Self-Study Design - Howard University, Graduate School
Self-Study Design - Howard University, Graduate School
Self-Study Design - Howard University, Graduate School
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>: A Research<br />
<strong>University</strong> for the New Millennium:<br />
New Imperatives, New Challenges,<br />
and New Opportunities<br />
<strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> <strong>Design</strong> for the<br />
Reaffirmation of Accreditation by<br />
the Middle States Association of<br />
Colleges and <strong>School</strong>s<br />
May 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Institutional Overview.................................................................................................................. 1<br />
Description.................................................................................................................................. 1<br />
Mission........................................................................................................................................ 6<br />
Important Recent Developments................................................................................................. 6<br />
The Campaign for <strong>Howard</strong> ..................................................................................................... 6<br />
New Technology Resources and Facilities............................................................................. 7<br />
Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA) ............................. 8<br />
National Center for Atmospheric Sciences (NCAS) .............................................................. 8<br />
General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) ............................................................................ 8<br />
The Charles B. Rangel International Affairs <strong>Graduate</strong> Fellowship Program ......................... 8<br />
Institutional Aspirations............................................................................................................... 9<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Scope of Work and Context............................................................................. 10<br />
Steps Taken To Prepare for the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong>............................................................................... 11<br />
Appointments of Senior Level Leadership ........................................................................... 11<br />
Board of Trustee Engagement .............................................................................................. 12<br />
Steering and Executive Committees Established.................................................................. 12<br />
Work Groups Appointed....................................................................................................... 13<br />
<strong>University</strong> Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation............................................. 13<br />
Links to <strong>University</strong> Initiatives .............................................................................................. 14<br />
<strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Goals and Objectives................................................................................................ 14<br />
<strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Office Staff ................................................................................................................ 15<br />
Work Groups: Scope and Major Research Questions ............................................................ 15<br />
Standard 1: Mission and Goals ............................................................................................. 15<br />
Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal ............................... 16<br />
ii
Standard 3: Institutional Resources ...................................................................................... 16<br />
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance .............................................................................. 17<br />
Standard 5: Administration................................................................................................... 19<br />
Standard 6: Integrity ............................................................................................................. 19<br />
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment.................................................................................... 21<br />
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention.................................................................... 21<br />
Standard 9: Student Support Services................................................................................... 22<br />
Standard 10: Faculty ............................................................................................................. 23<br />
Standard 11: Educational Offerings...................................................................................... 24<br />
Standard 12: General Education ........................................................................................... 24<br />
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities ........................................................................ 25<br />
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning ..................................................................... 26<br />
Special Emphasis: Research ................................................................................................. 27<br />
Plans for the Collection, Analysis, and Infusion of Assessment Data into the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong><br />
Exercise ........................................................................................................................................ 29<br />
Communications with Work Group and <strong>University</strong> Community.......................................... 29<br />
Organization of Final <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Report.................................................................................. 29<br />
Appendix A: Membership of Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Work Groups,<br />
and Professional Staff............................................................................................................... A-1<br />
Appendix B: <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Timetable.......................................................................................... B-1<br />
Appendix C: Preliminary Data Available for Work Groups................................................ C-1<br />
iii
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM:<br />
NEW IMPERATIVES, NEW CHALLENGES, AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES<br />
SELF-STUDY DESIGN REPORT<br />
Institutional Overview<br />
Description<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> is one of the nation’s leading research universities dedicated to educating<br />
exceptionally accomplished students, with a particular focus on African American students and<br />
students from all racial and ethnic groups from around the world. <strong>Howard</strong>’s current student body<br />
includes students from every state (except South Dakota), the District of Columbia, and 102<br />
countries. Its total operating budget is approximately $750 million, and its current endowment is<br />
$482 million. In addition, the <strong>University</strong> recently completed a capital campaign raising more<br />
than $250 million in cash and commitments.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> is one of 278 research universities nationwide, among the nation’s more than 4,500<br />
universities. Among this group, it is the largest, with a predominantly African-American student<br />
body offering a full array of graduate and professional degree programs, including, but not<br />
limited to, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.D.), Doctor of Medicine<br />
(M.D.), Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S.), Doctor of Pharmacy, Master of Business<br />
Administration (M.B.A.), and Master of Social Work (M.S.W.). <strong>Howard</strong> grants undergraduate<br />
degrees in 80 disciplines, master’s degrees in 75 majors, and doctoral degrees in 31 areas, as well<br />
as professional certification in five areas. During the 2006–2007 academic year, the <strong>University</strong><br />
granted 2,358 graduate and undergraduate degrees. Since its founding in 1867 by Major General<br />
Oliver Otis <strong>Howard</strong>, a Civil War hero and Commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau, <strong>Howard</strong> has<br />
awarded more than 100,000 diplomas in the professions, the arts, the sciences, and the<br />
humanities.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong>’s graduates are racially and ethnically diverse. <strong>Howard</strong> produces a high percentage of<br />
the nation’s African-American professionals in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, engineering,<br />
nursing, architecture, divinity, law, music, social work, and education and a significant number<br />
of terminal-degree recipients in a broad range of disciplines. <strong>Howard</strong> also graduates the largest<br />
number of on-campus African American Ph.D.s., many of whom currently populate the nation’s<br />
professorate. It has produced Rhodes Scholars, two in the last decade; Fulbright, Marshall, and<br />
Presidential Scholars. It is a leader in enrolling National Achievement Scholars (outstanding and<br />
scholastically talented African-American high school students). During the last 5 years, the<br />
<strong>University</strong> has enrolled more National Achievement Scholars than any other historically black<br />
college or university (HBCU), and more than any other national university in 2003.<br />
A full- and part-time faculty of 1,641 and a staff of approximately 2,000 serve about 11,000<br />
undergraduate, graduate, and professional students at the <strong>University</strong>. <strong>Howard</strong>’s faculty is a<br />
collection of distinguished racially, ethnically, and gender diverse scholars from around the<br />
world. Among the <strong>University</strong>’s faculty, 84 percent have earned doctorate degrees (including the<br />
J.D., M.D., and D.D.S. degrees). Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 present a snapshot of <strong>Howard</strong>’s faculty<br />
1
ased on rank, gender, ethnicity, and their distribution among the <strong>University</strong>’s schools and<br />
colleges.<br />
As shown in Figure 1, 58 percent of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> faculty is male and 42 percent female.<br />
As seen in Figure 4, the College of Medicine has the highest number of faculty and the College<br />
of Arts and Sciences has the second highest number.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Faculty (FT & PT) by Gender, Fall 2007<br />
686, (42%)<br />
955, (58%)<br />
Male<br />
Female<br />
TOTAL=1,641<br />
Figure 1, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Faculty by Gender, Fall 2007<br />
2
Figure 2 depicts greater gender equity in the junior academic ranks--although not as robust as<br />
desired--suggesting that as female junior faculty are retained and achieve higher ranks over time<br />
the gender gap would diminish. As shown in Figure 3, the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> faculty, while<br />
predominantly African American (69 percent), is nonetheless exceedingly rich in its diversity<br />
with 19 percent being White and 9 percent being Asian/Pacific Islander. This level of faculty<br />
diversity contributes to an environment in which <strong>Howard</strong> students are exposed to differing<br />
perspectives in the acquisition of an education.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Faculty (FT & PT) by Rank and Gender, Fall 2007<br />
500<br />
400<br />
218<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
86<br />
254<br />
Professor<br />
150<br />
204<br />
Associate<br />
Professor<br />
281<br />
Assistant<br />
Professor<br />
100<br />
106<br />
113 18<br />
60<br />
38 8<br />
5<br />
Instructor Lecturer Adjunct Other<br />
Female<br />
Male<br />
Figure 2, Faculty Distribution by Rank and Gender<br />
3
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Faculty (FT & PT) by<br />
Ethnicity, Fall 2007<br />
13, 1%<br />
309, 19%<br />
3, 0%<br />
1, 0%<br />
25, 2%<br />
154, 9%<br />
Black Non-Hispanic<br />
Asian or Pacific Islander<br />
Hispanic<br />
White Non-Hispanic<br />
American Indian<br />
Non-Resident Alien<br />
Not Ascertained<br />
1136, 69%<br />
TOTAL=1,641<br />
Figure 3, Faculty Distribution by Ethnicity<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Faculty (FT & PT) by <strong>School</strong>, Fall 2007<br />
500<br />
473<br />
481<br />
400<br />
300<br />
295<br />
200<br />
100<br />
75<br />
119<br />
85 84<br />
33<br />
63<br />
53<br />
131<br />
44<br />
0<br />
Arts & Sciences<br />
Business<br />
Communications<br />
Dentistry<br />
Divinity<br />
Education<br />
Engineering<br />
<strong>Graduate</strong><br />
<strong>School</strong><br />
All <strong>Graduate</strong> Faculty in the <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong> hold appointments in their home schools and colleges.<br />
Thus, <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong> faculty numbers are not reflected in total faculty numbers.<br />
Law<br />
Medicine<br />
Pharmacy,<br />
Nursing, and<br />
Allied Health<br />
Social Work<br />
Figure 4, Faculty Distribution by <strong>School</strong> or College<br />
4
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> is fully accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.<br />
All of its specialized academic programs and professional schools are accredited by their<br />
relevant accrediting agencies.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> has an impressive number of distinguished alumni, including Nobel<br />
Laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, U.S. governors, mayors of large U.S. cities, an international<br />
opera star, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, presidents of numerous disciplinary societies,<br />
foreign heads of state, members of Congress, state and local elected officials, and many<br />
distinguished academicians and researchers throughout the nation and the world.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong>’s unique mission is focused on academic excellence and preparing its students for<br />
leadership roles in the national and global community as highly qualified, socially aware, and<br />
moral individuals. As a comprehensive, research university with a diverse undergraduate,<br />
graduate and professional student body and faculty, <strong>Howard</strong> contributes to the development of<br />
new knowledge and information that seeks to solve social and economic problems in the<br />
domestic and international arena. Its students and faculty are involved in research dealing with<br />
such topics as the treatment of cancer and HIV/AIDS, the genomic identification and tracking of<br />
racial disparities in various diseases, free press journalism programs in former Soviet bloc<br />
countries, the recording and tracking of global environmental change, business and community<br />
development in minority communities, urban education reforms, and the resolution of major<br />
social issues associated with African Americans and other people of color. <strong>Howard</strong> has also<br />
formed many educational partnerships with universities in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South<br />
America. Its students are groomed to be respected 21st-century leaders in national and global<br />
communities who will use their <strong>Howard</strong> education to contribute to solutions for pressing societal<br />
problems, to seek solutions for global climate change and its effect on worldwide hunger, to seek<br />
social and economic justice on both global and national levels, and to bolster and advance<br />
democracy and human liberty at home and abroad.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong>’s main campus consists of more than 57 buildings on 89 acres, including the 500<br />
licensed bed <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Hospital. Since 1974, the <strong>University</strong> has expanded to include a<br />
22-acre West Campus, on which the <strong>School</strong> of Law is located; a 22-acre <strong>School</strong> of Divinity<br />
campus; a Silver Spring, Maryland location, which houses the Continuing Education Program;<br />
and a 108-acre Beltsville, Maryland research campus.<br />
The <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> library system contains more than two million volumes and is a member<br />
of the Association of Research Libraries, the largest and most prestigious library association with<br />
123 members in the United States and Canada. Among the system’s many resources is the<br />
Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, which has one of the world’s largest and most<br />
comprehensive research collections dedicated to documenting the history and culture of people<br />
of African descent in the Americas, and other parts of the world.<br />
In addition to its academic degree programs, the <strong>University</strong> has an array of media outlets that<br />
address the educational and informational needs of the academic and wider community. Its radio<br />
station, WHUR-FM, and television station, WHUT-TV, Channel 32, serve the Washington<br />
metropolitan area and serve as training laboratories for students.<br />
5
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> men and woman compete in a total of 19 varsity sports, including basketball,<br />
football, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, softball, swimming and diving, tennis, and indoor and<br />
outdoor track. Student life at <strong>Howard</strong> is further enriched by an array of intramural athletic<br />
activities, student organizations, clubs, and other extra-curricular activities.<br />
Mission<br />
The <strong>University</strong>’s Mission statement, as approved by the Board of Trustees in 2007, is as follows:<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> is a comprehensive, research-oriented, historically Black, private<br />
university providing an educational experience of exceptional quality to students of high<br />
academic potential with particular emphasis upon the provision of educational<br />
opportunities to promising Black students. Further, the <strong>University</strong> is dedicated to<br />
attracting and sustaining a cadre of faculty who are, through their teaching and<br />
research, committed to the development of distinguished and compassionate graduates<br />
and to the quest for solutions to human and social problems in the United States and<br />
throughout the world.<br />
The Mission statement is under review during the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> exercise and may be refined once a<br />
new president takes the helm after July 2008. However, the mission statement’s central<br />
components are not expected to change significantly. Moreover, the <strong>University</strong>’s core values of<br />
dedication to the search for truth, and commitment to excellence in teaching and research, and<br />
service to the national African-American community and our nation, and engagement in the<br />
global community, are expected to be reaffirmed in the refined mission statement.<br />
Important Recent Developments<br />
Since <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s last self-assessment study in 1999, the <strong>University</strong> has experienced<br />
several important developments. For example, it exceeded its Capital Campaign goal, built two<br />
state-of-the-art library facilities, enhanced technological services to the university community,<br />
and provided financial support for students interested in international affairs. To broaden its<br />
research mission, <strong>Howard</strong> opened a new building (<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Research Building I)<br />
dedicated solely to research, and established several new research centers, including the National<br />
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-funded National Center for Atmospheric<br />
Sciences (NCAS), dedicated to studying and predicating global conditions, and the National<br />
Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded General Clinical Research Center (GCRC). To enhance<br />
teaching and learning, the <strong>University</strong> established a center for teaching, learning, and assessment<br />
in 2003.<br />
The Campaign for <strong>Howard</strong><br />
Beginning in 2002, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> embarked upon an ambitious, 5-year Capital Campaign<br />
to raise $250 million. The Campaign reached out in an unprecedented manner to alumni, friends,<br />
and corporate and foundation partners to provide resources needed to strengthen the <strong>Howard</strong><br />
faculty and students for the global advances of the 21st century and to support endowed chairs,<br />
endowed scholarships, and information technology throughout the <strong>University</strong>. These priorities<br />
support the scholarly preeminence of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>, offer educational opportunities and<br />
attractive incentives to all students, and bring the latest technological tools to its classrooms,<br />
6
libraries, and dormitories. In March 2007, during the <strong>University</strong>’s 140th anniversary celebration,<br />
President H. Patrick Swygert announced that the campaign was successful and had exceeded its<br />
$250 million goal.<br />
New Technology Resources and Facilities<br />
During the past decade, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> has spent millions of dollars to expand its<br />
technological capabilities. New research facilities and two state-of-the art digital libraries have<br />
been constructed and improved and access to digital resources has been provided to all segments<br />
of the academic community.<br />
One of the many initiatives the <strong>University</strong> has implemented to expand its research activities was<br />
the development of the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Research Building I (HURB I), a 50,000 square-feet<br />
facility. It is a prototype research facility that accommodates the activities of major externallyfunded<br />
research projects, which are directed at the development of solutions to enduring<br />
problems, especially those that disproportionately affect people of color. HURB I houses a<br />
significant community of research staff, faculty, and students. It provides an interdisciplinary<br />
environment for researchers in the social sciences, education, the biological/biomedical sciences,<br />
and other related disciplines.<br />
In 2001, the <strong>University</strong> opened two new 80,000 square-foot digital libraries, the Louis Stokes<br />
Health Sciences Library on the Main Campus and the <strong>School</strong> of Law Library on the West<br />
Campus. The Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library is a research facility outfitted with modern<br />
telecommunication and audiovisual capabilities. The building accommodates 630 individuals,<br />
with all seats wired for power and data. In addition, there are a number of flexible presentation<br />
rooms, distance-learning labs, a telemedicine room, and an exhibit gallery. The Law Library is a<br />
state-of-the-art facility supporting legal research and instruction. It houses a book collection of<br />
more than 250,000 volumes; seating for nearly 300 students, including 90 open carrels wired for<br />
computer use; microform and audiovisual facilities; and rooms designated for special collections,<br />
newspaper and periodical reading, and the Rare Book Collection.<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> provides its academic community access to the latest technology to ensure that students,<br />
faculty, and staff have the most current information resources in a variety of media to support<br />
their scholarly, instructional, research, and administrative activities. The <strong>University</strong>’s technology<br />
infrastructure includes technology-rich Smart Classrooms and the Student Residential Network<br />
(ResNet). With ResNet, the <strong>University</strong> operates computer laboratories located in each of the<br />
eleven residence halls. These facilities allow students to access the computer resources of the<br />
<strong>University</strong> and the Internet without having to leave their residence halls. In addition, ResNet2<br />
provides wired network access, cable television, and new telephone services in every dormitory<br />
room.<br />
Similarly, the <strong>University</strong> has implemented an extensive computer capability for its faculty<br />
through FacNet. FacNet provides <strong>Howard</strong> faculty with an array of technology solutions for<br />
teaching and research in addition to the standard software packages expected of a research<br />
university.<br />
7
Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA)<br />
To enhance a culture of teaching and learning and to improve faculty development, <strong>Howard</strong><br />
created the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA) dedicated to<br />
fulfilling the <strong>University</strong>’s Mission with respect to faculty roles and responsibilities. CETLA<br />
strives to build a community of faculty who are committed to scholarly teaching that is grounded<br />
in theory and research. Through faculty training, instructional technology, interdisciplinary<br />
collaboration, classroom assessment, and discussions of educational research, CETLA strives to<br />
ensure that all students gain an educational experience of exceptional quality.<br />
National Center for Atmospheric Sciences (NCAS)<br />
In 2001, NOAA provided funding to <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> to establish NCAS to conduct research<br />
on critical issues related to the atmosphere and climate conditions in the United States and<br />
globally. The U.S. Department of Commerce awarded a combined grant of $15 million to<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>, and four other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to establish the Center.<br />
In 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce awarded <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> an additional $12.5<br />
million to continue its research and training efforts.<br />
General Clinical Research Center (GCRC)<br />
Through the GCRC program, the NIH’s National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) funds<br />
a national network of approximately 78 centers that provide settings for medical investigators to<br />
conduct safe, controlled, state-of-the-art, inpatient and outpatient studies of both children and<br />
adults. The GCRC at <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> is located in the 4-West wing of the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong><br />
Hospital center. The GCRC’s resources include specialized research nurses, research dieticians,<br />
biostatisticians, computer hardware and software systems for data management and analysis, and<br />
sophisticated laboratories vital for both inpatient and outpatient research. In addition, <strong>Howard</strong>’s<br />
GCRC has a strong record of recruiting African-American participants into clinical studies on<br />
cardiovascular disease, lipid metabolism, hypertension, and mental health issues, among others.<br />
GCRC also provides infrastructure and resources that support several career development<br />
opportunities.<br />
The Charles B. Rangel International Affairs <strong>Graduate</strong> Fellowship Program<br />
Funded by the U.S. Department of State and managed by the Ralph J. Bunche International<br />
Affairs Center at <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>, the Charles B. Rangel International Affairs <strong>Graduate</strong><br />
Fellowship was established in 2002 to prepare students for careers in public service as Foreign<br />
Service officers. The Rangel Fellows receive an annual tuition stipend, room, board, and other<br />
related expenses for a 2-year master’s degree in international affairs or related topics. They also<br />
participate in a Summer Enrichment Program and participate in internships at U.S. Embassies<br />
overseas and on Capitol Hill. At the conclusion of 2 years of study, the Rangel Program expects<br />
the fellows to obtain a degree in international affairs or another area of relevance to the work of<br />
the Foreign Service, such as public administration, public policy, business administration,<br />
foreign languages, economics, political science, and communications. Each fellow is committed<br />
to a minimum of 3 years of service in an appointment as a Foreign Service Officer. The Rangel<br />
Program encourages the involvement of members of minority groups and those with financial<br />
8
need. In this manner, it advances the goal of Congressman Rangel to create an excellent and<br />
diverse U.S. Foreign Service that represents the rich range of talents and expertise of the<br />
American people. The Rangel program selected its first fellows in 2003, and there are currently<br />
41 Rangel Fellows, 21 of whom are in the Foreign Service. Beginning in 2008, the Rangel<br />
Program will increase the number of fellows per year from 10 to 20.<br />
Institutional Aspirations<br />
In 1987, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> was classified for the first time as a Research I university by the<br />
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This historic moment meant that with its<br />
more than 50 Ph.D. graduates per year in more than 15 disciplines, and its greater than $40<br />
million in annual federal research grants, <strong>Howard</strong> ranked among the top 88 research universities<br />
in the country. At that time, <strong>Howard</strong> became one of only 25 private universities, and the only<br />
minority-serving university, to have reached that lofty status. In its subsequent revised<br />
classification in 2000, <strong>Howard</strong> was again listed in Carnegie’s top classification for research<br />
universities, Doctoral/Research Extensive, which contained 149 institutions.<br />
In 2005, Carnegie once again revised its classification system. This time, <strong>Howard</strong> ranked in the<br />
top overall category for research universities with medical schools, specifically Comprehensive<br />
Doctoral with Medical/Veterinary <strong>School</strong>s, alongside 78 of the nation’s leading research<br />
universities. In this 2005 Carnegie classification, <strong>Howard</strong> was listed in the second research<br />
grouping among research universities, “High Research Activity,” as opposed to “Highest<br />
Research Activity.”<br />
While there is great debate within the academic community as to the validity of rankings of<br />
universities by various popular publications, <strong>Howard</strong>, nonetheless, does fairly well in relation to<br />
the nation’s major research universities. For example, in the most recent U.S. News and World<br />
Report rankings, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> ranked 96th among what the magazine classifies as “Top<br />
National Research Universities,” tied with Stony Brook <strong>University</strong>–SUNY and the <strong>University</strong> of<br />
Arizona, and ranked above such major research universities as Arizona State <strong>University</strong>,<br />
<strong>University</strong> at Buffalo–SUNY, <strong>University</strong> of Massachusetts–Amherst, <strong>University</strong> of Oklahoma,<br />
and <strong>University</strong> of Oregon. This same publication ranks <strong>Howard</strong> 36th among the Top 50 “Best<br />
Value” National Research Universities when both quality and costs factors are considered<br />
together, just behind Georgetown <strong>University</strong> and ahead of such institutions as the <strong>University</strong> of<br />
Texas–Austin, Boston College, the <strong>University</strong> of Miami, Syracuse <strong>University</strong>, Tulane<br />
<strong>University</strong>, and the <strong>University</strong> of California–Berkeley.<br />
In rankings within academic disciplines by popular publications and by such research<br />
organizations as the National Research Council, however, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s record is mixed.<br />
For example, the Wall Street Journal ranks its <strong>School</strong> of Business as the top business school in<br />
the country for minority graduates. Some of <strong>Howard</strong>’s academic disciplines rank in the upper<br />
one quarter—and sometimes even higher—among those offered at other universities. Other<br />
academic disciplines are ranked variously in the third and fourth quartiles when compared to<br />
their peers.<br />
Within this context, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> seeks to build upon the solid reputation it has garnered<br />
among the nation’s research universities to advance to an even higher stature. To begin with, the<br />
9
<strong>University</strong> aspires to advance to Carnegie’s Highest Research Activity category among the<br />
nation’s research universities. Indeed, the <strong>University</strong> has established a goal of exceeding $100<br />
million of extramural research activity by 2010.<br />
Similarly, <strong>Howard</strong> seeks to advance to the First Tier among National Research Universities in<br />
the aforementioned national publications and advance all of its academic disciplines to at least<br />
the top half in relation to their peers at other research universities and to increase the number of<br />
niche areas that rank in the upper echelon of their disciplines.<br />
An effort has been made to establish benchmarks for <strong>Howard</strong> to compare itself with other<br />
research universities of comparable size with medical and engineering schools. In this regard, for<br />
purposes of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong>, an informal process was conducted internally to obtain broad<br />
university community input relative to a possible list of peer/aspirational institutions against<br />
which <strong>Howard</strong> might compare itself with respect to the quality of its academic programs; the<br />
allocation of its resources; and the effectiveness of its policies, practices, and systems. Although<br />
more than 30 institutions were recommended for consideration, the following 10 institutions<br />
were selected by the Steering Committee for use by the Work Groups for benchmark purposes:<br />
Case Western Reserve <strong>University</strong>, Emory <strong>University</strong>, George Washington <strong>University</strong>,<br />
Georgetown <strong>University</strong>, Saint Louis <strong>University</strong>, Temple <strong>University</strong>, Tulane <strong>University</strong>, the<br />
<strong>University</strong> of Maryland–College Park, Vanderbilt <strong>University</strong>, and Washington <strong>University</strong> in<br />
Saint Louis. 1<br />
While <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> aspires to compete with the nation’s leading research universities, it<br />
remains mindful, nonetheless, that it must also compete assiduously for the nation’s best<br />
African-American undergraduate students with many liberal arts and master’s focused<br />
institutions. In particular, <strong>Howard</strong> competes with the nation’s leading HBCUs, such as Hampton<br />
<strong>University</strong>, Morehouse College, and Spelman College for talented, African-American<br />
undergraduate students.<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Scope of Work and Context<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> will be of the comprehensive model as defined by the Middle States Commission<br />
on Higher Education’s <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong>: Creating a Useful Process and Report, with additionally<br />
focused attention to the area of research. Because the <strong>University</strong> is in a transition period that will<br />
result in the appointment of a new president in 2008, the comprehensive model appears to be the<br />
most appropriate one for the <strong>University</strong> to use at this time in assessing the effectiveness of the<br />
policies and practices that undergird its systems and operations.<br />
The <strong>University</strong> has chosen also to conduct a thorough and focused look at its research enterprise.<br />
It will specifically examine its infrastructure for supporting extramurally funded research; the<br />
reward system for faculty to conduct research and obtain grants and contracts to support<br />
research; the allocation of funds to support faculty and student research; and the extent to which<br />
1 In the 1999 <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong>, the following ten institutions were used as peer institutions: Emory <strong>University</strong>,<br />
Georgetown <strong>University</strong>, St. John’s <strong>University</strong>, Temple <strong>University</strong>, Tulane <strong>University</strong>, Vanderbilt <strong>University</strong>,<br />
<strong>University</strong> of Cincinnati, <strong>University</strong> of Maryland, <strong>University</strong> of Miami, and <strong>University</strong> of Virginia.<br />
10
esearch is an integral part of the academic experience for undergraduate, graduate, and<br />
professional school students. Because of <strong>Howard</strong>’s classification by the Carnegie Foundation for<br />
the Advancement of Teaching and its aspirations for the future as described above, it is a<br />
propitious time for the <strong>University</strong> to conduct a thorough and extensive assessment of its research<br />
enterprise.<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> will be grounded within the broad scope of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s historic role in<br />
American higher education, assess how it compares with its peer institutions, and examine its<br />
aspirations as a major, national research university. Further, the study will evaluate the context of<br />
institutional mission, goals, and aspirations. Finally, the process will be open and transparent and<br />
use a variety of face-to-face and electronic means to elicit participation and involvement from all<br />
segments of the university community at every phase of work.<br />
With respect to the <strong>University</strong>’s recent history, <strong>Howard</strong> conducts this <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> approximately<br />
20 years after the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classified <strong>Howard</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> as a Research I university for the first time—the first for a minority-serving university<br />
in the United States. Thus, it is timely for the university to examine all of its policies, systems,<br />
operations, and resource allocations to determine their “goodness of fit” relative to its goals,<br />
mission, and aspirations as a research university.<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> coincides also with the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s celebration of its 50 th anniversary of<br />
awarding its first Ph.D. degree. Since 1958, the year when the <strong>University</strong> awarded its first Ph.D.<br />
degree, it has made a meteoric rise as a doctoral granting institution. While it awards the Ph.D.<br />
degree annually to a multicultural, multiracial, and international group of recipients, <strong>Howard</strong> has<br />
become the nation’s largest on-campus producer of African-American Ph.D. recipients and the<br />
largest producer of African-American Ph.D.s in many fields. Annual Ph.D. productivity has been<br />
central to the <strong>University</strong>’s rise in the Carnegie classification.<br />
On a broader scale, <strong>Howard</strong> conducts the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> at a time of great change and challenge in<br />
American higher education, which has a direct bearing on the <strong>University</strong>. For example, <strong>Howard</strong>,<br />
like its peers, faces increased public expectations for greater accountability and documentation of<br />
quality in an environment of increased costs and challenged financial resources. Moreover,<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> continues to be a major player in the national imperative to strengthen access and<br />
success for its culturally and racially diverse citizenry, while simultaneously seeking to continue<br />
to meet greater competition from the global community for the world’s best students and<br />
scholars. Finally, <strong>Howard</strong>, like the entire higher education community, addresses the rise of<br />
interdisciplinary approaches and changing ways of enhancing student learning, including a<br />
greater reliance on technology. These developments, and others, call for heightened assessments<br />
of issues of curriculum, teaching, student learning, and all phases of university life.<br />
Appointments of Senior Level Leadership<br />
Steps Taken To Prepare for the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong><br />
President Swygert launched the <strong>University</strong>-Wide <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> in March 2007. Acting on the<br />
recommendation of Dr. Richard A. English, Provost and Chief Academic Officer, he appointed<br />
Dr. Orlando L. Taylor, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong>, to chair the<br />
11
<strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> and Steering Committees and to provide overall oversight for the process through the<br />
anticipated site visit in the Spring of 2009. Dr. Taylor, a national leader within his discipline and<br />
one who has served as a faculty member and held many administrative positions at the<br />
<strong>University</strong> since 1973, is a seasoned veteran of higher education who has been a participant in<br />
many major developments at national research universities. Dr. Taylor served as Chair of the<br />
<strong>University</strong>-wide <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Committee in 1987–89 in preparation for the <strong>University</strong>’s successful<br />
quest for reaffirmation of its accreditation in 1989.<br />
The initial phase of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> process was conducted under the Office of the Provost, with<br />
infrastructure and administrative support being provided as required. Dr. English, former dean of<br />
<strong>Howard</strong>’s <strong>School</strong> of Social Work, and similarly a national leader within his field, appointed Dr.<br />
Alvin Thornton, Associate Provost, to serve as a liaison to the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> process.<br />
In a subsequent action, Dr. Donald Wilson, Senior Vice President of Health Affairs, upon the<br />
request of the President, appointed Dr. Charlene Hogan, Associate Dean of the College of<br />
Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences, to serve in a similar role as Dr. Thornton. Dr.<br />
Hogan provides liaison between the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> leadership and Dr. Donald Wilson, Senior Vice<br />
President for Health Sciences, and the Chief Administrative Officer for the College of Medicine;<br />
the College of Dentistry; and the College of Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences<br />
The <strong>University</strong> President provides overall leadership of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> process and Dr. O.<br />
Jackson Cole, Executive Assistant to the President, serves as his liaison officer with Dr. Taylor<br />
and the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> community. The President has designated Dr. Cole as the <strong>University</strong>’s<br />
Association Liaison Officer to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Dr. Cole<br />
served as one of the central administration liaison officers for the 1999 <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> and as a<br />
member of that <strong>Study</strong>’s Executive Committee.<br />
Board of Trustee Engagement<br />
Because of the centrality of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> process to Board of Trustee interests, and its<br />
relationship to other Board initiatives, namely the Presidential Search Committee, the Leadership<br />
Transition Committee, the Long Range Financial Planning Committee, and its own Academic<br />
Excellence Initiative, two Board members were designated to work directly with the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong><br />
process. Specifically, Ms. Marie Johns, Chair of the Board’s Academic Excellence Committee,<br />
agreed to serve on the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Steering Committee and Dr. Charles McDonald agreed to serve<br />
as an external committee member and Board liaison for the Mission and Goals and Leadership<br />
and Governance Work Groups.<br />
Steering and Executive Committees Established<br />
Due to the comprehensive nature of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> and the vast amounts of data and resources to<br />
collect and analyze, the <strong>University</strong> formed an Executive Committee and a Steering Committee to<br />
direct and organize the work of administrators, faculty, staff, and students.<br />
The Steering Committee comprises a broad range of individuals from the <strong>University</strong>. In addition<br />
to including faculty, administrators, staff, and students, the Steering Committee includes Board<br />
of Trustee members who are actively engaged in the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> process. The Steering<br />
Committee handles the overall direction of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong>.<br />
12
The Executive Committee consists of a small group of individuals who hold high-level<br />
administrative and leadership positions on campus. This committee reports directly to the<br />
president of the <strong>University</strong> and serves as the overarching governing body of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong><br />
process.<br />
A complete membership list of the Steering Committee, Executive Committee, and Work Groups<br />
may be found in Appendix A.<br />
Work Groups Appointed<br />
Shortly after the appointment of the chair, a process was launched to populate the 15 work<br />
groups designated to conduct the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong>: one group each for the 14 standards of accreditation<br />
provided by the Middle States Commission and one additional work group on research. In an<br />
effort to develop a broad pool of candidates for the work group nominations and suggested work<br />
groups, memberships were invited from several university leadership constituencies: the senior<br />
administrative officers of the <strong>University</strong>; the deans of the schools and colleges; the directors of<br />
academic support units; the leadership of the <strong>University</strong>’s staff organization; and the leadership<br />
of the <strong>University</strong>’s general, undergraduate, graduate, and professional school student bodies.<br />
Volunteers from throughout the <strong>University</strong> were also invited to submit their names and areas of<br />
interest.<br />
From this pool of candidates, staffs from the Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice<br />
Provost for Research and Dean of the <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong> populated the work groups in accordance<br />
with the stated interests of the nominees and volunteers and the knowledge of the previous<br />
experiences and expertise of the nominees. All nominees and volunteers were subsequently<br />
selected and assigned to a work group, resulting in approximately 7–10 persons assigned to each<br />
group.<br />
<strong>University</strong> Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation<br />
Because of the centrality of assessment and evaluation to the effective operation of the<br />
<strong>University</strong>, an Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) was recently opened,<br />
with Dr. Gerunda Hughes serving as the initial director. The OIAE reports to the Office of the<br />
Provost and Chief Academic Officer. The OIAE is responsible for the assessment and evaluation<br />
of all aspects of university academic programs and administrative functions. The OIAE will<br />
work in coordination with the Middle States <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> staff to provide support for the<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> leadership and the work groups as required to collect and disseminate<br />
existing assessment data and reports to address the research questions developed by the 15 work<br />
groups. The OIAE will assist the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> staff in the development, analysis, and interpretation<br />
of data derived from questionnaires and other sources of quantitative and qualitative sources to<br />
support the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> agenda. It will work in close cooperation with the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Chair and<br />
Coordinator of the <strong>University</strong>-Wide <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> and the chairs of the Work Groups on<br />
institutional assessment and evaluation and the assessment of student learning.<br />
Assessment of all phases of university life will inform all aspects of this inquiry. Thus, in<br />
addition to the OIAE, the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> exercise will also work in close collaboration with other<br />
<strong>University</strong> units charged with assessment, data gathering, and planning; specifically, the Office<br />
13
of Institutional Research, the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA), and<br />
other data gathering units within the Office of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer.<br />
Links to <strong>University</strong> Initiatives<br />
In preparing to launch the <strong>University</strong>-Wide <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> for Middle States reaffirmation of<br />
accreditation, the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> leadership was mindful of other related efforts underway at the<br />
<strong>University</strong>, as well as the need to articulate with those efforts, as appropriate, to decrease<br />
unnecessary redundancy and to strengthen the final <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> product. Specifically, those<br />
efforts were as follows:<br />
• The Presidential Search: a committee of the Board of Trustees established to search for<br />
and recommend a new President of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> to replace outgoing President, H.<br />
Patrick Swygert, who will retire on June 30, 2008.<br />
• The Academic Excellence Initiative: an initiative of the Academic Excellence Committee<br />
of the Board of Trustees and the Office of the Provost designed to provide the<br />
assessments and recommendations required to align the departmental and programmatic<br />
offerings of the schools and colleges with strategic objectives and financial resources.<br />
• The Long Range Financial Planning: a special committee of the Board of Trustees<br />
charged with the responsibility for recommending a strategy for aligning the <strong>University</strong>’s<br />
budget with its mission and goals, and with ascertaining evolving trends in higher<br />
education and the society at large that affect <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s present and future<br />
status as a national research university with a predominantly African-American student<br />
body.<br />
• Accreditation efforts in the various schools, colleges, and selected support units from<br />
national professional societies and accrediting agencies.<br />
<strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Goals and Objectives<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> will provide the data and analyses required to demonstrate that <strong>Howard</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> continues to meet the Characteristics of Excellence, as defined by the Middle States<br />
Commission on Higher Education, and to document its eligibility to have its accreditation<br />
reaffirmed. The <strong>University</strong>’s governing board, administrative leadership, faculty, and the general<br />
<strong>University</strong> community will use the results of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> to advance further the <strong>University</strong>’s<br />
mission as a national research university of the first rank that is competitive with its peers and<br />
poised to achieve its aspirational institutional goals and objectives.<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> report will be part of the reports and information that will be available to the<br />
incoming <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> President as a basis for continued strategic planning and definition<br />
of the future course of the institution.<br />
Our goal, therefore, is to produce a living document that will provide a “snapshot” of the<br />
<strong>University</strong> for its relevant stakeholders to assist them in defining the <strong>University</strong>’s future within<br />
the context of its past and current standing.<br />
14
<strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Office Staff<br />
A professional staff was hired to provide administrative and coordinating support for the<br />
development of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong>. The staff consists of a coordinator, Dr. Ronyelle Bertrand Ricard,<br />
an administrative assistant, a research data analyst, a technical writer, a Web designer, and<br />
several graduate assistants. Staff personnel are listed in Appendix A.<br />
Work Groups: Scope and Major Research Questions<br />
The titles, chairs, scopes of work, objectives, and major research questions of the work groups<br />
assigned to assess the 14 standards plus the additional research topic are listed below.<br />
Standard 1: Mission and Goals<br />
• Chair: Dr. Horace Dawson, International Affairs<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work defines the <strong>University</strong>’s purpose within the context of higher education<br />
serving a diverse student and faculty population, in particular a predominately African-American<br />
student body. The scope of work also examines how the <strong>University</strong> develops and meets stated<br />
goals.<br />
Major Research Questions.<br />
As an HBCU, <strong>Howard</strong> has expanded its influence on the national and global stage through its<br />
educational partnerships with universities abroad. This expanded role and other factors,<br />
including the report of observations of the 1999 <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> visiting team, suggest, in particular,<br />
two broad questions that should guide the appropriateness of a recommendation that the revision<br />
of the <strong>University</strong>’s existing mission statement should be considered. Those two broad questions<br />
are presented first in the following listing, along with five other related questions of interest.<br />
1. Does the existing mission statement accurately reflect “who we are” in terms of the place<br />
of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> as a national, research university with a predominately African<br />
American constituency?<br />
2. Does the existing mission statement accurately capture “where we want to be” and how<br />
the <strong>University</strong> wishes to be perceived?<br />
3. Should the mission statement continue to place emphasis on providing education to<br />
“Black” students given the diverse student population?<br />
4. Should the mission statement reflect <strong>Howard</strong>’s openness to diversity especially to<br />
persons from across the African Diaspora?<br />
5. Should the mission statement contain a stronger view reflecting the <strong>University</strong>’s<br />
commitment to research?<br />
6. What kind of students does the <strong>University</strong> wish to recruit, high “quality”, high “potential”<br />
or both?<br />
7. Does the current mission statement adequately convey the <strong>University</strong>’s commitment to<br />
internationalism?<br />
15
Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal<br />
• Chair: Professor William Spriggs, Economics<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work will govern the collection or creation of plans that assess such areas as<br />
community relations, annual budgeting process, capital needs, enrollment, academic excellence,<br />
technological adeptness, unit-level resource allocation, and financial planning process. <strong>Howard</strong>’s<br />
approach for meeting Standard 2 will be informed by the Mission statement and goals of the<br />
<strong>University</strong> and the current Strategic Framework for Action. The work group will determine to<br />
what extent the <strong>University</strong> has adequate processes to plan to accomplish its mission and goals<br />
and how well the <strong>University</strong> aligns its activities at all levels (for example, technology, facility<br />
use, academic, and human resources) through a planning process. The work group will also<br />
determine how those plans then lead to a process by which assessments can be made.<br />
Major Research Questions.<br />
1. Does the <strong>University</strong> have a strategic plan, and what is the process by which the plan is<br />
developed, including:<br />
• Which stakeholders are involved in creating the plan?<br />
• What insures its alignment with the <strong>University</strong> mission?<br />
• Does the plan lead to outcomes that can be, and are, assessed?<br />
2. How does the strategic plan then lead to subsequent planning exercises by different units<br />
(those academic units that report directly to the Provost or Senior Vice President for<br />
Health Sciences and those administrative offices that report directly to a senior vice<br />
president of the <strong>University</strong>) to guide the units’ actions?<br />
3. What is the extent to which the <strong>University</strong>’s strategic plan and subsequent revisions are<br />
driven by assessment data?<br />
4. How are technology needs coordinated to accomplish goals in the strategic plan and<br />
assessed and updated in accordance with changing needs?<br />
5. What is the plan for facility use and upkeep, in the coordination of facility usage and the<br />
plan for addressing facility usage within the context of the institutional mission and<br />
priorities?<br />
6. What is the <strong>University</strong>’s academic plan, and the assessment of such plans? What is the<br />
academic unit planning process, and the enrollment management planning process and<br />
how are these decisions made to assure the adequate resources are in place to accomplish<br />
each within the context of the <strong>University</strong>’s mission and goals?<br />
7. How is the <strong>University</strong>’s human resource planning process aligned with its strategic plan,<br />
including consideration of such matters as personnel succession of key leaders, faculty<br />
retention and retirements?<br />
8. Is the current <strong>University</strong> budget adequately aligned with its mission and academic<br />
priorities?<br />
Standard 3: Institutional Resources<br />
• Chair: Dean Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences<br />
16
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work covers the assessment of the availability and accessibility of the human,<br />
financial, technical, and physical facilities necessary to achieve <strong>Howard</strong>’s mission and goals.<br />
Informed by <strong>Howard</strong>’s mission, the work group will also analyze the use of the <strong>University</strong>’s<br />
resources as part of an ongoing outcomes assessment. The work group will collect relevant data,<br />
analyze the institution’s internal and external resources, and determine the extent to which<br />
resources are effectively and efficiently allocated and used in achieving the <strong>University</strong>’s mission<br />
and goals. The work group’s objectives are as follows:<br />
• To examine the <strong>University</strong>’s plan for assessing, allocating, and using resources<br />
• To assess and analyze how effectively and efficiently the resources support the mission<br />
and goals of the <strong>University</strong><br />
• To interpret the findings in the context of Middle States standards<br />
• To document strengths and areas for improvement<br />
Major Research Questions.<br />
1. Is there an overall university plan for assessing and allocating institutional resources?<br />
2. What manner of annual independent audit will confirm the financial responsibility, with<br />
evidence of follow-up on any concerns cited in the audit’s accompanying management<br />
letter?<br />
3. Is the current <strong>University</strong>’s educational programs/facilities plan aligned with the Middle-<br />
States standards?<br />
4. What have been the effect of departmental program reviews on institutional policies and<br />
the use of resources?<br />
5. Is the <strong>University</strong>’s plan for deferred maintenance adequate to maintain the facilities for<br />
safety, security, structural, and regulatory requirements?<br />
6. How much of the <strong>University</strong>’s current expenditures can be identified going towards<br />
facilities deferred maintenance? What percentage is it of the total university budget?<br />
7. Are the numbers of faculty, staff, and administration adequate and aligned to support the<br />
<strong>University</strong>’s mission, outcomes, and expectations? How is this determined and who or<br />
what body makes the determination?<br />
8. What procedures and assessment plans are in place to ensure adequate faculty, staff, and<br />
administration to support the <strong>University</strong>’s mission, and outcomes expectations?<br />
9. How effectively has <strong>Howard</strong>’s pay scale and benefits package kept pace with the<br />
departmental requirements for a significantly more sophisticated and highly skilled staff?<br />
10. What are the processes in place to assess the effectiveness of interventions, if any, that<br />
have been introduced in enrollment management, human resources, physical facilities<br />
management, and other parts of the <strong>University</strong>?<br />
11. How is the budget process implemented in relationship to the <strong>University</strong>’s strategic plan?<br />
12. What effect does <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Hospital have on <strong>University</strong> resources and academic<br />
programs?<br />
13. How do auxiliary enterprise and other entities affect the <strong>University</strong>’s resources?<br />
14. What are the most significant challenges facing the institution relative to human<br />
resources, technology resources, and physical plant resources during the next 5 years?<br />
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance<br />
• Chair: Dean Kurt Schmoke, Law<br />
17
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work covers the gathering of data to assess whether <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s system<br />
of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and<br />
decision-making. The work group will also assess the governing body’s degree of autonomy to<br />
ensure its institutional integrity and its responsibility toward policy and resource development,<br />
consistent with <strong>Howard</strong>’s mission. To work efficiently and to assure corroboration of both<br />
quantitative and non-quantitative data, the work group will work collaboratively with other work<br />
groups. It has been determined that at a minimum there are three other work groups with whom<br />
this work group will be involved:<br />
• Standard 2 Work Group to assess how the governance structure is involved in the<br />
<strong>University</strong>’s planning process<br />
• Standard 5 Work Group to examine how administrative structures interact with<br />
governance structures to support the institutional mission<br />
• Standard 7 Work Group to examine how assessment is used to guide the leadership and<br />
governance structures<br />
Major Research Questions.<br />
1. Does <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> have a well-defined system of collegial governance including<br />
written policies outlining governance responsibilities of administration and faculty and<br />
readily available to the campus community?<br />
2. How well does the governing body function in practice?<br />
3. Does <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> possess written governing documents, such as a constitution,<br />
by-laws, enabling legislation, charter, or other similar documents that delineate the<br />
governance structure, provide for collegial governance, and assign authority and<br />
accountability for policy development and decision-making?<br />
4. Does <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> provide appropriate opportunity for student input regarding<br />
decisions that affect them?<br />
5. Does the <strong>University</strong>’s governing body fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities to a level that<br />
will ensure the <strong>University</strong>’s continued compliance with the accreditation standards of the<br />
Middle States Commission?<br />
6. Does the <strong>University</strong>’s governing body reflect constituent and public interest and is it of<br />
an appropriate size to fulfill all of its responsibilities?<br />
7. How does the governing body certify to the Commission that the <strong>University</strong> complies<br />
with eligibility requirements, accreditation standards, and policies of the Commission?<br />
8. Does the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> governing body assist in generating resources needed to<br />
sustain and improve the <strong>University</strong>?<br />
9. What manner of conflict of interest policies are in place for the governing body to<br />
address matters such as remuneration, contractual relationships, employment, family, or<br />
financial interests that could interfere with the duties of the governing body?<br />
10. What is the nature and extent of faculty input into policy decisions that may affect them?<br />
These key questions contain within them numerous sub-levels of inquiry. Throughout the<br />
inquiry, the work group will focus on both policy and practice to determine whether practice is<br />
always aligned with stated policy.<br />
18
Standard 5: Administration<br />
• Chair: Ms. Jacqueline Smith, Social Work<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work describes the formal administrative structure of the <strong>University</strong> and the<br />
events, activities, and strategies implemented by administrative leaders used to achieve its goals<br />
and objectives. The description will provide a context for understanding processes and outcomes<br />
of institutional decision-making. In addition to the minimal criteria mentioned in the first, seven<br />
research questions, this section of the report will capture dynamic changes initiated by critical<br />
events, significant leaders, and any informal processes that are associated with institutional<br />
outcomes.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. What leadership activities has the chief executive undertaken to help the <strong>University</strong><br />
achieve its goals?<br />
2. Does the chief executive’s academic background and professional training “fit” or<br />
“match” the assigned responsibilities and/or job description?<br />
3. Do the administrative leaders have the appropriate or suitable skills, degrees, and training<br />
to carry out their responsibilities and functions?<br />
4. Does the staff have the appropriate qualifications for the goals, type, size, and complexity<br />
of the <strong>University</strong>?<br />
5. Are there adequate information and decision-making systems in place to support the work<br />
of administrative leaders?<br />
6. Is there clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority?<br />
7. What is the frequency and extent of the periodic assessment of the effectiveness of<br />
administrative structures and services?<br />
8. What is the administrative structure of the <strong>University</strong>?<br />
9. How does the administrative structure function?<br />
10. What is the systemic effect of the administrative structure and its functioning on system<br />
participants?<br />
Standard 6: Integrity<br />
• Chair: Professor D. Kortright Davis, Divinity<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work assesses the programs, processes, and practices of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> to<br />
ensure that it is adhering to ethical standards that are consistent with its stated policies, mission,<br />
goals, and objectives. It will also assess the degree to which the <strong>University</strong>’s public and<br />
constituencies are informed clearly and fully through its various modes of communication.<br />
Specifically, the scope of work examines the extent to which <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> demonstrates<br />
integrity “through the manner in which it specifies its goals, selects, and retains its faculty;<br />
admits students; establishes curricula; determines programs of research; pursues its fields of<br />
service; demonstrates sensitivity to equity and diversity issues; allocates its resources; serves the<br />
public interest; and provides for the success of its students.” This will inevitably involve such<br />
issues as transparency, consistency, impartiality, fairness, clarity, accountability, and modes of<br />
19
effective communication. Key to all of this is a carefully established definitional approach to the<br />
meaning of “Integrity” itself as understood throughout the <strong>University</strong>. The work group will be<br />
guided by a search for adequate answers to a number of research questions.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. Are there fair and impartial processes, widely published and readily available, to address<br />
student grievances?<br />
2. Are student grievances addressed promptly, equitably, and appropriately?<br />
3. Are there fair and impartial practices in the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of<br />
employees?<br />
4. Does <strong>Howard</strong> demonstrate sound ethical practices and respect for individuals through its<br />
teaching, scholarship/research, service, and administrative practice, including the<br />
avoidance of conflict of interest?<br />
5. What are the <strong>University</strong>’s standards for academic integrity, academic freedom,<br />
intellectual freedom, and freedom of expression? Which documents convey that<br />
information to its stakeholders?<br />
6. Is there an equitable and consistent treatment of constituencies, as demonstrated in such<br />
areas as the application of academic requirements and policies, student discipline, student<br />
evaluation, and grievance procedures?<br />
7. To what the extent is the climate of academic inquiry and engagement supported by<br />
widely disseminated policies regarding academic freedom?<br />
8. How is the word “Integrity” defined by the following <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> sectors that<br />
represent the various <strong>University</strong> stakeholders: The Board of Trustees, the Faculty Senate,<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Support Staff Organization (HUSSO), <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student<br />
Association (HUSA), <strong>Graduate</strong> Student Association (GSA), union and non-union<br />
employees, and <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Alumni Association?<br />
9. How is integrity integral to the functional areas of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>: procurement,<br />
fiscal affairs, facilities management, academic affairs, student affairs, alumni affairs,<br />
human resource management, general counsel, research administration, security affairs,<br />
development affairs, and the community-related associations?<br />
10. How does the <strong>University</strong> promote academic integrity on campus? Who is responsible for<br />
promoting integrity in the academic research community, as well as in the student<br />
population’s activities in scholarship and learning?<br />
11. Is there peer review among all departments and divisions in the <strong>University</strong>?<br />
12. What indications exist to offer information about plagiarism on campus, both in the<br />
research and academic societies on campus?<br />
13. How does <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> create a learning environment for 21 st century leaders that<br />
is in alignment with the “Mission of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>” for all schools and colleges?<br />
14. How is integrity monitored and assessed among administrators, researchers, students, and<br />
staff at any <strong>University</strong>?<br />
15. How does <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> monitor, assess, and ensure that the persons trained in<br />
customer/client relations will demonstrate this training towards the student population?<br />
16. How does <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> distribute resources throughout the institution in such a<br />
way as to ensure equity for all schools and colleges?<br />
17. Is the information in <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s documents readily available, and consistent<br />
throughout all media: Web sites, catalogs, brochures, and recruitment material?<br />
20
18. What specific policies within each of the units of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> address the<br />
requirement for integrity to be incorporated into each unit’s mission, goals, and<br />
objectives?<br />
19. Is there periodic assessment of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s policies, processes, and practices, as<br />
far as integrity is concerned?<br />
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment<br />
• Chair: Professor Lorraine Fleming, Engineering<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work examines the degree to which <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> has developed and<br />
implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its<br />
mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards. Standard 7 is unique because<br />
it actually assesses the assessment of the other standards. Each standard requires a thorough<br />
assessment of the area that it addresses. The task of the Standard 7 Work Group is to tie together<br />
these assessments and address the fundamental questions “How well is <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> doing<br />
what it says it is doing?” and “How do we know?” The Standard 7 Work Group will also<br />
examine the data gathered by the other work groups, analyze that data, draw conclusions, and<br />
make recommendations as is appropriate.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
The work of the Standard 7 Work Group will be based on the findings of the other fourteen work<br />
groups. Based upon this input, Work Group 7 will address five basic research questions:<br />
1. Does the institution, including all of its units, have an assessment plan that cuts across the<br />
entire university community, which involves, at minimum, academics, infrastructure, and<br />
support units?<br />
2. Who or what offices are responsible for coordinating assessment plans across the<br />
<strong>University</strong> and serve as the custodian of such data from academic, research and support<br />
units?<br />
3. How is institutional assessment data used in ongoing strategic planning by the university?<br />
4. Are data derived from such plans transparent and easily obtained from the academic<br />
community?<br />
5. To what extent are institutional data used to drive budgetary categories, priorities, and<br />
allocations?<br />
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention<br />
• Chair: Ms. Carole Borggren, Budget and Finance<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work examines the enrollment management programs throughout the <strong>University</strong>,<br />
both in the central Enrollment Management Office that recruits undergraduate students, and in<br />
the graduate and professional schools and colleges that manage their own recruitment. The<br />
fundamental goal assesses whether the <strong>University</strong> defines, recruits, and retains students whose<br />
interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with the mission of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>.<br />
21
The first aspect of the scope gathers data, compiling an inventory of <strong>Howard</strong>’s policies,<br />
programs, and key statistics on enrollment management and student retention. The second aspect<br />
of the scope analyzes the data, examines the extent to which all of the schools and colleges are<br />
able to recruit and retain students who belong at <strong>Howard</strong> and who can succeed, identifies the<br />
factors (including financial aid) that either promote or hinder the <strong>University</strong>’s success, in so<br />
doing, and makes recommendations as appropriate. The third aspect of the scope helps the<br />
<strong>University</strong> sustain an institution-wide culture of assessment. This work group will identify for<br />
the new Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation those programs that can serve as<br />
models for the rest of the <strong>University</strong> community, in that they consistently engage in practices of<br />
setting strategy, defining goals, measuring outcomes, and using those outcomes to improve<br />
programs.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. What kind of student(s) does the <strong>University</strong> want?<br />
2. How effective is the <strong>University</strong> at recruiting and retaining that student?<br />
3. What is the mission for each of the 12 schools/colleges for recruitment and retention?<br />
4. What are the plans and most recent results for performing ongoing assessment of student<br />
success including retention?<br />
5. What are the rates for student retention and graduation, and how are they evaluated?<br />
6. When the <strong>University</strong> admits students who only marginally meet the qualifications<br />
expected of incoming students, what support is provided to help them thrive?<br />
7. Does the <strong>University</strong> have statements of expected student learning outcomes by school,<br />
college or program, and how is that information made available to prospective students,<br />
current students and faculty?<br />
8. What are the assessment plans and most recent results for determining the effectiveness<br />
of admissions policies and criteria available to assist the prospective student in making<br />
informed decisions?<br />
Standard 9: Student Support Services<br />
• Chair: Associate Vice President Celia Maxwell, Medicine<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work assesses the degree to which <strong>Howard</strong> provides student support services<br />
necessary to enable each student to achieve the <strong>University</strong>’s goals for students. Within the scope<br />
of the <strong>University</strong>, student support services can reinforce and extend the college’s influence<br />
beyond the classroom. The quality of campus life contributes significantly to student learning;<br />
therefore, institutions, and particularly those with residential populations, should be attentive to a<br />
wide range of student life issues. The delivery of student support services should be flexible in<br />
nature and vary according to the needs of the student body. In general, students’ needs may<br />
include academic support, healthcare, including mental healthcare and social support.<br />
Additionally, institutional mission and programs should be available to provide support to<br />
diverse student populations such as older students, students with disabilities, international<br />
students, distance learning students, and the off-campus student population. Moreover, the<br />
objective is to assess which student support services are offered and, more importantly, to assess<br />
the students’ knowledge of these services.<br />
22
Research Questions.<br />
What programs of student support services are available that are appropriate to student strengths<br />
and needs, reflective of the <strong>University</strong>’s mission and consistent with student learning<br />
expectations?<br />
1. What are the current written policies and procedures governing the student body?<br />
2. What procedures are in place to address the various student needs, both academic and<br />
non-academic, in a manner that is equitable, supportive, and sensitive?<br />
3. What procedures, widely disseminated, are in place for equitably addressing student<br />
complaints or grievances?<br />
4. Are the students needs being served appropriately, accurately, and effectively through<br />
student support services and if so, how? How do student support services fit into the<br />
organizational structure of each school on the campus?<br />
5. How well are the policies for the release of student information published and<br />
implemented?<br />
6. What improvements can the <strong>University</strong> make in technology to increase the effectiveness<br />
of delivery to student support services?<br />
7. Are the athletic programs regulated by the same academic, fiscal, and administrative<br />
principles, norms, and procedures that govern other institutional programs?<br />
8. What ongoing assessment plans are in place to examine student support services?<br />
Standard 10: Faculty<br />
• Chair: Professor A. Wade Boykin, Psychology<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work governs a comprehensive self-examination of the status, activities,<br />
perceptions, future projections, and goals of the faculty at <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>. The work group<br />
will gauge not only how <strong>Howard</strong>’s faculty stacks up against the standards set forth by the Middle<br />
States Commission, but also how it compares against the standards that should be met, if not<br />
exceeded, if it is to be widely considered as a world-class university.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
The work group seeks to address three broad questions. What is the current quality level of the<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> faculty? What is the professional experience like for <strong>Howard</strong> faculty? What processes<br />
are in place to ensure and even enhance faculty quality at <strong>Howard</strong>? These broad concerns<br />
translate into the following research questions that the work group will pursue.<br />
1. What is the descriptive portrait of the current <strong>Howard</strong> faculty?<br />
2. What is the professional quality of life for the faculty at <strong>Howard</strong> and what are the<br />
perceived challenges and professional opportunities for the faculty at <strong>Howard</strong>?<br />
3. What is the measurable effect of the faculty on <strong>Howard</strong> students?<br />
4. What are the processes currently in place to ensure faculty quality and productivity?<br />
5. What are the processes and mechanisms that need to be in place to ensure sustainability<br />
and enhancement of faculty quality and productivity?<br />
6. What are the assessment plans and most recent results for determining the effectiveness<br />
of the following items and how are they being used:<br />
23
• The appointment, promotion and tenure policy and procedure<br />
• Faculty evaluation procedure for salary and merit adjustments<br />
• The role and responsibility of full-time, part-time, adjunct faculty (for example, teaching<br />
loads, committee work, service to the community, and research)<br />
• Published policies and procedures (for example, faculty handbook, travel policy, and<br />
sabbatical leave policy)<br />
Standard 11: Educational Offerings<br />
Chair: Professor Rodney Green, Economics<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work encompasses all of the academic and professional schools within the<br />
<strong>University</strong>, as well as many of the support units. The research design will address the academic<br />
content, rigor, and coherence, as well as student learning goals and objectives, within each of the<br />
academic units. The overall success of the <strong>University</strong> in achieving appropriate levels of academic<br />
content, rigor, and coherence, and student goals and objectives, will reflect this unit-by-unit<br />
analysis.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. What are the educational offerings (degree and certification programs) and related<br />
faculty, staff and student levels, qualifications, and characteristics?<br />
2. What have been the processes and outcomes of self-studies, external reviews, and<br />
responses to reviews across university units?<br />
3. Are the educational offerings congruent with the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> mission?<br />
4. Are expected learning outcomes properly articulated and documented in university units?<br />
5. Are there appropriate assessment tools for determining if the expected outcomes are<br />
being achieved?<br />
6. Do expected learning outcomes align well with the associated curriculum/a?<br />
7. Are learning resources appropriate for the educational offerings available, including<br />
resources and instructional processes to assure information literacy among students?<br />
8. What are the periodic assessments of the effectiveness of curricular, co-curricular, and<br />
extra-curricular experiences and how are such assessments used to improve student<br />
academic and personal development?<br />
Standard 12: General Education<br />
• Chair: Associate Dean Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work examines whether or not <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>’s general education curricula<br />
are “designed so that students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in general<br />
education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and<br />
quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency”<br />
(Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, p.47). On a broader scale, the General<br />
Education Work Group will seek to explore those questions that will position the <strong>University</strong> to<br />
24
provide a thorough response to the question of whether or not it is providing to all<br />
undergraduates a highly competitive, relevant, first-rate educational experience reflective of the<br />
<strong>University</strong>’s missions and goals.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. What is the value of a liberal arts education and core curriculum at peer institutions?<br />
2. What are the core courses required of students in each school at <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>?<br />
3. Are objectives clearly stated for the general education requirements in each school?<br />
4. How effectively are general education requirements and major academic program<br />
requirements linked and interrelated?<br />
5. Are core courses in each school integrated into <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> “universal”<br />
experiences? In other words, do these courses reflect the presence of a common set of<br />
themes and competencies?<br />
6. Are there first-year core requirements in each school?<br />
7. Do first-year programs share a common core of information students must know about<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong>?<br />
8. Are some schools using alternative core experiences in lieu of courses?<br />
9. Are there assessment components in place for general education programs in each<br />
school? In other words, what evidence exists that graduates meet expected, acceptable<br />
levels of competency in oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative<br />
reasoning, technological capability, information literacy, and critical analysis and<br />
reasoning? Are these levels appropriate given the institutional mission and the needs and<br />
aspirations of students?<br />
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities<br />
• Chair: Professor, Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and<br />
Assessment<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work investigates whether the <strong>University</strong>’s related educational activities meet the<br />
Middle States Commission’s accreditation standard. According to Middle States, “related<br />
educational activities” include “programs or activities that are characterized by particular<br />
content, focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship.” Specifically, these activities include<br />
basic skills courses, certificate programs, experiential learning opportunities, non-credit<br />
offerings, branch campuses, distance-learning activities, and contractual relationships.<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. How well does the <strong>University</strong> identify and place students who lack college-level math,<br />
English, and study skills?<br />
2. How consistently is the <strong>University</strong> bringing these under prepared students up to the<br />
college level?<br />
3. Should <strong>Howard</strong> re-examine its commitment to teaching basic skills to students with high<br />
academic potential?<br />
4. Do <strong>Howard</strong>’s distance-learning courses help the <strong>University</strong> fulfill its mission? For<br />
example, do these courses enhance quality or increase accessibility? If not, what is<br />
<strong>Howard</strong>’s rationale for offering these courses?<br />
25
5. If <strong>Howard</strong> needs to offer distance-learning courses, is it committing enough resources to<br />
ensure success?<br />
6. How can the <strong>University</strong> offer market-driven certificate programs and maintain quality?<br />
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning<br />
• Chair: Professor Veronica Thomas, Education<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
This scope of work will assess whether <strong>Howard</strong> students are able to demonstrate upon<br />
graduation, or at other appropriate points, the necessary acquisition of knowledge, skills, and<br />
competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals. The work<br />
group will organize the study design around four expected institutional outcomes:<br />
• Developing clearly articulated written statements, expressed in observable terms, of key<br />
learning outcomes: the knowledge, skills, and competencies that students are expected to<br />
exhibit upon successful completion of a course, academic program, co-curricular<br />
program, general education requirements, or other specific set of experiences<br />
• Providing opportunities for students to achieve articulated learning outcomes<br />
• Assessing student achievement of key learning outcomes<br />
• Using the results of assessment to improve teaching and learning and information<br />
planning and resource allocation<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. How do units articulate what students are expected to know and be able to do upon<br />
completion of their academic program?<br />
2. What written plans for assessing student learning exist at the course, program,<br />
department, and school/college levels?<br />
3. To what extent do course syllabi clearly articulate student learning outcomes in contrast<br />
to teaching outcomes?<br />
4. What strategies assess the alignment among the intended curriculum (for example, course<br />
syllabi), taught curriculum, and tested curriculum?<br />
5. What university-based processes ensure that academic units have identified studentlearning<br />
outcomes (for example, knowledge, skills, and attitudes) for its graduates?<br />
6. How is the curriculum designed to guide the students toward mastery of the expected<br />
learning outcomes?<br />
7. How do the condition of the facilities affect student learning? Faculty teaching?<br />
8. What is the frequency of course offering (availability of required courses)?<br />
9. To what extent is there consistency in course syllabi and expected learning outcomes<br />
among selected courses (multiple section of the same course)?<br />
10. How does the type of professor (teaching assistants vs. adjunct vs. full-time) affect<br />
student learning and the students’ perception of their learning?<br />
11. What services and experiences do units provide to facilitate student learning? How are<br />
these promoted, communicated, perceived, and used?<br />
12. How do faculty members actively support the extended learning goals of students?<br />
13. What evidence supports the existence and sustainability of a <strong>University</strong>, school/college-,<br />
and/or department-wide Student Outcomes Assessment Plan? How have assessment<br />
plans been implemented?<br />
26
14. What kinds of formative and summative assessment strategies are faculty members<br />
engaging in at the <strong>University</strong>?<br />
15. What evidence is collected to determine the extent to which students have acquired the<br />
desired knowledge, skills, and competencies at various levels?<br />
16. To what degree is there an alignment between the <strong>University</strong>’s General Education Policy<br />
and student learning outcomes in the general education (core curriculum) classes?<br />
17. What types of methods to assess student learning are being used at various levels within<br />
the <strong>University</strong> as well as university-wide (for example, national exams, portfolios,<br />
rigorously evaluated internships and practica, locally developed tests, departmental<br />
capstone projects or courses, surveys of graduates and employers, course-based<br />
proficiency exams, presentations, multiple measures of proficiency using performancebased<br />
standards, course-based assessment by individual faculty, and comprehensive<br />
examination)?<br />
18. How are assessments of student learning outcomes communicated to students? Other<br />
internal stakeholders (for example, faculty, administrators, staff, and trustees)? Relevant<br />
external stakeholders (for example, employers, alumni, K–12 schools, and other relevant<br />
outside agencies)?<br />
19. How are the assessment results used to evaluate and improve teaching and learning (for<br />
example, curriculum design, course modification such as replacing or revising courses,<br />
changing sequence of courses, adding a requirement or required course, enhancing the<br />
advising process, increasing support services, and improving teaching strategies)?<br />
20. What evidence indicates that student assessment data are linked to and/or integrated with<br />
institutional assessment and the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Strategic Framework for Action?<br />
21. How are assessment results used to make decisions about student progress?<br />
22. What evidence supports that student assessment data are being used to inform resource<br />
allocation, planning, and administrative renewal aimed at improving student-learning<br />
outcomes?<br />
23. How is the assessment of student learning a part of the <strong>University</strong>’s overall institutional<br />
assessment?<br />
24. To what extent do students perceive that student assessment data are used to improve<br />
instruction and enhance their learning outcomes?<br />
25. How is assessment of student learning being institutionalized?<br />
Special Emphasis: Research<br />
• Chair: Professor Winston Anderson, Biology<br />
Scope of Work and Objectives.<br />
Because of <strong>Howard</strong>’s preeminence as a Research <strong>University</strong> serving a predominately African-<br />
American community, the executive and steering committees felt that an additional scope of<br />
work governing research was vital. This scope of work governs the review, evaluation, and<br />
assessment of institutional effectiveness of the research mission and culture in accord with the<br />
following criteria:<br />
• Review and assess publication activity of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> faculty in relation to peer<br />
universities<br />
27
• Review and assess extramural activity (research and training grants) of <strong>Howard</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> faculty, administrators, staff, students, and postdocs in relation to peer<br />
universities<br />
• Review and assess the quality of institutional support for extramural research activity at<br />
the pre-award and post-award levels<br />
• Review and assess the operational functions and efficiency of the <strong>University</strong> in support of<br />
faculty research activity<br />
• Review and assess the physical facilities provided by the <strong>University</strong> to support research<br />
activity<br />
• Review and assess the status and support of research training and opportunities for<br />
undergraduate and graduate students in relationship to peer and aspirational research<br />
universities<br />
• Review and assess the level and effectiveness of start-up funds to launch research<br />
programs by new faculty, across the schools and colleges<br />
• Review and assess the level and effectiveness of indirect cost recovery to support<br />
research activity<br />
• Review and assess the effectiveness of intramural grant activity to stimulate research<br />
activity at the <strong>University</strong><br />
• Review and assess the <strong>University</strong>’s effectiveness in institutionalizing successful research<br />
and academic programs and launching new competitive programs in the arts, sciences<br />
and humanities<br />
Research Questions.<br />
1. To what extent has <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> supported the research infrastructure to provide<br />
cutting edge research in the arts, humanities, and sciences (for example, state of the art<br />
research labs)?<br />
2. To what extent has <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> recruited faculty, staff, and students to satisfy the<br />
research or teaching mission of the <strong>University</strong>?<br />
3. Has <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> successfully institutionalized successful research and training<br />
programs?<br />
4. To what extent are faculty encouraged to apply for extramural funding for the training of<br />
students for academic and/or research careers?<br />
5. To what extent are undergraduate and graduate students supported to conduct competitive<br />
research and to produce publishable material?<br />
6. How are indefinite tenure and 12-month appointments related to research activity and<br />
faculty workload?<br />
7. Does the <strong>University</strong> have an effective research/training assessment plan?<br />
8. Is the faculty, in general, competent to pursue competitive research comparable to peer<br />
Research I universities?<br />
9. Are there creative ventures that might propel <strong>Howard</strong> in the competitive world of the 21st<br />
Century?<br />
The work groups will begin their work before the end of the 2006–2007 academic year, with data<br />
collection and other preliminary work to take place during Summer 2007. Work will continue<br />
throughout the 2007–2008 academic year, with a target date for completion of the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> in<br />
28
late spring 2008. The actual site visit will occur during the 2008–2009 academic year. In the<br />
months ahead, the work groups will present a set of detailed timelines towards these goals.<br />
Plans for the Collection, Analysis, and Infusion of Assessment Data into the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong><br />
Exercise<br />
Assessment of all phases of university life will permeate all aspects of this inquiry. Accordingly,<br />
the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> will work in close collaboration with several university units charged with<br />
assessment, data gathering and planning. These units shall be the recently created Office of<br />
Assessment and Evaluation (OAE), the Office of Institutional Research, CETLA, and data<br />
gathering units within the Office of the Provost.<br />
The OAE will coordinate data gathering efforts for the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> in concert with the Office of<br />
the Provost, and it will work directly with relevant work groups to construct, administer, analyze<br />
and prepare reports on specific aspects of university life, policy, and practice deemed appropriate<br />
by the work groups. To prevent unnecessary redundancy, chairs of work groups with desires to<br />
collect original data of stakeholder assessments of the extent and quality of campus life,<br />
resources, and support systems will work with the OAE to construct generic instruments for<br />
faculty, student and staff constituencies.<br />
Additionally, two <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> work groups—the Work Group on Assessment of Student Learning<br />
and the Work Group on Institutional Assessment—will pay particular attention to the extent,<br />
quality, and use of assessment data to guide <strong>University</strong> policy and practice. The Work Group on<br />
Assessment of Student Learning will focus on the use of assessment data by the faculties in the<br />
various schools and colleges to enhance teaching and learning by their students. The Work<br />
Group on Institutional Assessment will focus more generically across all “Characteristics of<br />
Excellence” to determine the quality and extent to which assessment data are collected and used<br />
to inform institutional planning, processes, policies, and operations.<br />
Communications with Work Group and <strong>University</strong> Community<br />
The Office of the <strong>University</strong>-wide <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> has implemented several measures to communicate<br />
with the <strong>Howard</strong> community to ensure that the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> process is interactive, transparent, and<br />
collaborative. These techniques include weekly updates on <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> activities and milestones<br />
through an electronic newsletter with the John H. Johnson <strong>School</strong> of Communications. A Web<br />
site has been designed specifically for the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> and it is linked to the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong><br />
homepage. Additionally, steering committee members have access to draft documents through a<br />
password-protected Web site that provides them a forum to comment and share their work.<br />
The <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> design statement and the draft of the final report will be distributed to the<br />
Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Work Groups, and Board of Trustees. The final <strong>Self</strong>-<br />
<strong>Study</strong> report will be made available to the entire <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> community.<br />
Organization of Final <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Report<br />
A timetable has been prepared for completing the draft self-study, vetting it with the university<br />
community, and submitting it to Middle States in early 2009 in preparation for a site visit in<br />
spring 2009. A copy of the timetable is presented in Appendix B.<br />
29
The final report will be organized in accordance with the following topical outline:<br />
I. Executive Summary<br />
A. Highlights Major Findings in the <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong><br />
B. Reference to Information Currently on File with Commission<br />
II. Introduction<br />
A. Institutional Overview<br />
1. Description<br />
2. Mission<br />
3. Aspirations<br />
B. Meeting Middle States’ Criteria<br />
C. Strategic Planning<br />
D. Quality Initiative<br />
E. Global, National and Community Service<br />
III. Execution of <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Process<br />
A. Nature, Scope and Objectives<br />
B. Organizational Structure and Membership<br />
C. Communication with Work Group and <strong>University</strong> Community<br />
IV. Analysis of Work Group Topics, Charges, and Results<br />
A. Standard 1: Mission and Goals<br />
B. Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal<br />
C. Standard 3: Institutional Resources<br />
D. Standard 4: Leadership and Governance<br />
E. Standard 5: Administration<br />
F. Standard 6: Integrity<br />
G. Standard 7: Institutional Assessment<br />
H. Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention<br />
30
I. Standard 9: Student Support Services<br />
J. Standard 10: Faculty<br />
K. Standard 11: Educational Offerings<br />
L. Standard 12: General Education<br />
M. Standard 13: Related Educational Activities<br />
N. Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning<br />
O. Additional Standard: Research<br />
V. Evaluation of Educational Effectiveness<br />
A. Teaching and Learning Processes<br />
B. Assessment of Diversity<br />
VI. Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness<br />
A. Description of Resource Data Used for Evaluation<br />
B. Formative and Summative Strategies<br />
C. Improvement Recommendations for Data Collection and Assessment<br />
VII.<br />
Accomplishments<br />
VIII. Recommendations<br />
IX. Conclusion<br />
A. Appendices<br />
31
Appendix A: Membership of<br />
Executive Committee, Steering<br />
Committee, Work Groups, and<br />
Professional Staff
Appendix A: Membership of Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Work Groups,<br />
and Professional Staff<br />
The names of the Executive and Steering Committee members, the Work Group Chairs, and the<br />
members of the Work Groups are as follows.<br />
Executive Committee<br />
• Theodore Bremner, Faculty Senate Chair<br />
• O. Jackson Cole, Executive Assistant to the President<br />
• Virgil Ecton, Vice President for <strong>University</strong> Advancement<br />
• Richard English, Provost and Chief Academic Officer<br />
• Sidney H. Evans Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer<br />
• Artis Hampshire-Cowan, Senior Vice President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees<br />
• Charlene Hogan, Assistant Dean, Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Marie Johns, Board of Trustees<br />
• Brenda Joyner, President of the <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Staff Organization<br />
• Oliver McGee III, Vice President for Research and Compliance<br />
• Hassan Minor, Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning and External Affairs<br />
• Alvin Thornton, Associate Provost<br />
• Marcus Ware, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association President<br />
• Donald Wilson, Senior Vice President for Health Sciences<br />
Steering Committee<br />
• Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Winston Anderson, Biology<br />
• Carole Borggren, Office of Budget and Finance<br />
• A. Wade Boykin, Psychology<br />
• Franklin Chambers, Student Affairs<br />
• O. Jackson Cole, Office of the President<br />
• D. Kortright Davis, Divinity<br />
• Horace Dawson, Ralph Bunche International Affairs<br />
• James Donaldson, Arts and Sciences<br />
• Alfred Fisher, Office of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences<br />
• Lorraine Fleming, Engineering<br />
• Rodney Green, Center for Urban Progress<br />
• Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences<br />
• Charlene Hogan, College of Pharmacy Nursing and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Santina Merchant Huff, Educational Advisory Center<br />
• Marie Johns, Board of Trustees<br />
• Victoria Kirby, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Celia Maxwell, Office of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences<br />
• George Middendorf III, Biology<br />
• Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Training Learning and Assessment<br />
• Dennis Rogers, <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong><br />
A-1
• Kurt Schmoke, Law<br />
• Jacqueline Smith, Social Work<br />
• William Spriggs, Economics<br />
• Vasant Telang, Office of the Provost<br />
• Veronica Thomas, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies<br />
• Alvin Thornton, Office of the Provost<br />
Mission and Goals Work Group<br />
Chair, Horace Dawson, International Affairs<br />
• Horace Dawson, Ralph Bunche International Affairs<br />
• Raymond Archer, Alumni Relations<br />
• Daphne Bernard, Pharmacy Practice<br />
• Levena De La Rosa, Psychology<br />
• Chontrese Doswell Hayes, <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong><br />
• Karen House, Athletics<br />
• Shirley Jackson, Occupational Therapy<br />
• Charles McDonald, Board of Trustees<br />
• Sylvia McDonald-Kaufman, Divinity<br />
• Jerome Roberson, Law Library<br />
• William Roberts, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Harold Scott, Ralph Bunche Center for International Affairs<br />
• Curston Wolf, Ralph Bunche Center for International Affairs<br />
Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Work Group<br />
Chair, William Spriggs, Economics<br />
• William Spriggs, Economics<br />
• Soleman Abu-Bader, <strong>School</strong> of Social Work<br />
• Marcus Decosta, Office of Financial Aid<br />
• Latrice Foster, Dentistry<br />
• Lorenzo Gregory, Engineering<br />
• Lynne Kelly, Finance, International Business and Insurance<br />
• Paul Musgrave, Administrative Services<br />
• Karen Qawiyy, Office of the Secretary<br />
• Mercedes Tibbits, Modern Languages and Literatures<br />
• Anthony Woodburne, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
Institutional Resources Work Group<br />
Chair, Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Antwan Clinton, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Bookstore, Auxiliary Enterprises<br />
• Philip Gatti, Pharmacology<br />
• Patrick Jadin, Engineering<br />
A-2
• Victor McNaughton, Architecture and Engineering Services<br />
• Takeisha Presson, Dentistry<br />
• Kamran Tavakol, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Arthuree Wright, Founders Library<br />
Leadership and Governance Work Group<br />
Chair, Kurt Schmoke, Law<br />
• Kurt Schmoke, Law<br />
• Carolyn Broome, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology<br />
• Alice Gresham Bullock, Law<br />
• Porsche Gordon, Alumni Relations<br />
• Alan Halloway, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Bookstore<br />
• Courtney Hudson, Arts and Sciences<br />
• Odessa Jackson, Office of the General Counsel<br />
• Charles McDonald, Board of Trustees<br />
• Michael Newheart, Divinity<br />
• Steve Pierre, Medicine<br />
• Tashon Thomas, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
Administration Work Group<br />
Chair, Jacqueline Smith, Social Work<br />
• Jacqueline Smith, Social Work<br />
• Toi Carter, Office of the General Counsel<br />
• Pauline Hazel, Administrative Services Committee<br />
• Cynthia Henderson, Office of Total Compensation<br />
• Lorraine Kittrell, Campus Police<br />
• Thomas Lawson, Center for Academic Reinforcement<br />
• Tamia McClain, Business<br />
• Haile Mezghebe, Medicine<br />
• Maxine Williams, Enrollment Services<br />
• Darrion Woods, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
Integrity Work Group<br />
Chair, D. Kortright Davis, Divinity<br />
• D. Kortright Davis, Divinity<br />
• Taft Broome, Civil Engineering<br />
• Shea Drake, Student Government Association<br />
• Margaret Hicks, Business<br />
• Linda Jones, Office of the Dean, Arts and Sciences<br />
• Warner Lawson, Law<br />
• Bettie Lowe, Campus Police<br />
• Marlene Mahoney, Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library<br />
A-3
• Kimberly Moffitt, <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong>; Bernard Richardson, Chapel<br />
Institutional Assessment Work Group<br />
Chair, Lorraine Fleming, Engineering<br />
• Lorraine Fleming, Engineering<br />
• Lila Ammons, African American Studies<br />
• S. Tyrone Barksdale, Office of the Provost<br />
• Gerald Duncan, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Jennifer James-Pryor, Office of <strong>University</strong> Communications<br />
• Mohamed Mekkawi, <strong>University</strong> Libraries<br />
• Mahmoud Nasr, Dentistry<br />
• Jacob Ortiz, Community Association<br />
• Lenny Patterson, WHUT Television<br />
• Jarvis Seegars, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Debyii Thomas, Journalism, Mass Communications and Media Studies<br />
• Dawn Williams, Education<br />
• Loretta Woodruff, Auxiliary Enterprises<br />
Student Admissions and Retention Work Group<br />
Chair, Carole Borggren, Budget and Finance<br />
• Carole Borggren, Financial Analysis and Budget<br />
• Jean Oyemade-Bailey, Education<br />
• Iverson Bell, Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Sciences<br />
• Alicia Criner, Undergraduate Student Assembly-Student Activities<br />
• Linda Sanders-Hawkins, Office of Admissions<br />
• Sterling Lloyd, Medicine<br />
• LaWanda Peace, Office of Student-Services CEACS<br />
• Paul Pressley, <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong><br />
• Margo Smith, Business and Fiscal Affairs/Auxiliary Enterprises<br />
Student Support and Services Work Group<br />
Chair, Celia Maxwell, Medicine<br />
• Celia Maxwell, Office of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences<br />
• Linda Akoth, Student Life and Activities<br />
• Darcel Bryant, Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library<br />
• Tonya Guillory, Student Life and Activities<br />
• Konya Hurt, Information Systems and Services<br />
• Valarie Lawson, Center for Academic Reinforcement<br />
• Lynnette Mundey, Student Health Center<br />
• Shelly McDonald-Pinkett, Internal Medicine<br />
A-4
Faculty Work Group<br />
Chair, A. Wade Boykin, Psychology<br />
• A. Wade Boykin, Psychology<br />
• Sheik Hassan, Medicine<br />
• Kimberly Jones, Engineering<br />
• Marterio Moss, Social Work<br />
• Danielle Parker-Mason, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Kay T. Payne, Communication Sciences and Disorders<br />
• Lloyd Sloan, Psychology<br />
• Jeanne Toungara, History<br />
• Charles Verharen, Philosophy<br />
Educational Offerings Work Group<br />
Chair, Rodney Green, Economics<br />
• Rodney Green, Center for Urban Progress<br />
• Angela Breden, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Moses Garuba, Systems and Computer Science<br />
• Victor Gordeuk, Medicine<br />
• Thomas Heinbockel, Anatomy <strong>Graduate</strong> Studies<br />
• Garnett Henley, Dentistry<br />
• John Hughes, Television Station-WHUT<br />
• Ivor Livingston, Sociology/Anthropology<br />
• Paul Logan, Modern Languages<br />
• Carol McKinnon, Enrollment Management: Records<br />
• Anita Nahal, <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong><br />
• Mishana Prophete, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Dana Williams, English<br />
• Kamilah Woodson, Education<br />
General Education Work Group<br />
Chair, Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences<br />
• Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences<br />
• Marjay D. Anderson, Biology<br />
• Carolyn Byerly, Journalism, Mass Communications, and Media Studies<br />
• Kitty L. Ellison, English<br />
• Kimberly Freeman, Education<br />
• Quanice Floyd, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Stephanie Johnson, Laureate Scholar and Undergraduate Programs of Excellence<br />
• Anna McCorvey, Engineering Architecture and Computer Sciences<br />
• Anissa Ryan, Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Zindzi Thompson, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
A-5
• Edward Williams, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
Related Educational Activities Work Group<br />
Chair, Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment<br />
• Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment<br />
• Jessica Bailey, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Roy Beasley, Continuing Education<br />
• Annette Davis, Educational Advisory Center<br />
• Erinn Garner, Athletics<br />
• Maria Gomes, Social Work<br />
• Rackham Goodlett, Center for Academic Reinforcement<br />
• Wilma Hosten, International Student Services<br />
• Joseph Lawrence, Information Systems Founders Library<br />
• Joshua Polk, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
• Aaron Stills, <strong>School</strong> of Education<br />
• Frances Stubbs, <strong>University</strong> Advancement/CEACS Office of the Dean<br />
• Clint Wilson II, Journalism<br />
Assessment of Student Learning Work Group<br />
Chair, Veronica Thomas, Education<br />
• Veronica Thomas, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies<br />
• Spencer Chenier Alumni Relations/Advancement<br />
• Constance Ellison, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies<br />
• Abimbola George, Student Council<br />
• Janine Jackson, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies<br />
• Vernon Jones, Information Systems and Services<br />
• Marguerite Neita, Clinician Laboratory Science/DAHS<br />
• Nichole Newman, Education<br />
• Sherry Scott, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences<br />
• Kelley Williams, <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Student Association<br />
Chair, Winston Anderson, Biology<br />
• Winston Anderson, Biology<br />
• Folohan Ayorinde, Chemistry<br />
• Charles Betsey, Economics<br />
• Daniel Carnegie, Medicine<br />
• Georgia Dunston, Microbiology<br />
• Gary Harris, Engineering<br />
• Gregory Jenkins, Arts and Sciences<br />
• Earl Kudlick, Dentistry<br />
• George Littleton, Physiology<br />
Research Work Group<br />
A-6
• Kelly Mack, Office of Undergraduate Research<br />
• James Mitchell, Chemical Engineering<br />
• Danielle Perry, Student Activities<br />
• Kenneth Scott, Pharmacy<br />
• William Southerland, Medicine<br />
A-7
Appendix B: <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Timetable
Appendix B: <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Timetable<br />
<strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong><br />
Middle States Accreditation <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Timetable<br />
Middle States Accreditation Site Team Visit<br />
(March, 2009)<br />
Final Version of <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> mailed to Site Visit Team and Commission<br />
(January, 2009)<br />
Preliminary Final Draft of <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Report presented to President.<br />
(December, 2008)<br />
Revised Draft of <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Report completed based upon comments from <strong>University</strong><br />
Community and from Executive and Steering Committees<br />
(November, 2008)<br />
Draft of Composite <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Report completed and submitted to Executive and Steering<br />
Committees; circulated on campus for discussion.<br />
(September, 2008)<br />
Submission of Work Group reports to <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Office<br />
(June, 2008)<br />
Submission of <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> <strong>Design</strong> to Middle States<br />
(May, 2008)<br />
First Draft of <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> <strong>Design</strong> forwarded to Executive and Steering Committees; draft<br />
submitted to President.<br />
(April 2008)<br />
Orientation and Organization of the Executive and Steering Committees and Work Groups;<br />
Work Groups received charges.<br />
(Summer, 2007)<br />
Executive and Steering Committees and Work Group organized and began work; <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong><br />
office opened.<br />
(Summer, 2007)<br />
Appointment of <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Chair, Executive and Steering Committees<br />
(Spring and Summer, 2007)<br />
B-1
Appendix C: Preliminary Data<br />
Available for Work Groups
Appendix C: Preliminary Data Available for Work Groups<br />
• Annual Reports from <strong>School</strong>s and Colleges 1999−2007<br />
• FACT BOOK 2007<br />
• Accreditation Reports 1999−2007<br />
• Act of Incorporation of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong><br />
• Periodic Review Report for the Commission on Higher Education Middle States<br />
Association of <strong>School</strong>s and Colleges: June 1, 2004<br />
• Faculty Handbook<br />
• Interim Bylaws of the Faculty Senate 1993 and Amendments to the Interim Bylaws 2000<br />
• College of Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences By-Laws and Constitutions<br />
• By-Laws of the Board of Trustees<br />
• Student Handbook<br />
• Faculty publication from library system 2007−2003<br />
• HU Faculty by Rank, Gender, and Ethnicity, Fall 2007<br />
• HU <strong>Graduate</strong> Summary 1990−2007 by gender<br />
• FTIC Admission Data 2001−2002 to 2007−2008 (Average SAT and ACT, percent<br />
admitted)<br />
• HU Enrollment by Age Distribution―AY 1997−2006 (graphs: undergrad, grad,<br />
professional)<br />
• HU Enrollment by Classification―AY 2002−2006 (graphs: undergrad, grad,<br />
professional)<br />
• HU Enrollment by Ethnicity―AY 1997−2006 (graphs: undergrad, grad, professional,<br />
overall)<br />
• HU Enrollment by Gender―AY 1997−2006 (bar graphs: undergrad, grad, professional)<br />
• HU FTIC Application Summary (by school/college 1999, 2006, 2007)<br />
• HU Geographic Distribution<br />
• HU Undergraduate Retention-Graduation Rates<br />
• HU High <strong>School</strong> GPA Report―Fall 1998−Fall 2007<br />
• HU SAT Scoring Data―Fall 1998−Fall 2007(average SAT and ACT)<br />
• <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Organizational Chart<br />
• Strategic Framework for Action II, April 2006<br />
• FY 2007 Analytical Abstract for the United States Congress<br />
• Periodic Review Report for the Commission on Higher Education Middle States<br />
Association of <strong>School</strong>s and Colleges, June 2004<br />
• The Restructuring of <strong>Graduate</strong> <strong>School</strong> of Arts and Sciences, Recommendations of the<br />
Dean and Faculty, November 1, 1991<br />
• Regional Sales Contract, April 21, 2007<br />
• 1989 HU <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Study</strong> Report<br />
• Data Inventory List for Annual Reports<br />
• Enrollment Management Strategic Overview: Academic Excellence Initiative; Office of<br />
Admission; Registrar; Financial Aid; Scholarships and Student Employment and Student<br />
Financial Services; and Laureate Scholars and Undergraduate Programs of Excellence;<br />
March 6, 2008<br />
C-1
• HU Student Affairs: Leadership for America and the Global Community, Student Affairs<br />
Strategic Plan 2006−2010<br />
• Leadership Academy Strategic Plan 2007<br />
• Moorland-Spingarn Strategic Plan 2007<br />
• Strategic Plans 2007 from <strong>School</strong>s, Colleges and Departments<br />
• BOARD OF TRUSTEES<br />
− <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Board of Trustees Assessment of the Academic Excellence<br />
Committee<br />
• CHARTER SCHOOL AGREEMENT<br />
−<br />
July 18, 2005 signed Charter <strong>School</strong> Agreement between District of Columbia<br />
−<br />
Public Charter <strong>School</strong> Board and <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong> Public Charter Middle <strong>School</strong> of<br />
Mathematics and Science’s (MS) 2<br />
• FISCAL<br />
− <strong>University</strong> budgets (HUH not included) for the past 10 years (1999−2008)<br />
• Copies of President Swygert’s letter to the <strong>University</strong> community regarding the<br />
budget (1997−2007)<br />
• INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY<br />
• January 19, 2005―Report on the Infusion of Information Technology Supporting<br />
Academic Instruction and Student Life at <strong>Howard</strong><br />
• INTERNAL AUDIT<br />
• Audit Plan for 2008<br />
• STRATEGIC LONG-TERM PLANNING AND BUDGETING<br />
− July 1, 2005 memorandum from Provost Richard A. English to President H. Patrick<br />
Swygert Essential Elements of schools, Colleges and Academic Support Units<br />
− Essential Elements of Academic Support Units<br />
− Strategic Long-Term Planning and Budgeting Concept Paper<br />
• STRATEGIC PLANNING<br />
− Strategic Framework for Action<br />
− Strategic Framework for Action II<br />
− October 4, 2007 memorandum from President H. Patrick Swygert to the Deans of the<br />
<strong>School</strong>s and Colleges–SFA III <strong>University</strong> Advisory Committee Organization<br />
• UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES<br />
− Strategic Plan for the Main Library Group (August 2007)<br />
• U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SITE VISITATION TEAM<br />
− November 15, 2006 briefing report on Teaching, Research, and Service in the<br />
Context of the Mission of <strong>Howard</strong> <strong>University</strong><br />
• Information Breakdown<br />
− Grade point average (Mean)<br />
− Division (Communication, Social Science, Arts, and Humanities)<br />
− Department (Art, English, Chemistry, Engineering, and Physical Science)<br />
• Faculty Grants and Awards 1999−2000 and 2006−2007<br />
− Extramural grants per department 1999−2000<br />
− Faculty grants and awards 1999−2000<br />
− Extramural grants per department 2006−2007<br />
C-2
− Faculty grants and awards 2006−2007<br />
• Annual Reports on Program Progress<br />
− LAMP<br />
− MARC<br />
C-3