OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Minutes, April 12, 2016
Roll: (Absentees Underlined) President Daniel DiBiaisio, VP David Crago, VP William Ballard,
VP Shannon Spencer, VP William Eilola, VP Adriane Thompson-Bradshaw, Dean Catherine
Albrecht, Dean Eric Baumgartner, Dean Steve Martin, Dean James Fenton, Dean Richard Bales,
Rev. David MacDonald, Dr. Alisa Agozzino, Dr. Khalid Al-Olimat, Dr. Joseph Blankson, Dr.
Bryan Boulanger, Dr. Joanne Brant, Dr. Tevye Celius, Dr. Mark Cruea, Dr. Natalie DiPietro,
Prof. Melissa Eddings, Dr. Kami Fox, Mr. Andrew Huff, Dr. Dong Hyun Kim, Prof. Kelly
Kobiela, Dr. Kelly Reilly Kroustos, Dr. Heath LeBlanc, Dr. Jed Marquart, Dr. Michelle Musser,
Dr. Erica Neely, Dr. Lauren Newell, Dr. Ed Potkanowicz, Prof. David Savino, Dr. Shane Tilton
Melissa Eddings, Chair of Council, called the meeting to order the special meeting of University
Council at 5:30 p.m. in Dicke Room 230.
I.
Unfinished Business
a. From Academic Affairs Committee, Appendix 5 [see Attachments 2 & 3]. As a
note, last time there was a question about section 6 and the length of time given to
fill out the self-study report. Academic Affairs has decided to change that from 3
months to the end of the next semester. This should eliminate the question of
what to do about summer, breaks, etc. The topic was then opened for discussion
of the guidelines for program review/deletion:
Question: Last time it was brought up that pharmacy has a different cycle for their
evaluations (8 years). Are we going to update the language to allow for the 8 year
cycle rather than 7?
Kobiela: The amount of time between accreditation reviews for most schools was
between 5 and 7 years; we went with 7 years because it seemed an appropriate
amount of time. Not sure what that would mean for pharmacy specifically; 8
years just seemed a bit long.
Hurtig: there is no common factor that will fit all the cycles.
Comment: the timing might sync up anyway – pharmacy starts work for
accreditation the year before, so having it due then wouldn’t be particularly bad; it
would use work we’re already doing.
Kobiela: this isn’t something that we specifically considered; it’s something for
the program review committee to take care of.
1
Eddings: part 3, second page: There is a section that says “If the President does
not support the recommendation to delete the program, the President should
convey a response in writing to the Provost who should in turn send it to the deans
and to the academic program department.” The process seems to drop off at that
point. What happens after the President submits his response?
Crago: Then the program is not deleted – it continues.
Question: How many programs do we have?
Crago: 72
Question: If a program is to be deleted, what happens if a student takes a break
and then comes back and needs to take a course?
Crago: We have to teach out the students that are currently here. If a student
chooses to take a year or two off, it’s at their own risk. We can’t keep offering
courses indefinitely on the off chance that someone who needs them returns at a
future date.
Albrecht: all the comments thus far are about program deletion. I assume this
review process is also used to strengthen programs – the point is not exclusively
(or even maybe primarily) to lead to the deletion of programs. That should
probably be noted. [There was general agreement on this point – ELN]
President: a small point: looking at the last sentence, “Given the persistence of
budgetary constraints, the discussion should include ways in which the unit can be
strengthened without receiving additional resources.” The introductory clause
could probably be eliminated; it seems like we could always prompt people to
look for things that don’t cost money, even when in a good financial position.
Kobiela: we’re fine with that. [This was taken as a friendly amendment – ELN]
Albrecht: What is the procedure for identifying what programs will be reviewed
when?
Kobiela: This will be determined by the program review committee. Next year
that committee will exist and will set up a schedule of what will happen when.
We didn’t feel that needed to be in the appendix itself; it can be handled by the
committee.
Question: are all programs doing this at the same time?
Hurtig: the program review committee will create an order and schedule of the
programs. They will probably try to split the 72 programs fairly evenly across the
7 years so as to keep the work load consistent. Again, the committee will work
out the nuts and bolts.
2
Albrecht: about the composition of the program review committee. I raised the
problem last time that I didn’t think it was sufficient to have only one
representative from A&S given the breadth of programs. I would like to request
that the Academic Affairs committee look at this again and increase it to either 2
or 3; 3 representatives would create a similar composition to the general education
committee.
Kobiela: The committee did consider this issue, but decided that the at-large
positions allows for more representation from A&S.
Albrecht: or pharmacy or whatever – these aren’t restricted to A&S.
Kobiela: The committee didn’t see this as a problem; self-studies are supposed to
be written for anyone to understand, regardless of whether they are in the college
or not. (Since self-studies look at how program fits into the university as a
whole.) So the same sort of make up as in some of the other committees was
appropriate.
Albrecht: The representative from Business represents 20-21 faculty, The
representative from A&S represents 135 faculty members.
This seems
imbalanced.
Hurtig: The Academic Affairs Committee did not support that notion.
There was a motion to table the voting on this issue until our regularly scheduled
meeting (which would be 4/19.) This motion failed; see voting record.
[Attachment 1]
Albrecht: can we separate the two and vote on appendix 5 and the guidelines
establishing the committee separately?
The general consensus was no.
There was a motion to vote on these changes [with two friendly amendments: the
change in response time from 3 months to the end of the following semester and
the president’s suggestion to remove the initial clause of the last sentence]; the
changes passed – see voting record. [Attachment 1].
b. From the Personnel Committee, changes to the Faculty Handbook [see
Attachment 4]
Brant: I can give a summary of the changes, if people like. Some changes are
minor, and some are substantial. Many were made to bring the handbook into
conformity with the changes to the “Expectations of Faculty” (section 2.3) made
last year.
3
Section 2.4 was amended to include a conflict of interest rule consistent with that
used elsewhere in handbook and to make it clear that each level of tenureapplication review is independent of previous reviews. We have also endeavored
to smooth out dates for submission to allow for a more orderly review (and a
more prompt notification to the applicant.)
Section 2.4A (which addresses renewable contracts) made changes to address the
problem of rolling contracts which were starting at year 1 every time they rolled
over; it meant that they had a 4 year contract that started at year 1 every year.
This seemed to give them even greater protection than tenured faculty. We’ve
changed them to renewable contracts. We have grandfathered everyone who
currently have these contracts. People who come in and have not completed the
probationary period are going to be now in the new process for renewable
contracts. Also incorporated the same conflict of interest rules from 2.4
Section 2.8 makes clear that there will be independent levels of review at each
level and conforms the dates for promotion applications in the same manner as
was done in the tenure application process; the same conflict of interest rules
apply.
Section 2.9 now defines faculty status in a way that conforms to its previous
articulation in 2.4 and 2.4A. It enables various colleges to adopt independent
processes for faculty review, and it provides a framework in which peer
evaluation is used as part of the post-tenure review process. It doesn’t mandate
how the colleges do it – it provides a threshold to make sure the process at least
meets the standards articulated.
Section 2.29 has been revised to clarify matters regarding adjunct appointments
and the status of adjuncts within the faculty. It also limits visiting appointments
to three consecutive academic years.
Appendix 10 clarifies the sabbatical process. Previously we had to submit 7 paper
copies of it; a single electronic copy will now suffice. We have moved dates up a
little bit – it’s due 2 weeks earlier in order to be able to smooth out the
administrative review processes later on. Clarified what a sabbatical application
must contain.
Appendix 17 and 18 involve more substantial changes.
Appendix 17 clarifies both the process and substantive criterion for faculty
evaluation, clarify purposes for which faculty evaluation can be used, and
establish a system for post-tenure reviews. This was done in response to direction
from the academic affairs section of the board of trustees. It also provides for a
transition period to ease departments/colleges into implementing this.
4
Appendix 18 clarifies promotions and tenure applications, particularly what needs
to be included in the applications, and to establish dates for submission of the
applications and official actions granting or denying the applications.
All of these pieces are interrelated, which is why there are so many of them
bundled together. The committee distributed them to various colleges and got
feedback, addressed the questions, etc.
Question: Concerning conflict of interest rules (e.g. section 2.4.3b – pg. 2 up at
the top) Is the intent that the department chair wouldn’t participate in the meeting
at all or that they would be invited to participate but would not have a vote?
Brant: they shall not serve as members, so precludes voting.
Question : does it also preclude sitting in to hear the conversation?
Crago: the college of A&S has a COPE committee that has 7 elected members.
Someone could come before the college level where one of the members had
already participated at the departmental level. They have to recuse themselves
under those circumstances. So it is probably best if people in that situation step
out entirely. (Note that this might not apply to the Business College because they
have no departments.)
Note: In Engineering, the department chairs are allowed to be present but have no
active role.
Answer: This seems okay for other colleges too.
Albrecht: we’ve had people writing peer evaluations who served, but they weren’t
responsible for the whole evaluation. So that seemed okay.
[General consensus seemed to be that they can’t vote, but there is dissent about
whether it’s appropriate for them to be present for discussion. This is probably a
matter of college culture; the only thing the rules prohibit is allowing them to
vote. –ELN]
Question: In the past, peer evaluations were kept confidential.
language, it’s not clear if that’s still allowed.
In the new
Crago: under 2.9.7, the current process is retained for annual reviews. The only
place where the process would be different is if the college incorporated peer
review for the post-tenure review process; there is nothing in these rules that
requires it to be kept confidential, so it is ultimately up to the college to decide.
The rule says that the person has a right to see what is written but not who wrote
it; if the college chooses to make them not confidential, they could, but it’s not
mandated by the rule.
5
Albrecht: Concerning the timeline, from the point of view of A&S, which is a
complex body, we currently have a full 6 weeks between submission of the
dossier and the deadline for recommendation from departments and the college
committee to arrive on the dean’s desk. 4 weeks doesn’t seem long enough for
peer evaluations etc. Recommend moving the submission date forward to
September 1st – we don’t ever start after that, so it seems okay; this would allow
for the full 6 weeks.
Brant: The committee discussed this and were concerned that we’ve already
moved the dates up; this would push it even earlier into September. We can
certainly change this if people want.
Crago: there was concern that people should know about negative
recommendations before Christmas rather than being left in the dark until spring
semester. If faculty know that the dossier is due September 1st, it doesn’t seem
like the earlier date would be a problem. We just want to be fair to people; the
particular date is not something we are worried about, since we were more
concerned with the back end, not the front end.
Albrecht: Yes, I’m just worried that to have the kind of thorough evaluation that
the document supports, we’d need more time.
Crago: the change in dates would affect 2.4, 2.4a, and 2.8, and appendix 18
(maybe 17) – the request is to make the change across all of the revisions.
Generally this seemed agreed upon and was accepted as a friendly amendment.
Albrecht: another small question 2.4.3.d and g, which has to do with the
president’s notification to the candidate. In one place it says one week before the
January Board of Trustees meeting, in one place it says January 10th. Shouldn’t
these be consistent?
Crago: if there is only positive recommendations throughout the process, we don’t
tell anyone. If that’s the case, we’ll tell you a week before that the president
intends to recommend you. What section g does in conjunction with section e is
to say that the president has to tell the academic affairs committee and Board of
Trustees by January 10th; if the recommendation is negative, the candidate has to
be told within 5 days.
Basically, at the moment you find out you got tenure after the Board of Trustees
meeting in January. This new rule says that if the recommendation is positive,
you’d hear a week before the meeting. If it’s negative, a candidate should be told
with enough time to file a response. So they look inconsistent but aren’t. One is
notice to the trustees which, if negative, triggers notice to the candidate. One is
notice to the candidate that says not to worry because everything is fine.
6
(Note that at all of the stages if there’s a negative review there’s a 5 day notice
period to the candidate.)
Question: so the candidate must receive notice of the negative review within 5
days and then they have 10 days to respond, right? Are the dates mentioned able
to provide enough time to fit this in?
Crago: theoretically there is 3 weeks between the president’s notice and having it
go to the Board. Will it occasionally be snug? Yeah. We’re trying to set it up so
that notifications go out when we are in session and we are all here. Previously
the Provost’s office didn’t have to send their recommendation until December
20th; we wanted to move that forward. Clearly plenty of time for all the other
levels, and even at the level of the President’s decision there should be enough
time.
Question: Concerning Appendix 18. The dossier section includes a list of things
that are supposed to be included. This includes all annual retention reports. Is
this all the letters saying to come back?
Crago: No. You should be reviewed annually by your department and at other
periods (such as the third-year review). At the moment, that isn’t part of the
promotion and tenure file, which the Board worried about. The point of this says
that you need to include the various reviews so that, for instance if you were told
to do X in your third year review and you didn’t, we’d know it. There was also
some concern that people were blindsided by some objections that came at the
end. We want the evaluation committee to know what kind of advice the
candidate got each year.
Question: suppose you’re senior faculty and coming up for your post-tenure
review – do you need to come up with all of them?
Answer: You should be able to get copies from your chair or your dean’s office;
they should also be in your personnel file. So if you don’t still have a copy, you
can get them.
Crago: If you look at Appendix 17, section 11 paragraph a, it states that you only
need to include annual performance review for the period under review. So it
shouldn’t be more than 6 years – you don’t have to track down 25 years of
reviews or anything.
Question : I’m assuming that the records for teaching service should also only be
for that period as well?
Crago: yes.
7
Brant: for your first post-tenure evaluation, you can go back more than 6 years if
you wish, but after that it shouldn’t be more than 6 years’ worth of data.
Question: Last time we discussed how this excluded librarians from the posttenure review in paragraph 9; in paragraph 10a you have the same language as in
tenure review. Still have a concern with librarians being excluded from posttenure review.
Crago: I forgot to tell Tammy to take that parenthetical comment out. [Accepted
as a friendly amendment. –ELN]
Albrecht: appendix 17 – it seemed like the role of the dean vs. department chair
was muddy in places (at least for A&S): e.g. it talks about developing an
improvement plan in conjunction with the dean – probably the dean should be
involved, but the department chair definitely needs to be involved; in fact, the
chair probably should be the first point of contact.
Answer: The institution-wide concern was that including department chairs in the
university’s general document would be problematic for colleges without
departments; we tried to make clear it was a general outline and let colleges
develop their own plan. Specifying that it involves the dean doesn’t preclude the
involvement of department chairs.
Albrecht: Concerning faculty appointments in section 2.29, it says that adjuncts
can teach a full or part-time load. We’ve been told repeatedly that adjuncts
cannot teach a full time load because of benefits issues.
Crago: that’s not because of the handbook, it’s because of the Affordable Care
Act. Adjuncts can’t teach more than 9 hours a semester as a result. In some
colleges, 9 hours might be a full load, hence the language; they are still adjuncts,
not visitors.
There was a motion to approve the documents [with friendly amendments
involving a date change from September 15 to September 1 for applications and
restoring librarians to the post-tenure review process] – passed unanimously, see
voting record. [Attachment 1]
II.
New Business
a. From the General Education Committee, proposed changes to the General
Education Program [see Attachment 5]. This was approved by the Academic
Affairs committee on March 31st.
Hurtig: We’ve taken the language of the objectives/outcomes and modified them
– these are specified on page 2. Many of them are identical to ones in the past.
New ones are a) the ethics/civics combination in number 9, b) we have split out
8
scientific and quantitative literacy to address natural world and math/stats, c) We
removed integration across disciplines and replaced it with human thought and
culture and knowledge of human society/interactions across societies.
We’re not going to have tagging forms for 1-9. The General Education
committee will work with the divisions and faculty experts to formulate lists of
classes that are appropriate for each of these. I will meet with people and will
announce to everyone when those meetings are held.
There will still be a form for objective 10 (an understanding of diverse cultures).
This outcome is too diverse and it’s too hard to do this by consensus – it will have
to go through a committee approval process.
The common courses are still TREX, the writing seminar, and the capstone.
[Note: the capstone does not appear to be mentioned as a common course in the
provided document, but this is what Julie said. -ELN]
In terms of assessment, they recognize that it needs to be done, but they are not
specifying that a portfolio has to be the way to go; the committee will review
whether the portfolio is the best way of assessing the program and will decide
what to do.
The section on governance didn’t change.
On page 5, we tried to specify some of the phrasing of the learning outcomes to
have more detail.
On page 6 (the operational guide), we update it to correspond to the new
outcomes we’ve been discussing.
Question: So are EXDS classes being phased out then?
Hurtig: the course name/number EXDS 2001 will go away. The idea of an 18person classroom in a seminar style with writing and revision is remaining; this
will be the structure for a diverse cultures course. So they’ll still have that
experience, but in a slightly different way.
Albrecht: the fact that we’re having relatively few questions seems to reflect the
fact that Julie took the time to go around to all the various departments and
incorporate feedback. This new system should streamline advising and general
education.
Question: Could a course fulfill more than one outcome?
Hurtig: no, the instructor will have to choose one if it appears to fall into two
possible categories. Only diverse cultures would be allowed to double-dip in
9
some cases. This will require some sitting down to decide where various courses
best fit, since some could be in more than one place.
President: I would like to commend the work of all three committees that
presented material for us today. The work that’s been undertaken has been
complex, and I appreciate all their hard work.
III.
Adjournment 6:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Erica L. Neely
Secretary of University Council
10
Votes 4/12/16 – Attachment 1
Present
President Daniel DiBiaisio
VP David Crago
VP William Ballard
VP Shannon Spencer
VP William Eilola
VP Adriane Thompson-Bradshaw
Dean Catherine Albrecht
Dean Eric Baumgartner
Dean Steve Martin
Dean James Fenton
Dean Richard Bales
Rev. David MacDonald
Dr. Alisa Agozzino
Dr. Khalid Al-Olimat
Dr. Joseph Blankson
Dr. Bryan Boulanger
Dr. Joanne Brant
Dr. Tevye Celius
Dr. Mark Cruea
Dr. Natalie DiPietro
Dr. Kami Fox
Mr. Andrew Huff
Dr. Dong Hyun Kim
Prof. Kelly Kobiela
Dr. Kelley Reilly Kroustos
Dr. Heath LeBlanc
Dr. Jed Marquart
Dr. Michelle Musser
Dr. Erica Neely
Dr. Lauren Newell
Dr. Ed Potkanowicz
Prof. David Savino
Dr. Shane Tilton
Prof. Melissa Eddings
Total
Table Appendix 5
Approve Appendix 5
Yes
No
Abstain Yes No Abstain
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
8
x
10
0
15
3
0
Votes 4/12/16 – Attachment 1
Approve Faculty Handbook
Yes
No
Abstain
President Daniel DiBiaisio
VP David Crago
VP William Ballard
VP Shannon Spencer
VP William Eilola
VP Adriane Thompson-Bradshaw
Dean Catherine Albrecht
Dean Eric Baumgartner
Dean Steve Martin
Dean James Fenton
Dean Richard Bales
Rev. David MacDonald
Dr. Alisa Agozzino
Dr. Khalid Al-Olimat
Dr. Joseph Blankson
Dr. Bryan Boulanger
Dr. Joanne Brant
Dr. Tevye Celius
Dr. Mark Cruea
Dr. Natalie DiPietro
Dr. Kami Fox
Mr. Andrew Huff
Dr. Dong Hyun Kim
Prof. Kelly Kobiela
Dr. Kelley Reilly Kroustos
Dr. Heath LeBlanc
Dr. Jed Marquart
Dr. Michelle Musser
Dr. Erica Neely
Dr. Lauren Newell
Dr. Ed Potkanowicz
Prof. David Savino
Dr. Shane Tilton
Prof. Melissa Eddings
Total
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
18
0
0
Attachment 2
APPENDIX 5
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM REVIEW
AND THE ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS
(9/1/84) (11/09)(3/16)
I.
DEFINITIONS
A. A “major” shall comprise a minimum of 30 hours of coursework.
a. All courses required for a major that are in the major subject area shall be termed “Major
Courses” and count toward the major GPA and major hours.
b. All courses required for a major, including but not limited to course prerequisites and
corequisites, which are outside of the major subject area, if any, shall be termed “Other
Required Courses” and listed in the catalog adjacent to “Major Courses.”
B. A “minor” shall comprise a minimum of 18 hours of coursework within a specified discipline outside
of the student’s major or majors.
C. An “option” shall comprise a minimum of 18 hours of coursework and shall consist of courses that a
department or college shall choose that a) are external to the student’s major, and b) enhance the
student’s major. The department or college that constructs the option shall control and administer the
option.
D. A specialization within a major shall be termed a “concentration.” A concentration shall comprise a
minimum of 18 hours of coursework within the major.
E. A program is any major, minor, option, or other coherent curriculum of degree credit courses.
II. PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
Ohio Northern University recognizes the need for continued revision of academic programs. Program review
establishes a baseline understanding of opportunities and challenges in academic programs. All academic programs
will engage in the program review process at least every seven years to ensure that programs are maintained at the
highest level of quality possible; the review will contribute to an institutional perspective for planning and budgetary
decision-making. The selected program undergoing program review must generate a self-study report, which
describes the academic program using a common set of institutionally determined standards. The Program Review
Committee is responsible for evaluating the self-study report generated by the selected programs.
The Program Review Committee shall be composed of an elected member from each college, a representative from
the University library, and two at-large members.
The Program Review Committee will assess the self-study reports, utilizing the guidelines for addition and deletion
of programs in Section IV. The program review committee will also create an order and schedule for when each
program is reviewed.
The program review committee shall prepare and maintain a record of its activities.
III. PROCEDURE FOR PROGRAM REVIEW
Academic Program Review is the process by which each program is comprehensively evaluated on its quality and
currency in relation to the university as a whole. The full evaluation of a program will happen on a cycle not to
exceed seven years. The evaluation shall be based on a self-study prepared in accordance with the requirements of
Section VII of this Appendix and for programs without an external accrediting body, an optional external review. In
preparing the self-study, the program may obtain information from the Offices of Admissions, Financial Affairs,
Institutional Research, or other sources having applicable information. The self-study should completely describe
the program in question, including but not limited to uniqueness, quality, opportunities, and drawbacks of the
program.
Once the program has conducted the review, all material will be sent to the Program Review Committee, who will
evaluate this submission based on a rubric. The Committee will then make a recommendation to the Provost for
Continuation, Conditional Continuation, or Deletion. The Provost will make the final determination and notify the
program of their outcome via a letter that specifically outlines the details of why the decision was made
1
A Conditional Continuation outcome will include specific improvements to be made before a secondary review two
years after the initial review.
A Deletion outcome will be forwarded to the academic program department and the dean(s) of the college(s) in
which students or faculty or both will be affected by the program. After consultation with the academic dean(s), the
Provost will forward a recommendation to the President with the complete file of self-study materials and actions.
A copy of the statement by the Provost will be sent to the dean(s) of the colleges and the academic program
department. If the President supports the recommendation to delete the program, the program deletion will be
reported to the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. If the President does not support the recommendation to delete
the program, the President should convey a response in writing to the Provost who should in turn send it to the deans
and to the academic program department.
IV. GUIDELINES FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS
A. The following guidelines list basic considerations to justify any proposed addition or deletion of programs
offered by the University. Initiation of new programs sustains the effectiveness of the University in time of
changing societal needs and student demand. Deletion of existing programs is a corollary process to preserve
efficient use of the resources of the University.
The numbering of the guidelines does not indicate any priorities; the numbers are for reference only.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The program has a clear and publicly stated purpose that contributes to the mission of the University.
The program is of high quality.
There is demand for the program.
The program uses an identified plan for systematic evaluation and assessment of goals and purposes.
The program accomplishes effectively its educational and related purposes.
B.
All programs need not carry strong support based on the consideration of each of the above guidelines.
However, weakness based on consideration of one or more of the guidelines should be weighed against strength
based on others. A program to be added should carry strong support from most considerations, and a program to be
deleted would not carry such support. The consideration of addition or deletion of programs should take into
account that societal needs and student demand for programs may be cyclical, temporary, or continuing.
V.
PROCEDURE FOR ADDITION OF PROGRAMS
A. Any faculty member or group of faculty members, administrator or administrators may initiate a
recommendation to add a program.
B. Whatever the source, the originating party is responsible for providing written justification to add a program
according to the GUIDELINES FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS.
C. In order for a proposal to add a program to receive proper consideration, the proposal should include a program
self-study report prepared by the proposed program’s academic home department.
D. A recommendation for addition of a program will be forwarded to the Provost. A recommendation for addition
of a program will be forwarded to the dean(s) of the college(s) in which students or faculty or both will be affected
by the program and to the Provost. After action by the college(s), the Provost should receive the results of action(s)
by the college(s), the appraisals by the college dean(s), and the required study. The Program Review Committee
will review the program self-study report and send their findings to the Provost. The Provost will review the selfstudy and the college and Program Review Committee reports and forward a recommendation to the President with
the complete file of materials and actions. A copy of the statement by the Provost will be sent to the deans of the
colleges and the originating party. If the President supports the recommendation to add the program, the program
addition will be reported to the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. If the President does not support the
recommendation to add the program, the President should convey a response in writing to the Provost who should in
turn send it to the dean(s) and to the originating party.
2
VI.
PROCEDURE FOR DELETION OF PROGRAMS
This section does not apply to the situation of a Program Review Committee recommendation for deletion. See
Section III above.
A. Any faculty member or group of faculty members, administrator or group of administrators may initiate a
proposal to delete a program.
B. Whatever the source, the originating party is responsible for providing written justification to delete a program
according to the GUIDELINES FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS.
C. A proposal for deletion of a program will be forwarded to the Provost. If the Provost finds probable cause in
this proposal, the Provost will forward the proposal to the dean(s) of the college(s) in which students or faculty or
both will be affected by the program. The identified program should prepare a program self-study report. After
action by the college(s), the Provost should receive the results of the action(s) by the college(s) and the appraisals by
the college dean(s) and the program self-study report. No more than three months should elapse from the time the
Provost sent the department the recommendation to delete the program and the submission of the required program
self-study report.
D. The Program Review Committee will review the program self-study report and send their findings to the
Provost. After consultation with the academic dean(s), the Provost will forward a recommendation to the President
with the complete file of materials and actions. A copy of the statement by the Provost will be sent to the deans of
the colleges and the originating party. If the President supports the recommendation to delete the program, the
program deletion will be reported to the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. If the President does not support the
recommendation to delete the program, the President should convey a response in writing to the Provost who should
in turn send it to the deans and to the originating party.
VII.
PROGRAM SELF-STUDY REPORT
The self-study report should not exceed 12 pages (not including appendices). Please provide all the relevant
information for the program under review. Any section that does not apply to the program in question can be
marked “N/A”. If the program under review has an external accreditation, that evaluation may be included. If the
program under review does not have an external accreditation, an external evaluation (not including a site visit) may
be requested if desired, which would be funded by the University.
A: General Information/Introduction/Overview
Name of program
Majors, minors, concentrations under review, or state this is a review for addition or deletion of a program
College in which the program is located
Chair of the program
Dean of the academic unit
Briefly describe the following:
History of the program
Description of its present status
Address previous program review findings
Learning outcomes and mission of the program
Unique and distinguishing characteristics
B: Standards and Criteria
Each program will be reviewed by the five standards. Each standard is supported by multiple criteria. Please
provide specific examples for each criterion to demonstrate the extent to which the program meets each standard and
criterion. Any section that does not apply to the program in question can be marked “N/A”. Please include data in
the appendices.
3
Standard 1: The program has a clear and publicly stated purpose that contributes to the mission of the
University.
The program contributes to the mission of the University, the College/School and department by:
A. Stating how the program is aligned with the vision, mission, and strategic plan of the College and
University.
B. Supporting research and creative activities that generate new knowledge and understanding; and enrich the
intellectual environment for students, staff, and faculty
C. Engaging in relevant application of new knowledge to contemporary problems through teaching,
scholarship, creative activities, service, and outreach.
D. Evaluating and changing curricula or delivery of curriculum to students
E. Preparing students for productive, responsible, and creative lives.
F. Additional program-specific indicators of alignment with the mission.
Standard 2: The program is of high quality.
The program quality is evidenced by:
A. Faculty
1. The Program faculty are qualified to teach the curriculum, as indicated by earned academic
degrees and professional certifications. [Faculty demographic information will be included
from IR]
2. The program invests in the professional and scholarly development of its faculty, including the
mentoring and guidance of junior faculty members.
B. Resources - The program has adequate faculty, support staff, library resources, equipment, and facilities to
accomplish its purpose. [Faculty workload will be included from IR]
C. Reputation
1. The program is well regarded, as evidenced by external rankings and assessments by external
reviewers of students, faculty, resources, and productivity.
2. The program attracts and retains excellent students as evidenced by admission qualifications,
performance on standardized examinations, etc. [Student Profile will be included from IR]
D. Faculty performance – Faculty demonstrate effectiveness in teaching and student advising, scholarship, and
service, as evidenced by evaluations, awards, honors, grants, research contributions, publications, citations,
and service endeavors.
E. Student performance – Students demonstrate mastery of knowledge by means of formative and summative
assessments, performance in the field, professional achievements, and performance on professional
licensure exams. Program graduates succeed in finding jobs and progress well in their chosen careers;
alumni are satisfied with the program. Undergraduates produce creative works, publications, and receive
grant awards. [Student graduation and placement rates will be included from IR]
F. Benchmarks – The program reflects “best practices” and compares well to relevant performance standards
from comparable institutions and/or accrediting agencies and/or other authoritative sources. The program
demonstrates leadership in its performances relative to appropriate external benchmarks.
G. Advising – Program faculty provide excellent academic advising per student evaluations and other
appropriate indicators.
H. Extramural Funding – Success in attracting extramural funding that contributes to the Program’s long-term
stability. [Specific grants and amounts can be included as an appendix]
I. Extra-University collaborations such as articulation agreements, jointly administered programs, students
internships, practica, or field-based projects with outside organizations, ONU courses taught at high
schools, 3+3 programs with graduate schools, etc.
4
Standard 3: There is demand for the program.
There is demand for the program as evidenced by:
A. External demand based on local, regional, national, and global trends and forecasts for persons with
particular types and level of education. [Enrollment trends and Student market will be included from the
IR]
B. Internal demand as reflected by both student enrollment in the program and the scope of service teaching
for students from other programs.
C. Competitive environment - other universities offering the same program, draw for specific program,
opportunities for new or more competitive market.
D. Job placement demand - evidence of immediate job placement (or graduate school) after graduation.
E. Intra-College and Intra-University academic connections/program collaborations, such as joint faculty
appointments, dual degrees, interdisciplinary programs, research collaborations, etc.
F. Fiscal sustainability analysis. Discuss annual operating expenses including accreditation expenses, faculty
and staff salary expenses (including benefits), additional necessary investments in facilities or equipment,
and annual tuition revenue generated.
Standard 4: The program uses an identified plan for systematic evaluation and assessment of goals and
purposes.
If the program has filed a University Assessment report, please include the last completed report in the appendices.
Otherwise, please address the following.
The program has quality control processes that are used to:
A. Evaluate how well the program is achieving its learning outcomes.
B. Monitor on an ongoing basis the design and delivery of the curriculum/curricula as informed by student
outcomes.
C. Complete ongoing evaluation of student outcomes. This includes but is not limited to formative and
summative assessments of student learning. As appropriate, other outcomes should include academic or
professional achievements; job placement and career progression; alumni satisfaction with the program;
employer satisfaction with program graduates' performance; graduates' performance on professional
licensure exams; publications, grant awards, and creative works of undergraduate and graduate students,
etc.
D. Monitor the quality of student advising.
E. Determine needed changes in tactics, policies, curriculum, and course contents.
F. Implement the self-determined changes in a timely manner.
Standard 5: The program accomplishes effectively its educational and related purposes.
The effectiveness of the program is reflected by:
A. Improvements in the design and delivery of the curriculum based on assessments of new knowledge in the
discipline, student outcomes, societal need and demand for the program.
B. Programmatic features that foster an appreciation of cultural and intellectual diversity.
C. Current and anticipated educational style.
C: Analysis & Prospective
This section should present a brief summary of the teaching, research, and scholarly enterprise and review how the
program meets each criterion. The meaning and implications of the evidence presented should be explained. The
narrative should specifically identify the Program’s progress since its last review, its strengths, difficulties,
directions for needed improvement, and opportunities.
5
The prospectus should present a vision for the Program grounded in the Program’s strategic goals and a balanced
assessment of opportunities and resources needed. It should include a discussion of new scholarly directions,
research plans, curricular or degree program changes, and plans for maintaining and enhancing excellence and
diversity of faculty and students over the next seven years. Given the persistence of budgetary constraints, the
discussion should include ways in which the unit can be strengthened without receiving additional resources.
D: Appendices
Office of Institutional Research Data
Faculty - name, rank, length of service
Number of course hours offered
Faculty workload
Percent of instruction offered by full-time faculty
Tuition income generated
External grants
Retention rates
Graduation rates
Placement rates
Enrollment trends
Student markets
Student profile
Geographic
ACT
GPA
Other Appendices
6
Attachment 3
Addition to Operational Committees list in Bylaw 5
N. Program Review Committee
(1) Membership.
a. One elected faculty member from each college
b. A faculty member from the University Library.
c. Two faculty elected at-large.
(2) Selection
Faculty members will serve two-year terms and follow the Constitutional Committee election
schedule with A&S, Engineering, and Pharmacy representatives elected in even-numbered years
and Law, Library, and Business representatives in odd-numbered years. Initially, Law, Library,
and Business representatives will serve three-years.
(3) Area of Responsibility
Coordinate the campus program review schedule and review program self-study reports.
(4) Administrative Coordinator or Liaison:
Provost
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
General Education Program
Adopted April 2009
Revised April 2016
1
General Education Program Overview
The purpose of the Ohio Northern University General Education Program is to provide students with a broad
exposure to the arts and sciences and the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the 21st century. In keeping with
ONU’s mission statement, the General Education program integrates “mutually supporting liberal and professional
education components” to prepare graduates “for success in their careers, service to their communities, the nation,
and the world, and a lifetime of personal growth inspired by the higher values of truth, beauty, and goodness.” The
University expects each student to cultivate the knowledge and skills specified in the following University learning
outcomes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Effective written communication
Effective spoken communication
Critical and creative thinking
Knowledge of the physical and natural world
Knowledge of mathematics and statistics
Knowledge of human thought and culture
Knowledge of human society and the interactions between society and individuals
Knowledge of the principles of aesthetics
Knowledge of the principles of civics or ethics on a professional, community, or global level
An understanding of diverse cultures
Curriculum Structure
The University expects each student to achieve the General Education learning outcomes through curricular activities.
The University General Education Committee shall assign a General Education learning outcome to specific courses
according to criteria that the committee has established. Generally, such assignment shall indicate that a majority of
the course content is substantially aligned with a general education learning outcome. This assignment will be
indicated in the University Catalog and course syllabi.
Typically, a course will only support one learning outcome. Multiple learning outcomes may be assigned to a course
at the discretion of the General Education Committee. If a course supports multiple learning outcomes, a student
may only use the course to fulfill one learning outcome.
2
General Education Course Framework
ONU’s learning outcomes are embedded in a curriculum that includes the following:
1. Transitions Experience
This course facilitates the student’s transition from high school to college life. Students can receive credit only once
for a transitions experience. Other attributes of this course shall be:
●
●
●
●
●
Mandatory for all undergraduate students during their first semester of study as a degree-seeking student.
Transfer students with 24 credits or more as a degree-seeking student may be waived from this course at the
discretion of the student’s respective college of enrollment;
Demonstrates ties between General Education and the major or potential major;
Addresses the General Education learning outcome on Critical and Creative Thinking;
Designed and delivered by the individual colleges.
The Transitions Experience course may satisfy other requirements of degree programs that the colleges
establish.
2. Writing Seminar
This course emphasizes English writing skills. Other attributes of this course shall be:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Mandatory for all undergraduate students during their first year of study unless the English Department
approves transfer credit from another institution of higher education;
Addresses the Effective Written Communication general education learning outcome;
Class size shall be restricted to 20 students per section;
The student must successfully complete the Writing Seminar course with a grade of “C” or better.
The Department of English shall administer this seminar.
The Writing Seminar may satisfy other requirements of degree programs that the colleges establish.
3. Additional Courses
Academic courses supporting the general education learning outcomes may satisfy other requirements of degree
programs that the colleges establish.
The student must successfully complete all other approved academic courses according to the grading standard that
the student’s college determines.
Assessment of General Education
To ensure continuous improvement of the general education program, the University Assessment Committee shall
develop an assessment regimen for the general education program. The committee shall:
●
●
●
Assess whether the general education program is enabling students to fulfill the University Learning
Outcomes;
Develop a timetable for continuing periodic assessment of each component of the general education
program;
Develop protocols for communicating assessment results to the University General Education Committee
and the university faculty.
3
Governance of the General Education Program
The governing entity of the university-wide general education program shall be the University General Education
Committee, an operational committee of the university that has responsibility for administering the general education
program.
University General Education Committee
1. Membership.
a. The Director of General Education, an ex officio member;
b. Three representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences;
c. One representative from the College of Business Administration;
d. One representative from the College of Engineering;
e. One representative from the College of Pharmacy;
f. One student representative.
2. Selection of members.
a. The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall appoint the Director of General Education, an ex officio
member of the committee, who shall hold faculty rank;
b. The faculty of each respective college shall elect their representative(s) to the committee.
c. The student representative shall be appointed by the Student Senate President with Student Senate
approval.
3. Areas of Responsibility.
The Committee shall:
a. Assign general education learning outcomes to courses;
b. Review and recommend, in conjunction with the University Assessment Committee, changes in the
following areas to the appropriate bodies through the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs:
i. the university general education course framework;
ii. the university general education learning outcomes;
iii. the assessment processes associated with the general education learning outcomes.
4. Administrative Coordinator and Liaison.
The Director of General Education shall chair the committee and serve as its administrative coordinator and
liaison.
Institutional Support for General Education
The academic courses in the general education program shall constitute part of a faculty member’s normal teaching
load. The institution will seek opportunities to provide professional development to support faculty.
4
General Education Program Requirements
1. Effective written communication.
Students demonstrate the written communication skills necessary to communicate professionally and effectively as
responsible members of their organizations and their communities. (Met by passing the ENGL 1221 course and the senior
capstone course sequence of the primary major. An additional assessment writing sample will be generated for written
communication by Learning Outcome 10 below.)
2. Effective spoken communication.
Students will be able to demonstrate the oral communication skills necessary to develop and deliver an original prepared,
purposeful presentation designed to increase knowledge, to foster understanding, or to promote change in the listeners'
attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors. (Met by passing one course from a list of approved courses such as the CAMS area
courses that instruct students in speeches, debates, and other oral presentation techniques.)
3. Critical and creative thinking.
Students will be able to explore, synthesize, and analyze information and ideas and formulate effective solutions in
imaginative or innovative ways. (Met by passing a Transitions Experience course and the capstone sequence of the primary
major.)
4. Knowledge of physical and natural world.
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the scientific process and the basic principles and applications of the life or
physical sciences. (Met by passing one course from a list of approved courses in CHEM/PHYS/BIOL/GEOL.)
5. Knowledge of mathematics and statistics.
Students have the ability to express mathematical concepts and solve quantitative problems. (Met by passing one course
from a list of approved courses in MATH/STAT.)
6. Knowledge of human thought and culture.
Students will demonstrate a knowledge of ideas and ways of understanding and interpreting the human experiences. (Met
by passing one course from a list of approved courses including areas such as PHIL, RELG, ENGL, HIST. The list will
overlap greatly with the courses currently carrying the A&S Humanities attribute in Banner.)
7. Knowledge of human society and the interactions between society and individuals.
Students will describe how historical, economic, political, social, and spatial relationships and identities develop, persist, and
change. (Met by passing one course from a list of approved courses including areas such as
CAMS/PLSC/PSYC/SOC/Economics. The list will overlap greatly with the courses currently carrying the A&S Social
Science attribute in Banner.)
8. Knowledge of the principles of aesthetics.
Students will demonstrate knowledge of the principles of beauty as expressed by the arts. (Met by passing one course from
a list of approved courses including areas such as MUSC/ART/theatre, ENGL literature courses.)
9. Knowledge of the principles of civics or ethics on a professional, community, or global level.
Students will understand the principles of ethical reasoning or civic responsibilities. (Met by passing one course from a list
of approved courses including areas such as PHIL and PLSC.)
10. An understanding of diverse cultures.
Students will encounter elements of diverse cultures or societies. (Met by passing one course from a list of approved
courses.)
5
Ohio Northern University
General Education Course Evaluation Criteria
(Modified April 2016)
General education courses will be approved as meeting at least one of the University general
education learning outcomes. The University general education learning outcomes are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Effective written communication
Effective spoken communication
Critical and creative thinking
Knowledge of the physical and natural world
Knowledge of mathematics or statistics
Knowledge of human thought and culture
Knowledge of human society and the interactions between society and individual
Knowledge of the principles of aesthetics
Knowledge of the principles of civics or ethics on a professional, community, or global level
An understanding of diverse cultures
The University General Education committee will approve a course as meeting one of these ten outcomes if it meets
the following criteria for approval:
1. Courses approved for general education typically are three credits, although the committee may approve other
credit-bearing courses at their discretion.
2. The course learning objectives must be strongly aligned to a general education learning outcome. If a course
supports multiple learning outcomes, a student may only use the course to fulfill one learning outcome.
3. Courses must meet the parameters outlined in the general education plan approved in April 2016. These
include the following:
● Multiple learning outcomes may be assigned to a course at the discretion of the General Education
Committee.
● With the exception of Writing Seminar, a student must successfully complete the general education
course according to the grading standard that the student’s college determines.
● Courses approved as meeting Learning Outcome 10 will be conducted in a seminar style format with
high-impact learning pedagogy, will have an 18-person enrollment limit, and will require students to
produce a substantive written assignment with revision. Faculty involved in this course will establish a
common rigor of course expectations and a common assessment practice.
Individual academic course instructors and activity supervisors may request an exemption or exemptions from these
criteria from the General Education Committee.
6