Periodic Review Report June 2012
Periodic Review Report
Presented by
The University of Baltimore
1420 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21201
Robert Bogomolny, President
Date of most recent decennial evaluation team
visit: 2007
Submitted May 29, 2012
UB PRR June 2012 pg.1
Executive Summary
General introduction to the University of Baltimore
The University of Baltimore was founded in 1925 as a private institution. Its founders were a group of
Baltimore civic leaders who wanted to provide low-cost, part-time evening study in business and law for
working adults. Its first site was at the southeast corner of St. Paul and Mt. Vernon Place with a class of
62 law students and 114 business students.
UB became a state institution in 1975 and then part of the University of Maryland System (now known as
the University System of Maryland) in 1988. It is one of eleven schools in the USM system and has risen
in the last ten years to a median position in terms of enrollment among its USM peers. The current
campus includes seven buildings. The newest facilities house the School of Law and through a publicprivate partnership UB converted a gravel parking lot into a 1200 space parking garage of which 900
spaces are reserved for the UB community. In addition, UB is a partner in the Varsity residence with 153
beds committed to UB. UB continues to educate business and law students, with an array of
professionally oriented programs in the arts and sciences and public affairs as well. The University is
composed of two Schools and two Colleges: The Merrick School of Business, the School of Law, the
Yale Gordon College of Arts and Sciences, and the College of Public Affairs. The University holds
AACSB, ABA/AALS, and NASPAA accreditations. UB offers 20 undergraduate degrees, 30 graduate
degrees, and nine professionally-oriented certificate programs. The current combined fall and spring
enrollment is 6205 students of which 3257 are undergraduates. Individualized advising is available
throughout the UB students’ academic careers. UB offers students co-curricular activities in servicelearning, internships, and non-sponsored and sponsored research opportunities. In addition, students may
apply for state scholarship programs or may be eligible for programs specifically designed for freshmen
and for transfer students (http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/offices-and-services/provost/Scholarships.docx )
awarded by either UB or the UB Foundation. Similar programs are available for graduate students, with
additional opportunities for students in the School of Law. UB continues to expand its local footprint
through beautification projects, public programming in the arts, and through civically engaged programs
such as training non-profit business personnel in successful website design.
Summary Mission Statement
The University of Baltimore provides innovative education in business, public affairs, the applied liberal
arts and sciences, and law to serve the needs of a diverse population in an urban setting. A public
university, the University of Baltimore offers excellent teaching and a supportive community for
undergraduate, graduate and professional students in an environment distinguished by academic research
and public service. The University:

makes excellence accessible to traditional and nontraditional students motivated by professional
advancement and civic awareness;

establishes a foundation for lifelong learning, personal development and social responsibility;
UB PRR June 2012 pg.2

combines theory and practice to create meaningful, real-world solutions to 21st century urban
challenges; and,

is an anchor institution, regional steward and integral partner in the culture, commerce, and future
development of Baltimore and the region.
The entire 2010 Mission Statement may be found here: http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/offices-andservices/provost/Mission_Statement_final_Nov12-10-rev.pdf
The UB Vision Statement may be found here http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/ub-s-future/ub-strategicplan.cfm
Our Institutional Profiles highlight how UB has changed in the last ten years and especially since the
monitoring report was accepted in 2008. The institutional profile reports from 2008-11 may be found
here: http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/offices-and-services/provost/Institutional_profile.pdf.
Organizational Structure:
The primary administrative structure is the President’s Executive Committee which assists in shaping
agendas, making final decisions on budgets, and advancing sensitive issues related to external University
relations.
UB’s overall leadership structure is depicted in its organizational chart (http://www.ubalt.edu/aboutub/offices-and-services/provost/Org_Chart_May%202012.pdf).
Campus Resources in support of students:
The University of Baltimore’s campus includes:
University of Baltimore Student Center
The University of Baltimore Student Center serves as a central gathering place for students, faculty and
staff. This unique, six-floor facility is designed to promote the out-of-classroom experience that is
essential to comprehensive higher education.
Barnes & Noble at the University of Baltimore
The Barnes & Noble at the University of Baltimore, part of the Fitzgerald at UB Midtown
residential/retail site, is located right around the corner from UB’s main academic buildings and carries a
huge selection of popular titles as well as textbooks and UB merchandise.
Achievement and Learning Center
The services provided by the Achievement and Learning Center help clarify and reinforce what students
learn in the classroom, enhance specific skills (e.g., math, writing, exam-taking, memory) and provide a
network of support for students’ academic aspirations.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.3
Campus Recreation and Wellness
Campus Recreation and Wellness serves the UB community’s health, fitness, wellness and recreational
sporting needs. Programs include competitive club sports, intramural sport programs, health and wellness
activities and fitness programs.
Career and Professional Development Center
The Career Center offers a wide variety of career development services; with the help of staff, students
can identify their personal career objectives and plan for their futures.
Center for Educational Access
The Center for Educational Access coordinates services for students with disabilities. Both full- and parttime students are eligible to benefit from these services, which include but are not limited to sign
language interpreters, alternative testing, note takers and texts on tape/alternative format. Current medical
documentation must be received before services can be provided.
Henry and Ruth Blaustein Rosenberg Center for Student Involvement
The Henry and Ruth Blaustein Rosenberg Center for Student Involvement coordinates leadershipdevelopment programs, community outreach, student activities, events, campus tours and orientation; it
also oversees the Student Government Association and the Student Events Board.
Counseling Center
The Counseling Center offers mental health counseling, education and personal skill development.
Individual and crisis counseling services are free to enrolled UB students.
Diversity and Culture Center
The purpose of the Diversity and Culture Center is to provide services, resources and initiatives that
support diversity and promote cross-cultural learning, appreciation and understanding. The center assists
students with successful transitions and meaningful experiences that promote recognition and
appreciation of the different cultural threads that make up the UB community. The Diversity and Culture
Center offers personal, social and cultural support to students and creates opportunities for them to
embrace, celebrate and learn about multiculturalism and internationalism.
Development of the PRR
The need for the PRR was directly communicated to the faculty, administration and staff mainly through
meetings and email requests for information. The PRR was composed by a team of faculty and
administrators led by the Associate Provost. Contributors to the report include the Associate Provost, the
Provost, the Senior VP for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs, the VP for Planning and
External Affairs, Assistant Provost for Finance, staff from the Senior VP for Administration and
Finance’s office, the deans and associate deans of the four schools, the director of Langsdale Library, the
office of Institutional Research, the director of Academic Initiatives and Student Academic Affairs, the
director of the Helen P. Denit Honors Program, the chair of the UB Faculty Senate, and the special
assistant to the Associate Provost. In addition, specific contributions were made by the director of
Sponsored Research and Faculty Development, the Office of Technology Support Services, the Center for
Educational Access, the Achievement and Learning Center, and the Counseling Center. The report was
reviewed by the members of the campus community and by UB President Robert Bogomolny.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.4
The documentation for the report was collected from published sources on the campus and from
interviews with faculty and staff who were instrumental in the development and implementation of the
lower division curriculum and in the recruitment of the first and second year students.
Major Institutional Changes since the decennial review: Since the self-study in 2006, UB has undergone
a wide range of institutional changes. One benchmark is undergraduate enrollment in fall 2011 exceeded
that of the graduate programs, including Law, for the first time in decades. There have been significant
changes in senior leadership, including all across academic affairs, which encompasses the hiring of the
new Provost, Associate Provost, all four deans, the Honors Program director, and a Director of Learning
Initiatives who serves as the co-director of the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT).
With the return of lower division undergraduates in 2007, UB experienced a variety of curricular changes,
ranging from the creation of a comprehensive General Education Curriculum, extension of undergraduate
degrees to four-year programs, and development of comprehensive new programs to new opportunities
for co-curricular activities. Delivery options for courses have expanded and a new accelerated summer
school session was launched in 2012. Student services launched club sports. Unexpected growth in
sophomore transfer enrollment led to increased faculty and staff hiring, addition of new buildings and
reuse of existing buildings. In 2010, the former Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts divided into two
new colleges of Public Affairs and of Arts and Sciences. The University earned its Carnegie Engaged
University classification in 2008 and through efforts associated with the UB21 transformation project in
the Fall 2011 additional work is being done in support of faculty development and curriculum
development. A reworking of the plan for shared governance has played a prominent role in UB campus
life since the summer of 2011 and the University received a Sloan Grant/ACE Grant in 2010 to develop
its policies on career flexibility for faculty who are tenured or who are on tenure track. In February 2012,
UB was invited to and applied for a second Sloan/ACE grant to develop best practices in comprehensive
retirement policies. The awards will be announced in mid-June 2012.
Highlights of the PRR:
The PRR reflects what the University of Baltimore has undertaken, achieved, and intends to accomplish,
particularly as regards the Commission's interest in the impact of the first and second year students on all
aspects of UB life. Some highlights that emerge from this study are the institution's comprehensive
approach to teaching, understanding student needs, and evaluating student learning. The University
faculty members, its staff, and its administration have rallied around the opportunity that the return of the
first and second year students after nearly thirty years presented, and they have risen to the challenges that
these new students have brought to its structures, mission, and vision. Therefore, there has been program
growth, new program and course development, new and expanded delivery methods, and increased hiring
across the University in the last three years. With staff and faculty changes, the institution has been
mindful of the need to carefully analyze its fiscal, curricular and human resources to assure that both
people and structures are in place to make student learning a priority. Of particular note within this
timeframe are not only the creation of new UB Learning Goals but also of a new General Education
Program, designed in both instances to include the new native first-year students. While assessment of the
graduate programs has been ongoing, a renewed interest in and structures for assessment of undergraduate
student learning have been developed. Within these same three years, UB has also begun systematic
UB PRR June 2012 pg.5
assessment of its efforts to educate lower division undergraduates. The University has been enriched by
the creation of its Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) which sponsors faculty
professional development, lectures, seminars and workshops, and most recently UB21 transformation
initiatives, and has engaged faculty, students, and staff in a variety of activities meant to enhance student
learning on the campus. Finally, in an era of budget cuts, UB has maintained its solid reputation with
external funding agencies, has engaged in beneficial public-private partnerships, and has adopted a
"green" facilities master plan, as reflected in the architecture of its new Law School and its community
environmental improvement activities.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.6
Summary of Institution’s Response to Recommendations from the
Previous Evaluation and to Commission Actions:
2.
The UB PRR is intended to address work accomplished since the initial Middle States site visit report
(2007) and the monitoring report (2008). The report further documents UB’s progress in understanding
and assessing the impact of the first and second year programs and the role of assessment data in planning
at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
Previous Evaluation from the Site Team Visit 2007
Though the site team recognized UB’s progress in establishing an assessment program that
comprehensively addressed both graduate and undergraduate levels of learning, reviewers noted “given
the specific concerns outlined in the periodic review report of five years ago, progress is not acceptable.”
In addition after the 2007 site visit, the university was directed to “articulate how graduate programs are
defining and assessing specific learning outcomes for their students” and finally, the matter of the First
and Second Year Program (FSP) was addressed in four areas:

Documentation of the impact of the First and Second Year Program on the University’s culture

Documentation of same on the balance between full-time and adjunct faculty, particularly in the
College of Arts and Sciences

Evidence of success in attracting additional state resources in support of the program

Evidence of ongoing training of faculty who teach in the lower division program
Commission Actions
On November 20, 2008, the Commission accepted the monitoring report as sufficiently establishing
the use of appropriate assessments, especially regarding graduate programs, and as evidence of progress
in establishing learning goals across the curriculum. The Commission determined that the student
learning assessment information UB provided was being used appropriately as part of institutional
assessment and to improve teaching and learning (See Attachment G: 2007-2011 self-study).
By the time of the 2008 monitoring report, UB had completed the following to demonstrate compliance
with the initial 2007 site team recommendations:

Creation of an office of Outcomes Assessment (now absorbed by IR and Associate Provost);

Appointment of a University Outcomes Assessment Coordinator (presently the Associate
Provost);

Creation of the Bank of America Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (UB CELT,
new co-directors to be appointed in July 2012);

Appointment of a senior administrator for IR and Analysis in 2008;
UB PRR June 2012 pg.7
3.

Initial participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA), including intent to test
with CLA and join the National Student Clearinghouse (withdrew in March 2012 due to inability
to validate surveys because of small size of the entering first-year student population); and,

Culmination of the 2008-12 Strategic Plan and initiation of UB21, a faculty-driven
transformation project with a specific focus on teaching, student learning, and assessment.
Narrative Identifying Major Challenges and Opportunities:
In the fall of 2009, UB hired a new Provost and in the fall 2011, a new associate provost. In addition,
new deans were hired for College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) and College of Public Affairs (CPA).
Within CAS and CPA, chair and program director positions have changed, and a dozen contract faculty
members hired primarily to teach in the lower division have been converted to tenure-track lines. In
2009, UB hired an Honors Program director. In 2010, the Yale Gordon College of the Liberal Arts
(CLA) split into two colleges, the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) and the College of Public Affairs
(CPA) (See Attachment G: clarestructure).
Analysis of Faculty Familiarity with Assessment
The 2007 site team determined UB faculty members were inconsistent in the use of evidence of student
success when making programmatic and curricular modifications. By February 2010, the deans initiated
a request to the new provost to hire an Assessment Coordinator, noting that “the University lacks the
fundamental infrastructure needed to ensure that assessment is used to inform decisions and improve
courses, programs, and support services”. This endorsement enabled the Provost to pursue this
recommendation and others relating to building the UB culture of assessment (Attachment G: assurance
of learning memo).
Critical Appraisal of Response to Recommendations:
Within this context, the PRR first provides UB the opportunity to take stock of progress made regarding
learning outcomes assessment information. Given that UB has experienced major changes in personnel,
along with the practical creation of a new institutional identity and profile, the challenges and
opportunities are substantial as the University looks at ways of communicating assessment results to the
campus community. As would be expected with any growth plan, UB has experienced a combination of
accomplishments and barriers as it has moved forward with changes and modifications in areas ranging
from mission, programs, and student services to facilities planning and development, and the creation of
new shared governance structures. Nevertheless, throughout all the activities surrounding the
implementation of the lower division, the quality of student learning has remained the highest priority to
the UB campus as a whole.
A second function for the PRR, with its focus on the lower division, is to enable UB to examine to what
extent it is remaining in compliance with the Characteristics of Excellence and how the Standards may be
viewed within the context of the lower division. A brief overview of select standards that apply to this
report suggests the following progress has been made:
UB PRR June 2012 pg.8
Standard 5 Administration: Activities surrounding the development of the lower division and the
General Education core were informed by collaboration across the campus and were carried out within a
climate of informed decision-making. In addition, with guidance from the Provost and the Chair of the
General Education Council (GEC), faculty members were included as leaders, managers, and designers of
the revised General Education core and the UB learning goals.
Standard 6 Integrity: When applied specifically to assessment activities, it is clear UB has taken the
integrity standard seriously with respect to sharing information with students on the General Education
core and on all the policies relating to lower division student experience. The activities included in ongoing maintenance and development of the lower division and instructional work have been undertaken in
a climate of inquiry that has fostered and continues to foster engagement between the academic units,
student support services, and administration. The catalog and the webpages were updated and new
information included reflecting the lower division courses, etc. In addition, changes to the curriculum and
academic policies are routinely posted in the development stage for comment, and once approved, in final
form on the website.
Standard 7 Institutional Effectiveness: UB has documented, sustained, and organized course and
program based assessment processes that enable the departments and divisions to document student
learning as well as external accreditation compliance. Areas for growth and improvement are in sharing
the information collected, making strong links between the institutional mission, goals, and strategic plans
and those of the School and Colleges, and in moving beyond single course assessments to create more
comprehensive approaches to data collection and application. Findings, including those from the most
recent NSSE survey (2009) (http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/offices-and-services/provost/reportingunits/institutional-research/Summary.docx), are progressively incorporated into conversations on
planning ways to improve student success, academic programs and student services, and to support
professional development.
Standard 8 Admission and Retention: Since 2007, all aspects of admission, financial aid, enrollment,
and management of retention and communication were revisited to develop plans and approaches
consistent with the student population UB intended to attract. This work is systematic and on-going as
the first classes of lower division students are now graduating.
Standard 9 Student Support: Support of UB students has been a major growth area with the return of
the lower division students. The Counseling Center was created since 2008; the numbers of students
served by the Achievement and Learning Center (ALC) and the Center for Educational Access (CEA)
have increased; staffing has increased to meet the needs of lower division students, especially with the
hiring of dedicated, professional student advisors and student affairs personnel with expertise in holistic
approaches to student retention.
Standard 12 General Education: The General Education Program and the UB Learning Goals (See
Attachment G: ublearninggoals) are faculty-driven academic improvements that built on prior curricula
and goals statements in use before the addition of first and second year undergraduates. Both were
designed explicitly to be consistent with the institutional mission and goals, as well as with the state’s
COMAR standards and professional expectations within the fields of study. As the Learning Goals are
regularly reviewed, special attention is paid to assessment evidence to inform curricular improvements.
Though some of that has been done, there is now greater faculty experience in teaching and assessing
UB PRR June 2012 pg.9
General Education that will enliven this process, create stronger programmatic coherence, and make
assessment of General Education both practical and useful for future planning.
Standard 14 Assessment of Student Learning: The UB Learning Goals are a clear statement of
expected student learning outcomes. As they are implemented, the collaboration between the faculty and
administration is growing. Particularly, faculty are being supported by the administration in new faculty
hiring, in professional development opportunities, and in creation of systematic approaches to
documenting student learning and developing clear ways to realize growth supported by assessment
results.
Analysis
At UB, assessment successes at the program and unit levels are being used in developing a better sense of
student learning outcomes in the lower division and of the relationship of lower division course
competencies to upper division courses in the major. For example, the GEC, new in 2010, reviewed for
recertification 71 existing approved General Education courses. The Provost has created a series of grant
opportunities for faculty to be compensated to work on the architecture of the General Education
program, and, to convert courses with significant writing assignments into courses that bear the Writing
Intensive label (WIC), to study the nature of Mathematics education both developmental and within the
disciplines and to foster greater creativity in curriculum delivery through the UB 21 Catalyst Grants.
Because the oversight of the learning communities and the first year experience are moving to CAS in fall
2011, additional work will be done in the summer 2012 on integration of the learning communities into
the General Education infrastructure and on redesigning the freshman seminar. The intent of these
academic initiatives is to coherently align the undergraduate learning experience across the curriculum.
The faculty and staff are working together to complete the promise of General Education for UB
undergraduates.
Within the next five years, UB looks to accomplish the following:

Develop an architecture of the General Education Program that incorporates institutional,
programmatic, and college/school wide learning goals, learning expectations, and professional
standards of excellence, in keeping with our identity: Knowledge that Works;

Integrate the developmental learning programs in reading, writing, and mathematics into the
College of Arts and Sciences and maintain clear learning goals reflecting effective pathways for
students’ success;

Establish vibrant and robust approaches to assessment, particularly within the College of Arts
and Sciences and within the College of Public Affairs;

Continue to monitor and develop as appropriate institutional policies and expectations for student
learning that will enhance access to education among UB’s target populations;

Articulate a specific role for rewarding assessment activity within the promotion and tenure
processes;
UB PRR June 2012 pg.10

Use the new shared governance experience as a path for fostering campus action on student
learning;

Continue to build on the promise and success associated with the UB 21 transformation initiative
to create sustained, low cost forms of faculty professional development; and,

Work collaboratively with student services, facilities, and other institutional partners in
administration, governance, and management in the delivery of a positive, supportive campus
experience for students, faculty, and staff.
Of particular relevance is how UB moves forward in light of Standards 7 and 14. UB has taken specific
steps to better understand the nature of undergraduate learning through its strong culture of designing and
using grants to support curricular change and course redesign efforts are informed by attention to student
learning outcomes. For example, in 2011, UB received a Maryland Higher Education Commission
(MHEC) grant to study sophomore transfer students’ persistence and performance. The three part grant
focused on adapting the intensive advising protocols currently in use to the needs of transfer sophomores,
providing faculty professional development for the design and implementation of engaged pedagogies
centered on the role of critical reading in student satisfaction and persistence, and expanding resources to
support transfer students with college-to-career connections (See Attachment G: MHEC challenge grant).
Course redesign for a required course, IDIS 302: Ethics and Business, was similarly funded with a
University System of Maryland’s Carnegie Fund award (See Attachment G: course redesign proposal).
The grant supported improving course content and creating a reliable means of assessing student learning
using the AAC&U Value Rubric on Ethical Knowledge. An additional application to redesign OPRE
201: Introduction to Business Statistics was denied a grant, but will be carried out using institutional
funds. In 2010, the University was awarded a Lumina Foundation grant through USM (discussed below)
for extensive course and program redesign of developmental mathematics courses.
The University is aware that lower division implementation required hiring more part-time faculty
members. When possible, part-time faculty members were promoted to Adjunct II (status based on the
quality of continuous teaching over three years) or have been converted from contractual to tenure-track.
New faculty searches in the last three years were undertaken to address program growth and
enrollment/retention in all programs but especially those with higher first and second year student
enrollments.
NSSE
Demographic Snapshot
The majority of first- year students in the 2009 survey had not attended college or community college
prior to enrolling in UB. Many of the first- year students’ parents attained a high school diploma, and a
modest percentage of parents hold a Bachelor’s degree. At the time of the survey, the first year class was
51% male and 49% female; the senior class was 44% male and 46% female. Ethnically, 37% of the
freshman were Caucasian, 29% African American and 10% Asian; among the seniors, 38% were
Caucasian, 35% African-American and 5% Asian. The Latino/Hispanic populations were very small, 4%
and 2% respectively, and only 2% of the senior class was Native American. The first- year students were
enrolled full-time and the seniors were enrolled 52% part-time and 48% full-time.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.11
Seniors, who would all have been upper-level transfers, rated their total educational experience at 90%
satisfaction, indicating that if they had it do over again, 87% would come back to UB. Among the first year students, 96% rated their educational experience as good to excellent and 87% reported they would
return to UB if they needed to begin their educations again.
Academic Challenge
Among the first- year students, 63% stated they spent “quite a bit” to “very much” time studying and this
same group reported they “worked harder” (at 70%) than they had anticipated to meet the instructor’s
standards/expectations within the course. Seniors reported 82% spent the same time studying and among
them, 64% found they worked harder than anticipated. By the fourth year, 70% of seniors said they
worked harder than planned at entering and 64% are still working harder than planned at the senior year.
The differences here, and there are many factors, that are important may be acquisition of study habits
since the first year courses are mainly General Education, versus grappling with content within the major.
Level of academic challenge is linked to life-long learning dispositions measured by more than these two
questions, but these are key:


Student who came to class without completing readings or assignments: First year 33%
and seniors 17%
Time spent preparing for classes:
Hours
1-5 hours
6-10 hours
11-15 hours
16-20 hours
21-25 hours
26-30 hours
Over 30 hours a week
First- year
16%
30%
16%
19%
14%
0%
5%
Seniors
20%
24%
18%
16%
10%
6%
5%
Entering students reported discussing ideas learned from class with others outside of class 60% of the
time and seniors showed a marginal increase of 62%. Finally, as regards dispositions, 45% of first-year
students read 1 to 4 books outside of class for pleasure or enrichment while seniors reported 59% in the
same category. Two percent of seniors said they read more than 20 books on their own for
pleasure/enrichment.
Learning Experiences
Roughly 74% of the first-year group highlighted they memorized materials in courses “quite a bit” and
“very much.” Over 90% responded they analyzed, synthesized, and “made judgments” with the same
frequencies. Among seniors, memorization was only 54%, and they reported practicing other modes of
higher order thinking 75-85% within the frequencies. In a related measure, students were asked how often
they “put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class
discussions”: first –year students reported they had done so 86% of the time as compared to 68% among
seniors.
Making an oral presentation was an integral part of first-year learning (71%) though less so for the seniors
who responded to the survey (56%). First year students and seniors prepared two or more drafts of a paper
before submitting at about the same rate of response (58% and 56%).
UB PRR June 2012 pg.12
More first-year students worked on group projects in class (72%) than did the seniors (49%).
Interestingly, both groups were equal at 57% in discussing assignments or grades with their instructors,
while seniors reported having received prompt feedback from their professors on academic performance
(68%) more often than first-year (54%), though the difference is not great.
Most first-year students reported they had not written a 20 page or more paper; 33% of seniors had. Firstyear students wrote papers of 5-19 pages (82%) while seniors reported a 76% rate for this type of
assignment. The two groups were fairly consistent in the number of papers fewer than five pages.
First-year students reported they completed problem sets that took them between 1 and 4 hours 72% of
the time and seniors reported 60%; this would be the nature of the major at the upper division level.
Similarly, first-year students reported 51% on the question of problem sets that took less than an hour to
complete, while seniors reported 35% in the same category. This data correlates with both the Lumina
grant findings and course-based assessment in Math 111: College Algebra (See Attachment G: Math
111).
As UB moves forward in direct assessments of student learning, NSSE is a helpful baseline and it is
possible to draw comparative conclusions about certain aspects of the institution’s pedagogical practices
from it. This becomes more useful as UB compares results to those of its peer institutions in and out of
USM.
Institutional Profile of the Impact of the First and Second Year Program on Services: A sampling
of changes and achievements
Individual units within the institution have changed because of the return of lower division undergraduate
students. This section will summarize some of the changes, challenges, and opportunities the UB
instructional and support units have faced.
Office of Technology Support Services (OTS)
In spring 2011, the Office of Technology Support Services (OTS) developed a proposal with an RFP to
explore the purchase of learning outcomes management software, such as LiveText or WEAVE, etc, that
would complement existing platforms in PeopleSoft Campus Solutions, SAKAI Learning Management,
and iStrategy data warehouse, and potentially would interface with Digital Measures. In fall 2011, a
working group of faculty and staff met regularly to view products, evaluate them, and refine requirements
and share information with the broader community on progress and activities. At the end of the fall term,
a subgroup continued the roll- out/buy-in work with larger groups of faculty. Results of the larger
stakeholder interest conversations will come at the end of the spring 2012 term at which time the RFP
with the collaboratively developed technical requirements will be circulated to vendors. The University is
pleased with the outcome of this shared approach as part of an overall effort to engage faculty members in
conversation regarding their future roles and possibilities for management assessment efforts campus
wide. Notably, this project, was initiated with standards 7 and 14 in mind (See Attachment G: RFI for
learning outcomes).
UB PRR June 2012 pg.13
Counseling Center
In the summer of 2008, the UB Counseling Center was created. In 2009, the Counseling Center moved to
larger offices in the Academic Center, which are more visible and accessible to students. In addition to
individual counseling, the Center also offers outreach and prevention workshops, National
Depression/Anxiety Screening Days in fall and spring and referrals to private practice. The full-time staff
members also teach in the freshman seminar. The Counseling Center’s most recent annual report
indicated the average age of those seeking its services is 28. The Center’s student clients are
predominately female, with first-year students representing 12% of users. This is a modest increase from
10% first year students in 2009-10. The largest client group currently is School of Law graduate students
at 47%. The ethnicity of the clients is virtually identical at 42% white clients and 43% African-American
clients. As the lower division grows and retention rates remain high, the Counseling Center will need to
expand its staff from a Director, a full-time psychologist, and a part-time clinical intern, not only to meet
the needs of the UB campus, and to conform to the industry standard of 1.5 counselors per 1500 students.
Student Advisement
Student advisement for lower division and transfer students is handled by professional advisors at UB up
to the point a student declares a major at which time program advisors assume the duties. Growth has
strained the resources of the advisors which in turn required progressive reorganization in terms of
funding, staffing, and training advisors. Students develop a plan of study either as freshman per-majors
with a school or college advisor or as a declared major (including transfer students) with their program
advisor. In the College of Arts and Sciences, for example, 2.5 advisors are working with roughly 200
students per advisor.
Enhanced Early Alert Advising System
In the fall 2011, UB’s advisors and associate deans met with consultants from the Education Advisory
Board (EAB) to review a beta project that significantly enhanced early warning systems for at-risk
students. Afterwards, the faculty and advisors determined that UB’s OTS could modify the current Early
Alert System internally to improve the current system’s capabilities to use social media and to align with
PeopleSoft management of student records. The enhanced system should be launched in fall 2012.
Marketing and Advancement
The University of Baltimore implemented a strategic, comprehensive marketing plan as part of its return
to four-year undergraduate education in 2007. All of UB’s marketing plans are dynamic and involve
ongoing, data-based assessment and revisions; as such, the freshman marketing plan has evolved since the
initial freshman recruitment in 2006 – 2007.
Initial marketing efforts were informed by research conducted by GDA Integrated Services as part of the
University’s market and feasibility study prior to the program’s proposal and implementation. The study
included recommendations as to programmatic offerings; potential target audiences and affinity analyses;
general marketing messages; and possible program differentiators. These recommendations were
incorporated into initial marketing campaigns and Web content and have evolved as the University
acquires more firsthand admission and recruitment data.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.14
Additionally, UB’s Office of University Relations worked with an outside vendor to create the first
freshman recruitment viewbook, a decision influenced by timing concerns and by a desire to gain
professional expertise in a market segment that the institution had not interacted with in decades.
The freshman recruitment communications plan included audiences that required targeted materials and
dedicated sections of the University website, such as high school guidance counselors and parents. In
2011, UB launched a fully-redesigned website, based on research and focus groups that included area
high school seniors and UB freshmen. Currently, all UB advertising is tracked and measured, allowing for
continual assessment and maximization of marketing expenditures.
Over the next five years, UB will proceed with discussion and development of marketing and hiring plans
to accommodate the growth in the lower division as assessment of service and program needs continue.
In addition, the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs has begun to organize fundraising campaigns
to attract recent UB graduates to become donors. The Associate Vice President has also begun meetings
with the UB Foundation Board and the Office of Advancement to make them aware of the needs and
comprehensive array of services, programs, and opportunities available to our students and how the
Foundation and Advancement can enhance their learning and overall collegiate experience.
Enrollment Management and Student Affairs
Since 2006, student enrollment at the University of Baltimore has grown by nearly forty percent. This
growth runs parallel with efforts to continuously enhance services that bring students to the University
and to support their continued enrollment to graduation. Recruitment, admission, financial aid and
retention strategies used today are based on analysis and data. Serving the students, with an
understanding that they have many choices in the colleges and universities they may attend, is UB’s focus
and priority.
Over the last five years, new leadership and staff have been recruited to UB’s Division of Enrollment
Management and Student Affairs (EMSA) to bring fresh approaches and contemporary practices to the
University, to better serve our students and to enhance the processes of student recruitment and retention.
As opportunities for staff replacements in this time period emerged, new staff was recruited that had
experience not only with UB’s typical adult student but who also had experience with the younger,
traditional- aged students coming to the University as freshmen and sophomores.
The staff structure in every office within the division of Enrollment Management and Student Affairs has
been evaluated and re-structured to ensure proper staffing and resource allocation for marketing,
recruiting, operations, use of technology student service, student programming and student support.
Investment in and use of technology, to enhance service to our students has been another feature of the
changed organization in the last five years. In addition, student communications to prospective and
current students are coordinated throughout the EMSA Division to enhance messaging and the flow of
information.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.15
Snapshot of Retention Data
Retention of continuing students at all levels is higher than in institutions with similar characteristics.
Student retention at the University of Baltimore has been positively impacted as a result of a number of
University initiatives. UB students have increased use of student programs and services from 2007 to
present as shown by the following:
 In 2007, the Academic Learning Center (now the Achievement and Learning Center) initiated
computerized placement testing in reading, writing, and math for UB’s first class of freshmen in
over 30 years. By FY11, the Center was administering placement testing to 1,127 students (an
increase of 42% over FY07), including 781 upper-division students seeking to register for the
core 300-level writing course.

Annual Achievement and Learning Center statistics from FY07 to FY11 show students
benefiting in the following ways:
o
Tutoring and writing/learning consultations almost doubled, to 1079;
o
Computer skills workshops increased by 28%, to 401;
o
Writing skills workshops and in-class presentations more than tripled, to 272 in the last
year;
o
Success and professional communications workshops and in-class presentations
quadrupled, to 551 events or presentations last year;
o
Pre-requisite skills reviews nearly tripled, to 261; and,
o
Enrollments among those transfer students who need WRIT 200 (a 3-credit pre-requisite
course for WRIT 300) for degree completion increased by 77%, to 202 students.
Increased use of services

Since 2007, the number of students using services in the Center for Educational Access, which
encompasses disability services and faculty and student training in working with the disabled,
increased by 10% The number of active files has remained relatively steady at approximately
122.

Since 2008, the Counseling Center has grown from having 50 active clients to now serving 122.
Approximately 20% of those served during the 2010-2011 academic year were lower division
students.

Since 2007, student organizations have grown by 5%.
Center for Recreation and Wellness user statistics from FY07 to FY 11, also demonstrate participation
increases:


Intramural Sports increased by 401%, from 353 in 2007 to 1,415 in 2011;
Sport Clubs increased from 25 students in 2007 to 288 in 2011;
UB PRR June 2012 pg.16


Group Exercise sessions increased by 122% from 3,652 to increased 4,437; and
Wellness events drew740 students in 2011.
Student satisfaction was measured in the fall 2011 University Life Survey. Of 456 students who
responded, 51.3% were very satisfied or moderately satisfied with University life. Another 31.2% were
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. When rating the quality of University Life, fifty-one percent (51.2%) of
respondents thought UB’s University Life was good. Thirty-four percent (34.4%) rated their experiences
as excellent, 3.4% as superb, and 28% of respondents found it to be fair.
All student support services engaged technology to address an increase in demand and to adjust for the
inability to add additional staff. For example, the Achievement and Learning Center created the Online
Writing Lab (Owl) and uses Elluminate online tutoring; the Career Center converted to UB Works, a
comprehensive job management database; the Center for Education Access has upgraded its assistive
technology through a Provost’s Academic Technology Investment grant; and a comprehensive on-line
orientation was created in 2011 to supplement face-to -face orientation experiences. Additionally, all
student support areas have employed student staff, particularly federal work study students, at increased
levels to assist with service delivery to UB students.
Fundraising and Scholarships
UB’s focus, as it relates to University fundraising, is on the need for additional scholarship and grant
funds. Scholarship, financial aid information, and the characteristics of the student body are collected,
analyzed, and reported annually to the University of Baltimore Foundation, and to University faculty and
administrators. The onset of the recession in 2008, made the need for student scholarships and financial
aid for UB students more important than ever before. This was indicated, in particular, by increases in the
percentage of students eligible for Pell Grants and students’ increasing reliance on larger student loans.
The ability to award scholarships and grants to a larger student population with efficient, objective
methodology became a necessity. In 2008, as a part of the financial aid process re-design, the separate
scholarship applications were eliminated and replaced with the requirement that students seeking
scholarship must submit the FAFSA. Scholarship criteria for each funded scholarship has become part of
the intelligence in the scholarship awarding database; student characteristics and scholarship criteria are
cross referenced in the aid awarding process. As a result, students are awarded the scholarships for which
they are eligible as their financial aid packages are created. Information on scholarship awards can be
evaluated accurately and reported back to the Foundation and its trustees.
Comprehensive recruitment strategy
The University has taken several steps in recent years to create a more comprehensive recruitment
strategy that utilizes technology to communicate more effectively with prospective students. With regard
to the recruitment of freshman specifically, the University has established an account with The College
Board and systematically makes outreach to high school students via their Student Search Service. With
regard to all populations, offices involved in recruitment activity have utilized functionality provided by
UB PRR June 2012 pg.17
PeopleSoft to enable correspondence, comments and checklists in the admission process.
Correspondence is systematically generated and tracked. All users have the ability to make and read
comments. Checklists drive the process for University personnel and create “to do” lists for students on
the University’s online portal. In addition, the University has implemented document imaging software
which has improved the workflow in both admissions and financial aid by making documents readily
accessible to decision-makers and reducing the margin of error for lost documents. Prospective students
are encouraged to apply for admission using an online application. The Financial Aid Office is 100%
paperless with award packages delivered online via the student portal. A single, online application is
required for restricted scholarships, which makes the process simpler for the student and makes the award
process more equitable.
Advances in technology to support student recruitment include the following:




A department of EMSA Technology was established with dedicated staff to support the technical
and operational needs of enrollment management.
The Office of Financial Aid was restructured with a focus on customer service. A “New to UB”
Counselor, a person dedicated to all new students each semester, ensures a smooth transition and
clear understanding of the aid process at UB.
The implementation of seamless process for restricted scholarships have made awards more
equitable. The use of online awards has improved the system integration between the UB Office
of Financial Aid and the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC). As part of the
retention communication system, early alerts are sent to students regarding deadlines and
mandatory actions.
In 2008, a CRM (customer relations management) system was implemented; in 2012, the
University upgraded to a PeopleSoft CRM.
Adaptive and Adequate Staffing
The University has taken numerous steps to ensure adequate staffing. Foremost among these were the
establishment of the Office of Enrollment Management and Student Affairs (EMSA) and the hiring of a
senior vice president who brings over 30 years of experience to this area. The senior VP reports directly
to the president, reflecting the importance placed on student recruitment and the enrolled student
experience. Within EMSA, the University has established separate offices to ensure the proper allocation
of resources between marketing and recruitment on the one hand and operations and technology on the
other. Marketing and recruitment are addressed by freshman, transfer and graduate admission offices,
which are overseen by an associate vice president for admission. An associate vice president for
enrollment services oversees the Financial Aid Office, the Office of Registration and Records, and the
Office of Admission Technology. The latter is dedicated to the behind the scenes technical and
operational needs of enrollment management in order to allow admission counselors the time to guide
prospective through the admission process to enrollment. (Continuing students also receive retention
communications coordinated by the AVP for Enrollment Services.) The University has also created a
“New to UB” financial aid counselor who works closely with both admission and financial aid to provide
financial aid assistance to all incoming students.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.18
Academic Deans and Hiring Plans
Deans have developed five-year hiring plans aimed at supporting General Education, majors, and the
distinctiveness of the graduate programs. For example, the College of Public Affairs is searching for
faculty to expand programs in Conflict Management and Negotiation, Government and Public Policy,
Public Administration Health Systems Management, and Criminal Justice to meet projected enrollment
growth targets. In the College of Arts and Sciences, position needs are anticipated in the School of
Communication Design (SCD), the Division of Science, Information Arts and Technology (SIAT), the
Division of Applied Behavioral Science (ABS), and the Division of Legal Ethical and Historical Studies
(LEHS). The most significant growth area (estimated at 20% of new hires in CAS) that impacts the lower
division is the re-creation of the writing program to house all the writing courses in the College of Arts
and Sciences. The redesign creates two new administrative positions for a Writing Director and an
Assistant Director, and the University will hire writing support staff and three writing fellows (peers) who
will engage in peer mentoring and assessment related activities. The new Writing Program Collaborative
is a direct result of campus awareness of the need to coordinate writing instruction under one
administrative unit. The purposes of the Writing Collaborative are to:

encourage faculty pedagogical efforts;

increase awareness and ability to apply best practices to writing instruction; and,

create formalized paths for assessment of student writing as well as for professional development
opportunities for faculty and students to improve their writing practice.
The design of the Collaborative has been adopted and the appointment of the first Director is pending
(See Attachment G: UB writing collaborative). For the deans, an ongoing issue is balancing program
needs at the graduate and undergraduate levels with the General Education program staffing requirements.
The deans, along with the Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance and the Office of
Institutional Research, are in conversations about the costs of lower division instruction and student
success and retention to facilitate communication of shared data needed for efficient future planning.
Langsdale Library
UB’s academic library completes an annual report that includes assessments completed by students and
staff of its services and collection. In 2008, library professional staff taught sections of IDIS 110:
Introduction to Information Literacy both as part of learning communities and as non-learning community
courses. Using focus groups and surveys, the librarians monitor programming, marketing, collection
development, and reference and access service uses, and keep track of staffing needs in conjunction with
the growth in patrons and awareness of the types of services the patrons prefer. Copies of the Director’s
annual report may be linked from the Langsdale Library’s website (http://langsdale.ubalt.edu/about-
UB PRR June 2012 pg.19
us/library-annual-report/index.cfm). The librarians report the following changes as a result of increases in
lower division enrollments:

the number of IDIS sections taught between 2009-11;

changes in service, including a laptop lending program;

the inclusion of librarians offering instructional units in 42 sections of WRIT 300: Advanced
Expository Writing;

an increase in course integrated information literacy instruction at a rate of 10% in cross-campus
courses;

website redesign; and,

the creation of a the Textbook Project (2011) which allows students to borrow required textbooks
as part of institution-wide efforts to promote the Higher Education Affordability Act.
To increase visibility, Langsdale librarians have hosted socials and receptions for faculty, students, and
staff to acquaint them with library services and learning opportunities, such as the 2009 Access UB event
in which library staff distributed welcome bags to the first year students. Langsdale has become a center
for sponsored student readings and other campus events. To create more reading and work space for the
influx of students, the lower level, first and second floors were renovated in 2010-11 to include:

new tables and chairs for group work;

a small café;

collaborative study space; and,

redesigned, modular workspaces for reference and circulation librarians and staff.
Reference questions increased from nearly 10,000 in 2009 to 35,000 in 2011. Having achieved faculty
status in 2009 enabled the professional librarians to gain representation at the University Faculty Senate
and their staff has grown from nine (9) librarians in 2009 to twelve (12) by 2011. The increase in greater
staffing is tied directly to more use of the library, the goal of the librarians to transform the library into an
information commons, the need for expertise in digitization and special collections, and the need to hire
librarians qualified to teach undergraduate courses.
An assessment of student learning in IDIS
In the summer 2011, library faculty members were approached by the Director of Academic Initiatives
about using, Introduction to Information Literacy, for assessment of UB students’ information literacy
skills as measured by the AAC&U Value Rubric on Information Literacy. Though each library faculty
member teaches the course slightly differently, all instructors agreed to offer an annotated bibliography
assignment in the learning community course. The assessment was conducted across three sections of the
course. Students were first tasked with gathering sources, then summarizing and evaluating them, and
finally using the sources for a paper, presentation, or incorporation into a website that would demonstrate
UB PRR June 2012 pg.20
their ability to apply the information in a different medium. The annotated bibliography and the final
work product were determined by the faculty member teaching the learning community content course to
which the IDIS section was linked. The results of the assessment will be incorporated into redesign of
assignments, augmentation of instructional activities, and integration of shorter portfolio assignments to
increase the students’ opportunities to practice and receive feedback to clarify expectations (See
Attachment G: ASL project proposal).
UB Curriculum and Program Delivery
Generally speaking, all areas of the University have been affected by the return of the lower division
students after a thirty year hiatus. Another area that bears on curriculum is developing or revising policies
for inclusion of undergraduate students at the lower division. Policies are posted on the UB website for
ease in access and review. Here, three sample policies will represent how UB has modified common
practices to include lower division students.
Policy on Undergraduate Course Substitutions
In the fall 2011, UB divided what had been one policy on General Education course waivers and
substitutions into two. The former was revised specifically to address course waivers for students with
disabilities and was extended to both program courses and General Education. The latter was revised to
only address substitutions and now may be applied to the graduate and undergraduate curricula. A
process was clearly delineated that includes an appeal, and forms for application and approval of the
request were implemented to create a record for the student, advisor, and registrar of the change. The
general guidelines were composed to address common problems, reinforce expectations for student
awareness of course and program requirements, and anticipate such things as an undergraduate receiving
a substitution in one major and then changing majors (See Attachment G: Policy on Undergraduate
Course Substitutions).
Transfer Credit Policies
In the spring of 2011, the Transfer Credit Policies document was amended to reflect policy for students
transferring before their junior year, transfer students bringing General Education course credits to UB,
and placement testing among lower division transfer students.
Creation of the Freshman Experience and Freshman Standards
UB’s 2006 policy on the Freshman Experience created learning communities as a requirement and
positioned the learning communities as the hallmark of the first-year experience. In 2010, the idea of the
learning communities was revisited and the policy was amended to require students to take two (2)
learning communities. The policy was further strengthened by prohibiting students from dropping
learning community courses. Prior to the amendment, students could petition to drop the LC courses, but
UB PRR June 2012 pg.21
remain in the degree-related content cluster. These courses have been regularly assessed and changes
made as a result of the assessment information include:

Development of a financial literacy unit to the courses with assignments that allow for
measurement of the UB Learning Goal on financial literacy;

Inclusion of a team project in the courses to allow measurement of the UB Learning Goal on
teamwork; and,

Redesign of the co-curricular learning project to add a reflective learning process
These modifications reinforced the freshman experience principles, which are woven throughout the IDIS
courses and the learning communities. The most recent assessment of the annotated bibliography
assignment in IDIS 101 was conducted in 2011, with the results used in 2012 to redesign aspects of the
course to improve students’ facility in critical thinking and its application in information literacy. (See
Attachment G: IDIS 101).
A School and College Snapshot of the Impact of the Lower Division at UB
Beyond these larger institutional changes, the Schools and Colleges also modified and/or expanded their
course and programs, hiring, and programmatic outcomes as a result of the return of the lower division
students. The Deans of the Merrick School of Business (MBS), The College of Arts and Sciences (CAS),
and the College of Public Affairs (CPA) provided the following information on the impact of lower
division students on their operations (See Attachment G: Questions for the deans).
Merrick School of Business:
The admission of lower division students into the Merrick School led to scheduling additional sections of
Accounting 201 (Introduction to Financial Accounting) and Accounting 202 (Introduction to Managerial
Accounting); Economics 200 (The Economic Way of Thinking); OPRE 201 (Introduction to Business
Statistics) and OPRE 202 (Statistical Data Analysis). The overall impact on the school’s staffing has
been marginal with the need to hire only one additional faculty member tied directly to lower division
enrollment. Because the Merrick School has AACSB accreditation, faculty members do not routinely
engage in course or program assessment beyond the external accrediting body’s cycle. However in the
fall 2011, faculty teaching ECON 200(The Economic Way of Thinking) assessed student performance on
course examinations measured against the UB General Education Social and Behavioral Sciences
Learning Objectives (See Attachment G: ECON 200). Faculty members tabulated the number of
responses on the exams that normed to the learning goals, having established 70% as an acceptable rate
for demonstrating alignment. The samples for the assessments were not drawn from common tests or test
questions; rather, the courses had common texts and relative commonality within the syllabuses.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.22
College of Public Affairs:
The College of Public Affairs added sections of courses in Government and Public Policy (GVPP) and
Criminal Justice (CJ) to existing courses for upper level undergraduates, and they created a new program
in International Studies in response to needs of the lower division students. Both GVPP and CJ expanded
to become four year programs by adding three new courses in Government and Public Policy and two in
Criminal Justice. The Interdisciplinary program in International Studies is housed in CPA with their
faculty members teaching two of the five required lower division courses.
Regular and adjunct faculty members were needed to teach lower division courses, and the efforts of
some full time faculty were redirected. Assessment within the school has been organized around external
accreditation in some programs, and more commonly course based assessments as is discussed below. In
course delivery, CPA has paid more attention to online course development and also had to consider
scheduling during the day to accommodate lower division students. Additional changes in required
courses and sequencing of requirements were made between 2008 and 2010 to accommodate staffing and
student needs.
College of Arts and Sciences:
The College of Arts and Sciences experienced similar program growth needs as a result of the admission
of lower division students. Most programs in CAS added 100 and 200 level courses. For example, the
History program developed nine lower division courses all of which are included in General Education.
The program also offers one course per semester in the learning communities, and since 2007, they
typically schedule seven lower division courses per term that serve approximately 175 students. The
undergraduate Psychology program, similarly, expanded to a four year undergraduate degree within the
last four years and enrollment increased by one-third in the program. The School of Communication
Design built a new undergraduate major in Digital Communication that replaced its Corporate
Communications degree program. In addition, the new BA in Integrated Arts has been crafted to attract
students with arts interests and link them to careers in management and non-profit organizations. Finally,
most of the programs in CAS developed minors that have expanded the curriculum.
Like CPA, CAS has hired adjuncts to teach the lower division courses since the expansion was rapid and
the need to staff courses was immediate. Similarly, CAS faculty members and its administration report
challenges to scheduling, room assignments, and reorganization of advisement, and have realized the need
for full-time hiring to replace reliance on qualified part-time faculty when feasible. For example, in order
to meet the goal of developing STEM educational opportunities in CAS, there are now four full-time
faculty members teaching in the sciences. These positions were created by a combination of conversion
of adjunct lines and the creation of one new line despite the remaining need for additional science labs at
UB, resources for start-up funds and for equipment, and research support for scientists on tenure-track
lines. Finally, of 48 full-time lines in the College of Arts and Sciences, at least two dozen are on tenuretrack and most will be eligible for promotion and tenure in the next three years.
Beyond its strategic position in the University, the College of Arts and Sciences also plays a role in the
UB College Readiness Initiatives. Begun in 2009, the College Readiness Initiative employed data from
UB PRR June 2012 pg.23
retention studies of lower division students, their success at UB in lower division courses, and the efforts
at managing recruitment, persistence, and graduation as evidenced in Closing the Achievement Gap
reporting. The conceptual framework for the College Readiness Initiative, which mainly benefits students
in the Baltimore City Public School System, aids students in identifying academic skills and dispositional
traits necessary to enable them to take ownership of their collegiate learning experience (See Attachment
G: UB college readiness). CAS’ contribution is a set of dual enrollment opportunities enabling students
in the Initiative to enroll in four UB courses and upon successful completion of all the courses, transfer 12
credits to any college or university. The courses are:
IDIS 101: Applied Learning and Study Skills
IDIS102: Critical Thinking and Multicultural Competence
WRIT 101: College Composition
MATH 111 College Algebra or MATH 115: introduction to Statistics
The students are enrolled in the program in the 11th and 12th grades and by the end of AY 2012, UB had
shepherded 52 students through the program. Through programs such as these, faculty and the staff who
work with lower students division have a better understanding of the learning needs of the students in our
area.
4.
Enrollment and Finance Trends and Projections
Since the return of the first year and second year students in 2007, UB has engaged in continuous
evaluation of its approaches to teaching and learning for the lower division. One of the key factors in this
equation has been the relative newness of the two colleges, College of Arts and Sciences and the College
of Public Affairs, which had been one college for decades. Prior to the division of what was the College
of Liberal Arts, faculty members were hired for both Colleges After the division, curriculum was reorganized and redesigned, governance was restructured, and student support services, including
Enrollment Management and Financial Aid staffing as well as the Office of Student Affairs was increased
to accommodate the influx of students. At the same time, UB’s sophomore transfer student enrollment
grew faster than the incoming class, straining seat capacity and hindering some assessment efforts as
faculty found their second and third year classes larger than expected.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.24
Student enrollment information for 2007-11 appears below:
Table 1: UB Undergraduate Enrollment by Class Level
As seen here, the lower division has grown from 359 in fall 2007 to 782 by fall 2011 as total enrollment
across the four years as increased from 2412 in fall 2007 to 3257 in fall 2011. The mean age of new first
year students is 22 years, as opposed to 27 for new undergraduate transfers. New first year students were
57.5% African-American in fall 2011, while new undergraduate transfers were 42% African-American.
UB’s appeal to black male students, whether they are first -time college or transfer students, is an item of
national distinction for the University of Baltimore.
In the fall of each academic year, UB, along with other University System of Maryland schools, reports to
the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) on sustained efforts to address underrepresented
groups’ retention and achievement on their campus. The Closing the Achievement Gap report provides
solid and specific evidence of institutional efforts, successes, and plans regarding retention of first and
second year students (See Attachment G: Closing the achievement gap). When taken together with NSSE
and additional measures of student success, the Closing the Achievement Gap report provides strong
evidence of the impact of the curriculum and the efforts of student affairs to recruit, retain, and graduate
students of color at UB, who make up the majority of the lower division undergraduates. Similarly, the
Cultural Diversity report reflects evidence of campus diversity statistically, but more importantly outlines
institutional efforts to attract and retain a diverse student body, as it records the work done by such offices
as The Diversity and Culture Center, the Office of Educational Access, and the Achievement and
Learning Center in offering programming geared towards retention through academic success (See
Attachment G: Cultural diversity report 2011, 2012).
The University of Baltimore uses a multi-faceted enrollment projection model that relies on both external
and internal factors. The factors are based on a cohort-tracking model that employs longitudinal weighted
values. The weights are compared and evaluated against the projections generated by USM. Internal
factors include university initiatives, both programmatic and capital. The programmatic initiatives
comply with the institution’s strategic planning efforts and include the development of new undergraduate
and graduate programs in accordance with market demands. The projection of FTE, which is a function
of credit hour loads, is reviewed for consistency with past values, and a trend line may be extrapolated to
UB PRR June 2012 pg.25
account for the trends in these loads. Projecting the proportion of evening FTDE employs the same
methodology as for the FTE.
Capital initiatives include the construction of a new Law School facility with platinum Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification and a private-public partnership with the Varsity
residences that will provide UB students with housing on the edge of campus.
Enrollment Trend Rationale
External factors include high school graduation projections, community college enrollment patterns and
occupational projections. These are not integral to the model, per se, but affect the range of weights used
in the internal modeling for headcount, credit hour loads, and evening enrollments. These enrollment
forecasts are all predicated, to some extent, on anticipated appropriation/budget and growth constraints
(See Attachment G: Enrollment projections).
Finance Trends
The following attachments are snapshots of the full report as they pertain to UB (See Attachment G:
FY2009budget planning; FY2010budget planning; FY2011budget planning). To view the full report as it
refers to USM, please click the following links:
2009 Financial Statements -- http://www.usmd.edu/usm/adminfinance/finafair/FS2009.pdf
2010 Financial Statements -- http://www.usmd.edu/usm/adminfinance/finafair/FS2010.pdf
2011 Financial Statements -- http://www.usmd.edu/usm/adminfinance/finafair/FS2011.pdf
2009 Operating Budget detail -http://dbm.maryland.gov/agencies/operbudget/Documents/2009/detailunsysmd.pdf
2010 Operating Budget detail -http://dbm.maryland.gov/agencies/operbudget/Documents/2010/ProposedOperatingBudget2010/unsysmd.
pdf
2011 Operating Budget detail -http://dbm.maryland.gov/agencies/operbudget/Documents/2011/Proposed/unsysmd.pdf
UB PRR June 2012 pg.26
5.
Organized and Sustained Processes to Assess Institutional Effectiveness
and Student Learning
This section addresses four important learning initiatives:

Creation of the Comprehensive General Education Program

Helen P. Denit Honors Program

UB21 campus-wide transformation initiative,

The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching
The Creation of the comprehensive general education program
The site visit report and the monitoring report provided UB means to assess institutional and
programmatic progress with a more precise group of student learning outcomes as familiarity with lower
division student learning increased. In November 2010, under the leadership of the Provost, the faculty
formed the General Education Council (GEC) (See Attachment G: Gen Ed Recommendations). This
interdisciplinary faculty committee, and subcommittee of the Faculty Senate, was charged with oversight
and development of the General Education curriculum. The internal structure of General Education
began in the fall 2009 when the Provost indicated he wanted the faculty members to drive the process of
designing a rigorous General Education program that would provide both an overview of the liberal arts
and be responsive to the core UB mission of Knowledge that Works. The Acting Associate Provost then
created a working group from within the Faculty Senate that functioned from the fall 2009 to the summer
2010 with their activities culminating in successful participation in the AAC&U Ellicott City General
Education workshop (See Attachment G: Plans-Engaging departments). This group had seven specific
accomplishments:

Fostered organized campus dialog on General Education curriculum and policies;

Carried out plans to develop STEM learning core in College of Arts and Sciences;

Launched the “Gen Ed Jam” campus conversations and engagement meetings that led to
recommendations about the nature of the General Education core;

Revised the learning outcomes first developed in 2006;

Created the General Education Task Force (Fall-Spring 2009-10);

Replaced the General Education Task Force with new interdisciplinary faculty leadership; and,

Named the GEC a standing subcommittee of the Faculty Senate (See Attachment)
UB PRR June 2012 pg.27
The General Education Task Force, which overlapped with the GEC, developed new revised UB Learning
Goals that were adopted formally in April 2011. In addition, in the summer of 2011, a faculty member
with expertise in assessment was appointed a special assistant to the then Associate Provost to assess the
extent to which the COMAR and program learning goals were reflected on course syllabuses (more on
this in later section). As a result of this initial work, the GEC has undertaken revision of the domain goals
(begun in fall 2011) and is encouraging more faculty members to include them in course materials. It is
clear however that more consistent work in professional development, in communication, and in
stakeholder buy-in needs to be done before UB can claim it has a solid culture of assessment. In addition,
the resource implications associated with the General Education program continue to be closely
monitored. Presently, a significant portion of the Provost’s Faculty Professional Development budget is
applied to curricular enhancements of General Education. At the College levels, deans are constantly
seeking ways to support General Education through revised hiring plans, monitoring of the promotion and
tenure schedules and policies as they impact the divisions, and in budgeting for delivery of curriculum. At
this point, UB has a fundamental understanding of why assessment matters and how to use assessment
data to promote programs, influence budgets and hiring schedules, and improve recruitment and retention
particularly for undergraduate majors. To continue to address this General Education initiative in the
summer 2012, five groups of faculty will be working on the following undergraduate educational
enhancement activities:

strategic planning for the General Education curriculum;

redesign of learning communities and the first-year experience;

course redesign to create more writing intensive courses (WIC);

study of quantitative literacy across the curriculum; and,

creation of a new taskforce, the Quality Learning Initiatives Network (QLIN) that is charged with
inventorying best practices in assessment and assisting in building the culture of assessment at
the University of Baltimore.
Helen P. Denit Honors Program
UB enhanced its ability to recognize students’ academic achievement through the creation of the Helen P.
Denit Honors Program, designed for students who have demonstrated an interest, willingness, and ability
to engage in higher order learning.
In 2009, UB hired a new director for the Honors Program with experience in enrollment growth and
revamping of the honors core curriculum. Significant investments have been made in coordination with
the Honors Council to introduce and integrate interdisciplinary, undergraduate research and effective
communication skills into the honors curriculum.
Through courses and co-curricular activities, UB prepares students for the 21st century by empowering
them with the skills and habits of mind necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing and increasingly
interdependent world. UB challenges students to apply knowledge to new issues and questions, teaches
UB PRR June 2012 pg.28
them to navigate and act responsibly within and across a variety of contexts, and helps them to judge
when and how to use technology effectively. The Denit Honors programs courses are small and focus on
learning by discussing and doing. UB encourages student development outside of the classroom by
financially supporting students to, among other things, travel to conferences, participate in study abroad,
and engage in internships. UB also encourages Honors students involvement on campus and in the rich
cultural life of Baltimore’s midtown and downtown districts. Finally, belonging to the Denit Honors
Program provides students with access to the Denit Honors Lounge and all of its resources.
The Helen P. Denit Business Honors Program, a division of the university-wide Helen P. Denit Honors
Program, offers special opportunities for students seeking a career in business, including honors sections
of required business courses, exclusive alumni networking events, exceptional internships, field trips to
prospective employers, and honors mentors. Within the business honors program, the honors accounting
program offers co-curricular programming and activities designed particularly for accounting students.
UB 21
In preparation for the next planning effort, senior leadership began to consider how higher education
would change as a result of multiple factors: fundamental changes to higher education funding; the
increasing role of technology in learning and teaching; and the changing demographics and learning styles
of new generations of students. President Bogomolny called for a new, open-ended approach to planning,
one that would be continuously responsive by being continuously flexible, and thus one without a
predictable outcome—this approach became UB21; see http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/ub-s-
future/ub21.cfm.
UB21 was designed to address five major facets of institutional effort, starting with learning and
encompassing university life, the role of technology, administrative service and support, and the quality
of the campus environment and facilities. The initiative’s overarching objective is as follows:
The 21st-Century University of Baltimore will be a dynamic, growing and vital University, an institution
that:

occupies a distinctive niche in higher education

addresses the question of what it means to be an educated, engaged citizen

continues to define what distinguishes a UB education and a UB graduate.
In the summer of 2011, the administration established five cross-institution committees to work on the
five thematic elements of UB21, and during the 2011-2012 academic year. The committee chairs formed
a steering committee chaired by the Vice President for Planning. The committees began with campus
outreach and research on compelling topics aligned with UB21 topics and criteria. By intention, the UB21
Learning Committee provided initial direction, creating several sub-committees and work groups on such
subjects as experiential learning, networked learning, and life-long learning.
In spring 2012, the Steering Committee recommended to the President’s Executive Committee that it
provide small catalyst grants to support pilot programs based on ideas generated by the UB21 discussions.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.29
The UB21 Steering Committee received 24 proposals; the submissions represented in total more than 100
members of the UB community and included faculty, staff and students, often working together. In May
2012, the Executive Committee approved and allocated funding for 12 Catalyst Grant proposals, of which
9 are underway in FY12(See Attachment G: UB21 Catalyst grant).
CELT
Between 2008 and the present, the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching has offered ongoing
professional development opportunities for faculty to enhance their teaching and learning about teaching.
The work of CELT (http://www.ubalt.edu/about-ub/offices-and-services/provost/bank-of-america-centerfor-excellence-in-learning-and-teaching.cfm) has a history of supporting a variety of complementary
initiatives, the General Education work groups, the UB 21 Learning Committee, and the academic
programs and departments with and through their program coordinators, chairs, and deans work. Initially
funded by an endowment from MBNA (now Bank of America), CELT is a locus for organizing book
discussion groups, arranging guest speakers and consultants, and scheduled training through webinars. In
recent semesters, CELT has sponsored faculty members work on special academic projects relating to the
creation of the new UB21 Learning Goals, the General Education curriculum, reading groups on
diversity, training for faculty in teaching students with disabilities, and improving the Early Alert at-risk
student support system, and adoption of Quality Matters certification for online courses and programs. In
the summer of 2012, the CELT's mission and vision will be re-evaluated as the leadership of the Center is
changing to co-directors: one of whom is a current member of the UB community with expertise in
teaching with technology and the other a new hire, recruited from AAC&U, with expertise in student
learning and curricular design.
Working within Standard 7 and Standard 14
COMAR and UB Learning Goals: Undergraduate General Education is governed at UB by two sets of
standards for competencies and assessment: the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) and the
institution’s Undergraduate Learning Goals, developed across AY 2010-11 and implemented in August
2011. The COMAR standards are designed to maintain consistency in content and to some degree
provide measureable learning outcomes; however, the language is not consistent with current assessment
approaches and the standards are being revised in 2012-13. In addition, Maryland has joined the
COMPACT and is applying Common Core Standards in more areas, such as Math. UB took the COMAR
standards as a starting point in developing its own learning goals and under the GEC leadership, engaged
in a syllabus analysis project which has had four important outcomes in its short history:
1. Sparked a dialog among faculty about how to write learning goals as they better understand what
they want to assess;
2. Showed explicitly where the COMAR standards could be informally mapped onto UB course
syllabuses;
3. Created an opportunity for faculty to engage in revision of their learning goals; and,
UB PRR June 2012 pg.30
4. Started the revision of UB learning goals to align with Bloom’s taxonomy.
In the meanwhile, faculty members are working on a larger picture of the “architecture” of General
Education that will enable them to engage in curriculum mapping in the near future. Some of this work
will have to be paced against the changes to the COMAR standards as to avoid duplication of effort and
misdirection (See Attachment G: COMAR).
A Case Study for Institutional Alignment: Merrick School of Business
At UB, assessment work has largely been conducted within two broader contexts: curriculum
development and meeting external accreditation expectations as evidenced by the activities of the Merrick
School of Business. As an AACSB accredited business program, the Merrick School has been aggressive
in developing its lower division curriculum and in assessing its effectiveness. In 2008, MSB adopted
Digital Measures (DM) to provide tools for course evaluations and faculty effort and workload reports.
In addition, all graduate MSB on-line courses are certified by the Quality Measures (QM) methodology
with faculty who develop undergraduate courses encouraged to design courses on the same principles.
While MSB offered undergraduate degrees to transfer students coming to UB as juniors, the advent of the
lower division has created growth opportunities to redesign courses, participate in General Education,
and demonstrate a commitment to the four-year student on par with that shown to their graduate students.
They have discovered, like the other schools and colleges, the need to develop pedagogies that will
enhance undergraduate student learning and the need to redesign certain courses and programs to
facilitate ease to graduation. For example in the BS programs in 2008, the faculty moved their statistics
course to the sophomore level, increased focus on analytical skills, developed a new one-credit
introduction to the profession orientation course, and adjusted the number of upper level courses to create
greater curricular flexibility in light of the addition of lower division courses. They also created three year
schedules for course offerings, and they developed the Honors Accounting Program (new). They
expanded the BS in Real Estate and Economic Development, with the Construction Management track
designed to enable community college students to transfer fifteen (15) credits as upper-level into the UB
degree program, and redesigned the BS in Management Information Systems (MIS). Significant
additions to their program in 2008 were business minors for non-majors, which were built around
collaborative conversations with CAS and CPA, and a proposed new major for the undergraduate
program in Hospitality and Tourism Management (not developed) as well as three new online certificates
proposed in 2008-09.
By 2009-10, MSB reinvigorated its Beta Gamma Sigma student honors society with a 35% membership
increase. MSB faculty members restructured the internship program after realizing a 100% increase in
student interest. Their undergraduate enrollment grew by 8.5% over the fall of 2008, and faculty
productivity, as measured by Digital Measures data, increased by 6.5% with five new hires included that
year. In 2010, MSB’s Associate Dean prepared a report showing how the School was meeting UB’s
Strategic Goal 1 on enhancing the quality of learning, teaching and research. The report shared data on
hiring, credit hours taught by tenure and tenure track faculty members, and reported data using
Educational Benchmarking Student Satisfaction, comparing undergraduate students in the management
capstone course and part-time MBA students (See Attachment G: MSB Accreditation reports: 2008 &
2010).The report generated internal conversations and analysis of grant funded research, advisement, and
UB PRR June 2012 pg.31
the overall curricular offerings at the graduate and undergraduate levels. In 2010-11, after their
reaccreditation by AACSB, faculty members responded to the recommendation to raise admissions
standards in two programs (minimum GPAs of 2.5 in Accounting and 2.25 in Finance) and to raise
prerequisites within the undergraduate program to maintain overall program integrity. MSB hired five
new faculty members and renamed the BS MIS as BS in IT and Systems Management. Stage One of the
Honors accounting program was implemented and an Honors Business Program was created. The fall
2011 census showed a 3.5% increase in undergraduate student enrollment, and MSB faculty members
continue to monitor student satisfaction with the programs as part of their continuous improvement
program.
Evidence from the Academic Preparedness Report
In April 2009, the Office of Institutional Research evaluated the first two years of the lower division and
prepared a report “A Comparison of Academic Preparedness and Performance of the First and Second
Year Class. Fall 2007 and Fall 2008” (See Attachment G: Draft report). Distributed to the Deans, this
report guided planning efforts within the schools and colleges, particularly as the faculty members
worked to understand the new student population and how best to instruct them (See Attachment G: CAS
Highest priorities). The initial first year class of 2007 was composed of 151 students, and the second first
year class was 171 students. The report examined SAT scores, the high school GPA of the students at
point of entry, their GPA at the end of the fall term at UB, and their course grades by course from the fall
term. Retention rates and whether the students received Pell Grants were also considered in the analysis
that indicated that although the students who entered UB in fall 2008 had lower SAT scores, they actually
performed as well as and in some instances better than the group who entered in fall 2007 with higher
SAT scores. The evidence from this report suggested that SAT scores were some indication of academic
preparedness for success, but the real measure was more strongly embedded in the combination of student
motivation and faculty pedagogy.
Understanding Assessment by Course Syllabus Analysis
During summer 2010, faculty subcommittees rewrote student learning outcomes for each of UB’s seven
General Education (GE) content areas: Arts & Humanities, Biological & Physical Sciences, English
Composition, Mathematics, Social & Behavioral Sciences, Speech Communication, and Technological
Fluency. These learning outcomes were required explicitly to be pursued in every UB course approved
for General Education credit within each of those content areas. During spring 2011 a project was begun
by the Office of the Provost with these anticipated steps:
1.
Determine how consonant General Education courses taught during AY 2011 had been with
respect to addressing all required content area learning outcomes.
2.
Make certain that a systematic plan is established within every General Education content area
for assessing (over 3 – 5 years) all student learning outcomes within that area, including
establishing appropriate criteria for success.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.32
3.
Make certain that individual GE courses incorporate activities, assignments, examinations, etc.,
that provide evidence appropriate to the assessment of each learning outcome in that content
area; and, collect and analyze that evidence according to established criteria for success.
4.
Use assessment results to inform General Education course and content area revisions to better
achieve General Education learning outcomes.
The first step of this project began during summer 2011. Syllabi were collected from 60 sections of 27
General Education-approved courses that had been taught during the spring 2011 semester, and were
examined for inclusion of (a) measurable student learning outcomes, in general, and (b) the student
learning outcomes explicitly required for all General Education courses within the appropriate content
area. A table of the results of this examination is summarized below.

None of the syllabi for those 60 sections of General Education courses taught during spring 2011
provided student learning outcomes that were inclusive of all of the outcomes required by UB
policy for General Education-approved courses within its content area.

Syllabi for 17 of those 60 sections (28.3%) of General Education courses either provided no
student learning outcomes at all or failed to address any of the outcomes required by UB policy
for General Education-approved courses within their content areas.

Syllabi for an additional 29 of those 60 sections (48.3%) of General Education courses failed to
include at least one or more of the student learning outcomes currently required for courses in
their content areas.

Syllabi for the remaining 14 of those 60 sections (23.3%) provided student learning outcomes
that were sufficiently ambiguous in wording to make it unclear whether one or more of the
outcomes currently required for courses in their content areas had been addressed in those
sections.
The examination revealed three additional problems in the wordings of both content-areas (i.e., required
of every course within a General Education content area) and section-specific learning outcomes:

Inclusion of two or more independent behaviors within the same learning outcome (e.g., “Use
mathematical reasoning to solve problems, to formulate and test conjectures, to judge the
validities of arguments, to formulate valid arguments, and to communicate the reasoning and the
results.”)

Use of ambiguous verbs or phrases to indicate targeted learning outcomes (e.g., “have a broad
working knowledge of,” “become familiar with,” “appreciate,” “learn,” and “consider”).

Setting of learning goals that would be difficult or impossible to assess within a single course.
The most frequently observed example of this problem was the setting of the goal that students
should come to “improve” with respect to some skill or body of knowledge. Other examples of
this problem were “to practice as well as theorize,” “to make responsible and informed
decisions,” and “to develop the virtues of a good historian.”
UB PRR June 2012 pg.33
At the beginning of the fall 2011 semester, these results were reported to the Provost as well as to those
deans, academic chairpersons, and academic program directors directly involved in the delivery of GEapproved courses to UB students. All agreed that effort should be expended to assist faculty in the
refining of GE content area learning outcomes as needed (reducing numbers of behaviors, assuring that
behaviors are measureable, clarifying ambiguities, etc.) and to solicit fuller cooperation from faculty to
insure that required student learning outcomes are made explicit in all General Education course syllabi,
are pursued actively in all General Education courses, and are assessed systematically in every General
Education content area.
The project continued during fall 2011 and included meetings with groups of faculty and administrators
responsible for General Education curricula, course design, and course delivery, and the General
Education Council. The purposes of these meetings were to provide both advice and feedback on efforts
to revise, implement, and assess General Education student learning outcomes, and to offer whatever
additional support to achieve these goals that faculty might require.
The General Education syllabus examination component of the project begun in summer 2011 also was
extended to include 83 sections of all 42 General Education courses offered during the fall 2011 semester.
A table of the results of this examination (See Attachment G: Gen Ed Matrix) is summarized below.

Syllabi for 8 of those 83 sections (9.6%) of General Education courses taught during fall 2011
provided student learning outcomes that were inclusive of all of the outcomes required by UB
policy for General Education -approved courses within its content area. This constitutes a
modest improvement over the zero fully inclusive course syllabi observed in the examination of
spring 2011 General Education courses.

Syllabi for 18 of those 83 sections (21.7%) of General Education courses taught during fall 2011
either provided no student learning outcomes at all or failed to address any of the outcomes
required by UB policy for General Education -approved courses within their content areas. This
constitutes a modest reduction from the 28.3% of course syllabi observed in this category in the
examination of spring 2011 General Education courses.

Syllabi for an additional 48 of those 83 sections (57.8%) of General Education courses failed to
include at least one of the student learning outcomes currently required for courses in their
content areas. This constitutes an increase over the 48.3% of course syllabi observed in this
category in the examination of spring 2011 General Education courses.

Syllabi for the remaining 9 of those 83 sections (10.8%) provided student learning outcomes that
were sufficiently ambiguous in wording to make it unclear whether one or more of the outcomes
currently required for courses in their content areas had been addressed in those sections. This
constitutes a substantial reduction from the 23.3% of course syllabi observed in the examination
of spring 2011 General Education courses.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.34
One additional problem observed in the reviews of both spring 2011 and fall 2011 General Education
course syllabi may have contributed to the relatively high percentages of courses failing to include one or
more student learning outcomes required for all courses in their content areas: the relatively high
numbers of prescribed learning outcomes, (e.g., 9 outcomes required for all General Education English
Composition courses, 9 required for all General Education Speech Communication courses, and 7
required for all General Education Technological Fluency courses). Too many institutionally required,
often overlapping or redundant student learning outcomes can reduce faculty opportunity to incorporate
their own, course-specific learning outcomes into course goals, can decrease the likelihood that all
learning outcomes will be addressed during a term, and can decrease the likelihood that students enrolled
in different sections of the same General Education course equally will have the opportunity to achieve all
required learning outcomes.
The UB General Education Council also has taken on pursuit of the next two components of the project
initiated by the Provost in spring 2011:
1.
making certain that a systematic plan is established within every General Education content area
for the assessing (over 3 – 5 years) of all student learning outcomes within that area, including
the establishing of appropriate criteria for success; and,
2.
making certain that individual General Education courses incorporate activities, assignments,
examinations, etc., that provide evidence appropriate to the assessment of each learning outcome
in that content area. Upon achievement of these components, systematic collection, analysis, and
interpretation of that evidence will begin in earnest to “close the assessment loop” for UB
General Education.
Assessment Stories:
The University of Baltimore approached learning outcomes assessment on a course-by-course basis, and
the results of the course based assessments are typically found in program reviews. The cultural shift
underway is to move the programs to annual assessment of student learning using multiple means. The
primary data sources for assessment efforts are derived from program reviews, reports on individual
assessment activities, and the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report (SLOAR) that covers
lower division General Education courses and their assessments. The summaries of activities that follow
reflect assessment practices and outcomes evidence from across the schools and colleges between 2008
and 2011.
Yale Gordon College of Arts and Sciences (CAS):
The College of Arts and Sciences houses programs in the liberal arts as well as in science, and applied
behavioral sciences. The following programs have provided assessment data for the current report:
CSCE, HIST, SOCI, PSYC, and MATH. Assessment of WRIT, while taught in CAS, will be handled
separately below as the writing courses represent a university requirement for successful graduation.
These stories include both General Education and non-General Education courses. Below are summaries
of select course-based assessment activities.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.35
Community Studies and Civic Engagement (CSCE)
The Community Studies and Civic Engagement Program designated CSCE 301: Introduction to Nonprofit Leadership for assessment around their learning objective stated as follows: “Demonstrate the
highest standards of conduct and accountability and the value of a commitment to service to others in a
nonprofit setting” (See Attachment G: CSCE301). Twenty-one (21) students took the pre-test in
September 2010 and fourteen (14) took the same test as a post-test in December 2010. The program
director read through the responses and provided the final report. The program wished to measure the
self-reported level of commitment the students possessed at the outset of the course and to evaluate the
extent to which their attitudes towards non-profit service were influenced by the course content
(curricular and co-curricular).
Of 21 respondents, only 2 entered the course in a non-profit leadership position; 6 were not involved in
the non-profit sector and 3 reported actively searching for a cause as a result of the course. Four students
reported that as result of the course their commitment to the goals of non-profit careers increased, one
person no longer wished to work in a non-profit career, no one reported burn out. Finally, 20 of 21
students reported they were committed to the goals of the non-profit sector, though they were not leaders
in a specific cause. The program director’s evaluation indicated comfort with the two students who were
no longer interested in pursuing non-profit sector employment with the following notation,
“Even though these two students had reduced their commitment to the non-profit sector, their
explanations indicate that the course conveyed the level of commitment that was expected in a realistic
way [to them and therefore, they made an informed decision on pursing another path].”
Based on the results of this survey, the CSCE program director indicated he would “convey the findings
of the assessment to the instructor at our summer adjunct gathering and encourage the continuation of preand post-tests in this course so we gather consistent data across a number of years.” The CSCE program,
through evaluation of students’ self-reported interest in pursuing careers in non-profit leadership has a
better understanding of the role of the course CSCE 301 in the development and maintenance of student
interest in careers in the field. Recognized with the Carnegie classification as a regional leader in civic
and community engagement, the University of Baltimore benefits from knowing whether students’
attitudes are transformed through the curriculum in this program. The program will apply UB Learning
Goals in future assessments, particularly Goal 2, sub-goal b: Recognize the importance of civic
engagement in their personal lives and throughout society.
History
The UB History department has been consistent in measuring student learning through analysis of writing
and in past years, they have assessed other learning goals, including diversity as part of course content in
the Legal, Ethical, and Historical Studies (LEHS) degree program. In 2010, the History program
underwent its program review focused on continuance of the longitudinal study of writing, begun in 2004,
and extended to include three focal points:

Information literacy
UB PRR June 2012 pg.36

Constructing an “historical web” (or mapping historical events into a broader cultural context)

Evaluation of the relationship of contemporary events to establish an historical continuum
History faculty members wanted to expand what they already knew about the quality of students’ writing
on historical topics to assess more advanced writing and application skills. As such since 2004, the
History program conducted student learning outcomes assessments by collecting writing samples from
300 and 400-level, non-General Education History classes. The Program director has shared assessment
results with individual faculty on a case-by-case basis and the results have been used by History faculty
members to modify courses on an individually determined basis.
LEHS program faculty members established a benchmark of 80% in HIST 300: Exploring the Past and in
HIST 497: Special Topics in History for achievement of the learning outcome in source analysis. Fifteen
of eighteen students enrolled in these courses achieved an 85% pass rate, indicating that prior efforts to
address and improve critical reading skills were successful. In HIST 370: The Old South, students were
marginally successful in creating the historical web assignment: 7 exceeded expectations, 8 met the
standard, and 3 did not meet the standard. Only 2 History majors were in HIST 470: Modern Japan out
of a total of five students. The History majors met the standard for successful completion of their
research assignment.
The evidence from HIST 300, 370, and 497 reflects departmental efforts to teach critical reading and
analytical writing are effective and consistent with longitudinal efforts to measure student writing success,
information literacy, and critical reading.
The History program’s instructional concentration on writing is augmented by their development of
detailed instruction on writing assignments and specific grading rubrics focused on making students
aware and responsible for effective writing in the discipline. The faculty members are engaged in
successful outreach to the University’s Director of Expository Writing to improve their own professional
development regarding teaching writing to History students. In addition, History faculty members have
purposefully aligned their efforts with the course content of the required upper-level course, WRIT 300:
Expository Writing, aligning General Education and disciplinary content in the students’ experiences (See
Attachment G: History and English).
Sociology
In the fall 2011, a sociology faculty member within the College of Arts and Sciences conducted an
assessment of four general learning goals in her course. Sociology 100: Introduction to Sociology is an
elective course within the General Education program, so the faculty member had the benefit of using the
UB Learning Goals to inform the assessment and the analysis.
The faculty member is engaged in continuous improvement efforts for content delivery in SOCI 100. To
determine how specific learning goals were met, the faculty member administered a 40 question objective
test as a pre-test and a post-test. The goal was to have students achieve a 7 or better on four specific
learning goals measured in stages across the test. The intent of using the 40 question test was to enhance
specific instructional approaches with the content of the course. By aligning ten questions with each
UB PRR June 2012 pg.37
learning goal, the faculty member was able to see the strengths and weaknesses of learning with each area
which in turn could be used to guide improvements in pedagogical choices and delivery. The examination
measured the following:

Application of sociological method

Evaluation of sociological methodology within the context of sociological research

Understanding how societies are organized and the relationship between institutions and social
groups

Understanding the nature of culture and society
The sampling of students was small at only 16 and the results were limited to completion of one
examination. Nonetheless, it is clear that students’ knowledge improved and increased in the four key
areas between the time the pre-test was taken and the post-test administered. In the case of general
knowledge about social structures, students’ knowledge significantly increased from a single student
achieving competency in the pre-test to all 16 achieving competency in the post-test. Similarly, while
50% of students achieved competency on the question involving analysis of the sociological method, this
number rose to 86% at the post-test. Students’ knowledge in the four areas assessed increased at a ratio of
75% or higher when pre- and post-test results are compared.
The professor realized revisions to lectures were required to meet Learning Goal 1 on the application of
sociological method. The assessments also called for improved use of online tools for incremental
testing, and in general, the results highlighted the connections between course information and learning
outcomes that could be applied within the faculty members pedagogy to improve students’ retention and
application of key concepts in SOCI 100 (See Attachment G: SOC 100).
English
In 2006, the English program established a course-based assessment of student writing from the capstone
Seminar, offered in the fall and spring terms, one section each term. Between 2005 and 2008, the faculty
members teaching the course assessed an informal essay written during the term using the following
steps: student identified essay for revision, presented the paper to faculty members and peers for peer and
faculty review, and then revised the paper, submitting both to the faculty member for a final grade. In
closing the loop on their processes, the faculty members determined to increase their emphasis on
information literacy, research based writing, proper use of MLA citation forms, and focus more on the use
of comparison and contrast as a versatile rhetorical strategy (See Attachment G: YGCLA Assessment
report).
In 2009, when the class size in the seminar rose to 22 students in a section, the faculty members
abandoned the peer review piece of the revision process and assessed the students solely on their response
to instructor feedback. The faculty members also modified the wording of the revision prompt to allow
for either peer or instructor review at the discretion of the faculty. In spring 2010, the process was
UB PRR June 2012 pg.38
repeated and they further, as a department, chose to complete their assessment work annually in the
spring. The March 2011 annual report indicates students were meeting the learning goals in the English
program at a rate of 80%.
Overall Findings within CAS on assessment: Each CAS program assesses learning goals specific to its
discipline from the disposition for civic engagement to algebraic computation to problem solving using
oral and written communication skills. The samples that are available reveal consistent faculty interest in
assessing and addressing student writing, particularly. The course design and redesign efforts to create
Writing Intensive Courses (WIC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID) classes, combined with writing
across the curriculum show a propensity in the UB faculty to teach students how to write well, how to
apply content knowledge in various settings and problem solving scenarios, and how to articulate course
concepts in oral and written forms. The challenges in CAS will be to develop coherently aligned
approaches to formative and summative assessments, to determine what types of assessments will yield
the meaningful results for measuring lower division student learning, and how to align findings for
General Education courses and within the majors, creating intentionality in data analysis and planning
that will benefit the entire University.
The College of Arts and Sciences has undergone significant changes in leadership in the last three years.
First, the College was divided into two with the creation of the College of Public Affairs. Then, as the
faculty members were adjusting to the change, a new dean was hired, and within two years, the dean was
replaced by an interim dean from the CAS faculty. In addition, a key figure within CAS, the former
associate dean, retired in the summer of 2011one-year after the Yale Gordon College split. As the
leadership stabilizes with the potential hiring of a new dean in spring 2012, the College can move beyond
sporadic course based assessments to fully engage in the assessment opportunities that lie ahead as CAS
assumes leadership of the learning communities, the developmental reading, writing, and math programs,
and the first year experience. The programs housed in CAS are diverse and represent a variety of levels
of academic preparation and student abilities. For example, it remains hard to develop a coherent picture
of first and second year learning beyond the linkage provided in the learning communities, and the
evidence from the Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report (SLOAR) (2011) on developmental
education. Yet, the assessment briefs above show the ability of CAS faculty to evaluate student learning.
College of Public Affairs:
As evidenced by their annual course-based assessments, major foci of student learning in the College of
Public Affairs (CPA) is on students’ recognition of common processes and technical terms within the
legal, social services, and corporate systems. CPA’s system has been to assess a single course each
semester on one or more learning goals as indicated by the 2010 study conducted in CRJU 610:
Administration of Justice in which students were assessed on a fifteen minute oral presentation on the
subject of their research paper in the course. The program has added undergraduate degrees and
concentrations since 2008. Sample sizes are small since they are based on class enrollments, but CPA has
been consistent in employing assessment data for course redesign and planning efforts. For example, the
Spring 2011 assessment reports for CNCM 506: Understanding and Assessing Conflict indicate that
evidence of student performance showed the need to increase information literacy training, improve
articulation of knowledge important in assessing conflict-based cases, and opportunities for students to
discuss course assignments after grading in a student-center approach to highlight lesson learned from
UB PRR June 2012 pg.39
direct application of course content. This analysis led to the implementation of a concept-list oral
presentation project, more detailed and specific assessment rubrics for both oral and written presentations,
and detailed writing guidelines that include specific mandates relating to academic honesty and
plagiarism. An analysis of student performance in CRJU 301: Social Justice in the Urban Community
(See Attachment G:CRJU 301) (2009) on four key questions from the final examination provided
evidence that more than 70% of the 54 taking the final correctly answered questions on the roles and
functions of criminal justice components and procedures and were able to recognize the causes of various
criminal justice problems. This led the professor to conclude the exam was a good measure of what
students retained as essential course knowledge. Similarly, a 2009 assessment of student performance in
CRJU 485: Advanced Criminal Justice Studies (See Attachment G: CRJU 485) showed students met the
standard for locating five academic sources on an assigned subject area question and evaluated the
sources effectively. Additional assessments in CRJU 611: Contemporary Corrections, CRJU 632:
Policing Special Populations, CRJU 710: Advanced Criminology, and CRJU 711: Criminal Justice
Planning and Systems Applications reveal the range of skills students are expected to master on problems
facing criminal justice professionals (measured by exam question), recognition and application of theories
of criminal justice to issues in contemporary law enforcement (oral communication project based on
research project), development of a short and long term program proposal on a criminal justice issue
(midterm essay exam question), and creation of a strategic policy plan for an agency or an organization
(portfolio type assignment with oral and written components).
Overall findings within CPA on assessment efforts: The attributable findings to this sample of course
based assessments show the faculty members have program and field specific learning goals that are
measureable within the context of student work be they exams, papers, oral or written proposals and
planning documents. The faculty members are able to measure strengths, identify weaknesses in student
learning, and take meaningful steps within the courses to address deficiencies. CPA faculty members
recognize the need to:

develop assessment plans for the lower division courses over the next five years;

close the loop on the course base assessments completed between 2009-11 on the same
courses; and,

create comprehensive assessment profiles for each program that can be employed in
strategic planning within curriculum, hiring, and reporting.
The opportunities exist for CPA to succeed because of leadership expertise in student learning outcomes
and accreditation reporting, and they already have a functional culture of assessment within the graduate
programs that can be readily expanded to include broader and more systematic approaches to learning
outcomes assessment.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.40
Representative General Education Core Assessments
As noted above, assessments associated with the Colleges and Schools included some General Education
courses. This section highlights two pieces of our core program, one for developmental students and one
for the general population where strong evidence from student learning outcomes measurement has made
significant contributions to UB’s understanding of student learning.
The Maryland Higher Education Commission Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report (SLOAR)
2011:
UB’s 2011 Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report (SLOAR) required by MHEC provides
detailed evidence of how UB has measured its student success in meeting the four key competency areas:
written and oral communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and
technological competency (See Attachment G: MHEC-SLOAR ). For the SLOAR report, four rubrics
were applied to student work or testing results in WRIT 200/300 (placement rubric for writing), an MSB
rubric used across their courses to measure oral communications, an MSB rubric used for undergraduate
problem-solving skills assessment, and an Information Literacy/Critical Thinking Assessment rubric used
in conjunction with IDIS 101: Applied Learning and Study Skills, a required course for incoming students.
For the assessment of technological competency, students in Management 475: Strategic Management,
took the ETS major field test. These candidates scored at the national average (UB 152/national average
152.1) and results of the test plus additional information from INSS 300: Management Information
Systems, were used to make changes to the courses to improve students’ ability to use technological tools
such as Excel in reporting and problem-solving on business course content. As indicated in the SLOAR
report, the results of the assessment included individual course redesign efforts by faculty members
teaching sections of the same course, two MHEC grants in support of better understanding of best
practices to improve critical reading and thinking skills at the sophomore level with the goal of impacting
student retention and a course redesign grant for IDIS 302: Ethical Issues in Business and Society
(discussed above). The quantitative literacy assessment led to course redesign, addition of a prerequisite
in the Business Statistics sequence, course renumbering to sequence learning appropriately around skills
required for success, and additions to course content in areas in which assessments indicated students
would benefit from more focused learning.
Writing Instruction: WRIT 300: Expository Writing
Until 2007, the only writing course taught in an academic department was WRIT 300: Expository Writing
which was required of all students. UB has an admirable history and practice of promoting writing across
the curriculum, and faculty are highly engaged in teaching writing within the disciplines to their students.
Under the newly forming collaborative, writing will be centralized and housed in the College of Arts and
Sciences and led by the Writing Collaborative Director.
Since the fall of 2008, WRIT 300 has been modified four times to improve upon the standard syllabus,
writing prompts, exercises, and grading rubrics as faculty become more familiar with their students
competencies in written communication. All elements of the course are standardized given that 81% of
the sections of WRIT 300 are taught by adjunct faculty with discipline-based expertise. Presently, the
UB PRR June 2012 pg.41
courses meet face to face for eighty (80) minutes a week with additional coursework conducted online.
The changes made in the course were a result of both student and faculty responses to satisfaction surveys
on matters including course delivery methods, population of sections restricted to students’ major, and
adjustments to distribution and nature of assignments (See Attachment G: Writ 300, Assessment History
of Writ 300).
Developmental Education: Lumina Foundation Higher Education Productivity Grant, Summer
2010:
Under the umbrella of the University System of Maryland (USM), UB received a $15,000 Lumina
Foundation Higher Education Productivity Grant in support of course redesign for UB’s developmental
math courses, DVMA 95 Intermediate Algebra and DVMA 93 Introductory Algebra. The goals of the
redesign effort were to develop strong pedagogical practices to increase the pass rate beyond its current
level of 51%; to reduce costs and seat demand for the math courses; and, by virtue of the higher pass rate,
to improve the kind and level of mathematics learning available to UB students. The course redesign
achieved its goals in that pass rates overall rose 24%, first time course takers passed at an increased rate
by 22%, and costs were lowered by 34% per student, netting the University nearly $94,000 in savings.
The study brought theories of both course design/redesign and math education to practice on the
identified needs of the students in developmental math. The primary redesign principle was to discover
ways to create learning environments that had a positive impact on students’ attitudes towards math
content and place the students in a laboratory environment where they were directing their own learning.
This heightened sense of ownership melded faculty expectations for learning with the students’
understanding of the expectations and engaged students in continuous self-assessment as they moved
through the course content. The enhanced self-directed/tutorial nature of the course, when combined with
the Math Learning Studio, available to students within flexible hours and in online or face-to-face
delivery modes, offered the students opportunities to master course content and gain confidence in their
ability to learn quantitative concepts (See Attachment G: Developmental Math redesign report).
Costs:
The initial financial goal was to reduce costs by increasing capacity. Indeed, in the traditional model,
enrollment was capped at 20 students per section, and in the redesign, the cap for each section became 32
because typically at least half the students choose to work in the studio on a flexible schedule rather than
going to the classes regularly. So, with fixed costs, seat capacity in the DVMA classes rose by 33%.
However, our actual enrollment declined by more than 5%. The drop in enrollment can largely be
attributed to higher first-time pass rates. The Cost Savings Worksheet shows a decrease in average
number of times the course is taken from 2.0 to 1.28.
Findings from the Lumina Grant
The evidence suggests that students found learning contracts and the self-paced progress the courses
proved advantageous. Since students had options for learning support from their instructors, use of the
learning studio, on demand learning modules online, study groups, and tutoring in the Achievement and
Learning Center, they also learned to select the type of assistance they needed to master aspects of the
UB PRR June 2012 pg.42
content. As the students proceeded through the coursework, they also experienced the benefits of time
management and self-directed learning based decision making.
6. Linked Institutional Planning and Budgeting Processes
Planning at UB.
Planning at UB is a substantive and on-going process with both institution-wide and divisional
manifestations. Since 2007, UB has undertaken at the institutional level the following specific planning
steps:
Expanding the Shared Vision: The University of Baltimore Strategic Plan 2008-12. (see
http://www.ubalt.edu/strategicplan). In anticipating the changes that followed the expansion of the
curriculum and return to four-year undergraduate education, UB followed “Positioning for the Future:
Creating a Shared Vision, the University of Baltimore Strategic Plan 2004-2007” with a comprehensive
planning initiative that resulted in a new, five-year strategic plan.
The planning process involved stakeholders from all parts of the institution and contained an overarching
vision comprised of four key elements:

Enhance the learning experience at UB as measured by retention and graduation rates, student
satisfaction indicators and job placement data

Grow student headcount to 8,000 to serve state educational and workforce needs

Achieve national ranking and recognition in select academic areas

Secure the necessary resources to fully implement and support the University of Baltimore’s
overarching vision.
Subsequent to the plan’s adoption, a revised budget process strengthened the connection between
institutional goals and resource allocation. All funding requests required references to specific planning
goals and objectives, and all were evaluated in the context of the plan.
At the beginning of every academic year, leadership provides the campus community with an annual
“report card,” measuring performance of key indicators as outlined in the plan.
A key component of the plan is the University’s commitment to grow enrollment to 8,000. This
commitment is consistent with the University System of Maryland’s goal of 55 percent college
completion, as outlined in USM’s in 2020 planning document.
UB’s enrollment growth strategy included rebuilding and strengthening enrollment management,
admission, financial aid, and registration; creating a new set of student affairs functions, including greater
attention to advising, counseling, and student academic support; building a strong Administration and
Finance team, with emphasis to effective budgeting and expansion of facilities; and expansion of
UB PRR June 2012 pg.43
instructional capacity, particularly with respect to design of curriculum, expansion in the number of fulltime faculty members, and expansion of library and instructional support functions.
The arrival of the UB’s first class of freshman in the fall of 2007 dramatically changed the institution.
For the first time, the youngest students and day students were no longer first-year law students. The
diversity of the student body increased as well, with what is a majority of first-year students representing
traditionally underrepresented populations. There was also an unanticipated and unplanned for arrival of
advanced freshmen and sophomore transfers. Finally, implementation led to a major turnover in seniorlevel administration, followed in subsequent years with appointment of new deans.
College and Program Planning
Beyond the institution, UB’s colleges and some of its programs have undertaken strategic planning on
their own, often in conjunction with disciplinary accreditation requirements. Specifically, the Merrick
School of Business, re-accredited by AACSB in 2010, has a strategic plan for curriculum and program
development that also informs faculty hiring. The UB program in Public Administration, reaccredited by
NASPAA in 2011, likewise has a strategic plan. The ABA and AALS have noted the lack of an effective
strategic plan for the UB School of Law. During the 2011-2012 academic year, the law faculty, led by an
interim dean, developed a long-range planning report as the basis for building a strategic plan under its
new dean beginning in the summer of 2012. As an example of program-level planning, in the last year
faculty across the University worked with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to develop a plan
for integrating and embedding writing across the disciplines; the plan led to appointment of a new, seniorlevel, director of writing who joins UB in fall 2012. Finally, the overlapping faculties of the MA in
Publication Design and MFA in Integrated Design undertook a planning effort to find a common core of
courses that would allow a student entering either of the two programs to complete the other degree.
Continuous Quality Improvement
Independent of its strategic planning processes but as a means to enhance planning and institutional
effectiveness, UB has initiated Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) methodology to assess and
improve administrative processes. Effective CQI requires sustained attention to generating and
implementing outcomes, and leadership remains committed to incorporating CQI in the new strategic
plan.
Budgeting at UB
UB employs an annual budgeting process that builds on planning and involves all stakeholders. The
process is driven in part by the state and university systems processes and timelines that allow UB to
begin its internal process in January. By then the University is informed by the Governor’s budget
proposal and University System guidelines on projected appropriation funds and tuition rates. The
institution adds enrollment projections to the equation to determine anticipated available funding. Based
on this understanding, the Office of Administration and Finance sends to each major budget division a
planning budget base for the next year. Unless there is a requirement to reduce the budget base over the
current year (for instance, setting aside a percentage reserve or increase—such as for salary increase), the
base remains the same. Planning budgets also anticipate distribution of accumulated overhead earned
UB PRR June 2012 pg.44
from grants and contracts during the prior year. Budget managers are then expected to align their budget
base with position management requirements and undertake reallocations. All budget reallocations are
considered recommendations and must be justified with reference to the UB strategic plan or UB21.
The second step in this process is a request for supplemental budget allocations. The supplemental
budget includes that funding expected to be generated over and above the existing base budget in the
coming year, based on projected increases in enrollment, tuition, or state funding. In recent years most
requests for and approvals of allocation of supplemental funds have been for scholarships to support
students and for faculty lines to increase instructional capacity, the latter informed by college-level hiring
plans. All requests for supplemental budgets must address strategic planning criteria.
Planning budgets with internal reallocations and supplemental budget requests, all with reference to
strategic planning, are made available to the University community through the intranet. Shared
governance budget committees are consulted as well. In the end decisions on allocation are made by the
Executive Committee composed of the senior vice presidents and the college deans. A parallel process
unfolds for self-support budgets and for facilities requests.
Shared Governance in Planning and Budgeting
There has been concentrated discussion across the university on the role of shared governance in planning
and budget development in the last couple of years. A concern that the University was not building
instructional capacity at a rate consistent with building enrollment and administrative infrastructure
largely generated this discussion. As a consequence, during the past academic year a task force of faculty
and staff members analyzed and evaluated the University’s allocation budget. Their efforts lead to
recommendations for enhancing transparency across the University. A second group has begun to
analyze the profile of the student body, given the significant change that has occurred in recent years. All
of this discussion has indicated a need for more effective shared governance and communication. A third
work group generated a set of principles and guidelines and a new plan of organization for shared
governance approved by the University’s shared governance entities in May 2012. The plan encourages
more open and engaged processes for consultation about planning and budgeting than has been the case
historically.
Moving Ahead through Formal Planning
As noted at the beginning of this section, planning is continuous at UB, and the growing culture of
assessment leads to the need to address thoughtfully important issues before they are identified in a
strategic plan. This is especially true in Academic Affairs, where there are presently a number of
initiatives underway around curriculum based on assessment and evaluation. These include:

Architecture of General Education, including effectiveness of the freshman seminar and the
learning community format, both designed for the first freshman class in 2007.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.45

New or modified degree programs, the latter beginning with the program review process and
considering as appropriate modification or replacement
Meanwhile, the deans collectively are updating and amending the 2007 Academic Plan informed by
student profile analysis to develop strategically aligned faculty hiring plans, to be initiated following
submission of the PRR.
UB PRR June 2012 pg.46
List of Attachments
G: 2007-2011 self-study:
2007-2011 self-study references to Gen Ed and
Learning Outcomes Assessment
G: claresturture:
CLA restructure
G: assurance of learning memo:
Assurance of Learning at the University of
Baltimore memo
G: ublearninggoals:
UB Learning Goals
G: MHEC challenge grant:
MHEC Sophomore Retention Grant
G: course redesign proposal:
Course Redesign Proposal
G: Math 111:
Math 111
G: RFI for learning outcomes:
OTS bid
G: UB writing collaborative:
UB Writing Collaboratory
G: ASL project proposal:
Assessment of Student Learning Project
Proposal
Academic Policy Proposal
G: Policy on Undergraduate Course
Substitutions:
G: IDIS 101:
Information Literacy Assessment
G: Questions for the deans:
Questions for the deans
G: ECON 200:
ECON200
G: UB college readiness:
UB College Readiness
G: Closing the achievement gap:
Closing the Achievement Gap Report 2011
G: Cultural diversity report 2011-12:
Cultural Diversity Report 2011, 2012
G: Diversity plan progress report:
Diversity Plan Progress Report 2012
G: Enrollment projections:
Enrollment Projections
G: FY2009budget planning:
FY2009budget planning
G: FY2010budget planning:
FY2010budget planning
G: FY2011budget planning:
FY2011budget planning
G: Gen Ed Recommendations:
General Education Recommendations Report
(September 2010)
G: Plans-Engaging departments:
Plans-EngagingDepartments(Apr21 DB)
G: UB21 Catalyst grant:
UB21 Catalyst Grants
G: COMAR:
COMAR sample standards for GEN ED and
program
G: MSB Accreditation report:
AACSB—International Accreditation
Maintenance Annual Report: 2008-9 &2010
G: Draft report:
Draft Report: A Comparison of Academic
Preparedness & Performance in the First &
Second Year Class (April 7, 2009)
G: CAS Highest priorties:
CAS Highest Priorities
G: Gen Ed matrix:
General Education Learning Outcomes Matrix
G: CSCE 301:
CSCE 301
G: History and English:
Program Self Study documents
G: SOC 100:
SOC 100
G: YGCLA Assessment report:
Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts
Assessment Report
UB PRR June 2012 pg.47
G: CRJU 301:
G: CRJU 485:
G: MHEC-SLOAR:
G: WRIT 300:
G: Assessment History of Writ 300:
G: Developmental Math redesign report:
G:
G:
G:
CRJU 301
CRJU 485
Maryland Higher Education Commission
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Report 2011
WRIT 300: Advanced Expository Writing
Syllabus
Assessment History of Writ 300
Lumina Foundation final report
Part-time Writing Faculty Survey
WRIT 101: College Composition Syllabus
GVPP 201