Response Report to the Visiting Committee

Core Requirement 2.12. The Visiting Committee made three recommendations on the Quality Enhancement Plan. Dr. Donna Wilkinson, Vice President, Commission on Colleges and Staff Liaison for the College’s reaffirmation review, recommended that we respond to those recommendations by making editorial changes in the original text of the QEP. We have followed that advice, and the revised text is attached. We summarize our responses to the recommendations below.

Recommendation 1. The Committee recommends that explicit goals be developed related to the expectations of providing an independent inquiry experience.

Response:

The specific goals of the QEP are described below:

1. Increase the number of opportunities for students to engage in independent inquiry during their junior or senior year.


2. Improve the quality and variety of independent inquiry experiences for students during the junior and senior years.


3. Elaborate, refine, and articulate the relationships between independent inquiry experiences and the general education, major, and minor curricula.

Recommendation 2. The Committee recommends that the institution define independent inquiry.

Response:

         As the focus of this quality enhancement plan, independent inquiry refers to a process undertaken by upper-level undergraduate students with guidance from more experienced investigators, researchers, scholars, or artists (typically faculty members). The process is intended to promote the development of independent skills, habits, and attitudes that are necessary to disciplined or enlightened investigation, research, scholarship, or creative activity. The process will include opportunities for students to develop their own ideas, findings, or creative works and to present and defend those results both orally and in writing.

         In summary, independent inquiry is guided investigation, research, scholarship, or creative activity undertaken (in this instance) by upper-level undergraduates to develop and demonstrate the skills, habits, and attitudes of scholarly and creative work.

Recommendation 3. The Committee recommends that the timeline be revised for all components of the Quality Enhancement Plan.

Response:

• July 2006October 31, 2006. Complete inventory of departments and programs to describe upper-division arrangements that promote independent inquiry as conceived in the Final Report.
• September 2006November/December 2006. Report findings from the inventory of departments and programs and the survey of graduating seniors. Results will be reported to the Arts and Sciences Educational Policy Committee (EPC), the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC; the committee of department chairs and program directors), the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the faculties of the schools of business and education, the Faculty University Priorities Committee (FUPC), and the Faculty Assembly. Solicit recommendations for a committee to guide developmental efforts.See Appendix One Project Management. October 2, 2006
• November 30, 2006/January 2007. Based on recommendations from the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee, the Provost will establish a committee with majority of of faculty representation to implement the QEP. The charge of this committee will be to articulate expectations for student learning, establish funding priorities, and solicit proposals. The proposals may concern revisions or improvements of existing individual or small group experiences; new projects centered on independent inquiry, discovery, or creative work; or on teaching projects and seminars oriented to promoting, understanding, or improving processes of independent inquiry.
• November 1, 2006February 1, 2007. FacultyCommittee articulates expectations for student learning that include (1) developing ideas or creative works; (2) effective oral presentation and defense of ideas; (3) effective written presentation and defense of ideas; and (4) other criteria as determined by the committee. Announce committee funding priorities and solicits proposals.
• December 11, 2006 April 15, 2007. Committee selects and funds projects.
• August 2007. Round #1 projects are implemented.
• May December 2007. Complete evaluation assessment of round #1 funded projects from academic year based on selected student work, reviewed in terms of established criteria for student learning. Assess funded teaching projects and seminars based on documentary evidence and interviews with participants. Report findings to EPC, DAC, Faculty University Priorities Committee (FUPC), Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• September 2007 February 1, 2008. Based on assessment of round #1 projects, clarify expectations for student learning and announce funding priorities for second round of solicitations.
• December 2007April 15, 2008. Select and fund projectsround #2 projects.
• August 2008. Implement round #2 projects.
• July December 2008. Evaluate Assess round #2 funded projects based on selected student work, reviewed in terms of established criteria for student learning. Assess funded teaching projects and seminars based on documentary evidence and interviews with participants. Report findings to EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• September 2008 February 1, 2009. Review and assess project results to date. Determine next rounds for solicitation, assessment, and funding. Based on assessment of second round projects, clarify expectations for student learning and announce funding priorities for round #3 projects.
• April 15, 2009. Select and fund round #3 projects
• August 2009. Implement round #3 projects.
• December 2009. Assess round #3 projects based on selected student work, reviewed in terms of established criteria for student learning. Assess funded teaching projects and seminars based on documentary evidence and interviews with participants. Report findings to EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• February 2010. Complete third year cumulative review of assessed projects. In this review, we will assess progress towards achieving our project goals, and described above. Develop recommendations for subsequent funding and report recommendations to EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• March 2010. In consultation with EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly, the Committee will develop and implement long-term plans for integrating independent inquiry into the curriculum of the College.

Recommendation 4. The Committee recommends that the institution publish the criteria for the evaluation of non-tenure track clinical and research facility.

Response:

         The following revision to the Faculty Handbook and the Part-Time Faculty Handbook was approved by the College’s Personnel Policy Committee on August 23, 2006 and by the Faculty Assembly on August 24, 2006. The new section follows:

Specified Term and Part-time Faculty

Specified-term and part-time faculty do not have tenure, and their appointments depend on the teaching needs of the College, on research opportunities, and on available funds. However, specified-term and part-time faculty (including post-doctoral fellows) who are in continuing appointments or whose appointments are to be renewed shall undergo annual evaluations conducted by the program director, chair, or dean, or by a faculty committee when specified in the unit’s procedures; or, when the appointment is created by an external granting agency, by the principal investigator holding the grant. If the evaluation is not prepared by a program director, chair, or Dean (e.g., if it is prepared by a faculty member serving as principal investigator on a grant or by a faculty personnel committee), a summary of the annual review must be submitted to the program director, chair, or dean; these summaries, in turn, shall be forwarded by chairs and program directors to their Dean and then by the Dean to the Provost. Throughout the College, the criteria for evaluation of specified-term and part-time faculty (including post-doctoral fellows) are as follows: individuals must possess the professional education, experience, and degrees appropriate or necessary for their duties; in addition, they must meet whichever of the following criteria are appropriate to their appointment, as specified in the individual's appointment contract: conscientious and effective teaching with proper command of the material of their fields, and helpfulness to their students; and/or contributions to their fields through research, scholarly, and/or creative activity, and/or through professional service.