Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science

1
Columbia University School of Engineering and
Applied Science

• Review and Planning Process
• Fall 1998

2
SEAS Review

• Review and planning process
• Integral part of achieving SEAS 1997-2002
  strategic plan
• Serves as preparation for ABET 2000
• Covers academic and administrative departments

3
Purpose

• Assess overall SEAS performance
• Foster planning and improvement
• Provide guidance for academic and administrative
  decisions

4
Process Overview

• Designate Review Committees
• Conduct departmental level self study generate
  draft report
• Hold External Visiting Team review
• Incorporate external review into self study and
  send draft to Academic Review Committee (ACR)
• ACR reviews and provides feedback to departments
• Departments complete final report and send back
  to ACR
• ACR writes summary report on findings and
  recommendations and submits to Dean
• Progress based on plans reviewed annually

5
Designate Review Committees

• Academic Review Committee
• Department Chairs
• Chaired by Vice Dean
• Internal Review Committee
• Department Chair two faculty members
• External Reviewers
• Industrial and academic representatives

6
Conduct Self Study

• Departmental level self study
• Broad involvement of all members
• Comprehensive review of past and current
  performance
• Intensive dialogue on future plans (5 years)
• Generate organized self study report

7
Self Study Topic Areas

• Departmental overview and mission
• Description and evaluation of academic or
  administrative programs
• Faculty and resources
• Strengths and opportunities
• Five year plan
• Appendices

8
Overview and Mission

• Brief history of department
• Organization (internal structure)
• Outline major academic responsibilities
• Departments mission and major educational
  objectives

9
Academic Programs

• Undergraduate
• Masters (including CVN)
• Doctoral
• How do these programs support departments
  mission and objectives?
• Discuss enrollment, student performance, quality,
  and innovation
• For programs seeking ABET accreditation, describe
  how program achieves a-k learning outcomes.

10
Evaluating Academic Programs

• Enrollment/Performance
• degrees offered and requirements (D)
• number of majors (DO)
• degrees conferred (DO)
• service to non-SEAS students (DO)
• course enrollment (DO)
• ABET matrix where applicable (D)

• Quality/Innovation
• curricular innovations (D)
• interdisciplinary instructional efforts (D)
• student perceptions (course evaluations, senior
  exit interviews, alumni survey, etc.) (DO)
• national rankings (D)

Data Sources DDepartment and DO Deans Office
11
Faculty and Resources

• Research
• Teaching
• Facilities and support services
• External relations and linkages

12
Research

• Description of major research initiatives (D)
• Contracts and Grants under review (D), granted
  past 5 years (DO), to be submitted (D)
• Average grant and ICR per faculty member (DO)
• Faculty stature publications, citations, awards,
  etc. (D)
• Average GRAs supported by external funding (D)
• What plans do you have to support Schools Goal
  of 50 grant volume increase 5 years? (D)

Data Sources DDepartment and DO Deans Office
13
Teaching

• Average number of students per course taught
  during each of the past five years (DO)
• Review of course evaluation and other relevant
  data (D)
• Plans to improve quality of teaching and increase
  curricular innovations (D)

Data Sources DDepartment and DO Deans Office
14
Facilities/Support/Linkages

• Summarize space, personnel and other special
  facilities and resources used to support academic
  programs (D)
• Describe linkages within Columbia University,
  Barnard, Teachers College (D)
• Identify external linkages that support program,
  including industrial relationships and alumni
  initiatives (D)

Data Sources DDepartment and DO Deans Office
15
Strengths and Opportunities

• Provide an accurate and comprehensive description
  of strengths and opportunities within each of the
  key review areas
• Academic programs
• Faculty and resources
• Identify improvement opportunities based on
  existing resources versus those requiring
  additional resources.
• Describe major barriers that diminish
  departments ability to capitalize on strengths
  or opportunities

16
Five Year Plan

• Identify major departmental objectives,
  addressing how they support SEAS strategic plan
  and capitalize on departments strengths and
  opportunities
• For each objective, describe specific strategies
  and actions to be implemented
• For each strategy/action, identify expected
  outcomes (quantify when possible)
• Clearly state timetables for each strategy
• Describe how outcomes will be measured and
  strategies evaluated.
• For programs seeking ABET accreditation,
  incorporate a-k criteria

17
Appendices

• External Visitors Report
• Data tables
• Samples of any departmental specific surveys used
• Other supporting materials, such as extended
  descriptions of major research programs, major
  faculty awards, interdisciplinary and external
  collaborations, etc.

18
External Visiting Team

• At least two individuals selected by Internal
  Review Committee in consultation with Dean
• Visiting team provided with self study report and
  review guidelines prior to visit.
• Department sets agenda and schedule in
  consultation with Vice Dean
• Visiting writes report within two weeks of visit
  and sends copies to department and Dean.

19
Report to Academic Committee

• Once self study is complete
• draft report is sent to Academic Review Committee
  (department chairs and Vice Dean)
• Academic Review Committee reviews self study
  reports and provides feedback to departments
• Departments make changes based on feedback and
  submits final report to Academic Review Committee

20
Findings and Recommendations

• Academic Review Committee prepares a final report
  that reflects their thinking regarding department
  assessments and plans.
• This Report, along with departmental self
  studies, is submitted to Dean
• Each department chair receives a copy of the
  Academic Review Committees Report which is put
  on reserve for faculty review.

21
On-Going Progress

• Departmental five year plans will be reviewed
  annually by Executive Committee
• Departments will be asked to submit progress
  reports based on their plans prior to the annual
  review

22
Key Milestones