The institution conducts sustained, evidence-based, and participatory discussions about how effectively it is accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives. These activities inform both institutional planning and systematic evaluations of educational effectiveness. The results of institutional inquiry, research, and data collection are used to establish priorities at different levels of the institution, and to revise institutional purposes, structures, and approaches to teaching, learning, and scholarly work.
4.1. The institution periodically engages its multiple constituencies in institutional reflection and planning processes which assess its strategic position; articulate priorities; examine the alignment of its purposes, core functions and resources; and define the future direction of the institution. The institution monitors the effectiveness of the implementation of its plans and revises them as appropriate.
In addition to the annual processes described elsewhere (CFR 3.5), such as the annual budget process, and the Faculty Senate process for program reviews (see CFR 2.1), there are several ad hoc processes that Stanford uses to examine issues that come up or that require review every few years. The Faculty Senate has the authority to appoint a Planning and Policy Board of the Senate (pdf) to examine issues of interest to the faculty. Their last report focused on University growth (pdf). In the last few years, we have also seen the Task Force on University Needs that defined priorities for our capital campaign, the Commission on Graduate Education (pdf), that resulted in some new programs for graduate education and the creation of an office to house a Vice Provost for Graduate Education. In 2007 the President appointed a task force to examine whether Stanford should expand its undergraduate class, and as described earlier a task force was appointed to review undergraduate education at Stanford (SUES).
4.2. Planning processes at the institution define and, to the extent possible, align academic, personnel, fiscal, physical, and technological needs with the strategic objectives and priorities of the institution.
Please see our response to CFR 3.5.
4.3. Planning processes are informed by appropriately defined and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data, and include consideration of evidence of educational effectiveness, including student learning.
The planning processes that have a direct impact on students are the University budget process described previously (CFR 3.5), the faculty search process and the self-studies and reviews by the Faculty Senate of undergraduate majors and interdisciplinary programs. (See CFRs 2.1 and 4.4 below.)
4.4. The institution employs a deliberate set of quality assurance processes at each level of institutional functioning, including new curriculum and program approval processes, periodic program review, ongoing evaluation, and data collection. These processes include assessing effectiveness, tracking results over time, and using comparative data from external sources, and improving structures, and processes, curricula, and pedagogy.
The Faculty Senate has the responsibility for approving and reviewing all undergraduate degree programs through the Committee for the Review of Undergraduate Majors. New degree programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level are reviewed and approved by the Senate as a whole. Annual reports for these committees are linked below. As part of the ongoing review process, departments and programs are asked to complete self-studies that include curriculum assessment, feedback from current and former students, national rankings when available, research grant volume and so forth. As an example, the guidelines for self-study (pdf) published by the School of Humanities and Sciences are linked here. The Senate also has the authority to review and renew general education requirements and the programs associated with this. In 2008, the Introduction to the Humanities program underwent review. In 2010, a committee appointed by the Provost and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education was appointed to review all of the requirements in undergraduate education (SUES Report). Some of our schools have periodic reviews for their own accreditation (e.g., Law, Business, Medicine, Education and Engineering). The data collected for their reviews are used by senior leadership to assess student success and make necessary improvements.
Our IR&DS group collects and analyzes a large volume of data. Some of it is publicly available; some provided to senior leadership (deans, president and provost) for decision making. The statistics book and yearly population reports are such sources of information. The IR&DS Mission Statement can be viewed here.
Committee on Graduate Studies Annual Report 2010-11
Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy Annual Report 2010-2011
Committee for the Review of Undergraduate Majors Annual Report 2010-2011
4.5. The institution has institutional research capacity consistent with its purposes and objectives. Institutional research addresses strategic data needs, is disseminated in a timely manner, and is incorporated in institutional review and decision-making processes. Included in the priorities of institutional research function is the the collection of appropriate data to support the assessment of student learning. Periodic reviews are conducted to ensure the effectiveness of the research function and the suitability and usefulness of data.
We have 10 staff in the central University office dedicated to research and analysis: Institutional Research and Decision Support. There are also institutional research staff in the Office of Admission and Financial Aid and in the Office of Development/Stanford Alumni Association. In addition to these staff in central units, many schools also have staff dedicated to institutional research on their units–in all we have as many as 15 positions dedicated to institutional research.
Our University-wide efforts include annual distribution of statistics about the university; department profiles (pdf); participation in data collection efforts through consortia (COFHE, AAUDE) and distribution of these data to a more limited group of administrators; participation in national surveys such as the report of the National Research Council reviewing graduate programs (pdf) and finally the course evaluation process (pdf) that is used in the faculty promotion and salary setting processes.
4.6 Leadership at all levels is committed to improvement based on the results of the processes of inquiry, evaluation and assessment used throughout the institution. The faculty take responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process and use the results for improvement. Assessments of the campus environment in support of academic and co-curricular objectives are also undertaken and used, and are incorporated into institutional planning.
The Center for Teaching and Learning was established to improve teaching quality across this campus. This work was referenced in CFR 3.4. Staff from the Center work with faculty as well as graduate student teaching assistants. We have a special requirement for TA Training and Orientation and extensive resources available for Teaching Assistants and Graduate Students here. The Stanford Language Center also focuses on teaching evaluation and effectiveness, reviewing lecturers and graduate student teaching assistants who deliver the language instruction program. The most recent Stanford Language Center Annual Report to the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy is available here.
As described previously (CFRs 2.8, 2.9), the evaluation of faculty for appointment, reappointment and promotion includes extensive evaluation of their teaching both through course evaluations and direct student evaluations of teaching and advising.
Finally as described in 4.1 (above) we establish ad hoc groups to review areas of interest to the leadership of the University. As an example, for the past two years, we have had a Task Force studying Student Mental Health and Campus Climate. Results from their report are outlined here.
4.7. The institution, with significant faculty involvement, engages in ongoing inquiry into the processes of teaching and learning, as well as into the conditions and practices that promote the kinds and levels of learning intended by the institution. The outcomes of such inquiries are applied to the design of curricula, the design and practice of pedagogy, and to the improvement of evaluation means and methodology.
At Stanford, as at many research universities, assessment of teaching and learning processes has focused on matters of content, curriculum, and student satisfaction. Visiting committees, periodic reviews of programs and majors, student teaching evaluation systems for both faculty and TAs, and faculty annual reports have closely monitored the quality of teaching and the content of the curriculum.
In addition, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education has an ongoing project that evaluates large introductory courses and provides faculty with development teaching grants. The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) provides workshops and individual consultations for faculty. In 2001, the Program in Writing and Rhetoric began a five-year assessment of student writing, which has included an examination of over 15,000 pieces of student work. The Stanford Language Center conducts proficiency testing of students at the end of their introductory foreign language courses, both to monitor the quality of foreign language teaching and to provide students with an objective measure of their foreign language mastery. The School of Engineering’s Undergraduate Council focuses on undergraduate curriculum and teaching. Among the many issues it has concentrated on in recent years, have been an examination of the introductory fundamentals courses based upon extensive review of undergraduate transcript data and a school wide review of courses on the topic of energy.
With a grant from Stanford's new Hoagland Award Fund for Innovations in Undergraduate Teaching (pdf), the School of Earth Sciences is undertaking an ambitious, multi-department redesign of its introductory courses that concentrates on curriculum and on a serious consideration of pedagogy informed by the substantial body of research from NSF and other sources on effective science teaching. Similarly, a committee of Physics Department faculty, graduate students, and CTL staff is currently reviewing introductory lab/lecture courses and comparing current curricular and pedagogical approaches to recommendations based on a review of educational research literature. An analysis of AP scores, department placement exam scores, and grade performance data led the Chemistry Department to change its introductory course placement recommendations.
4.8. Appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, and others defined by the institution, are involved in the assessment of the effectiveness of the educational programs.
We regularly conduct surveys of our graduating students, alumni, employers and community service organizations in which we place students. An IR&DS survey research calendar can be found here. These results help us to assess our programs, both curricular and extracurricular and make changes as necessary.
In addition most of our schools have external advisory boards whose role is to provide feedback to the dean on effectiveness.