January 13, 2015
(Last update: 01/12/15)
Handouts of the Graduate Faculty
Council
Graduate Faculty Status Review Template
Version 2.1
This template is meant to assist unit chairs/deans with the periodic review of the qualifications of each
of their graduate faculty-eligible members as per Section 1.5.3 “Graduate Faculty Status” of the Faculty
Handbook. Completed forms will be reviewed by the Dean of the Graduate School and will be used to
update the listing of eligible Graduate Faculty.
This review shall take place every 6 years from the start of the member’s eligible status as graduate
faculty. To retain the status of Graduate Faculty, the unit chair/dean must circle at least one item in
Section 1 and one item in Section 2 related to the faculty member under review.
1. Qualifications of Graduate Faculty. Does the faculty member under review meet one or more of the
following criteria? (Circle all that apply.)
a. Possesses experience and continued interest in the conduct of research.
b. Has the necessary background for, and a continued interest in, teaching graduate courses.
c. Has continuing interest in serving as a graduate student advisor.
2. Evidence of Qualifications. Does the faculty member under review meet one or more of the following
criteria? (Circle all that apply.)
a. Is currently involved in research work or graduate instruction or in advising graduate students.
b. Regularly publishes articles in recognized journals having national distribution or books related to
their field of study.
c. Has earned the terminal degree in his/her field.
Response by reviewee:
Faculty members should indicate in writing below whether or not they concur with the unit
chair’s/dean’s review. If the faculty member does not concur, the member should support their
argument with reasons, providing relevant evidence.
1.5.3 Graduate Faculty Status | Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Handbook
1 of 3
STUDENTS
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/prov/facbook/ch1/1chap-17.htm
FACULTY / STAFF
ALUMNI
PARENTS
Chapter Table of Contents :: Table of Contents :: Index :: Provost's Office
Chapter 1. Mission, Vision, General Organization, and Governance
Section 1.5 Faculty Status Definitions
<< previous :: next >>
1.5.3 Graduate Faculty Status
A. Membership
The Graduate Faculty consists of tenured and tenure-track members of the academic faculty
holding the rank of ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, or PROFESSOR
who have been appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School. Tenured and tenure-track
faculty who are awarded EMERITUS status upon retirement remain members of the Graduate
Faculty.
The Dean of the Graduate School may also grant graduate faculty status to others with an
on-going professional relationship with Michigan Tech, including RESEARCH, PART-TIME,
VISITING, or ADJUNCT faculty members, LECTURERS and INSTRUCTORS, RESEARCH
ENGINEERS, and RESEARCH SCIENTISTS.
Under special circumstances, the graduate dean may appoint individuals with special technical
expertise to the Graduate Faculty for a specific term and purpose, such as serving as a member
of a student's advisory committee.
Graduate faculty members are eligible to teach graduate courses (5000 level and above), serve
as examining members on Masters and PhD committees, and supervise Masters and PhD
students.
Persons who are not members of the Graduate Faculty may teach 5000 and 6000 level courses
only after obtaining written approval from the Dean of the Graduate School.
B. Qualifications of Graduate Faculty
1. Qualifications expected for graduate faculty appointment:
a. Experience and continued interest in the conduct of research.
b. The necessary background for, and a continued interest in, teaching graduate
courses.
c. Continued interest in serving as a graduate student advisor.
2. Evidence of Qualifications
11/11/2014 1:15 PM
Topic: Graduate Program Review & Graduate Learning Outcomes 1) Graduate Program Review a. Previously approved by GFC in 2010 b. Designed to look at characteristics of programs that have been associated by the National Student Outcomes with positive student outcomes < Handout 1: Graduate Program Review> 2) Five years later the HLC is asking for a student‐level outcomes assessment. Christa Walck has been leading this for the undergraduates and is advising the Provost on what must be done at the graduate level in order to meet the HLC expectations. For both undergraduate and graduate levels the review of both programs and student learning outcomes must be undertaken < Handout 2: Procedure for periodic review > 3) As a start, we are tackling the graduate learning outcomes (GLOs) at the PhD and master’s (research) levels. In the future we will have to address GLOs for the master’s coursework students. Alex has done some benchmarking and one of the best examples of GLO assessment she found was from Cornell University. Cornell publishes on their website an overall framework for the university plus frameworks and rubrics for individual programs. Each program has interpreted the university level GLOs within the context of their own discipline. < Handout 3 & 4: Cornell graduate objectives + interpretation by Atmospheric Sci. program > 4) We have worked with Christa to ID some Graduate School Objectives < Handouts 5 & 6: GLOs for PhD and research Master’s > Q ‐ Are our Graduate School objectives reasonable? Q ‐ Are the suggested outcomes a good model that could be modified by programs? 5) Then moving to implementation Alex has prepared a sample diagram that associates specific items in the USLG with the Lumina Foundation “DQPs” (which have been endorsed by the HLC for use at the graduate level) with our Graduate School objectives. < Handout 7: Goal/Objective map showing links between USLGs, DQPs, & GLOs > These assignments can be used as a basis for identifying the timing and method for measurement for GLOs. 1. Graduate Program Review Graduate Program Review I.
Purpose Michigan Technological University conducts formal review of its graduate programs on a regular schedule in order to promote continual improvement. From the Graduate Faculty Council approved “Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools” (adopted 8/25/04), originally hosted on the Provost’s website: Regular, periodic reviews of academic departments and schools provide a formal process for thorough, fact‐based documentation and evaluation of academic programs and the infrastructure supporting them, and for setting and acknowledging plans for their growth and improvement. The distinctive feature of these reviews is that they focus uniquely on evaluation of the academic department as an integrated whole, and on the way the department's resources are managed to promote its overall success. II. Review Cycle Each program, or set of programs in a related field that choose to be reviewed as a group, will be formally reviewed according to the schedule originally laid out in the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools (see below): Each academic department/school will be reviewed on either a five‐year or a six‐year cycle.  Departments/schools whose degrees are accredited by ABET will be reviewed on the ABET six‐year cycle so the efficiency and effectiveness of data collection and evaluation can be maximized.  The School of Business and Economics shall be reviewed on a cycle that precedes the next scheduled AACSB review.  The College of Sciences and Arts will be on a six‐year cycle, arranged so it does not conflict with ABET visit.  The School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science will be on a five‐year cycle to precede the Society of American Foresters review.  The School of Technology will be synchronized on a six‐year cycle to match ABET review. The review cycle shall be reviewed annually to accommodate changes in accrediting times, schedules, or cycles. III. Responsibility and Locus of the Review As described in the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools: Reviews are initiated by the Provost by memo to the cognizant Dean(s). The Dean works with the Department Chair to set out a detailed time line, to identify specific elements of the review, and to identify two external reviewers and one internal reviewer. For units with graduate programs, the Dean of the Graduate School will be consulted to identify specific elements relevant to graduate education, and in selection of the reviewers. If the review is of a school, the Provost assumes the Dean's role with respect to timeline, elements of review, and selection of reviewers. IV. Schedule The schedule for the review is as follows, and was originally described in the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools: A. Departments/schools to be reviewed will be identified in the fall for reviews to be conducted during the following academic year. B. Self‐studies will be completed by the end of the fall semester of the review year. C. Off‐campus reviewers will be identified during the fall semester of the review year. D. The self‐study will be provided to outside reviewers by the second week of the spring semester. E. The visit to campus by the external reviewers will be completed by the eighth week of spring term, with the reviewers' reports due in the Dean's( s') office by the end of the eleventh week. F. The Dean (and if the review includes a department with a graduate program, the Dean of the Graduate School) meets with the faculty of the department/school to discuss the reviewers' reports by the end of September of the following year. G. The Department will provide the dean of the college, or the School will provide the Provost, with its Departmental Review Summary Report (described below) by October 15. H. The cognizant Dean forwards to the Provost the departmental report and the Dean's(s') commentary and analysis by end of October. I. The Provost reports the findings of the review to the Board of Control in a timely fashion. V. The Self‐Study The self study will be conducted and include the components originally described in the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools (see A‐D below). The data related to graduate education to be collected as part of the self‐study are listed in Appendix A of this report, Self‐Study Guidelines. During the fall semester of the review year the Graduate School will provide the programs being reviewed with most of the quantitative data required for the Self‐Study of graduate programs. A. The department or school under review prepares a self‐study. The principal author may be the chair or a committee. The final document should represent a departmental consensus, when possible. B. The self study shall contain, but not be limited to, the following statements and analyses: 1. Departmental mission and vision statements 2. Quantitative data ‐ faculty, staff, facilities, budgets, students, rates of retention and degree completion, placement after graduation, faculty scholarship and funding. Institutional Analysis will provide basic data using a uniform template and clearly defined units. The department may provide additional data as they deem helpful. 3. Results from surveys of graduates and their employers, as appropriate 4. Report on assessment of student academic success 5. Recent initiatives and their evaluation 6. Goals for the future C. Supplemental information shall be presented in an Appendix. Each Appendix shall be given a number. D. The Self Study shall conclude with responses to questions on five broad issues (synoptic questions) that form an important part of the departmental evaluation as described in Appendix B. VI. External Reviewers As per the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools: Two senior academic faculty members, department chairs, deans or similar individuals of significant professional stature in a field central to the department under review will serve as external reviewers. The department, the cognizant Dean and the Dean of the Graduate School will work together to identify potential external reviewers, and the Dean will invite the external reviewers to serve. The external reviewer's normal travel expenses will be paid in accordance with university travel policy, and an appropriate honorarium proposed by the Dean and approved by the Provost will be provided after completion of their reviews. The External Reviewers will review the self‐study, simultaneously visit the university to meet with the Dean, the Dean of the Graduate School, faculty, staff and students, and to see the facilities. They will then prepare individual reports addressed to the Dean(s), with copies to the department. A combined report from all three reviewers may be submitted in addition to the individual reports. A set of fundamental questions common to all reviews should provide a partial basis for external reviewers' reports. Deans and/or departments may supplement the standard questions with other requests that help them address their needs, and external reviewers should be encouraged to expand as they think useful. One‐ or two‐page resumes or curriculum vitae describing the qualifications of each external reviewer shall be submitted with the Deans(s') evaluation report to the Provost. VII. Internal Reviewer As per the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools: The cognizant Dean, in consultation with the Chair and the Dean of the Graduate School will identify and appoint a member of the Michigan Tech Faculty not formally linked to the department under review to serve as an Internal Reviewer. The internal reviewer may be a full‐
time faculty member, or an administrator with a tenured faculty appointment. It is recommended that the internal reviewer be chosen from outside the college or school. The Internal and External Reviewers will work together as a team. An anticipated benefit of internal review is that it should improve understanding within the University of the aspirations and challenges of each academic unit. In addition, the Internal Reviewer will be able to efficiently assist External Reviewers in accessing additional information that will improve the effectiveness of the review process. VIII. Review Summary Report As per the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools: The department/school then prepares for the Dean(s') a document consisting of a one‐page executive summary, the self‐study, the reviewers' reports, the department's/school's response to the reviewers' reports, and a comprehensive summary. The comprehensive summary will bring together all that has been learned through the review, and will draw conclusions that serve as the basis for future growth and improvement. The final section of the Summary Report will be an itemized action plan with mileposts, dates and responsible parties for each item. The action plan should include significant items that are not dependent on new resources from the general fund. Separately, the department shall prepare a listing of the principal observations and comments made by the reviewers in their reports as well as a listing of the reviewers' principal recommendations for submittal to the Provost. IX. Dean’s Evaluation As per the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools: The School or College Dean and the Dean of the Graduate School (if a graduate program was reviewed) shall consult in preparing their respective reports to the Provost, but each dean shall provide the Provost with a separate written response to the review (with a copy to the department chair). X. Provost’s Report As per the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools: The Provost will communicate the findings of the review to the Board of Control in a timely fashion. XI. History of Revisions or Changes  09/03/10 Draft document prepared by dean of the Graduate School reviewed by a subcommittee of the Graduate Faculty Council.  10/15/10 Revised according to Graduate Faculty Council subcommittee comments.  10/21/10 Revised to follow format of Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools. 
11/2/10 Passed by Graduate Faculty Council 
10/30/2014 Revised to include material from Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools which is no longer available on the Provost’s website for consultation.
Appendix A: Self‐Study Guidelines for Graduate Program Periodic Review These guidelines should be reviewed annual by the Graduate Dean and programs which have been recently reviewed so that they can be continually revised and improved. I.
Quantitative Data Collected by the Graduate School Data collected by the Graduate School and provided to programs at the start of the self‐study period. The “goal” column will be filled in by the unit preparing the self‐study if the unit chooses to use that column to set goals for itself as a way to internally prioritize resource and effort allocation in the future. Program Name(s): Table 1: Number of Graduate Faculty Employed by Michigan Tech by Rank and Year: Headcount and (FTE). (Use parentheses to indicate FTE data.) Year 5 + 5 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX Rank (Final)
(Goal)
Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor Lecturer Research Professor Research Engineer Other Rank Table 2: Faculty Demographics. Demographic Percentages % Female Faculty % White Non‐Hispanic Faculty % Asian‐American Faculty Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Year 3 20XX Year 4 20XX Year 5 20XX (Final)
Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal)
Year 3 20XX Year 4 20XX Year 5 20XX (Final) Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal) Year 3 20XX Year 4 20XX Year 5 20XX (Final) Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal) Table 3: Faculty Scholarly Activity by Year. Measure Peer‐Reviewed Publications/FTEF Citations/FTEF % Faculty (Headcount) with Grants Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Table 4: Faculty Involvement in Graduate Education. Number of Faculty Serving as PhD Advisor Serving as Master’s Advisor Serving on PhD Committees Serving on Master’s Committees Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Table 5: Applications and Admissions. Number Applications Admits without Funding Offers Admits with Funding Offers Enrolled without Funding Offers Enrolled with Funding Offers Number of New PhD Students Entering without a Master’s Number of New PhD Students Entering with a Master’s Number of PhD Students that Converted from a Master’s Number of PhD Students Leaving the Program* Number of Master’s Students Converted from a PhD Program Number of Master’s Students Leaving the Program* Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Year 3 20XX Year 5 20XX (Final)
Year 4 20XX Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal)
*Students leaving the program are defined as those who have failed to comply with the continuous enrollment policy for at least two of the most recent academic‐year semesters. Date of attrition should be first semester following last enrollment. Table 6: Entering Class. Characteristic Average Verbal GRE Score Average Quantitative GRE Score Average Analytical GRE Score Average Undergraduate GPA Undergraduate or Previous Graduate Institution(s) (List)
Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Year 3 20XX Year 4 20XX Year 5 20XX (Final)
Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal)
Table 7: Student Demographics. Demographic Percentages % Female PhD Students % White Non‐Hispanic PhD Students % Asian‐American PhD Students % Female Master’s Students % White Non‐Hispanic Master’s Students
% Asian‐American Master’s Students Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Year 3 20XX Year 5 20XX (Final)
Year 4 20XX Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal)
Table 8: Graduate Student Degree Completion Progress. In each cell indicate total number and percent female, domestic, and non‐White/non‐ Hispanic. Year 5 Year 5 + 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX Number (Final)
(Goal)
PhD Students Enrolled PhD Graduates Minimum / Maximum / Average Time to Comprehensive Exam (Subject‐Area) for PhD Graduates During Year Indicated
Minimum / Maximum and Average Time to Qualifying Exam (Research Proposal) for PhD Graduates During Year Indicated
Minimum / Maximum and Average Time to Degree for PhD Graduates During Year Indicated Research Master’s Students Enrolled (Plan A or B)
Research Master’s Students Graduated (Plan A or B)
Minimum / Maximum and Average Time to Degree for Research Master’s Graduates During Year Indicated (Plan A or B)
Professional Focus Master’s Students Enrolled (Plan C or D)
Professional Focus Master’s Students Graduated (Plan C or D)
Minimum / Maximum and Average Time to Degree for Professional Focus Master’s Graduates During Year Indicated (Plan C or D) Table 9: Graduate Student Funding. In each cell indicate total number and % supported by internal and external funds (Internal = GTA, GA, GTI, FELI; External = GRA, FELE). Year 5 + 5
Year 5
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX (Final) (Goal) Number 1st Year PhD Students Receiving Funding
2nd‐4th Year PhD Students Receiving Funding
5th Year PhD Students Receiving Funding
>5 Years PhD Students Receiving Funding
1st Year Research Master’s Students Receiving Funding
2nd Year Research Master’s Students Receiving Funding
>2 Years Research Master’s Students Receiving Funding
Professional Focus Master’s Students Receiving Funding
II. Quantitative Data Collected by the Program(s). Additional data must be provided by the program(s). Goals will be identified by the units preparing the self‐study report. The “goal” column will be filled in by the unit preparing the self‐study if the unit chooses to use that column to set goals for itself as a way to internally prioritize resource and effort allocation in the future. Program Name(s): Table 10: Research Involving Graduate Students. Number Peer‐Reviewed Publications with PhD Student as First Author
Peer‐Reviewed Publications with PhD Student as Coauthor
Peer‐Reviewed Publications with Research Master’s Student as Peer‐Reviewed Publications with Research Master’s Student as Oral / Poster Presentations at Professional Meetings by PhD Oral / Poster Presentations at Professional Meetings by Master’s Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Year 3 20XX Year 5 + 5
20XX (Goal) Year 5
20XX (Final) Year 4 20XX Table 11: Teaching Experiences for Graduate Students. Number GTA/GTI Duty Required for PhD Students? (Yes, No)
Average Number of Laboratory or Recitation Sections Taught per Semester by PhD Students Average Number of Lecture Sections Taught per Semester by PhD Students GTA/GTI Duty Required for Master’s Students? (Yes, No)
Average Number of Laboratory or Recitation Sections Taught per Semester by Master’s Students Average Number of Lecture Sections Taught per Semester by Master’s Students Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Year 3 20XX Year 5 20XX (Final)
Year 4 20XX Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal)
Table 12: Post‐Graduation Activities. Number of Indicated Type of Student (PhD or MS) Graduating in Indicated Year PhD Students Going Directly to Tenure‐Track Positions
PhD Students Going Directly to Post‐Doc Positions
PhD Students Going Directly to Position in Industry
PhD Students Going Directly to Position in Government
PhD Students with no Positions Master’s Students Going Directly to a PhD Program
Master’s Students Going Directly to Post‐Secondary Education
Master’s Students Going Directly to Position in Industry
Master’s Students Going Directly to Position in Government
Master’s Students with no Position (New) Table 13: Graduate Student Credits Average number of credits taken in different categories by the graduating class U = undergrad level, 3000‐4000 lvl, G = graduate level, 5000‐6000 lvl, I = internal to dept., E = external to dept., R = research PhD Students (MS ‐> PhD) PhD Students (BS ‐> PhD) Master’s Research Thesis Master’s Research Report Master’s Coursework Year 1 20XX Year 2 20XX Year 1 20XX U G Year 3 20XX Year 2 20XX U G Year 3 20XX U G Year 5 20XX (Final)
Year 4 20XX Year 4 20XX U G Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal)
Year 5 20XX (Final)
U G Year 5 + 5 20XX (Goal)
U G I E I E R I E I E R I E I E R I E I E R I E I E R I E I E R
III. Qualitative Data Collected by the Program(s) Surveys will be administered to volunteer students (current and former) online. Responses will be returned to the Graduate School where they will be aggregated into two groups (current students/former students) and provided to the program. The identity of the respondents will be kept confidential. A. Questions for Current Students: 1. Was Michigan Tech your first choice for graduate school? If not, what was your first choice? 2. Are you PhD or Master’s student? If Master’s, do you plan to write a thesis? 3. Are you planning to earn a certificate as well as your degree? 4. Are you planning to earn more than one degree (e.g., Master’s and PhD or Master’s in more than one field)? 5. What were you doing before graduate school? If at University, which one? 6. While a graduate student have you traveled to a conference? If so, did you give an oral or poster presentation? If so, how was the trip paid for? 7. Have you had a paper published in a peer‐reviewed journal or equivalent? If so, were you the first author? 8. Have you written a proposal for external or internal funding (e.g., for fellowship, research grant, or other)? 9. Have you had financial support? If so, of what type? If so, how many hours on average did you work per week? If a TA, were you given training or support for teaching? 10. What are your primary and secondary career goals? 11. Have you had an internship or co‐op position? 12. Were your graduate program’s goals for its students clear to you before you came to Michigan Tech? 13. Are you a peer mentor? 14. Are your colleagues (other graduate students) supportive of one another? 15. Are there opportunities for social interactions with the other graduate students in your program? 16. Are there opportunities for social interactions with faculty and staff? 17. Do you have an advisor? 18. Do you have a faculty or staff member mentor who is not also your advisor? 19. Is your progress in graduate school formally reviewed with you at least one time per year? If so, who communicates with you about the review (e.g., department chair, graduate program director, or advisor)? 20. Are you encouraged to interact with faculty and/or students outside of your home department? 21. Are you encouraged to take courses outside of your home department? 22. Have you identified your external committee member? If so, in what year of your graduate program did you add this person to your committee? Please rate the following for the overall program (Likert Scale of 1‐5: outstanding, good, average, poor, very poor) 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Teaching by faculty Scholarly activity of faculty Curriculum (courses) offered Research conducted by graduate students Advising of graduate researchers Program quality Computer resources Laboratories or studios Graduate student offices/workspaces Scholarly interactions with peers Social interactions Please rate the following for the University overall (Likert Scale of 1‐5: outstanding, good, average, poor, very poor, N/A) 1. Library 2. On‐campus housing 3. Off‐campus housing 4. Healthcare 5. Health insurance 6. Childcare 7. Social interaction spaces 8. Recreational/athletic activities B. Questions for Former Students: 1. Were you PhD or master’s student? If Master’s, did you write a thesis? 2. Did you earn a certificate as well as a degree? 3. Did you earn more than one graduate degree at Michigan Tech (e.g., master’s and PhD or Master’s in more than one field)? 4. What are you doing professionally at this time? 5. Do you feel your graduate education at Michigan Tech prepared you well for your career? 6. Would you recommend Michigan Tech to prospective graduate students in your field? Please rate how well you feel your program prepared you to: (Likert Scale of 1‐5: very well, well, average, poorly, very poorly) 1. Make oral presentations. 2. Prepare written reports. 3. Write proposals for resources. 4. Think critically about technical issues in your field. 5. Learn material on your own. 6. Manage your time. 7. Supervise others. 8. Think “outside the box.” Do you have any suggestions on how the graduate program in which you completed your degree might be improved? IV. Other Narrative Information Suggested types of other information that program may wish to address in the self‐study of its graduate programs are listed below. 1. Program Goals: What are the goals for the program(s)? (For example, at the PhD level is the intent to produce researchers in a particular area of the discipline? Is the goal to produce future faculty? Is the goal to produce researchers for industry? At the master’s level is the goal to emphasize research or professional preparation?) 2. Alignment: How do the programmatic goals align with the University Strategic Plan? 3. Resources: How are resources (money, space, faculty and staff time) allocated in support of the goals? 4. Innovative Practices: Are some practices being employed that are particularly effective or promising? (For example, REU‐based recruiting, peer‐mentoring, TA‐
training/support, proposal preparation training, career preparation training, awards for outstanding achievements, travel support for meetings, departmental‐level grievance process, formal annual review of graduate students, etc.). 5. Points of Pride: Notable achievements, recognitions, etc. 6. Collaboration: Describe new or existing collaborations. These may be international, interdisciplinary, multi‐university, etc. 7. Challenges: What challenges exist that may make it difficult to reach the goals? 8. New Initiatives: Are any new initiatives currently planned? Appendix B: Synoptic Questions These synoptic questions were part of the Procedure for Periodic Review of Academic Departments and Schools and were to be addressed by all departments and programs under review. 1. In what ways does your unit support both the University's and your college's/school's mission and vision statements? 2. In what ways does your unit intersect with the University's current strategic planning statement? 3. In what ways does your unit promote a positive image of MTU beyond the University (locally, regionally, nationally)? 4. In what ways does your unit contribute to interdisciplinary education and/or research? 5. In what ways does your unit integrate its undergraduate program(s), graduate program(s) (if applicable), research, and scholarly activities? 2. Procedure for periodic review
PROCEDURE FOR PERIODIC REVIEW OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS AND SCHOOLS (Draft OVERVIEW) PURPOSE: Regular, periodic reviews of academic departments and schools provide a formal process for thorough, fact‐based documentation and evaluation of academic programs and the infrastructure supporting them, and for setting and acknowledging plans for their growth and improvement. The distinctive feature of these reviews is that they focus uniquely on evaluation of the academic department as an integrated whole, and on the way the department’s resources are managed to promote its overall success. A. Graduate Program Review B. Student‐level Assessment A. Undergraduate Program Review (external) ‐ ABET ‐ AACSB ‐ SAF ‐ ACH ‐ Sciences & Arts external program review MS coursework ‐ student learning goal outcomes ‐ disciplinary ‐ programmatic outcomes MS Research ‐ student learning goal outcomes ‐ disciplinary knowledge ‐ research conduct ‐ programmatic outcomes PhD ‐ student learning goal outcomes ‐ disciplinary knowledge (exam) ‐ ability to design a research project (proposal defense) ‐ ability to conduct research (thesis) ‐ ability to communicate results (thesis/dissertation, oral/written) ‐ programmatic outcomes Budget Process ‐ Mission and vision ‐ Quantitative data ‐faculty & staff ‐ facilities ‐ budgets ‐student enrollment, retention, completion, placement ‐ faculty productivity & funding ‐ Assessment of student learning ‐ Employer/graduate surveys ‐ Recent initiatives & evaluation ‐ Goals for the future ‐ Self‐Study – how does the unit ‐ support/intersect university /college strategic plan ‐ support interdisciplinary education and research ‐ integrate under/grad/research and scholarship ‐ manage competing needs for resources ‐ demonstrate leadership in the discipline B. Student‐level Assessment ‐ student learning goal outcomes ‐ programmatic outcomes ‐ student success (retention/ graduation) Academic Department and School Periodic Review (external/internal) ‐ Resource allocation review ‐ Resource requests 3. Cornell graduate objectives https://www.gradschool.cornell.edu/academics/learning‐assessment/doctoral‐proficiencies
Doctoral Proficiencies
1 of 1
https://www.gradschool.cornell.edu/print/5620
Published on Graduate School (https://www.gradschool.cornell.edu)
Home > Academics > Learning Assessment > Doctoral Proficiencies
A candidate for a doctoral degree is expected to demonstrate mastery of knowledge in the chosen discipline
and to synthesize and create new knowledge, making an original and substantial contribution to the
discipline in a timely fashion.
Make an original and substantial contribution to the discipline
Think originally and independently to develop concepts and methodologies
Identify new research opportunities within one's field
Demonstrate advanced research skills
Synthesize existing knowledge, identifying and accessing appropriate resources and other
sources of relevant information and critically analyzing and evaluating one's own findings and
those of others
Master application of existing research methodologies, techniques, and technical skills
Communicate in a style appropriate to the discipline
Demonstrate commitment to advancing the values of scholarship
Keep abreast of current advances within one's field and related areas
Show commitment to personal professional development through – engagement in professional
societies, publication, and other knowledge transfer modes
Show a commitment to creating an environment that supports learning through teaching,
collaborative inquiry, mentoring, or demonstration
Demonstrate professional skills
Adhere to ethical standards in the discipline
Listen, give, and receive feedback effectively
Source URL: https://www.gradschool.cornell.edu/academics/learning-assessment/doctoral-proficiencies
1/12/2015 9:09 AM
4. Atmospheric Sciences @ Cornell https://www.gradschool.cornell.edu/academics/fields‐of‐study/subject/atmospheric‐
science/atmospheric‐science‐ms‐phd‐ithaca Assessment metrics for the Atmospheric Sciences MS program
Proficiency
Possible Measurement(s)
Make a contribu.on to scholarship within one of the sub-­‐disciplines within the atmospheric sciences
Think originally and independently to develop 1. Thesis concepts and/or methodologies
Iden.fy new research opportuni.es within student's 2. proposals submiCed externally and internally
field
3. thesis
4. ini.al job placement
5. 5-­‐10 year job placement
Learn advanced research skills
Synthesize exis.ng knowledge, iden.fy and access appropriate informa.on resources, and cri.cally analyze and evaluate findings
Apply exis.ng research methodologies, techniques, and technical skills, as appropriate
Develop both qualita.ve and quan.ta.ve skills
1. papers completed for courses
2. thesis quality
3. technical skills (theory, simula.on modeling, data analysis, computer skills, etc.)
4. course selec.ons and record
5. thesis content
Communicate in a style appropriate to the discipline 6. quality of thesis
7. oral communica.on skills in seminars
8. ini.al job placement
Demonstrate commitment to advancing the values of scholarship
Keep abreast of current advances within the field 1. papers (conference presenta.ons, course papers, or and related areas
other independent wri.ng)
2. conference par.cipa.on
3. aCendance at department seminars, student professional organiza.on chapter ac.vi.es
4. prepara.on/submission of independent grant or fellowship proposal 5. par.cipa.on in research group seminars
Give and receive feedback construc.vely and 6. teaching evalua.ons
effec.vely
7. student recep.vity to cri.cism of academic work
Show commitment to professional development 8.par.cipa.on in student chapters of professional through engagement in professional socie.es and organiza.ons (e.g. AMS, AGU)
other knowledge transfer modes
Support learning through teaching, mentoring, or 9. teaching, mentoring, or collabora.ng with others
demonstra.on
10. developing materials for classroom instruc.on Overarching Goals
Complete degree within 2 years of entering graduate 1. average .me-­‐to-­‐degree compared to benchmark
school
2. average comple.on rate compared to benchmark
Timeframe
Sources
ongoing
assessment by faculty using rubric
ongoing
degree comple.on
degree comple.on
5-­‐10 years aJer gradua.on
departmental and field records
assessment by faculty using rubric
departmental records
departmental records
ongoing
assessment by faculty
degree comple.on assessment by faculty using rubric
ongoing
assessment by faculty using rubric
ongoing degree comple.on
degree comple.on
ongoing
degree comple.on
course records
assessment by faculty using rubric
assessment by faculty using rubric
assessment by faculty using rubric
department records
ongoing ongoing
ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
ongoing
ongoing ongoing
assessment by faculty using rubric
departmental records assessment by faculty
semesterly TA evalua.ons
assessment by faculty
CV review
ongoing
ongoing
TA evalua.ons, CV review
assessment by course instructors
conference grant applica.ons, departmental travel records
assessment by faculty, CV review
degree comple.on Grad School (average over several years)
degree comple.on Grad School (average over several years)
Assessment metrics for the Atmospheric Sciences PhD program
Proficiency
Possible Measurement(s)
Make an original and substan1al contribu1on to one of the sub-­‐disciiplines within atmospheric sciences
Think originally and independently to develop 1. external fellowships and grants received
concepts and methodologies
2. disserta1on proposal 3. peer-­‐reviewed publica1ons
Iden1fy new research opportuni1es within student's 4. proposals submiHed externally and internally
5. ini1al job placement
field
6. 5-­‐10 year job placement
Demonstrate advanced research skills
1. effec1ve grant wri1ng and publica1on skills
Synthesize exis1ng knowledge, iden1fy and access 2. thesis proposal
appropriate resources, and cri1cally analyze and 3. A exam
evaluate findings
Master applica1on of exis1ng research 4. technical skill (theory, simula1on modelling, computer methodologies, techniques, and technical skills
skills, etc.)
5. thesis proposal
Develop both qualita1ve and quan1ta1ve skills
6. disserta1on content
Communicate effec1vely in a style appropriate to the 7. published paper (conference, journal)
discipline
8. oral communica1on skills in seminars and conferences
9. defense presenta1on
Demonstrate commitment to advancing the values of scholarship
Keep abreast of current advances within the field 1. A exam
and related areas
2. papers (conference presenta1ons, course papers, or other independent wri1ng)
3. conference par1cipa1on
4. aHendance at department seminars, student professional organiza1on chapter ac1vi1es
5. prepara1on/submission of independent grant or fellowship proposal 6. par1cipa1on in research group seminars
Give and receive feedback effec1vely
7. teaching evalua1ons
8. student recep1vity to cri1cism of academic work
Show commitment to professional development 9. par1cipa1on in student chapters of professional through engagement in professional socie1es, oganiza1ons (e.g., AMS, AGU)
publica1on, and other knowledge transfer
10. par1cipa1on in department-­‐based commiHees
Support learning through teaching, mentoring, or 11. teaching, mentoring, or collabora1ng with others
demonstra1on
12. developing materials for classroom instruc1on Overarching Goals
Complete degree wi1n 5 years of entering graduate school
1. average 1me to A exam compared to benchmark
2. average comple1on rate compared to benchmark
3. average 1me to degree compared to benchmark
Timeframe
Sources
ongoing
no later than beginning of 4th year
ongoing
ongoing
degree comple1on
5-­‐10 years aMer gradua1on
departmental and Field records
assessment by faculty during A exam using rubric
disserta1on and B exam using rubric
departmental and Field records
departmental records
departmental records ongoing
no later than beginning of 4th year
no later than beginning of 4th year
ongoing
faculty evalua1on and departmental records
assessment by faculty using rubric
assessment by faculty using rubric
assessmet by faculty using rubric
no later than beginning of 4th year
degree comple1on
ongoing
ongoing
degree comple1on
assessment by faculty using rubric
assessment by faculty using rubric
CV review
assessment by faculty using rubric
assessment by faculty using rubric
no later than beginning of 4th year
ongoing ongoing ongoing assessment by faculty using rubric
assessment by faculty using rubric
departmental travel records
assesment by faculty, CV review
ongoing CV review, departmental records
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing ongoing
faculty evalua1on
semesterly TA evalua1ons
assessment by faculty
CV review
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
CV review, departmental records
TA evalua1ons, CV review
assessment by course instructors
no later than beginning of 4th year Grad School (average over several years)
degree comple1on
Grad School (average over several years)
degree comple1on
Grad School (average over several years)
Rubric for Evaluation of MS Student Progress Field of Atmospheric Sciences Student name __________________________________________________________ Faculty names (committee together should decide upon responses) __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ For use in evaluation of written thesis and oral presentation Date __________________ For each category, specify (i.e., circle) the level achieved thus far. Graduate education outcomes -­-­ the MS student will be able to: Think originally and independently to develop concepts and methodologies 1 (Unacceptable) 2 (Fair) 3 (Good) No independent research. Question or problem is trivial, weak, unoriginal, or previously solved. Demonstrates competence but is not very original or significant. Displays little creativity, imagination, or insight. Synthesize existing knowledge, and critically analyze and evaluate their own findings and those of others Gaps in basic knowledge. Does not understand basic concepts or conventions of the discipline. Misunder-­‐
stands or misses relevant literature. Misrepresents or misuses sources. Relies on others to suggest data that are relevant to solving a problem of interest. Follows instructions for routine procedures, without experimentation to test the behavior of the phenomenon. Does not recognize unphysical or improbable results. Argument is weak, inconsistent, contradictory, unconvincing or invalid. Illustrations poorly selected or illegible. Displays a basic understanding of the field. Literature review is adequate but not critical. Has a compelling question or problem. Argument is strong, comprehensive, and coherent. Has some original ideas, insights, and observations. Displays a solid understanding of the field. Uses appropriate, standard theory, methods and techniques. Some exploration of interesting issues and connections. Unable to articulate an argument. Does not grasp intent of questions. Partially understands questions. Provides a coherent response with some logic gaps or inconsistencies. Writing is adequate. Structure and organization are sufficient. Illustrations legible, technically correct, and appropriate. Develop both qualitative and quantitative skills Show effective oral communication skills. Respond adequately to questions posed. Display effective written communication skills. Keep abreast of current advances in the field and related areas Academic writing lacks structure and organization. Writing has frequent spelling and grammatical errors. Illustrations poorly selected or illegible. Relies on textbooks and course notes as primary sources of information. Does not understand or misses relevant literature. Misrepresents or misuses sources. Assembles data into formats appropriate to interpretation. Poses hypotheses based on empirical data, or identifies patterns in data that disprove hypotheses. Poses ideas for analyses or quantitative models, based on understanding of theory. Provides solid, expected results and answers. Clear and coherent. Illustrations legible, technically correct, and appropriate. Follows suggestions of faculty to read specific published articles. Uses internet search tools to seek newly published papers. Occasionally attends relevant seminar programs. Uses quantitative techniques to evaluate the uncertainty associ-­‐
ated with data and to rigorously seek patterns or relationships in data sets. Transforms infor-­‐
mation about processes and states to quantitative expressions. Develops simple algorithms. Gives a solid argument with novel or fresh insights. Original with clear and coherent details. Both technical content and graphic design of illustrations well planned and executed. Grasps significance of questions. Shows understanding and mastery of subject matter. Well written and well organized. Both technical content and graphic design of illustrations well planned and executed. Explores specific journals regularly for new advances in field. Attends relevant seminar programs regularly. Attends relevant conferences. Structured Observation (MS thesis) •
To what extent has the student made an original and substantial contribution to a subdiscipline within the Field? •
To what extent does the student demonstrate advanced research skills? •
To what extent does the student demonstrate commitment to advancing the values of scholarship? 5. (Suggested) Graduate Learning Objectives for PhD PhD Graduate Learning Objectives & Suggested Outcomes
Grad‐school Objective (intended purpose/results)
Suggested Outcomes (achieved results): Students will…
acquire the requisite background knowledge in X to successfully complete a research project in the discipline
demonstrate subject mastery to their peers
Suggested Timing
Supplemental Measurements
Qualifying exam
Dissertation defense
Student surveys
Student surveys
Ongoing
Proposal defense
Dissertaion defense
attendance at seminars / conferences
Student surveys
Proposal defense
Student surveys
student milestones
Student surveys
Mastery of disciplinary knowledge
stay abreast of current advances in the field
Ability to design a successful research project
be able to identify new research opportunities within the field
conduct planned research in a timely fashion
Ability to conduct research
find and utilize appropriate materials and demonstrate ability to sythesize content to make critical analyses
Ongoing
Qualifying exam (e.g. Geology open book section)
Proposal defense Dissertation review
Dissertaion defense
master and knowledgably apply techniques, methodologies, and the technical skills required to perform stated research
Dissertation review
adhere to ethical standards of the field
Ongoing Dissertation review
Student surveys
academic records, IRB approvals, training completed by students,
Student surveys
Proposal defense
Dissertaion defense
Professional activities (papers, conferences, seminars, colloquiums)
TA Assessment
Student surveys
communicate in a style appropriate to the audience and discipline
Communicate professionally (develop professional skills and relationships)
disseminate results in various forums
adhere to ethical standards of the field
give and receive feedback effectively
support learning through teaching, mentoring or demonstration
Ongoing
Dissertation review, Qualifying Exam (ethical use of literature)
Dissertaion defense
Ongoing
Student surveys
publications (peer reviewed, grey), poster presentations,
seminars/guest lectures Student surveys
Student surveys
Student surveys
TA assessment, mentoring activity, collaboration activities
Student surveys
6. (Suggested) Graduate Learning Objectives for (research) MS MS Graduate Learning Objectives & Suggested Outcomes
Grad‐school Objective (intended purpose/results)
Suggested Outcomes (achieved results): Students will…
acquire the requisite background knowledge in X to successfully complete a research project in the discipline
demonstrate subject mastery to their peers
Suggested Timing
Supplemental Measurements
Ongoing
Thesis Defense
Student surveys
Student surveys
stay abreast of current advances in the field
Ongoing
Thesis defense
conduct planned research in a timely fashion
find and utilize appropriate materials and demonstrate ability to sythesize content to make critical analyses
Ongoing
Thesis defense
Thesis review
Proficiency of disciplinary knowledge
Learn advanced research skills
learn and adeptly apply techniques, methodologies, and the technical Ongoing
skills required to perform stated research
Thesis review
adhere to ethical standards of the field
communicate in a style appropriate to the audience and discipline
adhere to ethical standards of the field
give and receive feedback effectively
support learning through teaching, mentoring or demonstration
Student surveys
Ongoing
Thesis review
Publications
Student surveys
Academic records, IRB approvals, Training completed by students,
Student surveys
Ongoing
Thesis defense (communication)
Professional activities (papers, conferences, seminars, colloquiums)
TA Assessment
Student surveys
Refine communication skills (develop professional skills and relationships)
disseminate results in various forums
Attendance at seminars / conferences
Student surveys
Student milestones
Student surveys
Publications (peer reviewed, grey), Poster presentations,
Seminars/guest lectures Student surveys
Ongoing
Dissertation review, Qualifying Exam (ethical use of literature)
Thesis Defense
Student surveys
Student surveys
Ongoing
TA assessment, Mentoring activity, Collaboration activities
Student surveys
7. Goal/Objective Map USLGs
1. Disciplinary Knowledge
MS (DQP)
Specialized Knowledge
2. Knowledge of the Physical and Natural World
3. Global Literacy
4. Critical and Creative Thinking
5. Communication
6. Information Literacy
7. Technology
8. Social Responsibility and Ethical Reasoning
Integrative Knowledge
1. Students demonstrate a depth of knowledge in one discipline, as well as a breadth of knowledge that (1) enables adaptability and flexibility ... and (2) recognizes linkages/complementarity to other areas/disciplines.
2. Students demonstrate knowledge of the physical and natural world. This is accomplished by studying science and mathematics.
3. understand and analyze issues on multiple scales and from diverse perspectives, acknowledging interconnectivity and complexity. 4. think critically and creatively, as demonstrated by their broad, adaptable and versatile use of reasoning, logic, and evidence
5. Students will be able to communicate effectively, orally, in writing and in new media, to a wide variety of audiences.
6. Students will be able to analyze the need for, strategically access, critically evaluate, and use information effectively, ethically, and legally.
7. demonstrate knowledge of technology and its implications in society, and be able to design and/or use technology for creative activities or innovative solutions to problems.
8. identify and address conflicting ethical values and develop a sense of responsibility for the broad impacts of individual actions and social institutions. PhD / Research MS
Mastery of Disciplinary Knowledge
Intellectual Skills
design & implement a research project
Applied Learning
professional communication of results
Civic Learning
Specialized Knowledge: proficiencies involving terminology, theory, methods, tools, literature, complex problems or applications and cognizance of limits.
Broad & Integrative Knowledge: exploring, connecting and applying concepts and methods across multiple fields of study to complex questions — in the student’s areas of specialization, in work or other field‐based settings and in the wider society
Intellectual Skills: six crosscutting Intellectual Skills including:
a. Analytic Inquiry: synthesizing cognitive operations
b. Information Resources: find, organize and evaluate information
c. Engaging Diverse Perspectives: intellectual flexibility and broad knowledge that enables perception of the world through the eyes of others
d. Ethical Reasoning: judicious and self‐reflective application of ethical principles and codes of conduct resident in cultures, professions, occupations, economic behavior and social relationships to making decisions and taking action.
e. Quantitative Fluency: quantitative expressions and the issues they raise
f. Communicative Fluency: use of messages to achieve shared understanding of
meaning
Applied & Collaborative Learning: corresponding integration of theory and practice, along with the ideal of learning with others
Civic & Global Learning: analytic inquiry and engagement with diverse perspectives
While more "packaged", the suggested goals for Graduate Students encompass those of the Lumina Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) and the Michigan Tech University Student Learning Goals. 1.5.3 Graduate Faculty Status | Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Handbook
2 of 3
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/prov/facbook/ch1/1chap-17.htm
Faculty may meet the qualification requirements if they:
a. Are currently involved in research work or graduate instruction or in advising
graduate students.
b. Regularly publish articles in recognized journals having national distribution or
books related to their field of study.
c. Have earned the terminal degree in their field.
C. Appointment Procedures
Graduate Faculty appointment and retention decisions are made by the Dean of the Graduate
School with recommendations and advice from department chairs, deans of colleges and
schools, and the Graduate Faculty Council.
Recommendation for Graduate Faculty status is made in writing by the department chair of the
appropriate academic unit or by the dean of the appropriate School. These recommendations
are forwarded to the college dean, where appropriate, and then to the Graduate Dean.
D. Review of Graduate Faculty
It is expected that department chairs/school deans will continually review the performance of
all individuals holding graduate faculty status in their respective units using criteria outlined in
Section B above.
When, in a department chair/school dean's professional judegment, a faculty member holding a
graduate faculty appointment is no longer satisfactorily functioning in this capacity, s/he must
recommend that the individual in question be removed from graduate faculty status. The Dean
of the Graduate School may also initiate the removal process in consultation with the
appropriate chair/dean. The Dean of the Graduate School will act on recommendations with
the advice and consent of the Graduate Faculty Council.
<< previous :: top :: next >>
Chapter Table of Contents :: Table of Contents :: Index :: Provost's Home Page :: Michigan Tech Home
Revised:
02/06/2014 - Updated Michigan Tech and Handbook banners, no changes made to content.
01/29/2014 - Updated Michigan Tech banner, no changes made to content.
01/08/2014 - 2013 Annual Review: Item C, second paragraph read ".... appropriate academic unit
or by the deans of the appropriate School" now reads ".... appropriate academic unit or by the dean of the
appropriate School"; and Item D, the last sentence in the second paragraph read ".... with the advice
and consent of the Graduate Council" now reads ".... with the advice and consent of the Graduate Faculty Council."
03/12/2013 - 2012 Annual Review: The first and second paragraphs read: "The Graduate Faculty
consists of members of the academic faculty holding the rank of ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, or PROFESSOR who have been appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School.
The Dean of the Graduate School may also grant graduate faculty status to LECTURER, ADJUNCT
and EMERITUS faculty and faculty holding a rank with a prefix of VISITING, but these appointments
are for one year and must be reviewed and reappointed on an annual basis." now reads:
"The Graduate Faculty consists of tenured and tenure-track members of the academic faculty
holding the rank of ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, or PROFESSOR who have been appointed
by the Dean of the Graduate School. Tenured and tenure-track faculty who are awarded EMERITUS
status upon retirement remain members of the Graduate Faculty. The Dean of the Graduate
School may also grant graduate faculty status to others with an on-going professional relationship
with Michigan Tech, including RESEARCH, PART-TIME, VISITING, or ADJUNCT faculty members,
LECTURERS and INSTRUCTORS, RESEARCH ENGINEERS, and RESEARCH SCIENTISTS." the fourth paragraph
read "(500 level and above)" and now reads (5000 level and above)". Also added the fifth paragraph:
"Persons who are not members of the Graduate Faculty may teach 5000 and 6000 level courses
only after obtaining written approval from the Dean of the Graduate School."
The first paragraph in item C. read: "... and the Graduate Council" and now reads: "... and the
Graduate Faculty Council"
05/02/2011 - 2010 Annual Review: In Item C. the sentence "Recommendation for Graduate Faculty
status is made in writing by the department chair of the appropriate academic unit or by
11/11/2014 1:15 PM
Update on Graduate Program Review
The Graduate School has been working to take the guidelines for Graduate Program
Review (approved by the GFC on October 21, 2010) and update them so that it is clear
how they align with the University Learning Goals, University Strategic Plan, and
guidance regarding assessment provided to the University by the Higher Learning
Commission. This will be helpful for communication with our accreditation authority.
One thing that has become clear (and is not surprising) is that for PhD students, the
Qualifying Exam, Proposal Defense, Final Oral Defense, and Dissertation are key
elements in the assessment of PhD students.
PhD Student Goals:
1) Disciplinary knowledge (measured by the Qualifying Exam)
2) Ability to design a research project (Proposal Defense)
3) Ability to conduct research (Final Oral Exam and Dissertation)
4) Ability to communicate the results of research orally and in writing (Final Oral Exam
and Dissertation)
In addition to these university-wide goals for PhD students there may also be program
specific goals.
On the following page you will find some draft rubrics that could be used by faculty (and
potentially others) to assess student learning outcomes at the Proposal Defense, Final
Oral Defense, and Dissertation stages (prepared by Alex Guth).
We are interested in receiving feedback on these rubrics from the GFC.
Written document evaluation (for committee)
Student Name:____________________________
Program:_________________________________
Defense date:_____________________________
Document type: Dissertation, Thesis, Report, Proposal
Please evaluate the written document on the following criteria, using the attached rubric.
Lumina
Beginning
(1)
3e: Comm.
fluency
Control of Syntax and Mechanics:
Quality of language use to communicate
meaning and control over errors
3e: Comm.
fluency
Organization & Conventions: Clear
and consistent organizational pattern
and structuring elements including
introduction, thesis and main points,
conclusion, and transitions; follows
formal and informal rules of genre or
disciplinary expectations about
organization, content, presentation,
formatting, and stylistic choices.
3b: Info
Resources
Sources and Evidence: Uses a variety
of quality sources and acknowledges
different views to support ideas
appropriate for discipline and genre of
writing (e.g., citation styles); may use
data to support observations and draw
conclusions
3a: Analytic
Inquiry
Proposes
Solutions/Models/Hypotheses: Ability
to propose and evaluate questions,
solutions, models, and/or hypotheses
related to a problem or a description of
a natural phenomenon.
Content Development: Uses
appropriate and relevant content to
develop ideas, situate ideas in a
disciplinary context, and shape the work
1:Specialized
Knowledge
2: Integrative
Knowledge
Comments:
Thinking Innovatively: Creating and
applying significant ideas
Developing
(2)
Proficient
(3)
Exemplary
(4)
Column1
Control of Syntax and Mechanics:
Quality of language use to communicate
meaning and control over errors
Beginning (1)
Shows some understanding of writing
basics but errors distract from meaning.
Organization & Conventions: Clear and
consistent organizational pattern and
structuring elements including introduction,
thesis and main points, conclusion, and
transitions; follows formal and informal
rules of genre or disciplinary expectations
about organization, content, presentation,
formatting, and stylistic choices.
Develops unclear or inconsistent
organizational pattern; shows little
awareness of genre and disciplinary
conventions.
Developing (2)
Proficient (3)
Exemplary (4)
Shows understanding of writing basics and Shows competent use of writing to clearly
conveys meaning although may have
convey meaning with few errors.
noticeable errors.
Shows skillful use of writing to
communicate meaning with clarity,
fluency, and virtually error-free.
Develops organizational pattern unevenly; Develops recognizable organizational
follows disciplinary or task expectations at pattern that structures the whole work;
a basic level of understanding.
uses disciplinary or task conventions
consistently.
Develops organizational pattern that
enhances flow and cohesiveness through
the whole work; demonstrates detailed
attention to and successful execution of
disciplinary or task conventions.
Sources and Evidence: Uses a variety of Demonstrates minimal support for ideas in Demonstrates an attempt to use credible
the writing.
and/or relevant sources.
quality sources and acknowledges
different views to support ideas
appropriate for discipline and genre of
writing (e.g., citation styles); may use data
to support observations and draw
conclusions
Demonstrates consistent use of credible,
relevant sources.
Demonstrates skillful use of high-quality,
credible, diverse, and relevant sources.
Proposes
Solutions/Models/Hypotheses: Ability to
propose and evaluate questions, solutions,
models, and/or hypotheses related to a
problem or a description of a natural
phenomenon.
Demonstrates a basic understanding of
the problem or phenomenon, but is unable
to provide even a superficial approach to
solve the problem, or to understand or
conceptualize the phenomenon within
modern discipline--‐specific frameworks.
As appropriate to the given problem or
phenomenon, is able to provide an
appropriate solution, model, or hypothesis
to solve the problem or understand or
conceptualize the phenomenon within
modern disciplinary frameworks. Carries
out only superficial or workmanlike
solutions, perhaps incorrectly. Is able to
pose basic original questions about
phenomena.
As appropriate to the given problem or
phenomenon, is able to provide an
appropriate solution, model, or hypothesis
to solve the problem or understand or
conceptualize the phenomenon within
modern disciplinary frameworks. Carries
out correct analysis to solve the problem
or evaluate models and/or hypotheses. Is
able to pose insightful original questions
about phenomena.
Proposes one or more solutions, models,
or hypotheses indicating a deep
understanding of the problem or
phenomenon. Carries out correct, detailed
solution or discipline--‐specific analysis to
completion, with awareness of limiting
factors based on approximations and/or
assumptions. Poses insightful original
questions about phenomena, and can
articulate a reasoned approach for further
investigation.
Content Development: Uses appropriate
and relevant content to develop ideas,
situate ideas in a disciplinary context, and
shape the work
Demonstrates simplistic development of
content in some parts of the work.
Demonstrates appropriate development of Demonstrates compelling ideas and
ideas and disciplinary context through
subject development through the whole
most of the work.
work.
Demonstrates subject mastery.
Thinking Innovatively: Creating and
applying significant ideas
Reformulates a collection of available
ideas.
Experiments with generating a significant
or unique idea, question, format, or
product.
Extends a significant idea, question,
format, or product to create new
knowledge or knowledge that crosses
boundaries.
Creates a significant idea, question,
format, or product.
Oral Presentation Evaluation (for everyone in attendance at presentation)
Student Name:____________________________
Program:_________________________________
Defense date:______________________________
Student Level: (MS, PhD)
I am a…. (Faculty in program; faculty outside program; committee member; student)
Please evaluate the oral presentation on the following criteria, using the attached rubric.
Lumina
3e: Comm.
fluency
Beginning
(1)
Delivery & Composure: Posture,
gestures, eye contact, and vocal
expressiveness; impression of
composure and confidence
Organizational Pattern: Clear,
consistent and recognizable
structure (specific introduction and
conclusion, sequenced material
within the body, use of transitions)
Visual Aids: Visible, attractive,
and comprehensible visual display
materials support major points or
themes; appropriate to situation;
design and handling add to
effectiveness of presentation and
speaker’s credibility
Explanation of Issues: Clear and
comprehensive communication of
issues or problems
3d: Quant.
fluency
Interpretation: Ability to explain
information that is presented in
mathematical forms (e.g.,
equations, graphs, diagrams, tables)
3b: Info.
Resources
Evidence: Critical analysis or
synthesis of information from a
variety of sources
Comments:
Developing
(2)
Proficient
(3)
Exemplary
(4)
Beginning (1)
Detract from the understandability of the
presentation or speaker appears
uncomfortable
Developing (2)
Makes the presentation understandable
or speaker appears tentative
Proficient (3)
Makes the presentation interesting and
speaker appears composed
Exemplary (4)
Makes the presentation compelling and
speaker appears polished and confident
Organizational Pattern: Clear, consistent and
recognizable structure (specific introduction
and conclusion, sequenced material within the
body, use of transitions)
Visual Aids: Visible, attractive, and
comprehensible visual display materials
support major points or themes; appropriate to
situation; design and handling add to
effectiveness of presentation and speaker’s
credibility
Is not recognizable
is intermittently recognizeable
is clear and consistent
enhances the content
Do not support main points and/or detract Provide basic support for main points
from or overwhelm the presentation
with minimal contribution to effectiveness
of presentation
Enhance the effectiveness of the
presentation
Increase the effectiveness of the
presentation, add insight to main points,
and augment speaker’s credibility
Explanation of Issues: Clear and
comprehensive communication of issues or
problems
Idea/Issue/problem to be considered is
stated without clarification or description.
Idea/Issue/problem to be considered
critically is stated but description leaves
some terms undefined, ambiguities
unexplored, boundaries undetermined,
and/or backgrounds unknown.
Idea/Issue/problem to be considered
Idea/Issue/problem to be considered
critically is stated, described, and clarified critically is stated clearly and described
so that understanding is communicated.
comprehensively, delivering all relevant
information necessary for full
understanding.
Interpretation: Ability to explain information
that is presented in mathematical forms (e.g.,
equations, graphs, diagrams, tables)
Attempts to explain information
presented in mathematical forms, but
draws incorrect conclusions about what
the information means.
Provides accurate explanations of
information presented in mathematical
forms.
Provides accurate explanations of
information presented in mathematical
forms. Makes appropriate inferences
based on that information.
Evidence: Critical analysis or synthesis of
information from a variety of sources
Information is taken from one or a few
sources without any interpretation/
evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are
taken as fact, without question.
Provides somewhat accurate
explanations of information presented in
mathematical forms, but occasionally
makes minor errors related computations
or units.
Information is taken from a variety of
sources with some
interpretation/evaluation, but not enough
to develop an analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly
fact, with little questioning.
Information is taken from a variety of
sources with enough interpretation or
evaluation to develop a coherent analysis
or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are
possibly subject to questioning.
Information is taken from a variety of
sources with enough
interpretation/evaluation to develop a
comprehensive analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are subject to
questioning.
Delivery & Composure: Posture, gestures,
eye contact, and vocal expressiveness;
impression of composure and confidence
The University Senate of Michigan Technological University
Proposal XX-15
(Voting Units: Academic)
“Definition of “Joint” Faculty Appointments”
Background
This proposal is to formalize the definition of a term applied to tenured or tenure-track faculty
who contribute scholarship in more than one discipline at the University.
This proposal also rectifies the current situation regarding the use of the term “adjunct” at
Michigan Tech. At Michigan Tech, the term “adjunct” is currently applied to faculty members
who contribute scholarship in more than one discipline at the University but only receive
financial compensation from one discipline. This use of the term “adjunct” is not in alignment
with the usage of the term at other institutions of higher education.
Proposal
The proposed changes are intended to be added to the Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Handbook.
II.a. Joint Faculty Appointments
JOINT FACULTY APPOINTMENT (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor):
Joint faculty appointments are used to acknowledge and support the scholarly contributions that
faculty may make in more than one discipline.
All faculty members holding joint appointments must have a primary affiliation within an
academic department or school. The primary department or school will be responsible for annual
reviews for the faculty member’s reappointment, tenure, promotion, and salary consideration.
The primary department/school will seek and consider written input from the chair of the
department(s) and/or dean of the school(s) hosting the faculty member’s joint appointments.
Joint faculty appointments may or may not be associated with the distribution of salary for a
faculty member among two (or potentially more) academic units at Michigan Tech.
Joint faculty appointments are at the same rank (i.e., professor, associate professor, or assistant
professor) as a faculty member’s primary appointment.
Joint faculty appointments are possible with non-departmental and interdisciplinary programs as
well as with departments or departmental programs.
All requests for joint appointments must be approved by the provost. Requests for joint
appointments also need approval from the:
•
•
•
•
faculty member’s primary academic department chair or school dean,
dean of the faculty member’s primary college (if in a college)
faculty member’s joint-appointment discipline’s department or school (for disciplinary
appointments) or the appropriate executive group or director and Graduate Dean for
interdisciplinary appointments.
dean of the faculty member’s joint appointment college (if the joint-appointment
discipline is housed in a college)
The University Senate of Michigan Technological University
Proposal XX-15
(Voting Units: Academic)
“Modify the Definition of the Term “Adjunct” Faculty”
Background
This proposal is to modify the definition of adjunct faculty to bring the usage of this term as it is
applied at Michigan Tech into line with how the term “adjunct” is used at other institutions of
higher education.
Proposal
The proposed changes to the Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Handbook are as shown in the
remainder of this document.
II.a. Adjunct Faculty
Current Definition of Adjunct Faculty (from Section 1.5.5, Non-Tenure-Track Academic Rank
Definitions, Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Handbook;
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/prov/facbook/ch1/1chap-19.htm)
ADJUNCT
(Assistant
Professor/Associate
Professor/Professor): An
appointment at this rank is offered to persons not regularly or primarily employed
within the academic unit to which the appointment is made. Such individuals-because of training, experience, credentials, and interest--are invited to participate
in the teaching, research, and/or instructional programs of academic departments.
Ordinarily no remuneration is associated with adjunct appointments, but on the
approval of the President, remuneration may be provided for teaching and/or
research activities. Appointments shall be for no more than three years with the
possibility of subsequent appointments.
Proposed New Definition of Adjunct Faculty (shown with changes from the original tracked)
ADJUNCT (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor): An
appointment at this rank is offered to persons not regularly or primarily employed
within the an academic unit to which the appointment is madeat the University.
Such individuals--because of training, experience, credentials, and interest--are
invited to participate in the teaching, research, and/or instructional programs of
academic departments. Ordinarily no remuneration is associated with adjunct
appointments, but on the approval of the President, rRemuneration may be
provided for teaching and/or research activities. Appointments shall be for no
more than three years with the possibility of subsequent reappointments.
Proposed New Definition of Adjunct Faculty (shown with all changes from the original
accepted)
ADJUNCT (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor): An
appointment at this rank is offered to persons not regularly or primarily employed
within an academic unit at the University. Such individuals--because of training,
experience, credentials, and interest--are invited to participate in the teaching,
research, and/or instructional programs of academic departments. Remuneration
may be provided for teaching and/or research activities. Appointments shall be for
no more than three years with the possibility of subsequent reappointments.