Decadal Review of Academic Units

Bates College conducts once-per-decade reviews of all departments and interdisciplinary programs to assess their contributions to the college’s mission. The decadal review is an opportunity for an academic unit to assess its curriculum, its effectiveness and impact on student success, and its engagement with the life of the college, and to articulate how these factors contribute to the success of the college.

The New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE) requires the college conducts periodic reviews of academic units and their majors/minors, to ensure the quality of education we provide.Specifically, NECHE requires that academic units should include evidence of student success, program effectiveness and incorporate a perspective external to Bates. The decadal review is an important part of fulfilling this obligation to our accrediting body.

The Office of the Dean of the Faculty (dean’s office) has designed these guidelines to be helpful to academic units as they reflect on their practices and plans for their future. The schedule of reviews is established by the dean of the faculty’s office, and they typically span two semesters (see graph), either within a single academic year or across two academic years. The review entails the academic unit carrying out assessment of their curriculum, and writing a self-study, which typically ranges between 30-40 pages plus supporting appendices. Internal conferees and the external committee read both the assessment report and the self-study. Following the external review completing its report, the academic unit submits to the dean of the faculty a written response to the report and a plan for the future.

The work of the review should be done by permanent faculty, ongoing lecturers, and senior lectures. Temporary faculty of any rank should not be expected to participate in the decadal review, except in rare circumstances. Units desiring to engage temporary faculty in the review process must convey their request in writing to the dean of the faculty’s office in advance of the review process.

The main steps of the review process are detailed in the pages that follow, but are summarized in this table. The Dean of the Faculty will remind department and program chairs of the upcoming review one year prior to the year in which the review is scheduled to occur.

1. Meeting with Deans

The chair of the academic unit meets with the assigned associate dean and an assistant dean to discuss the review, decide on mutually agreed upon deadlines, and answer any questions the chair might have. In this meeting, the dean’s office gives the chair a standard dataset, which provides the academic unit an overview of enrollments, demographics, a summary of the annual senior survey, and the five year career outcomes for majors/minors (where applicable). This standard dataset will also be shared with the learning associate specialist, to avoid duplication of effort and to help inform the subsequent assessment strategy.

2. Website Updates

Departments and programs under review should update their website prior to or as a first step in the review, as External Committees consult the websites for information about the academic unit before visiting. The unit’s Academic Administrative Assistant (AAA) will make the changes to the website as directed by the faculty.

3. Assessment of Learning Outcomes

Per our accreditation requirements, the academic unit faculty must assess student learning in their curriculum. Utilizing the unit-level academic learning goals each academic unit has developed regarding student outcomes, and working with Bates’ learning assessment specialist, the academic unit decides on its assessment strategy and carries out the assessment under the guidance of the learning assessment specialist. The learning assessment specialist writes an assessment report in consultation with the academic unit and submits this report to the chair of the academic unit and the associate dean overseeing the review. The academic unit must include a reflection on the assessment in its self study.

Academic units may use different strategies for assessing learning outcomes. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples to help illustrate different types of assessments:

Assess one or more of the academic unit’s learning goals for the major.
Assess writing proficiency in seniors by cross-reading and collectively evaluating selected senior theses using a common grading system or rubric.
Use a standardized disciplinary measure of reasoning, competency, and skills.
Assess oral language proficiency through senior presentations or portfolio defenses.
Use senior poster presentations to evaluate the degree to which the seniors have demonstrated mastery of research design and basic statistics.
Evaluate student products/making during a senior show using a standardized form or set of evaluation criteria.
Assess the critical thinking of seniors using a standardized test of critical thinking to compare their seniors to national norms for college students.

4. Nominate Faculty for Review Committees

The academic unit under review submits to the dean’s office nominations for Faculty Conferees, and suggestions for the External Committee, both of which should be submitted to the dean’s office, using the forms linked below.

Bates Faculty Conferees

The academic unit selects two Bates faculty members from outside the academic unit under review, who together will help the external committee understand the context of Bates. The Faculty Conferees are faculty who are familiar with the academic unit and can provide context for the External Committee. Please nominate 6-8 names of possible internal Faculty Conferees using and email those names with contact information to Mary Meserve (mmeserve@bates.edu).

Bates professors, associate professors, and senior lecturers are eligible to serve. The dean’s office selects the two Faculty Conferees from the list of nominees submitted by the academic unit. To inform the final selection process, it is helpful if the academic unit includes a brief description of why these faculty members would be helpful to the external review committee. The dean’s office invites faculty to serve in this capacity, and the selected individuals are expected to read the internal report and meet jointly with the External Committee once while it is on campus.

External Review Committee

The External Review Committee consists of two or three faculty from other institutions who possess pertinent experience and who, in the view of the academic unit under review, can offer objective, useful advice from a disciplinary perspective. The External Review Committee should in most cases consist of two members. However, if justified by the size or complexity of an academic unit, the academic unit may request a three-person committee. Such a request should be submitted in writing to the dean of the faculty’s office.

The academic unit should describe the characteristics of each position on the committee (e.g., one member from a liberal arts college and the other, from a Research I university; one member focused on molecular biology and one on ecology). The nominating lists should include the first choice for each committee seat and several alternatives for that seat. The dean’s office bases its decision on the members’ knowledge of the academic unit, the nature of the key issues to be addressed, and the preferences expressed by the academic unit. The dean’s office informs the academic unit chair of the final roster and alternates. The dean’s office issues formal invitations to serve.

Departments and programs are advised not to nominate the most famous scholars in their field, as they are likely to be too busy to serve. The academic unit should remember to include individuals from diverse sub-fields, and from a variety of institutions. Please keep diversity of gender, race, and age in mind. Individuals who have close professional or personal ties to a member or the department of program faculty or to the college, or who are actively seeking employment at Bates, are not eligible to serve on external review committees.

It can be difficult to find the line between friendship and a close, collegial relationship that does not inhibit objectivity between a member of the academic unit under review. It may be helpful when trying to determine whether a proposed member of the external committee can meet the requirement for objectivity to consider the following questions:

Has the proposed member of the external committee been a guest in the home of a faculty member of the department or committee? Has the proposed member of the external committee socialized frequently with any member of the academic unit under review?
Is a proposed candidate for the external committee related by blood or marriage to any member of the academic unit?
Has the proposed member of the committee been an advisor, coauthor with, fellow member of an investigating team, or member of the same department as a member of the academic unit under review?

To maximize the possibility that nominated faculty will be able to serve on the review committees, departments and programs should submit their nominations to the dean of the faculty’s office well in advance (typically 7-8 months) of the review. As many individuals decline requests to serve as reviewers, please provide a list of 10-12 names of possible external evaluators. In submitting their names, using the External Review Committee Nomination Form. Please note that the form will ask for the following information, which can be assembled by the unit’s AAA:

Name
Title and rank
Institutional affiliation and email address
Concise relevant background
CV and/or link to the faculty member’s website
Brief paragraph about why you think this person is a good choice
To what extent members of the academic unit know the suggested reviewer
Please indicate which external reviewer you want for each role on the committee, along with several alternatives for each position on the committee as it is not unusual for many individuals invited to participate on an external committee to decline.

5. Identify Key Issues

The academic unit faculty develop a list of key self-study issues they plan to address during the review. This list should include a discussion of how the academic unit is assessing the learning outcomes of its curriculum. The academic unit submits the list of issues via email to the Dean’s office.

6. Review of Issues by the Academic Affairs Council

The Academic Affairs Council (AAC) reviews and discusses the issues raised by the academic unit under review. The AAC may comment on or add to this list other issues it determines are important to cover during the review. The AAC shares the final list with the appropriate Associate Dean, who conveys it to the academic unit.

7. Write the Self-Study (30-40 pages)

A self-study document includes an overview of the academic unit and its curriculum, a description of the issues and concerns, a long-range (5-10 year) plan, and appendices containing supporting documents (see below).

In order to produce the self-study, the academic unit faculty should assess and analyze its curriculum at the beginning of the review process. This critical examination of the curriculum and student learning should form the basis of the self-study. It not only measures the academic unit’s effectiveness in meeting its educational goals, but it also informs other questions, including workload and resources. While the allocation of personnel and financial resources is often a central theme of self-study reports, departments and programs, and the college as a whole, derive more benefit from reviews if academic unit faculty think deeply about the educational goals of their work rather than focus solely on developing a wish list for faculty net additions and requests for increased space and financial resources.

Contents of the Self-Study

At the heart of a robust self-study is understanding and conveying why the faculty in the academic unit teach the courses they teach, at what level, and with what goals for student learning.

Contextualize the Learning Assessment. Provide a brief discussion on the outcome of learning assessment and how/if the academic unit is using the results to adapt its curriculum.
Evaluation of Enrollment Data. The dean’s office provides course enrollment data, numbers of majors and minors, the number of faculty and staff associated with the academic unit, and workload information. The academic unit can learn a great deal by analyzing and discussing these data at the beginning of the self-study process. Departments and programs may analyze enrollment trends over time, introductory courses vs. advanced courses, over-enrollments and under-enrollments, and whether the current course offerings meet academic unit learning goals, among other questions. Whenever possible, the academic unit should provide context or explanation for enrollment areas that are problematic. If academic unit faculty are uncertain of the kind of information data analysis can provide, they should confer with the dean’s office.

Some academic units choose to conduct an alumni survey and include the results in the self-study. The learning assessment specialist helps craft and run the survey, and shares the survey data with both the academic unit and the associate dean.
The Role of Scholarship. The academic unit should consider the role of both faculty and student scholarship or artistic production, and describe the successes and/or challenges of a departmental or program culture of scholarship.
The Academic Unit and the College. The academic unit should assess:
1. Academic unit climate, collegiality, and sense of identity among students and faculty
2. How the academic unit shares the work of teaching and advising, such as introductory courses, offering first-year seminars, major advising and thesis advising.
3. Discuss and evaluate the academic unit’s contribution to General Education requirements for nonmajors (including first-year seminars, writing requirements, Modes of Inquiry and General Education Concentrations)
4. If an academic unit has junior faculty, address how their expertise has influenced the curriculum, or how it will in the future
5. Engagement of the academic unit in institution-wide initiatives around equity and inclusion, and if/how such engagement impacted on the department’s curricular offerings, course content, and composition of majors/minors
6. The role of the academic unit in interdisciplinary teaching and scholarship
7. The role of the academic unit in the extracurricular life of the college (special events, arts events, collaborations, community engagement, etc.)
Issues and Concerns. The discussion of issues and concerns should address those developed at the outset of the review (in Step 1), but can also include other issues that emerge as the academic unit conducts its self-study.
Long-Range Plan. The academic unit should put forth its current thinking in a plan for at least five to ten years, which will be considered and likely modified as a result of the review. The academic unit should consider possible departures and their impact on the curriculum.
Appendices. The academic unit should include the following appendices:
1. A summary of the academic unit major and/or minor (where applicable), its learning objectives and requirements
2. Assessment report from the learning assessment specialist
3. Curricula vitæ of all permanent faculty, ongoing lecturers and senior lecturers who regularly teach in the academic unit; AAAs typically compile these materials
4. Syllabi of courses offered in the last two years and others that are critical to the academic unit curriculum (interdisciplinary programs may include the syllabi of courses central to the major); AAAs typically compile these materials
5. A summary of course enrollment patterns, and the number of majors and minors, during the ten most recent years.
6. Information on the current annual operating budget of the academic unit, provided to the academic unit under review by the dean of the faculty’s office.
7. A summary of how graduated majors have pursued educational and career outcomes during the five most recent years. This data comes from the Alumni Survey and is prepared by the academic unit with assistance from the Office of Institutional Research.

The self-study document and any supporting documents should be submitted electronically to a Lyceum site established by the dean’s office for the review, by the agreed date on the review schedule. The dean’s office sends information on the availability of the self-study to the Faculty Conferees, the External Committee, the president, deans, and division chairs.

8. Academic Affairs Council and Faculty Conferees Review Self-Study

The Academic Affairs Council discusses the self-study and identifies issues that require further attention or explanation. If necessary, the AAC conveys their thoughts on the self-study, cc-ing the associate dean supporting the review. The Faculty Conferees read the self-study.

9. External Review Committee Reviews the Academic Unit

The External Committee usually visits the campus for two to three days. The most convenient schedule for External Committee members is to arrive on a Sunday afternoon and depart on a Tuesday afternoon or evening. The chair of the academic unit under review, assisted by the academic administrative assistant and in consultation with the dean’s office, develops a draft schedule and reserves meeting rooms for the External Committee. The draft schedule is reviewed by the deans, who may call for changes to the schedule in order to maximize the effectiveness of the External Committee’s time on campus.

The draft schedule should follow these guidelines:

The External Committee usually meets with the academic unit members over dinner on the evening before the first full day. Primarily a social gathering, this dinner orients the External Committee, reviews the agenda for the following days, and provides a general group discussion on the curriculum.
The committee meets with the two Faculty Conferees early on during the visit.
The committee meets with the president, the deans, and the AAC early in the visit and again at the end of the visit. The dean’s office schedules these meetings.
The External Committee needs considerable time (one hour per faculty member if possible) to meet individually with members of the academic unit and with faculty and staff in other departments, as appropriate. The External Committee meets with students, usually in a group at dinner at the end of the first full day. Time should also be made available for the committee to meet by itself to discuss the review as it progresses.
Several hours on the last half day of the visit are set aside for the committee to discuss and draft its report.
Before departing, the External Committee meets with the faculty in the academic unit under review to discuss its findings and outline the general conclusions it will present in its written report.

Within one month of the visit, the chair of the External Committee sends electronically (as a pdf file) a written evaluative report to the dean of the faculty. The dean, in turn, sends the report to the president, the academic unit faculty, the Faculty Conferees, the associate deans, and the division chairs. The College encourages the External Committee to

Share candidly its best judgments about the quality of undergraduate education and scholarship offered by the academic unit
Identify strengths and weaknesses in the department’s or program’s work
Compare the Bates academic unit with departments at other comparable institutions, if useful
Enumerate resource needs or curricular challenges that deserve attention
Provide a fresh perspective on the academic unit and a focus for its own response and plan

Upon receipt of the External Committee’s report, the dean’s office sends each member of the committee a modest honorarium in appreciation of the individual’s service.

10. Response to the Review Committees’ Report

Within six months of receiving the External Committee’s report, at a date determined by the review schedule, the academic unit under review submits a pdf file to the dean of the faculty’s office its response to the review, a written statement reacting to the External Committee’s discussions and report. In its response, the academic unit assesses its own strengths and areas of concern. It seeks to reach consensus on ways to enhance the quality of education it provides students and the quality of professional life within the academic unit. The academic unit also summarizes its plans for the next five to ten years.

After the response to the review is submitted, the academic unit faculty members meet with the dean, associate dean, and appropriate division chair to discuss the review. That discussion is intended to identify immediate priorities and the steps to address them. In addition, the discussion should yield a long-range plan, including a structure for monitoring and measuring progress toward identified goals.