Read the Curry College NEASC 2012 Self-Study Report.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

35 outcomes describing competencies expected of all Curry graduates. This statement of core values, learning objectives, and a comprehensive list of architectural principles lxxxii was widely circulated, discussed, and revised over the course of Spring 2010 and unanimously approved by the Faculty in May 2010. In Fall 2010, three distinct approaches to Gen Ed curriculum development based on the May document were presented to the faculty at its annual January retreat. lxxxiii With additional feedback on the approaches by online survey, the task force consolidated the three approaches into a single coherent and assessable model that has now been shared and discussed widely at a number of open forums. lxxxiv Appraisals of General Education reform efforts include favorable assessment of the participatory nature of the process, the transparency of the communication via the Blackboard site, and the well‐documented integration of best practices in higher education in developing the proposed model. Current timelines project that the GETF will present this model including structures for assessment of student learning to the UCC and the Faculty for approval in Spring 2012. Graduate Programs The growth of graduate education programs at Curry has been in the professional fields with a focus on expanding and diversifying capacity to contribute to adult student learning. With that development has come some challenges commonplace to a College in transition. Curry has been proactive in assessing the effectiveness of its graduate offerings and in identifying areas for further development to sustain and support high quality graduate education. In 2010‐2011, the Graduate Council assessed the Graduate Programs and developed recommendations to strengthen academic quality and competitiveness. As articulated in individual program reports, lxxxv each Master’s program possesses unique strengths and challenges. Among their shared concerns are issues of governance, full‐ to part‐time faculty ratios, hybrid and online course development support, and space issues. Shared observations of strengths across the Graduate Programs include an emphasis on communities of practice through the cohort model; strong individual program identity, with unique foci; consistently strong linkages with external professional standards, including foundational learning outcomes; and an explicit commitment to the integration of theory and practice. This integration is well illustrated in the capstone requirements of each program, discussed within Description and evident in print and web‐based program descriptions. Culminating comprehensive projects are used to document substantive integrated learning in each of the graduate programs and demonstrate students’ critical thinking and applied learning skills within their respective disciplines The cohort model, now a “signature” feature of Curry’s graduate programs, has resulted in high retention‐to‐graduation rates. Since its inception in Fall 2005, the MBA program has enrolled fourteen different cohorts on the Milton and Plymouth campuses. Of the 273 enrolled students, 236 graduated, yielding a graduation rate of 86.4%. The MSN program graduated 81% of its cohort, which began in Fall 2008. Both M.Ed. and MACJ students are new converts to the Curry College 2012 Self-Study Standard Four
36 cohort model; similar completion rates are anticipated. With the doubling of the number of Graduate programs (from two to four), essentially all aspects of graduate program oversight and ongoing administration have increased both in volume and complexity. Across all four programs, key areas of tension include governance, administrative support, and appropriate structures for curricular decision‐making. In the past, when Curry’s graduate education offerings were more limited, graduate program issues were addressed as “extensions” of the traditional undergraduate academic curricula. Along with the addition of new programs, competition for time within department meetings has increased; and the focus on graduate education is no longer sufficient to adequately address graduate student learning issues and challenges. Also related to growth in graduate studies is a notable increase in demand for facilities and technological support that better support graduate instruction: seminar rooms appropriate for day‐long classes and those spanning five‐hour time blocks, as well as adequate computer laboratories to accommodate instruction and review. Similarly, while current resources provide noteworthy instructional technology support, there is increasing need for additional academic technical support for students and faculty engaged in hybrid offerings, including the need for support and training for part‐time faculty in effective utilization of Blackboard 9. Other technological tools that can improve graduate student achievement include software to support research, provide online tutorial support, and enable supplemental instruction for licensure test preparation. The latter are being explored on a pilot basis; experience with them will aid in determining their utility in providing effective support for the graduate student population. Integrity in the Award of Credit The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) recently identified several key areas for further review regarding the award of academic credit. Each is rooted in an overall issue: Course offerings are initially approved through the UCC and subsequently overseen by the individual departments in which they reside. Questions of consistency across areas have recently come light recognizing that there has not been a cross‐area review of the ongoing oversight process to assess whether standards for demonstrable student learning are applied consistently or not. Informed by the results of identified review processes, appropriate next steps will be identified by either the UCC or the respective departments to advance ongoing oversight of appropriate credit awards for courses within each category. The identified goals for this focused UCC review are to: Increase consistency in course levels (1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 General guidelines to assure consistency in expectations in course levels have long been promulgated (e.g., 1000‐level courses are introductory, 2000‐level assumes prerequisite knowledge or skill, and 3000‐level represent advanced inquiry and upper‐division skills). However, these have rarely been reviewed beyond the departmental level to identify common understandings of student learning at each level across programs. To address this, a Curry College 2012 Self-Study Standard Four
Page 1 and 2: Curry College Self-Study Report Jan
Page 3 and 4: ii III. Institutional Characteristi
Page 5 and 6: iv 12. List all programs accredited
Page 7 and 8: vi CHIEF INSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Fun
Page 9 and 10: viii Academic Dean’s Office coord
Page 11 and 12: x assessment learning goals and mea
Page 13 and 14: xii Significant program expansion w
Page 15 and 16: 2 accessible in multiple locations:
Page 17 and 18: 4 Of these multiple efforts, Strate
Page 19 and 20: 6 the College’s Mission Statement
Page 21 and 22: 8 academic units. In addition, the
Page 23 and 24: 10 writing sequence xxv ; and stand
Page 25 and 26: 12 • Offer distinctive, relevant,
Page 27 and 28: 14 Standard Three: Organization and
Page 29 and 30: 16 policy and planning and peer fac
Page 31 and 32: 18 The College demonstrates a stron
Page 33 and 34: 20 process of reviewing their self
Page 35 and 36: 22 NEASC visit in 2002, the organiz
Page 37 and 38: 24 Increased opportunity for study
Page 39 and 40: 26 • MACJ: Police Career Incentiv
Page 41 and 42: 28 submitted to the department chai
Page 43 and 44: 30 Table 4.1: Progress Summary of L
Page 45 and 46: 32 management data helps department
Page 47: 34 • Recent purchase of Atomic Le
Page 51 and 52: 38 with enhanced online support for
Page 53 and 54: 40 • Develop a system to assess t
Page 55 and 56: 42 Standard Five: Faculty Descripti
Page 57 and 58: 44 Part‐time faculty teaching loa
Page 59 and 60: 46 attendance. xcvii Faculty are al
Page 61 and 62: 48 articulated only for full‐time
Page 63 and 64: 50 initiatives to move the College
Page 65 and 66: 52 Advisors actively participate in
Page 67 and 68: 54 Standard Six: Students With a lo
Page 69 and 70: 56 class members by cohort, allowin
Page 71 and 72: 58 programs are described in detail
Page 73 and 74: 60 Staffing within Student Services
Page 75 and 76: 62 College has placed a priority on
Page 77 and 78: 64 continue to hear from students o
Page 79 and 80: 66 structures and supports for dive
Page 81 and 82: 68 systematic oversight for what ar
Page 83 and 84: 70 The curriculum and student learn
Page 85 and 86: 72 the Appraisal section. Students
Page 87 and 88: 74 faculty “selectors,” each re
Page 89 and 90: 76 technological environment. The C
Page 91 and 92: 78 Standard Eight: Physical and Tec
Page 93 and 94: 80 Facilities are constructed and m
Page 95 and 96: 82 technology through hosted applic
Page 97 and 98: 84 Standard Nine: Financial Resourc
Page 99 and 100:
86 of May 31, 2011 with the majorit
Page 101 and 102:
88 gradually developed a culture of
Page 103 and 104:
90 making that provides for suffici
Page 105 and 106:
92 requirements. As described withi
Page 107 and 108:
94 Standard Eleven: Integrity Descr
Page 109 and 110:
96 available; it also appears in ga
Page 111 and 112:
98 consider developing and implemen
Page 113 and 114:
100 ix Mission Statement Survey in
Page 115 and 116:
102 cvi First Year activities in wo
show all

Read the Curry College NEASC 2012 Self-Study Report.

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?