1. education
2. graduate school
3. college

Quality Enhancement Review (QER)
Guidelines and Procedures
Manual
Updated April 2009
Table of Contents
Page
1. Quality Enhancement Review General Information
a. Purpose and Overview .............................................................................................3
b. Process Guidelines ...................................................................................................5
c. Seven-Year Cycle Schedule.....................................................................................9
2. External Reviewers ............................................................................................................15
a. Role and Qualifications..........................................................................................16
b. Steps in Identifying and Engaging External Reviewers ........................................17
c. Sample Letter (serves as a contract for services)...................................................19
d. Sample Site Visit Schedule for External Reviewer ...............................................21
e. Sample External Reviewer’s Report Format .........................................................24
3. Self-Study Questions and Documentation .........................................................................27
a. Self-Study Questions..............................................................................................28
b. Supporting Documentation: Sources ....................................................................35
c. Unit Accomplishment Summary Instructions and Spreadsheets ...........................36
d. Faculty SUSSAI Scores Spreadsheet ...................................................................48
4. Graduate Policy Committee (GPC) Review Process .........................................................49
5. Florida Board of Governors Process..................................................................................51
6. Frequently Asked Questions ..............................................................................................54
Appendices
A. Contact List..................................................................................................................57
B. Due Dates and Deadlines .............................................................................................59
C. QER Schedule (Fall and Spring)..................................................................................61
2
Quality Enhancement Review (QER): Purpose and Overview
Purpose of the QER Process:
The Quality Enhancement Review process serves as a tool for ensuring that the university fulfills
and maintains its mission. Generally, the process enables the university to provide quality
assurance, maintain academic standards, ensure continuous improvement of academic programs,
and improve the university's reputation. Specifically, the process serves to implement
recommendations of the state and university's strategic plans to permit continuous improvement
and to advance FSU into the top tier of public research universities.
The Quality Enhancement Review's primary purposes are (a) to examine the institutional
effectiveness of a department or program, its national position with respect to comparable
programs, what it needs to improve or sustain performance and (b) to serve as a basis for
administrative decisions on the investment of new and existing resources. A program is
evaluated on the basis of its mission and that mission’s relation to the university mission,
student-learning and program outcomes specified by the program, and the assessment and
continuous evaluation of program and learning outcomes. The Quality Enhancement Review also
permits a "streamlined" continuous evaluation system by combining:
 the statutorily required Florida Board of Governors’ seven-year program reviews (6C8.015 Academic Program Review),
 the Graduate Policy Committee's (GPC) reviews of graduate programs,
 independent external evaluation, and
 the Provost's internal reviews of programs relative to unit productivity and outcomes.
It is also scheduled, to the extent possible, to coincide with any external accreditation review.
The entire review process is monitored by the Office of the Vice President for Planning and
Programs through the academic dean of the relevant college. The Office of the Vice President
for Planning and Programs may revise the policies and procedures, as appropriate, after timely
consultation with interested parties.
Components of the QER Process:
The Quality Enhancement process is founded on an extensive self-examination. Members of
each academic department or program under review prepare a self-study binder that articulates
the programs goals, objectives, and intended student-learning and program outcomes in relation
to its mission.
The self-study addresses a number of questions integrating the concerns of the Florida Board of
Governors, the Undergraduate Policy Committee, the Graduate Policy Committee, and the
Provost. The measures used in Quality Enhancement Reviews of graduate and undergraduate
programs include indicators of:
3
 Instructional activities,
 Research and creative effort, and
 Faculty citizenship and service
The review also asks for an evaluation of the quality of degree programs based on qualitative
measures of the reputation of the faculty, significance of research and scholarly activities to the
profession, and the currency of the curriculum, all ascertained by external review. In addition,
the QER evaluates the program's student achievement by reviewing its follow-up on graduates,
for example its success in placing graduates in graduate schools or employment in relevant
fields, as well as employer satisfaction, student satisfaction with FSU academic experience at
FSU, the extent to which program and student-learning outcomes have been evaluated and
achieved, and the levels of continuous improvement.
To produce an objective assessment of faculty achievement, the Provost has established
expectations of departmental quality improvement and accountability plans. For programs
included in the National Research Council (NRC), the Provost has established the comparison of
peer institutional rankings in NRC categories as a benchmark for identifying peer institutions and
those that FSU programs should aspire to match.
An independent external reviewer, contracted with the university, provides an external
perspective on the department or program. The external reviewer reviews the self-study binder,
conducts onsite interviews, and prepares and submits a report indicating the findings of the site
visit. The external reviewer synthesizes findings into a final report that also makes
recommendations for improvement. The report forms the basis for later stages of the QER
process.
The self-study material prepared by the department/program is reviewed, along with the report of
the external reviewer, by the academic dean, the Graduate Policy Committee, the Vice President
for Planning and Programs, and other faculty and administrators. Academic deans review and
act on findings of the QER, including the report and recommendations of the GPC, and submit
an action plan to the Provost’s Office. The Vice President for Planning and Programs, along
with representatives of the Provost’s Office, review the dean’s report and make
recommendations to the Provost. The Provost assesses the dean's action plan, along with the
Vice President’s report, and makes budgetary, planning, and performance assessments against
the dean’s action plan. The Office of the Vice President for Planning and Programs prepares
and submits a summary report to the Florida Board of Governors in accordance with state
guidelines.
Both the Graduate Policy Committee and the Office of the Vice President for Planning and
Programs conduct follow up inquires on recommendations emerging from the QER process two
years after the initial reports are issued.
4
Quality Enhancement Review: Process Guidelines
1. An annual informational meeting is conducted with all deans, department chairs, and
directors undergoing review (semester of review or before).
2. The Office of Institutional Research within the Office of Budget and Analysis provides
departments/programs under review with profiles of their performance on key measures.
Sponsored Research Services within the Office of the Vice President for Research
provides relevant information on departmental/program contracts and grants for each
review.
3. Departments/programs, in consultation with the relevant academic dean, nominate
external reviewers and submit the nominations to the Dean of the Faculties' office for
review and approval by the Provost. The nominations must also disclose all affiliations
between the proposed reviewer, Florida State University, and any of the program faculty.
4. Each department prepares self-study documents, including an updated Unit
Accomplishment Summary and a summary of teaching evaluations.
5. Departments/programs arrange with the Dean of the Faculties' office for external
reviewers’ site visits and schedule them.
6. (a) Each department/program submits sixteen copies of the Departmental Self Study and
Unit Accomplishment Summary in written form and one electronic copy in PDF format
to Maggi Vanos-Wilson ([email protected]), Office of the Provost, before August 28 (for
fall reviews) or December 18 (for spring reviews) but at least two weeks before the
external reviewer site visit.
(b) The Office of the Provost distributes copies of the report as follows: Office of the
Vice President for Planning and Programs (2 copies), Office of the Provost (2 copies),
Office of Institutional Research (1 copy), Graduate School/GPC (7 copies), external
reviewer (1 copy), Dean of the Faculties’ Office (2 copies), and academic dean (1 copy).
(c) The department/program should retain a copy for its records.
7. The external reviewer conducts the onsite visit.
8. The external reviewer submits a copy of the site visit report to the Office of the Provost
within two weeks of the visit (as per their engagement letter). The report of the external
reviewer is distributed to: Vice President for Planning and Programs, Chair of the
Graduate Policy Committee, Chair of the Undergraduate Policy Committee, Dean of the
Faculties and Deputy Provost, Dean of the Graduate School, Dean of Undergraduate
Studies, and other administrative and faculty representatives monitoring the process.
5
9. The GPC Subcommittee conducts its review (which includes meetings of the
subcommittee with faculty and graduate students). The GPC review may coincide with
that of the external reviewer. The GPC reviews its subcommittee’s report and makes
final recommendations.
10. A preliminary review meeting is scheduled with the dean, department chair, and the Vice
President for Planning and Programs. This meeting is an opportunity to go over
questions or issues that occur after reading the self-study and the external reviewer’s
report. It is also intended to discuss the format and schedule of the full Unit Review
meeting. This is an informal meeting, i.e., no presentation is needed.
11. A full Unit Review meeting involves all departmental faculty, the academic dean, a GPC
review committee representative, Dean of the Faculties, Dean of the Graduate School,
Associate Vice President for Research, key administrative representatives, and the Vice
President for Planning and Programs. At the Unit Review meeting, the Vice President for
Planning and Programs summarizes the purpose of the review and provides a context for
review. The department chair presents an overview or executive summary of the selfstudy lasting 15-20 minutes, using overheads or PowerPoint. The presentation should
include: enrollment trends in the degree programs, research productivity, perspectives on
the program’s rank relative to programs in comparable and aspirational institutions,
current and future challenges and plans, and a commentary on the external reviewer’s
report. The academic dean will offer remarks on the status and condition of the
department/program and the college. All participants have the opportunity to discuss the
QER; raise issues relating to the department, college, and/or university; and other areas of
interest or concern.
Departmental faculty includes those faculty involved in the academic program. In
general, interdisciplinary programs should include core faculty.
12. Following the unit review meeting, the academic dean analyzes the reports and
synthesizes them into an action plan, then submits an electronic copy to the Office of the
Vice President for Planning and Programs. The Office of the Vice President for
Planning and Programs distributes the plan to Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Dean of
the Graduate School, Associate Vice President for Research, , Dean of the Faculties and
Deputy Provost, and key administrative and faculty representatives.
13. The dean reviews and discusses the action plan with the Vice President for Planning and
Programs, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Dean of the Graduate School, Associate Vice
President for Research, Dean of the Faculties and Deputy Provost, and key administrative
representatives.
14. The Vice President for Planning and Programs analyzes the dean’s action plan and any
feedback obtained regarding the dean’s plan, and makes recommendations to the Provost.
In addition, the Vice President for Planning and Programs prepares the program review
summary report to be submitted to the Florida Board of Governors.
15. The Provost evaluates the dean’s action plans and makes budgetary, planning, and
performance assessments against these plans.
6
16. The Office of the Vice President for Planning and Programs submits summary reports for
each reviewed program to the Florida Board of Governors.
17. The Vice President for Planning and Programs conducts a review of the dean’s action
plan and the Provost’s recommendations two years following the Provost’s action. The
GPC reviews progress on its recommendations two years following full committee
action.
7
8
Quality Enhancement Reviews: Seven-Year Cycle Schedule
2009-2010
1.
Clothing, Textiles & Merchandising
Textiles & Consumer Sciences
2.
Food & Nutrition
Nutrition, Food & Exer. Sci.
3.
Movement Science
Nutrition, Food & Exer. Sci.
4.
Family, Child & Consumer Sciences
Family & Child Sciences
5.
Family, Child & Consumer Sciences Educ.
Family & Child Sciences
6.
Human Sciences
Family & Child Sciences
7.
Criminology & Criminal Justice
College of Crim. & Crim. Justice
8.
Social Work
College of Social Work
9.
Art Education
Art Education
10.
Art History
Art History
11.
Studio Art
Art
12.
Arts Administration
Art Education
13.
Interior Design
Interior Design
14.
Dance
Dance
15.
Chemistry
Chemistry & Biochemistry
16.
Biology
Biological Science
17.
Molecular Biophysics
Institute for Molec. Biophys.
18.
Neuroscience
Neuroscience
2010-2011
1.
Counseling & School Psychology
Ed. Psych. & Learning Systems
2.
Instructional Systems
Ed. Psych. & Learning Systems
9
3.
Educational Psychology
Ed. Psych. & Learning Systems
4.
Adult Education
Ed. Psych. & Learning Systems
5.
Research & Evaluation Methods
Ed. Psych. & Learning Systems
6.
Measurement & Statistics
Ed. Psych. & Learning Systems
7.
Sport Management
Sport Mgmt., Rec. Mgmt. & P.E.
8.
Leisure Services & Studies
Sport Mgmt., Rec. Mgmt. & P.E.
9.
Physical Education
School of Teacher Education
10.
Social Science Education
School of Teacher Education
11.
Math Education
School of Teacher Education
12.
Science Education
School of Teacher Education
13.
Multilingual/Multicultural Education
School of Teacher Education
14.
English Education
School of Teacher Education
15.
Health Education
School of Teacher Education
16.
Early Childhood Education
School of Teacher Education
17.
Elementary Education
School of Teacher Education
18.
Reading Education
School of Teacher Education
19.
Rehabilitation Counseling
School of Teacher Education
20.
Special Education
Emotional Disturbances/Learning Disabilities
Mental Disabilities
Visual Disabilities
School of Teacher Education
21.
Higher Education (DOE certification related)
Ed. Leadership & Policy Studies
22.
Comprehensive Vocational Education
Ed. Leadership & Policy Studies
23.
Educational Leadership/Administration
Ed. Leadership & Policy Studies
10
24.
Foundations of Education
Ed. Leadership & Policy Studies
25.
Secondary Science & Math Teaching
Interdisciplinary
26.
Medicine
College of Medicine
2011-2012
1.
Civil Engineering
Civil & Environmental Eng.
2.
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
3.
Chemical Engineering
Chemical & Biomedical Eng.
4.
Industrial Engineering
Industrial Engineering
5.
Electrical Engineering
Elect. & Computer Engineering
6.
History
History
7.
English
English
8.
Philosophy
Philosophy
9.
Religion
Religion
10.
Classics
Classics
11.
Humanities
Interdisciplinary
12.
American & Florida Studies
Interdisciplinary
13.
History & Philosophy of Science
Interdisciplinary
14.
Middle Eastern Studies
Middle East Studies Center
15.
Computational Science
Scientific Computing
2012-2013
1.
Library & Information Studies
College of Information
2.
Spanish
Modern Lang. & Linguistics
11
3.
French
Modern Lang. & Linguistics
4.
Italian & Italian Studies
Modern Lang. & Linguistics
5.
German
Modern Lang. & Linguistics
6.
Russian, Slavic Language & Literature
Modern Lang. & Linguistics
7.
Latin American Studies
Modern Lang. & Linguistics
(Spanish)
8.
Anthropology
Anthropology
9.
Motion Picture, Television & Recording Arts
College of Motion Picture,
Television & Recording Arts
10.
Mathematics
Mathematics
11.
Actuarial Science
Mathematics
12.
Statistics
Statistics
2013-2014
1.
Economics
Economics
2.
Political Science
Political Science
3.
Sociology
Sociology
4.
Geography
Geography
5.
Urban & Regional Planning
Urban & Regional Planning
6.
Public Administration
Reuben O’D. Askew School of
Public Administration
7.
Demography
Center for Demography &
Population Health
8.
Interdisciplinary Social Science
Social Science, Interdisciplinary
9.
Public Health
Interdisciplinary
12
10.
International Affairs
Interdisciplinary
11.
Aging Studies
Pepper Institute on Aging &
Public Policy
2014-2015
1.
Management Information Sciences
Management Information Systems
2.
Management (includes Entrepreneurship)
Management
3.
Accounting
Accounting
4.
Finance
Finance
5.
Risk Management & Insurance, Real Estate
Risk Management/Insurance, Real
Estate & Business Law
6.
Marketing (includes Multinational Business)
Marketing
7.
Hospitality Administration
Dedman School of Hospitality
8.
MBA Programs
College of Business
9.
Music
College of Music
10.
Dramatic Arts
School of Theatre
2015-2016
1.
Meteorology
Meteorology
2.
Geology
Geological Sciences
3.
Oceanography
Oceanography
4.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Geophys. Fluid Dynam. Institute
5.
Computer Science
Computer Science
6.
Law
College of Law
7.
African American Studies
Interdisciplinary
13
8.
Physics
Physics
9.
Psychology
Psychology
10.
Communication
Communication
11.
Communication Disorders
Communication Disorders
12.
Nursing
College of Nursing
Updated 4/28/2009
14
External Reviewer Role, Qualifications,
Engagement, Schedule and Report
15
Quality Enhancement Review: The Role and Qualifications of the External Reviewer
Role
The role of the external reviewer is to review and analyze the self-study as well as conduct
interviews during the site visit in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the degree
programs and identify strategies for quality improvement. The reviewer is asked to consider
national trends in the discipline in determining how the program fares in comparison to
aspirational and comparable programs. The external reviewer synthesizes findings into a final
report that forms the basis for later stages of the QER process.
Qualifications
External reviewers should have national and/or international standing in their respective
academic discipline. They should also have broad enough experience in higher education to
understand the dynamics of public research-intensive universities and should represent highquality degree programs. In addition, external reviewers should be independent of the University
in order to ensure the objectivity of the report and the credibility of the process. Ideally,
reviewers will be senior faculty from a public Association of American Universities (AAU)
institution and have significant administrative, curricular, and program-review experience.
In the submission of candidates to be considered for external reviewers, the program chair must
disclose all known affiliations between the proposed reviewer, Florida State University, and any
of the program faculty (i.e., nature of the relationship, any potential conflicts of interest). It is
expected that individuals within the same academic discipline will know one another and may
have possibly worked together; nonetheless, the program chair must disclose this information at
the time of the submission of names for consideration.
16
Quality Enhancement Review: Steps in Identifying and Engaging External Reviewers
Due Dates:
July 1, 2009 for fall 2009 reviewers
October 30, 2009 for spring 2010 reviewers
1. The department (or program) identifies at least three candidates for external reviewer (in
priority order), based on the role and qualifications described in “The External Reviewer”
and discloses any affiliations between each candidate, Florida State University, and any
member of the program faculty.
2. In priority order, the department contacts potential reviewers informally to determine
their interest and availability to serve.
3. The department submits curriculum vitae (or website addresses where vitae can be found)
of these candidates to the Office of the Dean of the Faculties.
4. The Office of the Dean of the Faculties reviews the candidates and coordinates
communication with the potential reviewer(s).
5. After an informal agreement is reached, the Office of the Dean of the Faculties sends a
formal offer letter to the external reviewer on behalf of the Provost to ensure standard
formats, fees, and conditions. Each external reviewer is offered an honorarium of $1500
and reimbursement of travel expenses at State of Florida rates. The letter also describes
the expectations of the review and conditions of the agreement, including the requirement
that a formal written and electronic report of the site visit be submitted to the Office of
the Provost within two weeks following the site visit. When signed by the external
reviewer, this letter serves as the contract for services.
6. After this contract is signed, the office of the dean whose department or program is under
review (or department office) becomes the primary contact for the external reviewer
throughout the rest of the review process in regard to visit logistics (travel arrangements,
hosting responsibilities, and visit schedule). Each academic dean or department chair
identifies a staff member who will contact the external reviewer regarding travel
arrangements. The Vice President for Planning and Programs is the contact regarding
substantive issues.
7. The academic dean’s office is responsible for making the reviewer’s travel reservations,
for reimbursing the reviewer directly for travel expenses, and for paying the $1,500
honorarium. If this task is delegated to the department, the dean will notify the
department chair, the Provost’s Office, and the department fiscal administrator. Thus, the
staff member identified in (6) prepares all paperwork involved in making these payments
(travel authorization, expense report, purchase order), making sure that the external
reviewer is paid and reimbursed promptly following the site visit.
8. The Office of the Provost will reimburse the department/dean via budget transfer for
these external reviewer honoraria and travel expenses in accordance with State of Florida
17
guidelines. There are no special provisions or exceptions for the honoraria and expenses
incurred by external reviewers; departments should inform reviewers of all per diem
restrictions or be prepared to cover any expenses that exceed state per diem. Each
dean/department should send a copy of all relevant documentation (receipts, travel
authorization, expense report, purchase order) to the Office of the Provost, Attn.
Accounting, Mail Code 1310, to effect the reimbursement. (Refer to contact list,
Appendix A, if you have questions.)
Please let the Associate Dean of the Faculties know if you have any questions regarding
these procedures.
18
Quality Enhancement Review: Sample External Reviewer Engagement Letter
July 1, 2009 for Fall
October 30, 2009 for Spring
Professor I. M. Distinguished
Aspirational Department
Reputable University
Dear Professor Distinguished:
Thank you for agreeing to evaluate our ____________ program(s). Your assessment of our
accomplishments, challenges, and aspirations will be invaluable to us in our effort to improve the
quality of our program offerings.
As the external reviewer for the program(s) in _________ at Florida State University, you will be
asked to perform the following tasks:
1) Review the program’s self-study documents prepared for the program review;
2) Conduct an in-depth review of the _______ degree program(s), on site, from ____ to
______, 200_. A standard sample schedule, which includes topics of discussion, is
attached. The specific schedule for your visit will be set by the department chair; and
3) Develop a report assessing the quality of the program, including recommendations that
will be used by the program as benchmarks for improvement over the next five years.
You will submit your report to the Office of the Provost ([email protected]) within two
weeks after the date of your site visit to Florida State University. A sample format for
your report is attached.
Your role as external reviewer is critically important to our review of the _______ program(s)
and will be used in all subsequent phases of the Quality Enhancement Review process.
We are able to offer you a consultant honorarium of $1,500 for your services plus reimbursement
of travel expenses at State of Florida rates. (See http://www.vpfa.fsu.edu/policies/controller/2d2.html for more information.) Ms/r. ________ at the college/department office (phone and
email of your staff) will contact you about travel arrangements and will handle your payment and
reimbursement. If these arrangements are satisfactory to you, please sign below and return the
original to my office as soon as possible. Upon receipt of the signed agreement, the University
will create a purchase order, which will serve as the contract for your services.
We appreciate the time and effort you are investing in improving the _______ program(s) at
Florida State University. We trust that your visit will be professionally gratifying to you.
We look forward to working with you.
19
Sincerely,
Lawrence G. Abele
Provost and Executive Vice President, Academic Affairs
___________________________________
Signature of Reviewer
cc:
___________________________
Date
Dean of the Faculties and Deputy Provost
Vice President for Planning and Programs
Dean of College
Department Chair
Ms/r. College Administrative Assistant
Provost’s Office, Accounting Representative
Provost’s Office, Staff Assistant
Enclosures (included only for the addressee and department chair):
External Reviewer Sample Schedule
External Reviewer Suggested Report Format
Note: Please return a signed copy of this agreement to the Provost’s Office as soon as possible.
20
Quality Enhancement Review: Sample Site Visit Schedule for Interviews Conducted by
External Reviewer and Suggested Interview Topics
NOTE: With the exception of the first and last meeting, each program needs to coordinate
meetings with attendees to ensure that meeting dates/times are available. Please do not
assume that the time slots in the sample schedule are open and available for attendees.
Topic(s)
8:309:30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9:4510:45
Relationship of programs to goals
and mission of university
Availability of resources to
discipline
State and national issues affecting
discipline
Program management
Tenure and promotion
Faculty evaluation
Faculty development/ sabbatical
program
(return to college)
•
•
•
•
•
Attendees
Scheduler
Vice President for
Planning and
Programs, Associate
Dean of the
Faculties, Dean,
Department Chair,
Dean of the
Graduate School
Provost’s Office
Dean of the College
Department rep in
conjunction with
the Dean’s office
Department chair
Department rep
Goals and objectives of discipline
and programs within the college(s)
and departments
Program management
Faculty characteristics
State and national issues affecting
discipline
Aspirations for programs
10:45- Break and go to Departmental Office
11:00
11:001:00
•
•
•
•
Goals and objectives of discipline
and programs within the college(s)
and departments
Program management
Faculty characteristics
State and national issues affecting
discipline
21
•
Aspirations for programs
•
•
•
Department or
program chairs and
key faculty
including Eminent
Scholars
(simultaneous,
separate meetings
may be scheduled
with individual
faculty)
Department rep in
conjunction with
attendees
•
Curriculum evaluation
Faculty characteristics
Program relationships within
university
Program relationships to individual
and societal needs
Adequacy of resources
Effectiveness of Eminent Scholars
Program
Indicators of excellence
•
•
•
Extrinsic value of programs
Occupational trends, if applicable
Supply and demand for graduates
Alumni, employees
and other
constituents
Department rep in
conjunction with
attendees
7:308:15
•
Breakfast with Chair
at hotel
Department rep
8:309:30
•
Program relationships within
university
Chairs of related
disciplines
Department rep in
conjunction with
other
chairs/departments
9:3011:30
•
•
Student characteristics
Demand for program and
availability to students
Admissions, retention, completion
Articulation of program with
community colleges and public
schools (undergraduate only)
Follow-up on program graduates
(undergraduate and graduate)
Department or
program chairs and
key faculty
(simultaneous or
separate meetings
may be scheduled to
accommodate
topics)
Department rep in
conjunction with
attendees
Department rep in
conjunction with
attendees
1:004:00
•
•
•
4:005:00
Day
Two
•
•
•
11:3012:30
•
Discussion of the quality of the
program
External reviewer
and GPC rep
12:301:30
•
Lunch
TBA
22
1:302:30
•
Interview students
A cross-section
selection of students
by level, ethnicity,
gender, and
background
Department rep
2:303:00
•
Key faculty
•
Review specialized facilities
supporting program
Tour of library, laboratories,
specialized teaching classrooms,
research facilities, etc.
Department rep in
conjunction with
attendees
3:004:00
•
Outline report
External reviewer
only
4:005:00
•
Summary of findings and
preliminary recommendations
Comparison of program with
national rankings
Vice President for
Provost’s office
Planning and
Programs, Associate
Dean of the
Faculties, Dean,
Department Chair,
GPC Representative,
University Libraries
Representative,
Dean of the
Graduate School
•
23
Quality Enhancement Review: Sample External Reviewer’s Report Format
I.
II.
Summary of Major Findings.
Analysis of Undergraduate Program:
A. Curriculum. Is the curriculum appropriate, given the numbers and qualifications
of the faculty? Are there too many required courses, or degree tracks, or too few?
Does the curriculum provide the basis for a good core education in the discipline?
Given the background of the faculty, are there opportunities for curricular
development with other disciplines that might be pursued?
B. Student Learning Outcomes. Are the outcomes appropriate? Are the
measurements measurable and specific? Are results stated clearly and analyzed?
Have appropriate improvements been identified and implemented, and how?
C. Procedures. Do you see problems with departmental procedures such as
advisement of undergraduates? What improvements might be made?
D. Student Body. Are the numbers of undergraduate students majoring in the
department appropriate given the faculty size? Is the diversity of the
undergraduate body appropriate?
E. Student Accomplishments. Are student accomplishments—such as papers
presented, awards won, quality of graduate and professional programs in which
students subsequently enroll, position of first employment, etc.—indicative of a
quality undergraduate program?
F. Strategic Plan. Are the unit’s plans for its undergraduate program appropriate?
Are there some alternatives that should be considered?
III.
Analysis of Graduate Program:
A. Curriculum: Is the curriculum appropriate, given the numbers and qualifications
of the faculty? Are there too many required courses, or degree tracks, or too few?
Does the curriculum provide the basis for a good core education in the discipline?
Given the background of the faculty, are there opportunities for curricular
development with other disciplines that might be pursued?
B. Procedures: Are the procedures for selection and support of graduate assistants
appropriate? Are the general examination procedures appropriate? Does the
department provide sufficient levels of advisement, mentoring, and professional
development for its students? What improvements might be made?
C. Student Body. Is the mix of masters and doctoral students indicative of a quality
graduate program? Is the program attracting quality graduate students? Are
24
enrollment levels in the graduate program(s) sufficient? Is the graduation rate
appropriate? Is the diversity of the student body appropriate?
D. Student Accomplishments. Do student accomplishments such as papers presented
and published and positions obtained after degree completion indicate a quality
program? Do the dissertation titles and topics indicate scholarship that addresses
subjects considered important?
E. Strategic Plan. Are the unit’s plans for the graduate program appropriate? Are
there some alternatives that should be pursued?
IV.
Analysis of Faculty Accomplishments:
A. Scholarship/Creative Activity. Are each of the faculty member’s publication
record and/or other indicators of creative activity indicative of high quality?
Please comment on the status of the journals and other outlets in which the faculty
publish articles, the publishers of their books, and the prestige of their outlets for
creative activity.
B. Grants/Contracts.
1. Are the external awards for faculty research and creative activity
indicative of a quality unit?
2. Are there opportunities for external funding that should be pursued?
C. Reputation.
1. Is this a unit that is recognized within its professional community for the
quality of its contributions? If there are some specific noteworthy
scholarly contributions of faculty in the unit, please cite them.
2. Are the national and international professional service contributions of
faculty significant? Please cite contributions you believe to be especially
noteworthy.
V.
Overall Analysis and Recommendations:
A. Analysis. What is your overall evaluation of the unit? Is it among the top 25
percent of similar units at comprehensive state research universities? In the
middle 50 percent? In the bottom 25 percent? Are there areas of strength that
should be promoted? Are there weak areas that should be phased out? Does the
unit have a good strategic plan for the future? Do you have changes in direction to
suggest? Are there funding opportunities that are not being pursued? Would you
advise a high school student to major in this department? Would you advise an
undergraduate to attend graduate school in the department?
25
B. Recommendations. With the recognition that there are likely to be, at most, very
modest levels of new funds available in the near future for program improvement,
please recommend steps that the University and unit might take to improve the
unit’s program.
26
Self-Study Questions and Documentation
27
Self-Study Questions
Overview
1. Describe the academic program, including the program's history, academic offerings,
curricular focus, and organizational structure. In addition, comment briefly on the
program's accomplishments, faculty, and research.
2. Identify 4 comparable and aspirational programs and complete the tables below.
Fall 2008
2007-08
Student Enrollment
Aspirational
Programs
Degrees Number of
offered
faculty
Number of
undergraduates
Number of
masters
students
Number of
doctoral
students
Degrees
awarded
Florida State
University
Program 1
Program 2
Program 3
Program 4
Fall 2008
2007-08
Student Enrollment
Comparable
Programs
Degrees Number of
offered
faculty
Number of
undergraduates
Number of
masters
students
Number of
doctoral
students
Degrees
awarded
Florida State
University
Program 1
Program 2
Program 3
Program 4
3. To what extent is the administrative/staffing structure at the program, department,
college, and university levels adequate to support the program?
4. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the program.
28
5. What are the program's academic and organizational short and long-term goals and what
plans are in place for reaching them? Evaluate the program's progress towards the stated
goals. Cite the program's strategic plan, if applicable.
6. Analyze the diversity of the faculty, students, and staff in the program as indicated in the
table below.
% Female
% Minority
% Resident Alien (International)
Undergraduate students
Graduate students
Faculty
Staff
Undergraduate Students
7. Analyze the undergraduate headcount enrollment and identify significant trends and
issues with which the program must address.
8. Evaluate the quality of the undergraduate students in the program.
9. What efforts are made by the program to recruit, enroll, and retain high-quality students?
10. Describe the mechanisms in place to provide academic advising to students. Are
improvements needed?
11. Present any international agreements currently in place. How are they consistent with the
program's mission?
12. What systematic efforts does the program use to ensure its students are placed well and
receive university, regional, or national recognition?
29
Graduate Students
Graduate Policy Committee (GPC) Self-Study Questions
Measure/Topic
13. Recruitment/
Enrollment/ Retention/
Graduation data for all
graduate degrees
Narrative and Analysis
Tables and Supporting
Documents
1. Comment on the size of the graduate
program and any trends in the graduate
program statistics. Does the program's
size create problems, is program growth
(or shrinkage) a goal? Is retention a
problem? 2. Comment on the diversity of
the student body (gender and ethnicity). 3.
Describe how recruiting is done. Include
recruitment documents (brochures, etc.)
and/or address for materials posted on the
web. 4. If the department operates
graduate certificate programs or offers
large graduate service courses these
should be described.
1. Provide chart of numbers of
students applying, admitted,
enrolled, graduated, numbers who
drop out, time to degree (use table
format on website), and GRE and
GPA scores (or other appropriate
metrics) and gender and ethnicity
of enrolled students over the last
five years. Data should be
separated by degree (but may be
combined if most appropriate). 2.
Provide a list of doctoral graduates
for the last 5 years with
dissertation title and name of
major professor.
14. Placement data, and 1. Report on placement of masters and
other quality indicators
doctoral graduates for the past five years.
of the graduate programs 2. Comment on the data on graduate
student publications/creative works,
presentations, awards, fellowships and
other quality indicators. 3. Comment on
any contact with or outreach efforts to
alumni.
1. Provide a chart of masters and
doctoral recipients for the last five
years, numbers of publications and
presentations or other quality
indicators (awards and
fellowships, etc) for each student,
and information on student
placement. 2. For the doctoral
graduates list their dissertation
titles and major professor.
15. Curriculum
1. Comment on the currency and
adequacy of the curriculum. Are there
difficulties in course scheduling and
availability, enrollments. Describe the
faculty teaching loads. 2. Will distance
learning play a role in your enrollment
planning at either the undergraduate or
graduate level?
1. For each degree and majors
within the degree, provide a chart
or table showing elements of the
curriculum, include a plan of study
and indicate what are core courses
and commonly chosen electives. 2.
Provide a list of all the courses
offered in the last five years, when
they were offered, name of the
instructor, and enrollment in each.
16. Advising and
professional preparation
of graduate students
1. Explain how student advising is done.
2. Describe the "milestone steps" in the
degree program (diagnostic exams,
preliminary exams, prospectus, etc) and
how these are administered. What are the
success rates on these exams? 3. Provide
Include a copy of the departmental
handbook for graduate students or
a web link to the handbook.
30
statement on professional preparation of
students for academic or non-academic
roles including teaching and research.
17. Resources for
graduate training.
1. Explain how students are supported,
comment on the fraction of students
supported on personal funds, teaching
assistantships and grants and fellowships.
Give stipend levels and comment on how
they compare with national averages and
how student funding impacts the
program's quality indicators. Are there
trends in the support data over the last
five years? 2. Provide statements on space
facilities, equipment, library and other
resources available to graduate students.
Are there facilities and resources needed
for students in the program that are not
currently available or are difficult to
access? If so, are their plans for obtaining
these resources?
Provide a table showing how the
student's were funded (TAs,
grants, fellowship, personal funds,
etc.) for each of the five years
covered by the review.
18. Faculty
Research/Creative
Activity
Comment on the strengths and
weaknesses of the faculty's
research/creative activities.
Provide short-form CVs using the
format provided on the website
19. Summary of program Comment on data specific to graduate
strengths and
education. What particular strengths,
weaknesses
weaknesses, concerns do the data in GPC
13-19 indicate? (For example, what do
admission rates, and the demographics
and stated goals of the admitted students
indicate about the strength of the
program)?
20. Describe the teaching expectations and requirements for graduate students. How many
classes do graduate students teach? When do they begin teaching? Discuss the extent and
efficacy of graduate student instructional training and evaluation.
21. Describe the orientation process and the annual review process for new graduate
students.
31
Faculty
22. Are there adequate faculty to ensure students, especially those with committees, receive
adequate attention and ensure faculty have adequate time for research and creative
endeavors? Does the program have an adequate number of faculty to teach its degrees,
majors, and certificates?
23. Discuss upcoming faculty retirements and the impact on the program. Report on the
retention of faculty and the yield of recent recruiting efforts. How does the program ensure
that there is an adequate, diverse, and talented applicant pool? Comment on faculty
recruitment efforts and the philosophy towards the role of non-tenured and non-tenure track
faculty.
24. What efforts are made by the program to mentor and support new faculty members?
25. What systematic efforts does the program employ to ensure that faculty are nominated for
appropriate university, regional, and national awards?
26. Analyze faculty productivity using the Unit Accomplishment Summaries (QE 1-5) as a
starting point. (a) How is faculty productivity assessed by the program? (b) How does the
program make assignments? (c) What is the availability of external funding to support
faculty research? (d) Analyze doctoral supervision loads and their distribution among the
faculty. To what extent are doctoral supervision loads equitable and sustainable? (e) Are
the indicators measured in the UAS appropriate for the program's academic field? If not, list
other measures the discipline uses to assess faculty productivity and provide data on these
measures for the program's faculty. Note: you may add measures, but you must also report on
the existing measures. Do not delete existing measures (columns).
27. How are the efforts of non-tenure track faculty assessed?
28. How does the program supervise and train teaching assistants and adjuncts?
29. How is teaching effectiveness assessed by the program and what program efforts have
been shown to improve the quality of instruction? Please use specific examples.
Curriculum
30. Comment on the currency and adequacy of the curriculum. Are there difficulties in
course scheduling and availability? How are undergraduate students engaged in research?
31. To what extent is distance learning used to deliver courses?
32
32. How does the program relate to other teaching and research units on campus? Consider
units that the program currently interacts with as well as other units with which there may be
potential for interaction.
33. If applicable, how does the program monitor and assess the performance of the
program's instructional efforts at the Panama City, Florida, campus?
34. To what extent do doctoral students and adjuncts support the teaching mission of the
program?
Resources
35. Analyze the adequacy of the physical facilities utilized by the program.
36. Identify any programmatic concerns with information technology.
37. How adequate are the library resources to support the program? Identify "gaps" in
holdings and/or databases.
38. How does the program support (stipend, health insurance supplements, travel to
meetings, etc.) is provided to graduate teaching and research assistants compare to other
comparable programs? To what extent are contract and grant and private dollars available to
supplement state support? Analyze and identify any issues that the program must address.
39. Analyze the implications of class size in this program for the educational experiences of
the students and the instructional challenges for the faculty.
Assessment
40. How has the program compiled and used feedback from students, alumni, and
employers? To what extent does the program use this information to make curricular and
programmatic changes?
41. Consider the findings and recommendations from the previous self-study. How did the
program address previous findings and recommendations? What are the significant
changes in the program since the previous review?
42. Report the findings and recommendations from the previous discipline-specific
accreditation. Indicate whether the program is currently undergoing accreditation, or
when the next one is scheduled.
33
43. What process does the program use to formulate student learning outcomes and assess
student learning? How are the key concepts and other knowledge the faculty want the
students to learn explicitly mapped into the curriculum?
44. What specific changes has the program made in response to assessment of student
performance on learning outcomes?
45. How do the program's curricula compare to the best efforts nationally? How often are the
curricula reviewed and by whom? When was the most recent comprehensive review of
the degrees, majors, and certificates offered by the program? Describe any changes that
were made based on this review and discuss their implementation. How is the program
monitoring the effects of curricular changes? What new degree programs, at what
levels, does the unit plan to propose in the next five years?
Supporting Materials
Appendix A. Unit Accomplishment Summaries (QE 1- 5)
Appendix B. Short-Form Faculty CVs
Appendix C. Budgeted and actual faculty FTE for the last 5 years
Appendix D. Teaching Evaluations (for faculty, teaching assistants, and adjuncts)
Appendix E. Organizational Chart
Appendix F. Enrollment and Completion Tables (GPC Question 13)
Appendix G. Student Learning/Program Outcomes, Assessments, Actions, and Results from IE
Portal (most current full year available)
Appendix H. URL/Weblink to Student Handbooks
Appendix I. Surveys of current students, graduates, alumni
Appendix J. Undergraduate and graduate placements
34
Quality Enhancement Review: Supporting Documentation for the Self-Study Questions
and the Unit Accomplishment Summary
To assist departments/programs in preparing the self-study and the Unit Accomplishment
Summary, various administrative offices across campus serve as resource to facilitate the
gathering of data/information from centralized databases.

Each academic program is provided a data booklet from the Office of Institutional Research
(http://www.ir.fsu.edu/links/linksinfo.cfm?ID=t_enhancement). The data booklet includes
information about undergraduate and graduate enrollment, degrees awarded, student credit
hours by instructor type, program expenditures, and instructional workload.

The Office of Sponsored Research (http://www.research.fsu.edu/sras/index.html) provides
information regarding faculty research activities, including the number of proposals
submitted and funded and award amounts. This data will also be helpful in preparing
responses to the self-study questions and completing the Unit Accomplishment Summary.

The Unit Accomplishment Summary requires that you obtain publication and citation counts
from a web-based database produced and maintained by the Institute for Scientific
Information (http://ts.isiknowledge.com). The method for obtaining these counts may be
found at http://bio.fsu.edu/~thistle/nrccounts.html.

As part of the Quality Enhancement Review, faculty SUSSAI scores are analyzed for the last
five years. The median score for #8 from each faculty member’s SUSSAI (for each course)
is reported using a template provided by the Office of the Provost. The Center for Teaching
and Learning (http://learningforlife.fsu.edu/ctl/collaborate/PIE/) serves as a resource to assist
programs with obtaining this data.

Questions about program and student learning outcomes should be directed to the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness ([email protected]).
35
Quality Enhancement Review: Unit Accomplishment Summary Instructions and
Spreadsheets
The Unit Accomplishment Summary is meant to provide clear and concise information about
teaching, research, instructional activities, creative activities, service, and any other areas that
describe the quality and productivity of a department or program. Please provide all the data
requested. If you find that adding columns to the spreadsheets would provide a better description
of your program, please add them, but do not delete any of the columns already requested.
Information on each of the forms in the Unit Accomplishment Summary, labeled QE1 through
QE5, is provided below.
QE1:
QE2:
QE3-A:
QE3-B:
QE4:
QE5:
Teaching and Research Overview
Instructional Activities
Research/Creative Activities
Other Research and Creative Activities
Faculty Citizenship/Service/Other
GPC Scholarly Activities Overview
Data Availability: In all cases, you should use the latest data available that includes one
year or five years of data, as appropriate. Data availability for many measures are provided
by the Office of Institutional Research.
QE1: TEACHING AND RESEARCH OVERVIEW
For QE1 only, data in every column with the exception of NRC countable publications should be
reported by academic year. Data for teaching should be provided for fall and spring; data on
sponsored research should include the most recent academic year (summer, fall, and spring). For
NRC countable publications, use the most recent complete calendar year.
Most of the instructional data needed for QE1 is provided by the Office of Institutional Research,
including organized courses taught, individualized courses taught, and instructional contact
hours. Information on proposals submitted and funded can be obtained from Diana Key,
Sponsored Research Services, [email protected], 644-8646.
“Faculty member” column: Include all professors, associate professors, and assistant professors.
Include faculty on sabbatical or phased retirement, but note their status on the
spreadsheet. Include all tenured and tenure-earning faculty who are on your payroll, but
DO NOT include teaching or research assistants. When including faculty other than
tenured or tenure-earning (e.g., assistant or associate instructors, “true” visiting faculty,
etc.), please list their accomplishments separately.
36
“Instructional assignment (%)” column: List the instructional assignment, as a percentage of the
total assignment, associated with each faculty member for fall and spring. If the two
semesters differ in instructional assignment, enter the mean of the two percentages.
Instructional assignments are provided by the Office of Institutional Research for your
unit review.
“Number of organized courses taught (C, D, L)” column: Include all organized lecture (C),
discussion (D), and lab (L) courses taught in fall and spring. These data are provided in
the Quality Enhancement Review data booklet compiled for each program by the Office
of Institutional Research.
“Number of individualized courses (G, T, I, O, P, R, S, Z)” column: Include all dissertation (G),
thesis (T), internship (I), other (O), individual performance (P), supervised research (R),
supervised teaching (S), and directed individual study (Z) courses taught in fall and
spring. These data are provided in the Quality Enhancement Review data booklet
compiled for each program by the Office of Institutional Research.
“Instructional contact hours” column: Enter the total instructional contact hours associated with
each faculty member for fall and spring.
“Number of directed individual studies (DIS)” column: Provide the total number of unique
directed individual studies courses supervised by each faculty member in fall and spring.
“Number of PhD students supervised” column: Enter the total number of individual doctoral
students under each faculty member’s supervision (i.e., for whom the faculty member
serves as committee chair) during fall and spring.
“Research assignment (%)” column: Enter the research assignment as a percentage of the total
assignment associated with each faculty member for fall and spring. If the two semesters
differ in research assignment, enter the mean of the two percentages. Research
assignments are provided by the Office of Institutional Research for your unit review.
“NRC-countable publications and/or creative products” column: Enter the total number of NRCcountable publications and creative products published or first exhibited during the most
recent academic year (summer through spring). Creative products are, for example,
works of art, works of fiction, poems, or plays. Do not include publications in press.
Instructions for tallying NRC-countable publications are available at
http://bio.fsu.edu/~thistle/nrcounts.html. For disciplines not included in the NRC study,
use the NRC methodology to determine publication counts and enter them in this column.
“Number of proposals submitted” column: Enter the total number of proposals submitted to all
funding sources (e.g., federal, state, private) by each faculty member during the most
recent academic year (summer, fall, and spring).
“Number of proposals funded” column: Enter the total number of proposals funded (from any
source) during the most recent academic year (summer, fall, and spring).
37
“Total grant funds awarded” column: Enter the total amount of funding supplied by grants first
awarded during the most recent academic year (summer, fall, and spring). Include the
total amount of the grant, even if not all the funds are intended for spending within the
academic year. Include grants on which the faculty member is a co-PI but label them as
such.
“Number of honors and awards” column: Enter the number of honors and awards received by
each faculty member during the most recent academic year (summer, fall, and spring).
Do not include items already reported under previous columns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------QE2: INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES
“Faculty member” column: Use the same list of faculty members as for QE1. Some data
pertaining to instruction is provided by the Office of Institutional Research.
“Instructional assignment (%)” column: For each faculty member, reenter the percentage
reported in this column on QE1.
“Number of organized courses taught (C, D, L)” column: For each faculty member, enter the
same total reported in this column on QE1.
“Total enrollment” column: Enter the sum of the enrollments of all the organized courses taught
in fall and spring. Organized courses include lecture, discussion, and labs.
“Number of individualized courses (G, T, I, O, P, R, S, Z)” column: For each faculty member,
reenter the same total reported in this column on QE1.
“Total enrollment” column: Enter the sum of the enrollments of all the individualized courses
taught in fall and spring. Individualized courses include dissertation, thesis, internship,
other, individual performance, supervised research, supervised teaching, and directed
individual study.
“Total instructional contact hours” column: Enter the total instructional contact hours associated
with each faculty member for fall and spring.
“Total student credit hours” column: Enter the sum of the student credit hours taught by each
faculty member for fall and spring.
“Number of honors courses” column: Enter the number of honors courses taught by each faculty
member in fall and spring.
38
“Number of thesis/dissertation student committees” column: Enter the total number of
thesis/dissertation committees on which each faculty member serves (include committees
of both the faculty member’s own students and those of others).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------QE3-A: RESEARCH/CREATIVE PRODUCTS
“Faculty member” column: For QE3-A only, include only those tenured or tenure-earning
faculty with research assignments. If you want to include other faculty listed on QE1 and
QE2, please do so in a separate listing.
“Research assignment (%)” column: For each faculty member, reenter the percentage reported
in this column on QE1.
NOTE: The publication and citation counts called for below on QE3-A are compiled
centrally for departments in the College of Arts and Sciences and are available from the office
of the dean or from Anne B. Thistle, [email protected].
“NRC-countable publications and/or creative products” column: Enter the total number of NRCcountable publications and creative products produced in the five most recent complete
calendar years. For disciplines not included in the NRC study, use the NRC methodology
to determine publication counts and enter in them in this column.
“Total NRC-countable citations” column: For each faculty member, enter the total number of
citations of the creative products and publications listed in the five preceding columns.
Do not include citations of publications not listed in the five preceding columns. For
disciplines not included in the NRC study, use the NRC methodology to determine
citation counts and enter them in this column.
ISI’s Web of Science contains information on publications and citations. Instructions on how to
tally NRC-countable publications and citations of them are available at
http://bio.fsu.edu/~thistle/nrccounts.html. Note, for example, that review papers, letters, notes,
editorial remarks, and book reviews should be omitted from QE3-A but can be reported on QE
3-B.
“Federal proposals” columns: Enter the number of proposals submitted to federal agencies and
the number funded during the most recent academic year (summer, fall, and spring).
Enter the total amount of funding awarded by federal grants. Include the total amount of
each grant, even if not all the funds are intended for spending within that academic year.
Include grants on which the faculty member is a co-PI but label them as such.
39
QE3-B: OTHER RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES
“Faculty member” column: Use the same list of faculty members as for QE1.
“Research assignment (%)” column: For each faculty member, reenter the percentage reported
in this column on QE1.
The next columns are intended for reporting non-service-related publications not reported
elsewhere and cover the most recent five years. Some examples of “Other non-service-related
publications” are book chapters, papers published in proceedings volumes, technical reports and
articles in journals not indexed by ISI. Do not include published abstracts.
“Total citations of all publications” column: Enter the sum of the total NRC-countable citations
(from QE3-A), and the citations of the books from the cited reference search (from QE3B), and any citations of “Other non-service-related publications.”
“Number of research/creative awards” column: For each faculty member, enter the number of
awards for research or creative activity received during the most recent five years. Do
not include items reported elsewhere, such as funding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------QE4: FACULTY CITIZENSHIP/SERVICE/OTHER
QE4 is intended to allow great flexibility in including information not called for on QE 1, QE2,
or QE3. If you find that adding columns to the spreadsheets would provide a better description
of your program, please add them, but do not delete or omit any of the columns already present.
Service-related publications might include book reviews and/or op-ed pieces, for example.
“Faculty member” column: Use the same list of faculty members as for QE1.
All totals should be for the most recent academic year (summer, fall, and spring).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------QE5: GPC SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES OVERVIEW
“Faculty member” column: Use the same list of faculty members as for QE1.
For publications and presentations, include the five most recent complete calendar years. For
other categories (except “Number of students currently supervised”), include the five most recent
complete academic years. Under “Total grant funding awarded,” again include all funding
awarded during the time period, even if not all of that funding is to be spent during the time
period.
40
For “Graduate-student information,” include total number of individual masters and doctoral
students for whom the faculty chairs the supervisory committee. Include those students who are
currently being supervised and those who have completed their degrees in separate columns.
41
Quality Enhancement Review
Unit Accomplishment Summary
Teaching and Research Overview
Name of Program:
ALL SOURCES
Faculty
Member
Instructional
assignment
(%)
Number of
organized
courses
taught
(C,D,L)
Number of
individualized
courses
(G,T,I,O,P,R,S,Z)
Instructional
contact
hours
Number of
directed
individual
studies
(DIS)
Number of
PhD
students
supervised
Research
assignment
(%)
NRCcountable
Publications
and/or
creative
products
Number of
proposals
submitted
Number of
proposals
funded
Total
grant
funds
awarded
Number
of honors
and
awards
SUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
QE 1
42
Quality Enhancement Review
Unit Accomplishment Summary
Instructional Activities
Name of Program:
Faculty
Member
Instructional
assignment (%)
Number of
organized
courses taught
(C,D,L)
Total enrollment
Number of
individualized
courses
(G,T,I,O,P,R,S,Z)
Total
enrollment
Total
instructional
contact hours
Total student
credit hours
Number of
honors courses
Number of
thesis/dissertation
student committees
SUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
QE 2
43
Quality Enhancement Review
Unit Accomplishment Summary
Research/Creative Activities
Name of Program:
NRC-countable publications and/or creative products
Faculty member
Research
assignment (%)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Federal Proposals
Years 1-5
Total NRCcountable
citations
Number of
proposals
submitted
Number of
proposals
funded
Total dollar
amount
SUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
QE 3-A
44
Quality Enhancement Review
Unit Accomplishment Summary
Other Research and Creative Activities
Name of Program:
Books Published Years 1 -5
Faculty member
Research
assignment (%)
Research
monographs
Textbooks and
other books
authored
Volumes
edited
Total Years 1-5
citations of
these books
from “cited
reference
search”
(Optional)
Other Years 1-5
non-servicerelated
publications not
reported
elsewhere
Total Years 1-5
citations of all
publications
Number of
research/creative
awards
SUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
QE 3-B
45
Quality Enhancement Review
Unit Accomplishment Summary
Faculty Citizenship/Service/Other
Name of Program:
Faculty member
Number of
departmental
committees
Number of
college/school
committees
Number of
local/state/
regional
committees
Number of
national
committees/
elected offices
Number of
review
panel/board
memberships
Number of
editorships/
editorial review
board
memberships
Number of
service-related
publications
Number of
presentations at
FSU and elsewhere
SUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
QE 4
46
Quality Enhancement Review
Unit Accomplishment Summary
GPC Scholarly Activities Overview
Name of Program:
Faculty
member
Year
of
highest
degree
Doctoral
directive
status
Yes/No
NRCcountable
publications
and/or
creative
products
Number of
other
publications
Number
of
technical
reports
Number of
presentations
at FSU and
elsewhere
Graduate-student information
Number of students
Number of students
supervised who
currently supervised
completed
Master’s Doctoral Master’s Doctorate
Number
of
proposals
submitted
Number
of
proposals
funded
Total
grant
funding
awarded
Number
of
research/
creative
awards
Other
QE 5
47
Faculty SUSSAI Scores for the Last Five Years*
FACULTY
MEMBER’S
NAME
DOE, JOHN
EGG, GOODIE
PERSON, ONE
Year 5
COURSE
FALL
Year 4
SPRING
FALL
Year 3
SPRING
FALL
Year 2
SPRING
FALL
Year 1
SPRING
FALL
ABC 123-01
1
2
1
3
1
ABC 123-03
2
2
2
1
1
DEF 345-01
1
AAA 111-03
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
SPRING
1
1
BBB 222-01
2
1
CCC 333-01
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
CBA 321-01
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
*Use Median score for #8 from the individual’s SUSSAI printout. These can be obtained from the Dean’s office or the Restricted Reading area in the Library.
48
Graduate Policy Committee Review Process
49
Quality Enhancement Review: Graduate Policy Committee (GPC) Review Process
Purpose of the Reviews
The purpose of the GPC program reviews is to:
1. ensure that FSU’s graduate programs are academically sound and are producing graduates
who are adequately trained in their field,
2. assist the program faculty and administration in improving the academic quality of their
graduate program,
3. provide an independent forum in which program students can voice their concerns to the
faculty, and program faculty can voice concerns to the administration.
The Review Process
The program review subcommittees are responsible for making recommendations to the GPC.
Their report is presented to a meeting of the full GPC for discussion and final approval.
Recommendations are made on (1) whether the program should be continued; and (2) any other
recommendations aimed at improving the academic quality of the program deemed appropriate
by the review subcommittee. Once approved by the GPC, the recommendations are forwarded to
the unit being reviewed, the dean of that unit, the Dean of the Faculties’ office, and the Provost’s
office.
In summary, review of the program by both the GPC Review Subcommittee and the GPC is
based (at a minimum) on the following materials and meetings:
1. binder of material provided by the program (QER self-study), which provides a 5-year
snapshot of the program’s activity
2. discussions with the external reviewer and reading that person’s report when it becomes
available
3. discussion with graduate students in the program
4. reading a sample of recent doctoral dissertations
4. discussions with program faculty
5. discussion with program administrators (department chair)
Follow-up Process
Six months after the semester in which the review was completed, the program submits a written
plan for how the GPC recommendations will be met. The plan is submitted to the Graduate
School and reviewed by both the Dean of the Graduate School and the Chair of the GPC. Two
years after the semester in which the review was completed, the program submits a written report
on how the GPC recommendations were met. This report is submitted to the Graduate School
and reviewed by both the Dean of the Graduate School and the Chair of the GPC. If deemed
necessary, further follow-up is initiated by the Dean of the Graduate School.
50
Florida Board of Governors
51
Quality Enhancement Review: Florida Board of Governors Review Process
The Florida Legislature requires that all academic programs in state universities are reviewed on
a seven-year cycle (section 1001.03, Florida Statutes). The Board of Governors prescribes the
procedures for these reviews, and requires that each institution prepare and submit summary
reports to the Board of Governors (6C-8.015, Florida Administrative Code).
The components of the program review process prescribed by the Florida Board of Governors
include the following:
1. Articulate the mission(s) and purpose(s) of the program(s) within the context of the
institutional mission and the State Board of Education’s and Florida Board of Governors’
strategic plans.
2. Identify program goals/objectives, including expected outputs and outcomes.
Specifically, identify and publicize expected student learning outcomes.
3. Develop assessment systems to determine how well students are achieving those learning
outcomes.
4. Implement and/or modify the program(s) to achieve the articulated goals/objectives.
5. Collect data and information on actual outputs and outcomes.
6. Analyze—and have external expert(s) in the discipline analyze—the data and
information to determine how well articulated goals/objectives have been accomplished
within the context of the mission.
7. Specifically, analyze—and have external expert(s) in the discipline analyze—how well
students are meeting expected learning outcomes, both as articulated by program
personnel and as deemed appropriate in the discipline within the context of the
individual institution’s mission.
8. Assess—and have external expert(s) in the discipline assess—the sufficiency of
resources and support services to achieve the goals/objectives.
9. Identify—and have external expert(s) in the discipline identify—strengths, opportunities,
and barriers that support or impede achievement of goals.
10. Review—and have external expert(s) in the discipline review—responses to
recommendations from previous reviews.
11. Generate—and have external expert(s) in the discipline generate—recommendations
based on review findings.
12. Plan for continuous program improvement based on the results of the review.
The Florida Board of Governors also requires each institution to prepare and submit a program
review summary report for each academic program under review. Each report includes the
following components:
52
 The Classification of Instructional Program (CIP)/degree combinations for the
program that is reviewed.
 An electronic copy of the current Academic Learning Compact for each reviewed
baccalaureate program.
 An indicator identifying whether or not the program review was conducted in
conjunction with any external reviews (e.g., accreditation reviews).
 The date of the last review of the program.
 A brief description of major changes made since the previous program review.
 A summary of the current strengths of the program.
 A summary of the current weaknesses of the program.
 A summary of the recommendations and/or proposed action plans made as a
result of the review.
 An official signature of the university provost that will verify that the program
review included all of the processes outlined in the BOG regulation and was
conducted according to approved university policies and procedures.
The Office of the Vice President for Planning and Programs will use the data and the information
found in the program’s self-study binder to prepare the program review summary report for each
academic program under review.
53
Quality Enhancement Review: Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of the Quality Enhancement Review?
The Quality Enhancement Review's primary purposes are (a) to examine the institutional
effectiveness of a department or program, its national position with respect to comparable
programs, what it needs to improve or sustain performance and (b) to serve as a basis for
administrative decisions on the investment of new and existing resources.
Why are departments/programs asked to provide so much information and data for the Quality
Enhancement Review?
The Quality Enhancement Reviews combines the statutorily-required Florida Board of
Governors’ seven-year program reviews with the Graduate Policy Committee's reviews of
graduate programs and the Provost's internal reviews of programs relative to unit productivity
and outcomes. It is also scheduled, to the extent possible, to coincide with any external
accreditation review. The integration of these evaluation processes effect a more efficient
review process.
Are there self-study binders from similar programs available for review?
Yes, the Office of the Provost maintains self-study binders, external reviewer’s reports, GPC
recommendations, and the dean’s action reports in 212 Westcott Building. Please contact the
Office of the Provost to make arrangements to review binders. Please note that binders cannot
be removed from 212 Westcott Building and are generally too lengthy to make copies.
How should we identify comparable and aspirational institutions? What measures should be
use?
Comparable and aspirational institutions are generally selected by departments/programs on the
basis of degree offerings, faculty size, enrollments, contracts and grant expenditures, and
operating budgets. For programs included in the National Research Council (NRC), the Provost
has established the comparison of peer institutional rankings in NRC categories as a benchmark
for identifying peer institutions and those that FSU programs should aspire to match.
What is the role of the external reviewer?
The role of the external reviewer is to review and analyze the self-study as well as interviews
conducted during the site visit in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the degree
programs and identify strategies for quality improvement. The external reviewer’s final report
forms the basis for later stages of the QER process.
54
In our academic discipline, we focus less on journal publications and grant awards than other
disciplines, yet the Unit Accomplishment Summary (UAS) asks us to provide this information on
spreadsheets. Is it still necessary to complete these sections of the UAS for our program?
If you find that adding columns to the UAS spreadsheets provides a better description of your
program, please add them, but you should also provide data for all of the existing columns in the
UAS. Do not delete any of the existing columns in the Unit Accomplishment Summary
spreadsheets.
For interdisciplinary programs, who should be identified as faculty for the Unit Accomplishment
Summary?
In general, interdisciplinary programs should include core faculty in the program.
What is the purpose of the Unit Review and who attends this meeting?
The Unit Review is an opportunity to discuss enrollment trends in the degree programs, research
productivity and how the program ranks relative to comparable and aspirational institutions,
current and future challenges and plans, and the external reviewer’s report. Oftentimes, faculty
members raise very departmental/discipline specific issues or concerns about space, parking,
salaries, legislative priorities, graduate support, the Pathways to Excellence initiative, or
university priorities (e.g., graduate enrollment growth).
The Unit Review meeting involves the full departmental faculty, the academic dean, the GPC
review committee members, Dean of the Faculties, Dean of the Graduate School, Associate Vice
President for Research, and other key academic affairs representatives.
These meetings have generally resulted in very productive discussions for all involved.
How are the self-study, external reviewer’s report, and the dean’s action plan used for decision
making?
The Provost uses the “action plan” prepared by the academic dean to make budgetary and
planning decisions and also in the dean’s performance evaluation.
55
APPENDICES
56
APPENDIX A
Quality Enhancement Review: Contact List
CONTACT PERSON
SUBJECT MATTER
Robert B. Bradley
Vice President for Planning and Programs
212 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1310)
644-5196
[email protected]
•
•
•
Ruth Feiock
Office of the Vice President for Planning and Programs
212 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1310)
644-5122
[email protected]
•
•
•
Maggi Vanos-Wilson
Office of the Provost
212 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1310)
644-3032
[email protected]
Jennifer Buchanan
Associate Dean of the Faculties
314 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1480)
644-6876
[email protected]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Reviews
Self Study Questions
Unit Accomplishment
Summaries
Two-Year Follow-up
Unit Reviews
Self Study Questions
Unit Accomplishment
Summaries
Two-Year Follow-up
Self-Study Distribution
Full Review Scheduling
External Reviewer’s
Report Distribution
Dean’s Action Plan
Distribution
•
External Reviewernominations,
contracting, scheduling
visits
•
Institutional Research
Data
Departmental Profiles
Data needed for reviews
Keith Bernstein
Office of Institutional Research
321 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1360)
644-4203
[email protected]
David Johnson
Chair, Graduate Policy Committee
111 Williams Building (Mail Code 1580)
645-9158
[email protected]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Graduate Policy
Committee Self-Study
Questions
GPC Reviews
GPC Action Plans
GPC Two-Year Followup
57
Monica Esquibel
The Graduate School
408 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1410)
644-3500
[email protected]
Diana Key
Sponsored Research Services
97 S. Woodward Ave. (Mail Code 4166)
644-8648
[email protected]
Peter Walker
Sponsored Research Accounting Services
97 S. Woodward Ave. (Mail Code 4166)
644-8657
[email protected]
Susan Alexander
Office of the Provost
110 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1310)
644-0087
[email protected]
Jean-Marc Wise
Center for Teaching and Learning
1200 University Center, Building C
644-3541
•
•
•
GPC Reviews
GPC Action Plans
GPC Two-Year Followup
•
Contract and Grant
Awards and Proposal
Data
•
C&G Expenditure Data
•
Reimbursement for
External Reviewer
•
SUSSAI
•
Program and Student
Learning Outcomes
[email protected]
Kayce Morton
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
212 Westcott Building (Mail Code 1310)
645-2740
[email protected]
If you have any questions/concerns that are not listed, please direct these questions to Dr. Robert Bradley.
58
APPENDIX B
Quality Enhancement Review: 2009-10 Due Dates and Deadlines
Fall 2009
Feb. 23, 2009 Informational Meeting for Fall and Spring Reviews
Department chair/program director identifies potential reviewers and forwards
names to Jennifer Buchanan
QER guidelines distributed and posted on the website for the Provost's Office in
May 2009
May 2009 Department chair/program director begins preparation of self-study material
All chairs of programs under review in the coming year will be contacted by the
GPC chair for recommendations concerning faculty to serve on the GPC
subcommittee.
Mid-June 2009 Institutional Research and Contract and Grant Information Available
July 1, 2009 Deadline for submitting the names of potential reviewers to Jennifer Buchanan
August 2009 Department makes travel arrangements for external reviewer’s onsite visit and
following the visit makes arrangements for external reviewer’s travel
reimbursement.
August 28, 2009 Department chairs submit written self-study material to the Office of the
Provost
September 2009 External reviewer evaluates the program and submits recommendations to the
Vice President for Planning and Programs.
Fall 2009 Graduate Policy Committee conducts review and makes recommendations.
Late Fall 2009 Meeting is held with all program faculty, academic administrators, library
representative, and the GPC representatives. This meeting is referred to as the
unit review and its purpose is to discuss recommendations of the external
reviewer and the Graduate Policy Committee, and consider the self-study
material.
Academic dean completes executive summary and action plan for review by
Academic Affairs.
Vice President for Planning and Programs makes final recommendations to the
Provost.
Vice President for Planning and Programs submits QER Summary to the
Florida Board of Governors for review.
59
Spring 2010
Feb. 23, 2009 Informational Meeting for Fall and Spring Reviews
Department chair/program director identifies potential reviewers and
forwards names to Jennifer Buchanan
September 2009
Department chair/program director begins preparation of self-study material
using the QER guidelines available on the website in May 2009.
October 30, 2009 Deadline for submitting the names of potential reviewers to Jennifer
Buchanan
Late October Institutional Research and Contract and Grant Information Available
2009
December 2009 Department makes travel arrangements for external reviewer’s onsite visit
and following the visit makes arrangements for external reviewer’s travel
reimbursement.
December 18, Department chairs submit written self-study material to the Office of
2009 the Provost
January 2010 External reviewer evaluates the program and submits recommendations to
the Vice President for Planning and Programs.
Spring 2010 Graduate Policy Committee conducts review and makes recommendations.
Late Spring 2010 Meeting is held with all program faculty, academic administrators, library
representative, and the GPC representatives. This meeting is referred to as
the unit review and its purpose is to discuss recommendations of the external
reviewer and the Graduate Policy Committee, and consider the self-study
material.
Academic dean completes executive summary and action plan for review by
Academic Affairs.
Vice President for Planning and Programs makes final recommendations to
the Provost.
Vice President for Planning and Programs submits QER Summary to the
Florida Board of Governors for review.
60
APPENDIX C
61
62
63
64