NEASC Program Review Worksheet

 

For each program, please provide the following information (answers to questions can be bulleted). Related AQUAD items are footnoted – if you have access to a recent AQUAD report for the program, it may be helpful to look at the related section in the AQUAD report.

For each category, describe the current situation, identify current concerns, and make projections for future needs based on current concerns.

 

Graduate Program Name: Graduate Program in Critical and Creative Thinking

Start Date:  1979/80

Graduate Program Director: Peter Taylor

Program Type: Research, Professional, Dual.  Dual

Information Sources: AQUAD review 2002-3 (filesaquad03.html); Website (http://www.cct.umb.edu)

Worksheet prepared by: Peter Taylor, peter.taylor@umb.edu

 

A. Rationale & curriculum[1]

á        Appropriate rationale is stated on website (files/overview.html) (which is an update of the rationale in AQUAD self-study in response to reviewerÕs comments).

á        Clarity and order in The M.A. and Certificate programs in CCT are explained in the Graduate Bulletin, the website, and the AQUAD self-study (p. 14ff).

á        The Program goals and objectives are presented in great detail in the AQUAD self-study (p. 8ff).  The extensive self-assessment in relation to mission, goals and objectives details directions of future development (AQUAD self-study, p. 32-62).  The structure of the curriculum is presented in the AQUAD self-study (p. 9ff) and its rationale is given in the Supplement I.A.4 to the self-study.

á        CCT is significantly advanced relative to an undergraduate program in that students bring many years of professional experience to the Program —experience that allows depth of research, practical engagement, and writing in the course projects, pre-capstone research, and final syn/theses. There is no undergraduate equivalent of CCT so the relation and interdependence of the undergrad and grad levels are not assessed.

 

B. Resources & expectations[2]

á        FT faculty:  The AQUAD review strongly recommended restoration of a second faculty member dedicated full-time to the program.  Because this was not possible in 2003-04 a moratorium was placed on admissions through most of 2003.  This moratorium was lifted in December 2003 following the authorization of a search for a faculty position in practitioner research, who would teach 1/3 time in the Program, and the appointment of a full-time substitute while the Program Coordinator is on sabbatical. 

á        A second full-time line may be created as part of a ÒCenter for Creative Teaching, Learning, and Cognition" that the Dean has included in his strategic plan.  This would allow the faculty to pursue more of the outreach work and improvements laid out in the ProgramÕs AQUAD plan and to supervise students taking the thesis option.  Nevertheless, with effective use of technology (website, email lists, an in-house database) Òthe CCT Program continues to operate at a very high levelÓ with few resources (AQUAD reviewersÕ report); the 1/3 time appointment will be sufficient to maintain an admission rate of 20 M.A. students per year (a figure set by the Graduate Dean in December 2003).

á        The response of the CCT faculty to the AQUAD reviewersÕ report stated that another kind of support that [the] CCT faculty considers essential for the Program to fulfill its basic responsibilities is to regularize the governance of the Program under a formally recognized Graduate Program Director (GPD) with whom the relevant chair(s) and dean(s) consult closely in establishing Òplanning parameters that allow CCT faculty to determine the best use of their experience and energiesÓ (goal B of CCTÕs AQUAD plan; see self-study).  This governance and consultation-based planning has not emerged during almost seven years with GCOE serving as CCT's home college. The Review Committee recommends that UMB  Òfind an affiliation that will allow CCT to flourish.Ó  If the Program were operating in a congenial institutional location under an explicit Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), considerable faculty time and attention would be freed up to make greater contributions to the University and society beyond the basic educational mission.

 

C. Research-oriented programs[3]

á        For several years students have been advised to take the synthesis option for their capstone, not the thesis option, because supervision of theses requires more faculty time than the Program currently commands.

 

D. Professional or practice-oriented programs3

á        Does it include faculty who are experienced professionals contributing to development of the field?

á        Does the program develop broad conceptual mastery of the field through understanding of its subject matter, literature, theory, methods?

á        Does it seek to develop capacity to interpret, organize, communicate knowledge?

á        Does it seek to develop skills needed to practice in and advance the profession?

á        Does it include instruction in relevant methodological knowledge, directed toward appropriate application as part of professional practice?

á        Does the program include a sequential development of professional skills which will result in competent practitioners?

á        Is there a hierarchy of degrees in this area? If so, do they differ by level in expectations?

 

E. Dual programs, encompassing both research activities and professional practice3

á        Does the program define its relative emphases in research and practice through program objectives concerning curriculum, scholarship, requirements, and are these implemented?

 

F. Outcomes[4]

á        Do graduates demonstrate that they have acquired knowledge and skills identified as program objectives?

 

G. Scholarship[5]

á        Do all faculty pursue scholarship, which includes application, utilization, dissemination of existing knowledge as well as creative activity both within and outside the classroom?

á        Are scholarship and instruction integrated and mutually supportive?

á        ÒA review of CCT vitae reveals a faculty actively engaged in their scholarly disciplines with peer-reviewed journal articles, chapters, and books.  This faculty also appears to provide high levels of service to the university, their own professions, and the community at large.  AndÉ course evaluations are consistently high for the CCT faculty.  On all scales of scholarly productivity, the CCT faculty is strongÓ (AQUAD reviewersÕ report). Xx connection to pedagogical innovation

á         

 

H. Research5

á        What research is undertaken by faculty and students?  Are physical, administrative, academic resources adequate for research? 

á        Do faculty workloads reflect research commitments?


[1] AQUAD CRITERION 1. Planning. The program should demonstrate effective planning within the context provided by the mission, goals, objectives, and resources of the academic units housing the program and the campus as a whole.

 

[2] AQUAD CRITERION 5. Use of resources. Assessment of resource use should address the efficiency and effectiveness of resource allocation and use. Information about the allocation of both personnel and material resources (space, equipment, and operating budget) to meet curricular and other objectives, including any intra- and inter campus collaboration or other innovations, should be included in the assessment.

 

[3] AQUAD CRITERION 2. Curriculum quality. Assessment of the curriculum should include attention to four dimensions of quality: coherence of the educational program; rigor of the educational experience; relevance of the learning to further education, quality of life, employment, or other use by students; and currency of the educational experience in terms of the broader disciplinary or professional context represented by the program.

 

[4] AQUAD CRITERION 4. Student learning. Assessment of student learning outcomes should address how the program facilitates student success in learning. It should address articulated goals for student learning outcomes and procedures for measuring the outcomes. It should also discuss how evidence of student learning is used in reviewing its curriculum and its faculty.

 

[5] AQUAD CRITERION 3. Faculty quality and productivity. Assessment of faculty quality and productivity should include information about faculty expertise and productivity in teaching; research, professional, or creative activity; and public service or outreach.