SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
DRAFT REPORT

Members of the Subcommittee on The Graduate School:

Dr. Miles M. Coburn, Chairperson, Department of Biology
Ms. Catherine T. Anson, Grants and IRB Administrator, Graduate School
Dr. Mary E. Beadle, Dean, Graduate School
Dr. Paul J. Lauritzen, Chairperson, Department of Religious Studies
Dr. Gerald P. Weinstein, Associate Professor, Department of Accountancy

Mission of the Graduate School:
The current full-length version of the Graduate School’s mission statement was developed in 1992 and appears in the Graduate Bulletin and the Graduate School webpage. A shortened version, “To prepare advanced students in the Catholic and Jesuit tradition to be intellectual and professional leaders who make positive contributions to their professions and to society” was formulated more recently and also appears on the Graduate School homepage (http://www.jcu.edu/graduate/).

Organization and Structure of the Graduate School:

Graduate School Organizational Chart

The Graduate School serves a variety of functions both for graduate programs and the John Carroll University community. As a Graduate School, the office serves as an Admissions Office and a Recruiting Office for the 22 degree programs currently offered. In the past decade, five new programs have been added including an M.A. in Communications Management, Community Counseling, and licensure programs in Education and Allied Studies. Most recently, a full-time, fifth year program for MBA accounting students became fully operational. The Humanities M.A. Program has also recently developed programs in Irish and Holocaust Studies.

Several offices, institutes or programs report directly to the Graduate Dean: the Office of Continuing Education & Summer Sessions, the Institute of Humanities and the Humanities Program, the Community Counseling Program, and the Institute for Educational Renewal (IER). Added since the last report is the Center for Mathematics and Science Education, Teaching and Technology (CM/SETT). The Graduate Dean also serves as the Coordinator for the Office of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants and Faculty Development and as such has the following areas reporting to her (all added since the last report): the Office of Grants Administration, the Center for Teaching and Learning, the Lighting Innovations Institute, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the protection of human subjects, and the Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee (IACUC). (See attached Organizational Chart.)

As Coordinator of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants and Faculty Development, the Graduate Dean: (a) supervises the Summer School and Continuing Education Programs, Faculty Research, Faculty Development activities, The Institute for Educational Renewal, The Humanities Program and Institute, The Center for Teaching and Learning, the Community Counseling Program, the allocation and appointment of graduate assistants; (b) serves as the grants person for faculty; (c) chairs the Graduate Studies Committee, the Committee on Research and Service, the IRB, the IACUC; (d) serves as an ex officio member of the Faculty Forum Committee on Research, Service and Faculty Development; and (e) serves on the University Planning Committee, Council on Teacher Education, the Committee of Academic Deans, the Teaching Center Advisory Committee, and others. The current Graduate Dean has held the position for two years following a series of interim graduate deans due to reassignments and repeated searches.

A new assistant dean was hired in July 2002. The position now requires a Ph.D, and the responsibilities have been expanded to include more comprehensive and systemic recruiting efforts, statistical analysis of enrollment trends, enhanced communications plans, and a greater attentiveness to the quality of student life for graduate students. The assistant dean will continue to direct the day to day admissions process and work with graduate program directors to advise the dean about enrollment trends and program development.

Two new positions were added to the staff since the last report. A part-time Grants Administrator was added in September 1995; the position was increased to full time in 1998 due to the increasing workload and responsibilities. The current Grants Administrator is the third person to hold the position. The Grants Administrator handles pre- and post-award administration for externally funded awards and serves as the IRB Administrator and the IACUC Secretary. A receptionist/secretary was added in 2001 to assist with student recruitment and admissions. In addition to work study students and a newly assigned graduate assistant, the Admissions Secretary and the Dean’s Secretary complete the staffing of the Graduate School and the Office of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants and Faculty Development.

Overview of Committees, Offices, and Programs Reporting to the Graduate Dean:

Committee on Research and Service
In addition to the Dean of the Graduate School (who is the chair), the Committee members consist of four faculty appointed by the Academic Vice President, one elected at-large by the faculty, and four who come from the Faculty Forum Committee on Research, Service and Faculty Development. Since the at-large and Forum Members are elected by the faculty, the dictate of the Constitution of the Faculty Forum that “fifty percent of the University Committee on Research and Service will consist of elected members of the Forum Committee. and . . one elected Faculty representative” is fulfilled. The Faculty Handbook indicates in Appendix C that a minimum of fifty percent of the University Committee must be elected faculty representatives

Office of Continuing Education
The office of Continuing Education, headed by a Director, upholds the University’s commitment to the liberal arts by offering courses and programs in the context of lifelong learning. It extends to the community an opportunity to join the university in a lively and academic exchange of thoughts, experiences, and ideas. Programs are offered in Business, Health and Human Services, Enrichment including languages and travel, Management and Leadership, and summer opportunities for non-credit programs. In addition, John Carroll participates in the TravelLearn network which provides adult learners with an opportunity to combine learning with travel to worldwide destinations. Qualifying courses and workshops carry CEU credit and records are maintained by the office.

Center for Mathematics & Science Education, Teaching & Technology
The Center for Mathematics & Science Education, Teaching & Technology (CM/SETT), a professional development center for K-12 mathematics and science educators, was created in 1999. Its mission is to advance the quality of K-12 mathematics and science education in northeastern Ohio through collaboration with school districts, professional organizations, institutions of higher education and others who share this goal. The use of technology in mathematics and science education is one focus of the Center's work.

Center for Teaching and Learning
The Center for Teaching and Learning is committed to encouraging and supporting all
faculty members with a desire to become truly fine teachers. Since Ernest Boyer
published Scholarship Reconsidered in 1990, scholarly reflection and research on effective teaching and learning in higher education has become appreciated as a vital focus if John Carroll is to be consistent with its mission of providing an excellent education to its students. The Center for Teaching & Learning supports efforts to build a community of teacher-scholars committed to systematically examining how teaching and learning takes place in the classroom, and sharing these findings in peer-reviewed forums. The Center’s website (ctl@jcu.edu) provides further information on the scholarship of teaching and learning, future workshops on the subject, and a “Case Studies Resource Page” for information on and access to many free case studies sites.

Community Counseling Program
The interdisciplinary Community Counseling program, housed in the Department of Education and Allied Studies, is designed for those who wish to acquire counseling knowledge and skills to apply to clinical, community, and private practice settings. The Community Counseling Master’s program consists of 60 semester hours of graduate studies and is designed to meet the current academic requirements of the State of Ohio Counselor and Social Worker Board for the licenses Professional Counselor (PC) and Professional Clinical Counselor (PCC). Further, the degree meets the academic requirements of the National Board for Certified Counselors for National Counselor Certification (NCC). The Community Counseling Master’s degree program is approved by the State of Ohio Counselor and Social Worker Board. The program is accredited by the Ohio Credentialing Board for Chemical Dependency Professionals and the Council on Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

Institute for Educational Renewal
The Institute for Educational Renewal (IER) is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to improving the school experience of children through literacy and school change initiatives. It works primarily with teachers and principals of selected K-5 and K-8 schools in the Cleveland Municipal School District. Established in 1991, its stated mission is “to improve the quality of school life for children in the city of Cleveland and to foster the development of child-centered communities of learners.” The program uses consultants who work closely with teachers and grade-level teams within each school. IER offers a sequence of three two-credit special-topic courses (which can be applied towards a M.Ed. at John Carroll) to teachers which are taught on-site in each IER school. John Carroll serves as IER’s fiscal/administrative agent and members of JCU’s faculty and administration serve on the IER’s board which also includes people representing a variety of expertise.

Institute for the Humanities
The Institute of Humanities administers the Master of Arts in Humanities degree, an interdisciplinary degree in which students take courses from three of the following fields: Art History, English, Classical and Modern Languages, Philosophy, Religious Studies, and certain courses in Communications, Political Science and Sociology. It also administers and sponsors an endowed lecture series each semester in which noted scholars are invited to address a specific theme or topic. The lectures require a fee, readings and refreshments are provided, and audiences of community and university subscribers usually number between 80 and 120. The lectures are not-for-credit although graduate students may, with permission, take them as partial satisfaction of a one-credit independent study course. The Institute additionally sponsors or co-sponsors an annual invited scholarly lecture on the Holocaust or related topic.

Office of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants and Faculty Development
The Office of Grants Administration, created in 1995, developed a written mission statement in 2000, which is printed in the newly developed Guide to Grants, Contracts, Fellowships and Research and is also available on the website http:www.jcu.edu/research. The Office has oversight of faculty development, faculty and student sponsored research awards (internal and external), the faculty bibliography, compliance issues in regards to faculty and student research projects, and the university-wide Celebration of Scholarship! In addition, the Office has oversight of The Lighting Innovations Institute, a for-profit faculty start-up company.

With a focus on encouraging faculty research, the Office of Grants Administration is responsible for guiding proposal development and award management at John Carroll University. The Office provides assistance to the JCU community on the conceptual development and submission of proposals; the identification of external funding sources, agency requirements, and compliance issues; and the management of funded proposals. As a unit within the Graduate School, the Office also acts as a liaison for the JCU community to the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Celebration of Scholarship!
Held in March, the annual campus-wide Celebration of Scholarship!, based on Ernest L. Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered, celebrates the four general views of scholarship: teaching, discovery, integration, and application. The Celebration welcomes participation by undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and other University community members and features workshops, panel discussions, poster sessions, paper presentations, and other activities open to the public.

Lighting Innovations Institute
The concept behind the Institute was developed by John Davenport (JCU MS ,1978) along with Dr. Joseph Trivisonno (recently retired from the John Carroll University Physics Department) when Davenport was head of Research and Development at General Electric Lighting. The idea is that R&D can probably be carried out more efficiently in a University setting than in the giant corporate laboratories that grew up during the past century. Dr. Richard Hansler, now the Director of the Institute, retired from GE Lighting in 1996 and began the experiment to test the concept. At first the work was funded primarily by GE Lighting, but the list of customers rapidly grew and in the past four years LII has worked for more than 30 different organizations. LII only accepts projects that involve novel ideas. The staff of the Institute consists of faculty, research associates, recent graduates, students and technicians. The Institute offers opportunities for employment to anyone interested. Students are welcome on a part time basis, for example, during the summer and on holiday breaks.

Institutional Review Board
John Carroll’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews proposals for research projects involving the use of human subjects. The IRB gained administrative approval of its policies and procedures in April, 1997. Since then until June, 2002, the IRB received 246 submissions. Submissions have trended upward (54 in 2000-01, 74 in 2001-02) as faculty have become more aware of the sorts of activities covered and their responsibility to submit research and classroom projects for IRB approval. The IRB has educated the faculty through panel discussions, informal lunches, and a web page (http://www.jcu.edu/research/IRB) maintained by the Office of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants, and Faculty Development. (As part of the annual evaluation process, each faculty member must acknowledge that he/she has read and complies with IRB policy.) Since the 1999-00 academic year, the IRB has averaged three meetings per semester. The Grants Administrator also functions as the IRB Administrator.

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
John Carroll established the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in 1998 to oversee JCU's animal program, facilities, and procedures. The present policy and forms were approved for use in 1999. The IACUC received 12 proposals the following year and six in 2001-02. The IACUC currently meets twice a semester and carries out semi-annual inspections of the animal facilities. Forms, policies, resources, and links are provided at the IACUC’s web page (http://www.jcu.edu/research/Iacuc). The Grants Administrator also functions as the IACUC Secretary.

Overview of Graduate Students and Enrollment:

Table of Graduates by Major/Program

Part-time local students who attend late afternoon or evening classes comprise the majority of the graduate school. In addition, about 70 graduate assistants are fulltime students. The vast majority of students come from the greater Cleveland. With the exception of three years, graduate enrollment was stable from 1993-2002, ranging between 854-883. In 1996, enrollment dipped to 807 and fell again in 2001 to 793 before rising to 828 in 2002. The number of graduates likewise remained fairly stable, with 7 of the 10 years falling within + 20 graduates of 159, the 10-yr average. The number of graduates in the past two years has been above average. Degrees awarded to minorities also remained stable, averaging 28.8 with a range of 23 (1994) to 36 (2002).

The average number of M.A. degrees awarded was 77.2 from 1993-1997, but dropped significantly to 49.8 from 1998-2002. The decline was due primarily to a falloff in degrees awarded in Counseling and Human Services, which has not been entirely offset by an increasing number of degrees awarded in Community Counseling. The decline in M.A. degrees has been balanced in the past few years by a rise in the number of M.B.A. degrees, which averaged 53.6 from 1993-2000, but rose to 82 and 88 in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The number of degrees awarded in M..Ed. and M.S. remained relatively stable.

Workshops are offered for graduate credit through the Graduate School by EconomicsAmerica, CM/SETT, IER, and the Department of Education and Allied Studies. From Fall 1999 to Summer 2000, 611 registrations were processed by the Graduate School. These professional development programs and workshops benefit area teachers.

Services to Graduate Students:

Services to Graduate Faculty

The Graduate School has begun an annual luncheon to honor faculty who provided guidance for theses and essays. Students briefly describe their projects and thank faculty for their help. An email distribution list has been set up to easily communicate announcements and deadlines to faculty who teach graduate classes.

Future of Graduate School Programs in the Sciences:

In Fall, 2001, the newly appointed Dean convened a Science Task Force to discuss graduate programs in the sciences and mathematics. During the 1990’s, enrollment in the master’s programs in chemistry, physics, and math steadily declined, with the Chemistry Department suspending its graduate program in 2001. John Carroll was awarded a CGS/Sloan Foundation planning grant in 2002 and used the funds to examine both external and internal needs and interests for multidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary degree programs.

An assessment of the external environment was accomplished through mail surveys to recent John Carroll graduates in the sciences, an analysis of online job postings, telephone interviews with human resource directors and managers, a survey of cross-scientific and multidisciplinary offerings at other Northeast Ohio colleges and universities, and interviews with key regional and industry leaders. The assessment revealed that both graduates and employers see broader science education as a good idea, but JCU science graduates seemed to have a stronger interest in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary skills than Northeast Ohio companies have expressed need for such education. Similarly, human resource managers were positively inclined toward employing those with communications, business, or related skills. Other NE Ohio colleges and universities already offer at least ten such cross- or interdisciplinary programs. The cost of John Carroll’s tuition is perceived by the NE Ohio business community as a major impediment to making our graduate programs attractive. Further work on developing a Professional Science Master’s program to address these issues has, however, was suspended in fall, 2002, when the Cleveland Municipal School District (CMSD) was awarded a $7.5 million National Science Foundation grant to improve the teaching of math and science in middle school. The grant includes John Carroll University and gives us the responsibility of developing programs for CMSD science and math teachers leading to master’s degrees in these areas.

Sponsored Research Projects:

From 1992-2002, 31 proposals on the average were submitted annually for external funding. The number of funded proposals fluctuated widely from year to year with funding levels varying from nearly $170,000 in 1995-96 to more than $2.6 million in 2001-02. Annual dollars from funded contracts also varied widely, from about $10,000 in three separate years to nearly $300,000 in 1997-98. To assist grantseekers and researchers, the Office of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants, & Faculty Development recently published a Guide to Grants, Contracts, Fellowships, and Research, which is a substantial revision of the former Faculty Grants and Procedures Manual, last updated in 1998. The guide, available on the web, reflects increasingly complex federal regulations pertaining to human subject, animal, and government sponsored research and contains policies, procedures, and forms.

The Office of Grants Administration publishes the newsletter Research & Funding News each semester to keep faculty informed of funding opportunities, recent grant awardees and changes in policy and procedure. In the past, the office arranged for faculty workshops on grant writing but present responsibilities leave no room for this activity.

University Support for Faculty Scholarship

Consistent with its commitment to the transmission, extension and integration of knowledge and its belief that the university community is enriched by scholarship, John Carroll University has continued its strong support for faculty scholarship in the decade since the last North Central visit. Quantitatively from 1992-2002, the university made 1,430 awards to faculty for fellowships, grants, and faculty development workshops (Table 1). These awards totaled $4,808,515, excluding benefits (Table 2). In addition, the College of Arts and Sciences and the Boler School of Business annually awarded research release time to an average of 143 faculty (113 CAS [range 92-129], 30 BSOB [range 23-32],Table 3). The total dollar amount in salaries committed to release time from 1992-2001 was $17, 637,176.

The variety of research, support and development opportunities offered to full-time tenured and tenure track faculty are described and forms and guidelines made available through mailings and a web page (http://www.jcu.edu/research/Internal/index.htm) maintained by the Office of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants, & Faculty Development. Applications are considered by the Committee on Research and Service, comprised of faculty and chaired by the Dean of the Graduate School. Committee recommendations are made to the Academic Vice President.
Included among internal grants, fellowships, and faculty support are (dollar amounts for the 2002-03 academic year):

Research Support

Teaching Support

Faculty Awards

The university administration hosts a spring reception for faculty who have produced peer-reviewed publications during the preceding year. The university also honors annually a faculty member with the Distinguished Faculty Award. The honoree, chosen by a committee composed of faculty, an administrator, an alumni representative, and students, is selected for excellence in classroom teaching, scholarship, advisement and leadership of students, and community concern. In addition, both the College of Arts and Sciences and the Boler School of Business make annual awards for outstanding teaching. The College bestows the Lucrezia Culicchia Award, while the Boler School recognizes an outstanding teacher with the Wasmer Award. All awards include a reception, a citation for the honoree, a prominently displayed plaque, and a cash prize.

10-year trends in university support for scholarship and faculty research productivity

Table 1 summarizes yearly faculty awards. In the research fellowship category, awards stayed roughly constant from 1992 through 2001. Grauel Fellowships ranged from 9-17 per year, and Summer Research Fellowships varied from 11-19 per year. Faculty course development fellowships stayed at moderate levels, usually not exceeding 3-4 in any category. One award has been made for minority course development since 1996, and only two awards were made for Jesuit course development in ten years. Funding for courses in Catholic Studies began in 1997 with 8 awards, but has trended downward to 2 awards in 2002, probably indicating a saturation effect. Since 1994, 1-4 awards in Applied Ethics have been made every year except one. Mini-research grants have proved popular with the faculty, averaging more than 32 awards yearly. The area of greatest growth, however, has been university support for faculty development workshops. In the early 1990's about 2 dozen faculty were supported yearly in development workshops, but by the late 1990's, support had risen to 60-70 faculty per year.

Scholarly output by the faculty was stable between 1992-2002. While faculty research productivity as measured by total publications trended downward, “significant scholarly contributions”–books, journal articles, proceedings, and creative works, but not book reviews or miscellaneous publications–remained nearly constant over the decade, averaging in the mid-90's per year (Table 3). Comparing these two sets of figures suggests that many faculty perceive significant scholarly contributions are rewarded with merit raises in the annual evaluation process but that lesser contributions are not, and so have ceased producing the latter. The relative constancy of publications of greater scholarly worth compared to the number of faculty with release time suggests that faculty output has reached an equilibrium that may not change significantly in either direction unless the administration dramatically changes incentives for faculty to publish, hires new faculty with different research goals than current faculty, or both.

An inspection of the annual Faculty Bibliography, compiled by the Associate Academic Vice President, provided an overall picture the Faculty’s scholarly output from 1993-2000. Publications of significant scholarly worth were tabulated for 165 faculty including 55 females (33%) and 110 males (67%). The figures were considered by gender because issues of gender equity have been raised a number of times by faculty in recent years.

The median faculty output is three publications in eight years (0.375 publications per year) which is remarkably consistent with the unwritten rule in the College of Arts and Sciences that a faculty member should produce a publication once every three years to maintain research release time. While the upper quartile of faculty produce more than two publications every three years, only a handful of faculty average more than two publications a year. Female faculty are, on the average, slightly more productive than their male counterparts, which perhaps is not generally recognized throughout the university.

A comparison of faculty productivity before and after tenure decisions was done to determine if scholarly output changes after tenure. The publication records of 29 faculty members who received tenure between 1994-1998 were examined. (Note: publication records were examined only within the 1993-2000 window). Publications before tenure included publications with dates one year after the tenure decision, which presumes they were in the pipeline at the time of the tenure decision.

Publication Rate Table 2

The data indicate that faculty publish at least once before the tenure decision. The average faculty member publishes about twice before tenure, while the most productive faculty publish 5 or 6 times or more. In the years after tenure, faculty in the lowest quartile do not publish, while those in the other quartiles tend to publish more often.

An interesting question is whether a faculty member’s output changes relative to peer productivity before and after tenure. Among the 29 faculty, 19 stayed in the same quartile before and after their tenure decisions, six dropped from a higher to a lower quartile, and four moved up from a lower to a higher quartile. These data indicate that most faculty remain about as productive after their tenure decision as before, suggesting that, in most but not all cases, research productivity during tenure-track is a good predictor of future scholarly output.

Strengths and Concerns

Strengths:

Univerity Support

Concerns:

Responsibilities of the Graduate Dean/Coordinator of Faculty Research, Faculty Grants and Faculty Development

Identity Problem

Recruitment

Program Development & Structure

John Carroll Collaborative Initiative (JCCI)

Assessment in the Graduate School

The Graduate School Mission Statement is the basis for the formulation of the Graduate School assessment plan. Given this general statement of expected learning outcomes, individual departments, based upon the needs and characteristics of the discipline, use assessment techniques which best serve their purpose Additionally, the Graduate School assesses its overall services related to its goals. Graduate program assessment at John Carroll employs a common instrument and procedures that ensure a follow-up process linking the results of assessment to ongoing programmatic changes.

Following is a summary of the types of assessment which currently occur throughout the graduate program:

Graduate School Assessment Procedures:

The Graduate School has minimum admission criteria which are spelled out in the Graduate Bulletin and the Graduate School website. These include an overall 2.5 GPA and a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent from an accredited institution. Certain departments or programs may have additional criteria, also noted in the Graduate Bulletin and departmental websites. For graduation, the Graduate School requires a thesis, essay, or project for the Master of Arts and Master of Science degrees and a comprehensive examination for the Master of Arts, Master of Education and Master of Science degrees; the MBA program requires a capstone course. Upon graduation, the Graduate School conducts a mail exit survey, tabulates the results and shares them with the Graduate Studies Committee and the departments, as indicated.

Graduate School Assessment Plan

The Graduate School plan includes the following steps:

1. Required admissions materials form the basis for admission decisions. This type of assessment is diagnostic to provide predictive data on student success. In cases where deficiencies exist, but where students are admitted conditionally, a department formulates a developmental approach to working with the students to remediate the deficiency. The deficiency will later be reassessed to determine the student’s progress.

2. The Dean of the Graduate School reviews student academic achievement progress each semester. When students fall beneath the required minimums specified by the Graduate School and the specific department, the Graduate School communicates this to the students and the department. A follow-up report is required. The Graduate School blocks a student from further studies until it is determined that the student can successfully continue the required course work.

3. The current assessment procedures described below, such as program review, will continue. Each department evaluates the results of its review and, as necessary, develops a plan, approved by the Graduate Studies Committee, to use these results to effect program improvements.

4. Certification and licensing test results from professional programs such as Education and Counseling and Human Services are evaluated to determine success rates.

5. Data from national accrediting bodies such as AACSB and NCATE are reviewed and findings and recommendations are considered and implemented, as indicated.

6. Assessment measurements of outcome such as theses, essays, and projects are evaluated by each department prior to submission to the Graduate School. The Dean of the Graduate School reads and comments on theses and essays before accepting them.

7. Data are available on student success rates. If problems are discovered, they are analyzed and recommendations made.

8. In the M.Ed., M.S., and M.A. programs, the Comprehensive Examination serves to assess student achievement in an integrated manner at the conclusion of the program. Such skills as critical thinking are evaluated at this time. Comprehensive examination results are reviewed and reported. In cases where the student does not pass the comprehensive examination, the department follows up with the student to analyze the difficulties and develop a study plan. The student can then repeat the examination, but there is a limit to the number of times a student can repeat a comprehensive examination. Departments also analyze comprehensive examination results and determine how these can be used to effect any curriculum revisions, if indicated.

9. Both departmental and overall Graduate School exit survey material are summarized and shared with the particular department involved. More generalized results are discussed and reviewed the Committee on Graduate Studies. Student perceptions are assessed in this way.

10. For the past ten years, the Graduate School has surveyed its graduates within 6 months to assess satisfaction with their program and the services they received. The surveys consist of fifteen quantitative questions and a series of open-ended qualitative questions. While only the Community Counseling and School Counseling programs use the results directly for accreditation purposes, all departments receive the results of these surveys and use the information as part of their ongoing evaluation of their graduate programs. The assistant dean of The Graduate School analyzes overall trends and makes recommendations to the dean, the Graduate Studies committee, and departments as necessary. The average response rate is approximately 40% and the results tend to be fairly consistent within departments from year to year.
The Graduate School has recently updated the survey in an effort to gather more data about student selectivity and curriculum satisfaction. In an effort to increase the response rate, The Graduate School has also instituted a new policy that requires students to fill out Exit Surveys at the time they apply for graduation.

11. The Graduate school assesses graduation rates by department in order to determine success in retention. The implications of these data are discussed in the Graduate Studies Committee during program reviews. Strategies for improvement are addressed, when indicated.

Program Review

Program review by the Graduate Studies Committee is the primary assessment tool employed by the Graduate School. The Graduate Studies Committee consists of representatives from every department or program in the Graduate School, and is chaired by the Dean. The members are the directors of the Institute of Humanities and the Community Counseling program, chairs or graduate coordinators of departments with graduate programs, and the Associate Dean of the Boler School of Business. The Graduate Studies Committee conducts a review of each program on a seven-year cycle and makes programmatic recommendations to the Academic Vice President. When these are approved, they are communicated to the department and an annual follow-up is done. The purpose of the program review is to assess whether and how well the department or program is achieving its goals through its curriculum and other means.

Program review is based on a standardized instrument and review procedures that were revised in the mid-1990’s and revised again in 2002. Departmental program reviews are typically documents of about 20 pages excluding appendices that take about a semester to prepare. Below is a sampling of points related to program assessment and student learning outcomes that are addressed in a program review:

1. Summarize your responses to the recommendations contained in the last program review pertaining to your department.

2. List the departmental graduate program goals and how they relate to the University’s and the Graduate School’s Mission as a Jesuit/Catholic University.

3. Discuss special features of the program that contribute to the attainment of the program goals. Discuss the principal features of the curriculum that contribute to the attainment of the program objectives.

4. Develop a concise statement showing the need for the department programs. Include any unique features, value to the profession and/or university, when compared to similar programs offered at other universities.

5. Discuss any recent changes in program or certification requirements.

6. What are the strengths and weaknesses of your offerings? How do you assess the overall program?

7. What obstacles do you face, internal and external to your department?

8. What needs improvement in the degree programs?

9. Describe the external environment for your program and its effect on your planning and enrollment. What is unique or distinctive about your program?

10. List program goals for the next three to five years, redesigning of present programs, and priorities.

11. How is student progress assessed throughout the program? Describe the comprehensive examination and its relation to program goals. What percentage of students are successful?

12. What research tools do you require for graduate degrees and how do you determine competence?

13. Provide information on instructional efforts and effectiveness of the faculty. Describe new instructional techniques employed by your faculty. Describe any faculty development efforts relating to improvement of the classroom experience.

14. Summarize the research, scholarly activity, service activity, publications, grants received, and any additional honor or achievements of the faculty who usually teach graduate courses.

15. Is there a sufficient number of faculty and range of expertise to fulfill stated goals of the graduate program?

16. Describe and evaluate the department’s system of student advising.

17. What are the educational aspirations of students in the program?

The procedures for departmental program reviews include several points relevant to assessment. Among them are:

1. The whole department should be involved in discussing and approving the self-study report.

2. At the discretion of the Graduate Dean and Academic Vice President, an academician from outside the university may be invited to review the report, and department or program.

3. The Graduate Studies Committee will review the report, develop recommendations and transmit them to the Academic Vice President. The AVP, through the Dean, will respond to the report and make recommendations to the department.

4. The department or program will consider the recommendations and formulate a plan of action.

5. Upon request, the report will be shared with students and alumni.

6. The department or program will submit a brief follow-up report about its progress in addressing the recommendations following a timetable agreed upon by the Dean and the department.

External Accreditation

The Counseling and Human Services program is approved by the Ohio Counselor and Social Worker Licensure Board. The Department of Education is accredited by NCATE and the Ohio Department of Education. The MBA program is accredited by AACSB. Many Religious Studies graduates receive certificates to serve religious institutions and organizations.

For comments or questions, please contact Dr. Elizabeth Swenson.