Date:
November 9, 2007
To:
Tracy Pellett
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
From:
M. Meghan Miller
Dean, College of the Sciences
Subject:
2006-2007 Program review, Resource Management graduate program
I have been asked to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the program review
process for Resource Management. These observations consider the self-study and the external
evaluator’s report, the program director’s written response to the report, as well as on the context and
resource issues within the college.
The program was proactive in preparing a thorough and timely self-study; it hosted the campus
visit of the external reviewers, Drs. Martha Works and Linda Whiteford, who provided a focused set of
recommendations for the graduate program, in the context of the departments that support it. I have added
recommendations at the college level because of recent transitions in interdisciplinary program
administration that need to be tested, and the very great investment at the program, department, and
college levels in team teaching.
COMMENDATIONS:
The external reviewer notes salient program strengths. The strengths are many and strongly
developed throughout the review. I will not reproduce them in detail here, but I respectfully note the
accomplishments of the program and its leadership. In thumbnail:

The Resource Management program is recognized at all levels as being innovative and exciting, with
a clear mission, a regional focus, and a commitment to expanding and deepening its reach.

The leadership is strong and has creatively and successfully drawn new resources to the program.

Faculty members who participate in the program and engaged, committed, and student-centered; a
broader array of research specialties is recently evident and enriches the program.

The commitment to discipline integration is also a clear strength.
These areas reflect the broad strengths of Resource Management and deserve strong
commendation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The external review provided a focused set of recommendations. The issues that face this very
strong program are complex.
Curriculum, Student Learning, Program Planning and Assessment
Several basic curriculum issues are intertwined: the need to clarify program learning objectives
and link them to specific courses through syllabi, regular assessment that informs curriculum change,
strengthening of graduate level course work through regular and predictable offering of electives, review
and evaluation of appropriate and effective pedagogies such as literature analysis, faculty-driven
instruction, and team teaching. These issues link to the resource mix, which is addressed more explicitly
with faculty in a later section.

The inclusion of student learning objectives on course syllabi and articulation of the methods for their
assessment are basic requirement for all programs. To the extent that work still needs to be done on
this (many syllabi are compliant; some are not), it should be complete this year through the
assessment reports that are being prepared in support of the accreditation self-study.

The “assessment plan” included in the self-study is merely a description of how individual student
progress is evaluated throughout the program; it is not a plan that evaluates the effectiveness of the
curriculum in meeting student learning goals and informs curriculum change. Such a plan was called
for as part of the accreditation documents, and is due from the program in December 2007. Reporting
of results will be in place by the following June.

The reviewers identified ethical decision making as a key area where the program mission is not
clearly aligned with curriculum, suggesting a course be added on this topic. The rejoinder notes that
the topic is embedded in REM 562 and ANTH/GEOG 440. I did not find the syllabus for either in
the self-study (562 appeared missing and 440 was omitted with other electives). In reviewing other
syllabi, there was little indication that this topic was woven across the curriculum. Given its
centrality to mission, embedding this topic across a spectrum of appropriate courses through student
learning objectives may be desirable.

Graduate level course work implies sophisticated delivery of complex material. The reviewers
suggest strengthening reading intensive courses and stronger faculty roles in the delivery of
instruction in preference to student presentation, to ensure this level.

While the program rejoinder to the external review rejects several specific recommendations, the
rejoinder fails to address the key concerns that motivate those recommendations and suggest
alternative solutions. For instance, the non-thesis option is rejected, but no alternative method to
critically evaluate and improve graduation rates and time-to-degree is offered. The idea of tracks
within the major to better support student cohorts with interest in particular themes or subdisciplines
is rejected, with neither the effectiveness of advising into electives nor substantiated of appropriate
and timely electives is addressed. The retort that “In general, we disagree, as any 400-level or 500level course on campus is a possible elective” triggers major concerns about program focus,
curriculum alignment, advising, and program administration.
Students & Enrollment Management
 Enrollment management continues as one of the largest issues facing the program. It touches on
curriculum and course delivery; thesis vs. project; thesis advising distribution among faculty;
numbers, roles and scholarship-alignment of involved faculty; student retention and time-to-degree;
and resource allocation. An enrollment management plan that attends to each of these factors is
needed. It should be developed by the co-directors and reviewed by the program advisory
committee, before being taken to the program faculty as a whole.
Many pieces that could contribute to such a plan have been under review and discussion; a cohesive
plan has not been formalized and vetted at the college and graduate studies level. Given the maturity
of some of these issues and these discussions, a draft plan for review at the dean’s level should be
achievable by Spring 2008.

All programs are currently finalizing an assessment report for the NWCCU accreditation effort. This
will support enrollment management and allow the program to identify predictors for student success
or the critical obstacles to student retention and completion that can be removed. The enrollment goal
should be to admit the appropriate number of students who will successfully graduate from the
program, and to ensure their timely success.

The reviewers suggest greater utilization of university resources for struggling students. This might
include specific interventions available through Student Affairs, more extensive use of the University
Writing or Math Centers, or a restructuring of the advising services provided through the program
directorships and fellowship grant release.
Faculty
 There is a clear impetus to broaden the faculty base of participation in the program – in instruction
and in thesis supervision – a transition that is already underway. The recommendation of the external
review is nicely aligned with program efforts.

Certain pedagogies are very time intensive – fully participatory team teaching with the goal of
disciplinary integration, thesis vs. project, etc. This is not unique to Resource Management. The
program reviewers noted that they weren’t given individual SEOIs, and this is intentionally not part
of our Program Review process. That said, I have read hundreds of SEOIs from the team teaching
courses over five years; in the absence of real assessment, the SEOIs do not typically provide
anecdotal support for the effectiveness of this model. Formal assessment is needed.
Given how thinly faculty are stretched, and the apparent paucity of regular, specialized graduate
course sections, this approach needs review at the college level, and across other programs that use
this model. Specifically, what are the student learning goals that require this pedagogy, how can we
evaluate whether they are being met, and do they supersede competing needs such as a broader array
of graduate electives?
This is a recommendation to be taken up at the college level.

The external reviewers also comment on alignment of student thesis work with faculty scholarship
goals. Unless thesis topics are developed under a broad umbrella of the research program of
individual faculty members, this program will struggle with sustainability. Faculty whose external
contracts and grants support their research and provide funding for specific investigations undertaken
by graduate students are well positioned for sustainable faculty/student research programs. Faculty
members in less applied areas can also align student interest to topics that support their own
scholarship.
In the absence of such faculty research that builds on student contributions, the project vs. thesis
option should be very carefully considered.

The numbers of students mentored by a particular faculty member is a related issue, and warrants
discussion by the program co-directors and department chairs. Recognizing the great differences in
disciplines lead to some variability, it is difficult to imagine a faculty member taking on more than
one or two students each year while harnessing student contributions to a faculty research agenda.
Department expectations for participation of untenured faculty in the program should be explicit in
their performance standard.

The other area for efficiencies in faculty effort is in program administration. Among interdisciplinary
programs, this is the most richly supported program directorship (18 workload units in contrast to a
typical 3-5), yet the largesse is perhaps at odds with department cultures that have done much work
by consensus or a Committee of the Whole. The departments and program have grown, and a
transition that allows better use of faculty time may be timely. Program administration, planning,
curriculum, and assessment are assigned to the program co-director level, and vetted by the advisory
committee. While REM faculty members need a clear understanding of how to provide input and
how they will be informed of key decisions, the program leadership reconciles competing demands
when issues arise.
Library, information resources, facilities
 While the Resource Management program is clearly insufficiently supported by existing facilities, the
Dean Hall remodel is underway and will greatly advance program support and cohesiveness.
PROCESS:
The program exercised the option of writing a rejoinder to the external review. Much of the
material in the rejoinder was detailed in nature and will be helpful in documenting how we respond to the
issues identified in the report over the next several years; some of it may not have been appropriate at this
point in the process. Having participated in approximately fifteen program reviews, I have only seen one
other rejoinder, one that made three points. This rejoinder addressed 15 points made by the external
reviewers. Its tone triggered concerns about the understanding of the role and value of external reviews.
While I am sure that it was not the intent, the response almost appeared dismissive of review
recommendations without identifying and addressing the substantive underlying issues.
While some reviewer judgments are never fully embraced at the program level and may need to
be adapted rather than adopted, there is a need for very real progress on some of the curriculum,
assessment, resource, faculty, and student issues in Resource Management. The external reviewer
recommendations are the starting point for this work; it is the appropriate role of external review to
challenge our working assumptions and refine how we strategically advance program goals. A reflective
response typically unfolds over the five-year interval between reviews.
SUMMARY:
In summary, the Resource Management program is one of the most exciting in the college. Its
growth and innovation are clear strengths, as are the commitment and credentials of the faculty who
support it. The issues it faces – many of which reflect the growing pains of a successful venture – require
a fresh evaluation of the program learning goals and whether/how they are met in a resource constrained
environment. The review results challenge the co-directors and program faculty to take on some
fundamental issues; student success and faculty sustainability are at stake. Efficiencies must be found to
ensure the success of this program – efficiencies in instruction, in aligning student and faculty research,
and in ensuring the progress of students to program completion.
C:
David Soltz, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Wayne Quirk, Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research
Pat Lubinski, Co-Director, Resource Management – Anthropology & Museum Studies
Karl Lillquist, Co-Director, Resource Management – Geography & Land Studies