Report from the Ad Hoc Institute Review Committee (IRC) T. Russell Gentry, Ph.D., PE Associate Professor College of Architecture Architecture Program / AWPL Atlanta, Georgia fax Presented 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech Executive Board Meeting Russell Gentry, Architecture Joseph Hoey, Office of Assessment J. Jospeh Hoey, Ed.D. Director of Assessment Office of Assessment Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia fax Ronald Arkin Kent Barefield Brent Carter Russell Gentry Mark Guzdial Joseph Hoey Jeff Jagoda Jim McClellan John McIntyre Farrokh Mistree Gary Parker Steve Usselman Paul Wine Brian Woodall Computing Chemistry MSE Architecture Computing (IUCC Liaison) Office of Assessment Aerospace (GCC Liaison) ECE Management Mechanical Engineering ISYE HTS Chemistry International Affairs

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 2 Outline Background Institute Review Committee IRC Recommendations for the Future Hughes/Green Proposal IRC and CIAPRA IRC Operations going forward

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 3 Background: GT Experience with Program Review SACS visit problems in 1994 and 1998 – certain programs on campus are not being assessed IUCC and GCC not reviewing curriculum per statutory requirements in 1980’s and 1990’s – no process in place to enable this review Board of Regents Mandate in 2000 – periodic program review required Dean Rosser report recommends formation of IRC IRC formed as an ad-hoc appointed committee with two year life

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 4 IRC Operations: Fall 2001 to Spring members on the IRC with the Director of Assessment acting as Chair ROLE Develop infrastructure: schedules, templates, procedures Police/enable the process Liaison with colleges and schools Assess the process: How is it working and how can it be improved? April 15 summary presentations

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 5 IRC Requests to EB Late Fall 2002: If IRC operations are to go forward, then the EB will need to appoint additional members to the IRC (operational) Spring 2003: Disband IRC – its mission is complete (strategic) IRC members feel that the committee need not continue if its role is solely to administer the program review process – this is an administrative function that is well-handled by the Office of Assessment.

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 6 Hughes/Green Proposal Expand IRC role to assist with the curriculum review Charge IRC with condensing and commenting on review materials and providing a summary for the Provost’s use IRC to become a faculty committee or standing sub- committee of the curriculum committee(s) IRC Reaction: Generally positive. Role of curriculum review piece and IUCC/GCC interaction needs clarification.

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 7 Future Operations: IRC and CIAPRA CIAPRA: Council on Institutional Accreditation, Program Review, and Assessment High level committee – administrators, organized to address SACS and other Institute-wide issues Policy-level advice to the Provost Ability to look across the program review process to identify problems and opportunities IRC: Institute Review Committee Support policy-making functions of CIAPRA within the context of periodic program review and the scope of the IRC charter.

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 8 IRC Role going Forward 1.Infrastructure: provide templates, instructions, flowcharts, and schedules for program review 2.Liaison: act as a bridge between the program review process and the individual units undergoing review 3.Policing: Set dates for key milestones in the program review process and ensure that elements of the program review are routed to and received from appropriate members of the GT community (Deans, IUCC, GCC, Office of Assessment, CIAPRA, Provost) 4.Curriculum Review: Provide or enable curriculum review of undergraduate and graduate components as appropriate. 5.Synthesis: Provide a final synthesis of each program review that reflects key findings and recommendations from the elements of program review: (1) self-study, (2) external visitors’ report, (3) Dean’s letter, and (4) curriculum review report.

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 9 IRC Makeup Minimum of 8 members, one from each college with one additional from Engineering Ability to add additional members during years when a large number of programs are undergoing review (minimum 2 members for each program review) Liaison members from IUCC, GCC, and CIAPRA Membership for 3 years with 1/3 rotating off each year Director of Assessment to chair committee with a faculty co-chair

IRC Presentation to EB – 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech College of Architecture Pg. 10 EB Decision-Making Elected or appointed committee? Position within faculty governance structure? Relationship with IUCC and GCC? Two roles of collaboration at expressed preference of IUCC and IGC: (1) IRC forwards curriculum- related information to curriculum committees who review the curriculum component and report back to the IRC or (2) the curriculum committees appoint liaison members who sit on the IRC and complete the curriculum review component “in house”.