Decadal Review of Academic Units

Bates College conducts once-per-decade reviews of all departments and interdisciplinary programs to assess their contributions to its mission. The decadal review is an opportunity for an academic unit to assess its curriculum, its effectiveness and impact on student success, and its engagement with the life of the college, as well as to articulate how these factors contribute to the college’s success.  

The New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE) requires the college to conduct periodic reviews of academic units and their majors/minors, to ensure the quality of education we provide. Specifically, NECHE requires that academic units include evidence of student success and program effectiveness and incorporate a perspective external to Bates. The decadal review is integral to fulfilling this obligation to our accrediting body. 

The Office of the Dean of the Faculty has designed these guidelines to be helpful to academic units as they reflect on their practices and plans for their future. The schedule of reviews is established by the dean of the faculty’s office, and they typically span four semesters (see graph below). The review entails the academic unit assessing their curriculum and writing a self-study, typically around 20 pages plus supporting appendices. Internal conferees and the external committee read the assessment report and the self-study. Following the external review and the completion of its report, the academic unit submits to the dean of the faculty a written response to the report and a plan for the future. 

Permanent faculty, ongoing lecturers, and senior lecturers should conduct the review. Temporary faculty of any rank should only be expected to participate in the decadal review in rare circumstances. Units desiring to engage temporary faculty must convey their request in writing to the dean of the faculty’s office before the review process.

The main steps of the review process are detailed in the following pages but are summarized in this table. The Dean of the Faculty will remind department and program chairs of the upcoming review one year before the year in which the review is scheduled to occur. 

Visual of Timeline

1. Meeting with Deans

The chair of the academic unit meets with the assigned associate dean and an assistant dean to discuss the review, review the timeline, decide on mutually agreed-upon deadlines, and answer any questions the chair might have. In this meeting, the dean’s office will review what is available in the standard dataset, which provides the academic unit an overview of enrollments, demographics, a summary of the annual senior survey, and the five-year career outcomes for majors/minors (where applicable). This standard dataset will also be shared with Lindsey Hamilton at the Center for Inclusive Teaching and Learning (CITL) to avoid duplication of effort and to help inform the subsequent assessment strategy, which CITL will help develop and implement.

2. Website Updates

Departments and programs under review should update their website as a first step, as External Committees consult these websites for information about the academic unit before visiting (and students consult these websites to explore curricula, learning goals, and career paths). The unit’s Academic Administrative Assistant (AAA) will make the changes to the website as directed by the faculty.  

3. Nominate Faculty for Review Committees

The academic unit under review submits nominations for Faculty Conferees and suggestions for the External Committee to the dean’s office

Bates Faculty Conferees

The academic unit selects two Bates faculty members from outside the academic unit under review, who together will help the external committee understand Bates’s context. The Faculty Conferees are faculty familiar with the academic unit and can provide context for the External Committee. Please nominate six names of possible internal Faculty Conferees. Bates professors, associate professors, and senior lecturers are eligible to serve. The dean’s office selects the two Faculty Conferees from the list of nominees submitted by the academic unit. To inform the final selection process, it would be helpful if the academic unit included a brief description of why these faculty members would be helpful to the external review committee. The dean’s office invites faculty to serve in this capacity, and the selected individuals are expected to read the internal report and meet jointly with the External Committee once while it is on campus.

External Review Committee

The External Review Committee consists of faculty members from other institutions who possess pertinent experience and who, in the view of the academic unit under review, can offer objective, helpful advice from a disciplinary perspective. The Committee should consist of two members. However, if justified by the size or complexity of an academic unit, the academic unit may request a three-person committee. Such a request should be submitted in writing to the dean of the faculty’s office.

The academic unit should describe the characteristics of each position on the committee (e.g., one member from a liberal arts college and the other from a Research I university; one member focused on molecular biology and one on ecology). The nominating lists should include the first choice for each committee seat and several alternatives for that seat. The dean’s office bases its decision on the member’s knowledge of the academic unit, the nature of the key issues to be addressed, and the preferences expressed by the academic unit. The dean’s office informs the academic unit chair of the final roster and alternates. The dean’s office issues formal invitations to serve.

Departments and programs are advised not to nominate the most famous scholars in their field, as they will likely be too busy to serve. The academic unit should remember to include individuals from a range of subfields and various institutions. Please consider the benefits of having a committee with diverse identities and lived experiences. Individuals with close professional or personal ties to a member of the department of program faculty or the college or actively seeking employment at Bates are not eligible to serve on external review committees.

Finding the line between friendship and a close, collegial relationship that does not inhibit objectivity between a member of the academic unit under review can be difficult.  It may be helpful when trying to determine whether a proposed member of the external committee can meet the requirement for objectivity to consider the following questions:

  1. Has the proposed external committee member been a guest in the home of a department or committee faculty member? Has the proposed external committee member socialized frequently with any member of the academic unit under review?
  2. Is a proposed candidate for the external committee related by blood or marriage to any member of the academic unit?
  3. Has the proposed committee member been an advisor, coauthor with, fellow member of an investigating team, or member of the same department as a member of the academic unit under review?

To maximize the possibility that nominated faculty will be able to serve on the review committees, departments and programs should submit their nominations to the dean of the faculty’s office well in advance (typically 5-6 months) of the review. As many individuals decline requests to serve as reviewers, please list 10-12 possible external evaluators. Please include the following information, which the unit’s AAA can assemble: 

  1. Name
  2. Title and rank
  3. Institutional affiliation and email address
  4. Concise, relevant background
  5. CV and/or link to the faculty member’s website
  6. Brief paragraph about why you think this person is a good choice
  7. To what extent members of the academic unit know the suggested reviewer
  8. Please indicate which external reviewer you want for each role on the committee, along with several alternatives for each position on the committee, as it is not unusual for many individuals invited to participate on an external committee to decline.

4. The Self-Study 

Below, please find a set of sections and questions that define the structure for your self-study document, with the broad goal of focusing your self-study on key elements linked to evidence of program effectiveness and student success. For questions regarding the available data or to request additional data, please contact Matt Duvall (mduvall@bates.edu), Assistant Dean. 

Background

  • Please provide a brief (~ 500 words) overview and history of your unit to provide context for the focal questions below.
  • Please provide a link to the online Catalog section describing the requirements for your major(s) and minor(s).
  • Please provide a brief (~ 200-word) biography for each faculty or staff member and add CVs as appendices.

Focal Questions and Action Plans

Most of the self-study is intended to be forward-looking—that is, you should describe where you are currently, assess how things are working, discuss ongoing assessment, and articulate actions you plan to take to enable progress. Action plans should be time-specific and explicit about the feasibility with existing resources. 

Rather than having a stand-alone section on equity and inclusion, we ask you to apply this lens to your thinking and writing as you explore the seven topics below.

  1. GOALS (~1k – 2k words):
    • Does your unit have a mission statement? How does it align with the mission/strategic plan of the college and with current institutional efforts (e.g., RPPC implementation, expansion of the geographic and economic breadth of our incoming students)?
    • What are your desired learning outcomes for your students? 
  1. ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES (~1k – 2k words): Please contact Lindsey Hamilton in the Center for Inclusive Teaching and Learning for assistance with this work
    • How do the learning outcomes articulated in 1 (Goals) map onto your curriculum? Which outcomes are well-supported or less well-supported by the current curriculum structure?
    • How are the learning outcomes measured? What assessment is planned or being conducted? What will/does that assessment tell you?
  1. CONTEMPORARY NEEDS AND PRACTICES (~1k—2k words): Please take a moment to reflect on whether your curriculum aligns with contemporary educational needs and practices as your fields change and your faculty’s composition changes. A difficult challenge for all of us is the temptation to add new facets to a curriculum without making space by removing or condensing other facets. As you explore these topics, please include evidence to support your claims.
  1. EXPERIENCING THE CURRICULUM (~1k – 2k words):
    • How navigable and deliverable is your curriculum?
      • Where do students encounter bottlenecks, unpredictability, or frustrations?
      • Where do faculty encounter bottlenecks, unpredictability, or frustrations? Is delivery of the curriculum sustainable from a faculty perspective?
    • What adjustments could be made to address student and faculty challenges with your current resources (e.g., accounting for leaves)?
  1. ENROLLMENT (~1k – 2k words):
    • What are the enrollment trends for majors, minors, GECs, and GenEd over the past 10 years? 
    • Please comment on the enrollment patterns across courses in the unit’s curriculum.
    • If some courses are chronically over- or under-enrolled, how are you allocating existing resources within your curriculum to balance student demand?
  1. CULTURE / PROCESS / WORKLOAD EQUITY (~1k – 2k words):
    • How are decisions made in your unit? What processes ensure that all voices are heard? How do dissenting perspectives get incorporated or valued? 
    • How equitable is the distribution of workload in your unit? What processes or structures contribute to creating equity?
  1. ADDITIONAL TOPIC (~1k – 2k words): If your unit has a crucial topic or issue that you want to explore but that falls outside the previous headings, you are encouraged to address it here.
    • We encourage you to contact your Division Chair or Associate Dean to discuss this additional topic. 
    • If you anticipate needing additional data beyond what is provided in the standard data set, please contact Matt Duvall (mduvall@bates.edu). He can discuss the types of questions for which we have available data.
  2. APPENDICES. The academic unit should include the following appendices:
    • A summary of the academic unit major and/or minor (where applicable), its learning objectives and requirements
    • Any relevant assessment information developed with CITL 
    • Curricula vitæ of all permanent faculty, ongoing lecturers and senior lecturers who regularly teach in the academic unit; AAAs typically compile these materials
    • Syllabi of courses offered in the last two years and others that are critical to the academic unit curriculum (interdisciplinary programs may include the syllabi of courses central to the major); AAAs typically compile these materials
    • A summary of course enrollment patterns and the number of majors and minors, during the ten most recent years. 
    • Information on the current annual operating budget of the academic unit, provided to the academic unit under review by the dean of the faculty’s office.
    • A summary of how graduated majors have pursued educational and career outcomes during the five most recent years. This data comes from the Alumni Survey and is prepared by the academic unit with assistance from the Office of Institutional Research.

The self-study document and any supporting documents should be submitted electronically to a Google folder established by the dean’s office for review by the agreed-upon date on the review schedule. The dean’s office sends information on the self-study’s availability to the Faculty Conferees, the External Committee, the president, deans, and division chairs.

5. Academic Affairs Council and Faculty Conferees Review Self-Study

The Academic Affairs Council discusses the self-study and identifies issues that require further attention or explanation. If necessary, the AAC conveys their thoughts on the self-study, cc-ing the associate dean supporting the review.  The Faculty Conferees read the self-study.

6. External Review Committee Reviews the Academic Unit

The External Committee usually visits the campus for two to three days. The most convenient schedule for External Committee members is to arrive on a Sunday afternoon and depart on a Tuesday afternoon or evening. The chair of the academic unit under review, assisted by the academic administrative assistant and in consultation with the dean’s office, develops a draft schedule and reserves meeting rooms for the External Committee 4-6 weeks prior to the visit. The deans review the draft schedule and may call for schedule changes to maximize the effectiveness of the External Committee’s time on campus.

The draft schedule should follow these guidelines:

  • The External Committee usually meets with the academic unit members over dinner on the evening before the first full day. Primarily a social gathering, this dinner orients the External Committee, reviews the agenda for the following days, and provides a general group discussion on the curriculum.
  • The committee meets with the two Faculty Conferees early on during the visit. 
  • The committee meets with the president, the deans, and the AAC early in the visit and again at the end. The dean’s office schedules these meetings.
  • The External Committee needs considerable time (one hour per faculty member if possible) to meet individually with academic unit members and faculty and staff in other departments, as appropriate. The External Committee meets with students, usually at dinner at the end of the first full day. Time should also be available for the committee to discuss the review as it progresses.
  • Several hours on the last half day of the visit are set aside for the committee to discuss and draft its report.
  • Before departing, the External Committee meets with the faculty in the academic unit under review to discuss its findings and outline the general conclusions it will present in its written report.

Within one month of the visit, the chair of the External Committee electronically (as a PDF file) sends a written evaluative report to the dean of the faculty. The dean, in turn, sends the report to the president, the academic unit faculty, the Faculty Conferees, the associate deans, and the division chairs. The College encourages the External Committee to

  • Share candidly its best judgments about the quality of undergraduate education and scholarship offered by the academic unit.
  • Identify strengths and weaknesses in the department’s or program’s work
  • Compare the Bates academic unit with departments at other comparable institutions, if useful
  • Enumerate resource needs or curricular challenges that deserve attention
  • Provide a fresh perspective on the academic unit and a focus for its response and plan

Upon receipt of the External Committee’s report, the dean’s office sends each committee member a modest honorarium to appreciate the individual’s service.

7. Response to the Review Committees’ Report

Congratulations on reaching this point in the decadal review process. Within three months of receiving the External Committee’s report, we ask units to submit its response to the review, a written statement reacting to the External Committee’s discussions, action items, and timeline. 

Your response document can be tightly focused, with a length of 3-5 pages. Including bulleted lists or outlines is fine. Please address the following four points:

  1. How would you summarize the primary points and takeaways of the external review?
  2. Where do their ideas converge and diverge with those of the unit?
  3. Based on the review, what do you see as the unit’s top priorities for curricular change, culture change, or enrollment management in the next five years?
  4. What is your plan for assessing student outcomes moving forward in relation to the goals you have established?
  5. What timeline do you envision for the work ahead?

After the response to the review is submitted, the dean of faculty’s office will reach out to schedule a final meeting for the academic unit faculty members meet with the dean, associate dean, and appropriate division chair to discuss the review. That discussion is intended to identify immediate priorities and the steps to address them. In addition, the discussion should yield a long-range plan, including a structure for monitoring and measuring progress toward identified goals.