Institute Review Committee Minutes
Members Present: Paul
Wine (Chemistry and Biochemistry), Russell Gentry (Architecture), Ronald Arkin
(Computing), Jim McClellan (Electrical and Computer Engineering), John McIntyre
(Management), Steve Usselman (History, Technology, and Society), and Joseph
Members Absent: Farrokh Mistree (Mechanical Engineering) and
Bob McMath (Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and Academic Affairs).
introductions, members reviewed the role and purpose of program review
to provide ongoing, formative, structured evaluation of
all academic programs at GT
to comply with the Board of Regents mandate
and to enable GT to meet SACS requirements.
Roles for Institute Review
Committee members were also discussed, including being a liaison with programs
within each college going through review, working as committee of the whole to
assure adherence to guidelines and quality of process, and to report on an
annual basis to the Provost and Academic Senate on findings and any recommendations
reviewed the draft notice letter to schools/colleges whose programs are up
for review. Several suggestions for
revisions to this letter were brought up:
adjusting the due dates for various components of the
review to reflect actual practice
more fully describing the contents of the data profile
identification of the persons responsible for
conducting the review within each school, so that IRC liaisons can more easily
keep in touch with the progress of reviews within their college.
Joseph Hoey was encouraged to make necessary
revisions to the notification letters and to get them out to the affected
programs within two weeks.
points were mentioned in connection with the program review process
itself. First, the process must be
seen as fair by the parties involved.
Second, open channels of communication are the single biggest key
to successful review processes and the committee will need to maintain
open lines of communication as a top priority. Third, since program review can be
perceived as a substantial threat by those undergoing review, IRC members
will need to be sensitive to that fact and will need to reinforce the
notion that program reviews at Georgia Tech are improvement-oriented
rather than judgment-oriented. The
timing of reviews was also discussed, and the possibility of staggering
reviews to commence at different points in the academic year was
mentioned, however no definite decision was reached on this point.
role of the IRC in relationship to the Institute was a topic of extended
discussion. While the faculty
handbook currently mandates review of all undergraduate programs every 5
years, this has not been undertaken at the Institute level. It will be necessary for the IRC to work
out its relationship in this regard with the Institute Undergraduate
Curriculum Committee and with the Institute Graduate Committee, and to
coordinate reporting efforts to the Academic Faculty. The suggestion was advanced that the
respective chairs of these committees be invited to meet with the IRC in
the near future.
Election of a committee chair was not undertaken at this
particular meeting, but will be taken up on September 12th at the