong cognitive science research focus and draws upon affiliate faculty in Linguistics; Psychology; Measurement, Statistics and Evaluation; Communication; Education Curriculum and Instruction; and Philosophy. An M.A. in Second Language Acquisition and Application (SLAA) was approved for fall 2002 as a program designed for researchers, language teachers, government service professionals, social service employees, and others interested in the acquisition and application of languages other than English. The M.A. and especially the Ph.D. program benefit from close associations with the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) (Appendix 248), the nation’s most influential center for strategic planning and development of policy for language, and the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Languages (CASL) (Appendix 13). The second language acquisition programs and CASL are linked in several important ways, including the funding of graduate students through projects such as the Linguistic Correlates of Proficiency and the Aptitude Battery. CASL has organized workshops and seminars for SLA/A students and faculty, and CASL affiliate faculty teach courses periodically, supervise independent study projects, and can serve on exam and dissertation committees.

Maryland Population Research Center (MPRC): Founded in 1998, this initiative began as a joint project between the Departments of Sociology and Economics and resulted in an unusually active, balanced, collaborative, and multidisciplinary partnership (Appendix 249). The Center was awarded a Population Research Infrastructure Program (R24) grant from the National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Child Health and Development in 2002, making it one of only fifteen population research centers nationally. Today, the MPRC includes forty-three faculty associates from ten University departments, including most recently the School of Public Policy. The cross-disciplinary research interests of the faculty in this Center allow the MPRC to make a unique contribution to the field of population studies. MPRC has developed an interdisciplinary graduate certificate that has been submitted for approval in fall 2006.

As previously described in Section IV.B on assessment and the President’s task force groups, the positions of Dean of the Graduate School and Vice President of Research were provisionally separated in spring 2004. A comprehensive review in spring 2005 concluded that graduate education would best be served by the formation of a separate graduate division with its own Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School. See Appendix 52 for the full report of the Review Committee.

The faculty in each academic program bear the main responsibility for graduate education at the University. Subject to institutional standards, the program faculty admit, instruct, support, mentor, and certify program completion for their students. However, the Graduate School also plays an important role. This includes the setting and maintenance of institutional academic standards and policies and serving an advocate for the graduate student body.

In its February, 2005 report, the Graduate School Review Committee delineated some of these roles. Concerning academic standards and policies, it stated that the Graduate School should “Maintain high standards for admission of students and their continuation in graduate programs. Administer academic policies established by the Graduate Council and establish procedures to enact these policies. Oversee thesis and dissertation defenses to assure quality and uniformity of standards across academic units.” It should “Administer the recommendations of the Graduate Council in accordance with applicable University policies, procedures, and authorities.” In turn, “the Graduate Council acts on behalf of the Graduate Faculty to help ensure the academic quality of graduate education and graduate student research. The Council is the primary adviser to the Graduate Dean and the Provost concerning policies and procedures in these areas, including but not limited to academic standards, admissions, membership in the Graduate Faculty, graduate curricula, courses and programs, publications, and graduate student life and welfare.”

Concerning student advocacy, the report states “The Dean should be an active voice for graduate students in such areas as ensuring competitive compensation for graduate assistants and competitive stipends for fellows. The Dean should strongly encourage programs of mentorship and student development and should continue to be a strong advocate for the recruitment, retention, and timely graduation of a diverse graduate student body. The Dean should inspire innovation in the development of funding sources for student support (e.g., training grants and fellowships).” It also states that “In a broader context, the School recognizes that graduate students must have support in the nonacademic aspects of their life. While responsibility for student support services such as financial aid, housing, health insurance and benefits, counseling, child care, and international student services often lies within other campus units, the Graduate School should monitor such services to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of graduate students.”

Since the report was written, the Graduate School and the Office of Academic Affairs, with the advice and consent of the Graduate Council, have adopted a number of programs to improve graduate education at the University. Among the most significant changes implemented are the following:

Graduate School Field Committees: In spring 2005, the Graduate Council developed and approved guidelines for the formation of Field Committees (Appendix 250) as a means to facilitate interdisciplinary research. Field committees, established through a streamlined formal process, provide a responsive and cost-effective means of employing existing resources to increase interdisciplinary research in fast-moving fields. Composed of five or more regular faculty members from at least two disciplines, field committees allow faculty to gain formal recognition of their work in interdisciplinary areas and help in recruiting graduate students interested in the emerging fields of study. Presently, there are five such field committees: The Burgers Program in Fluid Dynamics; the Field Committee in Nanoscience and Technology; the Maryland Biophysics program; the Field Committee in Energy Systems Engineering; and the Field Committee in Developmental Science.

Dissertation Fellowships: The Graduate School has acquired funding for the Ann G. Wylie Dissertation Fellowships (formerly the Dean’s Dissertation Fellowships). Twelve fellowships were awarded in spring 2006 and another 30 for the 2006-2007 academic year. Dissertation Fellowships are part of a new initiative to improve graduate degree completion rates, as discussed in the Section XI.B. (See also Appendix 251).

Flagship Fellowships: The Graduate School also has secured seed money for Flagship Fellowships. These awards, currently under development, will enable programs to compete successfully for the best students. Flagship Fellowships will be in place for the 2007 graduate recruitment season. This initiative addresses some of the issues raised in Section XI.C.

A continuing challenge for the Graduate School and graduate studies in general at the University is the Ph.D. completion rate. For students who entered Ph.D. programs between 1993 and 1996, the ten-year completion rate is 48.8%, in contrast to the national average of 60%. The University of Maryland rate is even lower for women and minority graduate students. In light of this challenge, the Provost appointed a committee to study the issues that affect degree completion rates and time to degree. The committee produced a “Report on Ph.D. Completion” that included the results of a survey on graduate assistant workload. The report of the committee and its subcommittees included several recommendations on the mentoring of graduate students and adequate financial support for every Ph.D. student in good standing. Additional recommendations concerned resources, advising, and workload requirements for the Graduate School, colleges, and academic programs. The detailed recommendations are available in the full report in Appendix 252.

While much has been accomplished in the past two years to address graduate student needs, ongoing challenges persist in relation to stipends and workload. As the quality and reputation of our graduate programs and faculty continue to rise, the University also continues to attract applications from the most talented students. The “funding package” offered to these exceptional graduate applicants often is not competitive, particularly in relation to the relatively high cost of living and housing in the area. The funding issue is an important area in which we lag behind our institutional peers. Stipends for graduate assistantships vary across the University, as does the actual workload associated with those assistantships. To make ends meet, an increasing number of graduate students take second jobs. These factors affect not only our ability to recruit competitively, but also the rate of degree completion and time to degree. In 2006, the Graduate School and IRPA conducted a Graduate Assistant Survey, the results of which are available in Appendix 253. Addressing the challenges of funding and workload are immediate priorities for the newly reorganized Graduate School.

As described briefly in Section I.B, the University of Maryland already has taken initial steps in defining the goals and objectives for the strategic planning project that will begin in earnest in late spring 2007, and graduate education has emerged as one of the key components of the project. More specifically, the June 2006 “Strategic Thinking Retreat” explored several large areas for strategic initiatives (see Appendix 4 for the Retreat agenda and outcomes). The first agenda item focused on graduate studies with presentations on graduate education, full funding for all Ph.D. students, the graduate assistant experience, and strategies for recruiting top students. Correspondingly, the very first outcome in the strategic planning process concerns how to improve graduate education across campus to a high level of excellence. This renewed focus on excellence in graduate education emphasizes its centrality in our institutional mission. How the University of Maryland moves forward to develop this core initiative will be a primary measure of our goals and achievements as a modern research university.

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.

Two new entrepreneurial programs were developed in early 2005. These programs, the Master of Professional Studies and the Certificate in Professional Studies, were approved as templates designed to give academic units the flexibility to propose customized multidisciplinary degrees or certificate programs for qualified employees in government agencies and private sector organizations. Having such programs enables University faculty to respond quickly and creatively to the needs of government and private organizations by developing programs that cross-disciplinary lines and meet specific educational needs.

The Graduate School is the academic home for these programs and provides general oversight, while the Office of Professional Studies usually administers the programs (Appendix 254). Each iteration of the non-thesis master or certificate program requires approval first of the Graduate and Senate Programs, Curricula and Courses committees, with final approval by the USM Chancellor. For each offering, a discrete committee composed of faculty from the core academic areas, a representative from the Graduate School, and an administrative manager provide hands-on oversight. Each proposal must also include program goals and student learning outcomes expectations consistent with the University’s standards for graduate education. Assessment of each program precedes any repeated offering with necessary changes made based on feedback.

In the 2005-06 academic year, the University approved four professional masters and ten certificate programs, with all but one administered through the Office of Professional Studies. These programs draw on UM’s strengths in critical languages, information assurance technology, public health informatics, and food safety. While it is still too early to measure the full impact of these professional master and certificate programs, they promise to provide innovative vehicles for graduate professional education and outreach, as well as for new revenue resources for academic units.

Several schools and colleges have developed executive education programs. The Robert H. Smith School of Business offers the executive track of the University’s MBA degree at College Park and in international locations, particularly in China, as detailed below. Executive education also forms a central part of the School of Public Policy’s mission to create public policy leaders. For more than twenty years, PUAF’s Office of Executive Programs has been dedicated to educational outreach, particularly to mid-career and senior level professionals in government and non-governmental sectors. Typically, professionals with advanced degrees seek Public Policy’s graduate certificate programs in areas such as national security policy and public sector finance. The University also offers other graduate programs tailored for professional development. The Professional Master of Engineering (ENPM) (Appendix 255) and the Graduate Certificate in Engineering are designed specifically as practice-oriented, part-time professional development programs and are offered at College Park and at designated locations such as the Universities at Shady Grove. The Master of Information Management is offered by the College of Information Studies both on and off campus mostly to government professionals. The Professional Masters program in the Mathematics of Advanced Industrial Technology is designed to train professionals already working in the field of mathematical engineering.

The University of Maryland also offers several online graduate programs primarily through the Office of Professional Studies. The online Master of Life Science is offered for K-12 teachers, whereas Certificates of Professional Studies draw students with needs for specific education or training. All of these programs, as well as the Professional Master’s of Engineering for practicing engineers conform to standard policies set by UM, the BOR, and MHEC. See Appendix 256 for the Program, Curricula & Courses Manual guidelines for online programs and distance education.

The growth of both on- and off-campus executive and professional programs presents challenges to the University, particularly in terms of policies and procedures. Current policies largely pertain to research degrees and courses offered in a semester-long format in a traditional classroom setting. Additionally, as these programs proliferate, the University needs to reiterate guidelines for graduate admissions, overload for regular faculty, and graduate faculty status for adjuncts.

Most of the colleges, schools, and the Office of Professional Studies are engaged in mission-related non-credit and/or service programs. The Office of Professional Studies has developed an infrastructure to support these programs that includes templates and program and participant/client evaluation forms. The University of Maryland awards Continuing Education Units (CEUs) approved by a sponsoring academic unit. CEUs are administered through the Office of Professional Studies. See Appendix 257 for CEU guidelines and Appendix 258 for examples of Continuing Education Programs.

Maryland Cooperative Extension (MCE) is a statewide, non-formal education system primarily within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. MCE educational programs and problem-solving assistance are available to the general public as part of the land grant mission of the University of Maryland. MCE has approximately 200 faculty at UM engaged in extension education and outreach. See Section V.C on extension faculty titles and appointment processes. See Appendix 22 for the range of MCE programs and outreach activities.

The University offers a growing array of off-campus academic programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. According to the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), an academic program is considered to be “off-campus,” if more than one-third of the required coursework in a 12-month period is offered at a location other than the institution’s central campus. The state, moreover, considers “off-campus” any coursework offered at a location other than the institution’s principal campus if advertised as leading to an undergraduate or graduate degree regardless of the fraction thereof. The approval process for off-campus offerings of existing academic programs assures that program quality will be maintained and that adequate student support services will be provided in the new location. The University currently offers off-campus academic programs in numerous locations in the State of Maryland, the greater Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area, and internationally (Appendix 259). The following highlights two expanding off-campus locations, the Universities at Shady Grove, an emerging regional center in nearby Montgomery County, and the developing educational partnerships with universities in China.

The Universities at Shady Grove (USG) is a University System of Maryland (USM) academic facility located at the Shady Grove Educational Center in Montgomery County. The Center has existed for about twenty years as an outreach location and, until recently, was used exclusively in evening and weekend hours as a venue for a few graduate programs of USM institutions and for part-time undergraduate programs mostly offered by the University of Maryland University College (UMUC). Beginning fall 2000, USG became a facility where eight of the USM’s eleven degree-granting institutions offer courses and degree programs, now mostly for full-time undergraduate day students at the upper-division (junior and senior) levels.

The undergraduate programs offered at the USG are the upper-division portions of the same programs offered at the home institutions. The USG programs expect students to transfer into them with their lower division requirements completed, usually at a community college, and most often at Montgomery College, the community college of Montgomery County. The institutions providing the degree programs admit students and grant degrees, while the USG provides local student services in close cooperation with the service providers at the home institutions. On-site library and computing services are provided, and the classrooms are modern and well equipped. Program faculty from the home institutions offer instruction on-site at the USG. Detailed articulation agreements with local community colleges facilitate the transfer of students into the USG-based programs.

A shortcoming of the USG site is that the range of available College Park courses is limited. This is mitigated somewhat by arrangements for sharing courses among the eight institutions involved at USG so that each program, and its students, benefits from the offerings of the others. As of fall 2006, a special committee of representatives for the USG programs is studying course-sharing priorities and plans to make recommendations soon. In addition, USG students have the opportunity to take a limited number of courses at the home institution. As the facility grows and new programs are added, the range of courses offered on site will continue to expand. A new building under construction will double USG’s capacity when it is completed in fall 2007.

The University began offering four undergraduate Business and Management specializations and the General Biology specialization of its Biological Sciences program at the USG in fall 2001, and added its Criminology and Criminal Justice program in fall 2003 and Communication in fall 2005. Additional programs are being prepared for offering at the USG, including Public and Community Health. In the 2005-2006 academic year, a total of 341 students majored in the undergraduate programs offered by the University at USG. The retention and graduation rates in the Shady Grove programs exceed the success rate for community college transfers into the corresponding home institution programs. Mitigating factors include smaller cohorted classes and individualized attention from an on-site program director for each undergraduate program.

The University has offered a part-time evening MBA program at the Shady Grove Center since 1990. (The MBA program is also offered at locations in Washington, D.C. and in Baltimore.) More recently, the University has added to its USG portfolio portions of its interactive-video-based Master of Engineering program and two cohorts of students working towards the Master of Education specializing, respectively, in middle school mathematics education and in teaching English to speakers of other languages. These Master of Education programs are at the request of and in collaboration with the Montgomery County Board of Education to address teacher shortages. Additional graduate programs to be based at the USG are in preparation, including a Master of Education in (Middle School) Science Education and a Graduate Certificate for teachers in Literacy Training.

There are special challenges associated with the coordination of off-site programs with each other and with main institution offerings. At startup, the general oversight of the programs at the USG was the responsibility of the Associate Provost for Academic Planning and Programs. However, as our involvement grows, more time and attention must be devoted to this enterprise. A new staff member has been hired within the Office of Academic Affairs to bolster our ability to coordinate our programmatic operations at USG. As discussed in Section III.F, a new Advisory Council on Academic Planning and Policy (ACAPP) is being established to more effectively coordinate planning and implementation processes. Once in place, this council, composed of key Academic Affairs senior staff, will help plan and oversee program development at the Universities at Shady Grove. Finally, in fall 2006, USG began an academic strategic planning exercise with all of the participating institutions as a step in assuring optimum growth in key areas of workforce need in Montgomery and surrounding counties that promises to result in a renewed strategic plan for programmatic growth and partnerships at the Regional Center.

The University has pursued close ties with Asian institutions over more than two decades. Maryland has had a sister state relationship with the Anhui Province since China and the U.S. established closer relations in the 1980s. Since then, a large number of cooperative agreements between the University and leading Chinese institutions have paved the way to a growing number of student and faculty exchanges and collaboration among scholars. We have strong alumni organizations throughout East Asia, most notably in Taiwan and Thailand, as well as informal networks throughout eleven provinces in China and in the municipalities of Shanghai and Beijing.

The University is the site of the first Confucius Institute (for Chinese language and culture training) opened in the United States (Appendix 260), and since 2002 hosts the U.S.-China Science Park at Maryland, the first Chinese government research park in the U.S. The Institute for Global Chinese Affairs (IGCA), part of the Office of International Programs, oversees a number of China-related programs, in particular an on-campus training program in economic development, management, and policy implementation for business, government, and academic leaders from China. To date, over 1,000 executives have been trained by IGCA and constitute a loyal and active alumni base as they also advance in their careers throughout China.

Recently we have begun to offer full-scale masters programs in several locations within China. In particular, we have Executive MBA programs in both Beijing and Shanghai, and a professional masters program in Criminal Justice in Nanjing. These programs strengthen ties between University faculty and academics and others in China. They provide broadened perspectives and research opportunities for faculty, and help cement economic relationships with Maryland entities. Each new program location requires a separate University approval process for off-site programs, where the program curriculum, faculty, and venue are reviewed to assure that program integrity, quality, and student services are maintained (Appendix 261).

As described in the first two elements of its Strategic Plan, the University intends to “continue to elevate the quality of undergraduate education” and to “build a strong, university-wide culture of excellence in graduate and professional education.” Earlier sections of this report described close faculty oversight of the creation or modification of educational programs, review of individual programs through unit reviews, review of courses through student evaluations and the CORE review process, and many ways that the educational experience is strengthened through special programs or students assisted through ordinary and special advising opportunities. The University is now adding to this effort by building a campus-wide culture of learning outcomes assessment. Until now the assessment of student learning has been more institutionalized in colleges such as BMGT and ENGR, where assessment practices have been adopted with the guidance of outside accrediting agencies. Learning outcomes assessment on an institution-wide scale is a recent undertaking at the University, and one for which the initial impetus was largely external and linked to state, regional and national concerns and mandates.

The September-October 2006 edition of the University’s Center for Teaching Excellence newsletter featured an article (Appendix 262) by Donna B. Hamilton, Dean for Undergraduate Studies, describing the collective institutional effort to put in place a system of learning outcomes assessment in every department of every college and school. Hamilton summarizes recent changes brought about by a network of committed faculty members and administrators:

A full discussion of the Provost’s Commission, its structure, and some of its activities is in Section XV.B. The results of these three years of work include the following:

Although originally driven by external forces, these developments concerning outcomes and assessment are taking hold as integral parts of our academic structure. We note that:

The Provost’s Commission on Learning Outcomes Assessment (Appendix 265) was established in the fall 2003. The Dean for Undergraduate Studies was named as chair. Charged by the Provost to work with all campus units as they develop learning outcomes and to establish a new standard for assessment at the University of Maryland, the Commission consists of four interacting groups of UM faculty and administrators.

The Provost’s Commission sponsors on- and off-campus events and workshops with national leaders in the field of learning outcomes assessment, as well as with our campus experts, to address critical issues. These events included an initial group of nine faculty and administrators who attended an AAHE assessment workshop. The following events, among many others, have highlighted the initial years of learning about assessment:

As our campus network of experts grows, presentations and workshops rely more and more on homegrown expertise. For example, an October 2006 session on program outcomes for the University Libraries was co-chaired by a member of the campus Assessment Planning Team and a University librarian who also belongs to the college coordinator group.

C. Plan for the Assessment of Student Learning: Academic Programs and Courses

Planning for the assessment of student learning has been an institution-wide collaborative process focused on learning outcomes at course and program levels. Through this process, learning outcomes goals and assessment plans were developed for each undergraduate major program, many program tracks, each minor program, and each graduate program offered at the University. Although the initiative was led by high-ranking administrators, the work was faculty-driven with significant collaboration at the college and university levels. The process included the following steps:

A faculty working group, convened for the purpose, developed goals and objectives that articulate the educational outcomes to which faculty believe our University aspires for its graduates. As we state and share these objectives, we help to move the University community toward thinking about student progress in terms of outcomes. The essential elements of the five outcome goals are summarized below. Complete goals and objectives are available as Appendix 269.

Establishing these outcomes provided opportunities for two university-wide assessment projects. The faculty working group planned two learning outcome assessments, both focused on critical thinking and writing skills.

The first assessment examined critical thinking as part of an ongoing effort at the University of Maryland’s Center for Assessment of Higher Education (CAHE) to measure undergraduate learning. In pilot studies at Columbia University and the University of Maryland, researchers devised and tested instruments with analytic essay questions and a battery of multiple-choice items. Two types of instruments were developed: those applicable across disciplines and those with discipline-specific items. Recently CAHE conducted a follow-up investigation of the first-year student cohort whose critical thinking abilities had been assessed in the initial pilot study. This follow-up assessment for students in their senior year will provide longitudinal analysis of how critical thinking changed across four years at the University. A description of the proposal for this study is included as Appendix 270. Preliminary results from this study suggest that critical thinking skills increased across this sample group’s four years of study at the University. In addition, these preliminary results suggest that these changes in critical thinking skills were not uniform across disciplines. Further analyses of the disciplinary differences in changes in critical thinking will provide information that may be useful for program improvement.

The second assessment project was designed by a subgroup of the faculty working group to assess critical thinking and writing as addressed in the university-level goals and objectives. It consisted of an extra-credit writing assignment, given with the permission of the instructor, in a high-enrollment course with students at all stages of undergraduate education. The group developed a writing prompt and accompanying rubrics for scoring both the critical thinking and writing aspects of the assignment. At the same time, the rubrics were reviewed and revised by faculty attending a rubric workshop at the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE). In spring and fall 2006, more than 300 essays written in response to the standard writing prompt (Appendix 271) were completed and collected. Graduate students trained at the Center for Teaching Excellence will score these essays in January and February 2007 using the completed rubric (Appendix 272).

In the process of working with the college coordinators and University faculty, the Provost’s Commission realized that the University-wide learning goals were well-represented across campus in separate lists of outcomes as well as in rubrics used for assessing various courses and undergraduate programs. One possible explanation is that the articulated University-wide Learning Goals had guided early work in stating learning outcomes for individual degree programs. On the other hand, the multiple iterations of the University-wide learning goals enforced the shared vision and mission of undergraduate education across the institution. For example, nearly every degree program has posted stated outcomes dealing with effective oral and written communication (Appendix 263), as well as assessment instruments for those outcomes. To avoid duplication of effort, the Provost’s Commission on Learning Outcomes Assessment will consider departmental assessments completed in spring 2007 to determine whether assessments of University-wide Learning Goals may be harvested from these documents.

In conducting the review for this self-study, the Standard 14 working group found that outcomes assessment is well on its way to becoming an integral part of our academic programs and that there is growing understanding of ways to use assessment results to enhance undergraduate and graduate education programs, down to the levels of individual courses.

Several UM enrichment programs discussed earlier have developed student learning goals and outcomes as a collaborative process among the programs’ faculty and staff. In all instances, these goals and outcomes build upon those developed at the university-wide level. Examples include the following:

In a parallel process, the Division of Student Affairs defined and articulated student learning outcomes in the following areas:

A Students Affairs group, parallel to the college coordinators, acted as peer reviewers for the Student Affairs student learning outcomes plans. The submitted plans and peer review assessment rubrics can be found in Appendix 276. As seen in this appendix, programs received detailed feedback about their learning goals and proposed assessment plans. The feedback form for each of the programs indicates that the assessment plan is acceptable but would improve with modification as noted on the feedback form. The staff members, who developed the original assessment plans, are in the process of editing the plans for resubmission by incorporating the feedback provided in the rubrics.

¹National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2004, NSF 06-323, Project Officer, Ronda Britt (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2006). http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06323/

²Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006).

³See also data from the US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter, 2004.

TABLE 9: Retention and Graduation Rates *Note: These rates are for full-time, degree-seeking, new first-year students.* *For years 1-3, percentages include those retained or graduated.* *For years 4-6, percentages include only those that graduated.*
-	Retained or Graduated				Graduated
-	Cohort Size	After 1 year	After 2 years	After 3 years	After 4 years	After 5 years	After 6 years
Fall 1992	3,018	84.8%	76.0%	73.6%	32.0%	58.2%	64.7%
Fall 1993	3,142	86.2%	77.0%	73.1%	33.5%	58.7%	64.0%
Fall 1994	3,628	85.5%	76.4%	72.2%	33.4%	58.1%	63.6%
Fall 1995	3,570	87.0%	76.4%	73.6%	37.6%	59.4%	64.7%
Fall 1996	3,538	87.6%	79.5%	76.4%	41.0%	64.2%	69.1%
Fall 1997	3,950	88.4%	81.0%	77.3%	43.0%	65.8%	70.8%
Fall 1998	4,038	90.1%	83.0%	79.3%	46.0%	68.7%	73.2%
Fall 1999	3,864	90.7%	84.8%	81.7%	50.3%	72.9%	76.5%
Fall 2000	3,928	91.5%	86.2%	83.8%	54.5%	76.2%	79.0%
Fall 2001	4,338	91.9%	86.1%	83.8%	58.4%	75.6%	-
Fall 2002	3,886	92.7%	87.1%	85.3%	58.8%	-	-
Fall 2003	4,047	92.6%	86.8%	85.3%	-	-	-
Fall 2004	4,176	92.6%	87.6%	-	-	-	-
Fall 2005	4,196	91.7%	-	-	-	-	-
Fall 2006	3,945	-	-	-	-	-	-

TABLE 7: Percentage of Faculty Hired between 1993-1999 with Different Tenure Outcomes
Gender	Promoted	Denied	Withdrew/Resigned before tenure review	Pending
Female	49%	6%	40%	4%
Male	63%	7%	28%	3%