Review and Redirection Task Force

Indicators of Quality and Centrality in Instruction, Research and Service
Draft: 11-24-03

The following are the factors being considered by the subcommittees of the Review and Redirection Task Force in reviewing the quality and centrality of instruction, research, and service for each program under consideration. It is understood that the level of productivity in these areas may vary depending on the nature of the program. Contributions of adjunct faculty which are generated through their interactions with the program may be reported. Considerations and weights given to such contributions will be at the discretion of the subcommittee, and will be based on their relevance to the RRTF mission.

The unit housing the programs being reviewed is requested to work with Denise Barlow, chair of the RRTF data sub-committee, to provide the needed information. If the information requested below is available from the last program review, please feel free to refer to that document. We request, however, that you update the program review to reflect information for the last five years, where applicable or unless specifically stated otherwise. Programs and/or units are welcome--in fact, urged--to supplement the items listed below as they see fit.

It is requested that the information be provided, if possible, to the sub-committee prior to the program's presentation to the RRTF.

Subcommittee on Quality, Centrality, and Importance of Instruction
Members: John Zomchick (chair), Megan Frederick, Carol Harden, Patrick Schuneman
  1. Quality of Instruction
    1. as indicated by student body
      1. undergraduate students
        1. number of majors
        2. describe interaction with University Honors, if any (currently)
        3. data on undergraduate research
        4. data on outcome assessments
        5. tracking of alumni after graduation
      2. graduate students
        1. number of applicants, number admitted, and number enrolled
        2. GPA and GRE scores of admitted students
        3. number of students funded and duties of funded students
        4. graduation rate
        5. graduate student research presentations at professional meetings, publications, awards, etc.
    2. other indicators
      1. SAIS
      2. teaching awards won by faculty
      3. other faculty recognition relating to instruction, including but not limited to grants to improve teaching, design new courses, integrate technology into courses
      4. certification rate of graduates (if applicable)
  2. Centrality of Instruction
    1. relation of program to university's general education statement
      1. name, number and average enrollments of courses
      2. relation of general ed courses to other disciplines
      3. relation of graduate courses to other departments (cross-listings, number of students from other departments enrolled, etc.)
    2. are the program major(s) widely considered "core disciplines"?
    3. contribution of graduate students to university mission
    4. what would be lost to the university if the courses in this program were no longer taught?
  3. Importance of Instruction
    1. contributions to the university's local, regional, and national reputations
    2. knowledge or skills that students cannot get elsewhere in the university
    3. harm to the university's mission were this program to be discontinued

Subcommittee on Assessment of Quality, Centrality and Importance of Research
Members: Samir El-Ghazaly(chair), Carol Tenopir, Clif Woods, Billie Collier
  1. Funding, External and Internal
  2. Publications and Creative Accomplishments:
    1. Peer-reviewed activities
      1. Journals, conferences, and workshops
      2. Performances and exhibitions
    2. Invited Presentations
    3. Citations
    4. Student participation
  3. Graduate Student Advising, Support, and Degrees Awarded
  4. Awards and Other Forms of Peer Recognition
  5. Professional Partnerships and Collaborations with
    1. Other programs on campus
    2. Local organizations
    3. City, state, and federal agencies
    4. Industry
  6. Additional Discipline-Specific Information

Sub-Committee on Quality, Centrality and Importance of Service and the Role in meeting Societal Needs
Committee Members: Beauvais Lyons (chair), Karen Sowers, Tom Galligan
  1. Service Record Outlined according to the UT Academic Program Review Self Study Document (Appendix A):
    1. Centrality of the program to university (service) mission (p.10)
      1. Nature and Quality of service to the university, discipline, region and nation
      2. Interrelationship of public service with research and other aspects of the program
    2. Quality of Outreach and (Community) Service (p.11)
  2. Accreditation Standards for National Associations or Professional Organizations in the Discipline and the extent to which the program fulfills these.
  3. Service Record as Measured by Public Sector or non-Profit Clients commenting on the contributions of the program.
  4. Service Record as evidenced by Faculty Vitas
  5. Additional Data on Service to the nation, state, region and university.

Senate Directory
Governing Documents
   Senate Bylaws
   Faculty Handbook
   Tenure Policy



Senate Home

To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.