university of puerto rico at mayaguez (uprm) final self-study...

1

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez

(UPRM) Final Self-Study Design

2/14/2014

Submitted to:

The Council of Higher Education Middle States Commission on Higher Education 3624 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE Introduction 3 Glossary of Abbreviations 11 Nature and Scope of Self Study 12 Specific Goals and Objectives 12 Organizational Structure of the Steering Team and Task Forces 13 Charges to Task Forces 20 Inventory of Support Documents 91 Timetable 93 Editorial Style and Format 94 Organization of Final Self-Study Report 96 Profile of the Evaluation Team 96 Appendix 97

3

INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL SKETCH – UPRM AS PART OF THE LARGER UNIVERSITY OF

PUERTO RICO SYSTEM

The University of Puerto Rico was created by an act of the Legislative Assembly on March 12, 1903. It emerged as an outgrowth of the Normal School, which had been established three years earlier with the purpose of training teachers for the Puerto Rican school system. In 1908, the benefits of the Morill-Nelson Act were declared applicable to the island, thus fostering the rapid growth of the University. Eloquent evidence of that growth was the establishment of the College of Liberal Arts at Río Piedras in 1910 and the College of Agriculture at Mayagüez in 1911.

It was in the College of Agriculture that the Mayagüez Campus as we know it today had its origin. Credit for the establishment of the College is given to the joint effort of D. W. May (Director of the Federal Experiment Station), José de Diego, and Carmelo Alemar. A year later, the school received the name that it bore for 50 years: the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. The strengthening and diversification of the academic programs at Mayagüez were recognized years later when, in 1942, as a result of the university reform, the campus was organized with a considerable degree of autonomy into the Colleges of Agriculture, Engineering, and Science under the direction of a vice chancellor. The expansion continued through the 1950s, when many programs flourished in the University. At Mayagüez, the College of Arts and Sciences and the Nuclear Center were established. At Río Piedras, the Colleges of Humanities, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Business Administration emerged. At San Juan, the Schools of Medicine, Odontology, and Tropical Medicine were established.

In 1966, the Legislative Assembly reorganized the University of Puerto Rico into a system of autonomous campuses, each under the direction of a chancellor. The College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts became the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus.

Today, the Mayagüez Campus of the University of Puerto Rico continues its development in the best tradition of a Land Grant institution. It is a coeducational, bilingual, and nonsectarian school. It comprises the Colleges of Agricultural Sciences, Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Engineering, and the Division of Continuing Education and Professional Studies. The College of Agricultural Sciences encompasses the Agricultural Experiment Station and the Agricultural Extension Service. As of Fall 2013, the Campus had 684 instructional faculty (660 full-time and 24 part-time), which includes those who are tenured, on tenure-track, and not on tenure-track. In terms of student enrollment, a total of 11, 838 students were enrolled (10,944 undergraduates and 894 graduates).

4

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO – MISSION STATEMENT

The University of Puerto Rico, as a public institution of higher education, is bound by law to serve the people of Puerto Rico in accordance with the ideals of a democratic society such as ours. It is important to highlight that the vision and mission of the UPRM from 2004 until December 2011 is slightly different from the current January 2012 vision and mission. This change resulted from the approval of the new strategic plan by all constituents, and the revision of the institution’s vision and mission. The 2004-2011 vision was:

To become a leading institution of higher learning in Puerto Rico and throughout the entire American hemisphere while responding to the needs of a modern society within dynamic and diverse surroundings while searching unceasingly for truth, knowledge, justice, and peace.

The mission was:

1. To form educated, cultivated citizens capable of critical thinking and professionally prepared in the fields of agricultural sciences, engineering, natural sciences, humanities, arts, and business administration capable of contributing to the educational, cultural, social, technological and economic development of Puerto Rico and the international community within a democratic and collaborative framework.

2. To promote research and creative endeavors to meet the needs of our local and international society while preserving, transmitting, and advancing knowledge.

3. To provide excellent service that will contribute to the sustainable and balanced development of our society.

4. To share knowledge so that it becomes accessible to all. The current UPRM’s vision

To be a leading institution in higher education and research, transforming society through the pursuit of knowledge in an environment of ethics, justice, and peace.

is:

As of January, 2012 the mission

is:

To excel in our service to Puerto Rico and the world by: • Forming citizens who are well-educated, cultivated, and

critical thinkers, professionally prepared in the fields of agricultural sciences, engineering, arts, sciences, and business administration so they may contribute to the

5

educational, cultural, social, technological, and economic development.

• Performing creative work, research, and service to meet society’s needs and to make available the results of these activities to everyone.

We provide our students with the skills and sensitivity needed to effectively address today’s problems and to exemplify the values and attitudes that should prevail in a democratic society that treasures and respects diversity.

Different from our previous decennial visit, the UPRM’s strategic plan highlights seven objectives

• To institutionalize a culture of strategic planning and assessment. which are:

• To lead higher education throughout Puerto Rico while guaranteeing the best education for our students.

• To increase and diversify the Institution’s sources of revenue. • To adopt efficient and expedient administrative procedures. • To strengthen research and competitive creative endeavors. • To impact our Puerto Rican society. • To strengthen the UPRM’s sense of belonging and institutional pride

ORGANIZATION CHART AT UPRM

The Table on page ten shows the complete organizational chart of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. All administrative units, as well as the academic units, are included in the chart.

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS WITHIN EACH ACADEMIC UNIT

The University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez has four colleges: College of Agricultural Sciences, College of Arts & Sciences, College of Business Administration, and College of Engineering. Each of these four colleges offers the following academic programs:

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

Bachelor of Agricultural Sciences

Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics, Agronomy, Soil Science, Animal Industry, Crop Protection, Education in Agricultural Extension, General Agriculture, Horticulture, Mechanical Agricultural Technology, and Agricultural Education. In addition, the college offers a non-degree program of study in Pre- Veterinary Studies for those students who will be pursuing studies in veterinary medicine.

6

Master of Science

Agronomy, Soils, Horticulture, Crop Protection, Animal Industry, Agricultural Economics, Food Science & Technology, Agricultural Education, and Agricultural Extension.

COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES

Bachelor of Science

Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Industrial Microbiology, Industrial Biotechnology, Nursing, Physical Sciences, Pre-Medical Sciences, Theoretical Physics, Computer Science, Pure Mathematics, and Mathematics Education.

Bachelor of Arts

English, Hispanic Studies, Philosophy, Comparative Literature, Plastic Arts, Theory of Art, French Language and Literature, History, General Social Sciences, Sociology, Political Science, Psychology, Economics, and Physical Education.

Master of Science

Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Pure Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, Statistics, Computer Science, and Physics

Master of Marine Sciences

Master of Arts

Hispanic Studies, English Education, and Kinesiology

Doctor of Philosophy

Marine Sciences, Applied Chemistry COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

Accounting, Computerized Information Systems, Finance, Industrial Management, Marketing, Organizational Studies (Human Resources)

Bachelor in Office Administration

7

Master in Business Administration

Finance, General Program, Human Resources, Industrial Management COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Bachelor of Science

Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Industrial Engineering, and Surveying & Topography, General Engineering

Master of Science

Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Industrial Engineering

Computer Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

Master of Engineering

Doctor of Philosophy

Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Computing and Information Sciences and Engineering

Degrees in Progress

The following academic programs have been approved at the UPR level. These programs have been submitted to CEPR and are waiting for approval to begin offering: BS- Computer Science and Engineering MS- Material Sciences and Engineering MS and Ph.D.- Bioengineering Ph.D.- Electrical Engineering Ph.D.- Mechanical Engineering MS- Precollege Mathematical Education

8

STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROFILE – FALL 2013

Full-Time Part-Time Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Undergraduate Students

4751

10219

725

5085

10944 5468 391 334 5859

Graduate Students

382

838

56

410

894 456 28 28 484

Total

5133

11057

781

5495

11838 5924 419 362 6343

INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL - FALL 2013

The Tables below list Instructional Personnel labeled as “Primarily Instruction” and “Instruction/Research/Public Service” in the Fall 2013 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and the number of faculty members with doctoral degrees. The data used for this survey and for IPEDS is based on the Faculty Academic Workloads available at the Office of the Dean of Academic Affairs.

FACULTY STATUS Tenure Track

Non-tenure Track

Total Tenured

Male

Full-Time 41 358 11 410 Part-Time 0 0 15 15

Total 41 41.00

358 358.0

26 16.96

425 415.96 FTE*

Female


Total 33 33.

192 192.0

34 29.92

259 254.92 FTE*

Total


Total 74 74.00

550 550.00

60 46.8

684 670.88 FTE*

*FTE refers to a Full Time Equivalent load of 12 credits

9

Faculty Members with Degrees Fall 2013 Instructional Faculty Highest Degree

As of November 1st, 2012

College Bachelor Master Doctoral Other Unavailable Total

Unavailable 0 3 0 0 0 3

Agricultural Sciences 5 18 49 0 30 102

Arts & Sciences- Arts 1 53 122 1 0 177 Arts & Sciences- Sciences 1 35 157 0 0 193

Engineering 2 19 147 0 1 169

Business Administration 1 23 16 0 0 40

Total 10 151 491 1 31 684

Governing Board

President’s Office

Chancellor’s Office Academic Senate Administrative Board

College of Arts and Sciences

College of Engineering

Personnel Liaison Office

University Enterprises

Finance Department

Equal Opportunities for Employment

Printing Office

Property Office

Human Resources

Information Technology

Center

Pre-school Development

Center

Natatorium Legal Advisor’s Office

Press and Publications

Institutional Research and Planning Office

Budget Office Student Ombudsman

Office

Water Resources and Environmental Research

Institute

Continuous Improvement and Assessment Office

Office of Academic Senate, Administrative

Board and Faculty

Research and Development Center

Dean of Administration

Dean of Academic Affairs

Dean of Students College of Business Administration

College of Agricultural

Sciences

Environmental Health and Safety Office

Auxiliary Services

Traffic and Surveillance Department

Purchasing Office Center for Professional

Enhancement

Aerospace Studies

Military Sciences

Center for Resources in General Education (CIVIS)

General Library

Admission Office

Graduate Studies Office

Social and Cultural Activities -

Alumni

Financial Aid

Band and Orchestra

Placement

Counseling and Psychological

Services

Student Exchange Programs and Inter-

national Student

Services

Health Services

Quality of Life Office

Biology

Marine Sciences

Social Sciences

Economics

Physical Education

Nursing

Hispanic Studies

Physics

Geology

Humanities

English

Mathematics

Chemistry

Agricultural Experiment

Station

Faculty of Agricultural

Sciencies

Agricultural Extension

Service

Agronomy and Soils

Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology

Agricultural Education

Horticulture

Animal Industry

Agricultural and Bio-systems Engineering

Crop Protection

Food and Science Technology

Civil Engineering and Surveying

Electrical and Computer

Engineering

Material Sciences and Engineering

Industrial Engineering

Mechanical Engineering

Chemical Engineering

Office Administration

Accounting

Human Resources

Finance

Industrial Management

Marketing

Computerized Information

Systems

University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez Campus

Organizational Structure

Historic Archive

Office of Environmental Management

Industrial Biotechnology

Buildings and Grounds Department

Campus Bookstore

International Programs

Office

General Agricultural

Economic Development

Center

Registrar's Office

Secondary Education of Teacher Preparation

Athletes Residence

Division of Continuing Education and

Professional Studies

Athletic Activities

Crops and Agroenvironmental

Sciences

Revised August 2013

Betsy

Typewritten Text

Betsy

Typewritten Text

Betsy

Typewritten Text

10

11

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS UPR University of Puerto Rico

UPRM University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus

OMCA Office of Continuous Improvement and Assessment

MSCHE Middle States Commission on Higher Education

OIIP Office of Institutional Research and Planning

ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

AACSB Association to Advanced Collegiate Schools of Business

ADOF Office Administration

NCATE National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

NLNAC National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission

ACS American Chemical Society

NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association

CID Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo (Research & Development Center)

PRR Periodic Review Report

CTI Center of Information and Technology

CEPR Puerto Rico Education Council

CGE General Student Council

COE Student Evaluations

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

GE General Education

DECEP Division of Continuing Education and Professional Studies

CITA Food and Technology Science

SEA Agricultural Extension

CEP Centro de Enriquecimiento Professional (Professional Enrichment Center)

PRCHE Puerto Rico Council of Higher Education

LAI Liga Atlética Interuniversitaria (Intermural Athletic League)

12

NATURE AND SCOPE OF SELF-STUDY During January, 2012, the new strategic plan was implemented. This strategic plan is aligned with the fourteen standards of excellence (See Appendix). As an institution which believes that all aspects of UPRM need to be assessed (Self Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report, 2012), the steering committee decided that the self-evaluation process for our institution would be most meaningful via The Comprehensive Report. The rationale behind the selection of this model can be traced to the Final April 2005 MSCHE Report, which was submitted to the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez on April 5, 2005. Although the report states that all 14 standards were met, many suggestions were presented. The comprehensive report model will allow UPRM to assess our progress within all fourteen standards of excellence and provide suggestions, weaknesses, and strengths.

OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

The University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez has experience in assessment in earlier educational projects such as the Manufacturing Engineering Education Partnership (MEEP) Learning Factory, which was funded by NSF in 1994; and Partnership for Spatial and Computational Research (PaSCoR), which was funded by NASA in 1998. Many of our programs have undergone or are currently in process of being accredited. Examples of these accreditation agencies are : Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Accreditation Council for Business Schools (ACBSP), National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE/CAEP), National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC), and the American Chemical Society (ACS).

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) publication, Designs for Excellence – Handbook for Institutional Self-Study, refers to avoiding duplication and encouraging the use of recent research, reports, and evaluations. In order to replicate this experience on a campus-wide scale, we intend to draw upon the recent experiences of the accredited programs mentioned above.

SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of this self-study is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this institution and, through this process, determine the courses of action which will enable us to sustain our academic excellence and better serve our constituents. Our main constituents are: students, parents, faculty, administrative personnel, employees, alumni, employers, and the external community. While it cannot be ignored that any impending accreditation visit by an external agency tends to serve as a catalyst to drive institutional self-assessment efforts, our ultimate purpose should be to independently internalize this process with the goal of improving our services to our constituents.

13

The specific objectives of the self-study are:

a. Implementing and assessing the recent comprehensive institutional strategic plan

b. Implementing a comprehensive outcomes assessment plan including student learning outcomes

c. Educating the UPRM community about our mission and objectives. d. Reviewing and acting upon student learning outcomes results to benefit our

students as well as the institution at large. e. Improving campus-wide awareness of the benefits of continuous self-

evaluation, and set in motion the institutionalization of an outcomes assessment program to help in better decision- making and fulfillment of the needs of our constituents.

f. Determining where we stand as UPRM and moving forward towards becoming the institution of preference by the Puerto Rico citizens.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE STEERING TEAM AND

TASK FORCES After much insistence by a 2005 steering committee member (now Accreditation Liaison Officer- ALO) to the Dean of Academic Affairs, Dr. Darnyd Ortiz, the Chancellor of the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus, Dr. Jorge Rivera Santos, called for a meeting on October 30, 2012. The members at this meeting were: the Chancellor, Dean of Academic Affairs, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor, Professor Nilsa Velásquez, the Director of the Institutional Research and Planning Office, Dr. Noel Artiles, and the Director of Graduate Studies and now ALO, Dr. Betsy Morales, to discuss potential members who would likely constitute the Institutional Steering Team. The Chancellor offered and appointed Dr. Betsy Morales as the MSCHE Steering Committee Coordinator and requested she recruit the members who would serve as Coordinators per standard. Given Dr. Morales’ experience with the prior accreditation (2005), she invited key members who had prior experience with accreditation. The Team composition would represent all colleges and be responsible for developing the Self-Study Design for the Self-Study Report in preparation for the MSCHE visit during Spring 2016. The Steering Team, which would consist of multiple Task Forces to address the fourteen (14) standards as outlined in The Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, would be responsible for the development of relevant Charge Questions to assist in the self-study process. This would require that a mechanism for the campus-wide self-study be developed to assess all 14 standards. During the summer, data collection instruments (questionnaires) were developed and numerous have been administered during the first semester of the 2013-2014 academic year (first year students, second/third, fourth/fifth students, directors, and faculty members). During the second semester of 2013-2014, the remaining questionnaires will be administered (e.g. non-teaching personnel, deans, chancellor).

14

The UPRM-MSCHE Institutional Steering Team consists of the following twelve Task Forces with their respective Coordinators.

Betsy Morales, Coordinator, ALO Overall Team

Department of English- Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Standard 1 – Mission, Goals and Objectives Task Force 1

Betsy Morales, Coordinator, Professor Department of English, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Silvestre Colón, Professor, M a t h e m a t i c a l S c i e n c e s , Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Nancy Méndez, Associate Director of the Office of Research and Institutional Planning MSCHE Steering Committee

Standard 2 – Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Task Force 2

Standard 3 – Institutional Resources Mercedes Ferrer, Coordinator, Professor, Industrial Engineering Department Candida González, Professor, Business Administration Lucas Avilés, Interim Chancellor, Professor/Researcher, College of Agricultural Sciences Mercedes Ferrer, Professor, Industrial Engineering Wilson Crespo, Director, Budget Office Darío Torres, Administrator, R&D Center Rocío Zapata, Director, University Businesses Services “Empresas Universitarias de Servicio” Maria De Lourdes Conde, Human Resources Analyst Zobeida López, Special Assistant to the Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Standard 4 – Leadership & Governance Task Force 3

Standard 5 – Administration Noel Artiles, Professor, Industrial Engineering Department Héctor Huyke, Professor, Department of Humanities Héctor Santiago, Professor/Researcher, College of Agricultural Sciences Miguel Seguí, Professor, College of Business Administration Nilsa Velázquez, Professor, Department of Economics

Standard 6 – Integrity Task Force 4

Halley Sánchez, Coordinator, Department of Humanities, College of Arts & Sciences Linda Beaver, Professor, Agricultural Sciences Jose A. Cruz, Professor, College of Business Administration William J Frey, Professor, Business College of Administration (Ethicist) Christopher Papadopoulos, Professor, Engineering School

15

Standard 7 – Institutional Assessment Task Force 5

Cristina Pomales-Garcia, Coordinator, Professor, Industrial Engineering David Suleiman, Professor, Chemical Engineering Luz Gracia, Professor, College of Business Administration Valerie Galarza, Undergraduate Student, Department of Social Sciences

Standard 8 – Student Admissions Task Force 6

Sonia M. Bartolomei-Suárez, Coordinator, Professor Industrial Engineering Madeline Rodríguez, Director of the Admissions Office María Barbot, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs of the College of Arts and Sciences Manuel Jimenez, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs of the College of Engineering Lizzette González, Interim Assistant Dean of College of Agricultural Science Lucyann Fernández, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, College of Business Administration Freya Toledo, Professor , General Engineering Department and Coordinator of the UPRM Open House María Almodóvar, Professional Counselor Raúl Machiavelli, Professor, Agricultural Sciences, Interim Director of Graduate Studies

Standard 9 – Student Support Services Task Force 7

Omell Pagán Parés, Coordinator, Industrial Engineering Rosie Torres de Calderón, Health Services Manuel E. Márquez, Student Council (CGE) Griselys Rosado, Academic Advising Yomarachaliff Luciano, Alumni Jorge I. Frontera Rodríguez, Library Xiomara Pratts Peña, Quality of Life Margarita Carlo, Placement Santos Torres, Band and Orchestra Briseida Meléndez, Registrar Yamil Negrón, Financial Aid Pura Vincenty Pagán, Professional Counseling Aileen Ramírez, Social and Cultural Activities

16

Standard 10 – Faculty Task Force 8

Gayle W. Griggs, Coordinator, Professor, Department of English, College of Arts and Sciences Maribel Acosta Lugo, Professor, Department of Hispanic Studies, Interim Associate Director of Graduate Studies Lysa Chizmadia, Professor, Department of Geology Aury Curbelo Ruiz, Professor, College of Business Administration Saylisse Dávila, Professor, Industrial Engineering Carlos Quiñones Padovani, Professor, Department of Physical Education Enid Arcelay, Professor, Agricultural Sciences Jordan McGee, student, Agricultural Sciences

Standard 11 – Educational Offerings Task Force 9

Jorge A. Gonzalez, Coordinator, Professor of Agricultural Economics Francisco Monroig Saltar, Professor, Agricultural Sciences Rosario Ortiz Rodríguez, Professor, College of Business Administration Jeffrey Valentín Mari, Professor, Economics Raul Zapata, Professor, Civil Engineering Irene Ocasio, Adminstrative Official 1- Office of the Dean of Academic Affairs.

Standard 12 – General Education Task Force 10

Mabel Ortiz, Coordinator, Professor, Department of English, College of Arts & Sciences Duane Kolterman, Professor, Department of Biology Jeannette Santos, Professor, General Engineering John Fernández, Professor, Agricultural Sciences Noemí Maldonado, Professor, Department of Humanities Mariela Ballester, student, Department of Social Sciences Ricardo Méndez, student, Department of Geology

Standard 13 – Related Educational Activities Task Force 11

Pedro Vásquez, Coordinator, Professor of Mathematical Sciences, College of Arts & Sciences José Ferrer López, Director, Division of Continuing Education and Professional Studies José Cuevas, Director, Center of Information and Technology Kevin Carroll, Professor, Department of English Ellen Acarón, Coordinator, COOP Program

17

Standard 14 – Assessment of Student Learning Task Force 12

Bernadette M. Delgado, Coordinator, Professor, Department of Social Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences Ivelisse Padilla, Professor, Department of Chemistry Aidsa Santiago, Professor, General Engineering Roberto Vargas, Professor, Crop and Agro-Environmental Science Yolanda Ruiz, Professor, College of Business Administration Irmarie Cruz, Student Representative, Psychology

Ex officio Members:

Dr. Jaime Seguel, Interim Dean of Academic Affairs Dr. Héctor Jiménez, Interim Director of the Office of Institutional Research and Planning

18

The roles and responsibilities of the institutional steering team include:

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INSTITUTIONAL STEERING TEAM

1. Developing logistics and carrying out the self-study process for the accreditation visit in 2015-16. This would include coordinating the evaluation visit and preparing the institutional response.

2. Meeting regularly, as often as necessary, to discuss and approve tasks assigned

to each Task Force, such as: the development of charge questions for each of the 14 Standards of Excellence, and the design the questionnaires to be distributed campus- wide to obtain effective and comprehensive feedback.

3. Administering the ques t ionna i r e s campus -wide, a n a l y z i n g a l l r e s p o n s e s , and recommending corrective actions, and if necessary, re-designing elements of the questionnaires to provide the most effective input as a measure of our self-study and continuing improvement.

4. Interviewing all external/internal community constituents as another means to

answer our self -study charge questions and to determine what is needed for our continuing improvement.

5. Providing campus-wide orientations to each of the four colleges as well as

other administrative units about the impending accreditation visit, but more importantly, about the need to incorporate assessment methods for continuous quality improvement. This would include promoting active participation from the academic community throughout the self-study process.

6. Studying and developing plans for institutional assessment, and for student

learning outcomes assessment. 7. Analyzing all received data for self study report 8. Creating self study reports by standard, which includes findings, strengths, areas

needing improvement, and commendations 9. Maintaining an updated website with accurate information on institutional self-

study efforts for public access.

FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCES

Task Force Coordinators select the members at their own initiative, and exercise ultimate discretion in the formation of their teams. However, they make sure that key administrative units (colleges) are well represented in the process.

19

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TASK FORCES

1. All Task Force Coordinators will call for meetings of their respective Task Force as and when necessary for the proper functioning of the Task Force. Proper minutes will be maintained by all Task Force Coordinators.

2. All Task Force members will familiarize themselves with Characteristics of

Excellence, previous self-study reports, their findings, changes in criteria, and recommendations resulting from the 2005 Self Study.

3. All Task Forces will receive input from the various campus units on

questionnaires to be administered in October/November 2013, analyze their results, and revise these questionnaires, if necessary, prior to administering them again the following semester. These tasks would be carried out during every semester and then reported in the individual Task Force Report. These individual Task Force Reports would form the backbone of the campus Self-Study Report that would be submitted to MSCHE.

4. If necessary, all task forces may interview any external/internal community

constituents as another means of answering the charge questions. IV. CHARGES TO TASK FORCES This section lists the Charge Questions developed by each of the Task Forces. For the 2005 accreditation, charge questions were also utilized and facilitated in determining what needed improvement. For the 2015 accreditation, the team will use the last report to establish where we stand and where we need to advance.

20

CHARGES TO TASK FORCES

21

TASK FORCE I - STANDARD 1 Standard 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives: The institution’s mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of higher education and explains whom the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals and objectives, consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. The mission, goals, and objectives are developed and recognized by the institution with its members and it’s governing body and are utilized to develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Task Force Members: Betsy Morales Caro, Professor, Department of English (Coordinator); Silvestre Colón, Professor, M a t h e m a t i c a l S c i e n c e s , Associate Dean of Academic Affairs; Nancy Méndez, Associate Director of the Office of Research and Institutional Planning; MSCHE Steering Committee

Purpose:

The Mission Planning Task Force will examine UPRM’s process of development and implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan. It will examine the clarity of UPRM’s purpose, relevance, uses, and applications.

The mission of the UPRM is stated as follows (Certified by the Administrative Board, 11-12-137): To provide excellent service to Puerto Rico and to the world:

• Forming educated, cultivated, capable, critical thinking citizens professionally prepared in the fields of agricultural sciences, engineering, arts, sciences, and business administration so they may contribute to the educational, cultural, social, technological and economic development.

• Performing creative work, research and service to meet society’s needs and to make available the results of these activities. We provide our students with the skills and sensitivity needed to effectively resolve problems and to exemplify the values and attitudes that should prevail in a democratic society that treasures and respects diversity. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1 [a], F1 [b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

22

Fundamental & Optional Questions regarding Mission and Objectives

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements

1. What evidence is there that the mission and the strategic objectives of the UPRM guide faculty, administration, staff, and governing bodies in making decisions related to planning, resource allocation, program and curriculum development, and definition of program outcomes?*

Documents generated by UPRM Administrative Board, UPR University Board, and UPR Board of Governors. New academic program proposals Academic Senate proceedings/records Annual reports (at different levels: department, college and institution) Annual reports from Dean of Agricultural Extension Services and Agricultural Experimental Stations Master Plan for Infrastructure Development OMCA Reports Strategic Plans

F1 [a]

2. What evidence is there that the mission and strategic objectives of

the UPRM include support of scholarly and creative activity, at levels and of the kinds appropriate to the mission of the UPRM?

Documents generated by UPRM Administrative Board, UPR University Board, and UPR Board of Governors. New academic program proposals Academic Senate proceedings/records CID Annual Reports Annual reports (at different levels: department, college, administrative, and institution) Strategic Plans Assessment Reports OMCA Reports Administrative Reports Surveys

F1[b]

23

Inquiry Questions

Sources of Data Elements

3. What evidence is there that the mi s s io n a nd objectives of the UPRM were developed through collaborative participation by those who facilitate or are otherwise responsible for institutional improvement and developments?

Academic Senate certifications reviewing UPRM Strategic Plan Administrative Board certifications related to UPRM goals and objectives. Chancellor’s Initiative: Review of UPRM Strategic Plan. Work / minutes from colleges´ strategic planning committees. OIIP Interviews Annual Reports

F1[c]

4. What evidence is there that the mission and objectives of the UPRM are periodically evaluated and formally approved?

Chancellor reports Dean’s reports Administrative Board Certifications Department Strategic Plans Faculty Strategic Plans OIIP Deployment of plan to all units

F1[d]

5. What evidence is there that the mission and the strategic objectives

of the UPRM have been publicized and widely known by the institution’s members?

Minutes of strategic plan development meetings. Documents generated by UPRM Administrative Board, UPR University Board, and UPR Board of Governors. UPRM Web pages UPRM Catalogue Surveys OMCA Documents Pamphlets and published documents

F1[e]

24


6. What evidence is there to support that the mission and objectives are discussed openly and frequently to respond to internal and external contexts and constituencies?

Academic Senate certifications reviewing UPRM goals Administrative Board certifications related to UPRM goals and objectives. Chancellor’s Initiative: Review of UPRM Strategic Plan. Work / minutes from college planning committees Accreditation Reports

F2

7. What evidence is there to support that the institutional objectives are consistent with the UPRM’s mission?

Academic Senate certifications reviewing UPRM goals Administrative Board certifications related to UPRM goals and objectives. Chancellor’s Initiative: Review of UPRM Strategic Plan. Work / minutes from college planning committees Interviews OIIP Annual Reports OMCA Reports Interviews

F3

25


8. What evidence is there that the mission and objectives of the UPRM focus on student learning, other outcomes**, and institutional improvement?

Academic Senate certifications reviewing UPRM goals Administrative Junta certifications related to UPRM goals and objectives. Chancellor’s Initiative: Review of UPRM Strategic Plan. Work / minutes from college planning committees Surveys Focus Groups OMCA Reports OIIP Exit Interviews Dean of Academic Affairs

F4

* Two periods are included: From 2004 until 2011 the mission and goals were approved by the Academic Senate in September, 2004 and revised in 2007. As of December, 2011, the mission and objectives were approved under the UPRM’s Strategic Plan 2012-2022. ** Other outcomes may include retention and graduation rates, research, and ventures.

26

STANDARD 2: PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION, AND INSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals, develops objectives to achieve them, and utilizes the results of its assessment activities for institutional renewal. Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality. Task Force Members: Mercedes Ferrer, Chair (Associate Professor); Candida González (Professor); Lucas Avilés (Professor/Researcher); Mercedes Ferrer (Assistant Professor); Wilson Crespo (Director, Budget Office); Darío Torres (Administrator, R&D Center); Rocío Zapata (Director, University Businesses Services “Empresas Universitarias de Servicio”); Ma. De Lourdes Conde (Human Resources Analyst); Zobeida López (Special Assistant to the Dean, College of Arts and Sciences)

Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1 [a], F1 [b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards. Purpose: To evaluate the institutional planning process, its nature and quality, the interrelationship between planning and resource allocation, and their influence on institutional renewal. This includes, but is not limited to, verification of current policies and processes, the distribution of decision making authority within those processes, accountability allocation, and assessment.

27

Fundamental & Optional Questions regarding Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal


1. Are there clearly stated goals and objectives, both institution–wide and for individual units?

a. How are the assessment results reflected on the institution/unit goals and objectives?

b. How are goals and objective linked to the institutional mission?

Budget Office OIIP

OMCA Documents Deanships

Administrative Unit, Department and Program Directors Planning Committees

F1

2. How are goals and objectives used for planning and resource

allocation at all levels?

Administrative Board Budget Office

OIIP OMCA Documents

Deanships Administrative Unit, Department and Program Directors

Planning Committees

F1

3. How are planning and improvement processes communicated? a. How does the process allow for constituent participation?

b. How are assessment results incorporated into the planning and

improvement process?

Administrative Board Budget Office

OIIP OMCA Documents


Planning Committees

F2

28

Inquiry Questions

Sources of Data

Elements

4. Describe the decision making process and whether it facilitates or not

planning and renewal processes

Regulations

Relevant Certifications Circular Letters

F3

5. Is authority over those processes well defined? a. Define faculty roles in the planning process b. Define administrators’ role in the planning process. c. How does the institution evidence its commitment with

planning and institutional renewal processes effort?

Regulations Relevant Certifications

Circular Letters Budget Office

OIIP OMCA Documents


Planning Committees

F3, F4, O2,

O3(b)

6. Is there assurance of accountability over such processes? a. How is the work done by the parties involved in planning and

budget activities assessed? b. How is the work done by the parties involved in planning and

budget activities encouraged and recognized?

Regulations Relevant Certifications

Circular Letters OIIP

OMCA Documents

F4, O8

7. How many institutional and unit improvement efforts and their results have been documented?

OIIP OMCA Documents

Deans Administrative Unit, Department and Program Directors

Assessment Coordinators Planning Committees

F5

29

Inquiry Questions

Sources of Data

Elements

8. How many programs have been reviewed in response to the assessment process and accreditation efforts?


Accreditation Coordinators

O5

9. How do external affiliations and partnerships impact institutional operations?

OIIP OMCA Documents


O9

10. How is the effectiveness of planning efforts assessed? OIIP OMCA Documents

Deans Administrative Unit, Department and Program

Coordinators

F6

11. How is the effectiveness of resource allocation assessed? Administrative Board Budget Office

OIIP Deans

F6

12. How is the effectiveness of institutional renewal processes assessed? Administrative Board OIIP

OMCA Documents Deans

F6

13. What tools, techniques or methodologies have been implemented as part of the improvement efforts?

OIIP OMCA Documents

Deans

O12

30

STANDARD 3: INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES The human, financial, technical, facilities, and other resources necessary to achieve an institution’s mission and goals are available and accessible. In the context of the institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses of the institution’s resources are analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment. Task Force Members: Mercedes Ferrer, Chair (Associate Professor); Candida González (Professor); Lucas Avilés (Professor/Researcher); Mercedes Ferrer (Assistant Professor); Wilson Crespo (Director, Budget Office); Darío Torres (Administrator, R&D Center); Rocío Zapata (Director, University Businesses Services “Empresas Universitarias de Servicio”); Ma. De Lourdes Conde (Human Resources Analyst); Zobeida López (Special Assistant to the Dean, College of Arts and Sciences)

Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1 [a], F1 [b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards. Purpose: To evaluate the institutional resources, its nature and quality, the interrelationship between planning and resource allocation, and their influence on the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, verification of current policies and processes, the distribution of decision making authority within those resources and processes, accountability allocation, and assessment.

31

Fundamental & Optional Questions regarding Institutional Resources


1. What strategies and tools are used to measure and assess the level of resources needed?

Administrative Board OIIP

Budget Office Deans

F1

2. What strategies and tools are used to measure and assess the efficient utilization of institutional resources?


Budget Office Deans

F1

3. What are the procedures and policies used to determine allocation of assets?

Board of Trustees Administrative Board Central Budget Office

Budget Office

F2

4. What approach is used to ensure adequate faculty, staff, and administrator allocation to support institutional needs?

Administrative Board Chancellor’s Office


F3

32

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data

Elements

5. How are financial planning and budgeting processes aligned with strategic planning?


Budget Office Deans

F4

6. How are assessment documents and results used for allocating resources?

OIIP Budget Office


F4

7. How is the effectiveness of resource allocation assessed?

OIIP OMCA Documents

Deans

F4

8. Is there a comprehensive infrastructure and master plan for the institution?

a. Does it include a life-cycle management plan for infrastructure? b. Is there evidence of implementation?

OIIP Permanent Improvement Plan

Dean of Administration (Planta Física)

F5

9. Are support facilities (computer labs, library) recognized in the plan? How are the personnel and budget needs of support facilities assessed and fulfilled?

OIIP Deans

F6

33

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data

Elements

10. What is the plan for the renovation and replacement of educational and technological equipment?

a. Are they appropriate for the educational programs? b. Is there evidence of implementation?

Technology Center Dean of Academic Affairs

Dean of Students Faculty Deans

OIIP

F7

11. What controls exists to deal with financial, administrative, and auxiliary operations?

Chancellor’s Office Budget Office

Finance Internal Audit


F8

12. What policies and procedures exist to determine allocation of assets?

Regulations Certifications Budget Office

Board of Trustees

F8

13. What is the schedule for future and past independent audits on financial matters?

a. Is there evidence of follow-up of any cited concerns?

Chancellor’s Office Comptroller’s Office

Finance (Campus and Central Administration) Internal Audit


F9

14. How is the effective and efficient use of institutional resources

assessed?

Administrative Board Chancellor

Budget Office OIIP


F10

34

Standards 4: Leadership and Governance

The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and decision-making. The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to

fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the mission of the institution.

Task Force Members: • Noel Artiles, Ph.D. Professor, Industrial Engineering Department. • Héctor Huyke,Ph.D. Professor, Humanities Department. • Héctor Santiago, Ph.D. Professor/Researcher, College of Agricultural Sciences • Miguel Seguí, LLM, Professor, College of Business Administration. • Nilsa Velázquez, J.D., Professor, Economics Department. The MSCHE’s “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education” states that “the primary goal of governance is to enable an educational entity to realize fully its stated mission and goals and to achieve these in the most effective and efficient manner that benefits the institution and its students. Institutional governance provides the means through which authority and responsibility are assigned, delegated, and shared in a climate of mutual support and respect.” The UPRM academic community adheres to this objective.

Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (Online Version - Revised March 2009) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

35

Fundamental & Optional Questions regarding Leadership and Governance

Inquiry Questions [Reference “Characteristics of Excellence”, p. 15 - 17]


1. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s a well-defined system of collegial governance including written policies outlining governance responsibilities of faculty, administration, and governing boards (Governing Board, University Board, and Administrative Board)? Where are these policies readily available to the campus community?

UPR law and bylaws. Certifications of UPR Board of Regents, UPR University Board, UPRM Administrative Board, and

Academic Senate

F1

2. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s written governing documents that: a. Delineate the governance structure and provide for collegial governance, the

structure’s composition, duties and responsibilities as well as the selection process for the members of this structure.

b. Assign authority and accountability for policy development and decision making, including a process for the involvement of appropriate institutional constituencies in policy development and decision making.

c. Provide for the select ion process for governing body members.

UPR law and bylaws. Certifications of UPR Board of Regents, UPR University Board, UPRM Administrative Board, and

Academic Senate

F2

3. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M offers appropriate opportunities for student input regarding decisions that affect them.

UPR bylaws. Certifications of UPR Board of Regents, UPR University

Board, UPRM Administrative Board, and Academic Senate. UPR and UPRM

General Student Regulations. Student survey.

F3

4. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s a governing body capable of reflecting constituent and public interest and of an appropriate size to fulfill all its responsibilities, and which includes members with sufficient expertise to assure that the body’s fiduciary responsibilities can be fulfilled.

UPR law and bylaws Bylaws, Certifications of UPR Board of

Regents. Deans’ survey. F4

5. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s a governing body not chaired by UPRM Chancellor or by UPR President.

UPR law and bylaws Bylaws, Certifications UPR Board of Regents

F5

36




6. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s a governing body that certifies to MSCHE that the institution

a. Is in compliance with the eligibility requirements, accreditation standards and policies of the Commission.

b. Describes itself in identical terms to all its accrediting and regulatory agencies. c. Communicates any changes in its accredited status. d. Agrees to disclose information required by the Commission to carry out its

accrediting responsibilities, including levels of governing body compensation, if any.

Bylaws, Certifications of UPR Board of Regents and UPRM

Administrative Board. Communications of the Chancellor’s

Office, Dean of Academic Affairs, and ALO to MSCHE.

F6

7. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s a conflict-of-interest policy for its governing bodies (Board of Regents, University Board, UPRM Administrative Board, Academic Senate), which addresses matters such as remuneration, contractual relationships, employment, family, financial or other interests that could pose conflicts of interest, and that assures that those interests are disclosed and that they do not interfere with the impartiality of governing body members or outweigh the greater duty to secure and ensure the academic and fiscal integrity of the institution.

PR Ethics Law and Regulations. Bylaws, Certifications of

UPR Board of Regents and UPRM Administrative Board.

F7

8. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s a governing body that assists in generating resources needed to sustain and improve the institution.

UPR law Board of Regents bylaws and certifications. Deans’ survey

F8

9. Provide evidence t h a t U P R M h a s a process for orienting new members and providing continuing updates for current members of its governing bodies on the institution’s mission, organization, and academic programs and objectives?

Academic Affairs (briefing for new faculty members). Minutes of Faculty meetings at both the college and departmental levels.

F9

10. Describe the procedure that UPRM has in place for the periodic objective assessment of the governing body in reaching its stated objectives.

UPR Board of Regents, UPR University Board, UPRM Administrative Board, and UPRM Academic Senate Strategic Plans.

F10

37




11. Describe the process of appointing the chief executive officer at UPRM, in particular, which governing board appoints him/her, and what is his/her primary responsibility.

UPR Law and Regulations F11

12. Describe UPRM’s process for the periodic assessment of the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance.

UPR Board of Regents, UPR University Board, UPRM Administrative Board, and UPRM Academic Senate certifications.

F12

13. Describe UPRM’s process for the review of its written policies (submit evidence of implementation) that establish the processes for involvement of the governing body, administration, and faculty in policy development and decision making, specifically with respect to selection and evaluation of the chief executive officer or those in charge of operational/executive responsibilities; budgeting and resource development; oversight of the academic program; consultation regarding faculty hiring, dismissal, promotion and tenure; and monitoring operations of the institution.

UPR Board of Regents, UPRM Administrative Board, and UPRM

Academic Senate certifications. Recruitment plans from colleges and

departments.

O1

14. Provide evidence that UPR and UPRM have plans for governing body orientation and self-assessment.

UPRM Administrative Board and UPRM Academic Senate certifications.

Chancellor’s Office O4

15. Provide evidence that UPR and UPRM have written assessment from external specialists invited to the institution for consultation on planning and self-assessment issues.

UPR Central Administration. Chancellor’s Office.

Faculty O5

38




16. Provide evidence that UPRM has a. Written records to assess the carrying out of responsibilities by the

governing body and its committees consistent with the institutional mission and its definition of appropriate participation by internal institutional bodies.

b. Faculty council/senate or similar body deliberation and recommendations on matters such as the development of curriculum, standards for admission and graduation, and personnel actions such as hiring, promotion, dismissal and tenure of faculty.

UPRM Administrative Board and UPRM Academic Senate certifications.

Office of the Dean of Academic Affairs O6

39

Standards 5: Administration

The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’s organization and governance.

Task Force Members: • Noel Artiles, Ph.D. Professor, Industrial Engineering Department. • Héctor Huyke,Ph.D. Professor, Humanities Department. • Héctor Santiago, Ph.D. Professor/Researcher, College of Agricultural Sciences • Miguel Seguí, LLM, Professor, College of Business Administration. • Nilsa Velázquez, J.D., Professor, Economics Department. The MSCHE’s “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education” states that “The administration should be organized with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and should have a thorough understanding of institutional mission, goals, and objectives.” The UPRM academic community strives and aspires to have an administrative structure whose members collectively contribute in guiding the institution to achieve its academic, operational and financial goals. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (Online Version - Revised March 2009) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

40

Fundamental & Optional Questions regarding Administration



1. Explain how the Chancellor carries out his primary responsibilities of (a) leading the institution toward the achievement of its goals, and (b) administrating the institution.

UPR law and bylaws. UPRM Administrative Board Certifications.

Communications from the Chancellor’s Office. Surveys to Academic Senate, Administrative Board, and to faculty

F1

2. Provide evidence that UPRM has a Chancellor with the combination of academic background, professional training, and/or other qualities appropriate to an institution of higher education and the institution’s mission.

Curriculum Vitae of UPRM’s Chancellors during the last 10 years.

Surveys to Academic Senate, Administrative Board, and to faculty

F2

3. Provide evidence that UPRM has administrative leaders with appropriate skills, degrees and training to carry out their responsibilities and functions.

Curriculums Vitae of UPRM’s Deans during the last 10 years. Survey to

directors and deans. F3

4. Provide evidence that UPRM has qualified staffing appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of the institution.

Human Resources data bases. Surveys to Administrative Board, to students,

staff, deans, directors, and faculty F4

5. Provide evidence that UPRM has adequate information and decision-making systems to support the work of administrative leaders.

OIIP, CTI and Dean’s Offices. Survey to Academic Senate, Deans, and

Directors. F5

6. Provide evidence that UPRM has clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority. UPR Law. UPR General Regulations. F6

41

Fundamental & Optional Questions regarding Administration



7. Provide evidence that UPRM periodically carries assessment of the effectiveness of administrative structures and services.

UPR Law. UPR General Regulations. Certifications of UPR Board of Regents,

UPR University Board, and UPRM Administrative Board. Chancellor’s,

deans’, and directors’ offices. Survey to faculty.

F7

8. Provide evidence that UPRM has regularly conducted review of the sufficiency and effectiveness of directors, supervisors and administrators to carry out the functions of the institution.

Surveys to deans, directors, supervisors, staff, and faculty. O1

9. Provide evidence that UPRM has regularly conducted reviews of the adequacy of clerical, technological, and other support for administrative personnel?

Surveys to deans, directors, supervisors, staff and faculty. O2

10. Provide evidence that UPRM, during the last 10 years, has carried out an analyses of the organizational structure and charts clearly indicating reporting/responsibility relationships to ensure that it is appropriately structured, and analysis of the structure’s efficiency and effectiveness.

Surveys to deans and directors. O3

11. Provide evidence that UPRM has regularly conducted a. Assessments of staff attitudes and satisfaction. b. Staff development programs, with recommendations for improvement as

appropriate.

Surveys to deans, directors, supervisors, and staff. O4

42

Standard 6 – Integrity

In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its

own states policies, providing support to academic and intellectual freedom.

Sub-committee members: Halley D. Sanchez, Professor, Humanities (coordinator), Linda Beaver, Professor, Agricultural Sciences, Jose A. Cruz, Professor, Business Administration

(and a computer Engineer), William J Frey, Business Administration (Ethicist), Christopher Papadopoulos, Assistant Professor, Engineering School

Purpose: To assess the institution’s adherence to ethical standards, its own stated policies, and its support of academic and intellectual freedom.

Fundamental Element Numbering System: Fundamental elements are referred to by the number used in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2006, twelfth ed.

revised). An “F” indicates a fundamental element; an “O” indicates an optional element.

Inquiry Question Source of Data Elements

Charge 1: Determine with appropriate evidence the extent to which the

institution complies with the right of its stakeholders to free and

informed consent and has been truthful in how it represents itself to

them. Some questions to be answered with appropriate data:

a. Is the information disseminated by the university consistent with

its stated mission, goals, and objectives?

b. Are any changes to its stated mission, goals, and objectives, and

other material changes, disclosed accurately and in a timely

fashion?

c. Is intuitional information provided in a manner that ensures

student and public assess?

d. Are catalogues readily available, and, if only available electronically, does the university Webpage provide a guide or

index to catalog information?

e. Are students provided with accurate information regarding

programs of study, the average real time taken by students to

complete their programs, their possibilities for success in their

studies, and prospects for future employment?

f. Are students properly informed about assessment, grievance,

and disciplinary procedures?

University Law

General UPR Regulations

UPRM Catalog

Descriptive Pamphlets (Brochures)

Information packet sent or presented to students

Faculty Handbook

Student Regulations

Staff/Administrative Handbooks (exististent)

Administrative Board Certifications

Academic Senate Certifications

Certifications from the Board of Governors

(formerly Board of Trustees)

Other material sent to students and/or Faculty, as

provided by:

Dean of Students



Admission Office

Questionnaires sent to:

Deans

Chairs

Presidents of non-teaching unions

Dialogue Committee

Student Organizations

Student Ombudsman

F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, F8, F9, F10, F11,

F12, F13, F15, F16, F17 (details below)

F8

F8, F13

F16, F14, F15

F10, F11, F12

F9, F15, F16

F1

43

Inquiry Question Source of Data Elements g. Are faculty and non-teaching personnel duly informed about

regulations regarding student assessment, grievance and

disciplinary procedures?

h. Are faculty provided with accurate information regarding what

is expected of them, requirements and procedures for tenure and promotion, evaluation procedures, deadlines, discipline and

dismissal procedures?

i. Are non-teaching employees provided with accurate information

regarding what is expected of them, evaluation procedures, and

discipline and dismissal procedures?

j. Are accreditation agencies, funding agencies, and the public in

general provided with accurate information regarding the

institution?

k. Are faculty, non-teaching personnel and students informed of

the rules and regulations dealing with intellectual property rights?

l. Are faculty, non-teaching personnel and students informed of

the rules and regulations dealing with conflicts of interest?

Source of Data Source of Data Elements

Guidance Counselors

Surveys

Faculty

Randomly selected students

Randomly selected employees

Past reports sent to MSCHE,

ABET, CES

Elements Source of Data Elements F2, F4

F2, F4

F8, F13, F14, F17

F6

F3

Charge 2: Assess the extent to which the institution’s procedures and

practices exhibit fairness, due process, and respect for individuals. Some

questions to be answered with appropriate data:

a. Are students, faculty, and employees treated with respect

by administration officials and other personnel in the

bureaucracy?

b. Are the procedures used to recruit (i) faculty, and (ii) non-

teaching personnel fair and non-discriminatory?

c. Are the procedures used to recruit and admit students non-

discriminatory and in accord with ethical standards?

d. Are the procedures and practices used to evaluate (assess)

and discipline students fair, respectful, and in accord with due

process?

e. Are the required and elective courses offered sufficiently

available for students to graduate within the published program

length?

University Law

General UPR Regulations

Administrative Board Certifications

Academic Senate Certifications

UPRM Catalog

Certifications from the Board of Governors (formerly Board of Trustees)

Descriptive Pamphlets (Brochures)

Information packet sent or presented to students

Student Regulations

Student Handbook

Faculty Handbook

Staff/Administrative Handbooks (where they

exist)

Other materials sent to students and/or Faculty,

as provided by:

Dean of Students



F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, F7, F9

(details below)

F3, F4

F2

F7

F1, F4

F9

F1

44


f. Is there an institutional policy for dealing with cheating

and plagiarism? If so, is it fair and in accord with due process?

g. Is there an institutional procedure for dealing with student grievances? If so, is this procedure fair and in accord with due

process? Are student grievances addressed promptly,

appropriately and equitably?

h. Are the procedures and practices used to evaluate, tenure,

promote, and discipline faculty fair and in accord with due

process and respect for the individual?

i. Is there an institutional procedure for dealing with faculty

grievances? If so, is this procedure fair and in accord with due

process?

j. Are the procedures and practices used to evaluate,

promote, and discipline non-teaching personnel fair and in

accord with due process and respect for the individual?

k. Is there an institutional procedure for dealing with

grievances by non-teaching personnel? If so, is this procedure

fair and in accord with due process?

l. Are non-tenure track, adjunct, and part time faculty treated

fairly and with respect?


Admission Office

Questionnaires sent to:

Deans

Chairs

Presidents of non-teaching unions

Dialogue Committee

Student Organizations

Student Ombudsman

Guidance Counselors

Surveys

Faculty



Past reports sent to MSCHE, ABET, C

University Counsel

Elements Source of Data Elements

F1

F2, F4

F2, F4

F2, F4

F2, F4

F2, F4

45

Inquiry Question Source of Data Elements m. Are the practices connected with compensation fair?

n. Is there an institutional policy for dealing with intellectual

property rights of faculty? If so, is it fair and in accord with due


o. Is there an institutional policy to avoid and deal with

conflicts of interest? If so, is it fair and in accord with due


p. Is there an institutional policy for dealing with intellectual

honesty? If so, is it fair and in accord with due process?

q. Is there an institutional policy for dealing with research

integrity? If so, is it fair and in accord with due process?



F4

F6

F3

F6

F6

Charge 3: In light of its stated mission, goals, and objectives, assess the

extent to which the institution carries out its policies in a consistent, fair, respectful, and non-discriminatory manner. Some questions to be

answered with appropriate data:

a. Does the institution carry out its policies and practices in a

manner that fosters a climate of adherence to ethical standards

and respect among individuals?

b. Does the institution carry out its policies and practices in a

manner that fosters a climate of academic inquiry and

intellectual and academic freedom?

c. Does the institution carry out its policies and practices in a

manner that avoids undue political influence?

Questionnaires and Surveys sent to:

Faculty



Student organizations

Professorial organizations

Employee organizations (unions)

Student Ombudsman

Dialogue Committee

F3, F5, F7

(detail below)

F3, F7

F5

F5

Charge 4: Identify if there exists a procedure to assess institutional

integrity and to foster continuous improvement. Some questions to be

answered with appropriate data:

a. Does the institution have a procedure for the periodic

assessment of institutional integrity as evidenced in

institutional policies, processes, practices, and the manner in

which these are implemented?

Questionnaires and Surveys sent to:

Faculty



Student organizations

Professorial organizations

Employee organizations (unions)

Student Ombudsperson

Dialogue Committee

F18, O1, O2, O3, O6, O7. O8

(details below)

F18

F18

46


b. Does the institution have a procedure to periodically review

for integrity the policies and procedures related to:

i. accuracy and consistency of information reported in

faculty, staff and student handbooks, catalogues, and other

official notifications distributed to either faculty, staff, or students?

ii. news releases and public announcements in accord with

institutional integrity?

iii. procedures for students to add, drop, and withdraw from

courses or programs?

iv. conflicts of interest?

v. intellectual property issues?

vi. academic honesty?

vii. research integrity?

viii. promotions and tenure statistics?

ix. student assessment and retention statistics?

x. student grievance and disciplinary policy and procedures,

as well as resulting actions and outcomes?



O1

O1

O2, O3

O5

O6, O8

O7

Charge 5: Identify areas where policies and practices may be changed or

enforcement strengthened to better comply with the above notions of

fairness, truthfulness, due process, and respect for individuals.

Questionnaires or Surveys sent to (or, when

appropriate, interviews with):

Chancellor


Dean of Students


Director, Office of Institutional Research and Planning

Student Ombudsman

Other Administrators

Faculty

Professorial Organization


F1-F16

O1-O8

47

STANDARD 7 Institutional Assessment The institution has developed and implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission

and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards. Task force members: Cristina Pomales-Garcia, Associate Professor, Industrial Engineering (Coordinator), Felix Zapata, Professor, Humanities; David Suleiman, Professor, Chemical Engineering; Luz Gracia, Assistant Professor, Business Administration; Valerie Galarza, Undergraduate Student, Social Sciences. Purpose: To examine the process by which UPRM develops and implements an assessment process, derived in a manner appropriate to the institution’s mission, goals and desired outcomes, and how it is made available to and used by those who develop institutional goals and carry out strategies to achieve them. The Task Force will present a documented analysis and provide recommendations for improvement. Element Numbering System: items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1[a], F1[b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

48


1. How does the planning-assessment cycle work at the university and what methods are used to document, organize and sustain the assessment process, improve services and programs, and achieve accreditation standards?

a. How does the planning-assessment cycle work at the university? / How is the University conducting the planning assessment cycle?

b. What methods are used to document, organize, and sustain the assessment processes at the institution?

c. What methods are used to document, organize, and sustain the evaluation and improvement of the total range of programs and services offered at the institution?

d. What methods are used to document, organize, and sustain the evaluation and improvement in achieving institutional mission, goals, and plans?

e. How is the assessment process documented, organized, and sustained to evaluate and improve compliance with accreditation standards?

f. How are academic programs, services, and initiatives integrated to serve the UPRM mission?

g. How are program, services, and initiatives integrated to serve the unit-level goals? h. What qualitative and/or quantitative measures are used in the assessment process? i. How is assessment data perceived with respect to quality for effective decision

making?

● OIIP ● OMCA ● Chancellor ● Budget office ● Deans/Associate Deans ● Department

Directors/Associate Directors ● Office Directors ● Faculty and department

assessment committee; ● Assessment coordinators ● Faculty members ● Staff ● Institutional Planning

Committee ● Questionnaires and

Documents ● Campus Website ● Documents ● Interviews and Questionnaires

F1, F1[a], F1[b]

49


2. Strategic Planning: a. What process was followed in the creation of the strategic plan? b. Who participated in the development and implementation of the strategic plan?

How was the institutional community involved in the creation and implementation of the strategic plan?

c. What is the current status of the strategic plan? d. How accessible is the strategic plan of UPRM? e. How is the strategic plan disseminated/shared amongst UPRM’s constituents

(students/faculty/staff /advisory board/central administration/local community)? f. How were assessment results used/integrated/considered for institutional planning? g. How are assessment results used in resource allocation and institutional renewal? h. How are assessment results used to improve services and processes, including

activities specific to the institution’s mission (including research)?

• Documents • Interviews and

Questionnaires • OIIP • OMCA • Academic Senate • Administrative Board • Deans • Department chairs • Assessment Coordinators • Planning Committee • Office Directors (Finance,

admissions, registrar, CTI) • Faculty • Students • Alumni and Employers • Staff • Campus Website

F2, F3, O8, O9

3. Institutional, Faculty and Departmental goals: a. How often are Institutional/Faculty/Departmental goals revised? b. How are these goals integrated into the institutional mission? c. Who is involved in the process? d. Based on past program accreditations with recommendations for improvement,

what actions have been taken? What assessment documents are prepared for other accrediting or regulatory agencies?

• Documents • OIIP • OMCA • Chancellor • Deans • Department heads • Faculty • Students • Planning Committee • Assessment Coordinators

F1, F1[a], F1[c], O6

50


(ABET, AASCB, ADOF (NCATE), Medical Services, Systems information, National Accrediting League for Nursing (NLNAC), Chemistry (ACS), Teacher-Preparation Program (NCATE), Library, Orientation and Counseling.

51


4. System strategies to achieve goals: a. How are assessment results used in the enhancement of services and programs? b. How easy is it to find assessment results? c. How is information about assessment made available to UPRM constituents? d. How are institutional assessment results disseminated/shared amongst UPRM’s

constituents (students/faculty/staff /advisory board/central administration/local community)?

e. What are the criteria used for determining whether key institutional goals and objectives have been achieved?

f. How are assessment measures used to evaluate system achievement of goals? g. Are there minimal indicators for achievement of system goals (i.e. minimal

acceptable performance targets, benchmarks, and metrics)? h. How does each program and service at UPRM contribute toward achieving the

goals?

• OIIP • OMCA Questionnaire • Chancellor • Deans • Department heads • Strategic plan committees • Assessment Committees/

Assessment Coordinators • Faculty • Staff • Students • Central Administration • Local Community • Campus Website • Documents • Operational Plan for Strategic

Plan

F2 O3, O4

5. Institutional Assessment a. How reliable and valid are assessment results? b. What measures are used for institutional assessment? c. How do faculty support and collaborate in assessment activities related to student

learning? d. How does the administration support and collaborate in assessing student learning?

• OIIP • OMCA • Chancellor • Deans • Department chairs

F1[b], F1[c]

52


e. How does the administration respond to assessment results? f. How are institutional resources used to support assessment activities? What

administrative, technical, and financial support systems exist for institutional assessment activities?

g. How are institutional resources used to support UPRM’s mission? h. How clear and realistic are assessment procedures/policies? i. What are the deadlines for assessment activities? Do assessment activities have

clear and realistic timetables and deadlines? j. Who maintains ownership of institutional assessment? How is the institutional

plan perceived with respect to detail of the plans, simplicity, practicality and sustainability?

k. What is the role of UPR-Central Administration in the assessment process? What factors influence changes in assessment policies and processes, and strategic planning?

l. What professional development opportunities and resources are provided to faculty and staff in the area of institutional assessment?

m. How are institutional assessment findings used to: i. improve teaching and learning processes?

ii. review and improve programs and services? iii. plan, conduct, and support professional development activities? iv. assist in planning and budgeting for the provision of programs and

services? v. support decisions about strategic goals, plans, and resource allocation?

vi. inform appropriate constituents about the institution and its programs?

• Strategic plan committees • Assessment Coordinators • Professor Contracts • Faculty • Students • CEP (Center for

Professional Enhancement) • Office Directors • Documents

F1[c], F1[d], F1[e], F2, O2[c,d], O7

53


6. Institutional culture for assessing institutional effectiveness. a. What are the views of faculty and administrators on assessment? b. What are faculty and administrators roles in assessing institutional

effectiveness? c. What campus-wide efforts to encourage, recognize, and value the

effectiveness of institutional assessment to improve programs and services? d. How are assessment results used to improve student learning and to advance

the institution? e. How often are the institution’s assessment processes evaluated to determine

their effectiveness and comprehensiveness?

• OIIP • Chancellor • Administrative Board • Deans • Department chairs • Strategic plan committees • Assessment Coordinators • Faculty • Students

O1[a], O1[b], O1[c], F1, F2, F1[f]

54

Educational Effectiveness

Standard 8 Student Admissions and Retention

The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with its mission, and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the students’ educational goals.

Tasks Force Members: Sonia M. Bartolomei-Suárez, Ph.D., Professor of the Department of Industrial Engineering (Coordinator); Madeline Rodríguez, M.A.E., Director of the Admission Office; María Barbot, M.A., Associate Dean of Academic Affairs of the College of Arts and Science; Manuel Jimenez, Ph.D., Associate Dean of Academic Affairs of the College of Engineering; Lizzette González, Ph.D., Interim Assistant Dean of the College of Agricultural Science; Lucyann Fernández, M.S., Interim Associate Dean of Academic Affairs of the College of Business Administration, Freya Toledo, M.S.I.E., Professor of the General Engineering Department and Coordinator of the UPRM Open House; María Almodóvar, Ph.D., Professional Counselor, Raúl Macchiavelli, Ph.D., Director of Graduate Studies; and one student to be invited from the General Student Council.

Purpose: The purpose of the Student Admissions and Retention Task Team is to examine if the university’s admissions and retention policies, procedures, and practices are clearly stated, fully understood, widely communicated, consistently implemented, and periodically reviewed. Also, the task team is going to establish the extent to which these policies, procedures, and practices are consistent with, and contribute to the realization of, the university’s mission, goals, and objectives as part of an overall enrollment strategy. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1[a], F1[b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

55


1. Undergraduate Admissions Policies a) What are the current undergraduate admissions policies? b) How are they developed? c) How are they implemented? d) Do they support and reflect the mission of UPRM?

Provide evidence.

Administrative Board Dean of Academic Affairs Director of the Office of

Admissions University mission statement and

goals Mission statement and goals for

individual programs Chair of the Academic

Departments

F1

2. Graduate Admissions Policies a) What are the current graduate admissions policies? b) How are developed? c) How are they implemented? d) Do they support and reflect the mission of UPRM?

Provide evidence.

Dean of Academic Affairs Academic Senate (Cert. 09-09) Director of Office of Graduate

Studies University mission statement and


individual programs Chair of the Academic

Departments

F1

3. Prospective Undergraduate Students a) Are admissions policies and criteria available to assist the

prospective undergraduate students in making informed decisions?

b) How are prospective undergraduate students informed about the academic program offerings?

Dean of Academic Affairs Director of the Office of

Admissions Dean of Students Undergraduate Catalog UPRM Web-page

F2

F4

56

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements c) Which type of entrance, placement or other special testing is

required for prospective undergraduate students? What do these results determine?

d) How are expected student learning outcomes and information on institution-wide assessment results, as appropriate to the program offered, available to prospective undergraduate students?

e) Does the university provide accurate and comprehensive information, and advice where appropriate, regarding financial aid, scholarships, grants, loans, and refunds?

Provide evidence.

UPR Web-page Undergraduate Application

Manual Orientation material Director of Financial Aid OIIP – Student Right to Know

F4

F5

F6

4. Prospective Graduate Students a) Are admissions policies and criteria available to assist the

prospective graduate students in making informed decisions? b) Are prospective graduate students informed about the

academic program offerings? c) What type of entrance, placement or other special testing is

required for prospective graduate students? What do these results determine?


Graduate Studies Dean of Students Graduate Catalog UPRM Web-page Graduate Application

Information Orientation material

F2

F4

F4

57

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements d) How are expected student learning outcomes and information

on institution-wide assessment results, as appropriate to the program offered, available to prospective graduate students?

e) Does the university provide accurate and comprehensive information, and advice where appropriate, regarding financial aid, scholarships, teaching and research assistantships, grants, loans, and refunds?

Provide evidence.

Director of Financial Aid Chair of the Academic

Departments Graduate Programs Coordinators OIIP Academic Senate (Cert. 09-09)

Board of Trustees

F5

F6

5. Transfer of credit a) How does the university publish and implement policies and

procedures regarding transfer of credit? b) How does the university publish and implement policies and

procedures regarding credit for extra-institutional college level learning?

Provide evidence.

Academic Senate Dean of the Academic Affairs Director of the Office of

Admissions Chairs of the Academic

Departments Registrar Undergraduate catalog University Web-page

F7

6. Assessment of Student Success a) How does the university assess student success? b) How does the university assess student retention?


Admissions

F8

58

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements c) To what extent does assessment match the attributes of the

admitted students and the institution’s mission and programs? d) Does the assessment data reflect its findings in its admissions,

remediation, and other related policies? Provide evidence.

Dean of Students Office of Institutional Research

and Planning Chairs of the Academic

Departments University mission statement and


individual programs

7. Expected Learning Goals a) Does the university provide programs and services to ensure that

admitted students, who marginally meet or do not meet the institution’s qualifications, achieve expected learning goals and higher education outcomes at appropriate points?

Provide evidence.


Admissions Dean of Students Director of the Department of

Counseling and Psychological Services

Chairs of the Academic Departments

Academic Counselors

F3

59

STANDARD 9-Student Support Services

The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution’s goals for students. Task Force Members: Omell Pagán Parés, Industrial Engineering (Coordinator); Rosie Torres de Calderón, (Health Services); Manuel E. Márquez (CGE); Yolanda Pérez (Academic Advising); Maricarmen Brito (Alumni); Jorge I. Frontera Rodríguez (Library); Xiomara Pratts Peña (Quality of Life); Margarita Carlo (Placements); Santos Torres (Band and Orchestra); Briseida Meléndez (Registrar); Yamil Negrón (Financial Aid); Agnes Irizarry (Professional Counseling); Fernando Gaztambide (Athletics Activities and Intramural Athletic Program );Yomarachaliff Luciano (Social and Cultural Activities) Purpose: The purpose of the student support services task force is to examine if the student support services at the University of Puerto Rico- Mayagüez Campus are: (1) complying with their purpose of the enrichment of student’s quality of life beyond the classroom; (2) contributing to student development, educational process and learning outcomes; and (3) congruent with the university’s mission, goals, and objectives. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (Twelfth Edition) and coded with an “F” to indicate a fundamental element or an “O” to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1 [a], F1 [b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

60


1. Overview of student support services: a. Which programs constitute student support services at the

university? b. What evidence exists that the mission and objectives of the

support programs are aligned with the institutional mission and objective statements?

c. What evidence exists that the programs are consistent with student learning expectations?

d. What evidence exists that the programs are appropriate to meeting the students’ personal, academic, and social strengths and needs?

e. How effective are these programs in meeting these diverse students’ strengths and needs? Provide evidence.

f. What evidence exists that the programs are readily available regardless of place or method of delivery?

g. What evidence exists that the support services are frequently reviewed, assessed and analyzed to their availability and distinctions among physical sites or modes of delivery and the particular support services those sites/modes require?

h. How do support service units review and analyze their printed and electronic materials that provide information concerning the explanation and availability of their services for students?

i. How often does this review occur? j. In what ways are these services integrated and congruent with

each other? k. What evidence exists that resource allocation is adequate in

order to meet the student support services?

• Governing Documents • Organization Chart • Units providing support services:

o Dean of Students o Social and Cultural

Activities o Registrar o Placement- Career Office o Library o Medical Services o Teaching/Learning Center o Financial Aid o Athletics Activities o Counseling and

Psychological Services o Academic Counseling o Students’ Ombudsperson o Computer Center (CTI) o Student Exchange &

International Services o Band and Orchestra o Transit and Surveillance o Child Care Network

• Mission and objectives of the

above units • Institutional mission and

objectives, and value statements • Unit printed or electronic material

F1,F2,O1,O2,O3

61

Inquiry Questions


• Student Surveys • General Student Council (CGE) • Student Focus Groups • Senior Exit Interviews • Unit Services Unit Assessment • Unit Responses

2. Student Support Service personnel: a) What evidence shows that support service programs are

administered, supervised, and conducted by qualified professionals?

b) How effective is the personnel in fulfilling their responsibilities?

• Unit Services descriptions and job descriptions

• Unit printed announcements • Self/Peer evaluations • Chair/Dean/Directors evaluations • Student surveys • Personnel credentials- resumes • Personnel training sessions

F2, O2

3. Student Support Services procedures: a) What evidence exists that procedures are in places, which

address the diverse student population in their academic and other needs?

b) What evidence exists that these procedures are conducted in an equitable, supportive, and sensitive manner? Are those services dealt with directly or by referral?

c) How are these procedures communicated to the students? Provide evidence.

• Unit printed or electronic announcement

• Internal Unit Surveys • Established procedures per unit • Printed and online procedures

available F3,O2

62

Inquiry Questions


4. Advisement procedures and policies: a) What evidence exists that all support programs provide

appropriate advisement procedures and policies? b) How are these advisement procedures and policies delineated

and disseminated to students? Provide evidence. c) How are students advised and mentored in their major academic

programs? Provide evidence. d) How effective are these advisement and mentoring procedures

and policies?

• Unit printed or electronic announcements

• Unit evaluation • Student surveys • Deans and directors • Faculty reports • Academic Advisor Reports

F4,O6

5. Student complaints: a) What evidence shows that procedures are in place for

addressing student complaints or grievances? b) What evidence shows that these procedures are coordinated,

reasonable and equitable? c) How are these procedures published and disseminated? d) What evidence shows that accurate and complete records are

kept of student complaints or grievances? e) How often are these records reviewed to determine where

noteworthy patterns exist?


• Student Handbook • Student surveys • Deans and directors • Students’ Ombudsperson Office

Procedures • Governing Documents

F6, F7,O4

6. Student Records a) What evidence shows that policies and procedures are in place

for the safety and security of student records? b) How are these policies and procedures concerning the release of

student information published and disseminated? c) What evidence shows that implementation concerning the

release of student information is according to policies? d) What evidence shows that appropriate access is available to

those who need such data while simultaneously preserving student privacy?

e) What evidence shows that academic records are processed in a timely and accurate manner?

• Governing Documents • Student Handbook • Unit policies • Registrar response • Student survey

F8, F9

63


7. Sport programs, Intercollegiate: a) What evidence exists that the athletic programs are regulated by

the same academic administrative principles and procedures that govern other institutional programs?

b) In what ways are the LAI standards for minimum expectations of student athletes monitored, enforced, and systematically reviewed?

c) In what ways are these expectations made known to student athletes?

• Governing Documents • Interview- Director of Athletic

Activities • LAI regulations • NCAA regulations • Student surveys

F5, O1, O3

8. Sport Programs, Intramural: a) What evidence exists that the institution offers a varied program

of intramural competition for all students based on their interests/needs?

b) In what ways are program activities communicated to all students?

c) What evidence exists that resource allocations (facilities, equipment) are adequate to student needs?

• Interview- Director of Athletic Activities

• Student surveys • Unit printed or electronic

announcements F5, O1, O2

9. Assessment: a) In what ways do the support service units conduct ongoing

assessment? b) How often does this assessment take place? c) In what ways have the results of the assessment data analysis

been used to improve the varied support services for students?

• Unit assessment procedures • Unit responses F10

59

STANDARD 9-Student Support Services

The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution’s goals for students. Task Force Members: Omell Pagán Parés, Industrial Engineering (Coordinator); Rosie Torres de Calderón, (Health Services); Manuel E. Márquez (CGE); Yolanda Pérez (Academic Advising); Maricarmen Brito (Alumni); Jorge I. Frontera Rodríguez (Library); Thyrzia Roura Cordero (Quality of Life); Margarita Carlo (Placements); Santos Torres (Band and Orchestra); Briseida Meléndez (Registrar); Luis Galarza (Financial Aid); Agnes Irizarry (Professional Counseling); Fernando Gaztambide (Athletics Activities and Intramural Athletic Program );Yomarachaliff Luciano (Social and Cultural Activities) Purpose: The purpose of the student support services task force is to examine if the student support services at the University of Puerto Rico- Mayagüez Campus are: (1) complying with their purpose of the enrichment of student’s quality of life beyond the classroom; (2) contributing to student development, educational process and learning outcomes; and (3) congruent with the university’s mission, goals, and objectives. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (Twelfth Edition) and coded with an “F” to indicate a fundamental element or an “O” to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1 [a], F1 [b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

60


1. Overview of student support services: a. Which programs constitute student support services at the

university? b. What evidence exists that the mission and objectives of the

support programs are aligned with the institutional mission and objective statements?

c. What evidence exists that the programs are consistent with student learning expectations?

d. What evidence exists that the programs are appropriate to meeting the students’ personal, academic, and social strengths and needs?

e. How effective are these programs in meeting these diverse students’ strengths and needs? Provide evidence.

f. What evidence exists that the programs are readily available regardless of place or method of delivery?

g. What evidence exists that the support services are frequently reviewed, assessed and analyzed to their availability and distinctions among physical sites or modes of delivery and the particular support services those sites/modes require?

h. How do support service units review and analyze their printed and electronic materials that provide information concerning the explanation and availability of their services for students?

i. How often does this review occur? j. In what ways are these services integrated and congruent with

each other? k. What evidence exists that resource allocation is adequate in

order to meet the student support services?

• Governing Documents • Organization Chart • Units providing support services:

o Dean of Students o Social and Cultural

Activities o Registrar o Placement- Career Office o Library o Medical Services o Teaching/Learning Center o Financial Aid o Athletics Activities o Counseling and

Psychological Services o Academic Counseling o Students’ Ombudsperson o Computer Center (CTI) o Student Exchange &

International Services o Band and Orchestra o Transit and Surveillance o Child Care Network

• Mission and objectives of the

above units • Institutional mission and

objectives, and value statements • Unit printed or electronic material

F1,F2,O1,O2,O3

61

Inquiry Questions


• Student Surveys • General Student Council (CGE) • Student Focus Groups • Senior Exit Interviews • Unit Services Unit Assessment • Unit Responses

2. Student Support Service personnel: a) What evidence shows that support service programs are

administered, supervised, and conducted by qualified professionals?

b) How effective is the personnel in fulfilling their responsibilities?

• Unit Services descriptions and job descriptions

• Unit printed announcements • Self/Peer evaluations • Chair/Dean/Directors evaluations • Student surveys • Personnel credentials- resumes • Personnel training sessions

F2, O2

3. Student Support Services procedures: a) What evidence exists that procedures are in places, which

address the diverse student population in their academic and other needs?

b) What evidence exists that these procedures are conducted in an equitable, supportive, and sensitive manner? Are those services dealt with directly or by referral?

c) How are these procedures communicated to the students? Provide evidence.

• Unit printed or electronic announcement

• Internal Unit Surveys • Established procedures per unit • Printed and online procedures

available F3,O2

62

Inquiry Questions


4. Advisement procedures and policies: a) What evidence exists that all support programs provide

appropriate advisement procedures and policies? b) How are these advisement procedures and policies delineated

and disseminated to students? Provide evidence. c) How are students advised and mentored in their major academic

programs? Provide evidence. d) How effective are these advisement and mentoring procedures

and policies?


• Unit evaluation • Student surveys • Deans and directors • Faculty reports • Academic Advisor Reports

F4,O6

5. Student complaints: a) What evidence shows that procedures are in place for

addressing student complaints or grievances? b) What evidence shows that these procedures are coordinated,

reasonable and equitable? c) How are these procedures published and disseminated? d) What evidence shows that accurate and complete records are

kept of student complaints or grievances? e) How often are these records reviewed to determine where

noteworthy patterns exist?


• Student Handbook • Student surveys • Deans and directors • Students’ Ombudsperson Office

Procedures • Governing Documents

F6, F7,O4

6. Student Records a) What evidence shows that policies and procedures are in place

for the safety and security of student records? b) How are these policies and procedures concerning the release of

student information published and disseminated? c) What evidence shows that implementation concerning the

release of student information is according to policies? d) What evidence shows that appropriate access is available to

those who need such data while simultaneously preserving student privacy?

e) What evidence shows that academic records are processed in a timely and accurate manner?

• Governing Documents • Student Handbook • Unit policies • Registrar response • Student survey

F8, F9

63


7. Sport programs, Intercollegiate: a) What evidence exists that the athletic programs are regulated by

the same academic administrative principles and procedures that govern other institutional programs?

b) In what ways are the LAI standards for minimum expectations of student athletes monitored, enforced, and systematically reviewed?

c) In what ways are these expectations made known to student athletes?

• Governing Documents • Interview- Director of Athletic

Activities • LAI regulations • NCAA regulations • Student surveys

F5, O1, O3

8. Sport Programs, Intramural: a) What evidence exists that the institution offers a varied program

of intramural competition for all students based on their interests/needs?

b) In what ways are program activities communicated to all students?

c) What evidence exists that resource allocations (facilities, equipment) are adequate to student needs?

• Interview- Director of Athletic Activities

• Student surveys • Unit printed or electronic

announcements F5, O1, O2

9. Assessment: a) In what ways do the support service units conduct ongoing

assessment? b) How often does this assessment take place? c) In what ways have the results of the assessment data analysis

been used to improve the varied support services for students?

• Unit assessment procedures • Unit responses F10

64

TASK FORCE VII – STANDARD 10 Faculty

The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals. Task Force Members: Gayle W. Griggs, Associate Professor, English (Coordinator); Maribel Acosta Lugo, Associate Professor, Hispanic Studies; Enid Arcelay, Assistant Professor, Agriculture; Lysa Chizmadia, Associate Professor, Geology; Aury Curbelo Ruiz, Professor, Business Administration; Saylisse Dávila, Assistant Professor, Industrial Engineering; Carlos Quiñones Padovani, Assistant Professor, Physical Education; Jordan McGee, Student, Agriculture. Purpose: The purpose of the Faculty Team is to determine if the institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals. The task force will present a document analysis of these areas and provide recommendations for improvement. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2006) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1[a], F1[b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. How effectively does UPRM communicate to the faculty its missions and goals

as well as expectations regarding teaching, research, advising, and service for all levels of instructional personnel?

• Reglamento General • Professor’s Manual • UPRM Catalogue

(Undergraduate and Graduate) • Faculty Survey • Strategic Plan 2012-2022 • Faculty Deans and Department

Directors • Department, Administrative, &

Institutional Websites

F1, F4, F6, F7,

F8

65

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements • Institutional Review Board 2a. To what extent are the academic programs staffed by prepared and qualified

instructors, with roles, responsibilities, and criteria clearly defined, and sufficiently numerous to fulfill those roles appropriately?

2b. What criteria and procedures exist for reviewing all individuals who have

responsibility for the educational program of the institution. 2c. To what extent are the criteria and procedures carefully articulated, equitable,

and implemented?

• Docent Programs (Programas Docentes)

• All relevant certifications • Curriculum Vitae • Reglamento General de la UPR • Professor’s Manual • Faculty Survey • Faculty Deans and Department

Directors • Office of Human Resources

F1, F2, F3, F7, O3, O7,

O8

3. How are educational curricula designed, maintained, and updated by faculty and other professionals who are academically prepared and qualified?

• Reglamento General de la UPR • All relevant certifications • Curricula & Course Syllabi • Department and Faculty

Curriculum Committee Reports • Faculty Survey

F2, F9

4a. How do faculty and other professionals, including teaching assistants, demonstrate excellence in teaching and other activities, and continued professional growth?

4b. What appropriate linkages are recognized among scholarship, teaching, student

learning, research, and service?

• Student Evaluations (COE) • Student Survey • Faculty Deans and Directors • Faculty Personnel Committees • Faculty awards and recognitions • OIIP • Reglamento General de la UPR • Undergraduate/Graduate

Student Satisfaction surveys • Professional Enrichment Center

(CEP)

F3, F5, O2

66

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 5. What processes exist for ensuring that the instructional personnel are accountable for providing quality educational experiences for students?

• Student Evaluations (COE) • Faculty Deans and Directors • All relevant certifications

F2, F5, O2, O3, O4, O5,

O8 6a. How are standards and procedures for all faculty and other professionals

published and implemented for actions such as appointment, promotion, tenure, grievance, discipline, and dismissal?

6b. To what extent are these processes based on the principles of fairness with due

regard for the rights of all faculty and other professionals? 6c. What evidence is there that the criteria for the appointment, supervision, and

review of teaching effectiveness for part-time, adjunct, and other faculty are consistent with those for full time-faculty?

• Reglamento General de la UPR (Art. 35)

• Relevant Policies and Procedures

• Professor’s Manual • Faculty Survey • Faculty Deans and Directors • Student Ombudsperson • Institutional Appeals

Committee

F6, F7, F8, O3, O6, O9

7. How does UPRM provide appropriate institutional support for the advancement and development of faculty, including teaching, research, scholarship, and service?

• Research & Development Center (CID)

• Professional Enrichment Center (CEP)

• Conference travel and publications data

• Faculty Survey • Faculty Deans and Directors • Institutional Review Board

F3, F4, F5

67

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 8. How are the procedures and criteria for reviewing all individuals who have responsibility for the educational program of the institution published and implemented? 8a. To what extent are the procedures and criteria for reviewing these individuals carefully articulated, equitable, and implemented?

• Certifications & Institutional Policies (Junta)

• Reglamento General de la UPR

• OIIP Faculty Reports • Personnel Committees • Office of Human Resources • Faculty Surveys

F1, F6, F7, F8,

F10, O3, O4, O5,

O9

9. How does UPRM adhere to the principles of academic freedom, within the context of institutional mission?

• Reglamento General de la UPR • Professor’s Manual • Dialog Committee • Faculty Survey • Grievance Process

F9, O9

68

Standard 11- Educational Offerings

The institution’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherence that are appropriate to its higher education mission. The institution identifies student learning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills, for its educational offerings. Teaching and learning are the primary purposes of any institution of higher education, whether at the undergraduate or graduate level. Task Force Members: Jorge A. Gonzalez, J.D., Ph.D., Professor of Agricultural Economics, Francisco Monroig Saltar, Ph.D., Professor, Agricultural Sciences, Rosario Ortiz Rodríguez, Ph.D. Business Administration Professor, Jeffrey Valentín Mari, Ph.D. Economics Professor, Raul Zapata, Ph.D. Civil Engineering Professor, Irene Ocasio, Adminstrative Official 1- Office of the Dean of Academic Affairs. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an “F” to indicate a fundamental element or an “O” to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1[a], F1[b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment among inquiry questions and standards.

69


1. How are the educational offerings congruent with the UPRM mission, which include appropriate areas of academic study of sufficient content, regarding the programs offered? 2. How are the educational offerings congruent with the UPRM mission, which include appropriate areas of academic study of sufficient breadth and length, regarding the programs offered? 3. How are the educational offerings congruent with the UPRM mission, which include appropriate areas of academic study of sufficient levels of rigor, regarding the programs offered?

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs (certifications)

F 1

4. How are the formal undergraduate, graduate, or professional programs, leading to a degree or other recognized higher education credential, designed to foster a coherent student learning experience? 5. How are the formal undergraduate, graduate, or professional programs, leading to a degree or other recognized higher education credential, promote synthesis of learning?

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs (Senate and Board certifications)

F 2

6. How are the UPRM program goals stated in terms of student learning outcomes?

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs

F3

70

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 7. Is there periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of any curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular experiences that the institution provides its students? Provide evidence. 8. Are the periodic evaluation results utilized as a basis for improving student understanding of their own program? Provide evidence. 9. To what extent are the periodic evaluation results utilized for enabling students to understand their own educational progress? Provide evidence.


F4

10. How are the learning resources, facilities, instructional equipment, library services, and professional library staff adequate to support the institution’s educational programs?

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs Professors Library staff Computer Center (CTI)

F 5

11. Is there collaboration among professional library staff, faculty, and administrators in fostering information literacy and technological competency skills across the curriculum? Provide evidence.


F6

71

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 12. How do academic programs promote student use of a variety of information and learning resources?


F 7

13. How does the institution take provision of comparable quality of teaching/instruction, academic rigor, and educational effectiveness of the institution’s courses and programs regardless of the location or delivery mode?

Department Chairs Certifications (Senate) Professors

F 8

14. Where are the published and implemented policies and procedures regarding transfer credit that describe the criteria established by the institution regarding the transfer of credits earned at another institution? 15. Is there consideration of transfer credit or recognition of degrees that is not determined exclusively on the basis of the accreditation of the sending institution of the mode of delivery but, rather, considers course equivalencies and expected learning outcomes with those of the receiving institution’s curricula and standards? Provide evidence. 16. How is the criteria, regarding transfer credit, fair, consistently applied, and publicly communicated?

Certifications Department Chairs Academic Affairs Registrar Office

F 9

17. How do the course syllabi incorporate expected learning outcomes?

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs Certifications

F 12

72

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 18. Is the assessment of student learning and program outcomes, relative to the objectives of the undergraduate programs, and are the results used to improve student learning and program effectiveness? Provide evidence.


F 13

19. How does the graduate curricula provide for the development of research and independent thinking that the studies at the advanced level presuppose?

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs Graduate School

F 14

20. Do the graduate faculty members comply with credentials appropriate to the graduate curricula? Provide evidence.

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs Graduate School Curriculum Vitae

F 15

21. Is the assessment of student learning and program outcomes relative to the objectives of the graduate programs and the results used to improve student learning and program effectiveness? Provide evidence.

Deans Department Chairs Academic Coordinators Academic Affairs Graduate School

F 16

73

STANDARD 12- General Education

Task Force Members: Mabel Ortiz , MA, (Coordinator), Department of English; Duane Kolterman, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biology; Jeannette Santos, Ph.D., Professor, General Engineering, Noemí Maldonado, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Humanities, Ms. Mariela Ballester, student, Department of Social Sciences, Mr. Ricardo Méndez, student, Department of Geology.

Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an “F” to indicate a fundamental element or an “O” to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1[a], F1[b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment among inquiry questions and standards.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. How many semester hours does each of your GE

programs include? • Deans of Academic Colleges • Department Directors • Unit Coordinators

F-1 O-7

a. List the courses which constitute your GE component.

b. List the activities that are part of your GE requirements.

c. Besides course work, which other life experiences and activities does your GE program include?

74

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 2. Which skills and abilities developed through GE

courses are further developed in the major or concentration?

• Deans of Academic Colleges • Department Directors • Unit Coordinators • Instructional Personnel

F-2 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-7

a. How does your unit integrate GE courses with experiences such as Senior Seminars, interdisciplinary courses, exchanges, summer programs?

b. Which skills and abilities acquired through GE courses need further strengthening?

3. How are UPRM’s statements of institutional mission, goals, and objectives linked to the core knowledge or general skills of its students?

• Deans of Academic Affairs • Deans of Academic Colleges • Department Directors • Unit Coordinators • Dean of Students • Instructional Personnel

F-3 F-2 O-2 O-4 O-7 a. How does the UPRM GE program teach values?

b. How does the UPRM GE program teach ethics? c. How is the UPRM GE program consistent with the

study of diverse perspectives? d. How does the UPRM GE program teach social

responsibility?

75

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 4. How does your GE program assure that, upon degree

completion, students achieve competency in the following areas:

• Dean of Academic Affairs • Deans of Academic Colleges • Dean of Students • Department Directors • Unit Coordinators • Instructional Personnel

F-4 F-1 F-2 O-4 O-5 O-7

a. Oral communication b. Written communication c. Scientific reasoning d. Quantitative reasoning e. Critical analysis and reasoning f. Technological competencies 5. Are GE requirements clearly and accurately

described in official UPRM publications? • Dean of Academic Affairs • Deans of Academic Colleges • Department Directors • Program Coordinators

F-5 F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 O-4 O-5 O-6

a. Where are these publications located? b. How are these publications shared with students,

advisors, faculty, and other constituencies? c. Which publications list your GE student learning

outcomes?

6. How are GE outcomes assessed in your faculty, department or unit within the institution’s overall plan for assessing student learning?

• IPEDS • Strategic Plans • Certifications • UPRM GE Assessment Plan • Dean of Academic Affairs • Deans of Academic Colleges • Department Directors • Unit Coordinators

F-6 F-3 F-4 O-3 O-4 O-6 O-7

a. How frequently are GE assessments conducted? b. What GE assessment evidence does your unit hold? c. How are assessment results utilized?

76

STANDARD 13- Related Educational Activities

The institution’s program or activities that are characterized by particular content, focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards. Task Force Members: Pedro Vásquez Urbano, Mathematical Science (Coordinator); José Ferrer López, (DECEP); José Cuevas (CTI), Kevin Carroll (English), Ellen Acaron (COOP Program), Jean Carlo Ortiz (ICOM Student), Víctor Martínez (Biology Student) Purpose: The purpose of the Related Educational Activities team is to evaluate and examine all Basic Skills, Certificate Programs, Experiential Learning, Non-Credit Offerings, Branch Campuses, Additional Location, and other Instructional Sites, Distance Education, Distributed Learning and Correspondence Education, and Contractual Relationships and Affiliated Providers carried out by the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (UPRM) by exploring its mission statements along with its objectives. This team will review programs and courses to see if they are preparing students for success in achieving their educational goals. Also, the team will be evaluating the existence of the appropriate assessment tools in order to perform the evaluation of the student learning outcomes, and if they are designed, approved, administered and periodically evaluated in order to strengthen each program. The team will prepare a set of questions to be answered by the different offices that are in charge of the programs listed above. Next, we will study the questions submitted in order to prepare a documented analysis of all programs. Finally, we will provide recommendations to improve the actual programs. Questions Based on the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education and based on the programs offered by UPRM the following questions will be answered by the team with the support of the different offices to allow for the team to conduct its research. Element Numbering System: Items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1, F2, and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.

77

1. Basic Skills Approximately 17 years, UPRM began to offer remedial non-credit courses in Mathematics and English to help students who are accepted with deficiencies.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. How are students who need remedial courses identified at UPRM?

2. What programs are available for students who need developmental

courses?

3. What evidence supports the effectiveness of the teaching and learning centers for students with deficiencies?

4. How did UPRM decide that remedial courses do not carry academic degree credit?

5. What evidence exists that the UNIV 0066 course is effective in preparing students for college?

6. Have there been any studies at UPRM regarding the academic success for those students who have completed the Math and English remedial courses? What are the results?

7. What evidence exists to show the procedure for referring under-prepared students into remedial courses is effective?

8. Which policy guides UPRM in allowing students in remedial courses to register for regular courses?

9. What evidence is there that the Mathematics and English remedial courses are effectively preparing students for their first university course? How is the impact of remedial/development programs assessed?

• Chair of Math Department • Chair of English Department • Chair of Admissions office • Dean of Academic Affairs • Registrar’s Office • Computer Center • OIIP • Orientation Office • Students • Senate certifications

F1 F2 F2 F3 F2, O3 F2 F2, O1 F3 F2, O1, O2

78

2. Certificate Programs These include a sequential program of study that leads to a professional license or certificate rather than a degree usually given for credit. The programs and courses must follow UPRM’s development, approval, review, and assessment processes.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. How do certificate programs comply with the UPRM’s institutional

mission? 2. How do certificate programs clearly articulate program objectives and

expectations of student learning?

3. How are certificate programs designed, approved, administered, and periodically evaluated under established institutional procedures?

4. How have the programs’ objectives, requirements, and curricular

sequences been published?

5. How do program learning goals compare with national criteria?

6. Does UPRM have available and effective support services for certificate programs?

7. How does UPRM provide academic oversight that assures comparability

and appropriate transferability of courses taken within a certificate program?

8. How do you collect evidence of articulated student knowledge, skills, and competency levels?

9. What evidence supports faculty involvement in the design, delivery, and ongoing evaluation of the certificate programs?

• DECEP • Dean of Academic Affairs • Academic Deans • OIIP • Department Chairs and Program

Coordinators • Senate certifications • Catalogs • Revalidate programs

F1 F1 F1 F2 F3 F4, O4 F5 O1 O2

79

3. Experiential Learning Experience learning involves credit awarded for learning outside the university. At UPRM, all experiential learning occurs in conjunction with programs, such as, internships, co-operative education, clinical practice.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. How does UPRM award credit for experiential learning? 2. What evidence exists of the level, quality, and quantity of learning?

3. Has UPRM published and implemented policies and procedures defining

the methods by which prior learning can be evaluated?

4. Has UPRM published and implemented policies and procedures to evaluate the level and amount of credits available for evaluation?

5. Has UPRM published and implemented policies and procedures regarding the award of credits for prior learning?

6. How does UPRM define the acceptance of such credit based on the

institution’s curricula and standards?

7. Has UPRM published and implemented procedures regarding the recording of evaluated prior learning by the awarding institution?

8. How does UPRM decide that credits awarded are appropriate to the subject

and the degree context into which it is accepted?

9. How do knowledgeable evaluators (faculty) of experiential learning participate on the subject?

10. Do evaluators (faculty) know the institution’s criteria for the granting of

college credit?

11. How does UPRM consider the analysis of reports prepared by evaluators (faculty) for further actions?

• DECEP • Dean of Academic Affairs • Registrar’s office • COOP office • Department Chairs • Teacher practicum supervisors • Community Program Coordinator

F1 F1 F2 F2 F3 F3 F4 F5 F6, 06 F6, 05, 07 02

80

4. Non-credit Offerings Non-credit offerings are available on-site and through distance learning and must meet standards of quality and mission that are congruent with UPRM’s other programs. The team will identify non-credit offerings and work with their directors to evaluate the program. Offerings could be internally or externally developed. It is important to evaluate those cases in which the non-credit courses are used for credit-programs at UPRM.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. How do non-credit offerings comply with institutional mission and

goals? 2. Does UPRM have articulated program or course objectives and

expectations for student learning?

3. How does UPRM design, approve, administer, and periodically evaluate program or course objectives and expectations of student learning under established institutional procedures?

4. Does academic oversight assure the comparability and appropriate

transferability of such courses?

5. Do courses completed within a non-credit or certificate program apply to a degree program offered by UPRM?

6. Does UPRM have periodic assessment of the impact of non-credit

programs? Provide evidence.

7. Does UPRM perform periodic assessment to analyze the non-credit programs ability to fulfill its mission and goals?

• DECEP • Dean of Academic Affairs • Registrar’s office • Department Chairs • Agricultural Extension (SEA) • Food and Science Technology

(CITA) • Nursery Department

F1 F2 F2 F3 F3 F4 F4, 04

81

5. Branch Campuses, Additional Locations and other Instructional Sites These include educational offerings at branch campuses, additional locations, or other instructional sites. Programs should meet standards comparable to those of other institutions. A narrative will be presented explaining UPRM’s “campuses.”

82

6. Distance Education, Distributed Learning, and Correspondence Education Distance education or distributed learning is a formal educational process in which some or all of the instruction occurs when the learner and the instructor are not in the same place at the same time. Programs delivered through the internet, television, video-conference, or other means should meet academic and learning support standards, comparable to traditional university programs.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. How does UPRM offer courses via distance education or correspondence

education offerings?

2. How do UPRM courses via distance education or correspondence education offerings meet institution-wide standards for quality of instruction, articulated expectations of students learning, academic rigor, and educational effectiveness?

3. How does UPRM provide parallel on-site offerings?

4. Does UPRM have consistency with the offerings via distance education or correspondence education with its mission and goals?

5. Does UPRM consider legal and regulatory requirements?

6. Does the distance education or distributed learning demonstrate coherence?

7. How does the distance education or distributed learning consider the program learning outcomes appropriate to the rigor and breath of the degree or certificate awarded?

8. How is UPRM committed to continue the offerings for a period sufficient to enable admitted students to complete the degree or certificate in a publicized time frame?

• DECEP • Dean of Academic Affairs • Registrar’s office • Department Chairs • Certifications

F1 F1 F1 F2 F3 F4 F4 F5

83


9. How does UPRM assure that the arrangements with partners or contractors do not compromise its integrity or the educational offerings?

10. Does UPRM’s faculty validate any course material or technology based resources developed outside UPRM?

11. How does UPRM verify that students who participate in class or coursework are the same as those registered and receiving credits?

12. How does UPRM notify students at the time of registration or enrollment of any additional students charges associated with the verification of student identity?

13. Does UPRM have available, accessible, and adequate learning resources (such as a library or other information resources) appropriate to the offerings at a distance?

14. Do UPRM have an ongoing program of appropriate orientation, training, and support for faculty participating in electronically delivered offerings?

15. Does UPRM have adequate technical and physical plant facilities to support electronic offerings?

16. Does UPRM have appropriate staff and technical assistance to support electronic offerings?

F6 F7 F8 F8 F9, O3 F10 F11, O7 F11, 01

84

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 17. Does UPRM have a periodic assessment of the impact of distance

education on its resources (human, fiscal, etc.)?

18. Does UPRM have a periodic assessment of the impact of distance education on its mission and goals?

F12

F12

The following questions are intended to be answered according to the Distance Education Programs Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education (Online Learning):

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. Does UPRM have an online learning appropriate to the institution´s mission

and purposes? 2. Does UPRM have plans for developing, sustaining, and expanding online

learning offerings that are integrated into its regular planning and evaluation processes?

3. How does UPRM incorporate online learning into the institution´s systems of governance and academic oversight?

4. How does UPRM demonstrate that curricula for the institution´s online learning offerings are coherent, cohesive, and comparable in academic rigor to programs offered in traditional instructional formats?

5. How does the institution evaluate the effectiveness of its online learning use, including the extent to which the online learning goals are achieved, and uses the results of its evaluations to enhance the attainment of the goals?

6. How does UPRM involve the faculty in the responsibility of delivering the online learning curricula and evaluating student success in achieving that the learning goals are appropriately qualified and effectively supported?

7. Does the institution provide effective student and academic services to support students enrolled in online learning offerings?

8. Does the institution provide sufficient resources to support and, if appropriate, expand its online learning offerings?

9. Does the institution assure the integrity of its online offerings?

• DECEP • Dean of Academic Affairs • Registrar’s office • Department Chairs • Certifications

DE1 DE2 DE3 DE4 DE5 DE6 DE7 DE8 DE9

85

7. Contractual Relationships and Affiliated Providers UPRM has agreements with other institutions and organizations to provide educational experience such as, faculty exchanges, student recruitment, and course/program development. Our university is responsible for all activities implemented in the institution’s name, including outcomes assessment, advertising, and recruitment. Contractual relations with non-profit firms or other institutions require diligent care to protect the institution’s integrity.

Inquiry Questions Sources of Data Elements 1. Does UPRM have contractual relationships with other institutions or

organizations to provide certain aspects of the educational experience?

2. Do the affiliated providers or institutions protect the accredited UPRM’s integrity and assure that they have appropriate oversight of and responsibility for all activities carried out in UPRM’s name?

3. Does UPRM have consistency for courses or programs offered via contractual arrangement with its mission and goals?

4. Does UPRM realize an adequate and appropriate review and approval of work performance by the contracted party in areas such as admissions criteria, appointment of faculty, and content of courses/programs?

5. Does UPRM perform an evaluation of the student work and outcome assessment in the contracted institution?

6. Does UPRM have evidence of published public information that clearly and accurately represents the contractual relationship between UPRM and the other institution?

• Chancellor’s office • Dean of Academic Affairs • Exchange’s office • OIIP • Department Chairs

F1 F1 F2, O12 F3 F3, O10 O4

86

STANDARD 14- Assessment of Student Learning

Assessment of student learning demonstrates that, at graduation, or other appropriate points, the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals.

Task force Members: Bernadette M. Delgado, Professor, Social Sciences (Coordinator); Ivelisse Padilla, Professor, Chemistry; Aidsa Santiago, Assistant Professor, General Engineering; Roberto Vargas, Professor, Crop and Agro-Environmental Science; Yolanda Ruiz, Professor, Business Administration; Irmarie Cruz, Student Representative, Psychology.

Purpose: To examine the process by which UPRM assesses (gathers information and evaluates) the learning outcomes of its courses and programs to demonstrate that its students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with the mission and goals of the institution and the educational objectives of its programs and academic units. This will include a review of current programs and processes, the degree to which UPRM uses the assessment results to make improvements in its programs, and the benefits derived from such assessment activities. The Task Force will present a documented analysis and provide recommendations for improvement.

Element Numbering System: items were numbered consecutively in the order listed in the Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2011) and coded with an "F" to indicate a fundamental element or an "O" to indicate an applicable optional analysis item. The bulleted items under the fundamental elements were designated as F1[a], F1[b] and so on. This system provided evidence of alignment between the inquiry questions and the standards.


1. How are expectations of student learning outcomes clearly articulated at all levels of the institution, faculties/schools, degrees/programs, and individual courses? How are these consonant with the institution’s mission and with the standards of higher education and of the relevant disciplines?

a. What evidence is there of written statements of expectations for student learning assessment work at the institution, faculties/schools, degrees/programs, and individual courses?

b. How have all academic programs clearly identified their student learning outcomes (exit-level knowledge, skills, and competencies that students must meet in order to complete the course or program successfully)?

c. What evidence is there of intentional connections between learning

• Dean of Academic Affairs

• Deans of Academic Colleges

• Chairs of Academic Departments

• Director Office of Graduate Studies

• Director of Teacher Preparation Program

• Program/Section Coordinators

• Center for Professional Development (CEP)

• Accreditation Self Studies

F1 [a], F1 [b], F1 [c]

O1

O2

O3

87


outcomes at all levels (institution, faculties/schools, degrees/programs, and courses)?

d. What evidence is there of collaboration in the development of statements of expected student learning and assessment strategies?

e. What policies and governance structures are there to support student-learning assessment?

f. What administrative, technical, and financial supports are there for student learning assessment activities and for implementing changes resulting from assessment?

g. What professional development opportunities and resources for faculty are there to learn how to assess student learning, how to improve their curricula, and how to improve their teaching?

(NCATE, ABET, AACSB, NLNAC, ACS) and coordinators

• Relevant Certifications (such as Cert 09-07, 09-09, 07-28)

• Budget Office

2. How is the assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning documented, organized, and sustained?

a. How is the assessment process clearly and purposefully related to the learning outcomes?

b. How does the assessment process meet sufficient simplicity, practicality, detail, and ownership to be sustainable?

c. What clear and realistic guidelines and a timetable supported by appropriate investment of institutional resources are there?

d. How are assessment processes used across the institution?

e. What direct evidence of student learning is there?

f. What are the metrics? Benchmarks? Criteria for success?

g. How is the quality of the assessment process sufficient that results are to be trusted and used with confidence to inform decisions?



• Chairs of Academic Departments/Programs

• Director of Graduate Studies


• Office Institutional Research

• Registrar


F2 [a], F2 [b], F2[c], F2 [d], F2 [e]

O2

O7

O8

O9

88


h. How do assessment results support and collaboration of faculty and administration in assessing student learning and responding to assessment results is evidenced?

i. How is the analysis of teaching evaluations, including identifications of good practices evidenced?

j. How is the use of student-learning assessments to improve student retention evidenced?

k. How is the use of student attrition information to improve student retention evidenced?

l. How often is the assessment process evaluated for effectiveness and comprehensiveness?

• Course Portfolios/Binders/Files

• Grading (Rates/Stats+ Retention Rates/Graduation Rates Student/

• Samples of Student Work (Exams, Quizzes, Projects)

• Alumni/Employer Surveys

• License Exam Results/Stats

3. How do assessment results provide sufficient, convincing evidence that students are achieving key institutional and program learning outcomes?

a. How do assessment measures demonstrate that students have achieved the stated learning outcomes at all levels?

b. How do assessment measures demonstrate that actual learning outcomes of our courses, programs, and activities are consistent with the institution’s mission, and objectives?

c. How are assessment results used to improve student learning and to achieve institutional and program learning outcomes?

d. How is information about assessment of student learning made available to UPRM constituents?

e. How are the results of the assessment of student learning disseminated and shared amongst UPRM’s constituents (students/faculty/staff /advisory board/central administration/community)?





• Director Teacher Preparation Program

• Office Institutional Research

• Registrar


• Advisory Boards

F3

O3

O4

O5

O6

89


f. What are the views of faculty and administrators on assessment of student learning?

g. How are faculty members’ understanding of their role in student learning assessment evidenced?

4. How are the learning assessment findings used to improve student learning, teaching, curricula, educational programs, and other instructional activities? How is student learning assessment information made available to our principal constituencies?

a. How are assessment findings used to assist students in improving their learning?

b. How are assessment findings used to improve teaching methodologies, curricula, and instructional activities?

c. How are assessment findings used to plan, conduct, and support professional development activities?

d. How are assessment findings used to assist in planning and budgeting for the provision of academic programs and services?

e. How are assessment findings used to support other institutional efforts and decisions about strategic goals, plans, and resource allocation?

f. How are the results of the assessment of student learning disseminated/shared amongst UPRM’s constituents (students/faculty/staff /advisory board/central administration/community)?

g. How are campus-wide efforts to encourage, recognize, and value efforts to assess student learning and to improve curricula and teaching evidenced?




• Director of Graduate Studies • Director Teacher Preparation

Program

• Office Institutional Research • Registrar


F4

O3

O4

O5

O6

5. How are student learning assessment results used as part of institutional assessment?

a. How are assessment findings used to support other institutional efforts and decisions about strategic goals, plans, and resource allocation?

b. What improvements in teaching and curricula have occurred in response to assessment results?

• Dean of Academic Affairs Deans of Academic Colleges



F5

O4

O5

90


c. What effects do student learning assessment findings have on curricula?


• Office Institutional Research • Registrar

91

INVENTORY OF SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

The Institutional Steering Team will refer to the following documents in addition to other documents, which may not be currently listed below to answer the charge questions and fulfill the self-study process:

University Law General UPR Regulations (“Reglamento de la Universidad de Puerto Rico”) Certifications of the Academic Board Certifications of the Academic Senate Internal By- Laws of the Academic Board Internal By- Laws of the Academic Senate Financial Statements of UPRM Annual Reports (departments, colleges, institution, CID Research Center) University Catalogs, UPRM Websites Regulations governing the Student Ombudsman Descriptive Pamphlets (Brochures) of the University and Campus Information packets sent or presented to students Student Regulations (“Reglamento del Estudiante”) Student and Faculty Handbooks Master Plan for Infrastructure Development Chancellor’s Initiative: Review of UPRM Strategic Plan UPR and UPRM Mission Statements Minutes of Academic Senate Minutes of UPR Governing Board Enrollment Management Plan Technology Plan Other materials sent to students and/or to Faculty, as provided by:

Dean of Students Dean of Academic Affairs Dean of Administration Admissions Office

Dialogue Committee Regulations Assessment Tools & Strategies Package developed by the College of Engineering ABET’s Engineering Criteria Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) New Academic Program Proposals Past reports sent to:

Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Self-Study and Team Reports Periodic Review Reports Follow-up Reports

92

Puerto Rico Council of Education (CEPR) National League for Nursing Accreditation Commission (NLN) American Chemical Society (ACS) National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, CAEP) Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Documents

Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2006) Designs for Excellence (12th Edition) Institutional History Annual Institutional Profile Handbook for Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Team Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process & Report Verification of Compliance with Accreditation-Relevant Federal Regulations Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness: Understanding Middle States Expectations

TIMETABLE This schedule serves as a control instrument to ensure that the self-study will be finished on time. During Spring 2014, MSCHE will select the chair and co-chair of the visiting team. They will contact the Chancellor about their selection and schedule the dates of the visit. The visit should occur before April 15, 2016. The visit should not be held during the institution’s spring break, which is the week of March 21-25, 2016.

93

MSCHE TIMELINE 2015-2016 TASK TIME On Task

YES NO Create task forces for each standard

Spring 2013 √

Create timeline for committee activities √ Develop draft for the self-study design: Begin Questionnaire development

√

Polish self-study design and complete questionnaire development

Summer 2013 √

Submit the design for the self-study

Fall 2013 √

Publish arrangement for Prep visit √(Spring) Distribute questionnaires (Gather Data) √ Attend Self-Study institute √ Questionnaire follow-up

Spring 2014

Work in Groups: Data analysis and reflection MSCHE Visit to approve Self Study Design MSCHE Evaluation Team Chair selected Data analysis and reflection Fall 2014 Develop individual task-force Self Study Report (first draft)

Committee completes final draft for task force reports Spring 2015 Submit Task Force Report to UPRM (June 30th) Summer 2015 Integrate Task Force Report into the Final Institutional Report

Steering Committee edits report

Fall 2015

Submit document to Professional Editor Submit Institutional Self Study Report to Chancellor Submit Final Report to MSCHE Middle States Team Visit Spring 2016 MSCHE Response Summer 2016

94

EDITORIAL STYLE AND FORMAT

The UPRM-MSCHE Institutional Steering Team agreed to utilize the following outline for the individual Task Force reports. The reports will be written in Microsoft WORD using Times New Roman font Size 12:

Coversheet Table of Contents

SELF-STUDY TASK FORCES REPORT OUTLINE

Task Force Membership I. Introduction

A. Background A few paragraphs, which explain MSCHE comments on the issue in earlier years, if applicable, and describe the major events that

might have generated major changes.

B.

Purpose

Explain the reasons for conducting a self-study in this area.

C.

Scope of work

The name, focus, and objectives of the task force.

II. Methodology

A. Process A few paragraphs which describe how the task force operated (timeline, major events, etc.)

B.

Data Sources

A few paragraphs, which describe in general terms which sources of information were used by

the task force and why. A detailed list will be included in Appendices.

C.

The Model

A few paragraphs which explain the approach used by the task force in conducting their study.

As a whole, we are using the Comprehensive Approach with Special Emphasis, which gave

way to the creation of task forces.

95

III. Findings

A. Expectations A section which describes in general terms what the Task Force anticipated finding.

B. Findings A section which describes in general terms what

the task force actually found.

C. Specific Findings A list of positive, neutral, or negative findings with graphs, charts, and tables to document each finding. This section should be analytical. It should not just include answers to the questions asked.

IV. Recommendations

A. Observations A listing and discussion of the task force’s major

observations (recommendations for improvement or commendations for excellence). The recommendations should be tied/referenced to specific findings and major changes expected in the future. Focus on the four or five most important recommendations.

B. Recommendations

C. Commendations V. Summary

A. Final Statement A few paragraphs which serve as a final

summarizing statement. VI. Process Recommendations

A. Suggestions A few paragraphs that critique the process we

followed and might be of value to the groups that will be working in years beyond 2016.

Appendices A. Copies of the information gathering forms used in

the process. B. Copies of any surveys/questionnaires used

including complete results. C. A list of people interviewed and their roles. D. A list of documents accessed.

96

ORGANIZATION OF FINAL SELF-STUDY REPORT

The UPRM-MSCHE Institutional Steering Team proposed the following the guidelines provided in the Self Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report (2nd Edition, 2012) for the final Self-Study Report to be submitted to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education’s reaccreditation visit in Spring 2016. The chapters in the final Self-Study Report will be constituted by the fourteen standards of excellence. PROFILE OF THE EVALUATION TEAM

We consider that the Chairperson and other committee members of the evaluation

team who will be visiting our Institution during Spring 2016 should be highly familiar with the following characteristics:

1. Land Grant Colleges 2. Program offerings and enrollment size similar to ours.

a. UPRM has a major College of Engineering with all of its programs accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology (ABET).

b. UPRM offers Master’s degree programs in almost every department and Ph.D. programs in Marine Sciences, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Computer Engineering.

c. Our campus enrollment is around 12,000 students, with the largest enrollment, at the undergraduate level, in the College of Engineering (approximately 37%).

3. Spanish and English knowledge (Bilingual and Bicultural). 4. Research emphasis balanced with a commitment to maintain a strong

instructional program.

MSCHE Standards of Excellence

Institu

tiona

l Mission

1. To maintain an

d pu

blish up

dated institu

tiona

l metrics

2. To de

velop a system

that fo

r the

opp

ortune

upd

ating

or m

odificatio

n of th

e Strategic Plan

, based

on the

assessmen

t results

3. To de

velop a system

that allows to estab

lish the

relatio

nship be

tween the assignmen

t of resou

rces and

the priorities stated

in th

e Strategic Plan

.

4. To de

velop an

assessm

ent p

lan that examines th

e pe

rforman

ce‐le

vel of interna

l processes as well as the

effectiven

ess of te

ahing‐learning

process

1. To maintain, to

upd

ate, and

to stren

gthe

n ou

r acad

emic program

s by

streamlining processes to effe

ct

curricular cha

nges and

to create ne

w cou

rses and

programs

2. To supp

ort a

nd to

ackno

wledge those professors who

are committed

to te

aching, to the de

velopm

ent o

f new

profession

als, and

to excellence

3. To provide an

ade

quate an

d pleasing

atm

osph

ere to

supp

ort teaching learning

processes

4. To maintain ad

equa

te acade

mic offe

rings

1. Secure a bu

dgetary allowan

ce from

the Bo

ard of

Trustees th

at will ta

ke into con

side

ratio

n the strategic

plan

s of each campu

s as well as stud

ent e

nrollm

ent

chan

ges

2. In

crease income gene

rated by

UPR

M, w

ithho

lding it

completely for its particular needs

3. Pub

lish external fu

nding op

portun

ities fo

r scho

larships and

stude

nt assistantships

1. Devote hum

an and

fiscal resources to

autom

ation

and streamlining of critical interna

l processes

2. Reassert a

nd stren

gthe

n man

agem

ent roles in

de

cision

‐making areas with

in our cam

pus, as de

term

ined

by

University

Regulations, thu

s de

centralizing de

cision

‐ making on

solely local m

atters

3. Gua

rantee

that personn

el are ade

quately traine

d to

perform assigne

d du

ties an

drespo

nsibilitie

s with

accoun

tability

4. Promote an

d en

courage an

attitu

de of service and

a

sense of re

spon

sibility in all un

its by highlighting am

ong

all personn

el th

e relevance an

d im

pact of the

ir pa

rticular

dutie

s on

the un

iversity com

mun

ity

1. To provide supp

ort a

nd essen

tial resou

rces necessary

for e

fficien

t research an

d creative end

eavors

2. To supp

ort e

xterna

l fun

ding

opp

ortunitie

s for

research and

creative en

deavors at our cam

pus, while

supp

ortin

g efforts for securing external investigation

income

3. To de

velop assessmen

t mecha

nism

s to assure

efficiency in re

search and

creative en

deavors

4. To prom

ote an

d to give relevancy to Gradu

ate Stud

ies

5. To striv

e to iden

tify, amon

g existin

g grad

uate

programs, highly un

iversally ra

nked

niche

s of spe

cialized

research

1. To prom

ote the use of expertise with

in our university

commun

ity to

meet b

oth ou

r cam

pus’ and

our cou

ntry’s

need

s

2. To prom

ote, to

develop

and

to fa

cilitate research,

focused in th

e ap

plication an

d marketin

g of re

sults to

meet the

cou

ntry’s needs

3. To prom

ote stud

ent p

articipation in com

mun

ity

projects, p

roviding

opp

ortunitie

s for the

se activities

with

in university

curricula

4. To strengthen

fund

amen

tal value

s such as ethics,

justice, and

hon

esty amon

g ou

r stude

nts

5. To promote entrepren

euria

l an

d lead

ership

approa

ches amon

g our stude

nts througho

ut all fie

lds

of kno

wledge

1. To

provide

excellent sup

port and

infrastructure

services to

our stude

nts an

d to th

e en

tire college

commun

ity

2. To en

hance effective commun

ication an

d trust a

mon

g vario

us sectors of the

college com

mun

ity

3. To en

courage stud

ent p

articipation in college stude

nt

organizatio

ns

4. To provide ad

equa

te areas fo

r extracurricular and

co‐

curricular activities which promote he

althy lifestyles

5. To strengthen

ties with

alumni and

surroun

ding

commun

ities spo

nsoring their p

articipation as partners

in acade

mic end

eavors

6. To make eviden

t our schoo

l prid

e througho

ut th

e coun

try

Mission and Goals X X X X XPlanning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal

X X X X X X X X X

Institutional Resources X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Leadership and Governance

X X X X X X

Administration X X X X X X X X XIntegrity X X X X X X XInstitutional Assessment X X X X X X X X

Student Admissions and Retention

X X X X X X X x X X X

Student Support Services X X X X X X X X X

Faculty X X X X

Educational Offerings X X X X X

General Education X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Related Educational Activities X X X X X X X X X X X X XAssessment of Student Learning X X X X X

Objective #7: To strengthen school spirit, pride and identity

Objetive #1: To institutionalize a culture of strategic planning and

assessment

Objetive #2: To lead higher education throughout Puerto Rico by guaranteeing the best education for our students

Objetive #3: To increase

and diversify the Institution’s sources

Objective #4: To adopt efficient and expedient administrative procedures

Objective #5: To strengthen research and competitive creative endeavors

Objective #6: To impact our Puerto Rican society

Betsy

Typewritten Text

Betsy

Typewritten Text

97