Regulation 3-26 Feedback (may be edited for clarity)
Physics department comments
(1) Under 1.B.1, Objectives of Program Review, Internal to the program, why are the words “monitor and enhance” used in part f whereas in part d the word “promote” is used.
(2) Akin that that, under 1.B.2. Part a is a repeat of B1f. Is that intentional?
(4) In 3.E, I am strongly opposed to the SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). I’ve done a program review with those categories before and unless the meaning of these are very clear and distinct it ends up being a hurdle for the self-study.
(5) Also in 3.E. it is said that “……identification of up to five areas for improvement….” Why 5? Why make a minimum limit at all?
(6) Under 4.B. The 6 bulleted items that an external reviewer should address: make sure that these are aligned with the requirements of the Program Review. For example, if there really is going to be a SWOT analysis, then the external reviewer should do one too.
(6a) Under 4.B. I think the External Reviewer should also be encouraged to identify those qualities of a program that “meet expectations”. In other words, “strengths” and “weaknesses” are not inclusive.
(6b) Also under 4B, I would add that the external reviewer should comment on the “quality of the resources” of the program.
I also like the “Site visit interviews” list from current 3-26 document and suggest it get added back in. This is good for those people who haven’t done a program review recently
Chemistry department comments
Impressions are that there are much more regulated timelines and possibly punishable effects handed down from the administration to programs not meeting criteria. This proposal is currently being held up in faculty Senate.
There aren’t clear statements correlating our HLC review to this proposal.
A request for side-by-side comparison of old protocol to new protocol has been made and not provided as of yet.
Global Studies comments
The point was made that Reg 3-26 seems to reduce the working calendar for the regulation to the academic year, where it should be noted that chairs and faculty are already extremely busy with teaching, writing and reviewing PDPs and PDRs, departmental matters, research and writing. In fact the argument could be made that Reg 3-26 telescoping of timelines into an already short academic year calendar further overextends all faculty including chairs and deans. This seems to be odds with the necessary expansion of the year-round university including not only teaching and learning but also administration and the ongoing work of chairs. There was a sense among GSWL faculty that this burden ultimately should not just fall on the chair but also will filter down to the work required of faculty to support the chair, none of us being too happy that this might interfere with our focus on teaching during the academic year.