Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
A Focused Interim Report
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, Nevada
April 27, 2009
A Confidential Report Prepared for the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
That Represents the Views of the Evaluator
Table of Content
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3
Recommendation 3................................................................................................................... 4
Recommendation 5................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendation 6................................................................................................................... 8
Recommendation 8................................................................................................................. 10
Recommendation 11............................................................................................................... 11
Commendations and Recommendations ............................................................................... 12
Appendix A: List of Interviewees ........................................................................................... 13
2
Introduction
This report describes the results of a focused interim visit to the University of Nevada, Reno
(UNR) on behalf of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities on April 27, 2009.
Dr. Elizabeth Street served as the sole evaluator for the visit. The institution provided a report
in a timely manner which describes its progress in addressing five recommendations of the
2007 full-scale evaluation team. An extensive set of exhibits was provided in an abbreviated
version in print copy and in a full version electronically. Other materials were provided as
requested.
Dr. William Cathey, vice provost, coordinated the visit and provided all appropriate assistance.
He also arranged meetings with groups that the evaluator identified. (See Appendix A for a list
of those attending the meetings.) All university personnel were welcoming and forthcoming in
discussing the university’s progress.
This is a vital institution in which faculty, staff, and students are actively engaged in the pursuit
of knowledge. Recently, it was named a National Merit Scholar University by the National Merit
Corporation, a recognition of the university’s success in “recruiting scholars as aggressively as it
recruits athletes” (President Glick, Personal Interview, April 27, 2009) and evidence that it is
addressing the trend in which some of the state’s best and brightest students leave the state to
attend college. UNR is also reaching out to high schools in the area to provide mentors to and
encourage college participation by students who have historically been underrepresented in
higher education.
Five recommendations were identified by the Commission as the focus of the visit. Comments
about the institution’s response to each are included in the sections that follow.
3
Recommendation 3: 2007 Full-Scale Evaluation Report
Academic Program Assessment
Recommendation 3: “The Committee acknowledges progress made university-wide in defining
and publishing student learning outcomes but recommends nonetheless that steps be taken to
ensure that all academic programs (including the Core Curriculum) are completing fully the
process of evaluation, analysis of results, and demonstrating that curricular changes are made
as needed. (Standard 2.B and Policy 2.2)”
Program-Specific Assessment Planning and Reporting: The University of Nevada, Reno
continues to make progress on the development and implementation of an institution-wide
academic assessment plan. All programs of the university have submitted an assessment plan
that describes student learning outcomes and the means by which students’ achievement of
these outcomes is measured. Further, programs submit annual assessment reports in which
faculty report on the degree to which outcomes have been achieved. Both assessment plans
and reports follow a university-established format. This process is supplemental to and
informed by a university-wide strategic planning process and a cyclic (seven year) departmental
program review process.
To oversee the academic program assessment process, the university created the Office of
University Assessment and provided sufficient resources to enable the office to conduct
institution-wide assessment related to program outcomes (e.g., NSSE and FSSE); to initiate
comprehensive surveys of alumni and their employers; to develop assessment guidelines and
protocols; to develop a Web interface for program assessment plans and reports as well as
assessment tools and access to university-collected, program-specific outcome data; and to
provide training opportunities for departmental faculty. Further, each program has identified
an assessment coordinator from among its faculty, and this individual not only oversees the
development of the programs’ assessment plans and reports but also serves as a liaison to the
Office of University Assessment.
Faculty and administrators note progress in the development of a culture of assessment, both
as a result of the thoughtfully-constructed infrastructure and also because of the intrinsic
rewards that accrue to departments who do the work well. Still, there is evidence of continued
resistance on the part of some faculty. The resistance is both philosophic and procedural. The
philosophic concerns include the potential for such a process to be reductionistic and to
constrain faculty creativity in designing and measuring outcomes. Procedurally, some faculty
continue to see the process as duplicative of the assessment role each plays in his or her
classroom and as a time-consuming process that adds yet another layer to already demanding
jobs. To address these concerns the Office of University Assessment has encouraged
4
individuality within departments and programs and refrained from overly prescriptive
requirements for measuring student learning outcomes and performance indicators.
The result is 100 percent compliance but at the cost of a great deal of variability in the quality
of the plans, particularly in the student learning objectives and performance indicators. Many
departments and programs, particularly those for whom specialized accreditation societies
prescribe assessment protocols, provide well-developed and well-rounded sets of student
learning outcomes. They identify as evidence that students have achieved the outcomes a
variety of socially validated indices including performance in internships or on a senior thesis or
on an end-of-major examination. Others require multiple faculty evaluation of portfolios that
contain samples of work related to the student learning outcomes. However, these
outstanding examples are offset by departments and programs that fail to identify knowledge,
skills, and dispositions students are expected to have achieved by the end of the program,
instead listing as a student learning outcome that students “must complete the prescribed
course of study.” In a similar vein, performance indicators for some departments appeal solely
to student grades in courses or on particular assignments as evidence of achievement of a
student learning outcome.
It’s very clear that the university has developed an infrastructure and provided resources to
support departments and programs in developing assessment programs that are thoroughgoing
and socially validated. Further, the university provided an impressive list of programmatic and
curricular adjustments that departments and programs had undertaken as a result of student
performance. These ranged from adding courses to restructuring course and program
prerequisites to more explicit orientation of and professional development for faculty in core
courses to identifying students at risk earlier in the semester to developing new specializations
to adopting end of major examinations. These adjustments suggest that departments and
programs are reviewing assessment results and taking actions to improve them. Even more
important, they suggest that many departments and programs with only marginally adequate
written plans are actually engaged in more assessment than their plans report. In fact, during
discussions with faculty and administrators, it was clear that even programs whose written
assessment plans were lacking were actually engaged in some very clever socially validated
assessment procedures. The task remaining for the university is to validate programs whose
plans are well conceived and well implemented, to encourage other programs to develop plans
around the good work they already are doing, and to assist still others to improve student
learning outcomes and performance indicators, all of this to the end of achieving more uniform
quality across all departments and programs.
Last, the university might want to reconsider the format and distribution of assessment reports
departments and programs submit and to arrange for their public dissemination. Currently,
5
rather than directly reporting on outcome data in reports, program faculty indicate on a Likert
scale how well students have achieved particular outcomes. Qualitative or quantitative data in
a widely-distributed report would validate faculty assertions and provide evidence to an
external audience of the program’s effectiveness.
Core Curriculum
Academic program assessment focuses on outcomes for the major courses of study; however,
the university has also dedicated resources to assessment of its core curriculum. The work is
coordinated through the Office of the Core Curriculum which, with the help of directors for the
core disciplinary areas and the Core Assessment Advisory Group, provides faculty mentorship
and development and establishes venues in which faculty who teach similar courses in the core
can achieve consensus on outcomes and performance indicators. The most impressive work in
this arena is in the areas of core writing, core mathematics, and core humanities, areas in which
students complete a common set of courses and are held accountable to a common set of
outcomes. Student learning outcomes have been established, endorsed by the faculty, and
published, and common recitations and rubrics have brought uniformity to assessment of these
outcomes. Random samples of student work are evaluated by multiple faculty members, thus
establishing social validity of the scoring rubrics. Courses are modified as a result of assessment
results, and results also set a faculty development agenda. The coordinators attest that this is
still a work in progress, but the thoughtfulness of the process and the degree to which they are
socially validating outcomes suggests that they may be out in front in this very challenging area
of assessment.
In summary, the university has made great strides in addressing Recommendation 3 and is well
along the way on the developmental trajectory to creating a ubiquitous culture of assessment
within its academic programs. Still, there is more work to do.
6
Recommendation 5: 2007 Full-Scale Evaluation Report
Review of Part-Time Instructors and Faculty
Recommendation 5: “The Committee recommends that the University establish a program that
will provide for the consistent and systematic review of all part time instructors and faculty
(Standard 4.A.5, 4.A.10, and Policy 4.1)”
All part-time instructors and faculty are evaluated using a student assessment form and results
are reviewed by department chairs that intervene when performance is below the program’s
expectations. Part-time instructors who are new to the university are invited to participate in
an orientation session in which expectations, tools for success, and information about student
demographics are provided. A handbook for part-time instructors answers common questions
and describes important resources.
In many departments, part-time instructors and faculty who have long-standing tenure in their
roles are invited to attend and participate in departmental meetings and participate in
curriculum development. Course coordinators for multiple section courses provide extensive
orientation, mentoring, and observation of part-time instructors and faculty. They pair novice
instructors with more experienced instructors and provide opportunities for gradual
assumption of primary duties associated with the course(s). For example, in the Core
Humanities courses, part-time faculty members serve as discussion leaders before they are
assigned to a core teaching position. Discussions with deans and department chairs revealed
some variability in the processes used to evaluate part time instructors and faculty, but student
evaluation is a common element across all departments. Further, part-time instructors whose
performance does not meet departmental standards are not renewed.
The university, partly as a response to comments in the 2007 NWCCU Evaluation Committee
Report and partly in response to budget constraints, has reevaluated its use of part-time
instructors and has made progress in reducing its dependence on them in the past two years.
Still, conversations revealed that the university has benefited enormously from a dedicated and
professional, albeit minimally compensated, group of part-time faculty, many of whom serve in
important clinical adjunct positions and without whom the university would be hard pressed to
fulfill its mission.
In summary, the university appears to have addressed the concerns embedded in
Recommendation 5, although written guidelines that describe the orientation, mentoring,
observation, and feedback loops used by some departments and colleges could be a useful tool
to new chairs and personnel committees in all departments.
7
Recommendation 6: 2007 Full-Scale Evaluation Report
Staffing for the Knowledge Center
Recommendation 6: “The Committee recommends the University take steps to ensure sufficient
library and information services staff, especially in light of the anticipated demands associated
with the opening of the new Knowledge Center (Standard 5.D.1)”
The 300,000 square foot Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center, which marries the print library
with electronic resources, opened to much fanfare in the summer of 2008, and it has been
everything the university hoped for and more. Situated right next to the “heart” of the campus
– the new student union building, the Knowledge Center takes its rightful place as the “head” of
the campus. A tour of the facility revealed that students are fully engaged in the services it
provides. The very popular @One media production area was packed with students working
individually, in pairs, and in small groups on a variety of class projects. The president noted that
one faculty member now holds his office hours in the Knowledge Center because “that’s where
all the students are.” The data back up this claim; for example, during finals week in fall
semester, 1,500 students were connected to the wireless network from the building. Already,
the staff is considering expanding hours of operation to meet student demand. A trial
expansion is scheduled for two nights right before finals week in spring semester during which
the center will remain open until 2 A.M. Still, the current hours are relatively consistent with
that of peer libraries, and expansion would require additional staffing and security. The staff is
currently reviewing assessment tools which will be used in the near future to evaluate overall
satisfaction with the Knowledge Center.
This amalgam of resources includes the instructional design and WebCampus office which
supports the institution’s more than 1,400 hybrid and fully Web-based courses and provides
training for faculty. One of UNR’s Web-based courses won the prestigious Blackboard
Greenhouse Award. Staffing for this support is adequate for current demand, but would quickly
become stretched if the demand for Web-based and hybrid courses were to grow substantially.
Prior to and during the opening of this facility, reorganization and cross-training allowed the
institution to derive maximum benefit from its staff and to enhance the service function of the
center. The Libraries hired eleven new faculty members last summer, eight of which support the high
profile public service activities emphasized in our report. Since then, we have lost eight positions in the
Knowledge Center, only two of which had primary roles in the targeted public service areas – library
services, research and computing help, and @One services. This is an increase of six positions to support
Knowledge Center public service operations. Staff in the Knowledge Center indicate that the
current staffing level is adequate if not optimal and that any reductions in staffing would
necessarily restrict the range of services that could be offered. To focus attention on service
“at the desk” for students, staff members have less time to devote to outreach. Still, staff
8
members report that reorganization and cross-training combined with the geography of the
building has created a remarkable synergy and they are clearly pleased with the outcome.
In summary, the university has taken steps to address the recommendations of the evaluation
team related to staffing of the Knowledge Center.
9
Recommendation 8: 2007 Full-Scale Evaluation Report
Evaluation of the Board of Regents
Recommendation 8: “The Committee recommends that the Board of Regent engage in an
evaluation of its performance and operations and make whatever adjustments are warranted.
(Standard 6.B.6)”
The Board of Regents, which has oversight of the eight public community colleges,
baccalaureate institutions, and research universities in the state, took seriously the
recommendations of the 2007 evaluation team. Its Development Committee met with
consultants from the Association of Governing Boards in August of 2008 to develop a plan for a
more formal process of self-assessment and forwarded to the Board of Regents a
recommendation that a formal self-assessment be held during a summer, 2009 two-day
workshop facilitated by AGB consultants. The Board endorsed the recommendation, and a selfevaluation workshop is scheduled for July 10 – 11.
Regent Leavitt, chair of the board’s Development Committee and chair-elect of the board,
noted that members of the board, which has experienced considerable turnover in recent
years, are eager to work together and to assess their effectiveness. Leavitt expects that this
summer’s retreat will result not only in a big picture self assessment but also in a template that
will allow ongoing assessment of board performance throughout the year and general
understanding among members about what constitutes best practice.
In summary, the Board of Regents has satisfied the expectations embedded in
Recommendation 8.
10
Recommendation 11: 2007 Full-Scale Evaluation Report
Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation
Recommendation 11: “The Committee recommends that the University complete
implementation of the 2004 Conflict of Interest Policy, specifically to ensure that there is
designated responsibility for university-wide oversight of compliance with the policy. (Standard
9.2.A)
Implementation of the Conflict of Interest Policy appears to be proceeding smoothly, and
responsibility for oversight has been vested in a conflict of interest officer and the Conflict of
Interest Committee. The officer oversees compliance with the requirement, and the committee
reviews all areas of potential conflict and renders a decision. All employees were reminded of
the reporting requirement, and forms were due for the first time in January of 2009. Only a few
employees did not complete the form in a timely way, a circumstance that the COI officer is
currently addressing.
Faculty, deans, and chairs, as well as the interim assistant vice president of human resources,
reported that employees are complying with the provisions of the policy and reporting areas of
potential conflict as required. Two concerns were voiced: First, faculty and administrators
noted that there continue to be some questions about definitions and confusion about exactly
what needs to be reported, particularly in marginal cases. Some examples and non-examples
would be helpful. Second, both groups expressed concern about the retrospective nature of
reporting in the current policy. That is, employees report what they did in the past year that
might have constituted a conflict of interest rather than reporting in advance and getting a
ruling that might prevent potential conflict. Administrators reported they are aware of this
timing anomaly and are currently revising the policy to require prospective rather than
retrospective reporting.
Overall, it appears that this issue has been appropriately addressed, and that the institution is
fully in compliance with Standard 9.2.A
11
Commendations and Recommendations
Commendations
1. The Knowledge Center appears to be realizing the potential that was predicted in the
2007 self-study; the marriage of library and information resources has resulted in a
state-of-the-art facility that is characterized by extraordinarily current electronic
hardware and programmatic software, provides outstanding access to both print and
electronic resources, and is well used by students. Reorganization and cross-training
has allowed the institution to derive maximum benefit from its staff and to enhance the
service function of the center. A net gain of six public service positions has given the
staff very critical breathing room and enables them to provide adequate levels of service
to students, although to some degree this direction of staffing has been at the expense
of outreach to departments and programs. Still, it is clear that the institution has
allocated staffing to this important service function even in the face of substantial
budget cuts to the institution and, through both the facility and its staffing levels,
achieved a level of service to students of which it can be justifiably proud.
2. The infrastructure that has been built around university assessment and assessment of
student learning outcomes – both for major courses of study and for the core
curriculum – is impressive. The Offices of Assessment and of the Core Curriculum are
well staffed and provide support to departments, programs, and faculty as they develop
their assessment protocols. Assessment coordinators have been appointed from among
the faculty in each program. Formats for assessment planning and reporting bring some
uniformity to the process across the institution. Last, there is evidence that the faculty
are beginning to embrace a culture of assessment. The institution is commended for all
of these steps forward.
Recommendations
1. The process of establishing both a culture and the details of assessment is
developmental, and UNR is well along the developmental continuum. Still, there is
more work to do. Most especially, the institution needs to find a way to maintain its
commitment to a faculty-driven assessment process while still bringing greater
uniformity to the assessment planning and reporting process. This includes greater
clarity about and adherence to what constitutes student learning outcomes and
performance indicators, greater advocacy for socially validated assessment measures,
and greater transparency about assessment data. (Standard 2.B.2)
12
Appendix A
List of Interviewees
































James Leavitt, member Nevada Higher Education Board of Regents and chair of its
Development Committee
Milton Glick, President
Marc Johnson, Executive Vice President & Provost
William Cathey, Vice Provost
Paul Neill, Director, Core Curriculum
Neal Ferguson, Director, Core Humanities
Paul Starrs, Professor, Geography
Jane Detweiler, Director, Core Writing/English
Sandra Bever, Assessment Coordinator
Chris Herald, Director, Core Mathematics
Jeanne M. Hilton, Professor of Social Work, Division of Health Sciences
John Mahaffy, Director, Office of University Assessment
Vernon Luft, Associate Dean, College of Education
Steve Cavote, Associate Director, Office of University Assessment
Rafik Beekun, Professor and Chair of Assessment, College of Business and Accounting
Carley Ries, Associate Director, Extended Studies, Individualized Learning/Summer Session
Karen Hinton, Dean & Director, Cooperative Extension
Ron Pardini, Acting Dean, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources
Patsy Ruchala, Director, Orvis School of Nursing
Kathleen Boardman, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts
William E. Sparkman, Dean, College of Education
Eric Rasmussen, Chair, Department of English
Manos Maragakis, Dean, College of Engineering
Jerry Ceppos, Dean, Reynolds School of Journalism
Jeff Thompson, Dean, College of Science
John McDonald, Vice President, Division of Health Sciences
Darrell Lockhart, Chair, Foreign Languages and Literature
Gwen Shonkwiler, Specialist, Evaluation, Assessment and Advising, School of Medicine
Maggie Ressel, Librarian, Libraries and Information Technology
Jill Wallace, Manager, Instructional Design/WebCampus Support
Janita Jobe, Librarian, Library/IT Administration
Steven Zink, Dean of Libraries and Vice President for Information Technology
Jim McKinney, Director, Computing and Telecommunications
13




Carol Parkhurst, Senior Director, Libraries
Tim McFarling, Interim Assistant Vice President, Human Resources
Elliott Parker, Chair Elect, Faculty Senate and Professor of Economics
William Follette, Chair, Faculty Senate and Professor of Clinical Psychology
14