APPENDICES – SPECIAL VISIT REPORT SEPTEMBER 2014

376 Pages·2014·11.73 MB·English

by  Robin Romans

APPENDICES – SPECIAL VISIT REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2014

1. Undergraduate Program Review Announcement & Guidelines 2

2. Program Reviews
(cid:120) Earth Sciences 5
(cid:120) International Relations 44
(cid:120) Language Center 75

3. Viterbi School of Engineering Capstone Syllabi
(cid:120) Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering – AME 441 145
(cid:120) Biomedical Engineering – BME 405 159
(cid:120) Civil Engineering – CE 480 173
(cid:120) Industrial Systems Engineering – ISE 495 178

4. Milestones of USC Distance Learning 183

5. USC Online Learning Readiness Template 186

6. Online Program Proposals, Learning Objectives & Assessment Plans
(cid:120) Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) 193
(cid:120) Master of Social Work (MSW) 240
(cid:120) Geographic Information Sciences and Technologies (GIST) 282
(cid:120) Master of Communication Management (MCM) 326

7. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) report 356

8. Freshman Profile and Admission Information – 2009-201 364

9. Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey results 369
MEMORANDUM
To: Academic Deans
From: Jean Morrison
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Graduate Programs
Office of the Provost
Jean Morrison Date: March 22, 2010
Vice Provost for
Academic Affairs and
Graduate Programs Subject: Guidelines for Undergraduate ProgramReview at USC
Professor of
Earth Sciences Ongoing assessment of the quality and effectiveness of our undergraduate
academic programs to ensure that they are outstanding is a critically important
process to which we are all committed. In addition, the way in which we assess
the effectiveness of our undergraduate academic programs is an important issue in
the university’s accreditation under WASC (Western Association of Schools and
Colleges). The existing system of academic program review overseen by the
University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) focuses attention primarily
on the research enterprise and graduate programs. Thus, we have developed
guidelines for undergraduate program reviewat USC which articulate a core set of
goals and expectations, but which also provide the academic units appropriate
flexibility to develop review processes that best suit their academic circumstances
and continuing efforts.
These guidelines have been approved by the Provost and were developed in
consultation with the Academic Senate Executive Board, the Committee on
Academic Procedures and Policies (CAPP), and the University Accreditation
Committee.
The guidelines for undergraduate program review are attached for your review.
We expect implementation of this process to begin in Fall 2010, so schools should
commence development of internal systems that are responsive to the goals and
expectations set forth in the guidelines in anticipation of this start date.
cc: C. L. Max Nikias
Elizabeth Garrett
Alex Capron
Eileen Crimmins
Ed McCann
Sally Pratt
Gene Bickers
Nicole Hawkes
Robin Romans
University of
Southern California
3601 Watt Way
Grace Ford Salvatori,
Room 315
Los Angeles,
California 90089-1695
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Guidelines for
Undergraduate Program Review (UPR) at USC
March 2010

The University of Southern California is committed to high-quality, ongoing review of all
undergraduate degree programs. The guidelines described in this document grow from the
USC faculty’s longstanding and deeply held commitment to academic quality and learning. The
primary purpose of undergraduate program review is to ensure academic excellence and
improve quality at the program level. Additional goals are to further raise the quality of
teaching and learning; improve co-curricular programs and offerings; and, provide guidance for
administrative decisions to ensure educational effectiveness.

USC uses a decentralized model of undergraduate program review that is consistent with its
institutional context – i.e., its broad range of academic offerings and faculty governance based
in separate academic units. The review process combines a set of university-wide guidelines
with academic unit-level implementation and oversight of all reviews. This ensures consistency
in the standards for review across the university while allowing academic units latitude to
structure the process in ways that are responsive to their particular circumstances. (The sole
exception is review of General Education which, as a university-wide curricular program, is
reviewed separately.) The aim of this model is to produce reports and findings that have
maximum relevance to the undergraduate programs under review. Academic units will develop
implementation plans that make the most sense for their academic contexts.

All programs should be reviewed at least once every eight to ten years. The reviews conducted
by all USC academic units offering undergraduate instruction should follow the core guidelines
outlined in this document, which has been developed by the Office of the Provost and has
included consultation with the Academic Senate Executive Board and the Committee on
Academic Policies and Procedures.

UNIVERSITY-WIDE CORE GUIDELINES FOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW

A. PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW:

1. Provides a concise, honest appraisal of a unit’s strengths and weaknesses.
2. Incorporates assessment of student learning using quantitative and qualitative
evidence.
3. Is evaluative, not just descriptive.
4. Is forward-looking and provides recommendations for improvement.

While undergraduate program reviews should be independent of any other type of
review, units that are separately accredited may request that the UPR occur at a time
most convenient to the accreditation cycle and/or Academic Program Review.
B. COMPONENTS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS:

1. A self-assessment (typically 8-10 pages) of the strengths and weaknesses of the
program(s) under review. Wherever possible and appropriate, the process should
provide students with opportunities to participate in the review process. When
completed, the self-assessment should be transmitted to the dean of the relevant
academic unit and to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs.

2. The Dean and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs will share with each other
their responses to this report and deliver them to the chair of the program under
review.

3. The chair will share the self-assessment and responses with the faculty who teach in the
program so they may discuss the findings and adjust their teaching objectives and
practices as appropriate.

C. CORE AREAS FOR REVIEW: Reviews must include evaluation of the following areas.

1. Quality of curricular offerings.
2. Quality of teaching.
3. Evidence of student learning.

Where appropriate, reviews may also include the quality and effectiveness of co-
curricular offerings and student services. Academic units may add to these areas for
review upon the recommendation of their faculty and approval of their deans.

D. PROTOCOL FOR ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING: Reviews will ensure that all
programs satisfy the following requirements.

1. Departments and programs have established 4-7 programmatic learning objectives for
each of their degree programs.
2. Learning objectives are made available to students, preferably on department and/or
academic unit websites.
3. Departments have developed a plan to gather qualitative and quantitative evidence of
student learning.
4. Evidence gathered is compiled and shared with the faculty.

In addition to formal UPRs, departments and programs should hold periodic faculty
meetings to discuss the state of their degree programs, during which they should
regularly evaluate evidence of student learning.
E. RECOMMENDED SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Reviews should include evidence drawn from
multiple sources such as those outlined below. Wherever possible, evidence should be
supplied by the academic unit with the cooperation of central University offices. In
addition to data provided centrally, departments and programs will need to develop
some evidence of teaching effectiveness and student work (see 4 & 5 below).

1. Student quality data. (Office of Admission)
2. Student performance data. (Office of the Registrar)
3. Data on persistence and graduation. (Office of the Registrar)
4. Evidence of teaching effectiveness drawn principally from student evaluations. The
latter should not include names of individual instructors. (Department/program)
5. Direct evidence of student work. (Department/program)
6. Surveys of USC freshmen, continuing students, and graduating seniors reporting
measures of student engagement, satisfaction, perceived gains, and future plans.
(Student Affairs)
7. Surveys of alumni reporting measures of satisfaction, preparedness, and achievements.
(Academic Information Officer)

F. PROGRAM-SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL DOCUMENTS: All other features of program reviews
not enumerated here will be determined by the academic units and set forth in
operational documents shared in advance with the Vice Provost for Undergraduate
Programs.