GT Institute Review Committee


October 19, 2001



Members Present: Paul Wine, Russell Gentry, Farrokh Mistree, Ron Arkin, Steve Usselman, and Joseph Hoey. 


Members Absent: John McIntyre and Jim McClellan



1.  Committee Charge and Suggestions for Structure


The meeting was called to order by chair Joseph Hoey at 10:01 a.m.  The discussion began with questions about the basic charge to the committee.  Rather than seek to modify the charge, members noted that communication of the IRC charge with other committees should be our goal, and that the IGC and UCC as well as academic units should be informed of the charge and roles of the IRC via a written memo.  Further, members felt that communication differentiating the roles of the IRC and the GT Office of Assessment should be put forth.  Steve Usselman noted that the IRC has an educational mission in this respect, and that we should endeavor to assist other committees, the administration, and the campus in understanding the program review process as a whole and responsibilities connected to the various parts of that process.


With regard to clarifying the roles and procedures for the IRC, the suggestion was brought forward that a subcommittee for procedure development should be formed to create such infrastructure and procedures and to help the IRC strategically focus its efforts.  Chair Joseph Hoey asked Ron Arkin and Farrokh Mistree to work on this subcommittee along with John McIntryre and Joseph Hoey, and to report back to the IRC on their progress.


2.  Templates, Road Maps, and Best Practices


Ron Arkin and Farrokh Mistree noted that having a program review template or some sort of checklist would greatly facilitate the review process for units.  Paul Wine contributed that a summary and guide to each review should be included in each review, to enable the IRC to locate each relevant section.  Others felt that it might be too early for a template, that the committee should rather wait a year and see what this first year of reviews brought before sending out a program review template for all to use.  Farrokh Mistree noted that we may want to send out 'best practice' process examples and review documents.  Ron Arkin furthered this notion of seeking best practices from Georgia Tech and elsewhere in the SACS region, and reinforced the notion that the main thrust of the IRC this year should be educative rather than a concentration on enforcing standards.  Farrokh Mistree advocated looking at ABET and other professional accreditation reviews to focus on those things that matter.  He felt the IRC should build on these structures, using professional reviews and assessment updates to accomplish a substantial amount of the work involved in the review.


3.  Representation


Representation from other committees involved in the program review process came up next as a topic for discussion.  The notion was discussed that IGC and UCC representatives should be drawn from the pool of those programs undergoing review.  All members agreed that we need to have representation from the IGC and UCC on the IRC very soon indeed.


4.  Communication and Oral Report to the IRC


Communication with academic unit with regard to dates and deliverables was discussed next.  In particular, the focus was on an oral presentation to the IRC by each academic unit having gone through review.  Members voiced support for having a full-day meeting on April 15th, where all academic units undergoing reviews present a synopsis of their results and documentation to the committee.  Members noted that the liaisons must not be charged with this task, but rather that representatives from the individual units need to make the presentations.  Steve Usselman volunteered that the IRC should develop a simple letter to units, saying that we need to have an oral presentation on the date specified, that we need to have their materials in hand by a certain date, and that we need to have a specific guide for units making presentations, informing them of what they should be prepared to present to the committee.  Members indicated that the contents of the oral presentation should be a topic of discussion for the next meeting. 


The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m.



Respectfully submitted,


Joseph Hoewy