Virginia Commonwealth University’s WEAVEonline is proving an interesting challenge.  It provides an excellent (even if somewhat light) interface for faculty and staff to detail their program assessment mission statements, outcome and objective statements, assessment strategies, and analysis.  Built on, I think, an Access frame, the program is relatively robust, provides a workable security strategy, and appears to be fairly simple to use, with an almost intuitive design.

In our version, we’ve included nearly 1,800 users, even though most are not “associated” with any program and, thus, can do little in the program.  For those users who are tied to a program (or to programs), the software works extremely well.  Users are guided to the areas for which they are responsible.  Program-specific screens lead users to develop and write a mission statement, as well as specific outcomes and objectives related to the mission.  Users are then guided to work through connecting their outcomes to strategic plan and institutional priorities–and even general education initiatives.

As users work through the year, they find a place to write the framework of their annual reports, extremely useful for budgeting cycles.  Users can also list staff accomplishments and publications in addition to events of significance.

All in all, WEAVEonline has already proved a good purchase (okay, it’s really a subscription).  As we move through the year, I am convinced every department will find WEAVEonline a reliable and helpful tool for simplifying the program assessment process.

Executive Committee Meeting
1:30 - 3:00 p.m.

• Progress reports
• Program plans - Update
• Credentialing policy
• Mid-term and final grade reports

During Summer 2006, UTD is systematically assessing the courses in the core curriculum, the so-called “General Education” courses.  Faculty members teaching these sections have been asked to provide a general assessment plan and will be asked to follow up with the results of their assessment measures by 22 September 2006.  This is an important step in finalizing the overall assessment strategy at UTD for all academic programs; working with a finite set of courses provides the assessment team a good opportunity to improve the assessment plan templates before the fall assessment period begins. 

Kudos to JoyLynn Reed and Robert Nelsen for working with so many faculty members to generate these assessment plan templates; and special thanks to Duane Buhrmester for his tireless efforts to provide constructive feedback.

You’ll find a glossary of terms will be included in the UTD/SACS web site. [Once it's up, we'll add the link here and change some verb tenses.] What you may not find is the specific set of terms about which you want more information. If that is the case, please feel free to add a comment here and suggest that new terms be added to the glossary — or even provide alternate definitions for terms already included. The glossary is supposed to be there to help all members of the UTD community work through this reaffirmation process. Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Executive Committee Meeting
1:30 - 3:00 p.m.

• Introduction of new SACS Team members
• Progress Reports
• WEAVEonline’s status
• Roll-out planning
• Orientation meeting materials
• Calendar updates

One of the groups that lead the reaffirmation process is the Steering Committee. With representatives from across the institution, the Steering Committee sets the pace and tone for much of the work of faculty and staff members who are engaged in studying UTD’s strengths and weaknesses.

Leading the committee is Associate Provost Robert Nelsen, who also serves as SACS Liaison for UTD. Dr. Nelsen has served the campus community as Speaker of the Academic Senate as well as a strong advocate for the graduate student council. He has also served as an advocate for faculty in the UT System’s Faculty Advisory Council. Nelsen joined the UTD faculty in 1990.

Working with Nelsen on the Steering Committee are:

• Ms. Julie Allen, Administrative Services Officer, SACS Office
• Dr. Pete Bernardin, Director, Office of Assessment
• Dr. Andrew Blanchard, Senior Associate Dean, Engineering and Computer Sciences
• Dr. Duane Buhrmester, Associate Dean, Behavioral and Brain Sciences
• Dr. Michael Coleman, Associate Provost, Undergraduate Education
• Dr. John Ferraris, Dean, Natural Sciences & Mathematics
• Mr. Ben Gaddis, Graduate Student, Public Affairs
• Dr. Gopal Gupta, Associate Department Head, Engineering & Computer Sciences
• Mr. Richard Huckaba, Assistant Provost
• Dr. Varghese Jacob, Associate Dean, Management
• Mr. Simon Kane, Systems Software Manager
• Dr. Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, Professor, Sociology, Crime & Justice Studies & Political Economy
• Dr. Abby Kratz, Assistant Vice President, Business Affairs
• Dr. Dennis Kratz, Dean, Arts & Humanities
• Ms. Iris Kwong, Undergraduate Student, Economics
• Ms. Felicity Lenes, Undergraduate Student, Microbiology
• Mr. Justin Mausel, Graduate Student, Public Policy and Political Economy
• Dr. Inga Musselman, Associate Professor, Natural Sciences & Mathematics
• Ms. Jody Nelsen, Associate Vice President, Business Affairs
• Dr. Lawrence Redlinger, Executive Director, Strategic Planning & Analysis
• Dr. JoyLynn Reed, Director, Center for Excellence in Learning & Teaching
• Ms. Donna Rogers, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students
• Dr. Ellen Safley, Associate Library Director
• Dr. John Sibert, Director, Quality Enhancement Plan Project
• Dr. Emily Tobey, Professor and Nelle C. Johnston Chair in Communication Disorders

Dr. Sibert returned from the Orientation Session in Atlanta with a new timeline for the QEP submission.

• December 2006
• Refined pool of QEP topics to be completed
• January/February 2007
• QEP topic to be selected by committee/council/Leadership Team
• Spring/Summer 2007
• 2-page QEP summary due to SACS Liaison in Atlanta
• Summary must discuss topic, assessment, and learning outcome objectives
• 5 - 8 November 2007
• Offsite Review (Compliance)
• 9 January 2008
• QEP Lead Evaluator recommendation due to SACS Liaison
• Justify choice
• Provide alternates
• QEP Evaluation team will include lead evaluator, a sitting president from comparable institution
• 23 January 2008
• QEP due at SACS
• 5 March 2008
• Onsite Review for SACS (Compliance)
• 5 April 2008
• Recommendations received from SACS
• 5 July - 5 August 2008
• Response to Onsite Review
• January 2009
• Official notification sent to institutions

Because we are looking to build a database-driven web site that will allow in-depth searches for our external reviewers, we have been discussing the specs for the database for months - and the naming convention for the data files that will be served from the database has been a hot topic for the last two months. Today was an almost-culmination of all that effort: we managed to work with a matrix of rules for “smart tags” to begin naming files that will become a part of the “critical mass” necessary to finalize the design of the database programming. (more…)

June 11th and 12th mark the official beginning of the UTD-SACS Project in that the Leadership Team travels to Atlanta to meet with officials from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

The UTD Team has prepared for the meeting by reviewing the current organization for the SACS project and by identifying key elements to modify as the university moves toward completion of the reaffirmaton review. The Team has also identified the method of delivery of the compliance certification, namely a database-driven web site for reviewers’ use in the off-site review. This searchable database will become a primary element in Academic Affairs’ record management and retention program after the compliance review. (more…)

If you’re wondering what the QEP is all about, take a look at Dr. Sibert’s QEP blog.  The first entry is here.