Part 1.  SIGNATURES ATTESTING TO COMPLIANCE

By signing below, we attest to the following:

1.       That the University of Louisiana at Lafayette has conducted an honest assessment of compliance and has provided complete and accurate disclosure of timely information regarding compliance with the Standards contained in the Principles of Accreditation. 

2.       That the University of Louisiana at Lafayette has attached a complete and accurate listing of all programs offered by the institution, the locations where they are offered, and the means by which they are offered as indicated on the updated “Institutional Summary Form Prepared for Commission Reviews,” and that the comprehensive assessment of compliance reported on the Compliance Certification includes the review of all such programs.

3.       That the University of Louisiana at Lafayette has provided a complete and accurate listing of all substantive changes that have been reported and approved by the Commission since the institution’s last reaffirmation as well as the date of Commission approval.

 

Accreditation Liaison

Name of Accreditation Liaison: Blanca Treviño Bauer

 

Signature                                                                                                                                                                                            

 

Date _____________________

 

Chief Executive Officer

Name of Chief Executive Officer: E. Joseph Savoie

 

Signature                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

Date __________________ 

 

Part 2.  LIST OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES APPROVED SINCE THE LAST REAFFIRMATION

Part 2, Table 1:  Substantive Changes Approved since the last Reaffirmation (2010)

 

Note:  With the passage of the revised 2010 federal regulations for accrediting agencies, institutions are expected to notify and seek approval of additional substantive changes that occur between decennial reviews.  Please note the revised list below. (New required reporting is underlined.)

Directions:  For each substantive change approved since the institution’s initial accreditation or last reaffirmation review, briefly describe the change and provide the date of Commission approval. If no substantive changes requiring approval have been submitted since the last comprehensive review, write “none” in the first column. If, in the review of substantive change, the institution discovers substantive changes that have not been reported according to Commission policy, the changes should be reported immediately to Commission staff.

Substantive changes requiring approval:

·         Any change in the established mission or objectives of the institution

·         Any change in legal status, form of control, or ownership of the institution

·         The addition of courses or programs that represent a significant departure, either in content or method of delivery, from those that were offered when the institution was last evaluated

·         The addition of courses or programs of study at a degree or credential level different from that which is included in the institution’s current accreditation or reaffirmation

·         A change from clock hours to credit hours

·         A substantial increase in the number of clock or credit hours awarded for successful completion of a program

·         The establishment of an additional location geographically apart from the main campus at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program

·         The establishment of a branch campus

·         Closing a program, off-campus site, branch campus or institution

·         Entering into a collaborative academic arrangement such as a dual degree program or a joint degree program with another institution

·         Acquiring another institution or a program or location of another institution

·         Adding a permanent location at a site where the institution is conducting a teach-out program for a closed institution

·         Entering into a contract by which an entity not eligible for Title IV funding offers 25 percent or more of one or more of the accredited institution’s programs

 

Access http://www.sacscoc.org and click onto “Policies” for additional information on reporting substantive change, including examples of the changes listed above.

 

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

Commission on Colleges

 

 

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

 

Name of Institution 

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

 

Name, Title, Phone number, and email address of Accreditation Liaison

Blanca Treviño Bauer, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs for Institutional Effectiveness, 337-482-6306, c00464450@louisiana.edu

 

Name, Title, Phone number, and email address of Technical Support person for the Compliance Certification

Allen Latour, Laboratory Technician, 337-482-5485, allen@louisiana.edu

 

IMPORTANT: 

 

Accreditation Activity (check one):

            o  Submitted at the time of Reaffirmation Orientation

            x Submitted with Compliance Certification for Reaffirmation

            o  Submitted with Materials for an On-Site Reaffirmation Review

            o  Submitted with Compliance Certification for Fifth-Year Interim Report

            o  Submitted with Compliance Certification for Initial Candidacy/Accreditation Review

            o  Submitted with Merger/Consolidations/Acquisitions

            o  Submitted with Application for Level Change

 

 

Submission date of this completed document:  September 2, 2019

 

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

 

1.   Level of offerings (Check all that apply)

o  Diploma or certificate program(s) requiring less than one year beyond Grade 12

o  Diploma or certificate program(s) of at least two but fewer than four years of work beyond

      Grade 12

o  Associate degree program(s) requiring a minimum of 60 semester hours or the equivalent

      designed for transfer to a baccalaureate institution

o  Associate degree program(s) requiring a minimum of 60 semester hours or the equivalent

      not designed for transfer

x Four or five-year baccalaureate degree program(s) requiring a minimum of 120 semester

         hours or the equivalent

x Professional degree program(s)

x Master's degree program(s)

o  Work beyond the master's level but not at the doctoral level (such as Specialist in

      Education)

x Doctoral degree program(s)

o  Other (Specify) _______

 

2.    Types of Undergraduate Programs (Check all that apply)  

o  Occupational certificate or diploma program(s)

o  Occupational degree program(s)

o  Two-year programs designed for transfer to a baccalaureate institution

x  Liberal Arts and General

x  Teacher Preparatory

x  Professional

       o  Other (Specify) _______

 

GOVERNANCE CONTROL

 

Check the appropriate governance control for the institution:

o            Private (check one)

                o            Independent, not-for-profit

                                Name of corporation OR

                                Name of religious affiliation and control:      

                o            Independent, for-profit *

                                If publicly traded, name of parent company:                         

x           Public state * (check one)

                o            Not part of a state system, institution has own independent board

                x           Part of a state system, system board serves as governing board

                o            Part of a state system, system board is super governing board, local governing board has delegated authority

                o            Part of a state system, institution has own independent board

*    If an institution is part of a state system or a corporate structure, a description of the system operation must be submitted as part of the Compliance Certification for the decennial review. See Commission policy “Reaffirmation of Accreditation and Subsequent Reports” for additional direction.

 

INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS

 

Directions: 

Please address the following and attach the information to this form.

 

1.   History and Characteristics

Provide a brief history of the institution, a description of its current mission, an indication of its geographic service area, and a description of the composition of the student population.  Include a description of any unusual or distinctive features of the institution and a description of the admissions policies (open, selective, etc.).  If appropriate, indicate those institutions that are considered peers.  Please limit this section to one-half page.

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, founded in 1900 as Southwest Louisiana Industrial Institute, offered its first baccalaureate degrees in 1921. By the 1950s, the institution awarded Master’s degrees and became the first all-white, state-supported public college in the South to enroll a black student. The University of Southwestern Louisiana, as the institution became known in 1960, began offering Doctoral degrees in the Sixties. Selective admissions were implemented in 1999, and since that time the average composite ACT of entering freshmen has risen from 19.5 to 23.9. The University is now classed as a Carnegie Research University with higher research activity. The University enrolls more than 17,123 students (57 percent women) and offers 56 Bachelor’s degrees, 27 Master’s degrees, and 10 Doctorates through eight academic colleges and the Graduate School. The University’s students are predominantly from Louisiana (89 percent), though non-resident enrollment is increasing (currently representing 48 states and 77 countries). The largest racial minority is African American (19.0 percent). Externally funded research now tops $65 million. Much of the University’s identity is derived from the cultural heritage of the Cajun and Creole populations who settled in Lafayette and surrounding parishes, known collectively as “Acadiana.” UL Lafayette is integrally involved in the region’s economic development, particularly its push to become a leading hub for technology. University faculty and students are meaningfully involved in area communities through service-learning projects, internships, and cooperative education programs. SREB peers identified jointly by Louisiana’s governing board for higher education, the Board of Regents, and UL Lafayette include Old Dominion, Virginia Commonwealth, Louisiana Tech, University of Alabama Birmingham, Mississippi State, Florida Atlantic, University of Texas at Arlington, University of Memphis, Georgia Southern, and UNC Greensboro.

 

2.   List of Degrees

List all degrees currently offered (A. S., BA, BS, MA, PhD, for examples) and the majors or concentrations within those degrees, as well as all certificates and diplomas.  For each credential offered, indicate the number of graduates in the academic year previous to submitting this report.  Indicate term dates.

The University confers the degrees listed in Table 1, which details degrees, programs, and graduates for AY2018-2019. Degree and certificate programs are grouped by degree. Each degree, concentration, or certificate links to the corresponding catalog page.

 

Institutional Summary Table 1: Degree Programs, Concentrations, Certificate Programs, and Graduates

 

Does the institution offer any credit, non-credit, or pathways English as a Second Language (ESL) programs?  If yes, list the programs.

The University offers a non-degree, non-credit Intensive English (ESL) program through its Office of International Affairs.

 

3.   Off-Campus Instructional Locations and Branch Campuses

List all approved off-campus instructional locations where 25% or more credit hours toward a degree, diploma, or certificate can be obtained primarily through traditional classroom instruction. Report those locations in accord with the Commission’s definitions and the directions as specified below.

The University’s sole campus is located in Lafayette, Louisiana, with some research centers located off-site. The degrees listed in Table 1, above, are offered at this campus or through distance learning.

 

Table 1: Off-campus instructional sites—a site located geographically apart from the main campus at which the institution offers 50 % or more of its credit hours for a diploma, certificate, or degree.  This includes high schools where courses are offered as part of dual enrollment.  For each site, provide the information below. The list should include only those sites reported to and approved by SACSCOC.  Listing unapproved sites below does not constitute reporting them to SACSCOC. In such cases when an institution has initiated an off-campus instructional site as described above without prior approval by SACSCOC, a prospectus for approval should be submitted immediately to SACSCOC.

There are no approved off-campus instructional sites where 50 percent or more of a program is offered through traditional instruction.

 

Table 1: Off-campus instructional sites—a site located geographically apart from the main campus at which the institution offers 50 % or more of its credit hours for a diploma, certificate, or degree.  This includes high schools where courses are offered as part of dual enrollment.  For each site, provide the information below. The list should include only those sites reported to and approved by SACSCOC.  Listing unapproved sites below does not constitute reporting them to SACSCOC. In such cases when an institution has initiated an off-campus instructional site as described above without prior approval by SACSCOC, a prospectus for approval should be submitted immediately to SACSCOC.

Although the University does offer dual enrollment programs at high schools at this time, a student is unable to earn more than 30 credit hours or 25 percent of a degree program at these locations.

 

Table 3: Branch campus—an instructional site located geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution.  A location is independent of the main campus if the location is (1) permanent in nature, (2) offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential, (3) has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization, and (4) has its own budgetary and hiring authority. The list should include only those branch campuses reported to and approved by SACSCOC.  Listing unapproved branch campuses below does not constitute reporting them to SACSCOC.  A prospectus for unapproved branch campuses should be submitted immediately to SACSCOC.

The University has no branch campuses that offer educational programs leading to a degree.

 

4.   Distance and Correspondence Education

Provide an initial date of approval for your institution to offer distance education. Provide a list of credit-bearing educational programs (degrees, certificates, and diplomas) where 50% or more of the credit hours are delivered through distance education modes.  For each educational program, indicate whether the program is delivered using synchronous or asynchronous technology, or both.  For each educational program that uses distance education technology to deliver the program at a specific site (e.g., a synchronous program using interactive videoconferencing), indicate the program offered at each location where students receive the transmitted program.  Please limit this description to one page, if possible.

The University was approved to offer distance education on August 9, 2011. Table 2 details the

credit-bearing educational programs that the University offers through distance education.

Institutional Summary Form Table 2: Educational Programs in which

50 Percent or More of Credit Hours are Available Through Distance Education

 

 

5.   Accreditation

(1)  List all agencies that currently accredit the institution and any of its programs and indicate the date of the last review by each.

In addition to being accredited by the SACSCOC, the University holds the programmatic accreditations listed in Institutional Summary Form Table 3.

Institutional Summary Form Table 3: Agencies that Currently Accredit the Institution

 

(2)  If SACS Commission on Colleges is not your primary accreditor for access to USDOE Title IV funding, identify which accrediting agency serves that purpose.

SACSCOC is the primary accreditor for access to USDOE Title IV funding.

 

 (3) List any USDOE-recognized agency (national and programmatic) that has terminated the institution’s accreditation (include the date, reason, and copy of the letter of termination) or list any agency from which the institution has voluntarily withdrawn (include copy of letter to agency from institution).

No USDOE-recognized accreditor has terminated the institution’s accreditation.

 (4) Describe any sanctions applied or negative actions taken by any USDOE-recognized accrediting agency (national, programmatic, SACSCOC) during the two years previous to the submission of this report. Include a copy of the letter from the USDOE-recognized agency to the institution.

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette notified the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges of the University’s intent to voluntarily withdraw the accreditation status of its undergraduate Athletic Training program from the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE) on January 3^rd, 2017. CAATE, along with the National Athletic Trainers Association (NATA), have mandated a shift in the Athletic Training degree level from the Bachelor’s to the Master’s degree. The University’s best response to this mandate was to withdraw its undergraduate accreditation and apply for re-accreditation at a later time as a newly designed graduate program. This withdrawal will become effective May 31, 2020, and the cohort of students enrolled in the Fall 2016 semester will be the last to graduate from the accredited program. No new students will be admitted into the undergraduate program from that point forward. Student records have been kept on file in the School of Kinesiology in accordance with the withdrawal policies set forth by CAATE, and the University has maintained all other procedures, fees, and documentation that are required on a yearly basis by CAATE in order to keep the program in good standing and will allow all of the students enrolled in the current program to graduate, through a detailed teach-out plan.

The Didactic Dietetics Program (DPD) at the University has recently been granted inactive status by the Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND). During its January 27-29, 2016 meeting, the ACEND board voted to approve the University’s request for the program to be on inactive status, from January 4, 2016, to May 20, 2018. This meant that no students were allowed to enroll or transfer into the program during the aforementioned duration, but students already enrolled in the program were allowed to complete their degrees. The University hired an external consultant from another ACEND dietetics program to make recommendations to develop a new curriculum/program that meets the new ACEND standards. In 2016, based on much deliberation and discussion of external and internal reviews, declining enrollment, and suboptimal student pass rates on the RD exam over the previous five years, then UL Lafayette Provost, Dr. James Henderson, requested that admissions into the Dietetics program (DPD) be discontinued beginning with the Spring 2016 semester. The Board of Regents approved the termination of the BS in Dietetics on May 22, 2018. Twenty-five Dietetics majors were enrolled during the Spring 2018 semester.  Of those, 14 students graduated in May 2018.  Of the 11 seniors remaining in the program (all upper division students), 10 graduated in May 2019, and the 11^th failed core courses in the program and is not currently pursuing any degree at UL Lafayette. With ACEND’s approval, UL Lafayette notified SACSSCOC of its discontinuance and received approval; the program remained accredited through May 2019.

 

6.   Relationship to the U.S. Department of Education

Indicate any limitations, suspensions, or termination by the U.S. Department of Education in regard to student financial aid or other financial aid programs during the previous three years. Report if on reimbursement or any other exceptional status in regard to federal or state financial aid.

The University has been subject to no limitations, suspensions, or terminations by the USDOE in regard to student financial aid or other financial aid programs during the preceding three years.

 

Supporting Documents

ACEND Letter

Athletic Training Withdrawal Letter

ACEND SACS Notification Letter

Letter of Approval to Offer Distance Education

SACS Dietetics Discontinuance Approval

 

2.1     Mission [CR]

The institution has a clearly defined, comprehensive, and published mission specific to the institution and appropriate for higher education. The mission addresses teaching and learning and, where applicable, research and public service.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s mission is clearly defined, comprehensive, published, specific, appropriate for higher education, and addresses teaching, learning, research, and public service.  UL Lafayette has its own published mission, and a mission defined by the Louisiana State Board of Regents (BOR).

UL Lafayette’s Mission, Values, and Vision (Internal)

UL Lafayette’s internal mission is expressed in identical terms in both the Mission, Values, and Vision statement and within its Strategic Plan 2015-2020.

Mission

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette offers an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture. We develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.

 

Values

We strive to create a community of leaders and innovators in an environment that fosters a desire to advance and disseminate knowledge.

 

We support the mission of the university by actualizing our core values:

 

1.       Equity: striving for fair treatment and justice

2.       Integrity: demonstrating character, honesty, and trustworthiness

3.       Intellectual Curiosity: pursuing knowledge and appreciating its inherent value

4.       Creativity: transcending established ideas

5.       Tradition: acknowledging the contributions of the Acadian and Creole cultures to this region and to our University’s history

6.       Transparency: practicing open communication and sharing information

7.       Respect: demonstrating empathy and esteem for others

8.       Collaboration: understanding our connection with others and working to realize synergies through teamwork and collegiality

9.       Pluralism: believing in the inherent worth of diverse cultures and perspectives

10.   Sustainability: making decisions and allocating resources to meet the needs of the present, while preserving resources for the future

 

Vision

We strive to be included in the top 25% of our peer institutions by 2020, improving our national and international status and recognition.

UL Lafayette’s Role, Scope, and Mission

The Louisiana State BOR has ultimate responsibility for the respective missions of institutions under its governance, and its Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana (Master Plan) defines UL Lafayette’s role, scope, and mission in these terms:

 

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette (UL Lafayette) is a comprehensive university with a mission to educate undergraduate and graduate students in a variety of arts, sciences, and professional programs, and to conduct research in these fields. Admission to UL Lafayette is selective, based on courses completed and academic performance.

1. Audiences

    UL Lafayette has a statewide mission and is responsible for serving:

a.       Residents from throughout Louisiana, especially those of the Acadiana region, who have excelled in high school studies and are seeking a bachelor or graduate degree or continuing professional education;

b.       Two-year college transfer students;

c.       Employers, both public and private, including school districts, health care providers, local governments, private businesses, and community agencies seeking technical assistance and applied research;

d.       Economic development interests and entrepreneurs throughout the state;

e.       Academic disciplines and the research community; and

f.        The community and region, by providing a broad range of academic and cultural activities and public events.

2.   Array of Programs and Services

a.       A broad range of bachelor’s and master’s-level core arts and sciences programs appropriate to a comprehensive teaching and research university.

b.       Bachelor and graduate programs in the professional fields of architecture, computer science, education, engineering, criminal justice, nursing and allied health, and business.

c.       Support for area K-12 schools seeking college general education courses for advanced students, and assistance in ensuring that their graduates are college- and career-ready.

d.       Doctoral programs in a variety of arts, sciences, and professional fields, including English, education, nursing, computer and systems engineering, mathematics, and environmental biology.

e.       Services specifically designed to meet the economic development needs of the state.

3.  Special Programs/Features

a.       Lifespan development with early childhood emphasis.

b.       Louisiana arts, culture and heritage programs, and research, including a focus on Cajun and Creole cultural traditions.

c.       Graduate and undergraduate programs in environment, energy, and economics.

d.       Graduate and undergraduate programs in nursing and health care systems and support.

e.       Computing, informatics, and smart systems development.

Mission: Clearly Defined and Comprehensive

The University’s Mission, Values, and Vision statement defines its mission clearly and comprehensively, asserting that “We develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.” The 10 core values enumerated in the Values section specify the underlying aims that guide research, teaching, and service at the institution, while the Vision spells out a clearly defined aspiration: to be in the top 25% of peer institutions. 

 

The BOR  Master Plan provides a clearly defined and comprehensive mission for the University within the state’s higher education system by specifying the kinds of programs and degree levels the University offers, the audiences it serves, and its areas of special focus.

 

Together, these statements clearly and comprehensively define the University’s reason for being, and convey its identity and purpose.

Mission: Published

Both the BOR Mission Statement for the University and the University’s own Mission Statement are published and accessible:

 

·         University: The University’s Mission, Values, and Vision statement is published and easily accessible to the public under “About Us” on the University’s main webpage (https://louisiana.edu/about-us/who-we-are/mission-vision-values), and as part of its  Strategic Plan 2015-2020 (https://louisiana.edu/strategicplan).

 

·         Board of Regents: The BOR’s published Master Plan (https://regents.la.gov/master-plan/) includes “Role, Scope and Mission Designations” (Appendix D) for all its institutions, including UL Lafayette.

Mission: Distinct from Other Institutions

The University’s Mission, Values, and Vision statement defines UL Lafayette’s mission as distinctive from other institutions. Its Mission states that it offers an education “grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture,” a reference to the strong regional identity of the institution and its unique local culture. Similarly, the Values section cites the importance of “Tradition: acknowledging the contributions of the Acadian and Creole cultures to this region and to our University’s history.”

 

The BOR Master Plan explicitly defines the University’s role, scope, features, and mission as distinct from other institutions: the BOR classifies all Louisiana public institutions of higher education into five categories: (1) comprehensive research universities, (2) specialized units, (3) statewide universities, (4) regional universities, and (5) community and technical colleges.

 

UL Lafayette is designated as one of three “statewide” institutions, a term that has a specific meaning within post-secondary education governance in Louisiana: “Statewide universities offer a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and masters’ levels, with selective offerings at the doctoral level. Research is selective in nature, focusing in those areas of graduate expertise. Typically, moderately selective admissions and higher tuition characterize the state university.”

 

The BOR Master Plan also spells out five areas of special focus not shared by other institutions in Louisiana: lifespan development with early childhood emphasis; Louisiana arts, culture, and heritage programs and research, including a focus on Cajun and Creole cultural traditions; graduate and undergraduate programs in environment, energy, and economics; graduate and undergraduate programs in nursing and health care systems and support; and computing, informatics, and smart systems development.

Mission: Addresses Teaching and Learning

The University’s Mission statement is centered on teaching and learning: “The University of Louisiana at Lafayette offers an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture.” The description of UL Lafayette in the BOR Master Plan above highlights an array of educational programs in various teaching disciplines.

 

The BOR Role, Scope, and Mission for UL Lafayette further specifies that it has “a mission to educate undergraduate and graduate students in a variety of arts, sciences, and professional programs, and to conduct research in these fields.”

Mission: Addresses Research

The University’s Mission and Values statements both emphasize that the University strives to “advance knowledge,” which is accomplished through faculty and student research. Its values also include:

 

·         Intellectual Curiosity: pursuing knowledge and appreciating its inherent value

·         Creativity: transcending established ideas

·         Tradition: acknowledging the contributions of the Acadian and Creole cultures to this region, and to our University’s history

 

Each of these areas is accomplished through faculty and student research.

Mission: Addresses Public Service

Public Service is an integral part of UL Lafayette’s mission as expressed in its own Mission, Values, and Vision statement and in the BOR Master Plan’s Role, Scope, and Mission Designation section for UL Lafayette. The University’s Mission Statement concludes with a reference to “improve the human condition.” Among the core values enumerated in the Values section are several focused on public service and community relations:

 

·         Equity: striving for fair treatment and justice

·         Tradition: acknowledging the contributions of the Acadian and Creole cultures to this region, and to our University’s history

·         Pluralism: believing in the inherent worth of diverse cultures and perspectives

·         Sustainability: making decisions and allocating resources to meet the needs of the present, while preserving resources for the future

 

The BOR Master Plan asserts that UL Lafayette is responsible for serving “The community and region, by providing a broad range of academic and cultural activities, and public events.”

 

Supporting Documents

Areas of Special Focus

Array of Programs and Services

Audiences

Mission in Strategic Plan

Mission, Values, and Vision

Public Institutions Classification

Role, Scope, and Mission

Special Programs/Features

Statewide Universities

University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s Strategic Planning Report

 

 

3.1.A     Degree-granting Authority [CR]

An institution seeking to gain or maintain accredited status has degree-granting authority from the appropriate government agency or agencies.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette ultimately derives its degree‐granting authority from the State of Louisiana, as provided in the Louisiana Constitution, Revised Statute 17:3351. The Constitution allows the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR), which coordinates and establishes policies for the State’s public postsecondary education system, to authorize the four management boards under its purview to confer degrees. It is from its management board that UL Lafayette derives direct approval to confer degrees. The University is part of the University of Louisiana System, which is one of four systems of public institutions of higher education in Louisiana.

The BOR’s Academic Affairs Policy 2.01 states that “The 1974 Louisiana Constitution, Article VIII Section 5, vests in the BOR the responsibility to approve, disapprove, or modify all existing and proposed degree programs and administrative units in Louisiana’s public colleges and universities.” The Louisiana BOR began operation on January 1, 1975, replacing the Coordinating Council for Higher Education. The BOR has the authority to plan and coordinate higher education, which includes budgetary responsibility for Louisiana’s public colleges, universities, and professional schools.

UL Lafayette is one of nine universities in the University of Louisiana System, which was established in June 1995 and revised in 2014 by Louisiana Revised Statute 17: 3217. Before this time, the UL System was known as the System of State Colleges and Universities. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) for the UL System was formerly known as the Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities. The name change occurred on December 4, 1998. The BOS is authorized explicitly in the Louisiana Constitution to govern the University of Louisiana System.

UL Lafayette is legally authorized to provide post-secondary distance education programs to out-of-state students. Many of these state laws and regulations also apply to online, distance, and correspondence education instruction offered in that state. Authorization information is available on the University’s website (Degree Granting Authority for Distance Education Programs to Out-of-State-Students: by degree program and by state). The University is also a member of the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA), a voluntary agreement among member states and U.S. territories establishing comparable national standards for interstate offering of post-secondary distance-education courses and programs, which authorizes the offering of distance education courses to students in other member states. All of UL Lafayette’s online programs are approved and regulated by the BOS.

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Affairs Policy 2-01

LA Constitution Article VIII Section 5

LA Constitution Article VIII Section 6

LA Constitution RS 17:3217

LA Constitution RS 17:3351

LA Post-Secondary Government Chart

Request to Offer DL

State Authorization by Program

State Authorization by State and Territory

State Authorization: UL Lafayette

 

3.1.b     Coursework for Degrees [CR]

An institution seeking to gain or maintain accredited status offers all coursework required for at least one degree program at each level at which it awards degrees. (For exceptions, see SACSCOC policy Core Requirement 2.3: Documenting an Alternative Approach.)

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette provides instruction for all coursework required for all its degrees, except for those two programs where instruction is shared with another university as part of a consortia agreement (discussed below). Sample degree plans at each level offered by the institution include:

·         Sample Bachelor’s Degree Plan  

·         Sample Master’s Degree Plan

·         Sample Doctoral Degree Plan

There are two exceptions where instruction is shared with another university as part of a consortia agreement. Evidence of the individual course offerings and the full curricula for all degree programs may be found in the University Catalog and the schedule of classes. In all cases, the University maintains control of all aspects of its programs through partnerships, consortia agreements, and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).

The University offers two programs in partnership with other institutions: the MSN through the Intercollegiate Consortium for a Master of Science in Nursing (ICMSN), and the EdD through a consortium of Southeastern Louisiana University and the University of Louisiana at Lafayette for a doctorate in Educational Leadership.

MS in Nursing. Since 1986, the University’s MS degree in Nursing has been offered through an affiliation with the Intercollegiate Consortium for a Master of Science in Nursing (ICMSN), an academic partnership among McNeese State University, Southeastern Louisiana University, Nicholls State University, and UL Lafayette. The original MOU detailed how the universities would maintain control over the ICMSN:

A Council of the Intercollegiate Consortium (CINC) will assure that the policies of the consortium are reflective of the interest of the member institutions and responsible to the needs of the nursing profession. Membership on the CINC will consist of the chief academic officer, the dean of the college/school of nursing, and one graduate nursing faculty representative from each participating institution.

The four universities in this consortium work together to provide a comprehensive curriculum that prepares professional nurses at an advanced level of theoretical and clinical practice in order to address present and potential health needs of south Louisiana, by mentoring students in the specialty concentrations of Family Nurse Practitioner and Nursing Education. This program is offered 100% online, and can be completed in five semesters of full-time study, including 600 precepted clinical hours. UL Lafayette provides 100% of the instruction to its Family Nurse Practitioner students. In the case of the Nursing Education program, UL Lafayette provides all the core courses, while Education-specific courses are shared with the other institutions. Although the curriculum must be approved by all members of the consortium, all courses must also be approved by UL Lafayette independently, via the Graduate Council and the Graduate Curriculum Committee.

In the past, the program was accredited by the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission. Since Fall 2008, the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education has accredited the program. The most recent accreditation date is March 4, 2013, and the next on-site visit is scheduled for spring 2023.

EdD in Educational Leadership. The EdD in Educational Leadership is offered through a consortium of Southeastern Louisiana University and UL Lafayette. The 2005 Memorandum of Agreement defines the academic partnership between the two institutions with the collaborative effort supporting open articulation for student mobility and matriculation. The EdD program allows a student to pursue one of four concentrations: Curriculum Leadership, Exceptional Learner, Higher Education Administration, and K-12 Leadership Education. UL Lafayette doctoral candidates enrolled in this program take all of their courses on the UL Lafayette campus with UL Lafayette instructors. All courses in the curriculum have been approved by the UL Lafayette Graduate Council. A student’s Dissertation Committee must be constituted of at least three members of the Graduate Faculty, with at least one member from the collaborating university.

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)

UL Lafayette maintains agreements with other universities to facilitate educational opportunities for students and faculty, including study abroad. Each agreement defines a cooperative effort between the two institutions, and establishes procedures and terms for the exchange of students, faculty, and research initiatives, including procedures for the transfer of academic credit. UL Lafayette has a defined process for developing MOUs with international universities that stems from faculty initiatives and involves shared governance. A complete list of agreements is published on the website.

 

Supporting Documents

Bachelor’s Degree Plan Example

Doctoral Degree Plan Example

Documenting an Alternative Approach

Master’s Degree Plan Example

MOU agreements on website

MS in Nursing original Memorandum of Agreement

MS Nursing accreditation status Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education

Original Memorandum of Agreement for EdD

Process for creating, submitting, and approving MOU

Schedule of Classes: Office of the University Registrar

University of Louisiana at Lafayette Academic Catalog

University of Louisiana at Lafayette Educational Leadership Program

 

3.1.c     Continuous Operation [CR]

An institution seeking to gain or maintain accredited status is in operation and has students enrolled in degree programs.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette is currently operating and holds SACSCOC accreditation, and therefore according to SACSCOC policy does not need to address this standard.

 

Supporting Documents

SACSCOC Resource Manual for The Principles of Accreditation (Third Edition: 2018)

 

4.1     Governing Board Characteristics [CR]

The institution has a governing board of at least five members that: a) is the legal body with specific authority over the institution, b) exercises fiduciary oversight of the institution, c) ensures that both the presiding officer of the board and a majority of other voting members of the board are free of any contractual, employment, personal, or familial financial interest in the institution, d) is not controlled by a minority of board members or by organizations or institutions separate from it, e) is not presided over by the chief executive officer of the institution.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

a. The legal body with specific authority over the institution

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette is overseen by two levels of governance. The Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) is the coordinating board for all Louisiana public postsecondary educational institutions. Under the BOR are four governing boards (known in Louisiana as “management boards”), including the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for the University of Louisiana System (UL System), which is the governing board of UL Lafayette.  The structure of post-secondary education governance in Louisiana is shown in Diagram 4.1 – 1.

Diagram 4.1 – 1: Louisiana Postsecondary Education Governance Structure

The legal authority of both boards is found in Article VIII of the Louisiana Constitution, which specifies that each Board is composed of exactly 15 members.  The respective authority, function, and specific duties of the Louisiana BOR and the UL System BOS are delineated in Table 4.1 – 1.

Table 4.1 – 1: Authority, Function, and Duties of Boards Governing UL Lafayette

 

b. Fiduciary oversight of the institution

The BOR and the BOS each have responsibilities related to fiduciary oversight. Generally, the BOR is responsible for formulating and presenting annually to the State’s Division of Administration the global operating and capital outlay funding requests for all higher education institutions. Funds from the State are distributed to the BOR, which in turn disperses them to the four management boards. UL Lafayette’s governing board, the UL System BOS, distributes to institutions under its management the annual State appropriations, and ensures that these appropriations are spent in support of quality educational programs. The BOS’ enumerated Duties, Powers, and Functions delineate clear fiduciary oversight of the institution.

Together, the BOR and the BOS exercise fiduciary budgetary oversight of state postsecondary institutions, including UL Lafayette. According to Article VIII of Louisiana’s constitution, the BOR’s constitutional duty is “To require that every postsecondary education board submit to it, at a time it specifies, an annual budget proposal for operational needs and for capital needs of each institution under the control of each board. The Board of Regents shall submit its budget recommendations for all institutions of postsecondary education in the state. It shall recommend priorities for capital construction and improvements.”

UL Lafayette submits an annual budget and quarterly budget updates to the BOS, which reviews and approves them.  Recent examples of other BOS actions that demonstrate fiduciary oversight include:

·         UL Lafayette’s request for approval of the Ground Lease for the UL-Lafayette – CGI IT Center of Excellence to Ragin’ Cajun Facilities, Inc.

·         UL Lafayette’s request for approval to expand the eligible partners and targeted student groups that receive a tuition deduction for the contract price of the RN to BSN online degree program.

·         UL Lafayette’s request for approval of special pricing for the online Master of Business Administration degree program.

The BOS and the BOR are bound to follow the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics, which holds them to the highest ethical standards in the execution of their duties. See Standard 4.2.d for more information on safeguards against conflict of interest among board members.

Active Boards

Both Boards are active bodies that hold regular meetings and special meetings when needed. The BOS Bylaws mandate regular meetings. All meeting dates and minutes of each meeting are available on both the BOR website and the BOS website.

Both Boards also regularly consider proposals relevant to the University’s pursuit of its mission, such as academic program proposals, administrative hiring, endowed chair proposals, and physical plant initiatives. The following recent examples were acted upon by both Boards in succession:

·         Authorize Blanco Public Policy Center

o   BOS Agenda

o   BOR Minutes

o   BOS Minutes

·         Consolidate two Endowed Chairs

o   BOS Minutes

o   BOR Minutes

·         Create a PhD in Energy and Earth Sciences

o   BOS Minutes

o   BOR Minutes

Financial Resources

Article VIII, Section 5.4 of Louisiana’s constitution indicates that the BOR is responsible for equitably distributing state funds among institutions: it must periodically “formulate and make timely revision of a master plan for postsecondary education. As a minimum, the plan shall include a formula for equitable distribution of funds to the institutions of postsecondary education.”

The BOR develops and adopts a statewide formula for distribution of funds, formulates operating budget recommendations, and issues capital budget recommendations. The standing Finance Committee meets and reports regularly. For example, at the June 20, 2018, meeting, the BOR acted on the Finance Committee’s recommendation for absorbing funding shortfalls, and establishing the broad distribution of state funds allocated for higher education. In accordance with Louisiana Revised Statue 17:3351, the BOS Bylaws section on duties and responsibilities includes enumerated items related to overseeing the financial operation of the institution.

The BOS Finance Committee also submits reports at each Board meeting, including budgets, income, and expenses at the System level, and distribution of funds at the University level. For example, at the December 6, 2018, meeting, the committee presented an analysis of the income and expenses at the system and institution level, including budgets for each institution, which were then approved by the Board.

Board minutes and Board committee reports also document that the BOS fulfills its legal responsibility of ensuring that the financial resources of the institution are adequate to provide sound educational programming. In a recent example, Act 293 of the 2017 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature was passed, allowing universities to create new student fees. UL Lafayette submitted a proposal for a new student fee, which was considered at the October 17, 2018, Finance Committee Meeting, then taken up at the BOS meeting on October 25, 2018, and approved.

The BOS is also charged with regularly evaluating its fiduciary oversight of member institutions. Section XII of its Bylaws states: “The self-evaluation will include assessments regarding…Board fiduciary oversight of UL System and the ULS institutions…”

The BOS evaluates its fiduciary oversight of UL Lafayette as part of its annual self-evaluation.

C.  Both the presiding officer of the board and a majority of other voting members of the board are free of any contractual, employment, personal, or familial financial interest in the institution.

The members of the UL System BOS and the Louisiana BOR are defined within the Louisiana Constitution as state officials, and are thus subject to the state’s Code of Governmental Ethics. The Code begins with a strong statement of ethical responsibility concerning conflicts of interest:

It is essential to the proper operation of democratic government that elected officials and public employees be independent and impartial; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channel of the governmental structure; that public office and employment not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law; and that there be public confidence in the integrity of government. The attainment of one or more of these ends is impaired when a conflict exists between the private interests of an elected official or a public employee and his duties as such. The public interest, therefore, requires that the law protect against such conflicts of interest and that it establish appropriate ethical standards with respect to the conduct of elected officials and public employees without creating unnecessary barriers to public service. It is the purpose of this Chapter to implement these policies and objectives.

Further, the Code delineates standards of conduct for state officials as they relate to monetary influence, gifts, nepotism, and interactions with other state agencies and officials. Amendments to the Code in 2008 stipulate that members of state boards and commissions must disclose personal financial information, including sources of income, in order to illuminate any prospective conflict of interest in the activities of board members.

Part II of the Code delineates expected and prohibited behavior related to financial transactions by all public officials and members of boards and commissions, including payment received by board members; participation in transactions in which board members may have a conflict of interest; prohibited contractual arrangements; nepotism; and financial disclosure. The Code explicitly prohibits a public servant from participating in or voting on a transaction involving the governmental entity in which they have a substantial financial interest.

The BOS Bylaws address conflict of interest at the Board level. By statute, each board member must sign an oath to uphold the laws and board regulations, and attest to receiving a copy of the Code of Governmental Ethics.

D. Not controlled by a minority of board members or by organizations or institutions separate from it

Neither of UL Lafayette’s governing boards is controlled by a minority of board members, or by organizations or interests separate from it. Both the BOR and the BOS have an identical appointment process mandated by law. The Governor appoints to the respective boards two members from each of the State’s seven congressional districts, and one at-large member. Appointments require the consent of the Louisiana Senate. Members serve overlapping terms of six years.

This appointment process helps ensure the Boards’ independence from outside influence and pressure. The stipulation that members be appointed from the various congressional districts of the State ensures a distribution of authority. Board members serve six-year, staggered terms, which mitigates against undue influence on Board composition by any one Governor, as gubernatorial terms last only four years. The student member on the Board has all of the privileges and rights of other Board members, serves a term no longer than one year, and is not eligible to succeed himself or herself.

The State of Louisiana’s “open meetings law,” section 12-28 (separate websites that can be accessed using the arrows) further protects the Boards’ decision-making process from minority rule or external influence. The law states that, with specific exceptions, all meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public, the written proceedings of the meetings are public documents, and appropriate notice and opportunity for public comment shall be given. The BOS Bylaws demonstrate the application of this law: 

·         All regular meetings of the Board shall be open to the public except when otherwise voted for the consideration of executive matters. No final or binding action shall be taken in a closed or executive session.

·         At least ten (10) days prior to each regular meeting, the System President shall prepare and forward to each member a tentative agenda for the meeting. The System President shall place on the agenda any item requested by a Board member when submitted prior to agenda deadline with the approval of the Chair. The agenda shall not be changed less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting. Items may be added to the published agenda and acted upon only with the unanimous approval of the members present.

·         In accordance with the provisions of L.R.S.  42.5.D., the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System provides an opportunity for public comment during public sessions of the Board and its committees.  

Also, the fact that minutes of the meetings of the BOR and the BOS are recorded on their respective websites prevents control by factions. 

E. Not presided over by the chief executive officer of the institution

By rule of Louisiana Revised Statute 17:3205, no faculty member or employee may serve on the Board that manages his or her institution: “No member of the faculty and no officer or employee of a university or college shall be eligible hereafter for appointment to any board which has authority for his/her appointment. However, this provision shall not prohibit the appointment of any person serving in an emeritus capacity to a board other than the board under which he served.”

UL Lafayette’s President is E. Joseph Savoie, while the Chairman of the BOR is Marty J. Chabert, and the Chairman of the BOS is Mark Romero.

 

Supporting Documents

Article VIII of the Louisiana Constitution

BOR Finance Committee Report

BOR Meetings and Agendas

BOR Members

BOS Agenda Feb 22, 2018

BOS Agenda Feb 23, 2017

BOS Agenda February 23, 2016

BOS Agenda - Request for approval of Blanco Center

BOS Bylaws

BOS Bylaws – Financial Duties

BOS Meeting Agenda

BOS Meeting Finance Report

BOS Meetings

BOS Members

BOS Minutes - authorize Blanco Center

BOS sample report

BOS Self-Evaluation of Fiduciary oversight

BOS System Board Composition and Authority

Bylaws Section V: Duties, Powers and Functions

Bylaws Section XII: Board Self-Evaluation

Code of Ethics

Constitutional Authority for Louisiana BOR

Feb 2019 BOS Minutes

Finance Committee Agenda for 10-17-2018

FY19 UL Lafayette Budget

Jan 2019 BOS Minutes

LA constitution: Article VIII, Section 5.4

LA constitution: Article VIII, Section 5.5

LA Revised Statute 17:3205

LA Revised Statute 17:3351

LA Revised Statute 42:1162

LA Revised Statute 42:12

Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics – Opening Declaration

Louisiana State Legislature:  Authority of System Boards

Sample Report, BOR website

UL Lafayette President Savoie

UL System approval of FY19 UL Lafayette budget

UL System Board’s Bylaws

UL System BOR - Approval of proposed PhD program

UL System BOR - Approval to consolidate two chairs

UL System BOS Minutes April 12, 2018

UL System BOS Minutes February 22, 2018

 

4.2.A    Mission Review

The governing board ensures the regular review of the institution’s mission.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The mission of UL Lafayette is expressed primarily in two documents:

The Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) Role, Scope, and Mission. The “role, scope, and mission” of UL Lafayette is established and regularly reviewed by the BOR through its Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana (Website), in which the Louisiana Constitution mandates it to “…formulate and make timely revision of a master plan for postsecondary education,” including statements of Role, Scope, and Mission for each institution. As part of the process of formulating the new Master Plan for postsecondary education in Louisiana published in 2012, the BOR commissioned the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems to develop a proposal for the specific role, scope, and mission of each of Louisiana’s institutions of higher education. The BOR then, in collaboration with the State’s higher education management boards, reviewed and revised each institution’s current role, scope, and mission.  The following documents illustrate the process of review of role, scope, and mission for UL Lafayette:

 

·         Commission on Higher Education call for RSM draft review

·         BOR request to review role, scope, and mission – correspondence

·         BOR Minutes with legislative call for Review

·         2012 Request from BOR for five special areas in RSM

·         Email discussing five special program focus areas proposal

·         BOR minutes: New Role, Scope, and Mission designations adopted

 

The BOR also reviewed and updated the mission of “statewide” institutions in its Response to Act 619 of the 2016 Regular session of the Louisiana Legislature. As the following documents illustrate, this was an iterative process that involved input and review of UL Lafayette’s mission at the level of the institution, the UL System, and the BOR.

 

·         2016 call for revisions to RSM

·         Proposal for Role, Scope, and Mission 2016

·         Role, Scope, and Mission edits

·         Letter to Commissioner Rallo from VPRs

·         Act 619 Response Email

·         Act 619 Final BOR Staff Draft

·         BOR Response to Act 619

 

University’s own Mission Statement. The University’s own Mission Statement has been reviewed every five years with the adoption of a new strategic plan. Its current Mission, Values, and Vision Statement was adopted as part of the Strategic Plan 2015-2020, and was reviewed and approved by the BOS.

 

 

Supporting Documents

2012 Request from BOR for five special areas in RSM

2016 call for revisions to RSM

2016 RSM review receipt acknowledgment

Act 619 Final BOR Staff Draft

Act 619 Response Email

BOR Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana

BOR Master Plan statement on Role, Scope, and Mission

BOR Master Plan Website

BOR minutes

BOR Minutes legislative call

BOR minutes New Role, Scope, and Mission designations adopted

BOR request to review role, scope, and mission – correspondence

BOR Response to Act 619

BOS minutes

CHE call for RSM draft review

Five special program focus areas proposal email

LA Constitution VIII, 5

Letter to Commissioner Rallo from VPRs

Proposal for Role, Scope, and Mission 2016

Role, Scope, and Mission edits

Statewide Universities

Strategic Plan 2015-2020
UL Lafayette: Mission, Values, and Vision

 

 

4.2.B     Board/administrative distinction

The governing board ensures a clear and appropriate distinction between the policy-making function of the board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette has a coordinating board, the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR), and a governing board, the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors (BOS). The BOR is the policy-making coordinating board for all higher education institutions in the State, while the BOS determines broad administrative and educational policies and procedures. The BOS approves institutional budgets, hiring and termination of employees, contracts for purchase or sale of land, and construction of buildings and facilities. The BOS also directly hires and evaluates institutional presidents, approves an institution’s degree programs, and authorizes the conferral of degrees. (See Standard 4.1 for further information on UL Lafayette’s governance structure.) 

The BOS Bylaws explicitly separate the Board’s responsibility for establishing institutional policy and the responsibility of institution presidents for their execution:

General Statement of Administrative Policy. The Board shall determine broad administrative and educational policies for the conduct of all Board, System, and institutional affairs and it shall provide for the execution of its policies by the System President and by the institution Presidents.

The specific duties and powers of the BOS are delineated in the Board’s Bylaws, Part 1, Section V, entitled “Duties, Powers, and Functions.” These focus on the Board’s fiduciary and budgetary duties, approval of programs, rules for governance, student discipline and the conferral of degrees, and election of the heads of institutions. The Bylaws also empower the Board to “adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations necessary or proper for the business of the Board and for the governance of the institutions under its jurisdiction.” The regulations of the Board broadly establish rules for staff and academic appointments, financial procedures, receipt of gifts, intellectual property, and affiliated organizations. These duties and powers clearly circumscribe the authority of the Board and delineate its policy-making function, while leaving responsibility for implementing policy to the institution’s administration and faculty.

The Rules assign specific responsibility for the University’s administration to its president and, through him or her, to the University’s administration and faculty. As these duties demonstrate, the President’s office is responsible for ensuring that the University administration and faculty administer and implement policy. The President delegates this responsibility to the Vice Presidents according to their respective areas, as delineated in their job descriptions in Table 4.2.b – 1.

Table 4.2.b – 1: Senior Administrators’ job descriptions

 

Part 2, Chapter III, section I of the BOS Rules is devoted to Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities of the Academic Staff. This document begins with a statement of the principle of academic freedom, thus relegating decisions about appropriate academic content to the faculty and not the Board. The policy goes on to state that “Those members of the academic staff who comprise the faculty of the System are charged to determine the educational policy of the System through deliberative action in their respective units and divisions,” thus specifying that educational policy is the realm of the faculty and not the Board.

To further define policy, the BOS and its staff periodically issue “Policy and Procedures Memoranda.” These memoranda address more narrowly focused issues such as access to student records, course articulation among institutions, and outside employment restrictions. “Policy and Procedures Memoranda” are posted on the UL System website.

As indicated in the BOS Rules, the University, on the other hand, has authority and responsibility for the implementation of Board policies. For example, while the Board ratifies faculty and staff hired by the University, the latter conducts the employment search and chooses the candidate. Similarly, while the Board approves new degree programs, those degree programs are originally designed and proposed by the faculty of the University. For example, UL Lafayette was the sole author of a proposal for an MS in Informatics, which was then approved by the BOS and the BOR.

UL Lafayette implements Board policies in its own policy documents and procedures, published in the Faculty Handbook, the Staff Handbook, the Student Handbook, and the University online Catalog. Specific explanation of the responsibilities and governance of the various administrative units at UL Lafayette can be found in the University’s Organizational Chart and Faculty Handbook.

In summary, the respective roles of the University’s administrators and faculty are:

·         The President, as the chief executive officer of the institution, is responsible for the execution of the administrative and educational policies of the Board of Regents and the Board of Supervisors.

·         The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the chief academic officer of the University, with the support of the Assistant Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs, coordinates the work of the other University Vice Presidents, and acts as chief administrative officer in the absence of the University President.

·         The University Council, chaired by the Provost, is composed of the President, the Vice Presidents, the Executive Officer of the Faculty Senate, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Communications Officer, the Athletic Director, and the Director of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement. 

·         The Deans of the eight undergraduate colleges and the Graduate School and other high-level academic administrators are responsible to the Provost for the leadership and administration of academic programs within their areas.

·         The Directors of Schools, Department Heads, and Coordinators are to the responsible deans of their respective colleges for the academic, personnel, financial, and material needs of their academic units.

·         Faculty participate in the University’s decision‐making process principally through their respective departments, through the Faculty Senate, and through other University committees and task forces.

In practice, the signing authority chart details signatures required for different processes. Much of the deliberation and implementation of policy within the University is conducted by standing committees whose members are generally faculty and staff. An open call for volunteers to serve on these committees is conducted each year, and membership lists are public.

Most policies are developed and regularly revised through standing or special committees composed of members of the faculty, administration, and student body. 

The faculty is the driving force behind academic policies, and often, the revision of policies is debated in committees formed by the Faculty Senate and occurs as a result of requests made by the Faculty Senate. This process is reflected in the Procedure for Making Changes to the Faculty Handbook. Several examples illustrate the distinction between the policy-making function of the BOS, and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.

Example 1. The program approval process demonstrates the division of roles of the institution and boards in program creation. This process includes policies on Letters of Intent and New Program Development. The recent creation of the MS in Informatics illustrates the process:

1.       February 26, 2015 — Letter of Intent to develop a new program, authored by faculty of the School of Computing and Informatics and the Dean of the College of Sciences, submitted to Office of Academic Affairs

2.       May 5, 2015 — Review and approval by Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs

3.       May 14, 2015 — Submission of Letter of Intent to BOS

4.       June 25, 2015 — Approval of Letter of Intent by BOS

5.       August 28, 2015 — Receipt of BOR’s staff request for additional information

6.       October 6, 2015 — Response to the BOR’s staff request for additional information and letters of support for program

7.       November 12, 2015 — Submission of Revised Letter of Intent and Budget Form to BOR

a.       December 10, 2015 — Approval of Letter of Intent by BOR (BOR Minutes, BOR Agenda, UL System Board Action)

8.       May 9, 2016 — Submission of Full Proposal to BOS

9.       May 11, 2016 — Receipt of additional questions from BOS

10.   June 1, 2016 — Submission of revised Full Proposal to BOS

11.   June 7, 2016 — Initiation of external review process

12.   February 21, 2017 — Receipt of external reviewer’s report

13.   March 30, 2017 — Submission of revised Full Proposal to BOS (one new course on Cloud Computing and Big Data Applications was added at the suggestion of the external reviewer)

14.   April 20, 2017 — Approval of Full Proposal by BOS

15.   May 22, 2017 — Approval of Full Proposal by BOR

16.   November 8, 2017 — Approval of MS in Informatics course changes by the Graduate Council’s curriculum committee, for inclusion in the 2017-18 Catalog

17.   Spring 2018 — Program implementation

18.   August 23, 2018 — Submission of Progress Report on MS in Informatics Program (17 students enrolled)

Example 2. Although the BOS has a broad Tenure Policy that governs tenure at all institutions, each institution is responsible for developing rules and procedures for implementing it. The Office of Faculty Affairs first proposed changes to the University’s tenure clock policies to avoid an unnecessary delay in the official granting of tenure, which were subsequently approved by the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate in turn proposed that UL Lafayette revise its policy for requested extensions of the tenure clock, which was subsequently adopted.

Example 3. The BOS lays out the broad procedure for selecting deans, mandating that “A search committee shall be appointed by the President or his designee and contain an appropriate mix of faculty, students, staff, and others relevant to the position of interest. Every effort shall be made to secure diversity in the composition of the search committee.” Within that mandate, the University is responsible for specific implementation of the policy. Recently, UL Lafayette implemented changes to these selection procedures, with Faculty Senate and administration approval. A publicly posted Faculty Handbook Change Log documents all such changes.

Example 4. The BOS publishes a policy on emeritus faculty. UL Lafayette recently established specific guidelines within that policy, and a procedure that follows the chain of authority from faculty member to President for approving individual requests for emeritus status, and specifies the criteria and benefits of the title.

 

Supporting Documents

April 2017 Board Action – UL System

Board Bylaws and Rules

BOR Agenda

BOR Approval

BOR Letters of Intent Policy: Board of Regents Academic Affairs Policy 2.04

BOR Minutes

BOR Minutes May 2017

BOR Progress Report

BOS Approval

BOS Bylaws - Appeal

BOS Bylaws - Chapter III, Section I

BOS Duties, Powers, and Functions

BOS Policy and Procedure for Selecting Deans

Program Budget Form

Chapter 3: Faculty and Staff

External Reviewer’s Report

Faculty Affairs Proposed Changes to Section V of Faculty Handbook

Faculty Handbook – Tenure Extension

Faculty Handbook Change Log

Faculty Handbook: Organization

Final published policy

Full Proposal

Full Proposal—Revised

Letter of Intent

New Program Development Policy

New Program Development Process

Policies and Procedures

Procedure for Making Changes in the Faculty Handbook

Response to BOR

Sample calls for volunteers

Senate Minutes, December 2, 2015

Senate Proposal and approval of Tenure Extension Policy

System Emeritus Policy

UL System Board Action

University and Senate Committees

University Committees

UL Lafayette Duties, Roles, and Responsibilities of Academic Department Heads

UL Lafayette Emeriti Faculty

UL Lafayette Online Catalog

UL Lafayette Organizational Chart

 

4.2.C     CEO Evaluation/Selection

The governing board selects and regularly evaluates the institution’s chief executive officer.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

Selection

The University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors (BOS) is responsible for the selection of the chief executive officer of UL Lafayette. The search and selection process is specified in the BOS Rules. The search committee consists of at least six members of the BOS, including the student member on the BOS, and a faculty member of the affected institution. The System President serves as the non-voting Chair of the search committee. Additional guidelines in the Board’s “Policy and Procedures Memorandum: Searches for University Presidents,” address the use of non-voting advisory members to assist with the search, advertisement of the position in national publications, and the use of a search firm or consultants.

The search and selection process was last implemented at UL Lafayette in 2008 when the current President was selected. The process was public, with open meetings and information about the status of the search and candidates available on a page of the UL System website, and proceeded as follows:

•     April 27, 2007: President Authement’s retirement was announced at BOS meeting.

•     May 18, 2007: The names of 13 members of the search committee (11 voting and two advisory members) were announced, and a date for the first public hearing was set for June 14 in Lafayette.

•     June 14, 2007: The first public hearing was held in Lafayette. Following the hearing, “desired qualifications for a new president were compiled from public input . . . and through a special email, a web comment form and phone line [were] set up of the search. Those qualifications [were] also posted on the UL System’s website.”

•     July, 2007: The vacancy announcement was published.

•     September 12, 2007: The second public hearing was held in Lafayette.

•     October 3, 2007: The search committee narrowed the list of candidates from 38 to five.

•     November 12–13, 2007: The search committee conducted public interviews with five candidates on the UL Lafayette campus.

•     Announcement of public interviews with candidates

•     Schedule of public interviews with candidates

•     BOS agenda for public interviews

•     November 28, 2007: The search committee recommended three presidential finalists.

•     December 6, 2007: The BOS held a special meeting to select the President.

•     December 7, 2007: The selection of E. Joseph Savoie as UL Lafayette’s President was announced.

Evaluation

The BOS is also charged with the periodic evaluation of the chief executive officer, as specified in the Board Rules section entitled, “Contractual Arrangements, Benefits, and Evaluations of Presidents”:

Evaluations of Presidents. The performance of the institution presidents shall be individually evaluated on a regular basis according to a process approved by the Board. The evaluations are intended to (1) fulfill Board responsibility for making certain that each institution is well managed, (2) help the presidents improve their performance, (3) make certain that sound institutional goals are being pursued, and (4) identify opportunities for improving the management and planning functions of the University of Louisiana System and its constituent universities.

In accordance with the UL System Board Rules, in the summer before each academic year, the BOS submits a request to the University President’s office for the annual self-evaluation (2016, 2017, 2018) with specific metrics to be addressed, including a fiscal health analysis. In the Fall, the University President submits to the BOS President a list of performance goals for the year. At the end of the Spring, he/she submits a report on performance related to the goals (2016, 2017, 2018).  Further formal evaluation takes place at the BOS meetings as reflected in recent agendas and minutes.

To gather additional input, the BOS also circulates annually (2016, 2017, 2019) via email, a survey evaluating the President. This survey is directed to representative UL Lafayette employees who work directly with the President (all VPs and Assistant VPs; deans, directors and all direct reports; student government and faculty senate presidents).

The BOS evaluation of the President includes periodic campus visits by the President of the BOS. Beginning in 2015-2016, the BOR instituted a more in-depth review of campus presidents on a three-year rotating cycle. Dr. Savoie was reviewed in 2017-2018. The campus interviews that accompanied this process took place in May 2018. 

 

Supporting Documents

Announcement of Special BOS meeting to select President

BOS agenda for public interviews

BOS meeting Agenda July 26 2016

BOS minutes July 26 2016 p. 6

BOS Rules Chapter 3, Section 2

BOS Rules Chapter 3, Section 4

Dr.  E. Joseph Savoie named President

First Search Committee meeting June 14, 2007

Fiscal Health Template 2017

In-Depth 3-Year Review of President 2017

In-depth Review Arrangements 2018

List narrowed to five candidates

List of top three candidates to board

Performance Metrics Attached to Email 2016

Policy and Procedure Memo

President Authement’s retirement announcement

Presidential evaluation 15-16

Presidential evaluation 16-17

Presidential evaluation 17-18

Presidential evaluation email circulating evaluation survey 2016

Presidential evaluation email circulating evaluation survey 2017

Presidential Evaluation Survey instrument 2016

Presidential Vacancy Announcement

Public interviews with candidates

Schedule of public interviews with candidates

Second Search Committee meeting Sept 12, 2007

Self-evaluation request email 2016

Self-evaluation request email 2017

Self-evaluation request email 2018

UL System News Release: Date of First Public Hearing on Presidential Search

Woodley campus visit

Woodley Visit Itinerary

 

 

4.2.D     Conflict of Interest

The governing board defines and addresses potential conflicts of interest for its members.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

Both UL Lafayette’s Coordinating Board, the Louisiana BOR, and its Governing Board, the UL System BOS, define and address potential conflicts of interest for their members.

Both Boards are subject to the stipulations of the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics. In addition, the BOS conducts business in accordance with its own Bylaws. Both the state Code of Ethics and the BOS Bylaws address the issue of conflict of interest.

The Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics (RS 42:1101, Chapter 15) addresses conflicts of interest generally in its opening Declaration of Policy:

It is essential to the proper operation of democratic government that elected officials and public employees be independent and impartial; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channel of the governmental structure; that public office and employment not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law; and that there be public confidence in the integrity of government. The attainment of one or more of these ends is impaired when a conflict exists between the private interests of an elected official or a public employee and his duties as such. The public interest, therefore, requires that the law protect against such conflicts of interest and that it establish appropriate ethical standards with respect to the conduct of elected officials and public employees without creating unnecessary barriers to public service. 

The BOS Bylaws (Part I, Section G) also address the issue of conflict of interest generally at the Board level:

G.  Conflict of Interest. The Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System is the governing board for all institutions that comprise the University of Louisiana System. All members of the Board are appointed officers of the State of Louisiana. As such, they are subject to the laws of the State as defined by the 1974 Louisiana State Constitution (Art.  X.  Public Officials and Employees, Part I., Sec.  2) and the State Code of Ethics which govern their conduct and responsibilities.

The UL System BOS Bylaws, Section XII addresses the regular evaluation of the Board’s assessment of conflicts of interest:

The self-evaluation will include assessments regarding . . . Board orientation and ongoing education [and the] board’s method for identifying and addressing potential conflicts of interest.

More specifically, through its Code of Ethics and multiple statutes, the state of Louisiana defines, addresses, and prohibits many forms of conflict of interest among members of the BOR and BOS, and thereby protects UL Lafayette from such conflicts. The Louisiana Code of Ethics defines and addresses nepotism, influence through gifts, and contractual conflicts. The UL System President, as well as all board members must submit financial disclosure statements annually to the Board of Ethics. Board members are required to disclose any political contributions to the appointing authority.

Meetings of the BOS and the BOR are advertised and open to the public, and no votes may be taken in executive sessions:

·         La RS 42:12 Public Policy for Open Meetings

·         La RS 42:14 Meetings of Public Bodies Open to Public

·         La RS 42:16 Executive Sessions

Upon appointment, each member of the BOR and BOS is required to sign an oath stating:

[I will] support the constitution and laws of the United States and the constitution and laws of this State; and I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____, and according to the best of my ability and understanding.

At their mandated orientation, new members of the BOS are issued copies of the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics (sample 2017 Orientation Schedule), and must complete and submit an ethics disclosure form.

A mandatory annual ethics training (2016, 2017, 2018) maintains board members’ and employees’ familiarity with the Code of Governmental Ethics, and the Louisiana Constitution provides for the impeachment of a board member for misconduct associated with non-compliance with state-mandated ethics.

 

Supporting Documents

BOS Bylaws – conflict of interest

BOS Bylaws and Rules

BOS Bylaws Section XII—Board Self-Evaluation

BOS June 2017 schedule - New Board Member Orientation

BOS Minutes– ethics training 2016

BOS Minutes– ethics training 2018

BOS Minutes– ethics training, 2017

LA Code of Governmental Ethics

LA Constitution 10:24 Impeachment

LA Revised Statute 42:1113

LA Revised Statute 42:1115

LA Revised Statute 42:1119

LA Revised Statute 42:1124

LA Revised Statute 42:1124.2.1

LA Revised Statute 42:1124.6

LA Revised Statute 42:1170 Ethics Education

LA Revised Statute 42:12 Public Policy for Open Meetings

LA Revised Statute 42:14 Meetings of Public Bodies Open to Public

LA Revised Statute 42:16 Executive Sessions

LA Revised Statute 42:52

PPM B.VIII. -1: Orientation for new Board Members and Board Member Prof. Development

Related Party Disclosures and Compliance with the Code of Governmental Ethics form

 

4.2.E     Board Dismissal

The governing board has appropriate and fair processes for the dismissal of a board member.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

All board members of the BOR and the UL System BOS are appointed state officials in unclassified service, and as such are subject to Louisiana statutes concerning dismissal with cause and the right to appeal. Specifically, the Louisiana Constitution provides for removal of any appointed state official in the following article:

§24.  Impeachment

Section 24. (A) Persons Liable. A state or district official, whether elected or appointed, shall be liable to impeachment for commission or conviction, during his term of office of a felony or for malfeasance or gross misconduct while in such office. 

(B)  Procedure. Impeachment shall be by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate, with senators under oath or affirmation for the trial. The concurrence of two-thirds of the elected senators shall be necessary to convict. The Senate may try an impeachment whether or not the House is in session and may adjourn when it deems proper. Conviction upon impeachment shall result in immediate removal from office. Nothing herein shall prevent other action, prosecution, or punishment authorized by law. State Law: Impeachment.

The Bylaws of the BOS further address removal for cause:

Members of the Board are considered to be appointed state officials in unclassified service (La.  Const., Art.  X Public Officials and Employees, Part I., Sec.  2). As such, they may be removed from office through impeachment for cause (La.  Const., Art.  X.  Public Officials and Employees, Part III, Sec.  24). Cause may include, but may not be limited to, commission or conviction during the term of office, of a felony or for malfeasance or gross misconduct while in office. Due process shall be provided with a trial by the Senate.  The Board may also establish guidelines for the conduct of its members.

Due process in the dismissal of persons in unclassified service and their right to appeal are addressed in two other regulations:

·         Removal of Public Officers by suit: “A public officer shall be removed from office for conviction during his term of office of a felony.” The statue also makes provisions for compensation and reinstatement if the conviction is reversed on appeal.

 

·         Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics Appeals:  When action is taken against any public servant or person by the Board or panel, or by an agency head by order of the Board or panel, or when any public servant or person is aggrieved by any action taken by the Board or panel, he/she may appeal to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, if application to the Board is made within thirty days after the decision of the Board becomes final.

 

Upon taking office, BOS and BOR members swear an oath to abide by the state laws. Board members can access the UL System Bylaws in the Board Members section of the BOS website.

No dismissal proceedings have occurred during the period under review.

 

Supporting Documents

BOS Bylaws and Rules: Impeachment

BOS Rules, Policies, and Procedures

LA Constitution Article 10, Section 24: Impeachment

LA Code of Governmental Ethics: Appeals

LA Revised Statute 42:1411, Removal of Public Officers by Suit

LA Revised Statute 42:52

 

4.2.F     external influence

The governing board protects the institution from undue influence by external persons or bodies.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The State’s ethics, purchasing, and employment laws and the bylaws, rules, and policies of the University’s governing board protect UL Lafayette from undue influence by external persons or bodies.  The University’s management board, the UL System BOS, is governed by its own Bylaws and Rules, which protect institutions from external influence. According to Section V of the Bylaws, the BOS must approve for all institutions:

1.      the sale, purchase, or lease of land;

2.      the purchase or construction of buildings; and

3.      all personnel actions, including employment, termination, and raises.

All such approvals are public, mitigating against a university being unduly influenced or pressured in its actions and decisions by an external body. Further, all meetings of the BOS and the BOR are advertised and open to the public, and no votes may be taken in executive sessions.

Board Member Selection

Both the BOR and the BOS have an identical appointment process mandated by law. The Governor appoints to the respective boards two members from each of the State’s seven congressional districts and one at-large member. Appointments require the consent of the Louisiana Senate. Members serve overlapping terms of six years. This appointment process helps ensure that the BOS is independent from outside influence and pressure. The stipulation that members be appointed from the various congressional districts of the State ensures a distribution of authority. Board members serve six-year, staggered terms, which mitigates against undue influence on Board composition by any one Governor, as gubernatorial terms are only four years. The student member on the Board has all the privileges and rights of other Board members, serves a term no longer than one year, and is not eligible to succeed himself or herself.

Ethics Code

Through its Code of Ethics and other statutes, the state of Louisiana defines, addresses, and prohibits many forms of conflict of interest among members of the BOR and BOS that protect UL Lafayette from external influence. The Code defines and addresses external influence through gifts and contractual conflicts. The University of Louisiana System President, as well as all board members, must submit financial disclosure statements annually to the Board of Ethics. Board members must also disclose any political contributions to the appointing authority.

The Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics delineates standards of conduct for state officials as they relate to monetary influence, gifts, nepotism, and interactions with other state agencies and officials.  The Code, which applies to both Board members and University employees, requires that all public servants be independent, impartial, and free from conflict of interest. This is also stated in Louisiana Revised Statute 42:1101. Because the BOR and the BOS approve UL Lafayette actions, these requirements extend to protecting the University from external influence. 

The Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics requires that members of both the BOR and the BOS disclose personal financial information, a requirement that clearly mitigates against the Board’s ability to make decisions that might benefit individual Board members instead of the institutions that the Board oversees. Additionally, Louisiana laws governing purchases, contracts, and employment also effectively protect the institution from undue external influence. All purchases by a State agency must follow the State’s public bid laws, which require that the agency put out for competitive public bid to at least three bidders any purchase valued above $5,000, and contracts greater than $25,000 must be awarded through competitive, sealed bidding.

Training

Annual ethics training maintains board members’ and employees’ familiarity with the Code of Governmental Ethics, and the Louisiana Constitution provides for the impeachment of a board member for misconduct associated with non-compliance with state-mandated ethics.

Hiring

The University follows State and federal employment rules in all hiring, including public advertising of all permanent positions and review for EEO compliance. All faculty and administrative hires are approved by the BOS. The public nature of the hiring and approval processes ensures that the University is allowed to hire the best qualified applicants for its available positions, and mitigates against any undue influence in the hiring process.

The BOS regularly provides legal defense of the University, protecting it from influence resulting from the threat of lawsuits. The Board has also supported the University in conflicts with external entities.

 

Supporting Documents

BOS Bylaws, Section V

BOS Schedule – ethics training June 2018

EEO compliance

Hiring and Approval Processes

LA Code of Governmental Ethics, 42:1101

LA Constitution 10:24 Impeachment

LA Constitution Article VIII, Sections 5, 6, and 8

LA Procurement Code

LA Procurement Handbook

LA Revised Statute 42:1101

LA Revised Statute 42:1111

LA Revised Statute 42:1113

LA Revised Statute 42:1124

LA Revised Statute 42:1124.2.1

LA Revised Statute 42:1124.6

LA Revised Statute 42:1170 Ethics Education

LA Revised Statute 42:12 Public Policy for Open Meetings

LA Revised Statute 42:14 Meetings of Public Bodies Open to Public

LA Revised Statute 42:16 Executive Sessions

NIRC exchange

Sample legal defense of University

 

4.2.G     board self-evaluation

The governing board defines and regularly evaluates its responsibilities and expectations.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The Louisiana BOR is the coordinating board for all higher education in the State, and UL Lafayette’s governing board is the UL System BOS. The BOS defines and regularly evaluates its responsibilities and expectations. The BOS’ responsibilities and expectations are broadly defined as supervision and management of the institutions under its purview by the Louisiana State Constitution.

The BOS defines its responsibilities and expectations in detail and explicitly in its Bylaws, Section V, Duties, Powers, and Functions.

Section XII of the BOS’s Bylaws, Board Self-Evaluation, approved June 21, 2018, states:

To assess the effectiveness of the Board (as a unit), the Board will continue to regularly define and evaluate its responsibilities and expectations as follows:

1. The Board will conduct a self-evaluation of its responsibilities and expectations at least every two years. The Board may also choose to engage in an additional self-evaluation upon the election of a new Chairman.

2. The self-evaluation will include assessments regarding

(a) Board organization, leadership, and committee responsibilities and structure;

(b) Board orientation and ongoing education;

(c) Board fiduciary oversight of UL System and the ULS institutions;

(d) Board’s oversight of the President of the System as chief executive officer; and

(e) Board’s method for identifying and addressing potential conflicts of

interest.

Before this policy went into effect, the Board regularly participated in self-evaluation activities.  Professional development sessions “focus on an area of interest or need as identified by the Chair of the Board or the System President.” A recent example took place in March 2017 and was facilitated by Dr. Kenneth Shaw, Senior Consultant, Association of Governing Board of Colleges and Universities (AGB). The end of this retreat included a broad self-evaluation and an evaluation survey.

Now that the policy is in place, the BOS regularly undertakes evaluations of its responsibilities and expectations, and its performance in meeting them, through a formal self-evaluation scheduled to occur every two years.  The first of these took place in February, 2019:

·         2019 Board self-evaluation retreat agenda

·         2019 Board self-evaluation PowerPoint

·         2019 Board Consultant PowerPoint

 

The BOS orients all its new members to the responsibilities and expectations of the Board, and evaluates its own responsibilities, expectations, and performance as part of the planning and carrying out of regular Board professional development activities.

 

Supporting Documents

BOS Bylaws, Section V

BOS Bylaws, Section XII

BOS Minutes June 21 2018

Evaluation Agenda March 2017

Louisiana State Constitution, Article VIII

PPM B. VIII. -1: Orientation for new Board Members and Board Member Prof. Development

2019 Board self-evaluation retreat agenda

2019 Board self-evaluation PowerPoint

2019 Board Consultant PowerPoint

 

4.3     Multi-level governance

If an institution’s governing board does not retain sole legal authority and operating control in a multiple-level governance system, then the institution clearly defines that authority and control for the following areas within its governance structure: (a) institution’s mission, (b) fiscal stability of the institution, and (c) institutional policy.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The legal authority for coordinating higher education institutions in Louisiana is granted by the Louisiana Constitution to the Louisiana BOR and, through the Regents, to the governing or management boards of the four higher education systems. The ultimate legal authority of the Boards derives from Louisiana Revised Statue 17:3351, which lists the powers, duties, and functions of college and university boards. Some of these duties are also outlined in the BOS Bylaws, Part One, Section V, “Duties, Powers and Functions.” These two Boards’ (BOR and BOS) respective responsibilities, and the distribution of authority and responsibility are more fully explained in Standard 4.1.

A.  Institution’s mission

The institution’s Mission is defined in two documents: its own Mission, Vision, Values statement, and the Role, Scope, and Mission given in the BOR’s Master Plan for Higher Education. The University’s Mission, Vision, Values statement is approved by the BOS, but must be in accord with the BOR’s Role, Scope, and Mission for UL Lafayette. As the BOR defines the Role, Scope, and Mission, and the BOS approves the University’s Mission, Vision, Values statement, UL Lafayette’s governing boards have authority over UL Lafayette’s Mission.  The BOS approves the University’s own Mission, Vision and Values statement.

B. Fiscal stability of the institution

In accordance with Louisiana Revised Statute 17:3351, the BOR has ultimate legal responsibility for developing the funding formula for equitable distribution of funds to state institutions. The BOR reviews annual budget proposals for the operating and capital needs of each public institution prior to compilation of the BOR higher education budget recommendations. Thus, the BOR, through the state universities’ governing (management) boards, ensures the fiscal stability of all state institutions of higher education. 

As the University’s governing board, the BOS receives and allocates to the University all state-appropriated funds and ensures that their expenditures accord with the BOR Master Plan for Post-Secondary Education. The BOS also approves student fees and the purchase of land and acquisition of buildings, subject to the approval of the BOR. Legally the BOS is the ultimate employer of University personnel: it fixes salaries, duties, and functions of personnel, and oversees the financial operation of the University.

The BOS executes these responsibilities primarily through two of its standing committees: the Finance Committee, which considers all matters related to institutions’ financial operations, and the Audit Committee. By state law, a representative of the BOS Finance Committee also serves on the BOR Finance Committee. Overlapping membership on these committees promotes transparency in the oversight of institutional fiscal operations. The minutes of two representative BOS meetings illustrate the activities undertaken by the Finance Committee. In the first, the Finance Committee reviewed and approved an Affiliation Agreement and Funds Management Agreement between UL Lafayette and the UL Lafayette Foundation. In the second, the Finance Committee approved the consolidation of two Endowed Chairs at the University.

C. Institutional policy

The BOS Bylaws define the Board’s responsibility for establishing institutional policy within Section V, “Duties, Powers, and Functions”:

General Statement of Administrative Policy. The Board shall determine broad administrative and educational policies for the conduct of all Board, System, and institutional affairs and it shall provide for the execution of its policies by the System President and by the institution Presidents.

Further, the BOS derives from Louisiana law the authority to set policy relative to relationships with external entities and auxiliary services. Specifically, the BOS Bylaws stipulate that the Board may “enter into contracts and agreements with other public agencies with respect to cooperative enterprises and undertakings relating to or associated with its institutions' purposes and programs.”

 

Supporting Documents

BOR Master Plan - Role, Scope, and Mission

BOR Master Plan for Postsecondary Education

BOR Minutes

BOS Agenda Mission Approval

BOS Bylaws, Section V

BOS Minutes

BOS Minutes April 12 2018

BOS Minutes June 21 2018

Bylaws, Section V b

Bylaws, Section V c16

LA Constitution, Article VIII

LA Revised Statute 17.3351

LA Revised Statute 17:3351

LA Revised Statute 17:3351

LA Revised Statute 17:3351

UL Lafayette Mission, Values, and Vision

 

5.1     Chief Executive OfficeR [CR]

The institution has a chief executive officer whose primary responsibility is to the institution.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette is its President, Dr. E. Joseph Savoie, who assumed office on July 1, 2008. Dr. Savoie’s primary responsibility is to the University: he has no role or membership on the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors (BOS) or the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR), and he holds no other positions or offices at other institutions, in state government, or in the private sector that compete with his position as President of the University.

The UL System BOS Rules give the President’s position description and outline his or her authority over, and responsibility to, the institution. These are also reflected in the vacancy announcement that resulted in his hire.

 

Supporting Documents

BOR Membership

BOS Membership

Brief Bio of President Savoie

President Savoie CV

Presidential Vacancy Announcement

Roles, Benefits, and Evaluation of Presidents

System Announcement of Savoie Appointment

 

5.2.A     CEO Control

The chief executive officer has ultimate responsibility for, and exercises appropriate control over the following: the institution’s educational, administrative, and fiscal programs and services.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The CEO of UL Lafayette, President E. Joseph Savoie, has ultimate responsibility for, and exercises appropriate control over, the University’s educational, administrative, and fiscal programs and services. The Rules of the University’s management board, the UL System BOS, assigns broad responsibility for the institution and all its programs to the President. Those responsibilities include:

 

1.       Administering the institution over which he/she is appointed and exercising complete executive authority therein, subject to the direction and control of the System President and the BOS;

2.       Carrying out all duties expressly assigned by statute and those duties delegated by the BOS and System President consistent with policies approved by the Board;

3.       Being responsible to the BOS and the System President for the effective execution of all Board and System policies, resolutions, rules, and regulations adopted by the BOS, as well as plans, memoranda, and directives issued by the System President. The institution President’s discretionary powers shall be broad enough to enable him/her to meet his/her extensive responsibilities;

4.       Providing effective performance as reviewed by the BOS evaluation process, i.e., ensuring excellence in the institution, its faculty and students, in instruction, and research quality;

5.       Assuming and retaining control at all times over the budget of the institution, including functions of review and recommendation concerning the budgets of all divisions of the campus and the preparation of a consolidated budget, as well as execution of the budget as approved by the BOS; and development and administration of the campus operational, auxiliary enterprise, and restricted funds budgets as approved by the BOS, including establishment of priorities for expenditures and achievement of revenue projections as set forth in the approved budgets;

6.       Being the official medium of communication between the System President and all constituencies at the campus level: faculty, students, administrators, classified employees, alumni, and the local community;

7.       Providing academic leadership for the campus through established planning processes, and prioritization of goals and objectives; promotion of academic excellence through execution of strategic initiatives outlined by the System President and the Board; development and motivation of personnel to accomplish the campus mission; and promotion of innovative and efficient uses of campus resources;

8.       Administration of all aspects of campus affairs affecting student life and otherwise promoting the learning environment for the welfare of the student body;

9.       Development of an effective public service program for both the campus and the community to ensure the university is meeting the needs of its constituents;

10.    Making recommendations to the System Office for all personnel actions (appointments, promotions, transfers, suspensions, dismissals, retirements, etc.) for BOS approval;

11.    Recommending those persons to be granted tenure by the BOS;

12.    Development, maintenance, and operation of the campus physical plant, as well as the development of long-range capital construction priorities;

13.    Designating an officer who will be second in line of authority at the institution, and who will perform such duties as may be assigned by the president, and notifying the System President in writing of this designation; 

14.    Development of an effective community relations program including, but not limited to, developing ongoing relationships with alumni and building the university’s endowment; and (Addition approved 8/27/99)

15.    Providing effective leadership in efforts to secure various sources of funding for the university.

The University’s Organizational Chart shows that the President is ultimately responsible for the entire administration of the University. Reporting directly to the President are the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice President for Advancement, and the Vice President for Administration and Finance. Reporting to the Provost are the Vice President for Research, Innovation and Economic Development, the Vice President for Student Affairs, and the Vice President for Enrollment Management.

In practice, authority and control over the institution’s educational, administrative, and fiscal programs and services are delineated in the University’s “Signing Authority Chart,” an internal document that establishes signing authority from each unit up through the President. This chart demonstrates that the President, or a position directly in the chain of authority leading to the President, has final approval authority over all important official documents.

The President meets weekly with senior leadership in the University Council, where important issues are brought forth and discussed. The President appoints all the Vice Presidents to manage and oversee daily operations of their respective divisions of responsibility as stated above, and develop and execute strategies in light of the institution’s mission and strategic plan. Each Vice President reports to the President, is a member of University Council, and serves at the pleasure of the President.

Educational

BOS Rules (Section A.7) assign responsibility for the University’s educational programs to the University President. The University’s educational programs are administered by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, who is appointed by and reports directly to the President and serves at his pleasure. All personnel actions, including hiring of academic personnel (except civil service), are approved by the President. The President approves all academic program proposals. The President is also charged with proposing major changes in the academic structure of the University to the BOS.

Administrative

The BOS Rules assign responsibility for the University’s administrative programs to the University President. The University is administered by an array of Vice Presidents, Executive Directors, Directors, and other administrators whose appointment is directly or indirectly approved by the President, and whose continued service is directly or indirectly at his pleasure. The President retains ultimate administrative authority on all University business; for example, external agreements must be signed by the President. For certain contracts, the President explicitly delegates his signing authority. The President also demonstrates appropriate administrative control by representing the University in its exchanges with governing bodies, such as the BOS and SACSCOC.

Fiscal

The BOS Rules (Section A.5) assign responsibility for the University’s fiscal operations to the University President. The University’s finances are administered by the Vice President for Administration and Finance, who is appointed by and reports directly to the President, and serves at his pleasure. Both the Vice President for Administration and Finance and the University President sign the annual budget submitted to the BOS and the Quarterly Budget Reports submitted to the UL System. Contracts with external entities involving fiscal matters are always signed by the President.

 

Supporting Documents

2019-2020 Organizational Chart

BOS Roles, Benefits, and Evaluations of President--A5

BOS Roles, Benefits, and Evaluations of President--A7

BOS Roles, Benefits, and Evaluations of President--C

BOS Rules Number 7

FY19 UL Lafayette Budget 

Legislative Request and Signed University Response 

Lumcon MOU

Provost Position Description

Quarterly Budget Reports 

Sample Academic Restructuring 

Sample PAF with President’s Signature 

Sample University Council Minutes  

Sample Vice President Appointment

Signed Fifth Year Report

Signing Authority Chart – Academics

Signing Authority Delegated to Provost

SLCC Reverse Transfer Agreement

ULL INFX MS Proposal – Presidential Signature

VP Administration and Finance Job Description

 

 

5.2.B     Control of Intercollegiate Athletics

The chief executive officer has ultimate responsibility for and exercises appropriate control over the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The UL System BOS mandates that “All coaches, assistant coaches, and support personnel…shall hold appointments at the pleasure or will of the institution and the Board of Supervisors.” As indicated in the UL Lafayette Athletic department’s organizational chart, control of the administration and finances of the intercollegiate athletics programs flows directly from the University President, subject to the approval of the BOS. The President exercises fiscal control over the intercollegiate budget through the development and execution of the University’s budget. The operating budget, developed by the Vice President for Administration and Finance and his staff, includes funding for intercollegiate athletics and requires approval from the President prior to submission to the BOS.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s policies also specify presidential responsibilities. Section 2.1.1 of the 2017-2018 NCAA Division 1 Manual states, “It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution’s president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures.” UL Lafayette’s Athletic department is fully compliant with this standard. In 2016, the University requested a thorough and critical review of its athletics compliance program by Bond, Schoeneck, and King. This latest assessment concluded that “the athletics compliance systems at UL Lafayette are sound and complete.”

In August of each year, the President meets with all employees of the Athletic department as well as with other institutional employees who play a role in athletics. At this meeting, the President outlines his expectations of the Athletic department for the upcoming year, including compliance with rules and sportsmanship. This is a mandatory meeting for all employees. Sign-in sheets are utilized to acknowledge attendance, and agendas for the meetings are presented to each employee:

·         2017 Athletics All Staff Meeting Sign-in

·         2018 Athletics All Staff Meeting Sign-in

·         2017 Athletics All Staff Meeting Agenda

·         2018 Athletics All Staff Meeting Agenda

The Athletic Director reports directly to the President and serves at his pleasure. The President and Athletic Director meet twice per month. During one of these meetings, the Athletic Director presents the monthly Executive Operations Report, providing the President with a comprehensive, consistent, and timely flow of information about the significant facets of monthly operations. The report consists of two sections: the University Community Summary, which lists the significant activities within the University Community, and the Department Operating Unit Summary, which lists all of the significant activities within each operating unit of the Athletic department.

The University Community Summary provides the President with information relating to University Academics, University Advancement, University Finance, and Community Activities within the Athletic department.

The Department Operating Unit Summary provides the President with information relating to the following areas within the Athletic department:

·         Operations Planning and Management

·         Leadership Team

·         Academic Service

·         Business Office, including Budget and Foundation

·         Camps and Clinics

·         Coaches

·         Communications

·         Compliance

·         Development

·         Equipment

·         Events Management

The University Athletics Committee, composed of faculty and administrative staff outside of Athletics, is also appointed by and reports directly to the President. This Committee monitors academic support services for student-athletes, diversity, and equality among student-athletes, student-athlete academic performance, and general issues related to student-athlete safety and well-being. It acts in an advisory capacity to the President. The President meets with the Committee on an annual basis.

The Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) reports to the President on all matters dealing with athletics, and serves on the University Athletic Committee. The FAR signs all appeals and waivers, is informed of all violations, and may be involved in rules investigations, if necessary. Annually, the FAR administers the coaches’ NCAA certification tests.

Further examples of Presidential Oversight and Control include:

·         All employment contracts are approved and signed by the President;

·         All job descriptions for individuals directing intercollegiate athletics, athletics budgets, athletics fundraising, and athletics compliance clarify the reporting structure;

·         All football game contracts are approved by the President;

·         All naming rights for athletic facilities are approved by the President;

·         The President is an ex officio member of the Ragin Cajun Athletic Foundation (RCAF) Executive Board and approves all Foundation warrants for Athletics; and

·         The President approves all requests for renovations or construction of athletic facilities.

 

Supporting Documents

2017 Athletics All Staff Meeting Agenda

2017 Athletics All Staff Meeting Sign-in

2018 Athletics All Staff Meeting Agenda

2018 Athletics All Staff Meeting Sign-in

Athletics Committee Sample Agendas

Athletics Committee Sample Minutes

Athletics Organizational Chart

Bi-Weekly Athletic Director Meeting Arrangements

Bond Compliance Survey

Bond Compliance Survey Conclusion

BOS Athletic Personnel Policy

Department Operating Unit Summary

Employment Contracts

Executive Operations Report

FAR Job Description

Foundation Warrant

Game Contract

Naming Rights

NCAA 2017-2018 Manual

President’s Budget Signature

Request for Building Lease

Sample Agenda and Minutes with President

Staff Vacancy

University Budget Athletics Section

University Community Summary

5.2.c     Control of fundraising activities

The chief executive officer has ultimate responsibility for and exercises appropriate control over the institution’s fund-raising activities.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The President of UL Lafayette has ultimate oversight and authority over fundraising activities conducted on behalf of the University. His authority is embedded in the UL System Bylaws and Rules, Section IV.A, which includes, in the list of the President’s role and responsibilities, the following:

14. Development of an effective community relations program including, but not limited to, developing ongoing relationships with alumni and building the university’s endowment. (Addition approved 8/27/99)

15. Providing effective leadership in efforts to secure various sources of funding for the university.

Additional documents confirming the President’s authority include the University’s Fundraising Policies and Guidelines (revised 12-09-2009), the UL Lafayette Foundation Affiliation Agreement (2004, 2018), and the Guidelines for Naming Opportunities. As appropriate, these policies are posted on the University Policy, University Advancement, and UL Lafayette Foundation websites.

The University’s Fundraising Policies and Guidelines document provides direction for fundraising activities that support the University. The administrative office with primary responsibility for fundraising is the Office of Development, within the University Advancement Division. University Advancement is led by the Vice President of University Advancement, who is appointed by and reports directly to the President. According to the Fundraising Policies and Guidelines, the charge of the University Advancement team is to strengthen the University by enhancing its image, keeping alumni involved, raising money, recruiting students, and encouraging supportive relationships with government officials and agencies.

Within the Fundraising Policies and Guidelines, the President delegates to the Vice President for University Advancement the authority to organize all fundraising and solicitation activities to ensure consistency with the University’s mission, and coordination of those activities among all affiliated fundraising organizations. This policy is restated in the Affiliation Agreement between the University and the UL Lafayette Foundation. The primary goals of this policy are to ensure collaboration within the University when working with potential major donors, and to ensure that the well-being of the institution as a whole is always central to fundraising activities. This collaboration reflects the control of the University’s President, who is directly engaged in and monitors fundraising activities in multiple ways, including:

·         Conducts bi-weekly meetings with the Vice President for Advancement to monitor annual and capital campaign goals

·         Serves as an ex-officio voting member of the UL Lafayette Foundation Board of Trustees, and is a member of the UL Lafayette Foundation Real Estate Committee

·         Attends and personally thanks guests during the UL Lafayette Foundation’s annual Distinguished Donor Dinner, which honors both annual and lifetime giving society members

o   Distinguished Donor Invite

o   Distinguished Donor Program

·         Hosts cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship events with major donors and prospects

o   Blanco Legacy Gala Invite

o   Blanco Legacy Gala Program

o   Photo with Dr. Savoie

o   Cocktails and Conversation D.C. 2018

o   Dr. Savoie speaking at Blanco Legacy Event

o   Dr. Savoie with Governor Blanco

o   Outstanding Alumni Reception

·         Provides leadership in athletic fundraising initiatives and engages with major gift prospects in the President’s box during sporting events. During the University’s preparations for its first comprehensive capital campaign in 2020, Development staff have worked with the President to identify and compile the current fundraising priorities of the University into a campaign-planning document. Additional supporting materials showing that the University has aligned all fundraising activities at UL Lafayette to support the President’s institutional priorities include:

·         Foundation Giving Funds—Areas of Support

·         Foundation Giving Website—Give Now

·         Foundation Annual Report 2013-2014

·         Foundation Report on Philanthropy 2013

·         Annual Fund Appeals

·         Major Gift Proposals

·         Major Gift Donor Gift Agreements

·         Development Business Plan FY 2017

·         Development Business Plan FY 2018

Fundraising staff in the University Advancement Division report to the Executive Director of Development, who reports directly to the Vice President for University Advancement.

In 2017, to further strengthen fundraising efforts as the University prepared for its first comprehensive capital campaign, the UL Lafayette Foundation Board of Trustees created an ad hoc committee to advise the Board on a proposed change in the Foundation’s leadership structure, whereby the UL Lafayette Vice President for University Advancement would have dual appointment as the UL Lafayette Foundation Chief Executive Officer. The proposal was approved on May 16, 2018, and the dual appointment was confirmed effective June 15, 2018. The employment contracts for the dual appointment are in legal review. The Affiliation Agreement (2004, 2018) between the University and the UL Lafayette Foundation provides additional evidence of the relationship between the University President and the UL Lafayette Foundation, and documents that the University President retains significant influence over and control of Foundation fundraising activities, Board of Trustee appointments, and the disbursement of Foundation funds.

The University’s President, as the institution’s chief executive officer, has oversight and control of all fundraising activities at the University, as delineated in the President’s job description, University Policy, UL Lafayette Foundation Bylaws and related procedures, and as evidenced through documented practice.

 

Supporting Documents

Affiliation Agreement 2004

Affiliation Agreement 2018

Affiliation Agreement with UL Lafayette Foundation

Annual Fund Appeals

Blanco Legacy Gala Invite

Blanco Legacy Gala Program

Blohm Agendas

Blohm Calendar

Campaign Priorities

CEO Change Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes

CEO Change Draft of Letter Agreement

CEO Change Draft of MOU Regarding VP of Advancement

CEO Change Signed BOT Minutes May 2018

Cocktails and Conversation D.C. 2018

Development Business Plan FY 2017

Development Business Plan FY 2018

Distinguished Donor Invite

Distinguished Donor Program

Dr. Savoie speaking at Blanco Legacy Event

Dr. Savoie with Governor Blanco

Foundation Annual Report 2013-2014

Foundation Giving Funds—Areas of Support

Foundation Giving Website

Foundation Giving Website—Give Now

Foundation Report on Philanthropy 2013

Fundraising Policies and Guidelines

Major Gift Donor Gift Agreements

Major Gift Proposals

Naming Facilities and Program Policy

Outstanding Alumni Reception

Photo with Dr. Savoie

Presidential Athletic Fundraising Initiatives

UL Lafayette Foundation on Website

UL Lafayette Foundation Website Fundraising Policies

UL System Bylaws: Roles, Benefits, and Evaluations of Presidents

ULLF President—CEO Duties

University Advancement Fundraising Policies

University Advancement on Website

University Organizational Chart

University Organizational Chart on Website

University Policy on Website

Vice President for University Advancement Profile

 

5.3.A-C     Institution-related entities

For any entity organized separately from the institution and formed primarily for the purpose of supporting the institution or its programs:

(a) The legal authority and operating control of the institution is clearly defined with respect to that entity.

(b) The relationship of that entity to the institution and the extent of any liability arising from that relationship are clearly described in a formal, written manner.

(c) The institution demonstrates that (1) the chief executive officer controls any fund-raising activities of that entity or (2) the fund-raising activities of that entity are defined in a formal, written manner which assures that those activities further the mission of the institution.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

Louisiana Statute RS 17:3390 governs private nonprofit corporations that support public higher education institutions within the State of Louisiana. This statute states that:

a nonprofit corporation whose principal purpose is to support one or more programs, facilities, or research or educational opportunities offered by public institutions of higher education, including but not limited to any nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to finance the design, construction, renovation, or equipping of facilities to be leased to such public institutions of higher learning,

shall be a private entity that shall not be deemed to be a public or quasi-public corporation or an administrative unit, public servant, employee, or agent of any institution of higher education for any purpose whatsoever if it meets all of the following criteria:

(1)  The majority of the voting members of the corporation's board of directors are not members or employees of a higher education management board.

(2)  The corporation is under the management and control of a board of directors elected by the members or shareholders of the corporation.

(3)  The corporation reimburses, either directly or through in-kind services, the cost of housing, personnel, which personnel shall remain public servants for all purposes, and other support furnished to the corporation by any institution of higher education, if any such support is furnished.

The University of Louisiana System Policy Number FB-IV, effective April 2015, defines the UL System’s policy and expectations regarding the relationship between its universities, their foundations, and other affiliate organizations:

To ensure that the universities and their affiliated organizations have a clear understanding of their legal, moral, and financial responsibilities, each university and affiliate shall enter into a memorandum of understanding or affiliation agreement that will be approved by the UL System Board of Supervisors. [3 - Paragraph 3]

Policy Number FB-IV states that the organization must maintain continued compliance with the affiliation agreement, state law, and Federal Internal Revenue Service regulations for 501(c)(3) corporations (as applicable). Compliance with these regulations is considered necessary for foundations and other affiliated support organizations to maintain their non-profit, tax-exempt status and be recognized by the UL System BOS. The BOS has additional financial requirements for funds received from the Louisiana Education Quality Support Fund (LEQSF), which are covered in a Funds Management Agreement, dated May 16, 2018.

UL Lafayette has three primary affiliated entities: The UL Lafayette Foundation, Inc., the UL Lafayette Alumni Association, and the Ragin’ Cajun Facilities, Inc. (RCFI). The Ragin’ Cajun Athletic Foundation and the Hilliard Museum are subsidiaries of the UL Lafayette Foundation. These entities are described below.

UL Lafayette Foundation, Inc.

The UL Lafayette Foundation, Inc., exists to encourage, manage, and administer private resources to support the mission and priorities of the University, as established by the Board of Trustees and the President of the University.

The UL Lafayette Foundation meets the requirements of Louisiana Statute RS 17:3390 and UL System Policy Number FB-IV.(4)a, as evidenced by the UL Lafayette Foundation Articles of Incorporation, the UL Lafayette – UL Lafayette Foundation Affiliation Agreement, UL Lafayette Foundation By-Laws, and the UL Lafayette Foundation Annual Independent Audit Reports for 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

The Articles of Incorporation for the Foundation were updated on November 4, 1999, to reflect a name change from the University of Southwestern Louisiana Foundation to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Foundation. The University of Southwestern Louisiana Foundation was originally incorporated on August 2, 1955.

The President of the University serves as an ex-officio voting member of the Board of Trustees of the UL Lafayette Foundation, as noted in Article V Section B of the Foundation’s By-laws. The UL Lafayette – UL Lafayette Foundation Affiliation Agreement references the University President’s responsibilities, and is discussed in greater detail in the response to Comprehensive Standard 5.2.c. The President meets bi-weekly with the Vice President for Advancement to review fundraising goals, strategies, and successes, as well as campaign priorities for fundraising. Additional information on the President’s responsibility as it pertains to fundraising can also be found in UL Lafayette’s response to Comprehensive Standard 5.2.c.

The Affiliation Agreement provides that the Foundation will establish asset-allocation, disbursement, and spending policies that adhere to applicable federal and state laws. The Bylaws and policies of the Foundation clearly address the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities, including expectations of individual Board members based upon ethical guidelines and policies. A Management of Funds Agreement further defines and clarifies the Foundation’s investment and audit responsibilities, and the Foundation’s Conflict of Interest Policy protects the interests of the Foundation with regard to safeguarding the integrity of the Board’s financial decision making.

The Affiliation Agreement provides that the Foundation be responsible for the management, control, and investment of all assets of the Foundation. This includes the Foundation’s prudent management of all gifts consistent with donor intent, and the University’s practical control over the Foundation by virtue of:

a)       the University President’s participation in the governance of the Foundation

b)      the fact that a large percentage of the members of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees are either nominated by the University’s President or are University employees or representatives

c)       the President’s control over Foundation disbursements

The leadership of the Foundation and the leadership of the University work collaboratively to meet the University’s strategic goals and mission utilizing the following means:

·         An annual external Foundation audit is performed by a certified public accounting firm.

·         The UL Lafayette Foundation and Advancement staff work with and inform UL Lafayette Foundation Board members who vote on UL Lafayette Foundation policies and, when needed, forward these policies to the UL Lafayette Board of Trustees for approval.

·         The Foundation serves as an instrument for entrepreneurial activities for the University and engages in such activities as purchasing, developing, or managing real estate for University expansion. Evidence of this practice can be seen in meeting minutes from the UL Lafayette Foundation Real Estate Committee, on which the University President is a standing member, as well as the 2004 Affiliation Agreement, which addresses the Foundation’s purchase and financing for the University Art Museum. According to the Bylaws, Article V.B, the President of the University is an ex-officio voting member of the Foundation Board of Trustees. In January 2000, the UL Lafayette Property Foundation was incorporated for the purpose of property acquisition and management.

·         The Ragin’ Cajuns Athletic Foundation (RCAF) was incorporated on December 14, 2011. This corporation is a subsidiary of the UL Lafayette Foundation, and its purpose is to support the activities of the Foundation and the University with regard to athletics. The RCAF is governed by a Board of Directors of three to seven members appointed by the Board of Trustees of the UL Lafayette Foundation (Article 10). Section 2.1.B of the August 2013 Governing Provisions of the UL Lafayette Foundation Ragin’ Cajuns Athletics Governing Board states that, in addition to the members listed in the Articles of Incorporation, ex-officio, non-voting members of the Athletics Governing Board shall include the Chairman of the Foundation Board of Trustees, the President of the University, the Vice-President for University Advancement, and the Athletic Director.

·         The Paul and Lulu Hilliard Art Museum was created with special financing as stated in the 2004 UL Lafayette–UL Lafayette Foundation Affiliation Agreement. The Foundation has not been historically involved in the daily operations of the Museum, and the facility is now leased to the University. The University Art Museum Advisory Board was created and is governed by an agreement between the University and UL Lafayette Foundation, dated February 15, 2017. The purpose of this Board is to provide advice and support to the Museum on matters relating to general policies and operations, financial operations and fund-raising initiatives, and other museum-centric activities. According to Article 4 of the governing provisions, the Board consists of 11 members, with five members appointed by the President of the University and four members appointed by the President of UL Lafayette Foundation. In addition, The Hilliard Society is an organization created for the specific purpose of increasing membership and fund-raising. The Hilliard Society Articles of Incorporation explain that the Hilliard Society is a subsidiary of the UL Foundation. The Hilliard Society By-Laws state that all funds raised by the Museum are deposited with and managed by UL Lafayette Foundation.

University of Louisiana Lafayette Alumni Association

The UL Lafayette Alumni Association is a 501(c)3 organization incorporated in 1965. The 2018 revised Articles of Incorporation state that the purpose of the organization is “To advance and strengthen the tie of affection and esteem formed in school days…to further the interest and improvement of the University…to fund scholarships…to establish, maintain and administer funds for the assistance of worthy students…and in all and any ways to further the interests of students and alumni…and to organize alumni chapters.”

Article 1 of the By-Laws of the Alumni Association state that the organization “shall exist and operate in conjunction with the Department of Alumni Affairs to form the Alumni Office for the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. The two components of the Alumni Office shall operate in fulfillment of the same role, scope, and mission. The UL Lafayette Director of Alumni Affairs shall serve as the Executive Director of the Alumni Association.”

The reporting structure of the Department of Alumni Affairs ensures that the President, at all times, controls the activities and fundraising component of the Alumni Association. The Executive Director, Alumni Affairs, reports directly to the Vice President for University Advancement, who reports to the President. Further, the Alumni Association has an Affiliation Agreement with the University, which further defines the working relationship between the groups and requires the Alumni Association to adhere to the Fundraising Policies and Guidelines. Exhibit “B” of the Affiliation Agreement further defines the financial policies regarding the deposit and expenditure of Association funds to ensure the financial integrity of the Association.

Ragin’ Cajun Facilities, Inc.

Ragin’ Cajun Facilities, Inc. (RCFI) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization established in January 2001. As stated in the Articles of Incorporation, the purpose of this organization is to promote, assist, and benefit the mission of the University, specifically including, but not limited to, acquiring, constructing, developing, managing, leasing as lessor or lessee, mortgaging, and/or conveying student housing, parking facilities, and other facilities on the University. All revenues collected by RCFI are used to carry out its objects and purposes (Article 10). As stated in the Bylaws, RCFI is governed by a Board of Directors, which may consist of three or five members. To ensure adequate presidential control of this affiliated entity, the University President appoints one member when the Board has three members, and appoints two members when the Board has five members.

RCFI has an Affiliation Agreement with the University, which states that one of the duties and responsibilities of RCFI is to provide support to the University, and that it may not engage in activities contrary to this objective, and in no way conflict with the authority of the University. The Affiliation Agreement, as well as the By-Laws, stipulate financial controls and requirements for an annual independent audit.

These are the only institutionally affiliated entities of the University as defined in Louisiana Law and authorized by the University of Louisiana System. Each has a documented purpose, structure, and role that support the University and its programs.

 

Supporting Documents

2004 Joint Operating Agreement

2004 Joint Operating Agreement Financing

2015 ULL Foundation Audit Report

2016 ULL Foundation Audit Report

2017 ULL Foundation Audit Report

2018 ULL Foundation Audit Report

UL Lafayette – UL Lafayette Foundation Affiliation Agreement

Alumni Affiliation Agreement

Alumni Association 501(c)3

Alumni Association Articles of Incorporation

Alumni Association Bylaws

Alumni Restated Articles of Incorporation

Annual External Audits 2015-2018

Blohm Meeting Agendas

Board of Trustees Contact List

Conflict of Interest Policy

Fundraising Policies and Guidelines

Funds Management Agreement

Hilliard Museum Foundation Lease Agreement

Hilliard Museum Governing Provisions

Hilliard Museum Governing Provisions Article 4

Hilliard Museum Governing Provisions Purpose

Hilliard Society Articles of Incorporation

Hilliard Society Bylaws

Louisiana Statute RS 17:3390

Policy Number FB-IV

Policy Number FB-IV Continued Compliance

Property Foundation Incorporation

RCAF Articles of Incorporation Article 10

RCAF Articles of Incorporation Purpose

RCAF Governing Provisions

RCFI Affiliation Agreement

RCFI Articles of Incorporation Article 10

RCFI Articles of Incorporation Purpose

RCFI Bylaws Article 3-3

RCFI Bylaws Directors

RCFI Section 2.1.B

RCFI Tax Exempt Letter

ULL Foundation Articles of Incorporation

ULL Foundation Bylaws

ULL Foundation Bylaws Article VB

University Organizational Chart

 

5.4     Qualified Administrative/Academic Officers [CR]

The institution employs and regularly evaluates administrative and academic officers with appropriate experience and qualifications to lead the institution. (Qualified administrative/academic officers)

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The Institution is led by qualified administrators and academic officers

UL Lafayette is led by qualified administrative and academic officers with the educational and experiential credentials to oversee and manage their respective offices and administrative areas of the University. Administrative positions and reporting relationships are detailed in the University's Organizational Chart.

The UL System Requirements for Administrative and Academic Leaders

The UL System BOS’ commitment to high-quality academic administrative leadership is clearly stated in its Rules, which specify the expected minimum credentials for academic administrators:

Qualifications for Academic Administrators: Each academic administrator (department head, director, dean, or vice president) who is to be appointed with rank and in a tenure track position shall have an earned degree in a field appropriate to the position. In addition, each administrator shall have the earned doctorate or appropriate terminal degree for his/her discipline.

In 2011, the BOS adopted a Policy and Procedure Memorandum (PPM) governing administrative searches to ensure that universities in the UL system employ the best available talent in positions of academic leadership. This document outlines effective processes for hiring prospective University leaders, including principles for appointing a balanced selection committee and conducting an appropriate review of candidates. The BOS staff reviews each search process for positions at the level of Dean or above to ensure that it was conducted in accordance with BOS policies.

University Requirements for Administrative and Academic Leaders

The University has enacted explicit policies and procedures governing hiring processes. Every permanent administrative position must be filled through an open, advertised search. Vacancy announcements and advertisements are reviewed by the EEO Officer and approved by the Provost or his designee, usually the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Faculty Affairs. The candidate nominated to fill an administrative position must be approved by the EEO Officer and by leadership at the vice presidential, presidential, and BOS levels. The hiring and appointment process for academic Deans is delineated in “Policy Document XXIV” in the Faculty Handbook.

The documentation below demonstrates that the President, Provost, Vice Presidents, and Deans have the qualifications, experience, and capacity to achieve the University’s mission.

President

President E. Joseph Savoie became the sixth president of the University in the Fall of 2008, previously serving as the Commissioner of Higher Education for the State of Louisiana, where he was involved in several major postsecondary education reforms, including:

• the restructuring of higher education governance;
• the creation of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System;
• teacher, education, and school reform initiatives;
• the state's Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education; and
• the promotion of collaboration within the entire education community.

Under his leadership, financial support for public postsecondary education more than doubled, and Louisiana’s colleges and universities became more engaged in addressing Louisiana's economic and social challenges. Dr. Savoie was a cabinet member in three governors’ administrations: M. J. “Mike” Foster, Edwin Edwards, and Kathleen Blanco. Prior to his appointment as Commissioner of Higher Education, he served in many roles on the UL Lafayette campus, including Vice President for University Advancement, Executive Director of the Alumni Association, Program Director for the Union Program Council, student government Advisor, and Adjunct Assistant Professor. He holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in education from UL Lafayette, and he earned a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership and Administration from Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York.

UL Lafayette Officers Reporting to the University President

The following administrative officers report directly to the President: Dr. Jaimie Hebert, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; Jerry Luke LeBlanc, Vice President for Administration and Finance; John Blohm, Vice President for University Advancement; Dr. David Danahar, Senior Advisor to the President; Dr. Bryan Maggard, Director of Athletics; and Dr. Taniecea Arceneaux-Mallery, Director of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement. A summary of their qualifications is listed in Table 5.4 – 1.

Table 5.4 — 1: President and Administrative Officers Reporting to the President

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Jaimie Hebert joined the University administration in July 2018. He is responsible for the general direction of UL Lafayette’s instruction, research, and outreach activities, and coordinates Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Research, Advancement, and Administration. Prior to joining the UL Lafayette administration, Dr. Hebert served as President of Georgia Southern University, and was previously the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Sam Houston State University. Dr. Hebert holds a Bachelor’s degree (1986), a Master’s degree (1988), and a Doctorate (1990)–all in statistics–from UL Lafayette.

Vice President for Administration and Finance Jerry Luke LeBlanc came to the University in 2008, previously serving as the Commissioner of Administration for the State of Louisiana for four years. In that position he advised the Governor on all budget and management issues, was responsible for the statewide capital construction budget, and implemented reorganizations to maximize productivity. He also served as a State Representative for 15 years and chaired the House Appropriations Committee for eight years. His expertise is in strategic planning, implementation, and budget integration. LeBlanc directs University business functions including budgeting, internal auditing, payroll, purchasing, personnel services, accounting, physical facilities, and auxiliary units (e.g., KRVS University public radio, the Bookstore, food services, housing facilities, continuing education, and farm operations). Within information technology, he oversees computing support services and information systems. LeBlanc earned a Bachelor’s degree (1980) in business administration from the University of Southwestern Louisiana.

Vice President for University Advancement John Blohm has broad responsibility for offices through which the University interfaces with its various external constituencies to build support for programs and initiatives. The University Advancement area includes Alumni Affairs, Advancement Services, the Office of Development, and Communications and Marketing. He joined UL Lafayette in 2015, and previously held advancement positions at numerous universities, including Virginia Commonwealth University, University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Emory University, University of Alabama Birmingham, University of Florida, Virginia Wesleyan College, and Suomi College. Notable accomplishments include reorganization of divisions and initiation of capital campaigns. Blohm earned a Bachelor’s degree in education (1977) from Central Michigan University.

Senior Advisor to the President Dr. David Danahar has extensive administrative experience, having served as President of Southwest Minnesota State University from 2001-2011. Prior to that, he served as Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, Loyola University; Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Fairfield University; Director of General Education, State University of New York at Oswego; and Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He has also held a number of interim appointments through the Registry: Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at UL Lafayette; Interim Dean of Arts and Sciences and Senior Advisor to the President at St. Bonaventure University; and Interim Provost at Valdosta State University. Dr. Danahar received a Bachelor’s degree (1963) in history from Manhattan College, and a Master’s degree (1965) and PhD (1970) in history from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Director of Athletics Dr. Brian Maggard joined the University as Director of Athletics on Feb. 1, 2017. Maggard spent 21 years at the University of Missouri, where his final position was as the Tigers' Executive Associate Athletic Director. He taught sports management courses at the University of Missouri, as an adjunct professor, where he assisted campus leaders in establishing a Sports Management degree program. Maggard also served as a member of the University of Missouri Graduate Faculty, and on doctoral examination and dissertation committees. Previously, he worked for Florida State University and Kansas State University. He is a certified APR consultant with the NCAA/N4A, and has served as a facilitator for various student-athlete leadership summits. Maggard received a Bachelor's degree (1989) in journalism, and a Master's degree (1992) in health and physical education, both from Kansas State University; he received a PhD (2007) in educational and counseling psychology from the University of Missouri.

Director of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement Dr. Taniecea Mallery is responsible for fostering diversity among students, faculty, and staff, as well as ensuring that underrepresented groups gain equal access to educational opportunities and resources. Prior to joining the University, she worked as a Senior Diversity Researcher at the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, D.C. Her research interests include social networks, group decision-making processes, and mathematical models of diversity in higher education. She earned a Bachelor’s degree (2005) in mathematics from Loyola University New Orleans, as well as a Master’s degree (2009) and PhD (2012) in applied and computational mathematics from Princeton University. Mallery has also completed a postdoctoral research fellowship in the Center for Statistical Research and Methodology at the U.S. Census Bureau.

Academic Officers Reporting to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs 

Three of the University’s Vice Presidents report to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs: Dr. DeWayne Bowie, Vice President for Enrollment Management; Dr. Ramesh Kolluru, Vice President for Research; and Patricia Cottonham, Vice President for Student Affairs. Three Assistant Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs also report to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs: Dr. Fabrice Leroy, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs; Dr. Robert McKinney, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Faculty Affairs; and Dr. Blanca Bauer, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Institutional Effectiveness. Deans of the University’s eight academic colleges, graduate school, and library also report to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs: H. Gordon Brooks II, Dean of the College of the Arts; Dr. Bret Becton, Dean of the B.I. Moody III College of Business Administration; Dr. Nathan Roberts, Dean of the College of Education; Dr. Ahmed Khattab, Interim Dean of the College of Engineering; Dr. Jordan Kellman, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts; Dr. Melinda Granger-Oberlietner, Dean of the College of Nursing and Allied Health Professions; Dr. Azmy Ackleh, Dean of the Ray P. Authement College of Sciences; Dr. Bobbie Decuir, Dean of University College; Dr. Mary Farmer-Kaiser, Dean of the Graduate School; and Susan Richard, Interim Dean of the Edith Garland Dupré Library. A summary of their qualifications is listed in Table 5.4 – 2.

Table 5.4 — 2: Academic Officers Reporting to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

 

Supporting Documents

BOS Academic Administrators Qualifications Policies

BOS PPM Search Process

BOS Standards for Academic Administrators

Faculty Handbook-Academic Deans Selection

University’s Organization Chart

 

5.5     Personnel appointment and evaluation

The institution publishes and implements policies regarding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of non-faculty personnel.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette is committed to employing the best-qualified candidates while engaging in recruitment and selection practices that comply with all applicable employment laws. It is the policy of the University to provide equal employment opportunities to all applicants and employees. Authorization from Human Resources is required to initiate any action for an open position, including recruitment expenditures, advertising, interviewing, and offers of employment.

Personnel Appointment

UL Lafayette and the UL System BOS define and publish policies and procedures regarding the appointment, employment, and evaluation of University personnel. The policies underlying the University’s governance structure are found on the University and BOS policy websites, and further articulated through the Faculty and Staff Handbooks.

BOS rules governing the appointment of University personnel are delineated in Chapter III, Section II of the BOS Bylaws. Bylaws Chapter III, Section II.A covers the Chief Executive; Chapter III, Section II.B covers Vice Presidents (Academic, Non-Academic), Deans, and Athletic Directors; and Chapter III, Sections II.D-E cover other administrators.

University employees are designated as either Unclassified or Classified. Classified positions are governed by the policies and procedures of the State Civil Service. Unclassified positions are constitutionally exempt from State Civil Service rules and are governed by the policies and procedures of the University and the BOS. All faculty, faculty administrator, and University administrator positions are unclassified. Staff positions are either classified or unclassified.

The BOS conducts searches for the Chief Executive of the University, and its Bylaws specify the policies and procedures for such searches.

The University’s Human Resources Department publicizes hiring procedures for all employee types on its internal and external webpages. The University has established specific hiring procedures for full-time permanent faculty, administrator, and staff vacancies, and temporary full-time, adjunct, and part-time vacancies. Non-temporary positions are filled competitively, whereas temporary jobs are not.

The appointment procedure for faculty and administrative positions begins when a supervisor submits a request to fill a non-temporary vacancy through the University’s online recruitment system, Cornerstone On Demand. Directives on required language are provided through Cornerstone. The Human Resources office reviews these requests before routing them through an electronic approval queue for administrative and budgetary approvals. The Provost is the final approver for academic faculty positions; the President is final approver for all other vacancies. All approved requests are posted on the University Career, Higher Ed Jobs, and industry-specific recruitment sites. Additionally, background screening, interview scheduling, and formal job offers are automated through Cornerstone.

The University complies with state and federal laws, the principles of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action, and University policies and procedures when conducting faculty, administrator, and staff searches. Excluding temporary and interim appointments, the University utilizes open competitive searches for administrator positions. Peer administrators, faculty, staff, students, and community members are included on search committees as appropriate. Where suitable, the University also utilizes outside search firms to identify and attract qualified candidates.

Once a final candidate is selected, the hiring recommendation is submitted and approved via the Personnel Action Form. Hiring recommendations are reviewed and approved through the department’s signatory approval chain, Human Resources, Finance, and the President. Once approved, the responsible Academic Dean makes job offers for faculty positions. Human Resources makes all other formal job offers.

Annual Performance Evaluation

Chapter III, Section IV.D of the BOS Bylaws outlines the process for the evaluation of the University President. (See standard 4.2.c) Specifically:

The performance of the institution presidents shall be individually evaluated on a regular basis according to a process approved by the Board. The evaluations are intended to (1) fulfill Board responsibility for making certain that each institution is well managed, (2) help the presidents improve their performance, (3) make  certain  that  sound  institutional  goals  are  being  pursued,  and  (4)  identify opportunities for improving the management and planning functions of the University of Louisiana System and its constituent universities.

In support of these expectations, UL Lafayette’s strategic plan is foundational to the annual evaluation of executive and senior leadership employees. In the annual evaluation process, each member of the University's executive team—in consultation with the University President—advances the University's strategic plan by establishing annual goals linked to strategic priorities. These goals then serve as the basis for senior administrators’ and departments’ goals.

The University regularly assesses the effectiveness of administrators and staff through annual performance evaluations based on performance, relative to the competency model for each position, and the attainment of agreed-upon goals. The performance evaluation is administered through the talent management platform, Cornerstone On Demand, using separate competency models for the executive and administrators and supervisors and unclassified staff.

Within individual evaluations, employees are rated as expert, advanced, proficient, developing, does not demonstrate, or not evaluated. Table 5.5 — 1 presents sample evaluations at each level of reporting within each of the vice presidential areas of the University.

Table 5.5 — 1: Vice Presidential Areas – Levels of Evaluation

 

Prior to the implementation of Cornerstone in 2017, unclassified staff were evaluated on criteria developed for their positions by their supervisors. Examples from 2015 and 2016 include:

·         2015 Sample Unclassified Staff Evaluations

·         2016 Sample Unclassified Staff Evaluations

Classified staff are evaluated through the State Civil Service Performance Evaluation System, with ratings of Excellent, Successful, or Needs Improvement, and specific benchmarks and work expectations individually set for each employee. Supporting documentation is required for a rating of Excellent. 

·         2016 Sample Classified Planning

·         2017 Sample Classified Planning

·         2016 Sample Classified Evaluation

·         2017 Sample Classified Evaluation

The University’s performance management process includes three major components: goal planning, evaluation, and development planning. During goal planning, employees and supervisors collaboratively develop individual and departmental goals, which are then aligned with the University’s mission and strategic plan. The progress toward and achievement of these goals is then assessed during the evaluation portion of the review in which supervisory employees self-evaluate, and they are assessed on their prior year goal attainment and competency performance. They then, in collaboration with their supervisors, develop professional development goals and plans. Non-supervisory staff are encouraged but not required to complete the self-evaluation. All performance evaluations are subject to second-level supervisory approval.

 

Supporting Documents

2015 Sample Unclassified Staff Evaluations

2016 Sample Classified Evaluation

2016 Sample Classified Planning

2016 Sample Unclassified Staff Evaluations

2017 Sample Classified Evaluation

2017 Sample Classified Planning

Aimee Abshire, Director of Web Communications

Employment Applicant Process

Applicant Review and Hiring

Approval Process of Requisitions

Azmy Ackleh, Dean of the College of Sciences

Board Policy and Procedures Memo

Bobbie DeCuir, Dean of the University College

BOS Bylaws, Chapter 3, Faculty and Staff – CEO Vacancies, searches and appointments

BOS Bylaws, Chapter III, Section IV.D

Bryan Maggard, Athletic Director

Classified Evaluation Instructions

Cornerstone Sample Requisition Request

Creating Interview Events

Cynthia Shows-Perez, Executive Director of Financial Aid

David Danahar, Interim Provost

Debra Calais, Assistant Vice President of Finance

DeWayne Bowie, Vice President for Enrollment Management

Employment Hiring Procedures

Equal Employment Opportunity Policies

Eugene Fields, Chief Information Officer

Executive Competencies

Executive First Level Evaluation

Executive Level Self-Assessment

Executive Second Level Evaluation

Fabrice Leroy, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs

Francois Villinger, Director of the New Iberia Research Center

Gordon Brooks, Dean of the College of the Arts

Jaimie Hebert, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

James Harris, Executive Director of Athletics

Jennifer LeMeunier, Executive Director of Alumni Affairs

Jessica Leger, Deputy Director of Athletics

John Blohm, Vice President for Advancement

John Bret Becton, Dean of the College of Business

Jordan Kellman, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts

Lauren Shiver, Associate Vice President of Advancement Operations

Lisa Capone, Executive Director of Development

Lisa Landry, Director of Administrative Services

LouAnne Greenwald, Director of the Hilliard Art Museum

Margarita Perez, Dean of Students

Marie Frank, Director of the Office of Purchasing

Mark Zappi, Dean of the College of Engineering

Mary Farmer-Kaiser, Dean of the Graduate School

Megan Breaux, Interim Director of the Office of Administration and Finance

Nathan Roberts, Dean of the College of Education

Nicholas Yantko, Deputy Director for External Operations

Personnel Action Form

Patricia Cottonham, Vice President for Student Affairs

Paul Thomas, Chief Human Resources Officer

University Policy on Policies

Ramesh Kolluru, Vice President for Research, Innovation, and Economic Development

Required Language for Faculty Vacancies

Robert McKinney, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Faculty Affairs

Sample Supporting Documentation for Rating of Exceptional

Shannon Gary, Interim Director of Finance Administration and Compliance

Supervisor and Unclassified Competencies With Benchmarks

Taneicea Mallory, Director, Equity and Diversity

Tommy Pears, Director of Auxiliary Operations

UL System Policy on Governance Structure

William Crist, Director of Facility Management

6.1     Full-Time Faculty [CR]

The institution employs an adequate number of full-time faculty members to support the mission and goals of the institution.

Judgment

x  Compliance          o   Non-Compliance             o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The number of faculty support the mission of the institution

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette endeavors to ensure that it supports an adequate number of full-time faculty to provide an optimal learning environment and advance the University’s Mission:

Mission:

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette offers an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture. We develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.

Values:

We strive to create a community of leaders and innovators in an environment that fosters a desire to advance and disseminate knowledge.

Vision:

We strive to be included in the top 25% of our peer institutions by 2020, improving our national and international status and recognition.

UL Lafayette’s Mission calls for “an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews” and “innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.” These objectives require a sufficient number of full-time faculty to teach students, conduct research and scholarship, and create expressive works. The creation of optimal learning environments requires the presence of qualified faculty from relevant study and research areas. An appropriate quantity of faculty is needed to represent areas of specialization, broaden the spectrum of student engagement and experience at UL Lafayette, and offer a range of educational methods responsive to the needs of a diverse student population. For the Fall 2018 semester, the University employed 639 full-time faculty members representing a full spectrum of disciplines.

Types of faculty appointments

Full-Time Faculty

The full-time faculty consist of non-tenure track, tenure-track (probationary) faculty, and tenured faculty, and faculty appointments can be full-time continuing, full-time temporary, or part-time.

The qualifications for continuing faculty are defined in UL Lafayette’s Teaching Qualification Policy and Teaching Qualifications Tables (See standard 6.2.a).

Temporary Faculty 

To fill short-term vacancies, the University regularly hires faculty at all ranks in response to instructional needs. Such appointments carry the same requirements for qualification and are normally limited to a period of two years.

Part-Time Faculty

The title of “adjunct” (e.g., Adjunct Instructor, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, or Adjunct Professor) refers to appointments of persons who serve the University in an advisory capacity, whose principal employer may be other than the University (but who make a substantial regular contribution to the academic activities of the University), and/or who fill temporary positions of instruction created by enrollment demand.

Part-time faculty must possess the same credentials and qualifications as full-time faculty. The same qualification standards are applicable whether a class is taught on campus or at a site off-campus, as addressed in the Policies for Off-Campus Faculty. In general, part-time faculty members are not expected to perform duties outside of their teaching obligations. At the start of each academic year, part-time faculty undergo a special orientation and training sessions on the University’s course management system, Moodle.  Many larger academic units also offer college or departmental level orientations for part-time faculty.

Adequacy of Full-Time Faculty

Several metrics provide evidence that the number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the University, and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs: ratio of full-time to part-time faculty, student-to-faculty ratio, and number of undergraduate sections with large enrollments.

Ratio of Full-Time Faculty

The percentage of full-time faculty at UL Lafayette is adequate for its mission and goals. At least 70 percent of the University’s faculty is full-time. See Table 6.1 – 1.

Table 6.1 — 1: Percentage of Full-Time and Part-Time Instructional Faculty

as reported in the Common Data Set

 

 

In each academic college, 70 percent or more of class sections are taught by full-time faculty. See Table 6.1 – 2.

Table 6.1 — 2: Total Percentage of Class Sessions Taught by Faculty Who Are Classified as Full- Time (Includes Labs, Lower Division, Upper Division, and Graduate Classes)

 

Table 6.1 — 3 shows credit hour production by course level and by instructor type. This table demonstrates that the University relies on graduate students to teach relatively few courses in a small number of disciplines, further indicating that it has adequate full-time faculty. 

Table 6.1 — 3: Credit Hour Production (CHP) by Course Level & Instructor Type

 

Student-to-Faculty Ratio

UL Lafayette has an adequate undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio for its goals and mission, as defined by IPEDS. This data is shown in Table 6.1 – 4.

Table 6.1 — 4: UL Lafayette Undergraduate Student-to-Faculty Ratio

as Reported in the Common Data Set I-2

 

 

UL Lafayette’s student-to-faculty ratio remains comparable to that of several peer institutions. The University's IPEDS peer group averaged 18.9 to 1 in 2018 and averaged 19.2 to 1 over the past five years. The University has averaged 22.6 to 1 over the past five years. Responding to this position among peers, the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020 aimed to lower the student-to-faculty ratio. However, while enrollment has increased over the past ten years due to strategic recruitment efforts, the number of full-time faculty has also increased, and the student-to-faculty ratio has decreased for the Fall 2018 semester to the current ratio of 19 to 1. Table 6.1 – 5 compares UL Lafayette’s ratios to that of its peers.

Table 6.1 — 5: IPEDS Peers 2017 Student-to-Faculty Ratios

Undergraduate Sections with Large Enrollments

The University has adequate faculty for its mission and goals as indicated by the fact that it does not rely on large sections to produce student credit hours. Almost 70% of all sections have fewer than 30 students, and fewer than 3% of sections have 100 students or more, as indicated in Table 6.1 – 6.

Table 6.1 — 6: Undergraduate Class Size as Reported in the Common Data Set I-3

 

The online and hybrid course sizes parallel the percentage for all University courses. In the Fall 2018 semester, 70% of online and hybrid courses had fewer than 30 students, and only 4% had more than 100 students. Table 6.1 – 7 provides class size information for online and hybrid courses. The table also illustrates the growth of online education at UL Lafayette from a total of 110 sections in the Fall of 2011 to 364 sections in the Fall of 2018.

Table 6.1 – 7: Online and Hybrid Courses by total size range

 

Table 6.1 – 8 compares UL Lafayette’s class sizes with those of the other institutions in the University of Louisiana System, demonstrating that UL Lafayette is well within the range of class sizes at other System institutions.

Table 6.1 — 8: University of Louisiana System Undergraduate Class Size Fall 2018

 

Course Staffing and Faculty Responsibilities

The University monitors students’ registration and enrollment in identified high-demand courses, and responds to short- and long-term fluctuations in demand for specific courses, allowing departments to request and make “emergency temporary” hires. The University continues to hire full-time faculty to instruct courses identified as “bottlenecks,” ensuring students’ efficient progress to degree completion.

The University also maintains adequate full-time faculty through its track system. All regular, continuing faculty members follow one of four workload tracks, as described in the University Faculty Workload Policy. The teaching load consists of one to three class sections per semester for faculty expected to make major scholarly contributions to their fields. Faculty members with fewer research expectations teach four to five sections per semester. 

The Faculty Workload Policy also delineates other expectations of faculty:

In addition to teaching and research, committee responsibilities are part of full-time faculty members’ institutional and professional duties. Faculty serve on department, college, and University committees that contribute to all aspects of the University, including maintenance of academic programs, design of courses and curriculum, hiring of new faculty, rendering of promotion and tenure recommendations, testing and placement of students, and assessment of student learning outcomes. Other duties assigned to full- time faculty include student advising, multi section coordination, graduate program leadership, and supervision of teaching assistants.

The University also takes into account the wide variety of course delivery formats and instructional pedagogies now prevalent in higher education. Non-traditional course load equivalencies are determined in consultation with the faculty member’s Department Head, Dean, and the Office of Faculty Affairs. Specifications for the “Ideal University Professor” and responsibilities for full-time faculty are articulated in Section V of the Faculty Handbook.

Research and Creative Activity

The advancement of knowledge through research and creative works is a primary component of UL Lafayette’s mission. The University promotes and encourages a variety of research activities, including scholarship, theoretical and applied research, externally sponsored research and creative activities, performances and exhibitions, and support for graduate education. The University had more than $100M in externally funded research and development expenditures during AY2017-2018. This figure places UL Lafayette among the top 25 percent of U.S. colleges and universities in terms of research and development funding, according to the Higher Education Research and Development Survey, the National Science Foundation’s annual index of research expenditures.

To achieve its research mission, the University launched a multiyear, multilayered plan to create a cross-campus infrastructure that bolsters research among full-time faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates. As part of that initiative, UL Lafayette established or enhanced several research centers and institutes aligned with the University’s strategic goals and dedicated to life sciences, digital media, energy, coastal and water initiatives, materials and manufacturing, and Louisiana arts and culture. The University provided incentives to faculty who sought external research dollars to stimulate research across campus and encouraged collaboration among researchers from different disciplines. Through these initiatives, the University ensures that its faculty is adequate to its research goals and mission.

Community and Professional Service

Every year, students and faculty at UL Lafayette perform more than 150,000 hours of service, translating into millions of dollars of economic impact. For example, every fall, thousands of UL Lafayette students, faculty, and staff gather for “The Big Event,” a dedicated day of service to engage the local community. The College of Education partners with UL Lafayette AmeriCorps members to provide in-school and after-school tutoring to students at J.W. Faulk Elementary and other area schools. Faculty and students in the Colleges of the Arts and Engineering collaborate with Lafayette Habitat for Humanity to build new affordable housing, and with Rebuilding Together to build wheelchair access ramps for local residents with disabilities.

In 2014, the University earned a place on the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll for the third consecutive year.  Membership in the Honor Roll recognizes the part colleges and universities play in volunteering and service. This marks the highest federal recognition a university can receive for its commitment to community, service-learning, and civic engagement. With the success of these programs, UL Lafayette demonstrates that it has adequate faculty to support its service mission and goals.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Faculty Handbook: Ideal University Professor

Faculty Handbook: Off-Campus Faculty Policies

Faculty Handbook: Workload Policy

Faculty Handbook-Full-Time Faculty

Faculty Handbook-Types of Appointments

Higher Education Research and Development Survey

IPEDS Survey Material Instructions

Mission, Values, and Vision statement of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette

New Adjunct Faculty Orientation

President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll

UL Lafayette Strategic Planning Report

Strategic Plan 2015-2020:  Faculty SI 2

Teaching Qualification Policy

Teaching Qualifications Table

The Big Event

6.2.A     Faculty Qualifications [CR]

For each of its educational programs, the institution justifies and documents the qualifications of its faculty members.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance    

Narrative

The institution establishes standards for faculty qualifications

UL Lafayette maintains rigorous standards for faculty qualifications that are formalized in policy. To further clarify the minimum acceptable qualifications to teach specific University courses, a Faculty Teaching Qualifications Table has been created for each course prefix, organized by College and degree program, and is publicly available:

·         ARTS- Teaching Qualifications

·         BUSINESS-Teaching Qualifications

·         EDUCATION- Teaching Qualifications

·         ENGINEERING- Teaching Qualifications

·         LIBERAL ARTS- Teaching Qualifications

·         NURSING- Teaching Qualifications

·         SCIENCES- Teaching Qualifications

The Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) in its Master Plan defines the role, scope, and mission of higher education institutions. Appendix D of the Master Plan defines UL Lafayette as one of three statewide universities that “offer a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and masters’ levels, with selective offerings at the doctoral level. Research is selective in nature, focusing in those areas of graduate expertise.” The BOR’s designation follows a common framework of audience served, general program offerings, and distinctive features of the institutional mission.

UL Lafayette’s own mission is to offer “an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture.” Further, the University develops students and faculty “leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.” The University’s Carnegie classification defines it as a doctoral university with high research activity offering a combination of professional, arts, and sciences undergraduate programs with some graduate coexistence; and research graduate programs that are STEM-dominant.  To achieve the mission of providing exceptional education and advancing knowledge requires well-qualified faculty who are effective in the core responsibilities of teaching; research, scholarship, and creative works; and service to the institution, disciplines, and community.

Aspirational peer institutions identified in the UL Lafayette Strategic Plan 2015-2020 establish benchmarks for faculty qualifications and the recruitment and selection of a highly qualified faculty. The Faculty Credentials Policy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville has served as an example of relevant policies. The University of Memphis provides a sample of hiring processes to ensure a highly qualified faculty is recruited and developed at UL Lafayette.

UL Lafayette’s Policy on Faculty Teaching Qualifications states that, “In support of its goal to ensure high quality teaching and learning in its curricula,” the University establishes minimum qualifications for instructional staff teaching credit bearing classes. The Policy stipulates that “Qualifications to teach a given course are usually based on the faculty member’s highest earned degree in the teaching discipline,” though a faculty member may be regarded as qualified based on other qualifications appropriate for a given course. The policy further states that degrees earned must be from an institution holding regional accreditation or, in the cases of international degrees, comparable institutions. For 100-300 level undergraduate courses (enrolling only baccalaureate students), faculty may meet academic qualifications if they fulfill the following requirements:

·         A master’s or higher degree in the teaching discipline; or

·         A master’s or doctoral degree in a closely related discipline, as defined by the academic department; or

·         A master’s or doctoral degree in any discipline with a concentration of at least eighteen (18) graduate credit hours in the teaching field or a closely related field, as defined by the academic department.

For 400-level undergraduate courses, mixed undergraduate/graduate courses (viz., 400G courses), and graduate courses, faculty meet academic qualifications if they have earned a terminal degree in the teaching discipline (PhD, EdD, MFA, MArch, etc.) as determined by the academic department. Table 6.2.a – 1 illustrates the general minimum degree requirements for each level of coursework.

Table 6.2.a – 1: Minimum Degree Qualification Requirements in Teaching Field for Course Level

 

The course delivery type (lecture, lab, studio, clinical, internship) can also affect the required qualifications. The traditional music program, for example, often hires part-time faculty to teach private lessons (such as AMUS 160: Traditional Music Ensemble and AMUS 360: Upper-Level Traditional Music Ensemble) based on alternate qualifications such as performance experience recognized by a Grammy nomination. Similarly, nursing instructors are often hired for clinical courses (such as NURS 308: Adult Health and Illness 1 and NURS 340: Community and Psychiatric/Mental Health Nursing) based on professional experience.

The BOR and BOS follow Louisiana law in mandating that prior to employment each institution also assess faculty members’ English Proficiency. At UL Lafayette, when departments submit the Personnel Action Form (PAF), the Department Head confirms that an assessment of English proficiency has been performed. Typically, the evaluation takes place during the on-site interview process and is recorded in the PAF appointment form.

Table 6.2.a – 2 presents the faculty appointment type, total number of faculty, followed by the number and percentage of faculty with terminal degrees.

Table 6.2.a — 2: Faculty with Terminal Degrees

 

Continuing faculty are generally those faculty at the rank of Instructor, Lecturer, Faculty in Residence, Faculty of Practice, and other similar appointments. Tenure-track and tenured faculty are those at the rank of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor. Adjunct faculty include part-time faculty and emergency temporary hires.

The qualifications of each faculty member teaching in the AY2018-2019 are given in the Faculty Qualifications Roster linked below. The Roster is based on the SACSCOC faculty qualifications template and draws data from the University’s enterprise resource planning platform, Banner. Transcripts and other documentation are linked through a Banner Document Management process. For those faculty members reviewed during the 2010 Compliance Report, the Alternate Roster is also drawn from Banner as a report.

·         AY2018-2019 Faculty Qualifications Roster

·         2010 Alternate Roster

Types of faculty appointments

The UL Lafayette Faculty Handbook-Types of Appointments defines the three types of faculty appointments: full-time continuing faculty members, special appointments, and laboratory assistants.

Full-time continuing appointments consist of non-tenure-track appointments, probationary tenure appointments, and tenured academic appointments. Non-tenure-track appointments include Instructor appointments that are ineligible for tenure and subject to annual renewal by the institution. There are three ranks of Instructor: Instructor, Senior Instructor, and Master Instructor. The rank of Assistant Professor is based upon performance and potential, while tenure and promotion to Associate Professor is based upon actual accomplishments and future potential. Professors are those individuals who are outstanding teachers and researchers recognized by peers as authorities in their fields.

Special appointments include temporary faculty, adjunct faculty, visiting faculty, lecturers, artists-in-residence, faculty of practice, and research scientists and associates. Temporary faculty are hired for a specific time in response to a specific need. Adjunct faculty appointments are typically part-time faculty who fill positions to meet a specific enrollment demand. Visiting faculty have temporary appointments at a rank for which the qualifications are comparable to those appointed at the corresponding regular faculty rank. An appointment as Lecturer is typically based on experience and for a specific length of time. Research scientist or associate appointments are generally funded by external grants or contracts coinciding with the funding period of a project.

The UL Lafayette Policy on Faculty Teaching Qualifications provides that graduate “Teaching Assistants are allowed to be assigned undergraduate teaching duties if they have earned eighteen (18) graduate credit hours in the teaching field or a closely related field and if they are provided with in-service training and are mentored by a faculty member with expertise in the teaching area.” All graduate teaching assistants are supervised by teaching faculty, attend an orientation, and are evaluated by their students through the University’s Student Evaluation of Instruction process. Laboratory assistants may have full- or part-time appointments and may be invited to teach appropriate sections. Graduate students may be assigned duties as laboratory assistants under the supervision of a faculty member.

For example, graduate assistants in the MA and PhD programs in English complete a required two‐day orientation that consists of a variety of sessions covering departmental policies, teaching and syllabi, and program opportunities and events, such as conferences, reading series, and editorial activities. In addition, graduate teaching assistants may access a repository of instructional materials on Moodle. Master’s level teaching assistants are required to complete ENGL 501: Teaching of College English. In that course, they review theories and pedagogies for teaching ENGL 101 and ENGL 102 and observe classes. In their first and second semesters in the classroom (usually the Fall and Spring terms of their second year in the program), they enroll in ENGL 509: Teaching Practicum, during which they discuss their classroom experiences and additional pedagogical readings with the professor, who also observes their teaching and assesses their syllabi and class materials. Beginning Fall 2019, graduate assistants teaching Creative Writing courses will be required to take ENGL 581: Creative Writing Pedagogy. The course will trace the evolution of Creative Writing in the Academy, discuss connections with Composition Studies, Literary Theory, and Literature, and offer students an opportunity to review Creative Writing syllabi and assignments.

Teaching assistants in the Mathematics department teach mathematics and statistics courses and represent about 25% of the sections taught by all graduate students. Like their counterparts in the English department, these teaching assistants are required to enroll in a teaching seminar, MATH 591: Teaching Seminar, during their first semester of teaching. Students receive training in numerous aspects of teaching and present sample lessons. They are observed in their classrooms by the professor conducting the seminar, who uses a common instructional critique. Each teaching assistant is also reviewed by an instructor, professor, or experienced teaching assistant at least once each year in his or her second and third years, and thereafter as requested by the department administration.

Table 6.2.a – 3 illustrates the number of sections taught by graduate teaching assistants in AY2018-2019.

Table 6.2.a — 3: Number of Sections Taught by Graduate Teaching Assistants

 

The process for documenting faculty qualifications

The current process for verifying and documenting faculty qualifications begins with the requisition for a position in Cornerstone, the University’s human resource platform. The Office of Faculty Affairs reviews each vacancy announcement submitted in Cornerstone for full-time continuing faculty appointment to ensure that the qualifications align with the Teaching Qualifications Tables and the Teaching Qualifications Policy. Applicants apply for a position through Cornerstone, at which time the Office of Human Resources confirms that the applicant meets minimum qualifications defined in the vacancy announcement through searching the National Student Clearinghouse. The departmental Qualifications Screening and Nominating (QSN) Committee reviews each applicant to ensure that they meet the qualifications for the position.

When a finalist is selected, the Department Head initiates a Personnel Action Form (PAF) to begin the hiring process. The PAF contains three sections relating to faculty qualifications: the first identifies the courses that the faculty member will teach; the second lists the applicant’s degree, date, institution, major area, and professional experience; and the third assesses whether the applicant is qualified by degree for undergraduate instruction only, by terminal degree for undergraduate and graduate level, or by other qualifications. If the applicant is qualified by degree, he or she is then required to submit an official transcript, typically within 30 days, to the Office of Faculty Affairs. Upon receipt of the transcript, the Office of Faculty Affairs reviews the PAF to confirm that the applicant has the appropriate coursework for the courses being taught. The transcript is then archived by the Office of Faculty Affairs. If the department is requesting that the applicant be considered qualified by alternative means, the department must submit, through the college Dean, supporting documentation that may include professional experience, excellence in teaching, licensure, honors and awards, or scholarly publications. The supporting documentation is evaluated and, if approved, archived by the Office of Faculty Affairs.

The PAF is a paper form scheduled to be replaced in December 2019 by an electronic requisition to hire submitted through Cornerstone. The revised process calls for the documenting of faculty qualifications to occur during the application period rather than at the point of hire. In addition to cover letters, curriculum vitae, and other Supporting Documents, the new protocol collects unofficial transcripts from all applicants. After review by the QSN committee, the Department Head submits the name of the selected applicant to the Office of Faculty Affairs prior to the Office of Human Resources extending an official offer. The Office of Faculty Affairs requests and archives official transcripts at the point of hire.

 

Supporting Documents:

2019 MATH 591 Course Materials

2020 Faculty Qualifications Roster

ARTS-Teaching Qualifications

BUSINESS-Teaching Qualifications

Carnegie Classification

EDUCATION-Teaching Qualifications

ENGINEERING-Teaching Qualifications

ENGL 501 Syllabus

ENGL 509 Syllabus

ENGL 581 Syllabus

English Announcements

Faculty Handbook-Types of Appointments

Faculty Qualifications Roster from prior review

LIBERAL ARTS-Teaching Qualifications

Louisiana State Board of Regents Academic Affairs Policy 2.20

Master Plan - Role, Scope, and Mission of Higher Education Institutions

Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education: 2011 – Revised April, 2012

Mission, Vision and Values

Moodle First Year Writing

NURSING-Teaching Qualifications

Orientation FA 18 – English Department

PAF Appointment Form with English Proficiency

Sample Personnel Action Form

SCIENCES-Teaching Qualifications

Teaching Qualifications Policy

The University of Memphis Faculty Hiring Policy

UL Lafayette Policy on Teaching Qualifications

UL System Requirement – English   

University of Alabama - Huntsville Faculty Credentials Policy

University of Memphis Hiring Process

 

6.2.B     Program Faculty

For each of its educational programs, the institution employs a sufficient number of full-time faculty members to ensure curriculum and program quality, integrity, and review.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance

Narrative

For on-campus, online, and off-campus programs and courses, the number of full-time faculty at UL Lafayette is adequate to ensure the quality and integrity of each of its academic programs. This is supported by the data presented below, which details the number of full-time faculty relative to the number of part-time faculty by presenting a summary of program size, student credit hours generated, and undergraduate class sizes. Furthermore, the policies of the Louisiana BOR, the University of Louisiana System, and the University establish the roles of the faculty to ensure that the quality and integrity of each of its academic programs remain uniform across delivery methods and instructional sites.

Academic programs and educational processes

The policies that define the oversight of academic programs are articulated by the BOR the BOS, and the UL Lafayette instructional and personnel policies. The governing and coordinating boards define the requirements of academic programs. The institution’s organizational structure enables faculty to engage in development, delivery, and quality assurance of academic programs: faculty members inform curriculum and learning objectives through processes that facilitate their involvement in academic programs at the departmental, college, and university levels, which includes participation on the Curriculum Committee, the Strategic Program Review Committee, and the Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards.

Definition of Academic Programs

The BOR Academic Affairs Policy 2.15 defines academic programs by degree type. The objectives of the definitions are to ensure uniform use of degree terminology and uniform curricular requirements for similar programs, facilitate the transfer of credits across the Louisiana higher education system, and support articulation agreements between systems and campuses. The policy specifies that the “standard number of credits required for a baccalaureate degree is 120.” The BOR allows institutions to request an exception to the 120-degree credit maximum when programs present compelling reasons, for instance accreditation requirements. Per this policy, UL Lafayette offers four types of undergraduate academic programs:

·         Bachelor of Arts (BA), 120-124 credit hours (i.e., BA, Anthropology; BA, English; BA, Sociology; BA, Strategic Communication)

·         Bachelor of Sciences (BS), 120 credit hours (i.e., BS, Biology; BS, Criminal Justice; BS, Environmental Studies; BS, Informatics; BS, Elementary Education)

·         Bachelor (B) UL Lafayette, 120-131 credit hours (i.e., B, Industrial Design; B, Music; B, Fine Arts; B, General Studies)

·         Post-Bachelor Certificate (PBC), 12-18 credit hours (i.e., PBC, Accounting; PBC, Secondary Education Grades 6-12; PBC, World Languages Grades K-12)

In addition, the University offers seven types of graduate certificates and programs:

·         Graduate Certificate (GC), 12-18 credit hours (i.e., GC, Business Administration; GC, Professional Writing; GC, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)

·         Post-Master Certificate (PMC), 12-18 credit hours (i.e., PMC, Health Administration)

·         Master of Arts (MA), 30+ credit hours (i.e., MA, English; MA, French; MA, History)

·         Master of Science (MS), 30+ credit hours (i.e., MS, Computer Sciences; MS, Counselor Education; MS, Exercise and Sport Science; MS, Physics; MS, Psychology; MSN, Nursing; MS, Engineering)

·         Master (M), 30+ credit hours (i.e., MEd, Education; MArch, Architecture; MBA, Business Administration; MEd, Education)

·         Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD), 72+ credit hours (i.e., PhD, Applied Language and Speech Sciences; PhD, Earth and Energy Sciences; PhD, Francophone Studies; PhD, Mathematics)

·         Doctorate (D), 60+ credit hours (i.e., EdD, Education; DNP, Nursing)

Organizational Structure of Academic Units

The organizational structure of academic units facilitates faculty participation in program delivery. The University’s programs are housed in 35 departments or schools, as either single disciplines or clusters of related disciplines. For example, the Chemistry department consists solely of the Chemistry BS, while the Sociology, Anthropology & Child and Family Studies department is home to the Anthropology BA; the Sociology BA; and the Child and Family Studies BS. Schools consist of multiple degree programs. For instance, the School of Geosciences consists of undergraduate degrees in  Environmental Science BS, Digital Geography Concentration; Environmental Science BS, Environmental Quality Concentration; Environmental Science BS, Soil and Water Concentration; and Geology BS (Petroleum or Environmental); and graduate degrees in Environmental Resource Science MS, Geology MS, and the Earth and Energy Sciences PhD. Departments are led by department heads or directors. The 35 departmental units are organized into eight academic colleges and one school: the College of the Arts, the B.I. Moody III College of Business Administration, the College of Education, the College of Engineering, the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Nursing and Allied Health, the Ray P. Authement College of Sciences, University College, and the Graduate School.

At the department, college, and university levels, various committees are set up to facilitate faculty involvement. Typical departmental and college committees include curriculum, assessment, tenure and promotion, and search committees. For example, the College of Liberal Arts has 13 standing committees to engage faculty from its 9 departments. In addition, the faculty have opportunities to serve on University-wide committees. Each Spring, the Office of Faculty Affairs issues a University Committee Survey asking faculty and staff to indicate their interest in serving on a given committee. Nominations for several committees, such as Curriculum and Strategic Program Review, are put forth by the Faculty Senate Constitution. In other cases, the Vice President over a specific area determines the committee membership. Additional information is available on the Academic Affairs website.

Determining the sufficient number of full-time faculty

As a result of careful alignment of teaching needs and resources, the University has been able to expand faculty staffing from 590 full-time faculty in 2015 to 639 full-time faculty at the start of AY2018-2019. As a result, the student-to-faculty ratio has decreased from 22:1 to 19:1. The creation of new full-time faculty positions addresses enrollment growth, bottle-neck courses, University and State priorities, and research objectives.

An analysis of the student-to-faculty ratio in Fall 2018 by college and department indicates that there are adequate faculty when compared to that of similar peer institutions. This table translates the number of actual students and faculty–full-time and part-time–into full-time equivalents to determine the student to faculty ratio for each department. The number of students is the number of majors enrolled in a particular program within a department. One peer institution, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) performed a similar analysis in 2013, and a comparison of the two reveals that the student-to-faculty ratio at UL Lafayette is in line with such a peer. For example, the ratio at UAB for Computer Sciences is 17:1 which is identical to the ratio of 17:1 at UL Lafayette. Others are very similar: UL Lafayette’s English ratio is 4.26:1, comparable to 5:1 at UAB. UL Lafayette’s ratio for the MBA program is 66.72:1, a result of having a few faculty members dedicated to teaching in that program, with the majority of courses taught by faculty in one of the four departments in the B.I. Moody II College of Business Administration. 

Each year, College deans submit a hiring priority list to the Provost’s Office. The Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Faculty Affairs compiles these requests and compares them with available enrollment data and instructional needs.  A final request for all faculty positions is then submitted to the Vice President for Administration and Finance, where it is reconciled with available resources and a final hiring plan is approved.

The academic programs benchmark with similar peer programs and follow the recommendations of program accreditors relative to class size, faculty workload, and expectations. For example, in order to determine the appropriate number of faculty for the History program in the History, Geography, and Philosophy department, the Dean of Liberal Arts performs a comparative evaluation of other public doctoral institutions with a similar array of programs in arts and sciences. Peer institutions for the History program are in Table 6.2.b – 1.

Table 6.2.b – 1: 2017 History Degrees Conferred and Faculty at Peer Institutions

 

On par with these institutions, UL Lafayette has an enrollment of 17,297 students and 15 full time History faculty consisting of three professors, three associate professors, seven assistant professors, and two instructors/visiting faculty.

Similarly, the Biology program at UL Lafayette has 35 full-time faculty, which aligns with comparable institutions included in Table 6.2.b. – 2.

Table 6.2.b. – 2: 2017 Biology Degrees Conferred and Faculty at Peer Institutions

 

In other cases, professional and/or program accreditation requirements may influence the number of full-time faculty. For example, the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) and the Louisiana State Board of Nursing (LSBN) accredit the Undergraduate (BSN) and graduate (MSN and DNP) programs in Nursing. Faculty-to-student ratios for undergraduate programs are dictated by the LSBN, with a maximum of ten students to each faculty member in the clinical setting. To comply with agency regulations in selected specialty areas such as Labor and Delivery, Pediatrics, and Psychiatric settings, the ratio may be as low as one faculty member for five students.

For students enrolled in the MSN program, the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculty (NONPF) recommends a ratio of one faculty member for every six students. Nursing programs at UL Lafayette adhere to these ratios, with most clinical students taught by full time faculty. For Fall 2018, 33 of 44 clinical sections (75%) in the BSN program and 10 of 12 clinical sections (83%) in the MSN program were taught by full-time faculty. All clinical faculty meet the minimum qualifications for clinical teaching set forth by CCNE, LSBN, and/or NONPF. Similarly, the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) sets expectations for the maximum student-to-faculty ratios in studio courses at 25:1, with a recommended ratio of 20:1.

Effect of mission expectation on research and public service

The mission of the University influences the research and service expectations of faculty differently, depending on the academic program. Factors that affect expectations include an emphasis on the strategic plan, designated areas of excellence, and degree level. UL Lafayette’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020 identifies four key areas for strategic imperatives (Faculty, Students, Research, and Governance), and the strategic vision sets the objective of being “in the top 25% of our peer institutions.” In the area of faculty research and service, key imperatives include the following:

·         Faculty SI 2: Expand faculty staffing to meet or exceed peer standards for student-to-faculty ratios, choice of course offerings, and faculty diversity.

·         Student SI 3: Increase student productivity and success through engaged mentored research, innovative projects, and creative endeavors.

·         Research SI 1: Enhance supporting infrastructure for the conduct of research and innovation.

·         Research SI 2: Increase and diversify external funding revenue through grants and contracts, entrepreneurial activities, and fund-raising.

·         Research SI 3: Expand research programs beyond our existing strengths and take advantage of our historical, cultural, and geographical setting for research and scholarly purposes.

Various ongoing initiatives on campus are intended to promote and support

·         As student research aligns with high impact practices to foster student success, the QEP for 2020 seeks to provide students in all disciplines with opportunities for mentored research experiences with faculty. Data from the NSSE survey indicated that the faculty to student mentoring relationship was an area in need of development.

·         The establishment of a Faculty Research Travel Grant program provides support to faculty to conduct research.

·         The amount of external grant funding continues to increase and exceeded $100M for AY2017-2018.

·         Through the creation of new centers and the reorganization of existing centers, including the Ernest Gaines Center, the Informatics Research Institute, and the Louisiana Center for Health Innovation, UL Lafayette has expanded the research programs available to faculty.

Designated programmatic areas of excellence affect the expectations of faculty members for research and public service through increased opportunities and release time from teaching commitments, when appropriate. UL Lafayette designates five areas of excellence that include Louisiana arts, heritage, and culture; computing informatics and smart systems; healthcare, allied health, and wellness; environment, energy, and economics; and education, child development, and family. Each of these areas of excellence builds from baccalaureate degree programs to master’s and doctoral degree programs. The correlation of areas of excellence, academic programs, and degree levels is shown in Table 6.2.b – 3.

Table 6.2.b. – 3: Areas of Excellence and Degree Level

 

The teaching, research, and public service load of faculty may vary by academic program, depending on the degree level and the designation of the program as an area of excellence. Additionally, the balance of teaching, research, and service varies according to faculty rank as explained in the University’s Faculty Workload Policy. Full-time faculty at the rank of Instructor in the department of Biology primarily teach general education courses and lower-level introductory Biology courses for the BS in Biology and have minimal or no research expectations. By contrast, research is a major responsibility for full-time tenure-track and tenured faculty who teach at the graduate level in the MS and PhD programs in Biology, as evidenced in the Biology faculty workload report and  SCH department analysis.  Similarly, Instructors in the English department primarily teach 100- to 300-level courses, while tenured and tenure-track faculty members teaching at the Master’s level in the same department are required to maintain a balance of scholarship and teaching, and those teaching at the doctoral level primarily conduct research, scholarship, and creative works as evidenced in the English faculty workload report and SCH department analysis. In contrast, full-time Instructors, tenure-track, and tenured faculty in the Performing Arts program are expected to place a greater emphasis on teaching.

Role of full-time faculty in program oversight

Full-time faculty members have the obligation as discipline experts to determine the quality and integrity of student learning objectives, pedagogy, and curricular structure in each academic program. UL Lafayette adheres to the 1966 AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which states:

The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.

The faculty members at UL Lafayette have primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum. The UL System BOS Bylaws and Rules also outlines the duties of the academic staff in Chapter III, Faculty and Staff, Section 1, “Rights Duties and Responsibilities of the Academic Staff,” which states:

Those members of the academic staff who comprise the faculty of the System are charged to determine the educational policy of the System through deliberative action in their respective units and divisions.

The expectation is that each faculty member commits to the accomplishment of the purposes for which the System exists: instruction, research, and public service. Furthermore, in the University’s Faculty Handbook, the “Specifications for an Ideal University Professor” describe the responsibilities and duties of full-time faculty, and provides a standard for faculty performance in Teaching, Research and Scholarship, and Citizenship and Service. The Teaching description states that each faculty member is to “seek to improve undergraduate and graduate curricula,” and that the faculty is to “actively engage in the operation of the institution and department.”

The faculty’s responsibility in matters of course content and curriculum are manifest in the University’s process for establishing new courses and programs, which typically begins in the departments, with faculty discussions, proposals, and input. The faculty of the degree program propose curriculum changes to the department, which then go to the dean of the College and the Provost or his/her designee (the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs–Academic Programs) for their respective approvals. Ongoing evaluation of the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum is also the responsibility of the faculty, through formal and informal assessment of student learning outcomes associated with each degree program. The review of all academic programs to evaluate their quality and effectiveness in supporting the University’s mission occurs periodically at the departmental, college, University, and BOR levels. (See Standard 7.1.)

Responsibilities of full-time faculty

The Faculty Handbook addresses the responsibilities of UL Lafayette full-time faculty in Section V, Faculty Personnel Policies, which details the three types of Regular Continuing full-time appointments:

·         Non-Tenure Track Appointments: “Continuing Instructor appointments are for regular full-time faculty who are not on tenure-track.”

·         Tenure-Track (Probationary) Appointments: “Tenure-track appointments are for regular full-time faculty with academic rank of Assistant Professor or higher.”

·         Tenured Academic Appointments: “Tenure appointments are for regular full-time faculty with academic rank of Assistant Professor or higher who have been awarded tenure by the Board of Supervisors.”

The teaching description in the “Specifications for an Ideal University Professor” states that:

The primary function of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette is education. A sound educational program is one in which capable students are guided, engaged, and inspired by outstanding teachers (…). It is expected that all faculty members will be active educators in their fields (…). The teacher should be personally interested in students as individuals, recognizing their potentialities, limitations, and difficulties, and should serve as mentor to them. The teacher should be flexible in pedagogical approaches and methods and should create classes that maximize active student learning.

The research description states that “University faculty are teacher-scholars” and defines the matrices of research, scholarship, and creative works through general goals and standards that include peer recognition. The description states that “The objectives…should be to improve both humanity and the faculty member’s own effectiveness by generating new knowledge and understanding and by providing an opportunity for their students to learn.” By this standard, faculty are expected to be research leaders, as evidenced by “external support,” a “process of peer review,” and “contributions to the discipline.”

Regarding service, the “Ideal Professor” description states that “Membership in the University community requires [the] support of [faculty] and active engagement in the operation of the institution, college, and the department.” Faculty may pursue participatory and leadership roles in committee work to improve the educational and research endeavors of the University. Faculty should be “leaders in their chosen profession” through service on community and professional organizations aimed at improving the state of both constituencies. Section V of the Faculty Handbook also defines responsibilities for advising students, attending orientation and commencement, and performing general classroom duties.

The Faculty Workload Policy recognizes the inherent diversity of full-time faculty work by stating that “The work done by university faculty is manifold, varying not only by types of tasks but also by academic discipline and mission.” The workload policy provides a management structure for defining faculty loads and responsibilities, while being sufficiently flexible to allow for the “myriad activities of different faculty and departments.” The University’s understanding of the primary responsibilities and expectations placed on the faculty focuses on “the advancement of knowledge through research and the extension of knowledge through teaching.” All regular continuing full-time faculty follow one of five workload categories determined by the mission of the department as it relates to degree level (bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate), general education courses, external funded research, and the preparation of doctoral candidates.

Workload categories (or “Tracks”) are differentiated by the relative weight of the “two major components of faculty work: research and teaching.” A typical three-credit undergraduate lecture course with average enrollment equates to 20% of the total workload. Therefore, in general terms, the workload is composed of five three-credit units, and the baseline teaching load for a “faculty at professorial rank is assumed to be twelve credit hours per semester (a 4/4 load for the academic year).” The remaining 20% is allocated to research and/or service. Depending on faculty expertise and departmental mission, teaching loads can vary from a 5/5 load (usually for Instructors in Track 1 teaching undergraduate courses) to a 1/1 load for Track 4 faculty teaching graduate courses and maintaining “heavy research/creative/grant/contract productivity, with heavy engagement in thesis and/or dissertation direction.” The workload policy also defines the load for faculty members with administrative responsibilities such as department head or director (Track 5 in Table 6.2.b. – 4), which is generally reduced to the teaching of 1 or 2 courses per semester, depending on the department’s size, scope, and mission. Table 6.2.b. – 4 presents the typical workload assignments for full-time faculty.

Table 6.2.b. — 4: Full-time Faculty Workload Track to Workload Units

 

Full-time faculty overloads

The UL Lafayette policy on Compensation Limitation for Non-Classified Personnel defines the parameters for the overloads of full-time employees. The policy permits employees to take on additional assignments up to 120% of base compensation, on an exceptional basis. Reasons for overloads may include teaching an additional course that is necessary for students to graduate on time; covering the duties of another faculty member because of death, illness, or family medical leave; or offering additional sections of bottleneck courses to assist the department and its students. Faculty may also volunteer to teach a course of specific interest as an overload, such as a seminar course or a topics course for UNIV 100 – First-Year Seminar.

Different pay scales have been set up to distinguish between part-time pay, overload compensation for full-time continuing faculty, and stipends for summer and intersession terms. Department heads initiate the request for an overload by filling out a Personnel Action Form that requires the subsequent approval of the Dean, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Faculty Affairs, Chief Human Resources Officer, Budget/Sponsored Program Finance and Administration Compliance (SPFAC), Provost, Vice President for Administration and Finance, and University President. In instances where a faculty member is teaching a course in another department, such as UNIV 100, then the home department head must also indicate his or her approval.

During AY2018-2019, 98 of the 639 full-time faculty (15%) received overload compensation for teaching additional courses. The most frequent type of overload consisted of one additional course per semester. Occasionally, faculty members taught an overload of more than one course. For instance, during the Spring and Fall 2018 semesters, Dr. DeAnn Kalich, Professor and Head of the Sociology, Anthropology, and Child and Family Studies department, taught a double overload to cover sociology courses left unattributed because budget cuts resulted in unfilled faculty positions. In Spring 2018, Dr. Kalich taught an overload double section (160 students) of SOCI 100: General Sociology. In Fall 2018 she taught an overload online section of SOCI 480G: Death & Dying, as well as an additional SOCI 499 independent study seminar (7 students) to accommodate student needs.

Definition and responsibilities of part-time faculty

UL Lafayette defines part-time faculty in the Faculty Handbook, Section V, Faculty Personnel Policies. The section on “Special Appointments” provides definitions for part-time or adjunct faculty, temporary or visiting faculty, lecturer, off-campus faculty, and research scientist/research associate.

According to the Faculty Handbook definition,

The title of "adjunct" (e.g., Adjunct Instructor, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, or Adjunct Professor) refers to appointments of persons who serve the University in an advisory capacity, whose principal employer may be other than UL Lafayette (but who make a substantial regular contribution to the academic activities of the University), and/or who fill positions of instruction created by enrollment demand.

The typical part-time faculty teaches between 1 and 11 credit hours per semester. In a few cases, part-time faculty teach 12-15 credit hours. A review of AY2017-2018 part-time faculty identified part-time faculty who were historically and consistently teaching the equivalent of a full-time load. In these instances, the University created new instructor positions to transition several of these individuals from part-time to full-time faculty. For instance, a new position was created in the Department of Visual Arts for a faculty member who had been teaching Art and the Computer and Art History courses for several years on a part-time basis.

The governance of part-time faculty who work off-campus is part of Faculty Handbook Document XVI, Policies for Off-Campus Faculty. These include faculty teaching dual enrollment courses, online courses, and courses at off-campus sites.

The Office of Faculty Affairs conducts an orientation for part-time faculty at the start of each academic year. As stated in the Faculty Handbook, “Faculty (part-time and full-time) on initial appointment hired prior to the beginning of the semester shall attend the orientation for new faculty, which is held before the beginning of classes.” This Adjunct orientation introduces part-time faculty to faculty resources, as well as systems including the employee portal, the grade check system, and the learning management system. Additionally, faculty receive information on services available to students including tutoring, advising, counseling and testing, and additional resources such as the library as seen in the Adjunct Orientation Agenda.

Table 6.2.b. – 5 provides the number and percentage of full-time and part-time faculty disaggregated by academic college. As this data demonstrate, the University relies primarily on full-time faculty.

Table 6.2.b — 5: Percentage of Full-time and Part-time Faculty

 

The governance of off-campus faculty is addressed in the Faculty Handbook, Document XVI Policies for Off-Campus Faculty. This section describes policies for faculty teaching dual enrollment courses, online courses, and courses at off-campus sites.

Undergraduate section enrollment

Further evidence that the number of full-time faculty is adequate to ensure the quality and integrity of each of the University’s academic programs, including programs offered via distance learning, is available through an examination of class sizes and the number of undergraduate sections with small and large enrollments. One indication that the University has adequate faculty for its academic programs (both face to face and via distance learning) is that it does not rely on large sections to produce student credit hours. Less than 8 percent of all course sections have enrollments of more than 50 students, and less than 2 percent of the sections have 100 students or more, as shown in Table 6.1 – 6: Undergraduate Class Size as Reported in the Common Data Set I-3.

 

Supporting Documents

1966 AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities

Academic Affairs Policy 2.15

Academic Affairs Website

Accounting MS

Adjunct Faculty Section V Faculty Personnel

Adjunct Orientation Agenda

Anthropology BA

Applied Language and Speech Sciences PhD

Architectural Studies BS

Architecture MArch

AY2017-2018 Adjunct Report

Biology BS

Biology faculty Workload Report

Biology MS

Business Health Care Administration MBA

Business MBA

Chapter II, Students, Section VIII, Baccalaureate Degree Requirements

Chemical Engineering BSCHE

Chemistry BS

Child and Family Studies BS

Civil Engineering BSCIE

College of Liberal Arts Standing Committees

Committee Membership Invitation

Compensation Limitation for Non-Classified Personnel

Computer Engineering MSCE

Computer Engineering PhD

Computer Science BS

Computer Science MS

Computer Science PhD

Counselor Education MS

Criminal Justice BS

Criminal Justice MS

Curriculum and Instruction MEd

Doctor of Nursing Practice, DNP

Document XVI Policies for Off-Campus Faculty

Documents XXI-Faculty Workload Policy

Early Childhood Education Grades PK-3 BS

Earth and Energy Sciences PhD

Economics BSBA

Educational Leadership EdD

Educational Leadership MEd

Electrical Engineering BSEE

Engineering MSE

English BA, Folklore Concentration

English faculty workload report

English MA

Environmental and Evolutionary Biology PhD

Environmental Resource Science MS

Environmental Science BS

Environmental Science BS, Digital Geography Concentration

Environmental Science BS, Environmental Quality Concentration

Environmental Science BS, Soil and Water Concentration

Faculty Handbook Section V, Faculty Personnel Policies

Faculty Handbook, Section IV, Instructional and Research Policies

Faculty Overload Compensation Report

Faculty Senate Constitution - Committees

Fall 2018 Student and Faculty Ratio by College and Department

Francophone Studies PhD

French MA

Geology BS

Geology BS (Petroleum or Environmental)

Geology MS

Health Information Management BS

Health Services Administration BS

Hiring Priority Spreadsheet

History BA

History MA

Ideal University Professor

Informatics BS

Informatics MS

Kinesiology MS

Kinesiology, BS

Louisiana State Board of Nursing

Master of Arts in Teaching MAT

Mathematics BS

Mathematics MS

Mathematics PhD

Middle School Education Grades 4-8, BS

Modern Languages, BA

Moving Image Arts BA

Music BA, Traditional Music Concentration

Music, BM

NASAD Handbook 2018-19 p. 63

National Task Force Quality Nurse Practitioner Education Report

Nursing BSN

Nursing MSN

Performing Arts BFA

Petroleum Engineering BSPE

Physics BS

Physics MS

Professional Land and Resource Management BSBA

Psychology BS

Psychology MS

SCH Department Analysis - Biology

SCH Department Analysis - English

Secondary Education & Teaching BS

Sociology BA

Sociology BA

Special Education: Gifted MEd

Speech Pathology and Audiology BA

Speech Pathology and Audiology MS

Supplemental Compensation Payscale 

Systems Engineering PhD

Systems Technology MS

UL Lafayette Strategic Planning Report

UL System Rules – Academic Staff

UNIV 100 – First-Year Seminar

University Committees

Visual Arts BFA

 

6.2.C     Program Coordination [CR]

For each of its educational programs, the institution assigns appropriate responsibility for program coordination.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette assigns appropriate responsibility to qualified coordinators for all of its programs.

Selection Process

Through a variety of mechanisms the University ensures that department heads, school directors, and program coordinators responsible for each major in a degree program are academically qualified in their fields. Every appointment, promotion, and special salary increase of a member of the academic staff is based on the merit and fitness of the individual for the work demanded by the position. All appointments of members of the academic staff are approved by the Department Head, Dean, Provost, and the President or his designee, with approval by the UL System BOS.

All department heads, school directors, and program coordinators have faculty standing in the departments they head, and therefore each goes through the same review for academic qualifications to which all faculty members are subject. The Office of Faculty Affairs receives original transcripts for all faculty appointments, checks them for academic credentials, and certifies that the individuals are qualified. The transcripts are subsequently filed in the Office of Faculty Affairs and are entered into the Banner system.

According to the Faculty Handbook:

The selection of a department head is an important event in the life of a University. Effective heads need the confidence and support of both the departmental faculty and the dean. In as much as the department head is expected to take the lead in building consensus within the department and between the department and the dean on such matters as curriculum, standards, directions for the development of the academic program, and the allocation of resources, and in addition, to organize and consult with committees in the department, particularly those dealing with hiring, promotion and retention, and with courses and curriculum, the selection process should include a broad representation of interests within the department, and the committee should bear these functions of the department head in mind during the search.

Colleges and departments may individualize the process, as appropriate, to meet their needs. According to BOS Bylaws, each academic administrator (department head, director, dean, or vice president), who is to hold an appointment with rank and in a tenure-track position, must have an earned degree in a field appropriate to the position. In addition, each administrator must have the earned doctorate or appropriate terminal degree for his or her discipline. Furthermore, the BOS specifies the search process for administrative positions to ensure that administrators are properly qualified.  Table 6.2.c – 1 lists each program and its coordinator, and links to their CVs as evidence of their qualifications for the position.

Table 6.2.c — 1: Qualified Program Coordinators

 

Supporting Documents

Faculty Handbook: Procedures for Selecting Department Heads

Qualifications for Academic Administrators

Search Policy and Procedures for Hiring Deans Positions or Higher

 

6.3     Faculty Appointment and Evaluation [CR]

The institution publishes and implements policies regarding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of faculty members, regardless of contract or tenure status.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette publishes and implements policies regarding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of all faculty members. 

Appointment and Employment

The University’s Faculty Personnel Policies published in the Faculty Handbook provide the policies regarding appointment for all types of faculty. Faculty appointments are broadly divided into Regular Continuing appointments (non-tenure track, tenure track, or tenured) and Special Appointments (Temporary, Adjunct, Visiting, Lecturers, Off-Campus, and Research Scientist/Research Associate Faculty). The specific conditions of appointments are explained for each of these categories.

In practice, the faculty appointment process begins with the Department Head entering a requisition for a position in Cornerstone. The Office of Faculty Affairs reviews each vacancy announcement submitted for full-time continuing faculty appointments to ensure that the qualifications align with the Teaching Qualifications Tables and the Teaching Qualifications Policy. Candidates apply for a position through Cornerstone, at which time the Office of Human Resources confirms that the applicant meets minimum qualifications defined in the vacancy announcement by reviewing application materials and searching the National Student Clearinghouse.

The Department Head normally names a Qualifications Screening and Nominating (QSN) Committee (which may consist of the entire continuing faculty in small departments) to review each applicant and select finalists. After preliminary interviews, the Department Head submits a list of finalists for on-campus interviews for the Dean’s approval. Once a candidate has been chosen, the Dean authorizes an offer letter to be extended to the applicant. When an offer letter is signed by the candidate, the Department Head initiates a Personnel Action Form (PAF) to begin the appointment process. The PAF serves as the verification mechanism for many of the appointment policies spelled out in the Faculty Personnel Policies, including qualifications, duration of appointment, probationary period, and course load. Once signed by the chain of command through the Provost, signed copies of the PAF are distributed to the college and department, but the finalist is not considered employed until the UL System BOS has formally approved the applicant, rank, salary, and period of employment.

During the 2019 calendar year, the paper PAF is being replaced by an electronic requisition to hire submitted through Cornerstone. In this new system, the approval process is streamlined because the credential verification and requisition approval processes are separated.

The following documents show appointments at all faculty levels:

·         Sample Filled PAF Continuing Instructor

·         Sample Filled PAF Tenure Track

·         Sample Filled PAF Tenured

·         Sample Filled PAF E-T Instructor

·         Sample Filled PAF Adjunct

·         Sample Filled PAF Visiting Assistant Professor

·         Sample Filled PAF Lecturer

·         Sample Filled PAF Research Scientist/Research Associate

Evaluation

The University employs regular processes to evaluate the effectiveness of both continuing and non-continuing faculty members. Continuing faculty members are evaluated annually by their immediate supervisors and peers during the tenure and promotion process, and by their students via the University Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) administered in every course. Non‐continuing faculty are evaluated through SEI and, beginning in Fall 2019, through a new performance evaluation process in Cornerstone. In addition, in some colleges, Department Heads or peer committees regularly observe faculty classes and provide an evaluation.

Annual Performance Evaluation

In keeping with best practices and BOS regulations, UL Lafayette conducts an annual evaluation through Cornerstone of the effectiveness of all full‐time faculty members in three specific areas: teaching, research and professional activities, and university and community service.  Below are sample annual performance evaluations for each college:

·         Arts, Instructor

·         B.I. Moody III College of Business Administration, Senior Instructor

·         Education, Master Instructor

·         Engineering, Assistant Professor

·         Liberal Arts, Associate Professor

·         Nursing and Allied Health, Professor

·         Ray P. Authement College of Sciences, Department Head

The University’s policy for faculty evaluations includes definite and stated criteria, consistent with policies and procedures of the BOS and the institution. The composite description of the “Ideal University Professor” provides benchmarks for assessing faculty performance in annual evaluations and merit raise considerations, as well as in tenure and promotion decisions. Detailed procedures included in the Faculty Handbook are summarized in the following paragraphs.

The “Faculty Workload Policy” provides the framework for understanding the University’s expectations regarding faculty roles and performance, and structures the eventual evaluation process:

This workload policy document attempts to be structured enough to serve as a management tool to assist administrators at the department and college levels in setting faculty loads and responsibilities, but flexible enough to allow description of the myriad activities of different faculty and departments. While it does not specifically prescribe workloads, it does provide detailed guidance as to the University’s expectations of its faculty. This policy and the Goals and Evaluation of actual workload are essential components by which the University accounts for the work efforts of its faculty to its management boards. Equally importantly, these documents ensure consistency in the construal of work efforts from one department to the next and from one faculty member to the next.

The document defines four workload tracks for faculty, with differing expectations in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The primary factors determining the track to which faculty are assigned are the mission and needs of the department and/or college in which they reside, and the faculty member’s alignment with those needs. Until 2019, faculty used a paper evaluation system comprised of a Workload Document and Annual Performance Evaluation.  The following sample evaluations are representative of this process:

·         Annual Performance Evaluation - Instructor

·         Annual Performance Evaluation - Assistant Professor

·         Annual Performance Evaluation - Associate Professor

·         Annual Performance Evaluation - Professor

In the Spring of 2019, the University adopted Cornerstone’s evaluation module and implemented it for the evaluation of calendar year 2018 performance. Under this system, at the beginning of the year, faculty members enter goals into their Cornerstone profile, detailing anticipated activities in teaching, research, and service. At the end of the year, faculty members report their actual activities during the evaluation process in Cornerstone, and the evaluation is routed to the Department Head or immediate supervisor, who then evaluates the faculty member’s performance. The faculty evaluation instructions make it clear that “descriptions of workload expectations do not equate to subsequent performance evaluation; performance evaluation is driven by the quality of one’s work, not the fact that it meets the percentage expectations of the workload track to which one is assigned.”

Evaluators assign scores to faculty according to the following merit scale: Exemplary (5), Accomplished (4), Very Good/Good (3), Below Expectations (2), and Significantly Below Minimum Expectations (1). Only faculty members receiving a score between Exemplary (5) and Below Expectations (2) are eligible for merit-based salary increases. Merit evaluations are conducted using a department-based rubric, and each department is awarded a merit raise pool based on the salary total in that department. The Department Head’s evaluation of the faculty member is then reviewed by the college Dean, and then by the Provost, who reviews a report of merit scores of all University faculty. Both Dean and Provost may adjust, within defined limits, a faculty member’s overall evaluation.

According to the Faculty Handbook, a rating that falls lower than Below Expectations (2) twice in any consecutive three‐year period indicates continuing failure to meet expected standards in teaching and/or research, and must be addressed by the faculty member, the Department Head, and the Dean. In compliance with the UL System Policy and Procedures Memorandum FS-III.X.D-1, procedures are in place for remediation of unsatisfactory performance. The “Remediation Procedures for UL Lafayette Personnel with Category 1 Merit Evaluations” were formulated by the Faculty Senate and were approved by both the Provost and the University President.

Tenure and Promotion

The policies of UL Lafayette regarding tenure and promotion are described in the current edition of the Faculty Handbook, and follow prescriptions contained in the Board of Regents “Statement on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Responsibility.” Additionally, the University’s tenure policies are in accord with BOS rules for the UL System. As per these rules, faculty members are not eligible for tenure at the Instructor of Lecturer level.

Full‐time academic personnel hired at the rank of Assistant Professor serve a probationary period not to exceed six years of continuous service. Faculty members hired at the rank of Associate Professor serve a probationary period approved by the President of the University, but not less than one year or more than four years. Faculty members initially employed at the rank of Professor may be granted tenure upon appointment or, at the discretion of the University, may be required to serve a probationary period not to exceed four years. Thus, the probationary period for hires at the Associate and Full Professor ranks is always specified in the Hiring Requisition. The final evaluation for tenure usually occurs during the penultimate year in the probationary term. In all cases, faculty are notified by the University administration of the results of their evaluations.

As with faculty evaluations, the composite description of the “Ideal University Professor” provides benchmarks for assessing faculty performance in tenure and promotion decisions. A faculty member’s academic department or unit may conduct periodic evaluations during the probationary period, in accordance with that department’s usual practice. The University requires all departments to conduct at least a mid‐tenure review of all eligible faculty members.

Tenured faculty and department heads initiate recommendations for tenure and promotion. The process of tenure review at the departmental level varies depending on department size and mission and may include a vote of all tenured faculty members or a recommendation of a personnel committee within the department. Those recommendations are transmitted to the appropriate academic dean, who forwards them with his or her own separate recommendation to the Provost, who in turn submits them with a recommendation to the President. The President endorses and forwards all such recommendations to the BOS, which has final authority for granting or denying tenure.

The promotion process is described in the Faculty Handbook. Advancement in academic rank is not automatic but is based on the faculty member’s performance. In recommending a faculty member for promotion in rank, several factors are considered, including: (1) effectiveness as a teacher and advisor; (2) research and professional attainments, such as continued study, refereed publications, presentations, or suitable equivalents; (3) service to the department, college, university; and (4) service to the community. In evaluating a faculty member for promotion, the department and University administration may also consider other factors, such as the Board of Supervisors guidelines (Chapter 3) regarding rank distribution of faculty.

In addition to the criteria described above, all colleges and a number of departments have written tenure and promotion guidelines that reflect expectations based on their respective missions.

Student Evaluation of Instruction

The University uses several instruments to assess the effectiveness of its educational, administrative, and student support programs, including the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI), which is distributed each semester in all classes with enrollment of five students or more. Results of the SEI are distributed to the class instructor, Department Head, and Dean.

The Student Evaluation of Instruction Committee is charged with providing effective, efficient, and meaningful mechanisms for the periodic student evaluation of instruction. Primarily, the committee is concerned with the review and revision, when necessary, of the evaluation form, but can make recommendations for changes in the mechanism of the student evaluation, such as who should review the evaluation, when it should be administered, and other areas. 

 

Supporting Documents

Annual Performance Evaluation - Instructor

Annual Performance Evaluation - Assistant Professor

Annual Performance Evaluation - Associate Professor

Annual Performance Evaluation - Professor

B.I. Moody III College of Business Administration, Senior Instructor

BOR Statement on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Responsibility

BOS Guidelines Chapter 3

Cornerstone Evaluation

Education, Master Instructor

Engineering, Assistant Professor

English Clarified Track 3 Rubric

Faculty Handbook Performance Evaluation and Merit Pay Policy

Faculty Handbook: Description of “Ideal University Professor"

Faculty Handbook: Evaluations & Promotions

Faculty Handbook: Faculty Personnel Policies–Appointment Types p. 3

Faculty Handbook: Five Faculty Workload Tracks

Faculty Handbook: Lafayette Faculty Evaluation Process

Faculty Handbook: Remediation Procedures for Personnel with Category 1 Merit Evaluations

Faculty Handbook: UL Lafayette Tenure and Promotion Procedures

Ray P. Authement College of Sciences, Department Head

Sample College Guidelines

Sample Evaluation - Arts Instructor

Sample Evaluation - Liberal Arts Associate Professor

Sample Evaluation - Nursing and Allied Health, Professor

Sample Filled PAF Adjunct

Sample Filled PAF Continuing Instructor

Sample Filled PAF E-T Instructor

Sample Filled PAF lecturer

Sample filled PAF Research Scientist/Research Associate

Sample filled PAF tenure track

Sample filled PAF tenured

Sample filled PAF visiting assistant professor

Sample Redacted Workload Document

SEI Committee Agendas Sample Apr 2018

SEI Committee Sample Minutes Apr 2018

SEI Sample Online Questionnaire

SEI Sample Redacted Report

Teaching Qualifications Policy

UL System Policy Review of Faculty Ranks

 

6.4     Academic Freedom [CR]

The institution publishes and implements appropriate policies and procedures for preserving and protecting academic freedom.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette publishes and implements policies and procedures for preserving and protecting academic freedom. The University is dedicated to the concept that academic freedom, fundamental to its mission of achieving excellence in undergraduate and graduate education, is afforded to all members of the academic community. The University supports and protects academic freedom by incorporating the concept into its policies and procedures.

Section IV of the Faculty Handbook, “Instructional and Research Policies” states that “The University of Louisiana at Lafayette subscribes to the joint “1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom” of the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors. Further, the University operates under the “Board of Regents’ Statement on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Responsibility,” which establishes and defines a uniform, statewide policy on academic freedom, tenure, and responsibility for the state’s public colleges and universities. Specifically, the document states that “the Board of Regents supports academic freedom, tenure, and responsibility as a means of fostering the free search for truth and its free exposition.” That document also makes clear that academic freedom is afforded to all members of the academic community.

A number of UL Lafayette policies and procedure documents reinforce the University’s commitment to academic freedom. The procedure for dismissal for cause explicitly states that “dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or their rights of American citizens or legal aliens.” The “University Policy Regarding Sexual Behavior and Sexual Harassment” supports academic freedom in the following terms:

In the educational setting within the University, wide latitude for professional judgment in determining the appropriate content and presentation of academic material is required. Although those participating in the educational setting bear a responsibility to balance their rights of free expression with a consideration of the reasonable sensitivities of other participants, this policy against harassment shall be applied in a manner that protects academic freedom and freedom of expression, including but not limited to the expression of ideas, however controversial, in the classroom setting, academic environment, university-recognized activities, or on the campus. [B. Academic Freedom]

The University Research Integrity Policy references academic freedom, stating that “Throughout responsible and honest discourse, the protection of academic freedom, and protection of the individual against public dissemination of unwarranted allegations are the essential ingredients in the process.” A faculty member who feels that his or her academic freedom has been abridged may file a grievance in accordance with the procedures described in the Faculty Handbook.

Students are similarly guaranteed academic freedom. The Statement of Student Rights includes the following assurance of academic freedom:

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette exists to educate its students; to advance, preserve and disseminate knowledge through research and scholarship; and to advance the public interest and the welfare of society as a whole. Essential to such purposes is an orderly climate of academic integrity, of rational and critical inquiry, of intellectual freedom, and of freedom of individual thought and expression consistent with the rights of others. To the end that such a climate may be established and maintained, UL Lafayette as an institution and each member of the University community have reciprocal rights and obligations. It is the obligation of the University as an institution to ensure orderly operation, to preserve academic freedom, to protect the rights of all members of the University community, to prohibit acts that materially and substantially interfere with legitimate educational objectives or interfere with the rights of others, and to institute disciplinary action where conduct adversely affects the University community’s pursuit of its educational objectives.

A student who feels that his or her academic freedom has been abridged may file a grievance in accordance with the procedures described in the Student Handbook.

No cases involving academic freedom have been filed in the period covered by this report.

Through these policies and procedures, the University guarantees the rights of academic freedom to its students and faculty.

 

Supporting Documents

BOR Statement Academic Freedom

Faculty Handbook: Faculty Grievance Policy

Faculty Handbook: Procedures for Dismissal for Cause and Imposition of Major Sanctions

Faculty Handbook: Subscription to 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom

Faculty Handbook: University Policy Regarding Sexual Behavior and Sexual Harassment

Faculty Handbook: University Research Integrity Policy

Section IV of the Faculty Handbook

Student Handbook: Student Affairs Appeals Procedure

UL Lafayette Statement of Student Rights

6.5     Faculty Development [CR]

The institution provides ongoing professional development opportunities for faculty members as teachers, scholars, and practitioners, consistent with the institutional mission.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance

Narrative

Faculty development opportunities are offered at the University level through the Office of Faculty Affairs, as well as through individual colleges and departments.

Office of Faculty Affairs Programs

The Office of Faculty Affairs administers a number of programs aimed at providing professional development, including orientations, webinars, workshops, grants, sabbaticals, endowed honors, and awards. These include:

·         The New Faculty Orientation is one of the ways in which UL Lafayette invests in the success of its faculty at all stages of their careers. The two-day orientation introduces faculty and staff to information, resources, and support available on campus. The orientation is also an opportunity to meet key senior leaders of the University and to hear about their vision for the University. Orientation takes place annually in August, prior to the start of the academic semester.

·         A subscription to Academic Impressions provides on-demand access to webinars, publications, and resources, and schedules live webinars relating to teaching and leadership. 

·         Educational Development Grants are available to faculty to support innovative teaching methods, materials, or instructional technology; to develop new pedagogies or curriculum assessment techniques; or to offer on‐campus workshops that promote student success, student research, and other topics. Grant guidelines specify that the awards range from $500 to $1500, and are allocated on a competitive basis by a University-wide committee that evaluates proposals. Table 6.5 – 1 lists the type and number of educational grants awarded over the last five years.

Table 6.5 – 1: Educational Grants Awarded

 

Research Travel Grants provide funding for faculty to present research at conferences or to travel to meet with funding agencies. During AY2018-2019, $100,000 was awarded for conference travel during the course of four award rounds. Grants are competitive, and faculty applications are reviewed and ranked by the Office of Faculty Affairs and the Associate Deans Council. An additional $20,000 was also available for faculty to meet with a funding agency; for these grants, the deans nominated faculty, and the proposals were reviewed by the Office of Faculty Affairs.

Sabbatical leave is granted to faculty members to support independent study and research. Sabbaticals are available for summer term, or for one or two semesters during the academic year. Faculty members are eligible to apply for one semester of sabbatical leave following three or more consecutive years of service, and two semesters of sabbatical leave following six or more consecutive years of service. Sabbatical leave is generally funded at 75% of a faculty member’s salary, per UL System Policy.

Table 6.5 — 2 shows the number of research travel grants and sabbaticals awarded since 2012.

Table 6.5 — 2: Research Travel Grants and Sabbatical Awards

 

Advising Awards recognize outstanding faculty advisors. The University offers regular advisor training each semester with sessions focused on a variety of advising topics and issues. Effective advising is valued and incentivized: UL Lafayette has funded this award program since 2006. Criteria for the awards include completion of the following:

·         A minimum of 20 advisor holds lifted per semester

·         A minimum of 65% of advisee student surveys completed

·         A statement of advising philosophy

·         Advising questionnaire responses

·         Participation in required trainings

A Selection Committee of Deans, advisors, faculty members, and students selects 50 superior advisors, each of whom receives a $1,000 stipend, and up to 10 new faculty advisors (one year or less of advising), each of whom receives a $500 stipend, for awards totaling $55,000 annually.

The annual Eminent Scholars Awards recognize superior research, teaching, and service with Distinguished Professor Awards, the Dr. Ray Authement Excellence in Teaching Award, and Leadership Service Awards. Each college selects nominees, and nominations are forwarded to the Office of Faculty Affairs. Committees for each award (consisting of past recipients or other representatives from each college) select respective award recipients, each of whom receives $5,000.

UL Lafayette has 22 Endowed Chairs, of which 18 are currently filled. Each of these is based on a corpus of $1 million. An endowed chair is the highest academic honor that can be bestowed upon a faculty member at UL Lafayette. The recipient of an endowed chair must have a distinguished record of accomplishments in his or her field, as indicated variously by research, publication, external funding, creative endeavors, awards and honors, and leadership positions in professional organizations. Base funding for most endowed chairs has been provided by private donors and a match from the State Board of Regents Support Fund (BORSF). In addition to these BORSF chairs, the University maintains two endowed chairs funded entirely through private sources.

UL Lafayette has 241 Endowed Professorships available, of which 223 are filled for AY2018-2019. The professorships are for distinguished faculty members whose accomplishments advance the reputation of the University as an outstanding research, teaching, and service institution. The University has previously received match funding of 60% from private donors and 40% from the BORSF Endowed Professorship Fund to establish professorships, valued at $100,000 each. Many of these professorships are funded jointly by private donors and the Louisiana BORSF; currently donors provide 80% of the funds, and the BORSF provides 20%. Almost all professorships are awarded competitively; some are used to retain or recruit outstanding faculty members. In both cases, the professorship applicants are selected through a review of both college- and University-level selection committees. The University has designated a few professorships as the Vermilion Professorship (a grouping of 3-5 professorships or the equivalent); these are reserved for faculty whose research, scholarship, or creative endeavors mark them as exceptional among their peers.

A professorship award carries either a supplementary stipend or a discretionary fund, or both, the amounts of which are determined annually based on the investment productivity of the professorship account’s endowment. Beginning with AY2019-2020, new professorships carry a discretionary award for professional development; faculty may seek approval to receive a portion of the award as a summer research salary stipend.

Endowed professorships are awarded for three‐year terms, after which they are opened again for competitive applications. Endowed chair holders are reviewed by the University Professorship and Chair Selection Committee every three years to determine their continuing eligibility.

In addition to the Board of Regents’ support of universities’ endowed professorships and chairs programs, BORSF also provides funds to faculty through competitively awarded enhancement grants and competitively awarded superior graduate scholarships.

Additional programs

The Division of Student Success, the Office of Distance Learning, the Graduate School, the Office of Diversity and Community Engagement, the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, and the Office of Human Resources also offer on-site and online faculty development programs, resources, and training. These include:

Advisor Training. The Academic Success Center offers advisor training through workshops, online delivery, and newsletters. During AY2018-2019, faculty and staff had access to 22 workshops conducted by fellow faculty and staff. Trainings included: new advisor academic advising competency workshops, “Nuts and Bolts of UL,” including information on advising and the UL curriculum with updates from the Registrar and Career Services, information sessions presented by specific Colleges and/or Departments, curriculum specific trainings, and webinars on incorporating successful advising practices. Attendance at two such workshops, or those offered by individual colleges, is one of the requirements for eligibility for the annual Outstanding Advising Awards. During AY2018-2019, some 325 faculty participated in the following advising workshops:

·         6 trainings for New Advisors on Academic Advising, with 67 attendees

·         5 trainings on the "Nuts and Bolts" to include information regarding UL's curriculum and updates from the Registrar and Career Services, with 80 attendees

·         1 training on Diversity on Campus and "Unconscious Bias" by the Director of Campus Diversity, with 28 attendees

·         1 training on the Math curriculum and sequence of courses, with 9 attendees

·         2 advising webinars presented by the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), with 34 attendees

·         4 College or Departments provided information sessions for their faculty

·         1 Summer 2019 Advisor training, with 80 attendees

Diversity training. The Director of Campus Diversity provides diversity training for academic departments upon request. These include sessions on unconscious bias in hiring searches, a series of campus discussions on challenging issues called Courageous Conversations, and a certificate program in diversity for faculty under development.

Software training. The Office of Computing Support Services provides faculty support on the use of the University’s computing system and, more specifically, on the use of Moodle, the principal course management software used on campus. These training sessions are provided on demand to academic departments or other groups. Additional assistance with instructional technology is provided by the IT Service Desk of Computing Support Services, the Media Center, and college‐level IT managers.

Teaching development. The Office of Faculty Affairs and the Office of Student Affairs partner to sponsor programs and webinars focused on teaching and learning topics. Past events have covered subjects such as student engagement and social media, plagiarism, and active learning. Departments offer continuing development for their faculty through periodic strategic planning sessions, seminars, research workshops, and brown bag lunches. In addition, faculty members in several disciplines maintain their professional status through continuing education activities from external sources.

Individual colleges offer a variety of faculty development and professional engagement activities. For example, the B.I. Moody College of Business Administration sponsors a Tenure-Track Teaching Excellence Series and a Research Series; the Ray P. Authement College of Sciences sponsors a mentoring series for tenure-track faculty; and the College of Education offers an Education Colloquium Series featuring presentations and demonstrations by both faculty and external members of the academy.  College and department faculty enhancement budgets include a travel component used to fund faculty attendance and/or presentations at conferences, meetings, and workshops. For AY2018‐2019 travel funds from the University’s operating budget totaled $610,384. In addition, approximately one-third of faculty members have access to discretionary funds through endowed professorships and chairs, and several academic units have UL Lafayette Foundation funds earmarked for faculty development.

Distance learning. The Office of Distance Learning trains each faculty member who will be teaching a hybrid or online course through their ULearn Faculty Certification workshops. Faculty must complete a series of workshops before teaching a distance education course. These workshops are designed to prepare the faculty member to design a high-quality online learning experience. Additionally, the Office of Distance Learning provides faculty development opportunities through online workshops and webinars, as well as in-person workshops. Past events have featured topics such as humanizing online courses, providing accessibility, and incorporating various technologies.

Through these activities, the University provides a full array of professional development opportunities for faculty members as teachers, scholars, and practitioners, consistent with its mission.

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Affairs News & Events

Academic Impressions example

Awards - Academic Affairs Division

BOR Programs: Superior Graduate Student

BORSF Endowment Program Policies

BORSF Enhancement grant announcement

College of Sciences Tenure-Track Faculty Series

Courageous Conversations

DL Faculty Workshops 2018

DL ULearn Faculty Certification

Educational Grant Application

Educational Grant Guidelines

Eminent Scholar Award Guidelines

Eminent Scholar Award Recipients

Faculty & Staff – IT Service Desk

Guidelines for Professorships

Guidelines for Selection and Review of Endowed Chairs

New Faculty Orientation Academic Affairs Division

Research Travel Grant Guidelines

Sabbatical leave

Sample College Faculty Development activities

Undergraduate Advisor Awards

Undergraduate Advisor training

 

7.1     Institutional Planning and Effectiveness [CR]

The institution engages in ongoing, comprehensive, and integrated research-based planning and evaluation processes that (a) focus on institutional quality and effectiveness, and (b) incorporate a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette engages in and is committed to planning and evaluation processes that guide programs, initiatives, hiring, and budgeting in every area of the University. The University’s institutional mission, goals, and processes are the product of ongoing, integrated, and research-based processes that include:

1.       University Strategic Planning

2.       Strategic Plan Implementation and Assessment

3.       Area Strategic Planning

4.       Program Strategic Planning

5.       Unit-Based Annual Assessment

6.       Campus Master Plan

7.       Budgeting Process

8.       Annual Performance Evaluation and Planning

9.       Surveys

10.   External Planning and Review

Each element of the University’s planning and evaluation processes is:

·         Ongoing: The current strategic planning model, centered on the University’s current strategic plan, has been in use for three five-year cycles, and regularly incorporates a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission. 

·         Comprehensive: Stakeholders from across campus are involved in a planning process that considers data, input, and needs from all areas of the University. 

·         Research-Based: Strategic planning efforts and budget allocations are based on research and data from peer institutions, national benchmarking, surveys, and other instruments.

·         Focused on Institutional Quality: The University places the quality of education, research, and service as the first priority in all planning and budgeting activities. 

·         Designed to Increase Effectiveness: The University continuously monitors the effectiveness of its processes, initiatives, programs, and outcomes, and makes adjustments at the program, University, and budgetary levels in response to results. 

 

Diagram 7.1 – 1 illustrates the overall institutional effectiveness structure at UL Lafayette and the flow of information and prioritization that drives the University’s planning, budgeting, and evaluation processes, both cyclical and institutional.

Diagram 7.1 — 1: Institutional Effectiveness Structure at UL Lafayette

1. University Strategic Planning: Comprehensive and Research-Based (including Mission Review)

The University’s current operations are guided by the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020, and its Mission, Vision, Values statement. Like the Strategic Plan 2009-2014, the current Strategic Plan’s creation clearly represents a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission as defined by its governing body, and demonstrates a comprehensive, research-based process focused on institutional quality and effectiveness that includes rewriting its own Mission Statement.

The strategic plan creation and assessment process is summarized in Diagram 7.1 – 2 and in the narrative that follows.

Diagram 7.1 – 2: Process Cycle for Strategic Plan Development, Implementation, and Assessment

 

 

 

 

Selection of Strategic Planning Committee Chairs and Members

The strategic planning process begins with the formation of a broad-based committee. The Provost initiated the 2015-2020 strategic planning process early in 2014 by meeting with Faculty Senators and soliciting interested volunteers to work on the plan. In April 2014, two faculty co-chairs of the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) were appointed, and in consultation with the SPC co-chairs, the Provost identified the principal constituencies of the campus community from academic and non-academic areas. Nominations for representatives of the academic colleges were solicited from college Deans; the undergraduate student representative was nominated by the Dean of Students, while the graduate student representatives were nominated by the Dean of the Graduate School. The Provost invited members from these constituencies to serve as members of the SPC in May 2014. The final composition of the SPC included 22 members: 11 members from the academic units, including tenure-track faculty of all ranks from the academic colleges. Two faculty representatives also served as Faculty Senators. Eight professional staff members represented administrative units. Student constituencies were represented by two graduate students and the President of the Undergraduate Student Government Association (SGA). Thus, the membership was designed to ensure a comprehensive process.

Following the same process, the Provost issued a similar call for nominations in Spring 2019 for the 2020-2025 SPC.

Charge to Committee

The Provost and the SPC collaboratively define the institutional objectives of the planning process. In 2014, the Provost’s charge to the committee was to create a plan using best practices that would guide the University in establishing a strategic and operational vision, and to inform resource allocation. The Provost stressed the need for specificity of plan components, and the need to convey the distinctive identity of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, including the University’s:

·         research-intensive, doctoral degree-granting status;

·         strong, meaningful community ties;

·         long history of educating first-generation, low-income students;

·         broad range of degree program offerings; and

·         substantial private funding of research.

The committee was also charged with identifying specific centers of excellence, and recommending strategies to fully support those areas within the University. The committee met regularly throughout AY2014-2015.

The SPC determined that UL Lafayette’s vision statement should be an aspirational description of the University’s future in five years, and that strategic imperatives must include at least the following with measurable outcomes:

·         benchmarks for success in graduation and retention rates;

·         appropriate mix of graduate and undergraduate enrollment using peer comparisons; and

·         enrollment goals, taking into consideration quality and success of applicants.

Development of Mission and Vision

Each SPC has reviewed and revised the institution’s Mission Statement. In 2014, committee members completed a questionnaire reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of the mission and vision statements presented in the Strategic Plan 2009-2014; members considered the University mission and vision statements, as well as similar statements of the University of Louisiana System and peer universities within and outside the UL System. After a facilitated retreat exercise, the committee proposed updating the existing statements to reflect the University’s transition to a nationally competitive research-intensive institution, as designated by its Carnegie Classification. The committee then developed an initial draft of revised mission and vision statements and presented both to the University’s leadership in September 2014.

During the Fall 2019 semester, the 2020-2025 SPC is scheduled to follow a similar process, studying past strategic plans, gathering data, and preparing the next five-year strategic plan.

Development of Strategic Initiatives

The SPC then embarks on the tasks of analyzing strengths and weaknesses in the University’s processes, developing specific initiatives to improve those processes, and moving the institution toward its goals. In 2014, informed by the updated mission and vision statements, and the input of subject matter experts, the SPC conducted two SWOT analyses to explore progress toward realizing the strategic goals identified in the Strategic Plan 2009-2014, whose structure and detailed results are shown in the following documents:

·         SWOT analysis agenda

·         Second SWOT analysis agenda

·         SWOT analysis of student experience agenda

·         SWOT analysis 3, 4, 8

·         SWOT 2A, 2B, DL, IT, AUX

·         SWOT analysis Student Recruitment

These studies revealed that significant resources had been invested in non-academic areas, and that great progress had been made toward realizing strategic initiatives focusing on student access and life, facilities improvements, and academic and student support. These results motivated the SPC’s decision that the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 should focus on academic quality and the intellectual life of the University. The final results of the SWOT analyses identified four target areas of strategic priority:

·         faculty resources to facilitate teaching, research, and service;

·         student experience as it contributes to academic success;

·         research resources that support cutting-edge research and insightful scholarship; and

·         governance structures that will improve the capacity of the administration to prioritize, enhance, and support the academic functions of the University.

Four task forces, composed of SPC members and other representatives from across the University, worked to develop strategic imperatives and key performance indicators related to each of these strategic priorities.

The task forces broadened opportunities for University faculty and non-academic staff to participate in the strategic planning process. Task force members studied data gathered at the University and other institutions with the aim of setting clear goals aligned with state strategic planning documents and legislation. Each task force produced an appendix that included research materials from peer institutions and data pertinent to each area:

·         Appendix C: Faculty

·         Appendix D: Student

·         Appendix E: Research

·         Appendix F: Governance

In addition to proposing strategic imperatives and key performance indicators, the strategic planning process proposed timelines to benchmark progress toward achievement.

Presentation of Proposed Strategic Plan

The resulting strategic plan draft is circulated within the University community. In 2014, the co-chairs used campus meetings to present the proposed Strategic Plan to faculty, Faculty Senate, Student Government, Dean’s Council, Department Head’s Council, University Council, and during open forums for faculty and staff. Feedback and suggestions from these groups were incorporated into the final draft of the plan, as appropriate. In Fall 2015, the University Council ratified the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 for implementation.

2. Strategic Plan Implementation and Assessment

Progress Review

Periodic reviews of the University’s strategic plan have measured progress toward its goals and objectives since the University’s first strategic plan in 2009:

·         2009-10 Progress Report

·         2010-11 Progress Report

·         2011-12 Progress Report

Beginning in Fall 2016, a committee composed of members of the faculty, staff, and administration was empaneled to methodically study each of the 2015-2020 Strategic Imperatives (SIs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the plan. Department Heads were asked to provide input on individual SIs and KPIs. Weekly meetings were held with staff and administration from the area under discussion. These groups made a thorough assessment of the state and progress to date of each area, and developed strategies and action plans for achieving goals. In some areas, for example student-to-faculty ratios, further studies, and peer comparisons were undertaken. In Summer and Fall 2017, the committee made similar reports for sections two (students) and three (research). Some areas on campus have also kept their own reports of progress on individual sections of the strategic plan. Specific departments and areas track progress on the University’s strategic plan, as well.

Signature Strategic Planning Results

As a result of careful alignment of teaching needs and increasingly scarce resources and in response to Strategic Plan 2015-2020, Faculty SI 2, KPI 7, the University has been able to expand faculty staffing from 590 full-time faculty in 2015 to 639 full-time faculty at the start of AY2018-2019. As a result, the student-to-faculty ratio has decreased from 22:1 to 19:1. (SP Faculty SI 2, KPI 8). Addressing Faculty SI 1, KPI 4 and Research SI 1, KPI 1, the Library’s budget increased by 75% between 2012 and 2019. Toward meeting SI 4, KPI 13, between 2015 and 2020, the University created a Travel Grant program that has increased direct University (non-departmental) support for research travel from $0 to $120,000 annually, funding an average of 104 faculty members attending conferences annually.

Since 2015, the University has twice welcomed the largest freshman class in its 121-year history (Student SI 1, KPI 2). It has increased graduate assistantship stipends, resulting in increased graduate enrollment (Student SI 1, KPI 2; SI 3, KPI 9), and has begun investing in its proposed QEP, undergraduate research (Student SI 3, KPI 11). Between 2015 and 2019, the University has implemented a new, modern ERP (Banner), a degree audit program (Degree Works) and a new data dashboard (Governance SI 2, KPI 6), a new human resources platform, Cornerstone (Governance SI 3, KPI 7), and is currently implementing new software to manage faculty and staff travel (Faculty SI 4, KPI 12). These changes have transformed all University operations.

A fuller Integrated Table of Strategic Accomplishments of the strategic planning process also links them to Statewide strategic goals. Each represents a clear step toward fulfilling the University’s mission, and demonstrates an integrated institutional effectiveness process from student, faculty, and staff to State-level planning. 

Dissemination and Analysis of Results

The results of these discussions are summarized in progress reports that are reviewed in detail with the Provost, with responsible parties in each area, with the Dean’s Council, and with University Council. From University Council, these summaries enter into the financial planning process under the direction of the Vice President for Administration and Finance. In AY2018-2019, this process became part of the University’s regular assessment process, with annual progress reports on each KPI.

A large portion of University efforts and discretionary expenditures over the past five years have resulted from the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 and its implementation process, and are directly linked to individual SIs and KPIs, as well as to the BOR Master Plan for Postsecondary Education as demonstrated in the integrated table referenced above.

Governance Redesign

In Spring 2018, work began on implementing Section Four (Governance). This section called for a different approach, since it proposed a complete overhaul of the University’s governance structure. During 2018, the Strategic Plan Implementation Committee (SPIC) consulted with various constituencies on campus, including Faculty Senate, University Council, and the Dean’s Council, about forming a separate task force to design a new governance structure, and an initial call for volunteers went out University-wide. In December 2018, a structure for this task force was agreed upon in meetings with Faculty Senate and administrative leadership, and the Faculty Senate, Vice Presidents, and President were invited to conduct an open process to nominate members of the task force in their areas. In January 2019, all positions on the new Governance Task Force were filled. This task force met on April 26, 2019, and is currently working toward a set of recommendations for a new governance structure.

3. Area Strategic Planning

All areas of the University conduct their own planning process within the framework of the University’s Strategic Plan. Sample areas with current formalized strategic plans, metrics, and achievements include:

·         Information Technology Strategic Plan

·         Sciences Strategic Plan

·         Nursing Strategic Plan

·         Arts Strategic Plan

·         Library Strategic Plan

·         Sustainability SP 2018-21

·         Diversity SP Process

·         Research SP Dashboard

4. Program-Level Strategic Planning

Strategic Program Review

In 2010, the University undertook a comprehensive, data-driven program review exercise based on careful institutional self-study that led to several reorganizations and program eliminations. UL Lafayette’s Faculty Senate Constitution states that the Strategic Program Review Committee “…makes decisions concerning academic programs while taking quality and effectiveness into account and participates in the decision to recommend program discontinuance.” The review process is guided by the Strategic Program Review Committee (SPRC), which is composed of seven faculty members, and is charged with defining, organizing, and completing the review of six departmental units (on average), and their respective undergraduate and graduate degree programs, each academic year, using review forms developed for undergraduate and graduate programs, both of which were approved by the Faculty Senate. This cycle ensures that all degree programs will be reviewed at least every seven years. For instance, the six departments chosen for the AY2014-2015 review cycle, based on recommendations of their respective Deans, were Psychology, Civil Engineering, Visual Arts, Counselor Education, Allied Health Professions, and Mathematics. The AY2015-2016 round included Industrial Design, Accounting, and Architecture (BS and MS). (The Program Review Plan and rotation schedule is available through 2021.) The committee developed Program Evaluation Rubrics to guide the evaluations.

According to the SPRC guidelines:

The Academic Program Review is designed to examine, assess, and strengthen UL Lafayette’s academic programs. It is intended as a tool to help evaluate an academic unit’s strengths and weaknesses, determine its ability to respond to future challenges and opportunities, identify its priorities, and aid in shaping plans for its future. The process, based on quantitative, as well as qualitative documentation, will lead to action plans for improving or reorganizing a department’s various academic activities, either singly or in combination. Information developed during program review supports other planning and evaluation activities (assessment & accreditation, strategic planning, etc.), and provides guidance for strategic resource allocation. The Academic Program Review aligns with the Faculty Handbook “Guidelines for Program Review and Discontinuance,”as well as the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 GRAD Act Reports.

For this purpose, the selected departments complete an extensive self-study that provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of data relative to students (e.g., recruiting, enrollment, graduation rates, retention, post-graduation employment); faculty (e.g., workload and course assignments, scholarship, and productivity); and programs (e.g., mission, curricula, quality of instruction, economic or cultural development, distance learning). In one section of the report, the department is called upon to “explain how the program evaluates its success in achieving its goals in student learning, scholarship/research, and service.” The following sample reports illustrate the process:

·         BS in Architecture

·         BA in Visual Arts

·         MArch in Architecture

Executive summaries capture the final results of the process. 

The SPRC studies the final written reports resulting from each year’s round of academic program reviews, including any proposals to restructure an academic program based on the action plan described in the self-study. The committee confers annually with the Provost and with the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs on ways to strengthen the academic program review process itself and makes recommendations to the Dean of the program’s college and the Provost about actions to be taken in order to improve the academic unit accordingly. For instance, the department of Visual Arts was among the first group of programs evaluated. The SPRC prepared a summary of its evaluation of the unit, which included recommendations. 

Following the departure of Provost Henderson in January 2016, and until July 1, 2018, the University operated without a Provost for one semester, and then with an Interim Provost for nearly two years.  During this period, the program review process was suspended temporarily until a Provost was hired in July 2018. Since then, the committee continues to reflect on improvements to the program review process, such as improving data transfer from the Office of Institutional Research, and integrating academic program review responsibilities into the Institutional Assessment office, under the supervision of a new Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Institutional Effectiveness.

Program Accreditation

As the following examples show, programs accredited by nationally recognized accrediting agencies incorporate their accreditors’ recommendations into their strategic planning process and demonstrate their commitment to making relevant improvements in areas marked as deficient or needing attention.

Accounting. In its Continuous Improvement Review Report (submitted to AACSB on August 15, 2015), the Department of Accounting provided a progress update in response to concerns stated in the 2011 AACSB Review. The response focused on integrating the following items into ongoing strategic planning initiatives:

·         Incorporation of all stakeholders into the formal departmental strategic planning process (Standard 1: Mission Statement and Standard 31: Accounting Mission Statement): In order to increase input from a broader cross-section of the professional community, the department expanded its Advisory Board from six to 14 members, whose input is frequently solicited in the department’s strategic decisions and actions, in addition to that of other stakeholders such as area accounting professionals, the Louisiana Society of CPAs, accounting alumni, and current students. Feedback from these stakeholders resulted in the development of three new courses: Professional Ethics for Accountants, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and Accounting Practicum.

·         Improvement of tracking of graduates (Standard 33: Accounting Student Placement): The department’s Senior Survey was revised in Fall 2012 in order to better identify placement of students at graduation. In Spring 2013, the department established a comprehensive list of Accounting graduates. The department collects information from the graduating seniors regarding employment and permanent contact information at the graduation ceremony. This information is added to its database of alumni. The department also developed an alumni questionnaire for this purpose.

·         Development of a plan to maintain more than 50 percent AQ faculty on an on-going basis (Standard 10: Faculty Qualifications): The department sought to improve the number of SA (formerly AQ) faculty in the department, while maintaining an appropriate balance in experience. To further this goal, the department designated a faculty member to serve as the Recruitment Coordinator. This allowed the department to prioritize hires in order to offset the departure of both AQ and PQ faculty members in the last five years, and to reduce its dependency on supporting faculty for class coverage, with only one class taught by an adjunct instructor.

·         Development of strategies for maintaining up-to-date technology capabilities for faculty, staff, and students: As a result of fundraising initiatives, the department was able to provide equipment upgrades for Accounting faculty, including office furniture, printers, computers, and a Scantron.

·         Establishment of criteria for the evaluation of the quality of research outlets: Under current College of Business guidelines, to which the department adheres, acceptable research outlets must have a maximum acceptance rate of 50 percent, as noted in Cabell’s Classification Index. In conjunction with the College, the department is also working on criteria for evaluating quality of research outlets.

Chemical Engineering. In its July 2013 ABET Self Study Report, the department of Chemical Engineering addressed “Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions Taken to Address Them.” Programmatic improvements focused on the area of professional ethics. It was suggested that faculty members include more discussion of ethical issues within their courses, so that program graduates acquire a stronger educational base in this area as a foundational aspect of Chemical Engineering practice, considered of significant importance by the faculty. In response to the request, faculty members were encouraged to expand their discussion of ethics in the classroom, laboratories, and design classes. A faculty member was selected to give a one-hour seminar to the CHEE 101 class each fall and to the senior class every spring, in which he discusses examples of ethics from his years in industry. Ethics was also infused in various points of the Chemical Engineering curriculum: faculty members cover professionalism and ethics in 13 of the 18 courses currently taught. Finally, a three-hour Professional Ethics course, PHIL 316, is now required in the last semester of the senior year. As a result of these curriculum enhancements, students have become more cognizant of the ethical challenges they will be facing in the workplace. The majority of seniors in the major take the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam to start the process of becoming a professional engineer, another indication of the value now placed on professionalism and ethics among majors.

Architecture. In its November 2014 Visiting Team Report, the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) noted improvements on standards that were not met in the Previous Team Report (2008). Indeed, Condition Six (Human Resources) was considered “Not Met” in the earlier document. The workload of the Program Director was deemed “excessive” because he/she had to administer and coordinate the Interior Design, Fashion Design, Industrial Design, and Merchandising programs, in addition to directing the Architecture program. The same 2008 report also stated that “the total teaching load of the faculty members does not allow faculty members adequate time to pursue research, scholarship, and practice to enhance their professional development.” The School of Architecture and Design took these comments into consideration and made appropriate changes to its administrative structure and policies for faculty release time. The Program Director now supervises fewer programs, with the elimination of Fashion Design and Merchandising. Faculty members can receive release time to begin new initiatives or take on special assignments, on an individual basis. Such release time creates opportunities to enhance teaching by supporting faculty research interests. Similarly, the previous Team Report (2008) stated that Condition Eight (Physical Resources) was “Not Met” because the program’s building, Fletcher Hall, built in 1976, was no longer deemed adequate to support the mission of the School of Architecture and Design. Building deficiencies were numerous and included significant structural deterioration, issues with lighting and safety systems, a shortage of classrooms, as well as inadequate studio space and storage locker space. The University consequently invested in improvements to its physical resources by renovating and expanding Fletcher Hall with a 20,000 square foot addition. The 2014 NAAD Visiting Team Assessment noted that Condition I.2.3 (Physical Resources) has been significantly improved since the last visit, and that the issues were addressed satisfactorily. This condition is now deemed to be “Met.”

Civil Engineering. The 2013 ABET Self-Study Report for the Civil Engineering Program similarly addressed an issue with facilities. As the 2007 ABET Review identified that two environmental engineering laboratories lacked proper safety equipment (Criterion 6: Facilities), UL Lafayette resolved this deficiency and installed safety shower stations and eyewash stations that were more visible to students in the environmental engineering laboratories, as well as others.

Strategic Planning for New Program Development

The development of new academic programs results from focused and purposeful planning, both at the institutional level and at the college level. For instance, the design and implementation of three new Master’s programs and one new interdisciplinary doctoral program was initially formulated in the College of Sciences Five-Year Strategic Plan (2014-2019), which aimed to create Master of Science degrees in each of the college’s degree-granting units, as well as a path to a PhD degree in all disciplines. Led by the initiative of the Dean, as well as the collective efforts and input from faculty and administration of all units within the College of Sciences, this strategic plan outlined the college’s aspiration to grow into a pre-eminent institution in the Gulf Coast region, and to become competitive with R1-classified doctoral universities in the region, in direct alignment with the University’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020, which called for increases in doctoral student production and external research funding.

To achieve this long-term aspirational objective, it was evident that the research productivity and graduation rates in several areas needed to be strategically enhanced. In particular, it was deemed paramount to increase the annual external grant production rate, the output of research publications, and the number of graduate students, with an emphasis on PhD students. The College’s Plan outlines research excellence initiatives focused on improving the research enterprise itself (through infrastructure and collaborations across disciplines), and on strengthening graduate education and research by enabling research faculty to supervise MS and PhD students in scientific fields that are in high demand in Louisiana and the entire nation. These objectives were based on the overall principle that teaching in a graduate-level program allows research-intensive faculty to increase their contribution to the research objectives of the college, often through the mentoring of research assistants and increased grant activity.

The Plan proposed to establish three new MS degrees to fill the existing programmatic gaps at the Master’s level. In addition, the plan recommended the creation of a PhD program in the area of Earth and Energy Sciences, an interdisciplinary area that aligns equally with the teaching expertise and research agenda of the faculty in the School of Geosciences, the department of Physics, and the department of Chemistry, which co-owns the new program. Following the extensive design phase, in which the Dean of the Graduate School, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, and the Provost were frequently consulted, these programs were submitted to UL Lafayette’s governing boards. In 2017, the MS in Informatics and the MS in Environmental Resource Science were approved by the Louisiana Board of Regents: the MS program in Environmental Resource Science was successfully implemented in the Fall of 2017, and the MS program in Informatics in the Spring of 2018. The MS program in Environmental Resource Science has currently 11 students enrolled, exceeding the projected number by one student, and the MS program in Informatics attracted 23 students, which exceeds by far the projected number of 10 students. In 2018, the PhD in Earth and Energy Sciences was approved by the BOR. This interdisciplinary program, which focuses on critical areas for the State of Louisiana and the nation, is slated to begin in the Fall of 2019. The relatively large number of applications (>40) up to this point indicates that the program will be successful, and that the projected enrollment of five students for the first semester will be exceeded. The MS in Industrial Chemistry is currently under consideration by the BOR. After the implementation of this program, planned for Fall 2019, all students in the College of Sciences will have the option to obtain MS and terminal PhD degrees in their field of study. In addition, the attractive new programs will increase graduation rates, and the new research programs will attract additional external funding. Furthermore, they will help to address the shortage of the state’s workforce in these areas.

5. Unit Based Annual Assessment

Campus Assessment Structure

The University engages in an ongoing, systematic, comprehensive, and integrated process of planning and reporting led by the office of institutional assessment, and fully documented in standards 7.3 and 8.2. Assessment planning involves identifying the mission of the program or department and setting goals and criteria of measurement. Assessment reporting involves recording the results of the assessment, reviewing and discussing the results, and making recommendations for future improvement. Within all academic colleges and vice-presidential areas, each of the combined 160 academic programs and administrative departments is responsible for actively engaging in the planning and reporting process annually, with input from various members of that entity.

The planning and reporting process is based on templates in the online assessment platform assessment insight system, hosted by LiveText (now Watermark). The University adopted this platform in 2016, and currently houses plans and reports for four assessment cycles, beginning with AY2015-2016 to the present. The previous assessment platform, WEAVEonline, was used from 2010 to 2015. 

In AY2015-2016, all entities received the same assessment template, modeled on the assessment plans and reports in WEAVEonline. Beginning in 2016, one assessment template (which included four major sections: mission, assessment plan, results and improvements, and reflection) was distributed to the majority of entities; additionally, one college and two vice presidential areas customized assessment templates using the curriculum mapping feature. Though not identical, all templates functionally capture mission, goals, criteria for success, results, improvements, and reflection.

Within each LiveText template, individual units articulate their mission and its alignment with the University’s Mission, Vision, Values Statement. Each unit also has the option to link any individual goal or objective to specific key performance indicators from the strategic plan. 

In AY2017-2018, a new section called “assessment narrative” was added within all templates. The section included a series of questions intended to capture the program or department’s overall plan for improving student learning and/or operations by considering the following:

1.       What strategies exist to assess outcomes?

2.       What does the program/department expect to achieve with the goals and objectives as identified?

3.       How might prior or current initiatives (improvements) influence the anticipated outcomes this year?

4.       What is the plan for using data to improve student learning and/or operations?

5.       How will data be shared within the Program/Department (and, where appropriate, the College/VP-area)?

 

Table 7.1 — 1 indicates the number of entities receiving each template per assessment cycle.

Table 7.1 — 1: Assessment Template Distribution

Assessment Schedule

Each Fall, units complete their assessment plans, which entails identifying 1) program or department, and college or vice-presidential area mission statements; 2) objectives and assessment criteria; and 3) the assessment narrative. Throughout the fall and spring, assessments are completed, and by summer all results are reported. Units have until September to reflect on the results, hold discussions, and develop any appropriate recommendations for change prior to the start of the next cycle. At the start of each cycle, the previous template is cloned and redistributed to entities, and an Assessment Handbook (2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19) is emailed to all assessment coordinators and liaisons for the current cycle.

Relationship with Other Planning Elements

The Office of Institutional Assessment reports to the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs –Institutional Effectiveness (position created and filled in Spring 2019; previously reported to the AVPAA-Academic Resources) and is responsible for overseeing the University’s continuous and systematic assessment efforts. The Director of the Office of Institutional Assessment chairs the University Assessment Council (UAC), which is composed of faculty and staff from every college and vice-presidential area. The UAC provides guidance and supports the implementation of University-wide best practices to enhance assessment efforts. Additionally, each college and vice-presidential area has one assessment liaison, who works closely with the Office of Institutional Assessment to distribute information, coordinate training, and answer department-specific questions about assessment practices.

6.  Campus Master Planning

Approved in 2012, the University’s campus Master Plan aligns with strategic planning, and guides the development and maintenance of the physical campus. The Campus Planning Committee (CPC) formulates plans for the orderly development of the University campus and all University properties with regard to the physical facilities' needs, vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows, and land use. Reporting directly to the University President, the committee consists of faculty, staff, and administrators from across campus representing the following areas: Administration and Finance, Academic Affairs, Facility Management, Office of Sustainability, Transportation Services, and each of the academic colleges and the University libraries. The CPC meets each semester to review progress toward completing the Master Plan’s objectives. Facilities prioritization on campus follows the recommendations of the CPC and the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020. Facilities improvements follow the repair and upgrade lists generated by the Facilities department with broad input from other departments. The campus has undergone a major transformation since 2012 driven by the Master Plan, as fully documented in Standard 13.7.

7.      Budgeting Process

Beginning with the recommendations from the external Fisher Report of 2007, the University designed a comprehensive, distributed budgeting process. This process also included developing a budget template available to all departments via ULink; establishing guidelines for training for essential personnel; distributing and developing budgets within academic and administrative areas; reviewing budget submissions; providing for appeal meetings; aligning with the Strategic Plan, state allocation, and other inputs; and making final budget recommendations.

In the period under review, however, the University’s state funding declined from 70% of the institution’s budget to 23%, the most drastic cut to higher education in the nation. This unprecedented blow impeded the full implementation of these guidelines. Since 2010 the University’s budgeting process has been singularly focused on funding basic operations and maintaining the institution’s academic core, with any exceptions following the imperatives of the University’s Strategic Plan as discussed above. Because of this funding crisis, almost all operating budgets have remained unchanged.   

Budgeting during the period under review has been overwhelmingly focused on strategic initiatives and faculty hires and salaries. These allocations have been based on data gathering, research, and systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes through the strategic planning process described in Section 1 (above); are firmly integrated with the mission and strategic plans of the institution and its governing boards; and are focused on maintaining and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the University’s programs.

The budgeting process for academic units begins at the department level in March/April, when Department Heads submit prioritized budgetary requests to Deans for positions to advertise the following year. From these, Deans create a prioritized college list to submit to the Provost in May/June.  The Provost merges the college requests and integrates the priorities with the University’s Strategic Plan and priorities and UL System priorities, creating an overall priority list, which he then negotiates with the Vice President for Administration and Finance in light of strategic planning priorities as discussed above. 

8. Annual Performance Evaluation and Planning

The President’s Annual Self-Assessment

As part of his mandated evaluation by the BOS, the University President submits an annual self-assessment with goals, a fiscal health assessment, and specific metrics to be addressed. At the end of the year, he submits a report on performance related to the goals. (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18)

Administrative and Staff Evaluations

The strategic planning process aligns at the employee level where it is evaluated, and improvements suggested, through annual performance evaluation in Cornerstone.

In 2019, UL Lafayette developed a consistent, institution-wide evaluation process for the four groups of employees: executive-level administrators, unclassified, classified, and faculty. The new process includes explicit goal-setting, and connects individual employees explicitly to the institution’s mission and strategic planning process. The process for each category of employee begins with setting goals for the coming year, which often align with the University's Strategic Plan. Goals are discussed and approved with supervisors to facilitate alignment across multiple levels of the University’s organizational structure. This alignment of goals ensures that the strategic planning process is linked to the individual employee, and that professional development is suggested in relation to strategic goals. The evaluation process uses the Cornerstone platform, which supports the development and planning process by setting goals, defining achievements, facilitating discussions, allowing individuals and supervisors to suggest development activities, and tracking progress towards completion of goals. Supervisors of classified employees define expectations pertaining to the specific duties of a position, and then employees are evaluated based on their progress toward achieving those objectives. With executive administrator evaluations, the administrator defines his or her goals, which align with the strategic plan for the coming year, and then submits a self-assessment of accomplishments in regard to those goals, as well as a self-rated evaluation of previously defined executive competencies. As an illustration, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Faculty Affairs defined as a goal establishing a center for teaching excellence, which directly links to the Strategic Plan and the key performance indicator of creating a center for teaching excellence. The evaluation process tracks the progress toward achieving that goal.

9. Indirect Feedback: Surveys

The University also engages in surveying students to capture subjective data on the student experience, to help evaluate processes, and to maximize quality and effectiveness.

Undergraduate Senior Exit Surveys

Beginning in Spring 2017, the Office of Institutional Assessment, in coordination with Career Services and the University Assessment Council, redesigned and administered the Undergraduate Senior Exit Survey. The survey asks participants to identify immediate post-graduation plans, and to reflect on their student experience and overall university experience. Graduating seniors respond to the survey over three weeks in the semester in which they are graduating (Fall, Spring, or Summer). While the initial Spring 2017 report reflects only one semester of survey results, subsequent reports beginning with AY2017-2018 reflect the academic year of survey results. The response rate for the inaugural survey in Spring 2017 was 27% (with 423 participants), while the AY2017-2018 survey averaged a response rate of 47.7% (with 1,476 participants). The result reports are distributed annually to the Provost, Dean’s Council, University Assessment Council, Enrollment Management, and Career Services.

External Surveys

The Office of Institutional Assessment coordinates the administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The University has participated in this external survey in Spring of 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, and anticipates continued participation every other year. NSSE reports are distributed and discussed internally. University Council receives copies of the NSSE Summary Report, and Deans are provided copies of the Major Fields reports from each cycle to make determinations on how their students respond relative to the broader population. A 2017 NSSE task force reviewed previous NSSE results and made recommendations as appropriate. The task force’s discussions centered on student engagement, and these findings were shared with the QEP committee, which ultimately selected a topic (student research), in part because of the consistent NSSE results on that topic. In 2018, the Provost and Office of Institutional Assessment staff led the Dean’s Council in a discussion on student engagement, which stemmed from three reporting cycles indicating consistent results related to “service-learning” and “research with faculty.” 

Additionally, the BOS coordinated the Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory in the Spring of 2017 and 2019 for all nine schools in the UL System. UL Lafayette’s Office of Institutional Assessment coordinated the administration of the survey and disseminated results to University stakeholders.

10. External Review

Governing Boards and State Planning

Louisiana State Board of Regents (BOR)

UL Lafayette’s planning and evaluation processes are framed by its coordinating and governing boards.  The BOR undertakes regular, comprehensive planning and evaluation processes that broadly guide all of the state postsecondary institutions, primarily manifested in the Master Plan for Postsecondary Education, which the Louisiana Constitution mandates to “…formulate and make timely revision of….” On August 24, 2011, the BOR adopted the current Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana, which outlines the long-term goals for the State’s colleges and universities through 2025. The Master Plan outlines 3 broad goals:

·         Goal 1: Increase the educational attainment of the State’s adult population to the SREB State’s average by 2025;

·         Goal 2: Foster Innovation through Research in Science and Technology in Louisiana; and

·         Goal 3: Achieve greater accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness in the postsecondary education system. 

To assess progress toward the three goals, the plan’s 19 objectives and 97 performance measures are evaluated annually, and a Master Plan Dashboard tracks progress toward the goals, objectives, and measures. As part of the process of formulating the Master Plan, the BOR commissioned the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) to develop a proposal for the specific role, scope, and mission for each of Louisiana’s institutions of higher education, and then in collaboration with the State’s higher education management boards, reviewed and revised each institution’s current role, scope, and mission. This mission review was discussed broadly with both boards and internally, as discussed in detail in Standard 4.2.a.

The BOR also reviewed and updated the mission of Statewide institutions in its Response to Act 619 of the 2016 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature. This was an iterative process that involved input and review of UL Lafayette’s mission at the level of the institution, the BOS, and the BOR, as dictated by BOR policy.

UL Board of Supervisors (BOS) 

The BOS also regularly undertakes planning and evaluation, and its most recent Strategic Framework provides a clear mission and goal that guide the University’s planning and evaluation processes. This framework organizes objectives around the broad goals of Academic Success, Student Success, and Educational Attainment; Economic Development, Research, and Innovation; and Financial Stewardship and Accountability. The Table of Strategic Accomplishments illustrates the alignment among UL Lafayette’s strategic planning imperatives and achievements, the BOR Master Plan, and the BOS Strategic Framework.

GRAD Act

In June 2010, the Louisiana legislature passed the Granting Resources and Autonomy for Diplomas (GRAD) Act, which mandated that participating state postsecondary institutions, including UL Lafayette, establish six-year goals under four broad performance objectives: Student Success, Articulation and Transfer, Workforce and Economic Development, and Institutional Efficiency and Accountability. The GRAD Act made certain autonomies, including increased tuition authority, contingent upon achievement of those metrics. The goals were based on research into national benchmarks, peer institutions, and past performance, undertaken both by the BOR and UL Lafayette. Each institution was required to submit annual progress reports, and the BOR submitted an annual state-wide report to the Legislature and the Governor, highlighting progress toward specified targets. The Act was not reauthorized in 2016, and UL Lafayette’s final report in 2016 summarizes performance from all past years; the final report demonstrates that the University consistently met GRAD Act targets.

Since 2016, UL Lafayette has continued to set student achievement goals through the Louisiana Performance Accountability System (LAPAS). Through LAPAS, the University sets (and has always achieved) goals and tracks progress annually, with respect to enrollment, first-to-second-year retention, first-to-third-year retention, first-to-fourth-year retention, and six-year graduation rates. (For more detail on LAPAS and student achievement measures, see Standard 8.1.)

Elevate Louisiana

In Fall 2015, the BOR contracted with Deloitte Consulting to develop an aspirational brand and framework for planning, the Elevate Louisiana initiative.

The initiative is built around the 2012 NCHEMS study and input from Deloitte, and creates a planning framework and analysis of the financial health of all state postsecondary institutions; UL Lafayette achieved a strong rating. The adoption of the Elevate Louisiana initiative coincided with the Louisiana Legislature’s call, embodied in Act 619, for a review of the role of graduate education throughout the State, which resulted in a thorough review of the University’s status as a PhD-granting institution, with the aim of minimizing duplication of efforts. UL Lafayette was successful in demonstrating the contributions of all PhD programs, and maintains its status as an institution “with selective offerings at the doctoral level.”

The results of this statewide planning and evaluation impact UL Lafayette directly through performance measures and consequent autonomies, through the BOR’s Role, Scope and Mission for UL Lafayette, and through the formulation of the University’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020, in which the development of PhD programs, student success measures, and retention and completion rates figure prominently.

Other External Reviews

Fisher Report

In July 2007 the BOS arranged for educational consultant Dr. James Fisher to provide an institutional review of the University in anticipation of a presidential transition. On August 28-31, 2007, a team of five higher education professionals reviewed the general condition of the University. The review included assessing materials and conducting interviews from July 2, 2007, through October 25, 2007. The purpose of the Review was to: 1) assist the BOS in assessing the condition of the University; 2) advise on the attitudes of University constituencies; 3) candidly identify and address issues and opportunities affecting the University; 4) recommend a tentative agenda to guide a future strategic plan; and 5) recommend to the BOS more efficient and effective governance processes. The review considered strengths, limitations, and/or aspirations throughout the University. The resulting report contained 36 recommendations, many of which are still relevant to University planning efforts. Current initiatives and improvements stemming from those recommendations include:

·         Implementation of Cornerstone within the ERP to improve staff evaluation procedures;

·         Implementation of CRM Advise to enhance student/advisor interactions, and optimize the Degree Works software already in use;

·         Implementation of Chrome River software to transition travel processes into the ERP environment;

·         Development of electronic hiring processes; and

·         Development of data dashboards to enable administrators and stakeholders to more easily track progress.

Other External Reports

·         2015 Dietetics review

·         2016 Appleseed Economic and Community Impact Study

·         Response to 2010 Lipman Hearne Marketing Study

·         NAPA Communication Consultants 2019

·         Ruffalo Noel-Levitz (in progress)

Through the integrated processes of University strategic planning, strategic plan implementation and assessment, area strategic planning, program strategic planning, unit-based annual assessment, campus master planning, budgeting, annual performance evaluation and planning, surveys, and external planning and review, UL Lafayette demonstrates that, over the past 10 years, it has engaged in ongoing, comprehensive, and integrated research-based planning and evaluation processes. These processes have consistently focused on institutional quality and effectiveness; incorporated a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission; emphasized improvements to the quality of its education, service, and research; and have resulted in great achievements.

 

Supporting Documents

2010 Program Review Criteria

2012 Role, Scope and Mission Review Documents

2016 Role, Scope and Mission Review Documents

2016 RSM Review Receipt Acknowledgment

ABET Chemical Engineering Highlights

ABET Civil Engineering Highlights

Accounting CIR Report 2015 with Highlights

Act 619 Board Approved

Appendix-A Progress Report Example Template

Appendix-C Faculty Task Force

Appendix-D Student Task Force

Appendix-E Research Task Force Report

Appendix-F Governance Force Report

Appleseed Study

Arts Strategic Plan

Assessment Cycle Handbook 2016-2017

Assessment Cycle Handbook 2017-2018

Assessment Cycle Handbook 2018-2019

Assistant VP for Institutional Effectiveness

BA in Visual Arts Self-Study

BOR Master Plan

BOR Mater Plan Role Scope Mission

BOR Response to HCR-25

BS in Architecture Self-Study

Budget Process in ULink

Campus Master Plan

Campus Planning Committee Sample Minutes

College of Sciences Strategic Plan

College of Sciences Structure Post Strategic Plan

Delaware Study 2007-2008

Departmental Cost Revenue Data

Dietetics Report

Diversity SP Summary

Elevate LA Financial Analysis Results

Engineering 18-19 Hiring Plan

Executive Competencies

Executive self-assessment of accomplishments

Faculty Handbook Document X

Faculty SI 4, KPI 12

Fall 2016 Progress Summary

Final Complete SWOT Analysis

Fiscal Health Template 2017

Fisher Report

Fisher Report Recommendations Section XII

Governance SI 2, KPI 6

Governance SI 3, KPI 7

GRAD Act

GRAD Act BOR Approval

GRAD Act Performance Measures

GRAD Act Report

GRAD Act Year 6 Annual Report Final Complete

Information Technology Strategic Plan

LA Constitution Article 8 Education

Library SP 2018-2019

Library Tracking of 2015-2020 SP

Major Repair and Upgrade List 2017-2018

MArch in Architecture Self-Study

Master Plan Dashboard LA BOR

Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education LA

Mission and Values Retreat Agenda

Mission and Vision Meeting Agenda

Mission Vision Survey

NAAB Highlights

NCHEMS Role Scope Mission Study

NSSE 2012-2014 Comparison

NSSE Task Force 3-31-2017

Nursing SP and SP Tracking

Performance Metrics Attached to Email 2016

Presidential Self-Assessment 06-18

Program Evaluation Rubrics

Program Prioritization Outline

Program Review Master Schedule

Provost Email with SP Agenda

Research SP Dashboard

Research SP Dashboard Implementation

Response to 2010 Lipman Hearne Marketing Study

Second SWOT Analysis Agenda

Senate Constitution – Program Discontinuance

Senate Minutes Governance

Senior Exit Survey Final Report AY2017-2018

Senior Exit Survey Final Report Spring 2017

Senior Exit Survey Questionnaire

SP Agenda Task Force Reports

SP Committee Charge

SP Committee Meeting Schedule

SP Committee Membership 2014-2017

SP Committee Membership Chart

SP Faculty SI 2, KPI 8

SP Nomination Email

SP Peer Group Email

SP Process Meeting Handout

SP Progress Report 2009-2010

SP Progress Report 2010-2011

SP Progress Report 2011-2012

SP Progress Table

SP Report 2009-2014

SP Research 2017 Progress Report

SP Research Implementation Dashboard

SP Task Force Summary Agendas

SPI Dean Meeting Agenda

SPI Expert Invitation

SPI Governance Call for Volunteers

SPI Governance Initial Volunteers

SPI Governance Meeting Minutes 4-26-19

SPI Governance Section

SPI Governance Task Force Structure

SPI Invitation for VP Nominations

SPI Kickoff Email

SPI Progress Table

SPI Sample Response

SPI Section 2 Summary

SPI Section 3 Summary

SPI Student Faculty Ratios Data

SPI SU 2017 Membership

SPRC Report Accounting

SPRC Report Civil Engineering

SPRC Report Visual Arts

Strategic Framework Final

Strategic Plan 2009-2014

Strategic Plan 2015-2020

Strategic Program Review Sample Executive summaries

Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) 2017

Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) 2019

Student SI 1, KPI 2

Student SI 1, KPI 2

Student SI 3, KPI 11

Student SI 3, KPI 9

Sustainability SP 2018-2021

SWOT 2A 2B DL IT Aux Services

SWOT Analysis 3, 4, 8

SWOT Analysis Agenda

SWOT Analysis of Student Experience Agenda

SWOT Analysis Student Recruitment

Task Force Charges

Task Force Composition Table

Task Forces PPT

University Council Notes 11-9-15 SP Approved

UL Lafayette Grad Program Review

UL Lafayette SPRC Guidelines

UL Lafayette UG Program Review

UL President Evaluation 2015-2016

UL President Evaluation 2016-2017

UL President Evaluation 2017-2018

 

7.2     Quality Enhancement Plan 

The institution has a Quality Enhancement Plan that (a) has a topic identified through its ongoing, comprehensive planning and evaluation processes; (b) has broad-based support of institutional constituencies; (c) focuses on improving specific student learning outcomes and/or student success; (d) commits resources to initiate, implement and complete the QEP; and (e) includes a plan to assess achievement. (Quality Enhancement Plan)

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

Advance: Student Research Experience

The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Advance: Student Research Experience, adopted by the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, supports the strategic mission of the University to increase student productivity and success through engagement in mentored research, innovative projects, and creative endeavors. The vision of Advance is that UL Lafayette undergraduates will have an opportunity to participate in intensive research experiences to foster competencies in critical thinking, information literacy, research ethics, and communication; that students will relate their coursework to engaged practices that create value for the discipline and the community; and that they will develop the skills to communicate their work to an appropriate audience.

To achieve this vision, Advance has four goals:

Goal 1: Create a research-supportive curriculum in each program, so that all students have an opportunity to develop the knowledge, skills, and ability to conduct research in their fields;

Goal 2: Increase the number of students who complete at least one student research experience before graduation;

Goal 3: Increase the guidance, support, and opportunities for students to present, perform, and publish their work; and

Goal 4: Increase guidance and support for students developing research skills and abilities and pursuing research experiences.

A Student Research Experience (SRE) is defined here as a sustained effort to apply subject knowledge, skills, and abilities to a project that is valued by the discipline. An SRE should culminate with student work being disseminated in a setting and medium appropriate to the discipline. An SRE may include:

·         systematic inquiry in order to discover facts, principles, or perspectives;

·         contextual analysis or comparison to provide unique interpretations;

·         application of professional skills;

·         creation of unique visual and performing arts; and

·         production of documents that contribute to a discipline or community.

SREs will vary by program. For example, an SRE for a biology student might arise from working in a faculty member’s lab over several semesters, while an SRE in English might require a student to develop an individual project developed through several courses. The variety of SREs requires each program to develop a research-supportive curriculum that supports the types of experiences available to their students.

The goals of Advance will support three student learning outcomes (SLOs):

SLO 1: Students will acquire and demonstrate strategies and skills necessary to conduct disciplinary/interdisciplinary research, scholarship, or creative activity. (Goal 1)

SLO 2: Students will articulate their research, scholarship, or creativity in appropriate formats, venues, and delivery modes. (Goal 3)

SLO 3: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the importance of research, scholarship, and creativity in developing and improving knowledge and facilitating learning. (Goals 2 & 4)

The following Advance activities will allow these goals to be achieved. Advance will

·         Establish a research-curriculum development program in coordination with the Teaching and Learning Center to support programs as they initiate curricular changes (Goal 1);

·         Provide support for programs to purchase resources needed to create an active learning environment (Goal 1);

·         Improve library instruction capabilities (Goal 1);

·         Create an undergraduate research certificate that encourages students to take advantage of research opportunities in their disciplines and to complete an SRE. The Advance Student Research Experience Certificate rewards students who successfully complete a series of research-related courses and activities, and an SRE (Goal 2);

·         Host a Research Week to showcase student research. (Goal 3)

·         Provide students with travel grants to present at off-campus venues (Goal 3);

·         Create a university undergraduate research journal to give students opportunities to publish original research (Goal 3);

·         Improve capabilities of the Writing Center to support students preparing their work for publication (Goal 3); and

·         Establish a Student Center for Research (SCR) that will facilitate the development, coordination, and communication of research activities and opportunities (Goal 4).

All undergraduate programs are encouraged to develop research pathways, and to provide opportunities for students to work toward the Advance Student Research Experience Certificate. Students enrolled in Distance Learning programs are afforded access to the same resources offered to campus-based students.

External and internal assessments will be used to evaluate both student learning outcomes and program goal progress. Student learning outcomes will be assessed through direct and indirect measures. Advance program outcomes will be evaluated to determine success in making research experiences available to students in each program, and in increasing student participation in research activities.

 

7.3     Administrative Effectiveness

The institution identifies expected outcomes of its administrative support services and demonstrates the extent to which the outcomes are achieved.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette has established and maintains a systematic, comprehensive, and effective process by which outcomes are identified, assessed, and analyzed, leading to continuous improvement efforts. Evidence of institution-wide assessment infrastructure, governance, cycle, and review is available in the Assessment Preface (see response to Standard 8.2). 

Evidence of Institutional Effectiveness at the Administrative Support Level

The University’s administrative departments provide essential services that enable the institution to achieve its mission. UL Lafayette’s organizational structure includes Academic Affairs; Administration and Finance; Enrollment Management; Research, Innovation, and Economic Development; Student Affairs; and University Advancement. Among these, administrative support services fall within the areas of Administration and Finance; Research, Innovation, and Economic Development; and University Advancement. (Support departments within Academic Affairs, Enrollment Management, and Student Affairs are addressed in Standard 8.2.c.)

Since AY2009-2010, the University’s administrative departments have participated in the annual assessment process of establishing goals and reviewing results to improve outcomes. Table 7.3 ­– 1 shows that, in the three most recent assessment cycles (2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018), nearly all administrative support departments entered Assessment Plan Elements, Assessment Report Elements, and Reflections. The Office of Institutional Assessment continues to work with Assessment Liaisons to share information on best practices related to assessment plans and reporting, and aims to reach 100% participation throughout the assessment cycle. 

Table 7.3 – 1: Completion by Administrative Departments over Three Assessment Cycles

Evidence of Assessment by Administrative Departments

Each administrative department identifies, assesses, and improves outcomes. Assessment reports for these departments are available in LiveText’s AIS for assessment cycles 2015-present; archived assessment reports generated from WEAVEonline for assessment cycles 2009-2015 are available upon request from the Office of Institutional Assessment. Table 7.3 – 2 provides direct access to each assessment report by department. To illustrate the assessment process, summaries from approximately one-third of the departments are provided following the table.

Table 7.3 – 2: Assessment Reports by Administrative Departments over Three Assessment Cycles

Vice President for Administration and Finance

Departments within the Division of Administration and Finance actively track goals and results through the assessment cycle. A few examples of goal setting and tracking, identifying areas of progress, and seeking improvements are demonstrated below.

Administrative Services: Bursar

The Bursar is responsible for providing University students with courteous, efficient, and cost-effective fee collection, and financial aid disbursement processes. In 2016-2017, the Bursar’s office made direct deposit a priority, because the staff recognized that significant time could be saved if more students utilized direct deposit. Thus, the Bursar’s office promoted the direct deposit option by sending mass emails to students, putting hard copies of the direct deposit form in envelopes with printed paychecks, and requiring cashiers to remind students of the direct deposit option when students requested information about their refunds. As a result, the increase in direct deposit options has saved time and money because fewer paper checks are printed (which also decreased time spent folding checks, stuffing and sealing envelopes, and mailing).

Auxiliary Services (Bookstore; Cajun Card; Housing and Business Operations)

Auxiliary Services enhances key elements of campus life by providing a comfortable community atmosphere for students, faculty, staff, and visitors. The assessment goals for some departments within Auxiliary Services are provided below: 

The Ragin’ Cajun Bookstore expects to achieve a higher brand awareness through multiple locations and high-quality merchandise. For two years, the Bookstore set a recurring goal to add more physical locations in order to increase customer reach, and this goal was met in both years. In 2016-2017, a satellite location was planned for the baseball stadium; the project was completed and open for sales in September 2017. In 2017-2018, a satellite location was planned for the soccer and track facility; this project was completed and open for sales in August 2018 for the first home soccer game. These additional locations successfully expand the University’s brand awareness while generating additional revenue.

The Cajun Card staff continue to provide high quality cards and services to students and employees by researching new ideas to enhance the Cajun Cash system. The declining-balance Cajun Cards are accepted across campus and in many establishments in the Lafayette area. Each year, staff evaluate all merchants by completing cost comparisons. This comparison includes annual Cajun Cash sales, service, and maintenance fees charged for equipment and software for each campus merchant. In 2017-2018, the results indicated that the on-campus program is profiting overall, but the majority of on-campus vendors have decreased revenue in recent years. The off-campus vendor program is not profitable. With changing vendors, new contracts were implemented with a higher service transaction fee, and the fee will be in place for all new vendors going forward. Cajun Card staff will continue to track and monitor all vendors and fees for profitability, while also proactively working to grow the list of on- and off-campus Cajun Cash locations. Additionally, the Cajun Card staff will look to the National Association of Campus Card Users (NACCU) network for current approaches to incentivize students.

The Housing and Business Operations office is committed to enhancing student learning and personal growth by providing safe, well-maintained, inclusive, and sustainable on-campus housing. It supports the mission of the University by creating purposeful residential communities and engaging with students focusing on the total guest experience. Educational Benchmarking Institute’s (EBI) student satisfaction survey is administered annually; these results influence the office’s initiatives to increase student satisfaction and retention in on-campus housing. Two goals related to satisfaction included providing housekeeping services two times per week and providing same-day maintenance repairs. In 2017-2018, the office set out to achieve a satisfaction rating of 5.5 on the EBI question regarding “cleanliness of restrooms.” An average score of 5.37 was reported; while the target was not met, it was an increase from the previous year of 5.27. Additionally, in response to “timeliness of repairs,” the office set out to achieve a satisfaction rating of 4.75. In 2016-2017, the rating had been 4.06, and in 2017-2018, the rating increased to 4.82. For the same-day maintenance repairs goal, the office had set a target of 80% of work orders completed within 24 hours. Of the 3,164 work orders submitted, 76% (2403) were completed in 24 hours. Because the target was not met, the Building Engineers will be retrained on the importance of completing work orders within the time required, and two new Building Engineers are scheduled for hire. 

Human Resources

The mission of the Human Resources department is to develop and sustain a dynamic work environment that fosters a culture of excellence by empowering academic and administrative sectors through education, transparency, and subject matter expertise. Maximizing best practices in Human Resources services enables the University to acquire, retain, and support a diverse and inclusive faculty and staff while fostering an environment for exceptional education. A recent goal has been to standardize the hiring procedures in order to expedite hires and empower hiring managers. In 2017-2018, the University launched Cornerstone (a personnel management software), which automated position approval. To track success, the office conducted an audit of position approval forms to determine the timeliness of approval from initiation to processing. Specifically, the office sought to measure average-time-to-approve from the analog paper process compared to time-of-approval in the new automated system. A two-week approval period in the automated system was expected. When the results were reviewed, the office saw the average-time-to-approve decrease from an average of six to eight weeks on paper to an average of three to four weeks automated. While this has facilitated a more expedited recruitment process and cut down the time-to-hire burden for hiring managers, the office continues to train managers in order to further decrease the average-time-to-approval.

Vice President for University Advancement

The VP for University Advancement and directors redesigned the assessment process in 2018-2019. After several years of each department tracking its own goals, the VP and directors identified five division-wide goals related to philanthropy, engagement, communication, infrastructure, and stewardship:

1.          To develop a comprehensive case for philanthropic support that will inspire an increasing number of alumni and other University stakeholders to contribute their time, talent, and treasure to the University, and to implement development strategies that will position the University for continued growth and long-term sustainable philanthropic investment.

2.          To provide opportunities that will enrich the lives of alumni and other University stakeholders, as well as ways to enrich the lives of current students, fellow alumni, and the University community. These opportunities will focus on relationship-building and should lead to a stronger lifelong bond with the University.

3.          To communicate and promote the University with alumni and other University stakeholders.

4.          To develop the sustainable infrastructure necessary to support a comprehensive campaign and implement talent management strategies that will facilitate the recruitment, development, and retention of the highest quality Advancement staff.

5.          To steward University donors and stakeholders through a comprehensive donor relations effort that ensures high-quality interactions with the University, fosters long-term engagement and investment, enhances relationship-building, and provides exemplary service in gift acceptance and management, acknowledgment, donor recognition, and reporting.

Each of the four departments then developed specific measures to assess these goals, and they are currently tracking results of these new goals in the 2018-2019 assessment cycle.

Prior to the creation and alignment of the division-wide goals, the Office of Communications & Marketing (OCM) sought to promote and protect the University’s brand by developing news stories and partnering with media to create additional story outlets. Throughout 2017-2018, OCM wrote and distributed 130 news stories to the public; each story was aligned with the University’s branding messaging, and highlighted research, University experts, student achievements, and growth. Internally, OCM worked to establish the processes through which internal communications should be distributed. This internal communications goal was achieved by drafting an internal communications policy that established protocols and procedures; the policy was approved by the President and implemented. Additionally, OCM collaborated with Information Technology (IT) to create a homepage in ULink for announcements; the messages are intended to be posted on the internal portal to minimize email distribution. The ULink announcements page launched in Summer 2018.  

 

As part of the development cultivation cycle, the Development office sought to engage 970 face-to-face meetings in FY2016-2017. Though the actual face-to-face total was 939, it represents a significant increase (127%) from the prior fiscal year. The increase resulted from hiring additional staff and holding staff accountable to this metric. After reviewing the results, the Development office recognized that not all staff were accurately entering the face-to-face data correctly. Thus, the Development office intends to formally train its staff to ensure timely and accurate data entry of face-to-face meetings.

Summary of Institutional Effectiveness at the Administrative Services Level

UL Lafayette’s Administrative Services departments actively set goals, assess these goals, identify areas of progress, and seek improvements in order to effectively achieve the University’s strategic goals. 

 

Supporting Documents

2016-2017 Administrative Services – Bursar

2016-2017 Auxiliary Services – Bookstore

2016-2017 Auxiliary Services – Housing and Business Operations

2016-2017 Development

2017-2018 Auxiliary Services – Bookstore

2017-2018 Auxiliary Services – Cajun Card

2017-2018 Auxiliary Services – Housing and Business Operations

2017-2018 Communications and Marketing

2017-2018 Human Resources and EEOC Officer

 

8.1     Student Achievement [CR]

The institution identifies, evaluates, and publishes goals and outcomes for student achievement appropriate to the institution’s mission, the nature of the students it serves, and the kinds of programs offered. The institution uses multiple measures to document student success.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette recognizes the importance of identifying, evaluating, and publishing goals and outcomes related to student achievement. Student success is recorded and documented in a variety of formats for different metrics. The Strategic Plan 2015-2020 and the Louisiana Performance Accountability System (LAPAS) provide student success goals and specific targets.

Enrollment, Retention, And Graduation

The University records, examines, and publishes data for enrollment, retention, and graduation of both undergraduate and graduate students through LAPAS, the public-facing module for Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) reporting. 

Enrollment

From FY2015 through FY2017, the enrollment goal was to “increase the Fall 14^th class day headcount enrollment in public postsecondary education by 3.9% from the baseline level of 16,361 in Fall 2009 to 17,000 by Fall 2018.” Through LAPAS Objective One, enrollment for the preceding academic year is reported in the following Fiscal Year. In Fall 2014, the 14^th class day headcount was 17,195 students, which surpassed the goal set to have enrollment at 17,000 students by Fall 2018. This trend would continue every year, including FY2016 with 17,508 students and FY2017 with 17,519 students. 

In FY2018, the LAPAS reporting structure changed, and the University consequently identified new goals.  The BOR changed the enrollment reporting date from the 14^th day of classes to the last day of the Fall semester preceding the Fiscal Year. For FY2018, the Fall 2017 enrollment was 17,511 students. This number of students may be lower than that reported on the 14^th class day as students may have withdrawn after the 14^th class day. In FY2018, UL Lafayette established the objective in LAPAS to “increase the fall headcount enrollment by 1.5% from the baseline level of 17,837 in Fall 2015 to 18,105 by Fall 2020.” This goal is aligned with the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 (SI 1-KPI 1) enrollment goals. Table 8.1 – 1 shows the number of students enrolled on the 14^th class day for FY2015-FY2018.

Table 8.1 – 1:  Number of Students Enrolled on 14^th Class Day

**Enrollment was recorded at the end of Fall 2018 Semester

Retention

For FY2015, FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018, the University defined retention objectives for first-time, full-time, and degree-seeking students as illustrated in the LAPAS documents above. The original objectives were based on a final year of FY2018, and the objectives for FY2016-2018 remained the same: 78 percent first-to-second-year retention, and 65 percent first-to-third-year retention. In FY2018, the objectives were modified, and new objectives were established. Table 8.1 – 2 shows these retention numbers.

Table 8.1 – 2: First-time in College, Full-time, Degree-seeking Students

 

FY2015, 2016, and 2017

Objective Two in LAPAS for first-to-second-year retention in FY2015-2017 was to “increase the percentage of first-time college, full-time, degree-seeking students retained to the second Fall at the same institution of initial enrollment by 2.1 percentage points from the Fall 2008 cohort (to Fall 2009) baseline level of 75.9% to 78%.” In Objective Three for FY2015-2017, the objective for first-to-third-year retention of students was to “increase the percentage of first-time in college, full-time, degree-seeking students retained to the third Fall at the same institution of initial enrollment by 2.6 percentage points from the Fall 2007 cohort (to Fall 2009) baseline level of 62.4% to 65%.” The cohorts change based on the FY being reported in LAPAS.

FY2018

This reporting cycle is the first to have the modified objectives in LAPAS. Regarding retention, the objective for first-to-second-year retention states, “increase the percentage of first-time in college, full-time, degree-seeking students retained to the second Fall at the same institution of initial enrollment by one percentage point from the Fall 2014 cohort (to Fall 2015) baseline level of 76% to 77%.” For first-to-third-year retention the objective states, “increase the percentage of first-time in college, full-time, degree-seeking students retained to the third Fall at the same four-year institution of initial enrollment by 0.3 percentage points from the Fall 2013 cohort (to Fall 2015) baseline level of 64.”

Graduation

FY2015-2017 graduation rates are based on an institution-level measurement of the cohort rate, while FY2018 (and subsequent) rates are based on a statewide reporting model. The BOR systemic graduation rate report is designed to track a first-time, full-time cohort of students through the first six years of Louisiana public post-secondary education, whether or not the student changed institution. 

Graduation rates for UL Lafayette were reported to LAPAS for FY2015, FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018. For FY2015-2017 the objective was to “increase the Graduation Rate (defined and reported in the National Center of Education Statistics Graduation Rate Survey) baseline year rate (Fall 2002 cohort) of 40.18% to 50% by 2018-19 (Fall 2011 cohort).” For FY2018, the objective was to “increase the institutional statewide graduation rate (defined as a student completing an award within 150% of ‘normal time’) from the baseline rate (Fall 2008 cohort for all institutions) of 54% to 54.5% by AY2019-2020 (fall 2013 cohort).” The graduation rates were as follows: FY2015, 45% graduation rate for the 2007 cohort; FY2016, 48.4% graduation rate for 2008 cohort; FY2017, 45.4% graduation rate for 2009 cohort; and FY2018, 50.73% graduation rate for 2011 cohort.  

Doctoral Degrees

The Strategic Plan 2015-2020 goal of increasing the number of doctoral degrees awarded to students by 10 has been met during each academic year. These numbers are represented in Table 8.1 – 3.

Table 8.1 – 3: Doctoral Completer Goals and Results 2015-2019

 

Placement

According to the Undergraduate Senior Exit Survey Report (2017-2018), 74.1% of respondents indicated their immediate post-graduation plan to be employed full-time or part-time immediately after graduation, while 22.3% plan to attend graduate or professional school full-time or part-time. The remaining respondents (3.6%) indicated an intention to either pursue additional coursework, military service, start or raise a family, or volunteer. Additionally, several academic programs administered exit surveys to their graduating seniors:    

·         ITEC Graduate Survey Data

·         Accounting Graduate Survey Data

·         Nursing Graduate Survey Data

Licensure And Accreditation

As mandated by licensing boards, students complete licensure examinations in the following disciplines: Accounting, Architecture, Athletic Training, Curriculum and Instruction, Dietetics (now discontinued), Health Information Management, Nursing, and Speech Language Pathology. 

The BOR is the official reporting entity for program accreditation information, designating different accreditations as “mandated, recommended, optional, or not applicable.” The University has a total of 115 approved academic programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Of the bachelor-level programs/options eligible for professional accreditation, 34 of 35 programs are accredited. Of the 36 graduate-level programs eligible for professional accreditation, 31 of the programs are accredited. 

The Louisiana BOR Program Accreditation Summary for UL Lafayette, dated April 14, 2019, provides the following data on the University’s degree programs:

Bachelor’s Degree Programs

·         53 Active Bachelor’s Degree Programs

·         35 Programs/Options Eligible for Professional Accreditation

·         34 Eligible Programs/Options which are Accredited

·         97.1% of Accreditable Programs/Options that are Accredited

·         24 Programs/Options Mandated by the BOR for Professional Accreditation

·         24 Mandated Programs/Options that are Accredited

·         100% of Mandated Programs/Options that are Accredited

Graduate Degree Programs

·         62 Active Graduate-level Certificates and Degree Programs

·         36 Programs/Options Eligible for Professional Accreditation

·         31 Eligible Programs/Options that are Accredited

·         86.1% of Accreditable Programs/Options that are Accredited

·         30 Programs/Options Mandated by the BOR for Professional Accreditation

·         27 Mandated Programs/Options that are Accredited

·         90% of Mandated Programs/Options that are Accredited

Student Portfolios

Students in some academic departments participate in a portfolio process as a means of summarizing their academic journey. The Master of Science in Nursing program uses Typhon Group’s NPST Student Tracking System, which functions as a secure electronic student tracking system that includes comprehensive clinical logs and reports. Faculty using the system assess and evaluate the quality of the portfolios, and monitor the progress of each student’s clinical experiences, to ensure that course objectives are met.

In the Architecture Studies program, the purpose of the portfolio review is to ensure that students have the necessary skills and knowledge after the foundation design sequence to complete the program and enter the competitive fields of architecture, industrial design, and interior design. A review committee evaluates each student's portfolio to evaluate the student’s mastery of the material covered within the first two-year design sequence, with additional consideration given to overall academic and studio performance.

Advertising, Journalism, Broadcasting, and Public Relations students in the department of Communication submit student portfolios as part of the capstone course. Working professionals serving on advisory boards in each concentration assess advertising, broadcasting, and public relations portfolios every semester, and journalism portfolios every Spring semester, using rubrics developed by the department, following the recommendations of the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. The professionals' feedback on portfolios is used to further effect curriculum changes, as needed, and feedback is also shared with the students so they can improve their portfolios before entering the job market.

Other Means of Measuring Student Achievement

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

UL Lafayette conducts the NSSE every even year. While an indirect measure, the NSSE helps to gauge student perceptions. Through this assessment of students in 2016 and 2018, the top five perceived gains among seniors reflected the mission of the University’s General Education core. Table 8.1 – 4 shows NSSE results for 2016 and 2018.

Table 8.1 – 4: UL Lafayette NSSE Results 2016 & 2018

Office of Student Success Initiatives

The University’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020 calls for the institution to “cultivate a student body that is intellectually curious and civically engaged by developing an infrastructure that ensures student success.” Toward this end, in 2018, UL Lafayette established and filled a new position, Executive Director of Student Success, to coordinate UL Lafayette’s programs and initiatives in these areas, and to promote high impact practices. Within the reorganized Academic Success Center are housed the University’s two advising support services, the Learning Center and the Office of First-Year Experience, ensuring consistent, centralized academic support. This office now manages data relative to student success across the University.

Student Satisfaction Inventory

The University participates in a UL System initiative to administer the Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. In 2017, students reported high satisfaction in response to the statements: “My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major,” “I receive the help I need to apply my academic major to my career goals,” and “My academic advisor is available when I need help.”  Students also reported feeling welcome at UL Lafayette. The University fared better than the national average in two areas: students reported overall satisfaction with their experience at the University and a willingness to enroll again at this institution.

Through these multiple measures, UL Lafayette consistently identifies, evaluates, and publishes goals and outcomes for student achievement appropriate to its mission, and the nature of its students and its programs.

UL Lafayette also publishes goals and outcomes for student achievement on its Student Success webpage.

 

Supporting Documents

Accounting Graduate Survey Data

Architecture Design Requirements

BOR Program Accreditation Summary for UL Lafayette

Communication Portfolio Rubrics

General Education core

ITEC Graduate Survey Data

LAPAS FY15

LAPAS FY16

LAPAS FY17

LAPAS FY18

Licensure Exam Summary Report

National Center of Education Statistics Graduation Rate Survey

NSSE 2016

NSSE 2018

Nursing Graduate Survey Data

Strategic Plan 2015-2020: Enrollment Goals

Student Satisfaction Inventory (2017)

Typhon Group NPST

Undergraduate Senior Exit Survey (2017-2018)

 

8.2     Student Outcomes

The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results.

The following preface introduces sections 8.2.a, 8.2.b, and 8.2.c.

Preface        

UL Lafayette has established and maintains a systematic, comprehensive, and effective process by which outcomes are identified, assessed, and analyzed leading to continuous improvement efforts. The University continues to set goals and evaluate results in order to improve educational programs, general education, and academic and student support services.

Infrastructure for Assessment

Within the past decade, UL Lafayette has made significant strides in formalizing assessment practices. From 2010 through 2014, assessment was overseen by the Assistant Vice President for Institutional Planning and Effectiveness (Office of Academic Affairs). Responding to the growing assessment needs across campus, the University created the Office of Institutional Assessment, and a Director of that new office (reporting to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Resources) was named.

Since January 2015, the Office of Institutional Assessment has worked with academic programs and administrative departments to support and guide the University’s institutional assessment efforts through the collection, analysis, and distribution of data. The Office of Institutional Assessment promotes ongoing and systematic assessment processes and best practices by:

·         evaluating and sharing external survey data with University departments and divisions in order to enhance their overall assessment portfolio;

·         reviewing assessment plans and providing feedback to all academic and non-academic entities; and

·         promoting a consistent dialogue across campus regarding assessment.

Since 2010, a council composed of faculty and administrators has guided University policy on assessment. The charge of the current University Assessment Council (UAC) is to support the ongoing process of systematic planning, evaluation, and continuous improvement across campus through a research-based, integrated, and institution-wide approach (Sample Assessment Council Agendas, Minutes and Presentations). The UAC is chaired by the Director of Institutional Assessment and includes two Assistant Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs (ex-officio members); eight academic Deans, Associate Deans, or faculty college representatives; and eight additional administrators and professional staff representing Student Affairs, Academic Affairs, Enrollment Management, Administration and Finance, and Advancement. In 2015, Assessment Liaisons were identified within each academic college (eight) and vice-presidential area (five) to communicate assessment information from the Office of Institutional Assessment to the assessment coordinators tasked with managing the assessment plans of each academic program and administrative unit. Beginning in 2018-2019, each Assessment Liaison also serves on the UAC.

Assessment Cycle and Platform

Through a consistent and systematic process, all academic programs and administrative departments track goals, measures, criteria for success, results, improvements, and reflections on an annual cycle.

The practice of assessment allows departments to reflect on their missions and adopt changes to ensure alignment. The annual assessment cycle follows the academic calendar, beginning and ending in mid-Fall, and provides a structure to the assessment process. The assessment cycle occurs in three stages:

1)      Start of the Assessment Cycle (early Fall): Academic programs and administrative departments are responsible for:

·         Reviewing (or establishing) the department (or program) mission, vision, and values (as applicable);

·         Affirming that the mission aligns to the University’s mission and, if applicable, any external accreditation agencies;

·         Defining the goals, measurements, and criteria of success for that cycle. That is, What do you want to do? and How will you know you were successful?

·         Ensuring that any previous action plans or unmet goals from previous cycles have been addressed or updated in the current cycle; and

·         Entering unit mission, goals, objectives, criteria, and assessment narrative into LiveText;

·         Aligning goals to University’s strategic plan or accreditation board standards, as applicable.

 

2)      Middle of the Assessment Cycle (Fall through Spring): Academic programs and administrative departments are responsible for:

·         Conducting the assessments that have been established in the assessment plan;

·         Tracking results/entering findings, and securing additional documentation (if necessary);

·         Discussing preliminary results and possible implementation plans;

·         Communicating any dates and planning any meetings for the “End of Cycle” discussions about findings and implementation plans; and

·         Reflecting on and discussing findings and possible improvements within the department.

 

3)      End of the Assessment Cycle (late Spring/Summer into early Fall): Academic programs and administrative departments are responsible for:

·         Reviewing all findings that have been submitted by the Assessment Coordinator, and recommending implementation plans on those goals that were not met. That is, now is the time to answer the question: How did we do?

·         Entering all findings, implementation plans, and reflections in LiveText; and

·         Identifying which goals, measures, and criteria may need to change for the following cycle.

 

At the start of each assessment cycle, the Office of Institutional Assessment creates and distributes an Assessment Handbook (2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19). Additionally, the Director meets individually with new Assessment Coordinators throughout the year to guide the assessment cycle, best practices, and timelines.

Over the past decade, the University has utilized two assessment platforms: WEAVEonline (2010-2015) and Assessment Insight System (AIS) by LiveText (2016-present). Both platforms provide consistency to the annual assessment reporting process. In WEAVEonline, academic programs and administrative departments tracked student learning and program outcomes, measures, results, and action plans. Similarly, in LiveText’s AIS, programs and departments record mission statements (aligned to the University’s mission statement), assessment plans (including goals, measures, criteria for success), assessment reports (findings and improvement types), and reflections. In the 2017-2018 assessment cycle, an additional set of questions was added to the assessment plan. These questions prompted departments to reflect on assessment strategies, past improvement attempts, and ongoing assessment needs:

1.       What strategies exist to assess the outcomes?

2.       What does the program/department expect to achieve with the goals and objectives identified above?

3.       How might prior or current initiatives (improvements) influence the anticipated outcomes this year?

4.       What is the plan for using data to improve student learning and/or operations?

5.       How will data be shared within the program/department (and, where appropriate, the College/VP area)?

While the majority of academic programs and administrative departments use the annual “Assessment Cycle” template, some have opted for customized templates aligned to national accrediting boards (such as the academic programs within the College of Engineering) or nationally accepted best practices (such as Student Affairs and University Advancement). In those cases, all sub-units assess the same unit-wide goals but customize metrics and assessment tools. In all cases, the annual cycle of assessment is followed.

Assessment Reviews

In 2015, the UAC reviewed the assessment plans of academic and non-academic units across the University, and met with each unit to discuss results and improvements. In 2016, when LiveText’s AIS was implemented, a set of rubrics for evaluating assessments was incorporated into the platform and into the assessment handbooks (2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19). At UAC meetings, the Council reviews compliance of submitted assessment reports and assessment liaisons per college and VP area, and departmental assessment coordinators are charged with overseeing the quality of individual assessments. Now that LiveText’s AIS is fully implemented across the University, a more centralized quality audit is in development. 

 

 

8.2.A     Student Outcomes: Educational Programs

The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results in the areas below: a) Student learning outcomes for each of its educational programs.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette has established and maintains a systematic, comprehensive, and effective process by which student learning outcomes are identified, assessed, and analyzed leading to continuous improvement efforts. Evidence of institution-wide assessment infrastructure, governance, cycle, and review is provided in the Assessment Preface in Section 8.2.   

Evidence of Institutional Effectiveness at the Program Level

Since 2009-2010, the University’s academic programs have consistently participated in the annual assessment process of establishing goals and reviewing results to improve student learning and program outcomes. Table 8.2.a – 1 shows that in the three most recent assessment cycles (2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018), nearly all academic programs entered Assessment Plan Elements, Assessment Report Elements, and Reflections. The Office of Institutional Assessment continues to work with Assessment Liaisons to share information on best practices related to assessment plans and reporting and aims to obtain 100% participation throughout the assessment cycle. 

Table 8.2.a – 1: Completion by Academic Units over Three Assessment Cycles

 

Evidence of Assessment of Educational Programs

Through its academic colleges and departments, the University identifies, assesses, and improves its student learning outcomes for each academic program. Assessment reports for the nearly 100 academic programs (including University College and some centers in the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Business) are available in LiveText’s AIS for assessment cycles 2015-present; archived assessment reports generated from WEAVEonline for assessment cycles 2009-2015 are available upon request from the Office of Institutional Assessment. Table 8.2.a – 2 provides direct access to each assessment report by academic program. To illustrate examples of student learning assessment, summaries from selected academic programs are provided after the table. The summary samples represent approximately 25% of the academic programs from each college, and represent all degree levels (bachelor, master’s, and doctoral), as well as traditional and online course deliveries.

Table 8.2.a – 2: Assessment Reports by Academic Units over Three Assessment Cycles

College of the Arts

An approximate 25% sampling of assessment summaries from the nine academic programs in the College of the Arts includes:

·         Architecture (BS)

·         Architecture (M Arch)

·         Industrial Design (BID)

Architecture [BS: 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018; M Arch: 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018] and Industrial Design [BID: 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The School of Architecture and Design offers three nationally accredited degrees (BS in Architecture, Master of Architecture, and Bachelor of Industrial Design). In the Fall of 2017, the BS in Architecture and Master of Architecture programs adjusted their goals and outcomes to align with new National Architecture Accrediting Board’s Student Performance Criteria. In evaluating student learning goals, the BS in Architecture adjusted the course content of ARCH 409, Comprehensive Integrated Design Studio (comprehensive building project studio) and its alignment with a related course in the curriculum sequence. The ARCH 409 studio now centers the course notebook as a measure of theoretical and applied research methodologies, allowing for more thorough documentation of student decision-making during the design process. The sequence of the building systems courses was adjusted to ensure that ARCH 409 and ARCH 434, Building Systems II (integrated building practices with emphasis on materials and assemblies, environmental, structure, envelope, and service systems), are taken concurrently. These changes allow the department to meet the specific learning goals and requirements outlined in Realm C of the NAAB’s conditions for accreditation. The results of these changes are being assessed over a three-year (academic) period and will be reported during the next assessment cycle. The Master of Architecture program introduced a more structured, “prescriptive” path in response to assessment results. The structured path limits the variables at play in the design process by prescribing the site and the program, as well as provides a more focused set of requirements to maintain student concentration on the core requirements demonstrating mastery. These changes have been statistically successful in moving students from non-pass to low-pass, and from low-pass to pass, allowing for a higher completion rate in the ARCH 599: Master’s Thesis studio.

Similarly, the Bachelor of Industrial Design program dramatically updated its goals, outcomes, and assessment to align with the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) requirements. Preceding the NASAD accreditation visit, the Industrial Design faculty realized that student outcome assessments no longer aligned fully with the accrediting body’s standards. The NASAD provides a list of essential competencies, experiences, and opportunities listing what a student should know in the Industrial Design field upon graduation. That list became the primary source for devising the five current goals and outcomes for the program. In evaluating student-learning goals, the faculty rewrote for clarity the objectives of INDN 499: Senior Project, with the goal of improving students’ verbal communication and presentations. The senior project presentations, both verbal and visual, improved in three key ways. To improve visual presentations, the program began, in the second year and continuing throughout the program, to require a 36” wide by 20” high poster that defined the overall narrative of the project. In the third year, students now present to actual clients and local professionals. Additionally, a greater emphasis was placed on the student merit competition practice presentations for the Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) Merit Awards. As a result, more students were better prepared to present during the student merit competition in the Spring semester of their fourth year.

College of Business Administration

An approximate 25% sampling of assessment summaries from the 12 academic programs in the College of Business Administration includes:

·         Marketing (BS)

·         Accounting (BS)

·         Accounting (MS)

Marketing BS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

For the 2015-2016 assessment, one of the goals for the Marketing BS program was that “teams will be able to effectively target customer segments and effectively position brand(s) within these respective segments.” This goal was assessed in the capstone marketing course’s simulation game and resulted in an unmet goal of the 80% success rate. In response to these results, faculty agreed on two instructional changes related to the game. First, the faculty would spend more time on the importance of segmentation, targeting, and market positioning. Additionally, because it was noted that teams spending the least amount of time typically perform poorly, faculty would focus more attention on identifying those teams exhibiting weakly earlier in the semester. Instructors were asked to highlight the time spent on decisions in class as a way of communicating the importance of investing the necessary effort to perform well as a team. In 2016-2017, this goal remained unmet, but faculty continued to focus on more instructional time related to these topics, and on identifying underperforming groups earlier while readjusting the criteria. By 2017-2018, the program successfully met its goal. 

Accounting BS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018] and Accounting MS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

Beginning in 2016, academic programs within the Department of Accounting updated the assessment process in order to increase focus on making meaningful changes to the curriculum and other practices. The programs assess all objectives using two or more measures, which allows the program to have more informed decision-making: when one measure is met and one is not met, the program can look to see what is working (or not) to more accurately prescribe an improvement going forward. Additionally, beginning in the 2016-2017 cycle, the department instituted a semester-end meeting devoted to assessment, where results from prior semesters or the year were presented and discussed. This meeting is mandatory for all full-time faculty; detailed, in-depth feedback is shared and, often, decisions are made right then about future efforts.

The department solicits feedback about accounting majors from area employers, as well as from CPA exam results. Employers consistently report that students need more exposure to data analysis and stronger analytical skills. In response, the Accounting BS program faculty have expanded the analytical coverage in ACCT 333 to include specific foci, such as advanced Microsoft Excel skills and accounting software knowledge. The subsequent feedback from employers and students has been positive. In addition, a curricular change, effective 2018-2019, has been implemented so that accounting majors are now required to complete another information systems course that addresses advanced data analysis.

The Accounting BS assessment was also modified in 2017 by removing group work as a metric. Although the learning objectives were typically met, the department questioned whether the results were indeed generalizable. The department concluded that while group work is an important learning tool, it is not necessarily a reliable representation of accounting students’ knowledge. The assessment metric was therefore eliminated, prompting the restructuring of some measures and the replacement of others.  Additionally, the department responded to changing student interests, such as an increased demand for courses that help students prepare for the CPA exam. In response, the department introduced into the Accounting 333: Accounting Information Systems course a new, expanded unit that provides information and includes material that helps students sit for the CPA exam.

The Master of Accounting program offered its first class in Fall 2014. The 2014-2015 assessment included the goal of “advanced knowledge of core accounting disciplines” in ACCT 420: Tax Accounting, which resulted in an unmet goal of 90% of students scoring 75% or higher on the tax knowledge project. Assessment results were shared at the semester-end departmental meeting, and faculty questioned whether the standards of evaluation were appropriate. The faculty then revised the rubric to ensure stronger rater reliability between the outside evaluator and the instructor of the course.

College of Education

An approximate 25% sampling of assessment summaries from the 12 academic programs in the College of Education includes:

·         Health Promotion and Wellness Concentration (BS in Kinesiology)–online

·         Counselor Education (MS)

·         Educational Leadership (MEd) online

·         Educational Leadership (EdD)

Health Promotion and Wellness Concentration (BS in Kinesiology) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The Health Promotion and Wellness (HPW) concentration in the School of Kinesiology is the only fully online program in the School of Kinesiology. All health courses in the curriculum are Online Certified and were reviewed by content experts and peers following the Quality Matters Rubric. The HPW program identifies four outcomes for student success, measured through student-created work and an internship supervisor evaluation. Performance targets are set at 85% achievement and have been met consistently and with few exceptions. Faculty review outcomes in each cycle to include action items for improvement. The current cycle has provided increased success on all outcomes; however, an additional English writing course (outside of the School of Kinesiology) was recently added to the curriculum to support professional writing competency.

Counselor Education (MS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The Counselor Education program has identified three specific student learning outcomes that align with the Comprehensive Professional Counseling Examination (CPCE). The CPCE is a good indicator of mastery of the eight core curriculum areas as measured by other professional tests and addressed in the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) standards for accreditation. All students in the department’s concentrations in Clinical Mental Health Counseling and School Counseling must pass the CPCE in order to graduate. The three areas selected for annual assessment are: 1) Ethics and Professional Development, 2) Helping Relationships, and 3) Group Processes. The CPCE is administered each semester as an exit exam. The department has determined that adequate content mastery is achieved when students score no lower than one-half of one standard deviation below the mean (based on the national norming sample) for each content area. Scores from the three identified core areas indicate an overall high level of success across the student body. Students whose scores are weak (even if they are passing) are interviewed to determine why they believe they did not do as well as they may have expected or as well as their peers. These interviews have generated ideas for program improvement. For example, students who did well in “Helping Relationships” typically did well in “Group Processes” (and vice versa). This led to collaboration between the instructors to reinforce critical concepts across courses in order to improve retention and skills development. Likewise, students who performed poorly in “Ethics and Professional Development” also did poorly in “Group Processes.” The faculty suspected that the abstract nature of ethics and professional development over a semester, without the benefit of application, was less effective. Thus, the faculty implemented a group experience in the Ethics curriculum and observed the subsequent CPCE scores. Some improvement was observed across the board, but only slightly. Scores are typically high, within passing range, and often substantially higher than national averages. Consistently high scores have prevailed, and the program is planning to change the target core areas for the next cycle of observation. Specifically, the faculty have observed Multicultural Counseling scores and Career and Lifestyle Development scores fluctuate more than some others, so those are of particular interest, as is Theories of Counseling. This last, while more consistent across administrations, serves as a basic course upon which others are built. Other of the program’s required courses are not tested on the CPCE; the department continues to explore ways to analyze those as well.

Educational Leadership (EdD) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The aim of the Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership program is to prepare students to analyze and solve problems likely to be encountered when leading and managing modern complex organizations in either educational or non-educational contexts. The EdD program has identified six standards assessed through three major benchmarks, including the qualifying paper, proposal, and dissertation. The six standards include: 1) problem statement, rationale, and key terms; 2) literature review; 3) methodology; 4) data analysis and discussion; 5) summary, conclusion, and recommendations; and 6) writing and formatting. Assessment rubrics aligned to the three major benchmarks are used to determine student performance. The rubrics delineate performance at four levels, including: Unacceptable (0); Approaches Expectations (1); Meets Expectations (2); and Exceeds Expectations (3). Performance targets are set at 100% achievement of students meeting expectations (2). The target of Meets Expectations (2) is set for all applicable standards for each major benchmark: qualifying paper (standards 1, 2, 6); proposal (standards 1, 2, 3, 6); and dissertation (standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Based on analyses of the rubrics for all benchmarks, doctoral students have consistently reached the performance target of Meets Expectations (2) on the identified standards for each benchmark. Action plans aligned with the standard performance rubrics (specific rubrics for each major benchmark) have been developed and are implemented when a student falls below Meets Expectations. To correct deficiencies, supplemental activities within specific courses or through the program structure ensure student success on the critical standards. For example, analyses of benchmark rubrics indicated that some students were performing below Meets Expectations (2) on standard 6 (writing and formatting). To address these student needs, collaborative activities have been developed and implemented in conjunction with the Writing Center to strengthen student scholarly writing. In addition to partnering with the Writing Center, the EdD program sponsored Dissertation Boot Camps consisting of weekend writing sessions with faculty present to provide one-on-one and small group assistance. The incorporation of additional writing opportunities, and the consistent support of writing sessions offered by the Graduate School, has resulted in the strengthening of scholarly writing, as evidenced through an increase in rubric scores for standard 6 on all benchmarks, as well as quicker student transitions from the first benchmark (qualifying paper) to the next benchmarks (proposal and dissertation).

Educational Leadership (MEd) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The student learning outcomes for the Master’s in Educational Leadership (MEd) program directly align with Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Standards. Using instructor-designed rubrics aligned to the ELCC Standards and sub-elements addressing professional knowledge and skills, faculty assess student learning outcomes by evaluating the content and quality of performance-based tasks assigned in each course. To measure the overall effectiveness of the MEd program, faculty analyze student learning outcomes at the summative level, using a series of course-based artifacts (Using Data to Affect Change, Analysis of Instruction, Analysis of Classroom Assessment, and the Capstone Project). The MEd faculty also use non-course related activities that are required of all students, including the six Mandatory Internship Activities and the Standards Defense (a written and oral defense in which students provide evidence that they have mastered the professional knowledge and skills addressed in each of the ELCC learning standards). MEd faculty analyze the results of these summative activities to identify any of the ELCC standards in which student performance falls below a 90% passing rate. As a result of this constant monitoring of student outcomes, assessments, and course content, the six Mandatory Internship Activities were modified to better reflect and address the most recent changes in K-12 administrative responsibilities. These modifications include changes to mandatory internship activities in order to provide the candidates with experiences that mirror the evolving responsibilities of today’s educational leaders in the areas of teacher evaluation, student diversity, educational equity, and professional development.

College of Engineering

An approximate 25% sampling of assessment summaries from the 13 academic programs in the College of Engineering includes:

·         Civil Engineering (BS)

·         Civil Engineering (MSE)

·         Industrial Technology (BS)

Civil Engineering BS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018] and Civil Engineering MSE [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The undergraduate Civil Engineering program’s published student learning outcomes align with the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) standards. Through the annual assessment process, the program has used assessment results and data to inform decision making. For example, the Civil Engineering Advisory Board reviewed the Civil Engineering seniors’ performance both overall and in specific knowledge areas. The data provided by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), which develops the national exam (FE Exam) and administers the test, indicated that students were consistently performing above the national average pass rate; however, several areas measured below the national average. One such area was engineering construction and project management. To address this problem, an ad hoc committee reviewed the performance data, the exam specifications, the course catalog description, the course syllabus, and construction example exam questions provided by the NCEES. Based on this data, the committee recommended changes to the course syllabus for CIVE 480, Construction Engineering. These changes have been adopted, and the board will continue to monitor performance in future exams to track any improvements. 

Additionally, the decision was made to remove the electrical and thermodynamics principles from the Civil Engineering curriculum in an effort to add other important topics. The need for greater instruction or academic credit involved with the CIVE 442, Senior Design or capstone design course, and the inability to cover some introductory topics in the CIVE 328, Geotechnical Engineering course for the time allotted led to curriculum reforms focusing on course content and sequencing. CIVE 442 is an extensive design experience involving a multi-faceted project consisting of design teams and individuals responsible for design components ranging across the sub-disciplines of Civil Engineering. The project, which involves analysis—an open-ended design and research of their project assignment that simulates the experience of professional practice—consumes much of graduating seniors’ time. The original academic credit of two credit hours associated with this course was insufficient to reflect the effort and knowledge gained. The CIVE 328, Geotechnical Engineering course at that time was structured as a two-hour lecture (2 credit hours) with a three-hour lab (1 credit hour), for a total of 5 credits. The lecture time initially allowed only brief coverage of strength parameters for soils. Faculty desired better coverage of strength parameters and an introduction to lateral and/or bearing capacity, to provide a transition into the following foundation course, CIVE 438.

In 2014, the opportunity to address these issues came with the one-hour reduction in the campus-wide first year seminar (UNIV 100). In response to this reduction and changes in the FE Exam, the faculty decided to drop the required electrical (ENGR 201) and thermodynamics (ENGR 301) courses, resulting in a reduction of six credit hours. These topics were replaced by a requirement for the second physics and physics lab courses, PHYS 202 and PHYS 215 (5 credit hours). With the available two hours, an additional one hour of credit was given to the Capstone, CIVE 442 course, and an additional hour of lecture was assigned to the CIVE 328, Geotechnical Engineering course. 

In reviewing the results of the changes, the faculty observed the following. First, the additional credit hour for CIVE 442, Senior Design, allows better coverage of the subject material and more adequately reflects the effort required. Student evaluations indicate improvement in this area. Additionally, the additional hour of lecture in CIVE 328 provides greater coverage of the material on sheer strength and an introduction to lateral pressure and bearing capacity. 

Industrial Technology (BS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The undergraduate program in Industrial Technology (ITEC) is accredited by the Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering (ATMAE). The ITEC department follows the continuous improvement assessment model required by ATMAE, which has been implemented by establishing three general outcomes, leading to nine measurable program competencies. The program competencies are assessed on a regular basis using three indirect measurements of student achievement (student, employer, and alumni surveys), as well as a direct assessment of student achievement through the evaluation of 20 specific course work products. Any deficiencies in student achievement are noted, corrective actions are planned and implemented, the results of the corrective actions are observed, and adjustments are made as needed. For example, the ITEC BS program observed in 2013 that students were not meeting expected goals in the area of industrial safety. This finding led the department to incorporate certain aspects of safety into several courses across the curriculum and to change the way one specific class (ITEC 268: General Safety and Accident Prevention) was taught, thus providing students with a better understanding of the practical applications of incidence and severity rates. After modifying course content, continued monitoring of expected results improved in one of two areas. Additionally, because of ongoing requests from ITEC’s Industrial Advisory Board for additional training in the area of safety, and the fact that all 92 job titles disclosed by Industrial Technology alumni indicated some form of safety risk in their jobs, the department determined that additional emphasis on safety was needed. To address this request and to continue to analyze a low score in one of the two areas, the department introduced ITEC 498, a pilot course entitled “Applied Industrial Safety” in 2017, designed to address the most common safety training needs of local industries. The course was pilot-tested for two semesters. Data gathered from the pilot course indicated that adding this course improved student knowledge retention in the area of safety.

College of Liberal Arts

An approximate 25% sampling of assessment summaries from the 30 academic programs in the College of Liberal Arts includes:

·         Speech Pathology and Audiology (BA)

·         Speech-Language Pathology (MS)

·         Applied Language and Speech Sciences (PhD)

·         English (PhD)

·         Psychology (BS)

·         Psychology (MA)

·         Modern Languages (BA)

·         Criminal Justice (BS)

·         Sociology (BA)

Speech Pathology and Audiology (BA) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The purpose of the undergraduate major in Speech Pathology and Audiology is to prepare students to enter graduate programs; thus, the program’s student learning outcomes cover the general foundational knowledge required for eventual certification as a speech-language pathologist or audiologist. In the 2015-16 assessment cycle, the Communicative Disorders department took a close look at what student learning outcomes were being assessed, and realized that the undergraduate students received very little experience in clinical settings. An appointed ad hoc committee created a pilot project that focused on one course (CODI 302) typically taught in the fourth year and created probe questions targeting each of the student learning objectives for the program. In this class, undergraduate students act as assistants to graduate students who are the primary therapists; this experience allows students to be immersed in the therapeutic process. At the end of the semester, students were asked to reflect on how specific information about hearing, speech production, language development, etc. helped them understand the client, the disorder, and the actual therapy being applied. The department expected to use this student feedback to look at the undergraduate curriculum in a more holistic way.

The department began using this assessment plan in 2016-2017 and continued in 2017-2018. In the first year of implementation, a modest goal was established: 70% of students score at Level Two (Adequate) or higher on a four-point rubric. The 70% goal was met on three of the learning objectives, and nearly achieved for the other two. Students who fell below the adequate level provided some indication in their responses that they perhaps had not understood the task. Initially, students were simply asked to “think broadly,” and attempt to integrate various sources of knowledge in their responses. With this feedback, the department changed some of the prompts to be more specific and incorporated example(s) to give students some ideas of how they might answer the probe question, depending on the deficits seen in specific clients. The department also noted that there were as many students being rated in the highest category on the rubric as those in the lowest level. As such, in the following year the criteria were modified to also distinguish at least 20% at the outstanding level. 

In the 2017-2018 assessment cycle, students continued to reflect on all probe questions for all five learning objectives, though only three were rated by the assessment team. Data was encouraging: the number of students achieving a rating of adequate or better ranged from 88% to 96%. However, upon closer reflection, a couple of trends were noted. Overall there was improvement over the last assessment cycle, which may reflect the changes made in the prompts, as well as the additional instruction and examples students received. However, except for SLO 1, in which 88% of students were at the highest two categories, the number of students in the adequate level fell for the other two objectives. The raters for these student products suggested that the lower ratings on this objective (compared with SLO 1) could be due to fatigue (students were asked to respond to all five prompts even though the program was only gathering data on three, and the length and overall depth of responses showed a clear decline from SLO 1 to SLO 5), or instructor prompts (the course instructor used the prompt for SLO 1 to give examples of how students might respond, based on their own clinical case). 

In these two most recent assessment cycles since changing how the program assessed basic knowledge, results have allowed the program to see gaps in many students’ ability to think critically and apply the knowledge obtained in the foundational classes to inform therapy. Faculty recognize that students at this level may not possess the tools to do this without specific guidance, and these recent results show the implemented changes may have resulted in better understanding of the assignment. The fact that the learning objective presented in class with concrete examples of how to apply what was learned in a specific class to a clinical case showed greater gains than the others may indicate a need to focus more on critical thinking skills in undergraduate classes, rather than rote learning of specific facts. Several more cycles of data and analysis will reveal whether changes are needed in the undergraduate curriculum in order to meet program goals. The department is confident, though, that the newly created assessment tool will assist in providing those answers.

Speech-Language Pathology (MS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

For the past 10 years, the MS in Speech-Language Pathology program has included PRAXIS exam data in its assessment process. Data for the past three years show that while the overall pass rate has stayed relatively consistent (between 95% and 97%), and students’ average performance in the treatment-related subtest has stayed at 76%, scores on the other two subtests have decreased from the 2016-2017 cycle. The reduction is not dramatic but does fall below both state and national averages. In the 2017-2018 assessment cycle, the department saw a similar trend in competency ratings given to students by their clinical supervisors (on- and off-campus). Graduating students consistently achieve proficiency ratings of semi-independence in the areas of evaluation, intervention, and interaction with clients. However, that area of assessment has been consistently rated lower than treatment and professional practice for several assessment cycles. Faculty were presented with these observations, and they agreed that this was an area of the curriculum that needed strengthening.  

In the Fall of 2018, a professional seminar component was added to both clinical courses, CODI 510 and CODI 512. The goal of this seminar is to provide additional opportunities for academic and clinical faculty to work together in addressing areas of perceived weakness in individual cohorts. The first targeted area is enhancement of students’ exposure to the assessment process. Specific assessment modules using actual clinic cases or commercial simulations is presented, with faculty guiding first-year students through the process. Second-year students also use the seminar to present the results of assessments they have completed in the clinic, with the group brainstorming ways to improve or change the process if needed. In addition, clinical faculty have begun preparing video examples of best-practice of various assessment procedures and will make these videos available to students to view in the student workroom. Data will be collected over the next two years using scores from the PRAXIS exam and competency ratings for graduating students. 

Applied Language and Speech Sciences (PhD) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

One of the PhD program’s student learning goals in 2015-2016 was that students “will demonstrate a depth and breadth of knowledge within the areas of specialization emphasized in their program of study.” The goal was measured by 90% of students rated as Competent or above on both aspects of the comprehensive exam scale, and 50% of students rated as exemplary or highly competent; this goal was not met. The department implemented the following changes as recommended by an ad-hoc committee of key faculty working with PhD students: 1) new courses were added to the five-course theoretical core and the three-course research core; 2) a professional issues colloquium was added to accompany the existing research colloquium; and 3) seminar courses were expanded to include the neurosciences, speech sciences and disorders, and language sciences and disorders. It is thought that these new courses will broaden students’ knowledge base, relative to the basic sciences. Preliminary results on two students who took comprehensive exams in the Fall 2018 semester reveal the type of improvements the department anticipated, with one student rated competent on both aspects of the scale, and the other student rated as competent on content knowledge and exemplary in application of that content knowledge. Additional data was gathered in Spring 2019.

English (PhD) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The English PhD program aims for 90% or more students to complete their secondary-area exams with an assessment of "pass" or "pass with distinction" within two semesters, yet this has not been met. As a result, the department reformed its comprehensive exam process. First, the department changed the primary exam format from a five-hour timed exam (responding to questions that students don't see in advance, with no books, notes, or internet) to a portfolio. This allows for better professionalization, as the genres in the portfolio lend themselves to conference presentation and publication. Next, the department instituted a policy whereby students may complete two courses in one of their secondary areas instead of taking a timed exam; this gives students a richer learning experience for that secondary area. Finally, the department adjusted curriculum requirements for some concentrations to provide students more freedom and flexibility when choosing their three secondary areas, potentially positioning them for increased success in the exam process.

Additionally, the department has identified a new goal to assess students' professional development: "Students will develop their professional identities through such activities as attending/presenting at conferences, publishing, performing academic/community service, and seeking external training." To provide scaffolding, the departmental Placement Committee has greatly increased the frequency of professional development workshops, providing at least one per week. The department has also distributed surveys to students who have achieved candidacy to track their professional development over time.

Psychology (BS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

In the Fall of 2013, the Psychology department established a four-year assessment plan to systematically assess various learning goals for the undergraduate Psychology BS degree. Assessment data from the 2013-2014 assessment cycle confirmed the teaching faculty’s insight that, although students did well in mastering content knowledge in the various content domains established by the American Psychological Association (APA), students showed significant shortcomings in the area of psychological and scientific inquiry and were not effectively learning APA-style writing.

Recognizing the need for a departmental resource to simplify the presentation of key concepts in APA-style writing, the department created in 2015 a customizable PowerPoint and shared it via the faculty Moodle page. Distribution of this resource resulted in greater faculty awareness of APA-style writing issues, and a coherent teaching strategy across the curriculum. Following implementation, assessment results for the 200-level students indicated that mastery of APA style rose from 34% to 71% by the end of 2016; however, this improvement was not sustained. During the 2016-2017 assessment cycle, students did not consistently maintain an acceptable level of performance (approximately 65% correct use of APA style). By the 2017-2018 cycle, performance again increased to acceptable levels (> 70% correct).

Additionally, in the Fall of 2017, the department conducted a Curriculum Map Assessment to determine at which points APA-style writing was being taught in the curriculum. Based on this, the department developed a Writing Throughout the Psychology Curriculum program designed to expose students to all APA-style writing components at least twice during their college career. As part of this program, in the Spring of 2018, the department created customized content for introductory textbooks to provide students with more information about the different types of writing encountered in psychology, and, in the Fall of 2018, the department created Moodle-based lessons and activities that could easily be adapted into any course for APA-style writing instruction. The department will continue to assess student writing outcomes, as well as faculty use of the APA-style writing resources. Assessment has helped the department to clearly identify learning gaps, to develop instructional interventions to address the gaps, and to transform the way teaching faculty think about teaching.

Psychology (MS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The Psychology department collects data on each of the following three areas from MS Psychology students: research-based thesis, comprehensive exams, and internship evaluation. The evaluation of thesis proposal and defense is completed by each of the thesis committee members independently. The evaluation of comprehensive exams is completed by three faculty readers independently. The internship evaluation is completed by the Field Practicum supervisors who supervise students’ internships. Data on the students who have successfully completed the NIH online ethics training are also recorded.

Before Fall 2015, the program offered two tracks to students: Experimental and Applied. Students in the Applied Track could choose to complete a thesis (Applied-with-thesis), but few did (≤2 in two years). These students either took longer than expected to complete the program, or they dropped the thesis and switched to the Applied-without-thesis track. The program also assessed the outcomes of graduates from the Applied-without-thesis track and found these students rarely applied to doctoral programs. Instead, many went on to pursue a second master's degree in Counselor Education or obtained generally low-paying social service jobs. These inconsistencies between the program mission and student outcomes raised questions regarding the utility of the Applied Track. To address these concerns, the department engaged in efforts to redesign the curriculum and combine the best elements of its Experimental and Applied-with-thesis tracks into a single master's program in Psychology. The redesigned program and curriculum went into effect in Fall 2015. Thus, the 2015-2016 academic year is the last year with data from two tracks of students (who were in the second and intended last year of the program). Starting in Fall 2015 students pursue a master’s degree in General Psychology, and are required to do research, including a thesis, under the supervision of a faculty member throughout their graduate training. Clinically oriented students may elect to complete up to 500 hours of supervised field practicum.

For the thesis, students are required to pass thesis proposal and defense, respectively, with a rating of 1 (Satisfactory) or above (0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Satisfactory; 2 = Exemplary). In general, the program has seen satisfactory ratings on the thesis proposal (ranging from 1.05 to 1.50) and defense (ranging from 1.44 to 1.75). On average per year, seven students successfully complete the thesis proposal, and eight students complete the thesis defense. Despite students successfully passing the thesis proposal and defense, students’ thesis progress tends to be slower than recommended. The program’s goal is to have students propose the thesis by the end of the first year. To this end, revisions were made to the graduate curriculum in the Fall 2017 semester to incentivize timely thesis progress and allow students to earn completion credit toward their Comprehensive Exams for achieving thesis milestones in a timely manner. Specifically, students earn credit for the Quantitative Psychology question in the Comprehensive Exams for completing a successful thesis proposal by the end of the first year as comprehensive evidence of quantitative knowledge. Additionally, students earn credit for the Ethics and Standards in Psychology question for successful submission of an IRB proposal before the end of the first summer as evidence of comprehensive ethics knowledge.

Comprehensive exams are administered at the beginning of the second year to evaluate the degree to which students understand the basic principles of the science of psychology. In 2015-2016, obtaining an 80% pass rate was the goal. Students who did not pass the exam had to retake the whole exam, but with different questions. All students took the comprehensive exam with a 91% pass rate, in which 20 out of 22 students successfully passed. Although most students were passing, their responses were generally not very strong. In addition, the content of the comprehensive exam was limited in assisting students in meeting program goals. Thus, at the end of AY2015-2016, the Graduate Curriculum Committee elected to revise the comprehensive exam in both form and grading structure to more closely align with the new graduate curriculum, which focuses on developing knowledge of research methods, classic theories of psychology, and ethics standards, and understanding the application of knowledge in the real world. As such, the comprehensive exam was redesigned to assess mastery of ethics and standards in psychology, conceptual and philosophical issues in psychology, and quantitative psychology within the framework of each student’s individual research interests.

The new comprehensive exam was implemented in the Fall 2016 semester. Because completion of the comprehensive exams is a requisite for completing the degree, a 100% pass rate is expected. A new point-based scoring system is used to evaluate Comprehensive Exam performance: 1 = Fail with substantially poor performance; 2 = Fail; 3 = Pass; 4 = Pass with above average performance; 5 = Pass with exemplary performance. Thus, to pass the comprehensive exam, a student must earn an average of 3 or higher across raters for each of the three questions. The new grading procedures provide a more refined system of assessing knowledge of required material and content and provide a higher ceiling than the simple pass/fail procedures used in the previous version. The new exam also provides remediation in the case of a student failing a question, in which students are given an opportunity to reflect on their perceived weaknesses and convey their understanding verbally. The committee members then provide oral feedback on the student’s exam performance and clarify expectations if necessary. Students revise their exam answer(s) for the second review. The remediation allows students to demonstrate the ability to process and improve performance following feedback. In 2016-2017, all 12 students who attempted the comprehensive exam successfully passed.

In 2017-2018, nine students attempted the exam, and eight passed; one student failed to earn scores on the revised responses to meet passing requirements. At the completion of the comprehensive exam cycle, a pass rate of 88.9% was achieved. Per departmental policy, the student who did not pass the requirements with the revisions was asked to leave the program.  As stated above, in 2017-2018 the program added an alternative mechanism to the Comprehensive Exams in order to incentivize timely thesis progress. The program is still collecting data on the assessment of the new alternative mechanism, and the report will be available in the 2018-2019 assessment cycle. The program continues to evaluate the Comprehensive Exam policy and to look for additional revisions that may help the program more effectively meet comprehensive exam goals.

Modern Languages (BA) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The Department of Modern Languages (MODL) aims to communicate creative and intellectual understanding of diverse worldviews through languages and culture, fostering multicultural strength and insight. The BA in MODL measures oral and written proficiency through oral interviews and written portfolios (guided by the 2012 Proficiency Guidelines established by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL]); additional focus on cultural awareness and career opportunities is analyzed by the faculty. In the 2015-2016 assessment cycle, the goal of 80% of students demonstrating oral proficiency at the Intermediate High level or higher was not met, with 68% of graduates meeting or surpassing the Intermediate High level of oral language proficiency. The objective of 80% of students meeting or surpassing the Intermediate High level of written language proficiency was partially met, with 73% of graduating seniors reaching the Intermediate High level. The objective of 85% of students being rated overall as "Good" or "Excellent" on the evaluation rubric for awareness of cultural diversity and of international perspectives based on knowledge of the Francophone or Hispanophone world across its broad geographic distribution was met, with 91% of students meeting the criteria. The goal of 75% of students being rated overall as "Good" or "Excellent" on the evaluation rubric for the ability to understand and analyze significant works of literary or cultural importance was also met, with 77% of graduates obtaining those ratings. The objective of 100% of students being aware of career opportunities and describing their training as meeting or exceeding their perceived professional development needs after graduation, was met, with 100% of graduates of MODL programs expressing satisfaction with their education and training.

For 2015-2016, the department drew the conclusion that more practice and feedback were needed to improve oral and written competence of students in the program, although the approach to helping students develop cultural awareness and the ability to analyze seemed successful. Students reported that faculty provided adequate information about careers with the languages. The department determined that more speaking practice should be incorporated into courses at all levels to help students practice and thus develop better oral proficiency. For written proficiency, professors should include discussion of common grammatical errors and writing strategies to help weaker students develop their writing skills in the second language, especially at advanced levels. The department fosters cultural awareness and an ability to analyze in its courses, but faculty are also encouraged to mentor activities and organizations outside the classroom to foster interest in and knowledge of the Modern Languages, as well as to support current students and enrich the learning atmosphere.

In 2016-2017, the BA program exceeded (82%) the goal of 80% of students demonstrating proficiency in their respective target languages at the Intermediate High level or higher. In cultural awareness in written work, measured by graduate portfolios, all graduates were rated Excellent (64%) or Good (36%). In measuring students’ ability to analyze, the Assessment Committee rated 91% of students as Excellent on the Evaluation Rubric. Through interviews, the Committee evaluated students’ awareness of career opportunities. It found that 55% planned to pursue graduate study, 9% joined a Teaching Assistant Program, and 36% were considering joining a Teaching Assistant Program. The committee concluded that the program needed to raise expectations in all fields and added a new sub goal: 50% of all graduating students attain the Advanced level or higher rating in written language proficiency. Interviews with graduating students revealed several suggestions for program improvement: 1) more emphasis on grammar and vocabulary development; 2) more opportunities for natural speech, including accommodation/recognition/promotion of the Hispanic/Spanish-speaking population in Lafayette; and 3) more classes for the practical application of the languages.

In the 2017-2018 cycle, in the measure of oral proficiency, 88% of the students were rated at the Intermediate High level or above for both oral and written proficiency in their language. The sub goal for written proficiency was also met, with 55% of the graduating seniors achieving Advanced level or higher. With regard to cultural awareness, students were rated as either excellent (78%) or good (22%); for the measure of students' ability to understand and analyze works, 55% were rated as excellent, 22% as good-to-excellent, 11% as good, and 11% as average-to-good. 100% of the students demonstrated knowledge of career opportunities in sectors in which ability to communicate in French or Spanish would be beneficial. 67% of graduating seniors planned to pursue a master's degree either in the language of study (33.5%) or in a field in which a second language would be advantageous (33.5), 11% planned to pursue a career in education, and 22% planned to enter the work force after graduating and pursue careers in which their language knowledge would be a helpful or even significant ability. Student recommendations included requests for a greater diversity in the content of courses offered (especially Spanish and French for Specific Purposes [e.g., law, medicine, etc.] and linguistics), more advanced course offerings in a given semester, more opportunities to do novel research, and improved communication on study abroad opportunities.

Teaching faculty in French began offering online courses with a wider scope and greater diversity of topics in 2016. These courses have been overwhelmingly successful, attracting new students, minors, and majors. The University’s first Spanish for the Legal Profession course is scheduled for Fall 2019 and is cross-listed with Political Science and Criminal Justice. To promote more opportunities for conversation, the department increased the frequency of conversation tables in French, Spanish, and German; and Arabic was added to the language offerings, attracting new groups of students, as well as current majors and minors wanting knowledge of Arabic. Because low enrollment limits the number of upper-level courses offered, MODL faculty are teaching more Independent Study courses, which help majors graduate on time and focus on specialized topics.

Criminal Justice (BS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

Beginning in 2015, the Criminal Justice department reset its assessment strategy to focus on the foundations of teaching/learning criminology and criminal justice. This decision subsequently led the department to emulate aspects of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) assessment strategies embedded in accreditation standards to better understand how the undergraduate population performed on generally accepted industry-set priorities.

The 2015-2016 assessment cycle for the department’s undergraduate program also lacked the resolution to shed light on the struggles of students in classes, as noted anecdotally by the faculty. From earlier assessment cycles, a critical enhancement was made to aid in closing the anecdotal gaps in performance in key criminology and criminal justice areas—namely, understanding and applying criminological theory, applying critical thinking skills to policy-relevant decision-making, and gaining skills in research methodology and analysis. This enhancement was achieved by adding CJUS 499, Senior Seminar to the undergraduate degree plan (making it required for all students). This course was meant to aid seniors in reinforcing important elements of the discipline before graduation.

The 2016-2017 undergraduate assessment cycle launched two drastic changes to previous cycles: 1) adopting ACJS standards, and 2) enhancing the grading rubrics by using templates customized by the faculty. The results of this cycle’s assessment were more in line with the anecdotal feedback by faculty all along: students were having difficulty with critical thinking and using evidence to propose policy solutions. Further, undergraduates were having difficulty applying criminological theory. Despite these gaps in critical areas, students reported satisfaction with the curriculum, felt that the curriculum challenged them, and felt prepared for the workforce. Based on this feedback, the faculty further adopted the ETS Major Field Exam to better understand aspects of the undergraduates’ difficulties in key areas of criminology and criminal justice.

The undergraduate program yielded similar outcomes in 2017-2018 as in 2016-2017, with the added results of the ETS Major Field Exam showing additional shortcomings by critical subject area for undergraduates. While the ETS exam has not been made mandatory for exiting seniors, the results of these exams gave the faculty pause. Subsequently, the decision was made to get a broader sample by making this exam mandatory for the 2018-2019 assessment cycle. The faculty have decided to focus on criminological theory, critical thinking regarding policy decision-making via evidence-informed thought, research methodology, and the improvement of key subject matter areas as informed by the ETS exam.

The first proposed intervention is to provide an obvious linkage between the CJUS 305, Criminal Behavior course and the CJUS 499, Senior Seminar. This can be done by better coordination among the faculty teaching these courses to best rectify critical thinking skills and the ability to use an evidence base to support policy related decision-making in Senior Seminar. To do so, the faculty have decided to begin developing assignments in both courses that use similar strategies as a way to test and re-test this ability in 300- and 400-level coursework. Ongoing discussions about support material to enhance this ability is occurring in the 2018-2019 assessment cycle.

Sociology (BA) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

Sociology BA students learn about people as social beings and gain an understanding of the relationship between society and the individual. Undergraduate students should demonstrate strong research skills. This includes an ability to synthesize a body of sociological literature and use it to support an argument that is then tested empirically using appropriate qualitative or quantitative methodologies and results in a publishable capstone project. These goals were refined over the last three assessment cycle years as follows:

At the end of the 2015-2016 assessment cycle and beginning of the 2016-2017 assessment cycle, several program objectives were refined and assigned new assessment measures. For example, the decision was made to link the synthesis and methods courses, and to require a capstone project that bridged the two. The changes at the start of this cycle were, in part, due to a newly developed understanding of the purpose and methods of assessment. These new or refined objectives were developed and implemented and assessed as a team, and frequent informal and formal meetings on the subjects covered by these objectives occurred throughout the three assessment cycle years. 

First, the team designed a uniform plan of teaching the (relatively new) synthesis course (SOCI 301) that serves as the gateway to both methods courses, and as part one of the capstone project. Initial evidence indicated that students who took 301 after implementation of changes are better prepared for the next level of required methodological coursework. The decision to link the synthesis and methods courses with a required capstone project bridging the two courses worked well, as demonstrated in the 2017-2018 assessment, specifically with Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 course data (from SOCI 301/308/309). The data allow the department to document improved student learning outcomes via the final combined qualitative capstone projects. During that assessment cycle, the department came to realize that pedagogical differences between instructors created unexpected difficulties for students, as well as for assessing outcomes. In response, the department has further adjusted teaching assignments to include a new team teacher for the 2018-2019 academic year, and to assign a two-semester sequence in the teaching load, so the same instructor teaches part one and part two of the capstone project courses.  The next assessment cycle should allow for evaluation of SOCI 301 with both SOCI 306/07 and SOCI 308/09. In assessment year 2019-2020, the department will have two dedicated instructors for the two- semester qualitative methods sequence and two dedicated instructors for the two-semester quantitative methods sequence; all will use team-developed teaching methods and lesson plans for the universal synthesis course (301), and team-developed teaching methods and lesson plans for the qualitative and quantitative portions of the sequences. 

Over the past three assessment cycles, the overall impact of closing the loop has resulted in a) a refined understanding of what was needed for assessment, b) a refined understanding of what was needed for our relatively new synthesis course (301), c) a refined understanding of what was needed to create a capstone project that bridged a two-semester process, d) a refined understanding of the need for faculty willing to work and teach as a team, especially for critical courses, and e) the value of teamwork in improving the learning outcomes of our students. One example of improvements in student learning is found in the report for SOCI 301, after implementing a team-developed uniform plan of teaching the course. Students are also now exploring the potential to publish their newly completed capstone projects. 

Three years ago, capstone projects were not required; there was no uniform plan for teaching the synthesis or methods courses, and students often focused attention on multiple partial-research projects with little understanding of how the parts might piece together into a publishable whole.  Students today are in much better control of their understanding of the connection between theory and research, of the different methods of research, and on how the individual parts are synthesized into a publishable and informative product that may be used for important policy decisions in the public or private sector.

College of Nursing and Allied Health Professions

An approximate 25% sampling of assessment summaries from the five academic programs in the College of Nursing and Allied Health Professions includes:

·         Health Information Management (BS)

·         Nursing (RN-to-BSN) – online

·         Nursing (DNP) – online

Health Information Management (BS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

One of the annual program goals for Health Information Management (HIM) is that American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) data show that UL Lafayette graduates score at or above the national average for all domains and subdomains on the certification exam. The 2017 outcomes indicated that in the subdomain in the category of “regulatory,” UL Lafayette graduate scores were 89% of the national average, which represents the average score of graduates divided by the national average score. Program faculty convened to plan corrective action to meet or exceed the national average. The topics of this subdomain are mainly covered in the first semester of the junior year of the HIM curriculum; to reinforce this knowledge, faculty incorporated additional time during review sessions in the students’ final semester and added new review sessions. These corrective measures were instituted in AY2017-2018, and the 2018 outcomes showed that for the three “regulatory” tasks in the subdomain, UL Lafayette graduates scored 110% of the national average, a significant improvement. 

Nursing BSN and RN-to-BSN [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018] and Nursing DNP [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

In addition to pass rates on the NCLEX-RN licensure exam, outcomes for the BSN program are linked to elements highlighted in the mission and goals of the Department of Nursing. One example of expected congruency between mission, goals, and expected outcomes is in the area of leadership. Senior-level students are required to complete modules developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement as they prepare for transition into professional practice. For the past three years, the benchmark of 100% has been achieved. As this information is critical to ensuring safe healthcare practitioners, this outcome will continue to be tracked, with measures put into place in a timely manner in the event that the benchmark is not attained. 

One example of measurement of online student learning outcomes for the RN to BSN program is the successful attainment of the benchmark related to student scores on the virtual simulation in NURS 355: Health and Physical Assessment. For 2016, the benchmark of a score of 77% was not met. Additional online nursing health assessment resources were provided, along with implementation of virtual conferencing sessions with faculty for students having difficulty understanding the simulation. In 2017, 86.7% of the students achieved the benchmark. 

For the DNP program, one assessment target was that 90% of students would include documentation in their residency logs indicating that a minimum of 30% of their hours included inter-professional activities. It was determined that students were consistently not meeting this benchmark in their residency logs, although key assignments in other DNP courses meet the overall objective. These assignments focus on interdisciplinary collaboration advancing the level and quality of care across aggregates, populations, and systems. Effective 2018-2019, the assessment measure for this objective was revised, with a goal of 95% of students engaging in inter-professional activities by attending at least one day at the Louisiana State Capitol during a legislative session. 

College of Sciences

An approximate 25% sampling of assessment summaries from the 18 academic programs in the Ray P. Authement College of Sciences includes:

·         Biology (BS)

·         Computer Science (BS)

·         Environmental Science (BS)

·         Physics (MS)

·         Mathematics (PhD)

Biology BS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The department of Biology recently adopted the core concepts of “Vision and Change” endorsed by the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Science Education (PULSE). As such, the Biology BS faculty sought to map course objectives to the “Vision and Change” core concepts and competencies in order to determine if any areas of the curriculum needed to be updated or adjusted to ensure alignment. During Fall 2017, faculty evaluated courses using the PULSE curriculum mapping worksheet. During the end-of-semester departmental retreat, faculty discussed the curriculum mapping results as they related to the core concepts and competencies and developed recommendations. Regarding core concepts, the Biology BS faculty determined that they were addressing most concepts as appropriate to their courses. 100- and 200-level courses, however, did not report having balanced treatment of all five Core Concepts; Evolution, Information Flow, and Pathways of Energy Transformation were lower than Structure/Function and Systems, despite three courses (111, 203, and 233) including evolution as a major part of the course, 110 having significant metabolism and genetics modules, and 233 having Genetics and Evolution in its course title. The discrepancy may point to a real issue, but could also be explained by a few instructors (n = 5) having more conservative estimates of coverage compared with instructors of upper-level electives (n = 15). Upper-level electives have strengths in addressing evolution and structure/function. Faculty who teach these courses will consider expanding coverage of other core concepts or offer electives that are focused on genetics and energy pathways. Regarding core competencies, faculty agreed that courses at all levels could do more to address the core competencies of quantitative reasoning, modeling/simulation, and communication/collaboration. Although many reported that their students have direct experience with the scientific process, there may be opportunities to offer more of these authentic experiences using large datasets in the public domain or those produced in the course, and requiring students to work in teams to formally communicate their results. Incorporating research into more courses, especially electives, would simultaneously address the low scores in authentic research, team-based learning, and model-based learning among the student-centered practices.

After this extensive curriculum review, the faculty agreed to several actions. First, each course coordinator would review and refine her/his stated learning objectives, look for opportunities to fill any gaps in content and competencies, and redesign the courses to address and assess them using recommended student-centered practices. Faculty agreed to consult with colleagues to generate ideas for successful adoption of new practices, and to build in assessments that would satisfy course needs. Additionally, stakeholders for the required 100-200 level core lectures and labs were able to propose common learning objectives for each course that all sections/instructors will adopt and that, taken together, will give a balanced treatment of the core concepts and competencies. This would give coordinators of upper level electives a firm foundation of prerequisites on which to build their courses. The catalog descriptions are being changed if they do not align with these objectives.

Computer Science BS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The BS in Computer Science program assesses seven outcomes over a two-year assessment period (three in the first year and four in the next year); this robust assessment schedule measures outcomes through direct and indirect means. In 2016-2017, for example, Outcome 3 (“Be proficient in more than one programming language on more than one computing platform”) was assessed in three computer science courses (CMPS 351, 450, and 460). The target was for 70% of students to average 2.8 on the departmental rubric (where a score of 1 is “amateur,” 2 is “developing,” 3 is “developed,” and 4 is “exemplary”). Faculty used the students’ scores on three different assignments to make a determination on overall performance criteria. In the courses offered in Fall 2016, 83% of CMPS 351 students achieved “developed” or “exemplary;” 51% of CMPS 450 students achieved “developed” or “exemplary;” and in CMPS 460, 77.4% achieved “developed” or “exemplary.” After analyzing the results, the department observed that students in CMPS 450 needed more practical examples, particularly for functional and logical programming. Thus, in a subsequent offering of the course, faculty will demonstrate functional and logical programming on the computer and solve programming problems in the classroom. As a result, students will better understand the ideas and programming in different programming paradigms. Even though this particular outcome will not be assessed again until the 2018-2019 cycle, the Computer Science BS program employs a robust assessment schedule to track seven outcomes every two years through direct and indirect measurements, and the department’s assessment committee distributes results and recommendations to the faculty to encourage ongoing improvement.

Environmental Science BS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The department of Environmental Science expects its students to demonstrate a high level of work quality, problem solving skills, and practical application of theoretical knowledge gained. Environmental Science BS students participate in ENVS 472, which includes an internship with an off-campus agency or organization. The supervisors of the students are requested to rate their respective interns using a 1-5 rating scale in terms of various criteria including attendance, punctuality, general attitude, work quality, appearance, attitude toward suggestions, initiative, problem solving skills, practical application of theoretical knowledge, and professionalism. Success is considered achieved if more than 75% of the student interns receive “Excellent” on work quality, problem solving skills, and application of theoretical knowledge.

In 2016-2017, 73.3% of interns were rated as "Excellent" on the categories of work quality and practical application of theoretical knowledge, which was an increase from the previous cycle (70% for work quality and 60% for practical application), but still below the threshold of 75%. Interns scored 60% for problem solving skills, which was a lower rating from the previous year of 70%. A close study of the internship reports revealed that, in general, the interns were required to have some level of problem-solving skills on soil analysis and mapping, field surveys, plant identification, use of GPS/compass, radio telemetry, Excel data entry and charts, water testing, GIS skills, organization of public events, social skills, public speaking, communication skills (emails), understanding of research articles, and database management. The faculty discussed these results in order to develop a plan for reinforcing these skills in the existing curriculum. Specifically, faculty confirmed that student interns in their Junior year lack the necessary knowledge and skills in the area of water quality, soil health, field techniques, and data handling and analysis to be able excel in their internships. As such, a change was made to place interns only during their Senior year, or to only place those students who have completed necessary courses and have developed skills that are required for their successful internships. Additionally, in order to develop students’ skills on data handling, management, and graphing, the faculty required students enrolled in laboratory courses to pool their laboratory data, create Excel databases, and perform necessary analysis for their lab reports.

As a result of these changes, the Environmental Science BS program saw improvements in 2017-2018. 86% of interns were rated as “Excellent” on work quality and problem-solving skills, and 72% were rated “Excellent” on practical application of theoretical knowledge. Upon further reflection, faculty determined that the interns in general were required to have some level of laboratory determination of environmental samples, mapping, data collection and handling, field surveys, plant identification, and use of GPS/compass. These expectations were consistent with previous results, and thus a plan was developed to address these specific areas. Specifically, a 1-hour lab credit was introduced to the ENVS 490: Environmental Pedology course to emphasize "hands-on" activities in lab classes; it is expected to improve students’ work quality, problem solving, and practical application skills.

Physics MS [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The department of Physics expects its Master’s students to demonstrate knowledge across the discipline and have a deeper understanding in their areas of specialization. General knowledge is assessed through regular evaluation in general classes, while knowledge in their specialized fields is assessed through two seminar presentations, a proposal defense, and a thesis/project defense. Non-thesis track students take an additional written exam.

In recent assessment cycles, three targets have been set: 1) Each candidate’s proficiency in the specific subject of a class is evaluated through a final grade; the target is to have all students pass with a grade of B; 2) For the non-thesis track, the written exam is considered passed if the candidate obtains a minimum of 50% in each of the tested areas. The target is to have all students taking the exam pass; and 3) For the thesis track, the committee will vote to give a score from 1-5 on the scale where 1=does not meet expectations; 2=approaching expectations; 3=meets expectations; 4=slightly above expectations; and 5=exceeds expectations. A score of three (3) is considered a pass. The target is to have 100% of the students taking this exam to pass. These three assessment measures are reviewed together to make a determination on a candidate’s preparation. 

In 2016-2017, Target 1 was not met, while Targets 2 and 3 were met. For Target 1, 14 students each took an average of three classes and a seminar each semester; the majority obtained grades of A and B, but one student earned grades of C and F. The Physics department worked with other on-campus departments to deliver resources to the student, but he withdrew before the end of the spring term (earning the F). For Target 2, two students on the non-thesis track took the written comprehensive exam, and both of them passed the four parts of the test (one took the test for the second, allowed, time). For Target 3, one student on the thesis track passed the comprehensive exam and defended his thesis. He obtained all scores of 4 (“slightly above expectations”) and therefore passed. While two direct measures were met, the department reflected on all results, and additional actions were taken by the department. First, faculty enforced an early research proposal defense. The program had one student defend his proposal one semester earlier than the norm and defend his thesis in the third semester (the average is four semesters); he graduated in three semesters and became gainfully employed. Four other students defended their proposals on time and are on track to graduate. Next, the department designed and implemented a four-semester individualized plan for each student in order to help students work towards their goals. Each customized plan is reviewed during one-to-one meetings with the Graduate Coordinator, and as a student progresses in the program, the requirements are shown as being achieved. Finally, the Graduate Coordinator organized a seminar to discuss professional and ethical behavior in academia. Topics included student-advisor and professional relations, recommendation letters and rules, technical presentations, addressing requests, expected skills at graduation, forms expected to be submitted as progress is made, and advice from former graduate students in the department.

In 2017-2018, two targets were met, and one was not assessed. For Target 1, all 15 students obtained grades of A or B. Target 2 was not assessed because there were no students on the non-thesis track. For Target 3, six students on the thesis track passed the comprehensive exam and defended their theses, with average scores ranging from 3 to 5. The graduate faculty are confident that the four-semester individualized plans for students, as well as the professional development seminars implemented previously have all positively contributed to the achievement of these targets; as such, both of these efforts will continue.

Mathematics PhD [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The department of Mathematics expects its doctoral students to gain a deep understanding of the subject matter and its connections with other areas, and to apply the knowledge to problem solving in the real world or through research institutions or academia. As such, students in the Mathematics PhD program are expected to demonstrate a depth of knowledge by passing an oral exam in their area of research specialization, following at least two semesters of advanced courses in that area. The exam is given by a committee of at least three Mathematics graduate faculty members with expertise in the field, and evaluated in accordance with departmental rubrics. Success is defined by at least 75% of students who attempt the oral exam in a given calendar year being rated as at least "Satisfactory" in accordance with the departmental rubric. In 2016-2017, four students completed the oral portion of the Comprehensive Exam. All four completed it in their first attempt, with all examiners rating their performance "Satisfactory" or better. After several students failed to pass the oral portion of the Comprehensive Examination during previous academic years, the department put in place processes to better educate both students and junior faculty on the Oral Examination and help the students better prepare for the exam. As a result, the students are waiting less time to take the exam on average, and yet the performance and outcomes have improved, with no failed attempts in the last 18 months. Additionally, the department had encouraged students to engage in "mock oral exams" with more advanced students, and to interact with faculty members in their committee ahead of time so that expectations are clear. In 2017-2018, the two students who attempted the exam were scored as "Highly Satisfactory" or "Outstanding" by all examiners, which demonstrates how the oral exam results have improved. While the student outcomes are being met, the department is cognizant that there is not always consistency in the expected level from year to year in the comprehensive exams. As a result, the department is working to establish solid baselines that can be used (and slowly modified as needed), and expects this data to inform the content of the basic courses. This will ensure a more uniform performance among graduates.

University College

University College offers one academic degree, the Bachelor of General Studies, summarized below. 

General Studies (BGS) [2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018]

The BGS, administered through University College, is an interdisciplinary degree and, within its 120 credits, students are able to choose 36 credit hours across three academic areas of enrichment. Of these, one enrichment area serves as a foundation to complete a concentration of 24 upper-level credits. Because students’ skills are acquired through multiple academic disciplines, BGS graduates are expected to earn their baccalaureate degree having demonstrated adequate oral and written competencies through pre- and post-assessment essays and interviews, based on a college-created rubric. Each semester, data are collected and compiled, in which 75% of students assessed in the graduating semester must show improvement based on comparisons of pre- and post-oral (interviews) and written (essays) data, in which students meet or exceed expectations. These assessment data are used to determine if students are prepared to: a) orally present themselves and articulate their skills as they enter the job market, b) demonstrate adequate ability to express their ideas in writing, and c) present feedback regarding their career planning and other support obtained through the college. All of these analyzed data are reviewed by the Dean and discussed annually with the advising staff in University College. After each review, the team identifies needed strategy changes aimed at improving advising and academic support to students as it strives to produce stronger student outcomes. 

Conclusion

UL Lafayette has established and maintains a systematic, comprehensive, and effective process by which student learning outcomes are identified, assessed, and analyzed, leading to continuous improvement efforts.

 

Supporting Documents

2016-17 Assessment Cycle Handout

2017-18 Assessment Cycle Handout

2018-19 Assessment Cycle Handout

2019 Assessment Audit Plan

ABET Accreditation

Assessment Cycle

Assessment Rubric: Academic

Assessment Rubric: Non-Academic

BIOL Curriculum Mapping Chart

BIOL Curriculum Mapping Summary

BIOL Vision and Change Curriculum Mapping Worksheet

CMPS 450 Assessment Rubric

CMPS BS Assessment

ITEC 498 Syllabus

NAAB Accreditation Conditions

Sample Review 2015

Sample University Assessment Council Agendas

Sample University Assessment Council Minutes

Sample University Assessment Council Presentations

University Assessment Council

8.2.B     Student outcomes: general education

The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results for student learning outcomes for collegiate-level general education competencies of its undergraduate degree programs.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which those outcomes are achieved, and provides evidence of seeking improvement; the University bases these evaluative efforts on the analysis of results of student learning outcomes for collegiate-level general education competencies in undergraduate degree programs. The core curriculum of 42 credit hours is based on a framework required by the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR). Table 8.2.b – 1 shows the structure imposed by the Regents Core (left,) UL Lafayette’s set of core requirements and course options based on that structure (center), and associated Student Learning Objectives (right).

Table 8.2.b – 1: Comparison of BOR and UL Lafayette General Education Cores
with Learning Outcomes

Development of General Education Assessment

Prior to 2006, assessment of the University’s general education learning objectives was accomplished through a variety of indirect stakeholder (e.g., student, alumni, and employer) surveys and traditional institutional research metrics focused on core courses. While these metrics allowed the study of drop and progress/pass rates, withdrawal levels, syllabus review, certification and licensure exam pass rates, grade distributions, student evaluations, curriculum reviews, faculty qualifications reviews, and attainment of disciplinary accreditations, they did not include direct student learning measures or course-embedded assessments.

The University’s General Education Committee was formed in 2006 in response to a developing understanding of the need to measure, direct, and improve student learning, and became a standing University committee housed in Academic Affairs in AY2008-2009. The membership of the committee has included representatives from the core areas, representatives from each college, the Provost, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, and the Director of Institutional Assessment. Recent proposals to revise and clarify membership were a focus of the committee in AY2018-2019. The General Education Committee exists to “…review, develop, and recommend policy regarding general education to the Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards (CAAS), to recommend inclusion or exclusion of courses in the list of acceptable general education courses, and to participate constructively in assessment of the general education goals.”

Between 2006 and 2018, general education assessment at UL Lafayette was governed by a framework for direct general education assessment with six broad learning goals and specific student learning outcomes associated with each goal. Multiple instruments and measures were aligned with each goal, and indicators of success were established. This system relied on a combination of broad, standardized measures (MAPP, iskills, CLA, CEA, NSSE), and course-embedded assessments. It was structured centrally, with course-level data gathered in departments and sent to the Assistant Vice President for Institutional Planning and Effectiveness for analysis and action recommendations, as well as presented to the General Education Committee for comment and guidance.

In 2016, UL Lafayette acknowledged the limitations of this system: goals and learning outcomes were poorly aligned with the structure imposed by the BOR; reliance on standardized tests did not always accurately reflect the University’s own objectives or judgment of success; and analysis of results was undertaken apart from the faculty who taught the courses and evaluated the artifacts. Combined with changes in administrative oversight, these observations led to a comprehensive overhaul of both the general education core itself and the structure for its assessment.

2016-2018 Revisions

Between 2016 and 2018, the General Education Committee reviewed and updated the general education core, and redesigned the entire assessment structure including goals, objectives, measures, and targets, with the aim of:

·         Reexamining the goals and objectives of each discipline within the general education core;

·         Aligning the University’s assessment with the BOR’s general education scheme;

·         Decentralizing critical components of the institutional effectiveness cycle to enable faculty and departments to analyze, interpret, and act on data they gathered; and

·         Creating a robust system of assessment with broad acceptance that allows for continual measurement and rapid improvement based on results.

Committees were formed to address each disciplinary area of the core: Math, English, Science, Social and Behavioral Science, Humanities, Arts, and UNIV 100. Beginning in Fall 2016, each committee was charged with reviewing and revising the existing goals and objectives for the discipline. In some cases (such as Humanities) these revisions were major, while in others, the fundamental goals and objectives already in use were judged appropriate, or in need of only minor adjustments. The assessment subcommittee of the General Education Committee met twice a month over the same period to review, revise, and implement changes to the assessment schedule. These proposals were brought back to the General Education Committee and approved. The reformed structure was then approved by the University Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards (CAAS) and the Provost, and was adopted in the 2019-2020 Catalog, along with a procedure for making changes to the general education core.

Departments housing the courses were then charged with establishing new measures and targets where needed, and with carrying out the complete assessment process including identifying the assessment timeline, gathering and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and proposing and then implementing changes based on that data, and finally submitting a report to the Director of Institutional Assessment.  After review, the Director of Institutional Assessment submits the reports to the General Education Committee, which brings a University-wide perspective to the results and improvement narratives, and provides further recommendations as applicable.

Implementation

Under the new system, the assessment process in each discipline offering general education courses is directed by experts in that discipline, and each discipline, in turn, has a representative on the General Education Committee, regularly reporting assessment outcomes in their area and reporting the Committee’s feedback to their colleagues.

To accommodate the variety of student interests and transfer students, a wide variety of courses can potentially fulfill each general education requirement, but a smaller selection is recommended; a subset of those has been selected to be assessed based on their enrollments, frequency of offering,  proportion of non-major students, and alignment with the BOR general education requirements. Continuity among all courses satisfying a general education requirement is provided by shared goals and outcomes.

Completion of the cycle of assessments culminates in an assessment meeting in which lessons, thoughts, plans for improving learning, and specific revisions are weighed, discussed, and decided. Changes to goals, outcomes, assessments, and courses are submitted to the General Education Committee, which evaluates and approves the changes, or returns them to the assessment committee of the discipline for further refinement. Approved changes may be submitted to Academic Affairs and the CAAS, if they have an impact on the University Catalog. Submitted changes follow the approved procedure. Otherwise, the outcome of the review at the discipline and General Education Committee levels forms the basis for the next assessment cycle.

General education requirements apply to all students, including transfer and online students. Until 2018, the Admissions office and academic colleges were responsible for evaluating transfer students’ transcripts and awarding them credit for general education classes. Since then, general education credit has been evaluated in the Registrar’s office, using the Transfer Evaluation System (TES). The TES synthesizes college and university course catalogs from across the country to establish equivalency between courses and prescribed learning outcomes. This TES is supported, when necessary, by consultation with the relevant academic college or department. Once a student’s courses have been through the TES evaluation, the evaluated credit, including any general education credit, is shown on the UL Lafayette transcript. A record of this information is maintained on Degree Works, where it is possible to see the original name of the course and course number, and the school that originally granted the credit.

Examples of General Education Assessments and Improvements

The University has identified measures of expected student learning outcomes and assesses these outcomes annually, as illustrated in the following examples from each General Education discipline.

English Composition (First Year Writing)

The Department of English is responsible for assessing the general education of First Year Writing (FYW). Prior to 2016, the First Year Writing outcomes were taken from the Council of Writing Program Administrators’ Outcomes for First-Year Composition: 1) Engage in writing as a complex and iterative process; 2) Recognize the structures of argument; 3) Use writing and reading for learning, thinking, and communicating; 4) Learn to respond to the needs of various audiences; 5) Discuss appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality; and 6) Integrate their ideas with those of others. To measure these outcomes, approximately 100 student papers were randomly selected from ENGL 101, 102, or 115 course sections, and evaluators reviewed and rated them using a common rubric.

In 2016, the outcomes, measure of assessment, and cycle of assessment changed. The revised outcomes (found in Table 8.2.b – 2) were measured by faculty reviewers who rated approximately 75-100 student portfolios from ENGL 101 and ENGL 102. These 25-page portfolios more accurately represented the skills and competencies of the students. Each portfolio is scored by two assessors (FYW instructors), and a norming session ensures rater reliability such that all assessors align their review to the evaluation criteria on the established rubric. The FYW Director enters and analyzes data, then generates and shares a report with the Department of English and the General Education Committee to discuss findings and improvement methods. For the assessment cycle, the FYW program assesses two of the six outcomes each year so that, in a given three-year period, all outcomes are assessed at least once.

Table 8.2.b – 2: First Year Writing General Education Outcomes

 

The two outcomes assessed in 2015-2016 were: Discuss appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality (outcome #5); and Integrate ideas with those of others (outcome #6). The First Year Writing program reviewed approximately 100 papers randomly selected from seven course sections of ENGL 102 and ENGL 115 and established a target of 70% of students to be rated as Satisfactory in the given categories. For outcome #5, this target was met; for outcome #6, this target was not met, though results tallied just below the 70% threshold. The results, when viewed by section, indicated possible reviewer perceptions and biases. Based on this analysis, several changes were proposed and implemented. First, the FYW Director revised the Freshman Guide, a required text for English 101 and 102; the Guide includes the revised outcomes and aligned rubrics. Faculty who teach FYW were reminded to call students’ attention to the rubrics often in class, and to use them in grading student work. Second, changes were made to faculty development for FYW teachers, particularly those on graduate assistantships. Mandatory monthly meetings are held for graduate assistants to learn about and discuss the pedagogical strategies for the outcomes to be currently assessed, as well as for outcomes that will be assessed in later cycles. Third, the FYW program moved from assessing individual student papers to portfolios of student work, a recognized best practice. This change to reviewing portfolios allowed for a more complete view of student writing and competency. Finally, FYW adjusted the sampling method; rather than assessing the program based on the instruction of only a few teachers (e.g., six in the 2015-2016 cycle), FYW will gather portfolios from a random sample of the students across all sections.

The newly created outcomes were assessed for the first time in 2016-2017. The two outcomes assessed in 2016-2017 were:

·         Develop facility in responding to a variety of situations and contexts calling for purposeful skills in voice, tone, level of formality, design, medium, and/or structure; and

·         Use strategies–such as interpretation, synthesis, response, critique, and design/redesign–to compose texts that integrate the writer’s ideas with those from appropriate sources.

The target for each of these outcomes was 70% of students to score satisfactory or higher. For ENGL 101, the results were just barely under 70% for each outcome. For ENGL 102, the results were slightly over 75% for each outcome. In the FYW curriculum, ENGL 102 is dedicated to research-based writing from sources. Therefore, it was expected that the results would be lower in ENGL 101 compared to 102. Assessment of the research-based outcomes in the ENGL 101 sample are considered a baseline reading. The improvement shown in ENGL 102 demonstrates the value of experience and practice of writing, plus the effectiveness of a curriculum devoted to these issues. Based on this analysis, several changes were proposed and implemented. First, new assignments will be designed for the curriculum, which align to these outcomes. Additionally, an updated common syllabus with ready assignment documents will provide support to teachers. These assignments are to be introduced in recurring department workshops and in resources and notices distributed through Moodle.

The two outcomes assessed in 2017-2018 were:

·         Locate and evaluate (for credibility, sufficiency, accuracy, timeliness, bias, and so on) primary and secondary research materials, including journal articles and essays, books, scholarly and professionally established and maintained databases or archives, and informal electronic networks and internet sources; and

·         Practice applying citation conventions systematically in their own work.

The target for each of these outcomes was 70% of student portfolios evaluated (ENGL 101 and 102) and rated as Satisfactory or higher. Seventy-five students were selected randomly to have their portfolios assessed; of these, only 49 were submitted and assessed. For the first outcome (“Locate and evaluate …”), only 59% of the student portfolios were rated as Satisfactory or higher. For the second outcome (“Practice applying citation…”), 71% were rated as Satisfactory or higher. After analyzing these results, the FYW program identified two areas of improvement. First, a program-wide assignment, the Source Dialogue, was identified and implemented as a systematic approach to evaluating the quality of sources (supporting the “Locate and evaluate…” outcome). Workshops, sample student work, and other supporting documentation were provided to graduate assistants assigned to the ENGL 101 and 102 sequence. Additionally, to address the “Practice applying citation…” outcome, the FYW program identified that the main area needing improvement was in-text citations, those citations embedded in the students’ writing, rather than the lists of references at the ends of writing projects. To address this finding, the FYW program will expand training on in-text citation techniques during the pedagogy seminars for graduate assistants. 

Mathematics

The Mathematics general education goal is for students to “analyze quantitative information in order to solve problems and understand the world.” Two objectives support this goal:

·         Use mathematical methods and models to solve quantitative problems and to communicate solutions effectively; and

·         Analyze and critically evaluate numerical and graphical data to draw reasonable and valid conclusions about real-world solutions.

Since Fall 2011, the Math department has assessed the MATH sequence 103/104 and MATH 105 courses each Fall and Spring. In 2017-2018, the department added STAT 214 to its assessment process. In each of these courses, common questions are embedded in the final exam; these questions are designed to measure how effectively the Math general education goals are achieved. The objectives are considered met if 70% of students score 60% or higher. Table 8.2.b – 3 demonstrates the percentage of students who scored 60% or higher for the three most recent assessment cycles.

Table 8.2.b – 3: Mathematics General Education Percentage of Students Scoring at least 60% or higher

 

The Mathematics department analyzed the results of the course-embedded assessments over the past six semesters and compared the results with many other factors. In 2016-2017, when the goal was not met, the department identified that too many students waited to access math resources (such as tutoring) until late in the semester. To address this, the department planned to increase its outreach to inform students about available tutoring resources. The goal in 2017-2018 was also not met; upon additional analysis the department identified two potentially positive elements. First, the pass rates for MATH 103, MATH 105, and STAT 214 are consistent over the past six semesters and show that an appropriate number of students are passing the courses; however, the course-embedded assessments do not reflect this. Second, the Math department currently uses multiple questions that cover a broad range of topics (rather than one or two specific questions) to assess the outcomes and objectives. Consequently, the results of the embedded questions have an approximately normal distribution (consistently true for the past six semesters). As a result, the department revised the criteria in upcoming assessment cycles, and is optimistic that the revised criteria will provide more realistic data about student learning related to general education Mathematics courses. Though pending, the initial results for the 2018-2019 cycle show improvement in these percentages.

Social and Behavioral Sciences

The social and behavioral sciences general education goal is for students to “apply critical thought and scientific principles to understanding human behavior and society in a diverse world.” The following objectives support this goal:

·         SB1: Evaluate data, evidence, and arguments using discipline-specific theory and methods. 

·         SB2: Identify theories in the discipline relevant to understanding human behavior and society.

·         SB3: Distinguish the forces shaping human behavior and society.

·         SB4: Describe relations among individuals, groups, and society, utilizing discipline-specific terminology.

·         SB5: Recognize the significance of individual, cultural, and societal diversity.

Throughout 2016 and 2017, representatives from various departments responsible for teaching behavioral science courses worked together to design a systematic plan for assessing these objectives. Each department (Anthropology, Criminal Justice, Economics, Geography, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology) developed and used its own set of questions to test students on one or more of these outcomes as relevant to the discipline. The first assessments utilizing these new assessment plans were conducted in 2017-2018; assessments were conducted in the courses listed in Table 8.2.b – 4, and the results and improvement narratives are explained below the table.

Table 8.2.b – 4: Map of Social and Behavioral Sciences Objectives and Point of Assessment

 

Anthropology assessed all five objectives through a series of essays in ANTH 100. For each objective to be considered met, 70% of students’ essays were expected to be rated as proficient or higher. Overall, 69% of students scored as proficient or higher when looking at all objectives. However, there is some variability when examining the specific objectives. Students demonstrated proficiency in SB1 (70%), SB2 (76%), and SB5 (80%). The results for SB3 (56%) and SB4 (60%) indicate that although some students are doing well, faculty must increase efforts in teaching and demonstrating the material related to these objectives. The measures and criteria remain for 2018-2019.

Criminal Justice assessed two of the five objectives. The measure for objective SB3 was a final paper, and for objective SB4 was embedded questions in quizzes and exams. In Fall 2017, 93% scored at least 60% or better on the essay measuring objective SB3, while 96.25% achieved 60% or better on the subset of questions measuring objective SB4. In Spring 2018, 82% scored at least 60% or better on the essay measuring objective SB3, while 82% achieved 60% or better on the subset of questions measuring objective SB4. The department reviewed and analyzed these initial results and decided to create a pool of questions for SB4; instructors can choose to use these questions when customizing their courses. The measures and criteria remain for 2018-2019.

Economics assessed four of the five objectives. Each objective was assessed using a series of multiple- choice test items, administered in five sections of ECON 300 to a total of 130 students. The measure of success was the percentage of students who correctly answered items at each level: 90% at or above “minimal” (no more than 10% below); 80% at or above “moderate” (no more than 20% below); 70% at or above “proficient” (no more than 30% below); and 65% “advanced” (no more than 35% below). For objective SB1, 91.5% were marked as proficient; SB2, 87% were marked as proficient; SB3, 89.2% were marked as proficient; and SB4, 95.4% were marked as proficient. These results generally exceeded expectations; as such, the test items can be strengthened for rigor, at least in the proficient and advanced levels. Repeated assessment will lead to a more effective assessment instrument; as more meaningful data is generated in subsequent cycles, the faculty will consider improvements to ECON 300 to better serve this student population.

Geography assessed all five objectives in GEOG 103 using specific embedded questions in regular course assessments. The target for success was for 75% of students to correctly answer the embedded assessment question. The first three objectives (SB1, SB2, SB3) were assessed in two sections of GEOG 103 in Fall 2017, while the remaining two objectives (SB4, SB5) were assessed in two sections of GEOG 103 in Spring 2018. Overall, results indicate that a significant number of students were successful at meeting the stated objectives. In Fall 2017, 85% of students achieved success with SB1, 82% with SB2, and 79% with SB3. In Spring 2018, 85% of students achieved success with SB4 and 75% with SB5. The faculty discussed these results and agreed that the 75% threshold for success was a reasonable desired outcome. Additionally, the faculty plans to embed a greater number of questions into the assessments to more accurately measure success. To better coordinate this improvement across different instructors, the plan is to build a test bank of questions that assess each objective.

Political Science assessed all five objectives using questions embedded in POLS 110 exams. A total of five course sections (two in Fall 2017 and three in Spring 2018) delivered the assessments to a total of 166 students. There were 10 questions in total on the assessment. Because the assessment was short, only the total number of correct answers is reported rather than results disaggregated by learning objective. The criterion for success was an average score of six out of 10 questions answered correctly (60% constitutes a passing score for an introductory course). The assessment fell just short of meeting the target. The average score for all 166 tests was 5.5 correctly answered questions, just missing the target of an average of six correct questions. Breaking down the results further, 44.6% of students earned a score of five or less, while 55.4% of students earned a passing grade of six or more. Put differently, the majority of students enrolled in the course earned a passing grade on the assessment. The Political Science faculty identified three main areas of improvement. First, the department is undertaking a review of the questions to determine on which questions students had the weakest performance. The POLS 110 instructors will be asked to consider whether those questions should be rewritten for clarity or whether additional classroom instruction time should be devoted to teaching concepts. Second, additional questions will be developed to better assess each of the five learning objectives. This will allow for results to be reported for each learning objective in the 2018-2019 cycle. Third, the General Education assessment was administered separately from the typical POLS 110 departmental assessment, also given in the final two weeks of the semester. There is concern that students experienced assessment fatigue from taking two assessments in a single class period. To counter this possibility, the General Education assessment questions are to be embedded in the POLS 110 departmental assessment; however, the questions will be analyzed separately by the Assessment Coordinator. Given that the target was nearly met and given the planned improvements detailed here, the target should be met during the 2018-2019 assessment cycle.

Psychology assessed all five objectives using questions embedded in PSYC 110 and PSYC 115 (honors) exams. Students were administered a pre- and post-test, and the scores were used to measure success of the objectives. In both courses, a significant improvement was demonstrated between the scores on the pre- and post-tests. Overall, for PSYC 110, the pre-test score was 12.25 and the post-test score was 17.97; for PSYC 115, the pre-test score was 13.88 and the post-test score was 16.61. After initial review, the department of Psychology intends to focus on increasing the number of students who participate in the assessment to generate more data for analysis.

Sociology assessed all five objectives using 10 multiple choice questions embedded in all SOCI 100 exams. Success was measured by the percentage of students who answered the assessment item correctly; the objective is met when at least 60% of students answered the assessment item correctly. Overall, students met the general education objectives as 71% of students across the assessment year answered correctly across the 10 assessment items. Some assessment items in some semesters did not achieve the benchmark. For example, Item Three, which assesses SB3, did not achieve the benchmark during Spring 2018. Despite this, SB3 is successful on other assessment items (Items One, Two, and 10) and across the year for this item. Similarly, Item Six, which assesses SB1 and SB2, did not achieve the benchmark during Fall 2017, but SB1 and SB2 are successful on other assessment items (Items One, Four, Eight & Nine) and across the year for this item. The only assessment item that failed to meet the benchmark for the year was Item Seven, which assesses SB4. However, SB4 is successful on another assessment item (Item Nine). Overall, students in this course are demonstrating proficiency; however, there is some variability when examining the specific assessment items by instructor and semester. The results indicate that the department must ensure that individual instructors remember to assess the items each semester (one instructor forgot to assess any items one semester; others erred in assessing all items or in the wording of the item, which required omission of the result from this assessment cycle). Individual instructor results also indicate that the delivery method for the course itself may be related to learning objectives. Specifically, online courses, and instances in face-to-face courses in which access to content materials is unrestricted (e.g., online examinations without proctoring services) may have an artificially high result in comparison to closed-book, face-to-face, proctored assessments. The department plans to increase efforts to teach and demonstrate the material related to these objectives, regardless of the delivery style of the course content.

Natural Sciences (Biological and Physical)

The general education goal for the Natural Sciences is for students to be able “to understand the nature of scientific knowledge and have a sufficient knowledge base to be familiar with the power and limitations of science as related to contemporary concepts.” Two objectives support this goal:

·         Apply key processes and scientific reasoning to draw reasonable conclusions within the natural sciences.

·         Use critical and logical thinking, knowledge of accepted scientific methods, and appropriate sources to evaluate the credibility of information with scientific content.

Throughout 2016 and 2017, the College of Sciences designed a systematic plan for assessing these objectives in various courses. In each assessment cycle, a total of two courses from each department (Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, Geology, and Physics) were assessed. While each department developed and used its own set of questions to test students on these outcomes, there were consistent guidelines for developing questions and a rubric for evaluation. The first assessments utilizing these new assessment plans were conducted in 2017-2018, with results explained in Table 8.2.b – 5.

Table 8.2.b – 5: Natural Sciences Assessment Results

 

Humanities (Literature and Humanities, Historical Perspectives, Communication and Language)

The College of Liberal Arts is responsible for assessing the University’s general education goals in the areas of literature and humanities, historical perspectives, and communication and language. The overall humanities goal states that “students will think critically, creatively, and independently to understand themselves and others as members of their local, regional, and global communities, and to appreciate a wide variety of cultural expressions.” Each area is responsible for identifying objectives and appropriate measures of assessment to support this goal:

·         Literature and Humanities: Read, interpret, and write cogently and critically about diverse literary and cultural texts.

·         Historical Perspectives: Demonstrate an awareness of diverse historical perspectives and their significance for the present.

·         Communication and Language: Communicate effectively in verbal language.

The department of English assesses students’ ability to “read, interpret, and write cogently, creatively, and critically about diverse literary and cultural texts.” A new assessment protocol for this objective began in 2017-2018, with input from the English department’s assessment committee. The committee opted to try, first, a syllabus assessment to determine if students were expected to engage diverse literary and cultural texts. A rubric was created, and the target was set as an average of 2.0 (Meets Expectations) for all courses assessed. For 2017-2018, all available syllabi (41 total) for ENGL 201, 202, 205, 206, 210, 211, and 212 courses taught in the Spring 2018 semester were assessed. The assessment committee was made up of three English faculty, who assessed syllabi in two areas: diversity of perspective (DP) and diversity of forms/genres (DF). When assessing DP, the committee asked whether, to the extent possible, instructors incorporated texts either by writers from traditionally marginalized groups or by non-canonical writers. For DF, the committee asked whether the course incorporated texts from multiple forms/genres or from various media: poetry, novels, non-fiction, film, music, etc. The committee expected that the English department’s course offerings reflected the belief that there is more than one kind of writer, more than one way to write, and more than one form such writing can take.

Neither of the two objectives was met. The average score across all courses was 1.6 in DP and 1.6 in DF. The breakdown by course is listed in Table 8.2.b – 6.

Table 8.2.b – 6: Diversity Assessment

 

Upon identifying the course with the lowest score (ENGL 202), the committee immediately worked to address this through the department’s mentorship program and through meetings with the sophomore literature committee. Additionally, peer-led workshops for all instructors who will teach or are already teaching these courses are scheduled. The workshop will address successful strategies for incorporating a diversity of literary perspectives, forms, and genres. Finally, the committee intends to publish several “model” syllabi for each course.

The committee also recognized one important caveat to these findings that negatively impacted the scores: several instructors did not include a reading schedule or a list of texts. The committee could not assess the diversity of the readings in these classes, but decided to assign the syllabi a score of “1” on the rubric nonetheless. A list of readings is now required in all syllabi, which will enhance future assessment.

The department of History assesses students’ ability to compare and contrast different perspectives as demonstrated by the following: 1) identify a historical source as either a primary or secondary source; 2) recognize that a primary source has an author with a perspective; and 3) infer how the perspective or life circumstances of the author might influence the content of the source. The department generated two versions of a skills-based standardized exam that required no prior knowledge of historical content. On the exam, students were required to read an excerpt from a primary source, and then answer three multiple-choice questions. All instructors of HIST 100, 101, 102, 221, and 222 were provided the exam questions at the beginning of the Spring 2018 semester and were asked to distribute the quiz to all sections of these classes at the end of the semester. There was no identifying information on the quizzes; students and instructors remained anonymous. The assessment coordinator then graded a random sample of the submitted quizzes, approximately 10% of each version. The established target was an 80% pass rate, with “passing” equivalent to receiving 65% on the exam (two out of three questions correct).

In total, 715 completed assessments were collected from 10 (out of 29) sections. The department also received and mistakenly included assessments from two sections of honors-level History courses. Although the honors-level courses could potentially skew results, the low enrollment numbers for honors classes makes this a negligible factor. Overall, the low completion rate could be due to poor communication of expectations to all instructors in the History department, especially to contingent faculty; instructors lacking the time to complete the assessments in class; or students dropping out of or not attending class the day of the assessment.

The results indicated that 78.9% of the students passed by answering two of the three questions correctly, just below the established target:

·         Competency 1 (“Identify a historical source…”): 70% of students passed

·         Competency 2 (“Recognize that a primary source…”): Not assessed that year 

·         Competency 3 (“Infer how the perspective…”): 77.5% of students passed

Students struggled most with the first competency, though the department had initially assumed that this would be the most accessible. However, upon reflection, the low success rate for this competency is consistent with previous departmental assessments of History BA students, who also struggled with this skill. Going forward, the department intends to provide better guidance and training for all general education instructors to teach the difference between primary and secondary sources in their classes. The department included an ungraded question on a quiz that asked students to explain qualitatively why the provided source was primary or secondary. Many of these answers correctly defined a primary source, and/or provided logical reasons for the choice (even if the choice was incorrect).

To streamline the assessment process and to encourage higher completion rates, the department is considering asking general education instructors to assess just one (rather than all) of their general education courses. For instructors who teach two or more general education classes, this could save valuable instruction time; for the assessment committee, this may streamline the process by collecting only those assessments that will be analyzed. Finally, the department is considering alternating the assessment of general education objectives, rather than assessing all each semester. A full calendar is proposed for Fall 2018, which has built-in communication with faculty throughout the semester. Overall, the results have highlighted the opportunity to create more clear and measurable learning objectives for the entire department, and to communicate these more effectively to all History instructors.

The University’s communication and language objective is assessed in courses offered through the departments of Communication, Modern Languages, and Theater. Previously, the goal was assessed by the departments of English, Communication, and Theater, utilizing a standard rubric to assess the stated objectives. As part of the revised general education goals, the new departments agreed to identify the best assessments and targets appropriate for each discipline, while addressing the overall goal to “communicate effectively in verbal language.” Communication and Theater still share a rubric, while Modern Languages has a different assessment method.

The department of Communication assessed this goal by evaluating student speeches in CMCN 100 using a rubric that focused on six competencies: organization, subject knowledge, nonverbal communication, mechanics (when appropriate), speaker engagement, and elocution. Two scorers evaluated 20% of the students enrolled in CMCN 100 for 2017-2018. The target was considered met if 70% of the students evaluated scored a “satisfactory” (17 out of 24 possible points, or 70%).

In Fall 2017, 72% of the students assessed earned a score of 70% or higher, and in Spring 2018, 84% of students assessed earned a score of 70% or higher. For the Fall 2017 semester, the outcome was met; however, the students tended to have more difficulty remembering subject knowledge and occasionally struggled with speaker engagement.

Prior to and through the Fall 2017 semester, the class was taught using the textbook as its guide for laying out the order in which information was taught. Because of this, public speaking, which was the focus of this assessment, was not taught to students until Chapter 6, which occurred approximately half-way through the semester. In teaching the course in this manner, students did not have more than a couple of weeks to pick a topic, collect research for that topic, and deliver speeches. While they were able to do this and still meet objectives for the course, it appeared they were struggling more than was necessary. Additionally, they did not have as many opportunities to practice giving speeches, which ultimately impacted their ability to engage audiences due to a lack of confidence. After noting this, it became apparent that a change needed to be implemented in how the course was taught. Therefore, in the Spring 2018 semester, chapters six through twelve, which contain the exploration of public communication, was moved up to the third week of class. Students were also given additional opportunities for impromptu speeches to enhance overall confidence with public speaking and audience engagement. In making these small changes, student scores improved a great deal, particularly in the areas of subject knowledge and speaker engagement.

Given the success of rearranging the order in which material was taught to students throughout the semester, the plan is to continue with this course of action in future semesters. Now that these two areas of assessment have been addressed, the plan includes working with students on organization of speeches and helping to connect the material to the audience using stronger arguments while developing stronger speaker credibility. One way to do this is to implement peer-reviewed outline writing workshops in lab classes that would allow students to have work reviewed by the same peers who serve as their audience for these speeches. This approach would help students better understand the role of relationship building between the speaker and audience member, while developing their writing skills and creating better organized arguments.

The department of Music and Performing Arts assessed this goal by evaluating student speeches in THEA 261 using a similar rubric that focused on five competencies: organization, subject knowledge, nonverbal communication, speaker engagement, and elocution. Two scorers evaluated 20% of the students enrolled in THEA 261 for 2017-2018. The target was considered met if 80% of the students evaluated scored a “satisfactory” (specifically, 14 out of 20 possible points, or a 70%). In Spring 2018, 100% of the students assessed earned a score of 70% or higher. The areas of greatest strength among the assessed students were organization and subject knowledge (as reflected in ability to show an understanding of the circumstances of the scene, the relationship between characters, and the ability to perform the script as written through memorization of the script). The areas of non-verbal communication, speaker engagement, and elocution (while still assessed fairly strongly) were less consistent across the assessed population.

Even though all students assessed in 2017-2018 met the standard, the sample size was very small. For this assessment cycle, the students assessed were enrolled in a traditional 15-week delivery of the course. In the future, the department will assess students in each semester of the course and will include assessment of students in both traditional (15-week) and compressed (seven-week) schedules. With that additional data, the department will be able to draw more meaningful conclusions about ways to improve student skills in the execution of their scene work, and to see more clearly what adjustments to instructional methods and schedules for the compressed delivery version of the course might be necessary.

The department of Modern Languages assessed this goal by evaluating final exams in FREN 101, SPAN 101, and GERM 101 using a standard rubric provided by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines. The department maintains that students should be able to function at the Novice High level of language proficiency according to the most recent ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. The target is for 80% of students to score 70% or higher. Table 8.2.b – 7 lists the results for 2017-2018.

Table 8.2.b – 7: Modern Languages Communication Assessment Results 2017-2018

 

After initial analysis and discussion, the department determined that the German final exams were not stringent enough to adequately test for all aspects of the Novice High sublevel standards, which explains why student scores exceeded the criteria established. These exams are being adjusted to be more appropriate to stated goals. Additionally, the French and Spanish final exams nearly achieved the desired outcome. The department plans to increase outreach to students in order to inform them of available resources (including free tutoring in the language lab and instructors’ office hours).

Fine Arts

The College of the Arts maintains a comprehensive assessment of its general education course offerings. The college’s assessment committee meets annually to review general education goals and findings, and to design improvement plans based on reflection and analysis. The overall Arts goal is for students to recognize basic components of, or create, a particular art form and understand the art form in the context of its creation, or in the relationship of its basic components to the whole. To measure this goal, the College of the Arts annually assesses two sets of three supporting outcomes using course-embedded assessments in the college’s Academic Overview courses and Applied courses. For a student to meet Art general education goals, one set of objectives must be met; that is, either the three Academic Overview objectives or the three Applied objectives must be met, depending on whether the student is studying or making art, respectively. For each of the outcomes assessed in Academic Overview courses, the target was 70% of students answering specific course-embedded questions correctly. For each of the outcomes assessed in Applied courses, the target was that students score at least a 3.5 out of five on the relevant scoring rubric. Table 8.2.b – 8 demonstrates the achievement of each outcome for the three most recent assessment cycles.

Table 8.2.b – 8: Fine Arts General Education Outcomes and Results

 

The College of the Arts assessment committee relies on the departments hosting the Academic Overview and Applied courses to develop and implement improvements based on annual assessment results. For the Visual Arts department, an analysis of several years of “met” results has prompted faculty to create additional questions for students to identify at least three important aspects and dimensions of a single work of art. After piloting these additional questions in 2017-2018, the faculty have decided to include them in the assessment process going forward. The results from these expanded questions will determine whether students can apply the knowledge gained from studied examples to pieces that they have never studied before, providing greater insight into overall student achievement of the Fine Arts goals. For Performing Arts and Music, the faculty have prioritized increasing the response rate to obtain 100% participation in all course sections for general education assessment. Additionally, for Music, faculty were given the option to swap musical examples in those cases where the new example would serve the same purpose. While the testing instrument remained unchanged, the flexibility allowed faculty to focus on examples they were most comfortable teaching. 

·         Arts Assessment 2015-2016

·         Arts Assessment 2016-2017

·         Arts Assessment 2017-2018

First-Year Experience

The Freshman Seminar (UNIV 100) began assessing students’ information literacy in 2017-2018, using the results as a benchmark to create future objectives and criteria. The Office of First-Year Experience (OFYE) determined that a student should be able to assess what information is needed for a particular project; know where and how to find that information (either in the library or from online resources); evaluate that information and its source critically; and know how to use that information in an ethical manner. Pre- and post-tests were created to address these objectives. Table 8.2.b – 9 demonstrates the results from the 2017-2018 baseline data.

Table 8.2.b – 9: First-Year Experience General Education Results

 

These initial results indicated that most students were not making significant improvement in information literacy during the semester.

·         FYE Assessment 2017-2018

To understand these results, OFYE found that many of the volunteer faculty were not addressing the necessary materials. Several changes were implemented for Fall 2018 to address these findings. First, in Fall 2018, a new program (“FYE FYI”) was piloted. In this program, trained staff members from OFYE visited all 120 sections of UNIV 100 to deliver specific content not only in the area of information literacy, but also in other areas critical to first-year student success. This plan allowed UNIV 100 faculty, who are all experts in their respective fields, to concentrate on their content, while OFYE staff supplemented course instruction by providing consistent support content. Additionally, the general education goals for UNIV 100 were modified beginning in 2018-2019 as follows:

·         Engage in University‐level inquiry that challenges students to formulate appropriate questions, investigate potential answers, and arrive (at least tentatively) at solutions.

·         State clearly and defend orally and in writing ideas, arguments, and research questions.

·         Independently investigate answers to questions posed in the course, learn to find information, and critically assess the relevance and value of that information vis‐à‐vis the questions posed, as well as formulate new questions based on the initial inquiry.

Revised assessment measures are being designed and implemented to support these student learning outcomes.

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Affairs Policy 2.16 Louisiana Board of Regents

Anthropology Assessment 2017-2018

Approval of GenEd Revision

Arts Assessment 2015-2016

Arts Assessment 2016-2017

Arts Assessment 2017-2018

Arts GenEd Agenda

Biology Assessment 2017-2018

CAAS Minutes – Assessment Matrix Approval

Catalog GenEd 2019-2020

Chemistry Assessment 2017-2018

Communication Rubric

Communications Assessment 2017-2018

Criminal Justice Assessment 2017-2018

Economics Assessment 2017-2018

English Composition Assessment 2015-2016

English Composition Assessment 2016-2017

English Composition Assessment 2017-2018

Environmental Sciences Assessment 2017-2018

FYE Assessment 2017-2018

GenEd AA Web

GenEd Assess Matrix Highlighted

GenEd Assessment Matrix

GenEd Committee List 2018-2019

GenEd Matrix 2006-18

GenEd Membership Change

GenEd Minutes – Minor Goal and Objective Adjustments

GenEd Minutes – Revise and Implement Changes to the Assessment Schedule

GenEd Minutes – Revising Existing Goals and Objectives

GenEd Minutes – Robust System of Assessment

General Education Plan: Behavioral and Social Sciences

General Education Plan: Natural Sciences

Geography Assessment 2017-2018

Geology Assessment 2017-2018

History Assessment 2017-2018

Humanities Goal Changes

Letter Creating GenEd

Literature Assessment 2017-2018

Mathematics Assessment 2016-2017

Mathematics Assessment 2017-2018

Modern Languages Assessment 2017-2018

Physics Assessment 2017-2018

Political science Assessment 2017-2018

Procedure GenEd Changes

Psychology Assessment 2017-2018

Sample Assessment Calendar

Sample Degree Works Audits

Sample Systematic Plan

Sample TES Evaluations

Sociology Assessment 2017-2018

Statewide General Education Requirements

Theater Assessment 2017-2018

Transcript Examples

8.2.C     Student outcomes: academic and student services

The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results for academic and student services that support student success.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette has established and maintains a systematic, comprehensive, and effective process by which outcomes are identified, assessed, and analyzed, leading to continuous improvement efforts. Evidence of University-wide assessment infrastructure, governance, cycle, and review is available in the Assessment Preface. 

Evidence of Institutional Effectiveness at the Academic and Student Services Level

UL Lafayette’s academic, instructional support, and student services departments all focus on supporting student success, though housed in different divisions across campus, including Academic Affairs, Enrollment Management, Student Affairs, and University College. The commitment to supporting student success is institution-wide.

Since 2009-2010, the University’s academic, instructional support, and student services departments have consistently participated in the annual assessment process of establishing goals and reviewing results to improve outcomes. Table 8.2.c – 1 shows that, in the three most recent assessment cycles (2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018), nearly all academic and student services departments entered Assessment Plan Elements, Assessment Report Elements, and Reflections. When the University transitioned to LiveText in 2016-2017, it was an opportunity to take inventory of which units were formally responsible for assessing; in this process, some units merged into other larger units. The Office of Institutional Assessment continues to work with Assessment Liaisons to share information on best practices related to assessment plans and reporting, and aims to obtain 100% participation throughout the assessment cycle. 

Table 8.2.c – 1: Completion by Academic and Student Service Departments

over Three Assessment Cycles

 

Evidence of Assessment of Academic, Instructional support, and Student Services

Each academic, instructional support, and student services department identifies, assesses, and improves outcomes. Assessment reports for these departments are available in LiveText’s AIS for assessment cycles 2015-present; archived assessment reports generated from WEAVEonline for assessment cycles 2009-2015 are available upon request from the Office of Institutional Assessment. In 2016, the Vice President for Student Affairs and each of her directors redesigned their assessment process; six division-wide goals were identified, and all departments within Student Affairs developed specific measures to assess those goals. Thus, the assessment reports for Student Affairs departments are found in one larger VP Student Affairs report beginning in the 2016-2017 cycle. Table 8.2.c – 2 provides direct access to each assessment report by department. To illustrate examples of assessment, summaries from select departments are provided below the table.

Table 8.2.c – 2: Assessment Reports by Academic and Student Services Departments

over Three Assessment Cycles

 

Departments reporting to President or Provost/VP for Academic Affairs

Athletics

The department of Athletics maintains a set of goals that prioritizes the success and well-being of the University’s student-athletes. One of these goals is to “enhance the quality of the student-athlete experience within the context of higher education.” In 2015-2016, Athletics established the “Game Plan Initiative, which depicts programming topics and educational opportunities for eight semesters; in 2017-2018, the initiative’s name changed to the “Geaux Cajuns Program.” Themes included Financial Literacy (Fall 2015), Professional Athletes (Spring 2016), Career Readiness (Fall 2016), Mentoring and Community Service (Spring 2017), Healthy Relationships (Fall 2017), and Coping with the Challenge of Change (Spring 2018). After each topic presentation or session, participants were asked to complete a survey to determine if they had gained a better understanding of the topic as a result of the program. While survey participants consistently demonstrated that their understanding had increased as a result of each program, the participation and survey response rates remained low.

The department of Athletics, in discussions with the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC), reviewed survey feedback, and discussed program expectations and changes. A concerted effort was made in 2017-2018 to increase communication and improve the participation rate among all sports programs. As a result, student-athlete attendance rates improved at all Geaux Cajuns Program events, due to increased buy-in and communication with student-athletes, coaches, and staff; many events saw attendance rates of 75% or higher. Additionally, in 2017-2018, hard copies of the surveys were provided during end-of-the-season team meetings; this brought total student-athlete feedback up to nearly 100 responses on the Geaux Cajuns Program Survey. With more student feedback, the Geaux Cajuns Program staff can better understand the students’ needs and expectations, in order to enhance their experience and provide meaningful programming topics, educational opportunities, and service projects. Additionally, this ensures all student-athletes have an opportunity to provide feedback, and to ensure student-athletes that their feedback is heard.

·         2015-2016 Athletics

·         2016-2017 Athletics

·         2017-2018 Athletics

Distance Learning

The Office of Distance Learning (ODL) is committed to student success in distance learning courses and programs by providing and promoting services that prepare students to successfully achieve learning outcomes in online or hybrid courses. Preparation for a successful start in distance learning courses depends on students being oriented to the expectations of hybrid or online learning, and to the academic and student support services provided by the University. As such, ODL reviews responses from students who complete the online student orientation survey in order to determine their preparedness. The target measure was for 75% of orientation participants who completed the survey to respond as “prepared” or “very prepared” to the question: “After completing this orientation, how prepared do you feel to be an online student at UL Lafayette?” The results showed that 87.4% of online student orientation survey participants felt “prepared” or “very prepared” to be an online student at UL Lafayette. Though these results indicate the goal was met, additional survey results revealed that approximately 30% of the students found the orientation “somewhat helpful” or “not helpful.” After discussions with online program coordinators, ODL set a goal in 2017-2018 to redesign and launch an improved online student orientation course to increase student readiness. The revised orientation was released in 2018, and new assessment measures are being developed to track its effectiveness.

·         2015-2016 Distance Learning

·         2016-2017 Distance Learning

·         2017-2018 Distance Learning

Dupré Library

Dupré Library maintains a robust set of goals and assessment measures to track student and faculty participation. The library has consistently assessed how it provides a variety of instructional opportunities to assist users; one way in which the Library rates instructional resources is by surveying faculty who request library instruction for students in their courses. Success was achieved if an 80% satisfaction score (“excellent” or “above average”) was reached on the question: “The librarian engaged the students.” For 2015-2016, this measure was achieved with 90.91% satisfaction. With a new instructional services librarian hired in 2016, revisions to the library instruction feedback form were planned for the 2016-2017 cycle to reflect the newly approved ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The revised form also necessitated a revised measure, so in 2016-2017 success was achieved if an 80% satisfaction score was reached on the question: “The librarian provided an instructional session (or sessions) that supported your learning objectives and the research needs of your students.” For 2016-2017, this measure was achieved with 100% satisfaction.

Faculty provided additional comments that reinforced their satisfaction, including:

·         “The librarian adapted to student needs and went above and beyond.” 

·         “She provided an extremely effective instructional session, the students remarked upon her presentation, and used her instructions throughout the semester; her session effectively oriented our freshmen to our library resources.”

In reviewing the full survey results, the Instructional Services staff realized they were relying on faculty input to be provided on the survey at the end of the semester. The Head of Instructional Services distributed faculty surveys monthly to reduce the time between instruction and assessment. The aim was to increase the quality of the feedback and the response rate. In 2017-2018, while survey results remained positive and demonstrated satisfaction, the library staff realized that the number of student contacts and the total number of sessions had decreased. To address this trend, the Instructional Services Department increased outreach to faculty to encourage them to dedicate more than one class to library research; specific outreach was made to English department graduate students (who teach the majority of freshmen writing courses). These improvement efforts continue to advance the library’s goals of providing quality instructional opportunities to students and faculty.

·         2015-2016 Library

·         2016-2017 Library

·         2017-2018 Library

Student Success

Several of the University’s student success initiatives fall under the direction and guidance of Student Success, which includes the Academic Success Center (ASC) and The Learning Center (TLC). These departments maintain separate goals and assessment measures, but collectively illustrate the University’s commitment to student success.

The Academic Success Center’s At-Risk Student Groups department has sought to increase the retention rate by targeting first-time freshmen on academic probation. Through AY2015-2016, identified freshmen on academic probation were required to attend an academic success workshop, and the GPA of these students was reviewed at the end of the semester. The assessment target was for at least 50% of students attending an academic success workshop to earn a 2.0 or higher semester GPA. In Spring 2016, the ASC identified and contacted freshmen on academic probation, and required them to attend a “Success Matters” workshop by the fifth day of class. While the participation rate of the targeted population was 90% or higher through 2016, the ASC did not meet its target of 50% of students who attend a workshop earning a 2.0 semester GPA or higher.

In response to this, ASC decided to require all first-time freshmen who are placed on academic probation in their Spring semester to take a course aimed at teaching the skills required for success. Academic Skills (ACSK) 100: Fundamentals of College Learning is a one-credit (CR/NC grading) course that introduces and refines techniques for learning and studying in the college classroom. The course includes group discussions on time management, note-taking, studying for tests, and other student success techniques; additionally, students meet individually with advisors throughout the semester as part of early-intervention efforts. The results for 2016-2017 reveal that the goal of 50% earning a 2.0 GPA after the workshop was still an unachievable benchmark. Of the 196 students enrolled in the course, 33% earned a 2.0 semester GPA, and 16% achieved a 2.0 cumulative GPA. However, 50% earned a higher GPA in the Spring semester compared to the Fall semester. Finally, of the students eligible for ASCK 100, but who did not enroll, only 22% earned at least a 2.0 semester GPA, and 13% earned at least a 2.0 cumulative GPA. These data indicate that students who participated in the program were more successful than those who opted out.

After follow-up discussion and analysis of the data, the ASC implemented changes to the structure of the course for Spring 2018, and revised the baseline measure of success. For AY2017-2018, the revised outcome was for 40% of students enrolled in the course to earn a 2.0 or above semester GPA. The course changes led to positive feedback from students and instructors on class layout, management, and interaction with students, even though the number of students earning above a 2.0 semester GPA did not change dramatically. 33.5% earned a semester GPA greater than or equal to 2.0, and 25.4% earned a cumulative GPA greater than or equal to 2.0. 53.5% earned a higher Spring 2018 semester GPA compared to their Fall 2017 semester GPA, which was an increase from the previous year. The ASC At-Risk Group utilize the revised baselines to evaluate and adjust services to better meet students’ needs.

·         2015-2016 ASC At Risk Groups

·         2016-2017 ASC At Risk Groups

·         2017-2018 ASC At Risk Groups

The Learning Center (TLC) supports students in becoming academically successful in their course work to increase retention and encourage graduation. For three assessment cycles, TLC has set a goal of increasing student participation in tutoring for challenging courses as compared to previous respective semesters. TLC utilizes an online software program (TutorTrac) to schedule and check in each student who attends individual, group, and supplemental instruction (SI) tutoring sessions throughout the semester. In 2015, TLC increased its supplemental instruction and group tutoring sessions, because those modalities proved to be more successful for UL Lafayette students, while being able to serve more students within identical budget and time constraints. The overall visits for AY2016-2017 increased to 11,621 compared to 11,177 in AY2015-2016. The increase is attributed to a deliberate and focused marketing effort on social media and at various on-campus events (Get on Board Day, Preview Days, and orientation sessions). In an effort to further increase attendance, in Spring 2017 TLC introduced incentives for students who attended more than three sessions. These efforts appear to have had a positive impact; a total of 14,787 visits were tracked in AY2017-2018. TLC was able to increase the number of students visiting the center at least three times by 24% in Fall 2017 and 29% in Spring 2018.

·         2015-2016 The Learning Center

·         2016-2017 The Learning Center

·         2017-2018 The Learning Center

Departments reporting to VP for Enrollment Management

Financial Aid

The Office of Financial Aid works directly with students to assist them in understanding and managing their loans. The office continues its efforts to increase efficiencies with the implementation of the ERP system. The office also endeavors to better understand how services are being received. In 2017-2018, Financial Aid prioritized collecting student feedback from surveys in order to refine existing processes or implement new processes. Beginning in 2018, students are sent an electronic survey within 24 hours of visiting the Office of Financial Aid. After reviewing survey results from February 2018 (the initial round of data), Financial Aid learned that 56% of students had a “fair” or “poor” experience with the office, and 50% “did not receive helpful answers to their questions.” Additional guidance and training were provided to department staff; the next review of results revealed a decrease to 36% of students who had a “fair” or “poor” experience. The Financial Aid office is open to feedback from students who overall felt the staff was knowledgeable, but needed to improve how information was delivered. The Financial Aid office continues to administer the survey and review the data regularly, with the continued objective of improving the department’s customer service and enhancing the student experience.

Orientation

The Office of Orientation is dedicated to preparing students for success during various orientation sessions and activities. One challenge that incoming freshmen frequently face is learning how to use the online registration system, ULink. The Student Orientation Staff (SOS), a group of student orientation leaders who have completed one year at UL Lafayette, as well as the EDFL 395 course, were expected to successfully demonstrate how to use ULink to incoming students. However, these SOS students had not been formally trained on best practices in presenting this information. When orientation students were surveyed about how well they understood ULink or online registering, results indicated that additional training for SOS leaders might be needed. In 2015-2016, the responses to the survey included:

·         Understand how to use ULink: 4.37/5.0

·         Understand how to register using ULink: 4.40/5.0

Based on student feedback, the Office of Orientation realized that course registration training was not straightforward. A training session was implemented with the Registrar’s Office to teach the SOS leaders best practices in how to educate new students in ULink and course registration. Since this training began, survey results have increased for both questions:

·         Understand how to use ULink: 4.37 (2016) to 4.51 (2018)

·         Understand how to register using ULink: 4.40 (2016) to 4.50 (2018)

Through ULink training, SOS better understood the system and the importance of successful course registration for new student matriculation and retention. In 2018, one question was added to the orientation survey to evaluate SOS’s performance: “My Student Orientation Staff Leaders helped me understand ULink and how to register for classes.” Students overwhelmingly indicated that SOS leaders helped with understanding ULink and registration by a score of 4.74 out of 5.0. With the improvement in this survey data, and with the development of the course registration system with each Banner update, Orientation will continue to work with the Registrar’s Office to train the SOS team in ULink functionality.

·         2015-2016 Orientation

·         2016-2017 Orientation

·         2017-2018 Orientation

Departments reporting to VP for Student Affairs

Student Affairs

Prior to 2016, departments reporting to the Vice President for Student Affairs and the Dean of Students maintained separate goals and assessment measures. In order to better quantify and measure student success through its support services, the Vice President for Student Affairs convened the department heads to identify six overarching goals (Table 8.2.c – 3), which align to national best practices for student service units at institutions of higher education. Two goals are assessed annually by all units in the VP Student Affairs area, and all six goals are assessed within three years. The departments within the VP Student Affairs division responsible for identifying their own specific measures and targets of success are: Career Services, Child Development Center, Counseling and Testing, Disability Services, International Affairs (now Global Engagement, reporting to Academic Affairs effective AY2018-2019), Public Safety and University Police, Recreational Sports, Residential Life, Student Engagement and Leadership, Student Health Services, and Student Rights and Responsibilities. With all departments focused on the same goals relevant to student affairs, the overall Student Affairs division is able to better focus on enhancing the student experience.

Table 8.2.c – 3: Student Affairs Goals and Assessment Cycle

 

Assessment of Goals: Inter/Intrapersonal Competence

The SGA Child Development Center assessed Inter/Intrapersonal Competence among its work-study students in 2016-2017. Through a focus group conducted in Spring 2017, the Center evaluated students’ ability to reflect on and describe best practices in situations calling for ethical reasoning while engaging with clients and staff. Students reported gaining knowledge of ethical responsibilities during employment and improving self-reflection skills in order to foster relationships with the children, families, and staff at the center. They were able to distinguish differences between Ethical Responsibilities and Ethical Dilemmas unique to early childhood education. During the focus groups, 100% of the students echoed the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) seven core values of ethical conduct, and informally discussed actual situations that could be perceived as ethical dilemmas (family values and beliefs, discipline, etc.). Students discussed best practices, and the reasoning behind the practices, and 100% of the students reported learning best practices while employed as a student worker.

The Office of Disability Services (ODS) assessed Inter/Intrapersonal Competence among its student workers who help to maintain office operations, including monitoring testing, delivering exams on campus, greeting students, and assisting with paperwork. For many student workers, working with ODS is often a first job, and inter/intrapersonal skills are developed as part of their experience. ODS recognizes a responsibility to ensure that students have advanced these skills upon graduation. Additionally, ODS student workers must demonstrate an understanding of the office’s purpose, and the importance of confidentiality and test security. ODS identified as its measure “to create a training that examines the social skills of the five student workers.” Initial training exposed the student workers to social skills and ADA compliance issues through real student applications. The office also administers a pre- and post-test to better gauge student knowledge of the ADA, office expectations, and social skills.

Assessment of Goals: Knowledge Acquisition

In 2016-2017, Career Services assessed Knowledge Acquisition by administering a survey of students who participated in the University’s Co-Op program. Students were asked to identify how strongly they agreed or disagreed with statements about the Co-Op program experience. 83.3% of students strongly agreed or agreed that the experience “allowed me to apply concepts learned in class,” and 95.8% strongly agreed or agreed that the experience “expanded my knowledge and professional skills.” Additionally, 95.8% strongly agreed or agreed that the experience “helped clarify my educational and career goals,” and 91.7% strongly agreed or agreed that the experience “helped me to be better prepared for life after college.” Finally, 87.5% strongly agreed or agreed that the co-op experience met expectations.

In 2016-2017, Student Engagement and Leadership assessed Knowledge Acquisition through a post-participation survey of attendees of its Ragin’ Leadership Academy. The indicator of success was for 75% of leadership academy participants who completed the survey to indicate they are more prepared to lead student organizations. The results indicated that 95% of participants strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “I feel better trained to serve my organization;” nearly all (99%) indicated they would implement strategies learned at the Academy in current or future leadership positions; and 93% indicated greater confidence in their ability to influence others. The staff of Student Engagement and Leadership will continue to host the Ragin’ Leadership Academy, survey student participants, and prepare students to assume leadership roles in campus organizations.

Assessment of Goals: Cognitive Complexity

In 2017-2018, Residential Life assessed the goals of Cognitive Complexity and Humanitarianism/Civic Engagement. For Cognitive Complexity, Residential Life sought to measure how Residential Life Directors evaluated staff members in certain residence assistant (RA) roles. A focus group was held at the end of the semester; Directors successfully identified behaviors demonstrating whether RAs were able to do basic position-required skills. Residential Life staff also noted that Directors were able to provide concrete examples to the RAs when skills were not achieved up to the expected level. The results of the focus group demonstrated reflective thinking, and opened clearer lines of communication. Afterward, having seen value in the feedback process, the Directors asked for the evaluation forms to be revised with more specific criteria on which to evaluate the RAs.

International Affairs (IA) also assessed Cognitive Complexity in 2017-2018; specifically, IA sought to measure how successfully international students apply lessons learned during the Tax Information educational program. 100% of students indicated they strongly agreed or agreed the tax information session was helpful, and 100% indicated they strongly agreed or agreed they understood the tax filing requirements for international students.

Counseling and Testing assessed Cognitive Complexity in 2017-2018 by having interns conduct a peer evaluation on peer counseling techniques. The evaluation measured specific skills in the areas of Attending Behavior, Empathy, Genuineness, Session Focus, and Open-Ended Questions. Of the seven interns, full-time counselors saw an overall 95% improvement rate of the interns who were conducting the session, as well as the interns who provided feedback regarding counseling techniques. This practice provides students with opportunities to hone their critical thinking and effective reasoning skills, and will be continued for future interns.

Assessment of Goals: Humanitarianism/Civic Engagement

Recreational Sports assessed the Humanitarianism/Civic Engagement goal in 2017-2018. The department asked its student employees (“supervisors”) to respond to a series of questions relating to problem solving with others, community service/volunteering, and charitable giving. 52% of the supervisors indicated they had “worked together informally with someone or some group to solve a problem in the University community or the Recreational Sports Department.” The department has set a goal of 70% of supervisors achieving this expectation, and will implement more opportunities for student supervisors to get involved and collaborate with one another on extracurricular projects, including planning for Rec-Fest and the Big Event. Another area of improvement came in response to the question: “Have you personally walked, run, or bicycled for a charitable cause?” 39% of the student supervisors indicated such participation. The Recreational Sports staff intends to educate student supervisors on the impact of volunteering and participating in events of this nature and expects to increase this percentage in the future.

Student Engagement and Leadership assessed the Humanitarianism goal by exposing students to Allies resources through the “Candid Conversation” series. Overall, students learned about new resources as they pertained to Allies, and their comfort level increased through participation in the Candid Conversations series. Feedback from students indicated that the session was immensely valuable but was too long and needed more interaction. The program will continue with slight modifications to length and format.

Summary of Institutional Effectiveness at the Academic and Student Services Levels

UL Lafayette’s academic and student services departments actively set goals, assess these goals, and identify areas of improvement in order to promote student success across the University. 

 

Supporting Documents

2015-2016 ASC At Risk Groups

2015-2016 Athletics

2015-2016 Distance Learning

2015-2016 Library

2015-2016 Orientation

2015-2016 The Learning Center

2016-2017 ASC At Risk Groups

2016-2017 Athletics

2016-2017 Distance Learning

2016-2017 Library

2016-2017 Orientation

2016-2017 Student Affairs

2016-2017 The Learning Center

2017-2018 ASC At Risk Groups

2017-2018 Athletics

2017-2018 Distance Learning

2017-2018 Financial Aid

2017-2018 Library

2017-2018 Orientation

2017-2018 Student Affairs

2017-2018 The Learning Center

 

9.1     program content [CR]

Educational programs (a) embody a coherent course of study, (b) are compatible with the stated mission and goals of the institution, and (c) are based upon fields of study appropriate to higher education.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

A. Educational programs embody a coherent course of study

All programs at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette embody a coherent course of study. They include breadth of knowledge and the development of progressively more advanced expertise in the discipline. The following narrative refers primarily to undergraduate programs, as the graduate programs are fully discussed in Section 9.6 (Post-baccalaureate rigor and curriculum). However, some examples of articulation between undergraduate and graduate programs in the same discipline are given to demonstrate program coherence and gradual advancement of learning objectives. All curricula for degree programs follow sequential paths toward 1) increasing levels of integration of knowledge and mastery of topics in a given field, 2) increasing complexity of learning objectives and relevant course assignments, and 3) development of theoretical awareness, analytical skills, and communication of expertise. Course listings, degree requirements, and definitions of all majors and programs are listed in the Catalog.

All undergraduate students acquire breadth of knowledge by completing a 42-credit hour General Education Core Curriculum as part of their degree requirements. Since Fall 2011, the maximum total of semester credit hours required for a baccalaureate degree has been 120. Fifty-five percent of the total hours may be in the major and/or area of specialization. Certain programs require more than 120 semester hours, as stipulated by accreditation or certification; certain programs limit the number of hours in the major and/or area of specialty. All students are required to complete at least 45 semester hours in advanced-level courses (3XX and 4XX levels).

All degree programs are presented in detail in the UL Lafayette Catalog. Degree descriptions include program requirements and curriculum (required number of hours, required courses and electives, required pre-requisites for each course, as well as the General Education Core Curriculum), and minors (if applicable to the individual degree).

The process for curriculum design, review, and development requires multiple stages of oversight. In each department, an internal Curriculum Committee is responsible for regularly reviewing the current curriculum and making course changes based on evolving program needs and articulation of learning outcomes. All course change forms are reviewed either by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the Committee on Graduate Curriculum, based on the level of the courses. The purpose of the Curriculum Committee, which reports directly to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, is to encourage the orderly growth of the course offerings and new curricula of the University by examining all facets of proposed change in offerings and recommending to the administration only those changes that the committee feels reflect students’ needs. This committee is slated by the Committee on Committees of the Faculty Senate, and is charged with processing course changes, updating course change guidelines, and coordinating with the General Education and Strategic Program Review Committees. Similarly, the purpose of the Graduate Curriculum Committee is to evaluate graduate course additions, deletions, and changes, and to make recommendations to the Graduate Council. The committee considers course proposals, makes recommendations for approval/denial, and submits a written report to the Graduate Council. Course proposals approved by the committee are presented to the Graduate Council for its approval.

Requests for curriculum changes are initiated at the faculty level, then recommended by the Department Head/School Director and the Dean of the college for consideration by the Curriculum Committee or the Graduate Curriculum Committee. In evaluating the proposals, the two committees review:

·         Clarity of the course title, description, and any prerequisite and/or co-requisite requirements;

·         Justification for the course addition, deletion, or change to the course;

·         Duplication and/or infringement on another department's domain; and

·         Quality of the course, qualifications of the faculty, and resources available for the course.

The following program examples demonstrate curricular coherence and the progressive development of competencies, skills, and expertise in a given area.

BS in Chemical Engineering

The curriculum of the BS in Chemical Engineering is aligned with a series of systematic and progressive learning outcomes. The first five semesters of the program build the Math, Chemistry, Biology, and general Engineering foundation necessary to understand the theoretical principles of unit operations used to transport, transform, and recover/reuse raw materials; refine products; and treat waste streams to regulatory levels in the chemical process industries. In these foundational courses, students are taught essential, specific skills necessary to find solutions to engineering problems. During the last three semesters, students apply these foundational principles to design (e.g., size, cost, and model) individual unit operations relevant to chemical process industries. Students also integrate this knowledge to design and simulate chemical facilities, taking into consideration factors such as safety, environmental regulations, energy efficiency, and economics. The work product of the senior design sequence (CHEE 407, Plant Design and CHEE 408, Computer Aided Process Design) is the design of a chemical facility to generate products of global significance. Students defend their designs before a panel of industrial representatives who evaluate communication skills and the ability to answer technical questions on the theory and application of chemical engineering principles associated with the design and performance of industrial equipment to meet operational and financial goals.

Students enrolled in the Chemical Engineering program have the opportunity to actually experience unit operations, such as distillation, reaction, heat exchangers, and extraction during unit operations laboratories (CHEE 403 and CHEE 404). These labs integrate knowledge acquired over several courses (CHEE 302, CHEE 401, CHEE 405, and CHEE 420). Students prepare detailed reports describing theory, objectives, experimental design, results, and analysis of results for the particular unit operations. Prior to initiating experiments, students must defend the safety thereof, and demonstrate their understanding of the theory and operation of the specific equipment to the course instructor.

As can be observed in Table 9.1 – 1 and the flowchart discussed below it, the level of complexity of the program increases significantly every semester. Many of the courses are sequential and build upon each other. This is clearly observed in the sequence of Chemistry and Mathematics courses (CHEM 107 and CHEM 108, CHEM 231 and CHEM 232; Calculus 1, 2, and 3), but also, as mentioned above, in the senior design sequence and unit operations laboratories.

Table 9.1 – 1: Progressive Learning Outcomes in Chemical Engineering

 

Faculty advisors and students use a flow chart in designing their schedules for the upcoming semester. It provides a map of the curriculum, and summarizes program requirements, pre-requisites per course, courses per semester, and the degree of course complexity as students progress through the curriculum from semester to semester. The chart also illustrates for students the integration of Chemical Engineering, Math, and Science courses.

BS in Computer Science

The curriculum of the BS in Computer Science uses fundamental principles from mathematics and programming as its foundation. In the first two years, students take courses such as MATH 270, MATH 301, CMPS 150, CMPS 260, CMPS 261, and CMPS 341, which build a solid mathematical and computational basis for problem-solving and developing new computer programs. More advanced courses at the 300 and 400 levels impart new knowledge in the subject, build on the prior courses, and strengthen students’ advanced problem-solving and software development skills. In 400-level courses, students acquire the experience of creating new, sizable software of significance; evaluate the quality of their proposed solutions; work in groups, as well as individually; and communicate their work professionally, both orally and in writing. Students also consider issues in depth, such as the speed, complexity, and accuracy of their solutions, as well as their societal, ethical, and global impact. Through its coherent design, the BS in Computer Science curriculum provides increasingly higher levels of learning experiences, as defined in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Courses progress from 100 to 400 level, with the highest experience provided in CMPS 400-level courses. The curriculum meets ABET's "a through k" outcomes, which have been adopted as the learning objectives by the School of Computing and Informatics, the Ray P. Authement College of Sciences, and UL Lafayette. Table 9.1 – 2 explains how the courses in the Computer Science curriculum meet the progressive learning outcomes.

Table 9.1 – 2: Progressive and Systematic Learning Outcomes in Computer Science

 

BS in Nursing

The scaffolding of courses is evident in the increased level of knowledge, performance expectations, and activities in the Clinical course sequence of the BS in Nursing (BSN) program. The curriculum for the pre-licensure BSN program includes both didactic and clinical components, and is based on the AACN Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice (2008). Didactic content for Nursing courses is delivered primarily face to face, although hybrid courses are offered on a limited basis. Students enrolled in the first three semesters of the Nursing program take pre-clinical courses and meet on campus throughout the semester in a classroom setting. During the second semester of the sophomore year, students apply for admission to the first clinical course. Upon clinical course admission, students begin to actively engage in practice activities, both in clinical settings and in the nationally accredited Simulation Labs located in Wharton Hall. Throughout the following five semesters, students proceed through courses in which content increases in complexity. Expectations also increase, as evidenced in clinical performance expectations and progressively more challenging simulation and patient care activities. This is illustrated in Table 9.1 – 3.

Table 9.1 – 3: Progressive and Systematic Learning Outcomes in Clinical Nursing Curriculum

 

BS and Master’s in Architectural Studies

The BS in Architectural Studies is a 124-credit hour undergraduate degree program (non-accredited). The Master’s in Architecture is a 45-credit hour graduate program (accredited by the National Architecture Accrediting Board: NAAB). In both programs, the curricula exhibit coherence through the progressing complexity of design problems, and the increased integration of technical and professional considerations into the design problem. The primary course that Architecture students take each semester is the “Studio” — an active learning course in which students complete design projects and incorporate the information from support courses into their designs. These design projects serve to stimulate personal interest as a means to further investigation. The formulation of open-ended questions engages a heuristic process that encourages students to discover for themselves. A studio course is included in each semester of both degrees. The only topical studio occurs at the end of the undergraduate sequence. The Graduate Program re-engages the heuristic, personal, and process-driven thinking introduced in the first year. At the graduate level, the program continues to engage the students in a heuristic process that synthesizes acquired knowledge with the critical production of a project relevant to the profession.

The curriculum consists of a deliberate sequence of progressive and integrated experiences rather than a collection of discrete and detached increments. The faculty has developed an operational framework that determines the goals of each studio, and the interaction of the support courses with each studio. As students progress through the curricula, the studio projects, learning outcomes, evaluation criteria, and expected incorporation of outside information increase in complexity. This progressive advancement of work is illustrated in the chart “4 +1.5 Curriculum” in which the Studio Course and its corresponding Conceptual Framework, support courses, and thematic content are mapped.

The four years of the architectural undergraduate curriculum are structured in two parts; each contains semesters of overlap. The first part of the four-year undergraduate sequence is the foundation — a carefully orchestrated set of pivotal experiences that begin in the first year and conclude with entry into the third year. The second part of the four-year undergraduate sequence is identified as the professional development phase and is composed of a set of experiences that engages issues of practice. The graduate program is conceived as a synthesis of the two halves of the undergraduate program. Foundation and professional issues are revisited at a higher level of rigor. This scaffolding is illustrated in Table 9.1 – 4.

Table 9.1 – 4: Progressive and Systematic Learning Outcomes in Architecture Curriculum

 

BA in Speech and Audio Pathology and MS in Speech Pathology and Audiology

The coherence of the curriculum of the Communicative Disorders (CODI) program is based on standards prescribed by the Council on Clinical Certification of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, which describes the knowledge and skills (competencies) that an applicant for certification must possess. Students applying for the Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC) must have completed both an undergraduate pre-professional degree and a Master’s degree in Speech Language Pathology to be eligible for national certification, as well as a license to practice as a Speech Language Pathologist in Louisiana and in most states in the nation. The standards are sequential, insofar as the knowledge and skills covered in early standards must be acquired first, and then used to understand the knowledge and skills covered in later standards. The curriculum is designed across the Bachelor’s and Master’s programs in a comprehensive manner, so that lower-level courses address early standards while later courses include and build upon those foundational standards, yet also incorporate later standards. Thus, courses throughout the curriculum are designed to address specific standards in a sequential progression so that, as students advance through the curriculum, they are required to demonstrate increasing levels of integration and critical thinking. In addition, students receive information in didactic classes before being assigned clinical cases, so that they have the basic knowledge necessary to develop the clinical skills needed for therapeutic intervention. The learning objectives of the courses also demonstrate the progressive nature of the level of integration required of students at different levels. Learning objectives for undergraduate courses ask students to name, describe, and discuss topics and concepts, while objectives at the graduate level require that students compare, contrast, interpret, critique, and apply information to specific clinical cases.

The sequence of courses in the area of Language demonstrates these curricular principles and is illustrated in Table 9.1 – 5. The sequence of CODI BA and MS courses and their relation to learning outcomes are presented in Table 9.1 – 6.

Table 9.1 – 5: Sequence of Communicative Disorders Language courses

and corresponding American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Knowledge and Skills Acquisition (KASA) Standards

 

Table 9.1 – 6: Sequence of Communicative Disorders Language courses

and corresponding Learning Outcomes

 

B. Educational programs are compatible with the stated mission and goals of the institution

All of UL Lafayette’s degree programs align with the University’s stated mission: “The University of Louisiana at Lafayette offers an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture. We develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.”

The University defines its mission and goals in the following statement from the Mission, Vision, Values: “We strive to create a community of leaders and innovators in an environment that fosters a desire to advance and disseminate knowledge.” It goes on,

We support the mission of the University by actualizing our core values:

·         Equity: striving for fair treatment and justice;

·         Integrity: demonstrating character, honesty, and trustworthiness;

·         Intellectual Curiosity: pursuing knowledge and appreciating its inherent value;

·         Creativity: transcending established ideas;

·         Tradition: acknowledging the contributions of the Acadian and Creole cultures to this region, and to our University’s history;

·         Transparency: practicing open communication and sharing information;

·         Respect: demonstrating empathy and esteem for others;

·         Collaboration: understanding our connection with others, and working to realize synergies through teamwork and collegiality;

·         Pluralism: believing in the inherent worth of diverse cultures and perspectives; and

·         Sustainability: making decisions and allocating resources to meet the needs of the present, while preserving resources for the future.

As defined by the Louisiana Board of Regents’ (BOR) Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana (2011), UL Lafayette is a comprehensive university with a mission to educate undergraduate and graduate students in a variety of arts, sciences, and professional programs, and to conduct research in these fields. Admission to the University is selective, based on courses completed and academic performance.

By the BOR’s Role, Scope, and Mission Designations of Louisiana Institutions of Higher Education, UL Lafayette has a “statewide mission,” and is responsible for serving the following audiences:

1.       Residents from throughout Louisiana, especially those of the Acadiana region, who have excelled in high school studies, and are seeking an undergraduate or graduate degree or continuing professional education;

2.       Two-year college transfer students;

3.       Employers, both public and private – including school districts, health care providers, local governments, and private businesses and community agencies seeking technical assistance and applied research;

4.       Economic development interests and entrepreneurs throughout the state;

5.       Academic disciplines and the research community; and

6.       The community and region, by providing a broad range of academic and cultural activities, and public events.

In the same document, the BOR defines UL Lafayette’s array of programs and services in these terms:

1.       A broad range of bachelor’s and master’s-level core arts and sciences programs appropriate to a comprehensive, teaching, and research university;

2.       Undergraduate and graduate programs in the professional fields of architecture, computer science, education, engineering, criminal justice, nursing and allied health, and business;

3.       Support for area K-12 schools seeking college general education courses for advanced students; and assistance in ensuring that their graduates are college- and career-ready;

4.       Doctoral programs in a variety of arts, sciences and professional fields, including English, education, nursing, computer and systems engineering, mathematics, and environmental biology; and

5.       Services specifically designed to meet the economic development needs of the state.

All of the University’s degree programs, organized under eight academic colleges, are compatible with the aforementioned mission and goals. Among these programs, the University and the BOR recognize several areas as programmatic foci that contribute to UL Lafayette’s distinctive identity. The following list, albeit not all-inclusive, highlights targeted accomplishments aligned with the University’s mission:

·         Lifespan development with early childhood emphasis. Among others, degrees in this area include those in Psychology; Child and Family Studies; Sociology; Anthropology; the highly selective Speech Pathology and Audiology MA and PhD programs, which support a world-class research faculty whose achievements and publication record are unmatched in the state, as well as a clinic that serves as both a research center for students, and a public outreach arm of the program and the University; and a wide array of education programs, including the Master’s in Counselor Education, with concentrations in Mental Health Counseling and School Counseling, which operates the Clinic for Counseling and Personal Development (CCPD), and has served more than 500 members of the community over the span of more than 3,000 hours of free community service.

·         Louisiana arts, culture, and heritage programs and research, including a focus on Cajun and Creole cultural traditions. Among the programs in this area are History and Historic Preservation; Architecture; Fine Arts; Francophone Studies, one of only a handful in the country that covers literary, linguistic, and cultural issues of the entire French-speaking world; and the Traditional Music concentration, which focuses on regional cultures, and gives musicians an opportunity to improve their craft in styles such as Cajun, zydeco, and bluegrass, and has become an advocate for folk and traditional arts. 

·         Graduate and undergraduate programs in environment, energy, and economics. The degree programs in this area include Chemical Engineering, one of the top programs in the U.S. for alternative energy and green chemical production, and whose student team won the recent VerTec Green City competition in Belgium; Biology, which includes the state’s largest doctoral program in Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, is ranked among the top 121 Biology programs in federal R&D funding in the U.S. by National Science Foundation’s HERD Data Report, and is a leader in the field of Coastal Ecology; Petroleum Engineering, nationally recognized for resource management; and a strong cadre of business programs including the Professional Land and Resource Management program, which is one of 11 accredited programs in petroleum land management and/or energy management in the United States, and a strong Accounting program whose graduates regularly perform above state and national averages on two of the four sections of the CPA exam.

·         Graduate and undergraduate programs in nursing and health care systems and support. The MBA in Health Care Administration, the BS in Health Information Management, and the BS degree in Exercise Science, among others, join the UL Lafayette Nursing program, one of the largest in the country offering degrees from RN to BSN through DNP, to provide degree programs in this area. At a stellar 95 percent, pass rates of UL Lafayette’s nursing graduates on the national licensure examination (the NCLEX-RN) are some of the highest in the country, and have consistently exceeded national and state pass rate averages for several decades.

·         Computing, informatics, and smart systems development. Programs in Systems Technology, Systems Engineering, and Informatics join the largest Computer Science program of its kind in the State to offer programs in this area. As the first MS program in Computer Science in the nation and the first Computer Science PhD program in the state, it has a long and distinguished history at UL Lafayette, and continues to produce a large number of graduates (approximately 100 degrees granted annually at the BS, MS, and PhD levels combined).

C. Educational programs are based upon fields of study appropriate for higher education

Degree programs at UL Lafayette are based upon types of academic programs appropriate to higher education because they:

·         are developed and approved by University faculty who hold content expertise in their respective fields;

·         are reviewed and approved by both the governing board, UL System Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the coordinating board, the BOR;

·         conform without exception to the description of the United States Department of Education’s (USDOE) Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), a “taxonomic scheme that supports the accurate tracking and reporting of fields of study and program completions activity”; and

·         (whenever appropriate) meet the standards and expectations of individual accreditation agencies recognized by the USDOE.

Faculty members within a department or college initiate the creation of new programs by drafting a concise concept proposal that outlines the focus, structure, and necessity of the intended degree, and presenting it to the appropriate Dean. Upon the endorsement of the Dean of the college that will house the program, the faculty prepares a formal Letter of Intent, which is reviewed by the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, then approved by the Provost and the President for submission to the BOS and to the BOR for review and approval. The Letter of Intent must address the need for the program, its curriculum structure, faculty qualifications, student demand and projected student enrollment, facilities, and required library, facilities, or equipment support. The approval process requires multiple stages: the Letter of Intent is first reviewed by the BOS, then, upon its recommendation, transmitted to the BOR for its own review and approval. Subsequently, a more detailed Full Proposal must be submitted to the same chain of scrutiny. Full Proposals must contain the following information, as per the Louisiana Board of Regents AA Policy 2.05:

 

·         DESCRIPTION should include the purpose of the program, as well as the curriculum, plus any prerequisite courses. Identify any incremental credentials that might be incorporated within the curriculum, concentrations, and/or approved electives. A reader should be able to describe what the program will accomplish for the completer, and how it will do it.

·         NEED/RELEVANCE is the argument for program approval. Address duplication or similarities with existing programs elsewhere, and explain why the proposed program is different and/or necessary.

·         STUDENTS should include a justification for projected enrollments and completers. If the new program is the expansion of an existing, successful concentration or minor, provide the existing curriculum and recent enrollment/completer data.

·         FACULTY should demonstrate preparation or a plan to offer the program, explaining how the program would be offered, whether/how existing faculty can absorb the new courses and students, and expected sources of additional faculty that would be needed.

·         LIBRARY, SPECIAL RESOURCES, FACILITIES, & EQUIPMENT describe what will be needed, and how and when the institution will acquire it. Costs for additional resources should be reflected in the budget.

·         ADMINISTRATION includes new directors, and anticipated timing of the administrative additions or changes.

·         ACCREDITATION should address any impact on, and plans to protect the institutions status with SACSCOC, as well as any relevant program requirements or recommendations in AcAf 2.13. If the institution will seek new or expanded accreditation, include an anticipated schedule of actions to be taken.

·         RELATED FIELDS summarizes how the proposed program “fits into” the institution’s existing offerings and strengths.

·         COSTS & REVENUE (BUDGET) should include new/additional costs referenced in the preceding text to show what new commitments the program would bring to the institution, and how they would be covered.

·         Factors that will be considered in assessing a proposed program include, but are not limited to, the following:

o    Relevance to the existing role, scope and, mission of the institution;

o    Contribution to the well-being of the state, region, or academy;

o    Program duplication (existing/related programs at other institutions); and

o    Institutional commitment to appropriately fund proposed program.

Because both the governing board (BOS) and the coordinating board (BOR) review all requests for new programs independently and in consecution, and because all proposed programs must correspond to a recognized CIP code, the approval process ensures that new programs are appropriate for higher education, are compatible with the role and scope of the proposing institution, that appropriate funding is available to support the programs, and that unnecessary program duplication within the State of Louisiana is avoided. In addition, the reviewing bodies require the input of an external reviewer—a faculty member at a peer or peer-plus institution who has established a national reputation in the relevant field of study and can assess the program’s conformity with best academic practices and current trends in the discipline. The external reviewer’s recommendation provides additional validation of the appropriateness of the program in the context of higher education.

In the case of separately accredited programs, accrediting agencies review the program’s conformity with accepted standards of appropriateness for higher education in the discipline. See Section 14.4 of this report for additional information on all accredited programs at UL Lafayette.

 

Supporting Documents

Architecture 4+1.5 Curriculum

Chemical Engineering Curriculum in Catalog

Chemical Engineering Flow Chart

CIP Website

Completed Course change form

Completed Course proposal

English Program in Catalog

General Education Program Core UL Lafayette

HERD Data Report

Informatics Evaluation

Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana

Mission, Vision and Values statement

Report to the Graduate Council

Sample Letter of Intent

Section 9.3. General Education Requirements

Template for Program Proposals

UL Lafayette Catalog

Undergraduate Degree Requirements

 

9.2     program length [CR]

The institution offers one or more degree programs based on at least 60 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the associate level; at least 120 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the baccalaureate level; or at least 30 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the post-baccalaureate, graduate, or professional level. The institution provides an explanation of equivalencies when using units other than semester credit hours.  The institution provides an appropriate justification for all degree programs and combined degree programs that include fewer than the required number of semester credit hours or its equivalent unit.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette offers a program inventory of 53 Bachelor’s degrees, 13 Post-Bachelor Certificates, six Graduate Certificates, 31 Master’s degrees, and 11 Doctoral degrees. By mandate of the Louisiana BOR in 2001, UL Lafayette does not offer any Associate’s degrees. No accelerated Bachelor-to-Master programs are currently offered. All degrees awarded are based on semester credit hours.

All undergraduate baccalaureate degrees at the University meet or exceed the BOR minimum of 120 semester credit hours. As stated in the “Undergraduate Degree Requirements” section of the University’s Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog, the minimum number of semester credit hours required for any Bachelor’s degree at UL Lafayette is 120. Individual degree programs may exceed 120 hours to comply with specific accreditation requirements.

The minimum credit requirements, the specific course requirements for each individual program, and each department’s course descriptions may be found in the Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog under “Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees.”

The BOR evaluates program length during the process of considering requests for new programs. The University specifies the courses and the number of credit hours in degree programs when programs are initially created, and continues to monitor changes through its internal program review process. Any review or revision of a program must address the issue of minimum number of hours. As described in Section 9.1, following approval by Department Heads and Deans, all course additions, deletions, and changes must be approved by one of the two University Curriculum Committees (undergraduate or graduate level). Changes must then be approved by the Provost or his designate, currently the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs. Curriculum changes require the approval of the Department Heads, Deans, and Provost or Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs.

With the exception of Post-Bachelor Certificates and Graduate Certificates, all post‐baccalaureate, graduate, and professional degrees at UL Lafayette require at least 30 semester credit hours of graduate‐level coursework. For Master’s degrees the required number of semester hours ranges from 30 to 87.

Each of the nine Doctoral programs (Applied Language and Speech Sciences, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, English, Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Francophone Studies, Mathematics, Systems Engineering, and Earth and Energy Sciences) requires a minimum of 72 semester hours of credit beyond the Bachelor’s degree.

The BSN to DNP program requires 70 credit hours and 1,000 post-Bachelor supervised academic program practice hours in DNP residency courses. The MSN to DNP requires 39 post-MSN credit hours and 420 post-MSN clinical clock hours. The EdD program in Educational Leadership requires 60 hours beyond the Master’s degree. Information from the Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog 2018-2019 allows the comparison of all graduate programs. Specific course requirements for each graduate degree program, along with the course descriptions, are listed in the Catalog.

 

Supporting Documents

Board of Regents Program Inventory for UL

Graduate Program Length Table

UL Lafayette Grad School Catalog

UL Lafayette Graduate Degrees

Undergraduate & Graduate Degrees: UL Lafayette

Undergraduate Programs – Length

 

9.3     General Education Requirements [CR]

The institution requires the successful completion of a general education component at the undergraduate level that:

(a) is based on a coherent rationale; and

(b) is a substantial component of each undergraduate degree program. For degree completion in associate programs, the component constitutes a minimum of 15 semester hours or the equivalent; for Bachelor’s programs, a minimum of 30 semester hours or the equivalent.

(c) It must also ensure breadth of knowledge. These credit hours include at least one course from each of the following areas: humanities/fine arts, social/ behavioral sciences, and natural science/mathematics. These courses must not narrowly focus on those skills, techniques, and procedures specific to a particular occupation or profession. [CR]

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The institution requires that all undergraduates complete a 42-hour general education core, which includes a 3-hour Freshman Seminar.

A. Coherent rationale for the general education component

The coherence of the University’s rationale for the general education core curriculum is ensured by several factors, including direction from the Louisiana BOR and SACSCOC, alignment with the mission of the University and the curricular structure of undergraduate degree programs, and oversight of the General Education Committee. These factors ensure that students in every discipline receive appropriate instruction in a variety of disciplines, beyond the focus of their majors. All undergraduate students acquire breadth of knowledge by completing a 42-hour General Education Core Curriculum as part of their degree requirements. This core is composed of courses in English Composition, Mathematics, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Natural Sciences, Literature, History, Communication, and Fine Arts, plus a first-year seminar developed as part of the QEP in 2010, and revised as a three-credit general education class in 2014.

Table 9.3 – 1 lists on the left the BOR general education requirements, and on the right the general education core with corresponding course options at UL Lafayette.

Table 9.3 – 1: Comparison of BOR and UL Lafayette General Education Cores

 

The General Education Core Curriculum is “designed to ensure that our graduates acquire the knowledge and skills to live productive lives as responsible and knowledgeable citizens of the world, capable of working effectively with others while displaying openness to different viewpoints and understanding the diversity of human values.” To this end, courses in the core curriculum ensure broad learning across the disciplines while teaching competencies in writing, communication, critical thinking, and quantitative and analytical skills.

The University’s General Education Core is overseen by its General Education Committee, which first formed in 2006 in response to a developing understanding of the need to measure, direct, and improve student learning, and became a standing University committee within Academic Affairs in AY2008-2009. The General Education Committee exists to “…review, develop, and recommend policy regarding general education to the CAAS [Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards], to recommend inclusion or exclusion of courses in the list of acceptable general education courses, and to participate constructively in assessment of the general education goals.” Historically, the membership of the committee has included representatives from most of the core areas, representatives from each college, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, and the Director of Institutional Assessment.

Recent proposals to revise and clarify membership have been a focus of the committee in AY2018-2019. The coherence of the committee and its relation to the General Education program are ensured by its membership, which has been revised to include representatives from each area of the General Education core, as well as representatives from each academic college, the Director of Institutional Assessment, the Assistant Deans of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and representatives at large from Liberal Arts and Sciences. The committee reports to the Provost through the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs. Changes to the General Education program are submitted in the Fall to CAAS, then to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs for review and inclusion in the Catalog.

The General Education Committee meets monthly to consider, debate, approve, and amend the General Education Core curriculum as new courses are proposed, while maintaining overall compliance with BOR requirements. This programmatic focus and the active debate that results from it are evidenced by the committee’s minutes, and the many policy changes emerging from the committee. The committee has worked to align the University’s General Education curriculum with the requirements of the Board of Regents, and benchmark practices at peer institutions in an effort to create a coherent rationale for general education as a whole at UL Lafayette.

Campus advisors in each department or discipline, using degree planner documents available in the Catalog, ensure that students complete the General Education core in timely fashion for graduation, and each Dean’s office verifies that all general education requirements were completed before the student is cleared for graduation. An advising sheet is provided for all General Education advisors outlining the best choices for students, and individual credit distribution documents for degree planning purposes may be found in the Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog under each program’s description.  They allow students to assess their progress towards a degree, gauge their completion of general education hours, and plan their schedule from semester to semester. The implementation of the advising software Degree Works in 2018 also allows students and advisors to monitor progress toward completion of general education degree requirements. A Degree Works audit provides a complete review of all previous, current, and in-progress coursework, displaying information on which requirements are completed, and which are  outstanding and necessary to complete a particular degree, major, minor, and/or concentration, as well as alerting students to gaps in their general education requirements. (Examples show a Degree Works audit with no general education credit earned and one with some general education credit earned.) 

B. Substantial component of each undergraduate degree program

General Education at the institution is a substantial set of courses required by all colleges, programs, and majors for degree completion. A minimum of 42 General Education credit hours are required of all students, exceeding the 30-hour minimum required by the SACSCOC standard and the 39 hours required by the BOR. Nearly all undergraduate programs are based on 120 credit hours, making General Education courses 35% of these undergraduate degrees. Several exceptions, including Engineering, Education, and Communication, require between 121 and 131 hours; for these, General Education courses comprise at least 32% of the degree programs.

General education requirements apply in full to transfer students. Until 2018, each college was responsible for evaluating transfer students’ transcripts and awarding them credit for general education classes. Currently, the Registrar’s Office evaluates general education credit using the Transfer Evaluation System (TES) to search catalogs from across the country in order to establish course equivalencies. This system is supported, as appropriate, by a qualitative course assessment performed by the academic departments that deliver general education courses. Once the student’s transcript has been processed through the TES evaluation, credit for general education classes is shown on the UL Lafayette transcript. A record of this information is maintained on Degree Works, where it is possible to see the original name of the course and course number, and the school that granted the credit.

Students who are pursuing online or distance education degrees must complete the same general education requirements as students in traditional, face-to-face degree programs.

C. Breadth of knowledge

In BOR Academic Affairs Policy 2.16, the BOR “recognizes that all undergraduate academic credentials should contain a broad-based common educational experience that enhances students’ ability to describe, interpret, and analyze their world.” The same policy requires institutions’ general education courses to “provide an introduction to a discipline, as in a survey course that covers a wide range of material within a specific discipline or area of inquiry and acquaints students with a broad section of the information or skills available in that area, or an appreciation course that introduces students to a creative field and leads to a general understanding and appreciation of work by others.” UL Lafayette states that “[General Education] courses in the core curriculum ensure broad learning across the humanities, arts, social studies, and biological and physical sciences, while teaching competence in technology, communication, critical thinking and analytical skills.” 

The University’s General Education Matrix lists the area of study, learning objectives, and courses for the entire General Education Core required of all undergraduates, and demonstrates that the institution follows these principles, offering General Education courses that are broad and introductory, and not specialized or focused on specific skills or techniques pertaining to the student’s intended major or profession. Students are required to take courses from the different areas comprising the fundamental disciplines of a liberal arts education, including humanities and fine arts, social and behavioral sciences, and natural sciences and mathematics. UL Lafayette’s general education requirement exceeds the BOR  requirement for breadth by requiring humanities courses in three separate discipline areas (Literature, History, and Communication). Students may satisfy one third of their humanities requirement with a three-hour course in foreign language study, but are still required to take two additional humanities classes with choices in history, literature, philosophy, and communication.

The University is committed to maintaining adherence to the underlying rationale and ensuring the expected breadth of knowledge in its general education program. The General Education Committee reviews all general education courses to ensure breadth of focus. When new courses are proposed for inclusion in the general education curriculum, they are brought to the General Education Committee and reviewed for satisfaction of the standards established by that committee for inclusion. If courses meet those standards, they are approved and submitted to the University Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards (CAAS) for review and subsequent inclusion in the Catalog. One recent example of this process was the submission of Music 106 by the College of the Arts for inclusion in the General Education curriculum. After considering this course and approving it, the General Education Committee sent its recommendation to the CAAS, and then to the Provost for inclusion in the Catalog. Other recent requests include Music Appreciation: Survey of Film and Music and Music 130: Music Theory II.

Between 2016 and 2018, the General Education Committee reviewed the entire general education structure, including all categories and courses. Committees were formed to address each disciplinary area of the core: Math, English, Science, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Humanities, Arts, and UNIV 100.   Beginning in August of 2016, each committee was charged with reviewing and revising the existing goals and objectives for the discipline, as well as selecting classes that met the goals. Discipline committees met twice monthly and reported their progress back to the General Education Committee. In some cases such as in Humanities, these revisions were major; in others, such as Mathematics, the fundamental courses, goals, and objectives already in use were judged appropriate, or in need of only minor adjustments. The reformed structure and associated Assessment Matrix were then approved by the General Education Committee, presented to and then approved by CAAS and the Provost, and were adopted in the 2019-2020 Catalog, along with a new procedure for making changes to the General Education Core.

Through these policies, procedures and initiatives, the University ensures that all of its students take a broad and substantial core of general education courses that are based on a coherent rationale, and do not narrowly focus on skills, techniques, and procedures specific to a particular major or profession.

 

Supporting Documents

42-hour General Education Core

Assessment Matrix

Board of Regents AA Policy 2.16

CAAS Minutes

Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards (CAAS)

Course Equivalencies

Creation of General Education Committee

Degree Planner Documents

Degree Requirements Example

Degree Works

GenEd Committee List 2018-19

GenEd Core AA Final

GenEd Core Committee: Meeting Agendas

General Education Committee

General Education Committee meeting minutes

General Education Committee Minutes

General Education Committee Minutes - Discipline Committee reports

General Education Committee Mission

General Education Courses

General Education Reforms Presented to CAAS

General Education Requirements

General Education Requirements for Online Programs

General Education Revisions

Goals and Objectives for General Education Math Courses

Humanities Revisions

Music 130: Music Theory II

Music Appreciation: Survey of Film and Music

Peer Study BOR Humanities

Procedure to Change GenEd Classes

Proposals to Revise and Clarify Membership

Sample Audit with Some General Education Credit

Sample Degree Audit with No General Education Credit

Sample Programs Description with General Education Core

Statewide General Education Requirement for Breadth

Three-Credit General Education Class

Transfer Requirements

Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees

9.4     Institutional Credits for an Undergraduate Degree

At least 25 percent of the credit hours required for an undergraduate degree are earned through instruction offered by the institution awarding the degree.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette offers 100% of the instruction in all of its undergraduate degree programs. There are no consortial undergraduate degrees. Articulation agreements and transfer pathways with community colleges stipulate that no more than 60 hours or 50% of the credits can apply to the degree.

At least 25% of the credit hours required for an undergraduate degree must be earned through instruction offered by UL Lafayette. Residence requirements for the undergraduate degree stipulate that a student “shall be required to earn the last 30 hours, applicable toward the degree, in residence as a major in the academic college from which the degree is sought.” In addition, the Catalog stipulates that “In no case may a student earn a baccalaureate degree from the University unless at least 25% of the required degree hours are earned at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.”

Advisors and transfer coordinators within each college, as well as the Office of the Dean of the college monitor compliance with these rules when students complete their degree plans prior to graduation.  The following are representative of the degree check process:

·         Anthropology Degree Check Sheet

·         Chemical Engineering Major Checklist

·         Mathematics Major Checklist

UL Lafayette identifies any external credits earned, as well as the external institution that granted the credits, at the beginning of the official academic transcript. Institutional credit (i.e., credit earned at UL Lafayette) is identified following the external institution information.

Competency-based credit

The RN to BSN program offers students who have been prepared as registered nurses (RN) in Associate’s Degree programs the opportunity to complete a Bachelor’s degree in Nursing (BSN) at UL Lafayette. RNs who have successfully completed a minimum of 28 credit hours of Nursing courses at the Associate degree level are eligible to enroll and to apply these 28 credits toward their BSN degree. This credit is awarded based on the student’s previous acquisition of knowledge related to direct patient care, as verified by the conferral of an Associate’s Degree, in areas such as pharmacology; care of the pediatric, maternity, and adult patients; and fundamentals of nursing. Upon transfer of these RN credits, students may enroll directly in courses needed specifically for a BSN degree, which focus on topics such as research, leadership, genetics, community health, and nursing informatics.

A requirement for admission to the RN to BSN program is that students receive their Associate Degree from a nursing program accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) or the Commission for Nursing Education Accreditation (CNEA). In addition, Associate Degree granting universities must be accredited by one of organizations recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA): the Higher Learning Commission, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, the New England Commission of Higher Education, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, or the WASC Senior College and University Commission.

Upon completing NURS 354 (Transition to Professional Nursing for RN to BSN) at UL Lafayette, RN to BSN students are also retroactively granted 12 credits corresponding to four foundational, practice-based courses (NURS 104, 204, 208, and 310). The completion of NURS 354 serves as verification that students have mastered the learning objectives of the four foundational courses. NURS 354 must be taken and successfully completed before a student can enroll in any other nursing course. An additional requirement for admission into the program provides another verification of previously acquired competencies: applicants must have passed the NCLEX-RN© licensure exam, a standardized exam that each state Board of Nursing uses to determine if a candidate is prepared for entry-level nursing practice.

In addition to these 40 credits (28 transferred, 12 retroactively granted), RN to BSN students must earn 30 more credits in Nursing courses, as well as 50 hours of General Education and elective courses at UL Lafayette.

 

Supporting Documents

Anthropology Degree Check Sheet

Articulation Agreements

Chemical Engineering Major Checklist

Degree Plan RN-BSN

Mathematics Major Checklist

Nursing Catalog

Sample academic transcript

Undergraduate Degree Requirements

 

9.5     Institutional credits for a graduate/professional degree

At least one third of the credit hours required for a graduate or post-baccalaureate professional degree are earned through instruction offered by the institution awarding the degree.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

More than one-third of the credit hours applied toward all graduate degrees awarded are earned through instruction offered by UL Lafayette. 

In the case of graduate students who apply graduate-level transfer credit earned at another institution toward a UL Lafayette graduate degree, regulations limiting the transferrable credit applicable toward the degree are published in the University Catalog.

The University Catalog’s Graduate Rules and Regulations section offers guidelines for course and credit regulations that address transfer credit. These regulations specify that master’s level degree candidates are limited to nine or 12 transfer credits, depending on the total hours required in the degree program:

A maximum of 12 semester hours of transfer graduate credit may be applied toward fulfillment of requirements for the master's degree. The number of hours transferred may not, however, exceed one-third of the semester hours required for the degree. The maximum number which can be transferred in a 30 or 33 hour program is 9.

With regard to doctoral degree candidates, the same section of the University Catalog states:

An unspecified number of semester hours of transfer graduate credit may be applied toward fulfillment of requirements toward the doctoral degree, but the majority of credits toward a graduate degree must be earned at UL Lafayette.

The limitations on transfer credit hours from other institutions hold true for the University’s three graduate degrees offered through consortia. Transfer credit limits for these individual degree programs are specified in their student handbooks and/or the University Catalog.

In the MS in Nursing degree program, UL Lafayette students may take up to 12 credit hours from the consortial partner institutions (McNeese State University, Nicholls State University, Southeastern Louisiana University), depending on the degree track; degree tracks require between 38 and 51 credit hours total. The Intercollegiate Consortium for a Master of Science in Nursing Student Handbook states:

Credits from other universities may be transferred under certain circumstances. Students must seek approval to transfer credit toward the Masters of Science in Nursing (MSN). Please refer to the home university catalog for the graduate school policy for transfer credit prior to beginning course work toward the MSN. Students wishing to take courses toward the MSN from a non-consortium university once admitted to the graduate school must be granted permission to do so from the Nursing Graduate Coordinator PRIOR to enrolling in the course(s).

In the EdD in Educational Leadership degree program, provided through a consortium with Southeastern Louisiana University, students take 18 hours of core course requirements at their home institutions, and at least half of the remaining courses at their home institution. The EdD degree requirements included in the 2018-2019 University Catalog state:

A maximum of 12 semester hours of appropriate graduate coursework (six from the master's degree and six from post-master's course work), subject to approval by the Consortium, with prior approval by the candidate's advisor, the program coordinator and the Graduate School Dean, may be transferred from other accredited institutions or from within a consortium institution.

The DNP degree program, which is also offered in consortia with Southeastern Louisiana University, stipulates in its Doctor of Nursing Practice Student Handbook the following:

A maximum of nine credit hours (NURS 800, 805, 808) may be earned in the DNP programs at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC) in New Orleans or at Southern University-Baton Rouge and transferred to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette DNP program. 

A maximum of 26 credit hours (NURS 800, 801, 802, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808) may be earned in the DNP program at Southeastern Louisiana University and transferred to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette DNP program.

For students who wish to transfer credit hours from universities other than those listed above, 51% of the credit hours earned toward a doctoral degree must be completed at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Further, the DNP degree requirements included in the 2018-2019 University Catalog specify:

A maximum of 19 semester hours of appropriate graduate coursework, subject to approval by the program coordinator and the Graduate School Dean, may be transferred from other accredited institutions. It is the student's responsibility to contact the program coordinator to determine the acceptability of previous coursework and to apply to transfer that coursework.

Transfer credits for Nursing 803, 809, 810, 811, 812, 821, 822, and 823 will not be considered.

The process of verifying that the student has or will have met all degree requirements begins when a student submits an application for graduation. At that time, the Graduate School generates the “Graduate Graduation Checkout Sheet. A staff member in the Graduate School Office carefully reviews each graduation checklist to verify that the total credit hours, grade, and GPA requirements have been or will be satisfied by the end of the semester. Upon completion of this review, a copy of this graduation checklist is then forwarded to the graduate coordinator of the program in question for his or her review and verification that all individual course and degree requirements have been met. Beginning in Spring 2019, Degree Works is in use for graduate students admitted and enrolled in programs outlined in the University Catalog from 2017-2018 forward. This software supplements, and is intended to eventually replace, the manual graduation checklist process currently in use. For students in catalogs prior to 2017-2018, however, the previous manual process of verifying degree requirements continues.

 

 

Supporting Documents

DNP Student Handbook

EDU Grade Credit Time Requirements

Grad Course and Credit Regulations

ICMSN Student Handbook

Nursing Grade Credit Time Requirements

Sample Graduate Graduation Checkout List

 

9.6     Post-baccalaureate rigor and curriculum

Post-baccalaureate professional degree programs and graduate degree programs are progressively more advanced in academic content than undergraduate programs, and are structured (a) to include knowledge of the literature of the discipline and (b) to ensure engagement in research and/or appropriate professional practice and training.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette offers 11 doctoral degree programs, 31 master’s degree programs, post-baccalaureate graduate certificate programs in seven areas, and one post-master’s graduate certificate program. All of the University’s post‐baccalaureate professional degree programs and graduate degree programs are progressively more advanced in academic content than the undergraduate programs.

Graduate Admission Standards

Requirements for application and admission to pursue graduate studies at UL Lafayette are published in the University Catalog. The University has established different, higher admission standards and prerequisite disciplinary knowledge for its graduate degree programs in comparison to its undergraduate programs. These standards for admission to the Graduate School require, at a minimum, that applicants have completed a baccalaureate degree. Doctoral level admission criteria set a higher standard for admission than admission at the master’s level and, similarly, admission criteria at the master’s level are more rigorous than that for graduate certificate programs.

Graduate students are selected for admission based on indicators of prior academic success and potential for success at the graduate level. Minimum expectations for cumulative (and last 60 hours) grade point average, preferred expectations for standardized test scores, in combination with letters of reference, and additional individual graduate program academic and professional portfolio requirements, provide the basis for graduate admission decisions. UL Lafayette policies afford graduate programs the flexibility to set higher expectations for admission as deemed appropriate by the faculty within each academic department; that is, academic departments may establish requirements that exceed the minimum admission requirements.

Course Numbering System

The academic level of UL Lafayette courses, which is indicated by the century number, underscores the expectation of advancement in academic content. Numbers 400G-499G are open to upper-level undergraduate and beginning graduate students. Courses numbered 500 and above are post-baccalaureate courses; that is, graduate-level courses open only to graduate students are numbered 500-999. Courses numbered 500-599 are intended for students at the master’s level. Those numbered 600-699 are for students at the doctoral level. Courses numbered 800-898 are reserved for students pursuing an EdD or DNP degree. Only one course number, 899, is an outlier to this identification of advanced progression; the “Examination Only” courses numbered 899 are reserved for non-thesis master’s students taking comprehensive examinations, oral and/or written, who are not registered for any other course. This system of graduate course classification is detailed in the University Catalog.

Progressively More Advanced Learning

Graduate coursework involves progressively more advanced expectations and more intensive study than undergraduate coursework. 

The progressively more advanced conceptual distinction among undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral level course expectations is demonstrated in Nursing and in Communicative Disorders. For example, clinical research courses offered by the Department of Nursing, learning objectives, student projects and evaluation criteria progress in rigor, level, and domain knowledge. In addition, Syllabi in Communicative Disorders—which include CODI 118: Introduction to Communicative Disorders; CODI 275: Language Acquisition; CODI 384: Language Pathology in Children; CODI 526: Language Disorder in Children; and CODI: 611: Doctoral Seminar on the Human Narrative—similarly demonstrate progressively more advanced course objectives and student learning outcomes.

Courses with Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment

The University offers a number of upper-level undergraduate 400-level and graduate (400G) courses that permit both undergraduate and graduate enrollment. As stated in the University Catalog, instructors of 400G courses are required to distinguish different assignments and grading practices for undergraduate and graduate students. A sampling of syllabi provided for Biology, Communicative Disorders, History, Math, and Music courses demonstrates the different, more advanced learning expectations for graduate students in courses with both undergraduate and graduate enrollment. The syllabi document courses that cover similar content areas at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, but offer different student learning outcomes and progressively more advanced academic understanding and mastery between the two levels.

All graduate programs at UL Lafayette introduce students to higher level academic content that, upon graduation, they are expected to have mastered. The graduate curricula are structured to include knowledge of the literature in a particular field of study, as well as engagement in advanced research and/or professional practice and training. These expectations are articulated, for example, in the introduction of the Department of Biology’s “Guide for Graduate Students (and Advisors)”: 

As a graduate student, you will advance well beyond undergraduate levels of knowledge and experience, and will learn the critical foundations of your field as well as the current state of knowledge and productive areas of research in biology. This advanced knowledge, coupled with direct experience and skills you will gain in your specific field of interest, will help prepare you for advanced careers in biology and related fields. Our master’s program in biology prepares you for a career in an applied biological or biomedical field or a research-intensive academic career. Our doctoral program in environmental and evolutionary biology emphasizes research and prepares you for the highest levels of scholarship and career opportunities in academia and research-related agencies and industries. With guidance from a major advisor and committee, you are expected to increase your comprehension of biology and your experience and skills necessary for advanced work in the biological sciences.

a. knowledge of the Literature in the discipline

Departmental graduate student handbooks address higher learning expectations—especially mastery of disciplinary knowledge, including the literature and the contribution of original research—for students. The DNP Synthesis Project Guidelines explain that students “will identify a clinical topic within [their] area of interest and develop an in-depth understanding of the issue through extensive review of the research literature and examination of the ethical, political, economic, and cultural aspects inherent in the problem. The project must be evidence-based and demonstrate all of the areas of DNP development.” Both knowledge of the literature and originality in research is imperative, as the English Department’s Graduate Student Handbook makes clear to students in its explanation of the expectation for the dissertation prospectus: “The prospectus should reflect a sense of the relevant materials in the field and the nature of the original contribution the study will make to existing scholarship. It should then outline the approach or method that will be employed in the dissertation and the organizational pattern the finished product will likely follow. Throughout the prospectus and in the working bibliography, the candidate must demonstrate familiarity with the topic and awareness of current research. Therefore, a review of periodical literature, Dissertation Abstracts, and major books in the field is in order to ensure that the dissertation will not duplicate other research. Candidates should consult with their dissertation director about all aspects of the prospectus including how comprehensive a bibliography is expected.”

Each graduate program outlines the specific degree requirements in the University Catalog. The general degree and course requirements for each graduate program provide for the breadth of knowledge expected within the discipline. For example, History MA students are expected to demonstrate more specialized knowledge in areas in which they take graduate courses, and all History MA students are required to take HIST 590: Historiography, and a graduate readings seminar, which prepare them to demonstrate a familiarity with the historical narrative, as well as the defining scholarship in a major and secondary field of study. Table 9.6 – 1 offers a representative sample of graduate courses from across the University that require engagement with an individual discipline’s scholarship.

Table 9.6 – 1: Literature Review in Graduate Coursework

 

Individual graduate degree programs use various assessment measures to assess students’ command of their graduate student learning outcomes. The Assessment Measures used by faculty in the EdD program in Educational Leadership to evaluate the Qualifying Paper, Dissertation Prospectus (Proposal), and Dissertation requirements, for example, demonstrate the key knowledge and skills assessed at the program’s milestones and include a literature review.

While varied depending on the discipline and program, the culmination of the graduate student acquisition of progressively more advanced academic knowledge, including knowledge of the literature of the discipline, is demonstrated in a qualifying capstone comprehensive examination, final manuscript (i.e., a thesis, dissertation, or synthesis project), project, exhibit, or recital that leads to professional standing. The University Catalog specifies a “comprehensive” requirement at each graduate degree level.

Comprehensive Examination, Requirements for the Master’s Degree
…. Each candidate for a master’s degree will be required to demonstrate a general, comprehensive knowledge of a field of study. Each department, with the approval of the Graduate Council, specifies the means by which this knowledge is demonstrated. Examples are: a) a written and/or oral comprehensive examination; b) fulfillment of the requirements of an integrative (capstone) course; or c) overall performance on a set of core courses. Students should check the specific degree sections of this catalog… (Master’s Comprehensive Exam)

General Comprehensive Examination, Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree
1. A general comprehensive examination covering all areas of study undertaken by the student is required of each applicant for the doctorate. The examination must include a written portion and may include an oral portion at the discretion of the major department or program… (PhD General Comprehensive Exam)

Qualifying Paper General Comprehensive Examination, Requirements for the Doctor of Education Degree
…. A qualifying paper consisting of a comprehensive review of the literature on a selected topic is required in place of a general comprehensive examination… (EdD Qualifying Paper General Comprehensive Exam)

General Comprehensive Examination, Requirements for the Doctor of Nursing Practice Degree
…. A quality improvement project proposal, including a comprehensive review of the literature on a selected topic, is required in place of a general comprehensive examination.… (DNP Exam Requirement)

The University Catalog policies identified above—as well as those governing final manuscripts (i.e., theses, dissertations, and synthesis projects)—require that a committee of at least three members of the UL Lafayette Graduate Faculty be charged with the assessment of all comprehensive examination requirements and capstone projects, as well as thesis, dissertation, or synthesis projects.

B. Engagement in Research and/or Appropriate Professional Practice and Training

All graduate programs also require students to engage in research, independent learning, and professional practices appropriate to their disciplines.

Coursework

In the MA degree program in History, for example, all graduate students must complete HIST 505: Research Writing Seminar, which focuses on the methodologies of historical investigation, and writing, to produce an article-length piece of work based on original primary source research. Table 9.6 – 2 identifies other representative examples of graduate courses from across the University that require engagement with research and/or appropriate professional practice and training experiences.

Table 9.6 – 2: Engagement with Research and/or Appropriate Professional

Practice and Training Experiences in Graduate Courses

Theses and dissertations

All doctoral degree programs require student engagement in the form of research and/or appropriate professional practice that culminates in a final product. PhD and EdD programs all require students to write a dissertation, which by definition is a work of independent learning, and a product of student engagement in research and professional practice. As defined in both the PhD and EdD dissertation requirements in the University Catalog, each degree candidate must “complete a dissertation concerned with a well-defined problem lending itself to a study of reasonable scope” and that represents “a significant contribution to learning in the discipline concerned.” The DNP Synthesis Project, while not a dissertation, “is a rigorous project through which the student identifies issues in the practice setting and evaluates, integrates, and applies research-based evidence to improve patient care or practice outcomes. The synthesis project is the culmination of DNP coursework. It provides evidence of the student's experience and growth, represents a significant contribution to the discipline of nursing, and provides a foundation for the graduate's future scholarly endeavors.”

Master’s students, too, must demonstrate engagement with research and professional practice and training. Many do so by completing a thesis. While several master’s degree programs provide a non-thesis track, UL Lafayette requires that, unless specified otherwise, “a thesis is required for each master’s degree.” This culminating work is to demonstrate “the student's ability to plan research and to collect, arrange, interpret, and report material about a significant problem. The thesis must be written in a clear style and must exhibit the student's competence in scholarly methods and procedures.”

The representative sample of doctoral dissertations and master’s theses below demonstrates that such works embody independent research and professional practice/training appropriate to their respective disciplines and knowledge of the discipline’s literature. Upon approval, these final manuscripts also show compliance with common University standards as set forth by the Graduate School in the Guidelines for the Preparation and Submission of Theses, Dissertations, and Synthesis Projects.

·         PhD Dissertation ALSS—Azios

·         PhD Dissertation BIOL—Penning

·         PhD Dissertation ENGL—Biederman

·         EdD Dissertation EDFL K-12—Stokes

·         EdD Dissertation EDFL HE—Hazelwood

·         DNP Synthesis Project—Hadeed

·         MA Thesis HIST—Manuel

·         MA Thesis HIST—Walkama

·         MS Thesis GEOL—Moore

·         MS Thesis GEOL—Ivy

·         MS Thesis PSYC—Chiasson

·         MS Thesis PSYC—Janice

·         MS Thesis PSYC —Ramos

Non-thesis Master’s students

Engagement in research, and/or appropriate professional practice and training, is also required of students who complete the master’s degree via a non-thesis track. Table 9.6 — 3 lists non-thesis program requirements that demonstrate engagement in research, internships, clinical, and/or other professional practice and training as appropriate to the discipline.

Table 9.6 — 3: Engagement with Research and/or Appropriate Professional

Practice and Training Experiences for Non-Thesis Master’s Students

 

 

Supporting Documents

CODI Progressively More Advanced Syllabi

Department of Biology Guide for Grad Students

Department of NURS Standard Courses

Dissertation Committee

DNP Exam Requirement

DNP Synthesis Project

DNP Synthesis Project Guidelines

EdD Dissertation

EdD Qualifying Paper General Comprehensive Exam

English Grad Student Handbook

Graduate Admission Criteria

Graduate Admission Policies

Graduate Courses Classification

Guidelines for Theses, Dissertations, and Synthesis Projects

Master’s Comprehensive Exam

Nursing Graduate Program Handbooks

PhD Dissertation

PhD General Comprehensive Exam

Prospectus Dissertation Assessment Instruments

Sample Syllabi for Undergrad and Grad Enrollment

Synthesis Projects

Thesis Requirements

University Catalog – History Program

University Guidelines for Graduate Faculty Members

9.7     program requirements

The institution publishes requirements for its undergraduate, graduate, and post-baccalaureate professional programs, as applicable. The requirements conform to commonly accepted standards and practices for degree programs.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette publishes academic policies that adhere to principles of good educational practice. The principal policies governing the administration and conduct of academic programs have evolved from collaboration between faculty and administration, and, whenever appropriate, with input from student representatives.

Undergraduate Programs

UL Lafayette defines and publishes program requirements for its undergraduate degree programs in its online University Catalog, which is available on the University website and via the “Academics” tab on ULink. General requirements for all undergraduate degrees, as well as individual degree program requirements are clearly outlined therein.

These requirements conform to commonly accepted standards and practices for degree programs. For undergraduate programs, the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) requires a minimum of 120 hours, with a significant general education core of 39 hours. Beyond the BOR global degree requirements, the University of Louisiana System Bylaws and Rules, Chapter 2, Section 8 stipulates standards and practices for all undergraduate degrees including General Education requirements, major courses, electives and selectives, total credit hours, and GPA.

All undergraduate degree programs at UL Lafayette meet the BOR’s requirements for the types of courses and number of hours needed for graduation, as well as the degree requirements of the UL System Board of Supervisors (BOS). Additional degree completion requirements are imposed by UL Lafayette:

•         A core curriculum consisting of a minimum of 42 credit hours (the BOR General Education Core, plus UNIV-100 First-Year Seminar for all first-time, incoming freshmen);

•         An adjusted grade point average of at least 2.0;

•         45 credit hours at the advanced level (3XX and 4XX);

•         A major area of study, usually 25% of the total required hours, 24 of which must be above the 100 level;

•         More than 55% of the total credit hours in the major and/or area of specialization;

•         A minor area of specialization, which must consist of at least 18 credit hours, with at least 6 earned at the 300‐400 level (only required by certain colleges); and

•         Satisfaction of all qualitative and quantitative requirements of the academic college and program in which the degree is sought.

All general undergraduate requirements and program-specific requirements are clearly described in the Catalog. Students seeking information about any undergraduate degree program can access the relevant description of the individual program, which outlines the General Education Core Curriculum, as well as all required courses and electives organized by year (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior), for clarity of information and convenience of student advising. The University Catalog also offers a Degree Planner listing the same requirements by year, so that students and advisors may easily track progress toward graduation and check off completed requirements. The program requirements, as stipulated in the University Catalog, are also available to students and advisors via Ellucian Degree Works, a degree audit tracking system that helps students and advisors monitor progress toward degree completion, and offers clear visual indicators showing whether a course requirement has been met or is in progress. When a program proposes to change its curriculum, approval must be sought through the Department Head, Dean, and Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs.

Graduate Programs

UL Lafayette defines and publishes program requirements for all its graduate and post‐baccalaureate professional programs in its online University Catalog, which is available on the University website and via the “Academics” tab on ULink. General requirements for all graduate degrees, as well as individual degree program requirements, are clearly outlined on the University’s website.

Admission requirements are the first gauge of the level of program requirements in UL Lafayette’s graduate programs. Minimum expectations for application and admission are established by the Graduate Council and are outlined in the Catalog, as well as in the following documents:

•         Graduate Admission Requirements, Expectations, and Deadlines

•         Graduate Program Application Requirements and Deadlines at a Glance

•         Graduate Programs

•         Graduate School Brochure

•         Sample Graduate Program Brochures

Students seeking information about any graduate degree program can access the relevant description of the individual program, which outlines the admission requirements, foundation courses, prerequisites, required courses and electives, internships, thesis and non-thesis options, and comprehensive examination and oral defense of thesis, dissertation, or synthesis project requirements (when applicable). Sample program descriptions include:

•         MS in Kinesiology

•         MBA

•         EdD in Educational Leadership

•         PhD in Earth and Energy Sciences

•         PhD in Systems Engineering

The program requirements, as stipulated in the University Catalog, are also available to students and advisors via Ellucian Degree Works, a degree audit tracking system that helps students and advisors monitor progress toward degree completion, and offers clear visual indicators showing whether a course requirement has been met or is in progress. Examples include the PhD in Applied Language and Speech Science and the MS in Kinesiology.

UL Lafayette conforms to commonly accepted standards and practices for graduate degree programs as outlined by the BOS and the BOR. The BOS Bylaws and Rules includes guidelines for course classification of graduate level courses (C-I, Academics, Section II), minimum length of academic courses (C-I, Academics, Section VII), academic renewal (C-I, Academics, Section X, B), and requirements for master’s and doctoral degrees, respectively (C-II, Students, Sections XI and XII). BOR Policies and Procedures stipulates approved academic terms and degree designations to be used for transcripts, catalogs, diplomas, and all publications for universities in Academic Affairs Policy 2.11. 

The Graduate School’s “Guidelines for the Preparation and Submission of Theses, Dissertations, and Synthesis Projects” demonstrates that the capstone products of graduate programs at UL Lafayette conform to commonly accepted standards and practices.

Program Development

The degree program approval process undergone by all programs ensures that the design and structure of graduate programs meet or exceed commonly accepted standards. Requests for new graduate degrees to be offered at UL Lafayette go through a rigorous process that involves the vetting of all proposals for conformity to commonly accepted standards and practices at successive administrative levels. (For a description of the program approval process, also see Standard 9.1.) The following process governs all program development at the University:

Stage 1: Departments/faculty initiate requests for new program creation after internal discussions of need and feasibility, usually following preliminary discussions with the Dean of the academic college, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President of the University. If the initial request is received in a generally favorable light, the Department Head or departmental spokesperson contacts the Dean of the Graduate School for a more in-depth conversation about the degree program being considered.

Stage 2: After consultation with the Dean of the Graduate School, the department officially provides the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs — Academic Programs and the Dean of the Graduate School a brief, written response to certain important points in order to further the consideration of the request. This begins the preliminary paperwork describing and justifying the proposed program. Among other things, the department is asked to estimate the costs of the program, and to identify sources of funding needed to develop the new program. This preliminary request is then submitted to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs and the Dean of the Graduate School, who review the request and forward it through the University chain of command, whereby a decision is reached to deny, approve, or hold in abeyance the preliminary program request. 

Stage 3: If the preliminary request for a new degree program is approved at the University level, the department then prepares a Letter of Intent following the procedures and timelines outlined online by the Louisiana BOR. The Letter of Intent is prepared using the BOR template and routed for approval through the appropriate channels at the BOS. Recent examples include:

·         PhD Earth and Energy Sciences Letter of Intent

·         MAT Elementary Education Letter of Intent

·         MS Environmental Resource Science Letter of Intent

·         MS Informatics Letter of Intent

Stage 4: If the Letter of Intent is approved by the BOS and BOR, the department is then asked to complete a “BOR Request for Authority to Offer a New Degree Program” and “Budget Form” following BOR Academic Affairs Policy 2.05 “Guidelines for New Academic Program Proposal,” which is then submitted through the same chain of command used with the Letter of Intent. The Proposal (following up on and expanding information required at the Letter of Intent stage) encompasses answers to numerous questions about the curriculum for the proposed program, the faculty credentials of those to teach in the new program, the costs of the program and sources of support for the program, the need for equipment and the adequacy of the facilities to support the program, the expected number of enrollees and graduates of the program, the economic impact of the program, and other factors. The BOR employs external consultants to review new program requests as part of the approval process.  Recent examples include:

·         PhD Earth and Energy Sciences Proposal

·         MAT Elementary Education Proposal

·         MS Environmental Resource Sciences Proposal

·         MS Informatics Proposal

The criteria required by the Guidelines for the Proposal of a New Academic Program, and the rigorous approval process, ensure an end product that results from a consistent, cumulative procedure begun with informal conversations at the faculty/departmental level; formalized at the campus level with an initial written request prepared and reviewed by University administrators; and, upon internal approval, allowed for the preparation of a Letter of Intent which, if approved through the BOS and BOS, gave invitation for the preparation of a full Proposal for a new degree program that conforms to commonly accepted standards and practices.

Stage 5: Upon approval by all channels culminating with the BOR, the new degree program is established at the University, and recruitment efforts for the new program are launched.

 

Supporting Documents:

Admission Requirements

BOR Academic Affairs Policy

BOR Budget Form

BOR Guidelines on Academic Program Evaluations

BOR Letter of Intent

BOR Policy on Degree Designations

BOR Request for Authority

Bylaws on Academic Renewal

Bylaws on Course Classification

Bylaws on Master’s and Doctoral Degrees

Bylaws on Minimum Course Length

EdD in Educational Leadership

Grad School ULL Catalog

Graduate Program Application Requirements and Deadlines at a Glance

Graduate Programs

Graduate School brochure

Graduate School’s Guidelines

MAT Elementary Education Letter of Intent

MAT Elementary Education Proposal

MBA Program Description

MS Environmental Resource Science Letter of Intent

MS Environmental Resource Sciences Proposal

MS in Kinesiology

MS in Kinesiology Degree Works

MS Informatics Letter of Intent

MS Informatics Proposal

PhD Earth and Energy Sciences

PhD Earth and Energy Sciences Letter of Intent

PhD Earth and Energy Sciences Proposal

PhD in ALSS Degree Works

PhD Systems Engineering

Proposal Guidelines

Degree Works Sample

Sample Curriculum

Sample Degree Planner

Sample Degree Works Audit Complete

Sample Degree Works Audit Incomplete

Sample graduate program brochures

Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog

Undergraduate Degree Requirements

University of Louisiana System Bylaws and Rules, Chapter 2, Section 8

University of Louisiana System Bylaws, Chapter II Section VIII

 

10.1     Academic Policies

The institution publishes, implements, and disseminates academic policies that adhere to principles of good educational practice and that accurately represent the programs and services of the institution.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette publishes, implements, and disseminates academic policies that adhere to principles of good educational practice. The principal policies governing the administration and conduct of academic programs have evolved from collaboration between faculty and administration, and, whenever appropriate, with input from student representatives.

Compliance with UL System and Louisiana Board of Regents Policies

UL Lafayette complies with all policies instituted by the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) and the University of Louisiana System (ULS). The BOR establishes the policies for the management of higher education institutions in Louisiana, including Academic Affairs Policies and Procedures and the Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana.

Policy Development

In addition to the BOR and ULS policies, UL Lafayette has developed internal procedures to support good educational practices and to ensure the efficient operation of its academic programs.

The policies and regulations are created by consultation among the administration of the University, the Faculty Senate, University-wide standing committees, and multiple committees within the various colleges and departments, as well as the Board of Supervisors (BOS) of the ULS, on matters pertaining to the BOS’ Strategic Framework .

Most policies are developed and regularly revised through standing or special committees composed of members of the faculty, the administration, and the student body. The faculty is the driving force behind academic policies, and the revision of policies is often debated in committees formed by the Faculty Senate and occurs as a result of requests made by the Faculty Senate. The Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards (CAAS), a University standing committee operating under the authority of the Provost, is charged with the oversight of academic policies, procedures, and practices. The CAAS initiates policy concerning the academic standards of the University, subject to the approval of the University President; studies regulations adopted by the various agencies that affect the academic policies of the University, and brings them into conformity with such regulations; hears routine appeals for waiver of academic regulations in individual student cases; acts as a final court of appeal in cases concerning accusations of unfair and capricious grading; and formulates other University policies as directed by the University Provost. This committee is slated by the Committee on Committees of the Faculty Senate and is composed of faculty and advisory staff members. Recently, for example, CAAS approved reforms to the General Education Core Curriculum proposed by the General Education Committee.

The General Education Committee, composed mostly of faculty members and reporting directly to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, reviews, develops, and recommends policy regarding general education to CAAS; recommends inclusion or exclusion of courses in the list of acceptable general education courses; and participates constructively in assessment of the general education goals.

The Graduate Council, which is composed exclusively of Graduate Faculty members and reports directly to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, formulates policies governing the University's graduate programs. Specifically, the Council establishes criteria relating to admission and retention of students in degree and non-degree graduate programs, and establishes minimum requirements for the completion of specific graduate degrees. The Council also advises the Dean of the Graduate School on matters pertaining to the operation of the Graduate School.

The Distance Learning Leadership Council, which reports directly to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, advises the Director of Distance Learning throughout the development and implementation of an action agenda for expanding the University’s distance learning capacity and production. It is charged with overseeing the development and implementation of policy governing distance learning programs.

Policy Publication and Dissemination

The online University Catalog is the central repository for information on academic programs. It contains a full description of the University’s programs, services, and academic policies, including:

·         Descriptions of the curricula

·         Requirements for each degree program

·         Requirements for undergraduate minors

·         General education requirements

·         Policies directly affecting students, including

o   Registration

o   Course Scheduling

o   Educational Assessment

o   Class Attendance

o   Academic Honesty

o   Guidelines for Grade Appeals

o   Residency Regulations

o   Residency and Tuition Regulations for Veterans

o   Student Fees

o   Fee Regulations

o   Medical Records Regulations

o   Institutional Policy on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974

o   Services for Students

These academic policies guide and support students through the various processes of obtaining a degree from application to graduation. By providing students access to specific policy information in all academic areas, and by clearly defining the requirements for each degree program, the University demonstrates and promotes adherence to principles of good educational practice. These efforts contribute to a teaching and learning environment that fosters student success.

In addition to the University Catalog, UL Lafayette uses several outlets to publish and disseminate academic policies and regulations, and to inform students, faculty, and others about programs and services. The University publishes various handbooks, manuals, and brochures that contain an array of academic policies, and provides these documents to students, faculty, and other interested parties on the UL Lafayette website. These include documents and programs such as:

·         The Student Handbook describes the expectations for behavior and conduct in the UL Lafayette community, and outlines the procedures to be followed when these expectations are not met. It includes the Student Code of Conduct and the Academic Integrity Policy, as well as other rules, regulations, and policies governing student life.

·         The Faculty Handbook is the principal source of academic policies affecting the faculty on topics such as faculty governance, fiscal policies, instructional and research policies, faculty personnel policies, faculty benefits, educational services and other resources, and libraries.  It governs the employment relationship of individual faculty members, and sets forth the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of faculty members and of the University with respect to academic and other policies. It defines and describes the structures and processes through which the faculty participates in institutional decision-making and governance, and the academic policies of the University in accordance with the BOS and BOR. 

·         The Advisor Training Program addresses issues such as the steps for becoming an academic advisor, advising information resources, advising target groups (e.g., freshmen and international students), academic policies, procedures and transactions, student support services, keys to academic success, and advising organizations.

In addition to these University‐wide handbooks, individual colleges, departments, and units have created handbooks for their students. Some examples include

·         the English Graduate Student Handbook

·         the Handbook for Teacher Interns, Cooperating Teachers, School Administrators, and University Supervisors

·         the Office of Disability Services Handbook

·         the On-Campus Living Handbook

·         the Counselor Education Student Handbook

·         the Staff Handbook

By University policy and in response to the request by the Student Government Association (SGA), all faculty members are required to post a copy of each course syllabus outlining specific policies for that particular course on the Moodle class management system course page. Departments keep copies of all course syllabi on file for any given semester.  Examples of course syllabi include:

·         College of the Arts — MUS 470: Music History II (Spring 2019)

·         College of Business Administration — MGMT 490: Strategic Management (Fall 2019)

·         College of Education — EDCI 349: PK-6 Mathematics Methods I (Spring 2019)

·         College of Engineering — MCHE 201 – Introduction to Engineering Design (Spring 2019)

·         College of Liberal Arts — SOCI 480(G): Death and Dying (Fall 2018)

·         College of Nursing and Allied Health Professions — NURS 403: Childbearing Family, Child and Adolescent Health Care (Fall 2019)

·         College of Sciences — CMPS 455(G): Operating Systems (Spring 2019)

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Honesty

Advisor Website

CAAS Minutes

Catalog - Policies

Charge of DLLC

Class Attendance

CMPS 455(G): Operating Systems

Colleges and Curriculum tab

Counselor Education Student Handbook

Course Scheduling

Distance Learning Council Presentation

EDCI 349: PK-6 Mathematics Methods I

Educational Assessment

English Graduate Student Handbook

Faculty Handbook

Faculty Handbook: Faculty Personnel Policies

Faculty Handbook: Instructional and Research policies

Faculty Handbook: Syllabus Policy

Fee Regulations

General Education Courses tab

General Education Rationale from Academic Affairs Website

Graduate Council Charge

Graduate Council Sample Agendas

Guidelines for Grade Appeals

Handbook for Teacher Interns, Cooperating Teachers, School Administrators, and University Supervisors

Institutional Policy on The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Of 1974

Link to List of Committees 2018-19

MCHE 201 – Introduction to Engineering Design

Medical Records Regulations

MGMT 490: Strategic Management

Minutes of General Education Committee

MUS 470: Music History II

NURS 403: Childbearing Family, Child and Adolescent Health Care

Office of Disability Services Handbook

On-Campus Living Handbook

Undergraduate Registration in Catalog

Residency and Tuition Regulations for Veterans

Residency Regulations

Sample Minutes of DLLC

Services for Students

SOCI 480(G): Death and Dying

Staff Handbook

Strategic Framework Final

Student Fees

Student Handbook

UG and GR degrees tab

UG Minors tab

UL Lafayette Catalog

 

10.2     Public Information

The institution makes available to students and the public current academic calendars, grading policies, cost of attendance, and refund policies.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette makes available to students and the public current academic calendars, grading policies, cost of attendance, and refund policies.

Academic Calendars

University calendars are readily available online, and can be easily accessed from the main page of the UL Lafayette website under “About Us > Calendars”:

·         University Events Calendar

·         Academic Calendar

·         Administrative Calendar

·         Athletics Calendar

Of the four listed there, the Academic Calendar (also accessed under “Important Dates and Deadlines”) is the primary resource for students, faculty, staff, and the broader community, listing the important dates of University and academic operation. The Administrative Calendar, a comprehensive list of dates for administrators, is also available on this site, along with Events, Athletics, and Students Affairs aimed at the needs of specific audiences.

Grading Policies

The rules and regulations pertaining to undergraduate grades are easily accessible in the online University Catalog under “Undergraduate Studies > Undergraduate Rules and Regulations > Grades.”  Grading policies are detailed under the following sections:

·         System of Grading

·         Quality Points

·         Semester Average

·         Cumulative Grade Point Average

·         Adjusted Grade Point Average

·         Repeating of Courses

·         Final Grade Reports

·         GradesFirst Interim Grade Reports

·         Transcripts and Letters of Verification

Graduate grading policies are available in the University Catalog under “Graduate School > Graduate Rules and Regulations > Grades.” These generally follow undergraduate grading policies, but specify certain graduate-level definitions and spell out grading policies for theses, dissertations, and other graduate work.

On ULink (the UL Lafayette student information portal), registered students have access to unofficial transcripts with grades under “Student Grades” and a GPA calculator under “Academics.”

Additional information about the University’s grading policies and practices is publicly available in the Faculty Handbook, Section IV: Instructional and Research Policies, under “Office Hours, Grading and Attendance Policies, Texts and Syllabi.”

Faculty are also required to communicate grading and attendance policies, and to provide a syllabus in writing to the students within the first week of class each semester. Faculty are expected to submit course syllabi to the department head to be kept on file in the department for at least seven years. At the course level, grading policies are communicated by the instructor, primarily through the syllabus or through other resources on Moodle, the University’s learning management system. Examples of course syllabi are available in Section 10.1.

Cost of Attendance

The costs of attending the University are listed and explained on the University Bursar’s webpage under Tuition and Fees > Current Fees. A specific breakdown of all semesterly tuition and fees per credit hour for in-state, out-of-state, and international students is provided on separate pages for undergraduate students and graduate students, as well as a link to the cost of available housing and meal plans.  Further specific fee policies are available in the University Catalog. The University’s Financial Aid website lists the estimated academic year costs of tuition and fees, books and supplies, other costs, and room and board. 

An Estimated Costs Worksheet is provided to help students and parents determine actual costs of attendance. A web-based Net Price Calculator compiles more detailed information on factors that affect financial aid eligibility and provides a detailed cost estimate tailored to that profile. Payment deadlines are also provided.

Refund Policies

The University’s Refund Policies are posted online by the Bursar’s Office. Penalties, schedules, and methods of payment are posted for different kinds of refunds. A separate policy details the financial obligations incurred by students and specifies limitations on refunds.

The University’s Financial Aid website has additional information on Title IV refund policies.

The “Rules and Regulations” section of the University Catalog also details the University’s resignation refund policy and provides a table of dates and penalties. Penalties due to resignation are also available through the Registrar’s office. Policies governing financial obligations associated with attendance are available through the Bursar’s office website. The Financial Obligation Policy specifies the exact nature of student responsibility for tuition and fees under different circumstances. The Credit Adjustment Policy is available online.

Policies governing financial obligations associated with attendance are available through the Bursar’s office website. The Financial Obligation Policy specifies the exact nature of student responsibility for tuition and fees under different circumstances. During registration via ULink, students are required to acknowledge that they have read and accepted the financial obligations of registering.

 

Supporting Documents

2018-2019 Cost Sheet

Academic Calendar

Adjusted Grade Point Average

Administrative Calendar

Athletics Calendar

Credit Adjustment Policy

Cumulative Grade Point Average

Current Graduate Tuition and Fees

Current Tuition and Fees

Current Undergraduate Tuition and Fees

Estimated Costs

Events Calendar

Faculty Handbook, Section IV: Instructional and Research Policies

Fee Regulations

Final Grade Reports

Financial Obligation Acknowledgment

Financial Obligation Policy

GradesFirst interim grade reports

Grading Policies

Grading Policy Systems

Graduate Grading Policies

Housing and Meal Rates

Instructional and Research Policies

Net Price Calculator

Non-Payment Policies

Payment Dates

Quality Points

Refunds – Other Overages

Repeating of Courses

Sample Syllabus

Semester Average

Student Fees

System of Grading

Transcripts and Letters of Verification

ULink Grades screenshot

University Bursar’s webpage

University Calendars website

Withdrawal & Return of Funds

 

10.3     Archived Information

The institution ensures the availability of archived official catalogs, digital or print, with relevant information for course and degree requirements sufficient to serve former and returning students. 

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The University publishes the online Catalog on a yearly cycle. The University Catalog has been available in its current electronic format since 2013-2014. The Office of the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs ensures that all editions of the online University Catalog are available at the same web address, beginning with the first electronic edition in 2013-2014.

Prior to the 2013-2014 Catalog, the University published catalogs in print as two separate volumes, the Undergraduate Bulletin and the Graduate School Bulletin, each updated every two years. These two print bulletins were last published in 2011-2013. The Edith Garland Dupré Library maintains archival access to full sets of these print catalogs, beginning with the 1902 edition, in the Library’s Louisiana Room, as well as in the general stacks (call number LD3091L6, followed by the catalog’s year, from 1902 to 2011). The Registrar’s office also maintains an archive of past catalogs for internal use.

Students can easily access the current online University Catalog from the UL Lafayette main website, and the homepage reminds students that print copies of past catalogs from 1902 to 2011 are found in Dupré Library.

 

SUPPorting DOCUMENTS

University Academic Catalog

University Library Catalog Archive Request

 

10.4     Academic governance

The institution (a) publishes and implements policies on the authority of faculty in academic and governance matters, (b) demonstrates that educational programs for which academic credit is awarded are approved consistent with institutional policy, and (c) places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

A. Role of faculty in academic governance

UL Lafayette publishes and implements policies on the authority of faculty in academic and governance matters, for all modes of program delivery. The University’s Organizational Chart and the Organization section of the Faculty Handbook together provide a framework for the governing structure of the University.

Faculty exercise authority in academic and governance matters principally through their respective departments, through the Faculty Senate, and through other University committees and task forces.  Each form of faculty governance applies to face-to-face and distance courses and programs equally.

The faculty’s central role in governance, through participation in University decision-making processes and service on decision-making committees, is framed in the Faculty Handbook’s description of the Ideal Professor, Citizenship and Service section and in its Service on Committees section. Faculty governance is in part exercised through the chain of authority. Faculty initiatives, proposals, and decisions are channeled through a multi-level approval process to Directors of Schools, Department Heads, and Coordinators, who are responsible to the Deans of their respective colleges for the academic, personnel, financial, and material needs of their academic units. The Deans of the eight undergraduate colleges and other academic administrators are responsible to the Provost for the leadership and administration of academic programs within their areas. The University Council, chaired by the Provost, is composed of the President, Vice Presidents and others who represent areas of Vice-Presidential responsibility, and the Faculty Senate President. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, as chief academic officer of the University, coordinates the work of the other University Vice Presidents, and acts as chief administrative officer in the absence of the University President. The President, as the chief executive officer of the institution, is responsible for the execution of the administrative and educational policies of the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) and the UL System Board of Supervisors (BOS). 

Faculty Committees

Faculty members serve on standing University councils and committees whose respective charges, described in detail in Appendix B of the Faculty Handbook, delineate the responsibility and authority of each group. Appointments to these bodies are made each Spring after all faculty and staff have filled out a committee survey. Committee membership is determined by the Vice President or other governing body to whom the committee reports. The membership of most University committees, and all committees dealing with academic matters, is predominantly composed of faculty representatives (though several include staff and students), and membership is public. Several University committees­—including Academic Affairs and Standards, Curriculum, Diversity Council, Faculty Benefits and Welfare, Faculty Grievance, Library, Parking and Planning, Strategic Program Review, and Student Evaluation of Instruction—report directly to the Faculty Senate. Each year the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees prepares a slate of two faculty nominees to fill vacancies on each committee, and after approval by the Senate, the slate is forwarded to the Provost, who makes the final appointments. These committees report regularly to the Faculty Senate. Faculty members also serve on task forces convened for ad hoc purposes by appointment of the Provost. Here are some examples:

·         International Initiatives Task Force Report

·         Graduate Education Task Force

·         Strategic Planning Steering Committee

Faculty Senate

Faculty also participate in governance through membership on the Faculty Senate. As stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate,

As the only authorized, representative body of the faculty under the administration of the University of Louisiana Lafayette, the Faculty Senate is constituted to promote and implement, consistent with the purposes of the University, maximum participation of the faculty in university governance. In this capacity, the Faculty Senate will assist the administration in such matters of particular faculty concern as academic standards, student affairs, faculty welfare, selection of university‐wide administrators, and membership of specified university committees. The Faculty Senate will advise the administration in the formulation and execution of policy with respect to the broadly defined goals, priorities, and financial needs of the University. The Faculty Senate will also communicate faculty interests to the public and public officials as deemed appropriate in furthering the purpose of the organization.

The faculty is the driving force behind academic policies, and the revision of policies is often debated in committees formed by the Faculty Senate, and occurs as a result of requests made by the Faculty Senate. This process is reflected in the Procedure for Making Changes to the Faculty Handbook (see Example 2 below). The significant role of the Faculty Senate is underscored by the Faculty Senate Executive Officer’s membership on the University Council, the University’s highest decision-making body.

Membership in the Faculty Senate is defined in the Faculty Senate Constitution, and includes broad representation from faculty, although faculty serving in an administrative capacity above the level of Department Chair or equivalent are not eligible for Senate membership:

·         All faculty members with the rank of Professor shall be permanent members. They are polled prior to the first meeting of each academic year to determine if they wish to be active members (defined as one who states the intention to attend at least half of the regularly scheduled Senate meetings).

·         Elective members of the Faculty Senate must be Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Instructors, or Adjunct Faculty, of the general faculty not serving in an administrative capacity above the level of Department Chair or equivalent, and who have completed no less than one academic year of full-time employment at the University at the time of taking office.

·         Associate Professors shall be elected in the proportion of one member per five Associate Professors or fraction thereof in each faculty unit of the University. Associate Professor Senate members shall be elected for three-year terms and shall take office at the first meeting following election.

·         Assistant Professors and Instructors shall be elected in the proportion of one member per ten Assistant Professors and Instructors or fraction thereof in each faculty unit of the University. Such members shall be elected for two-year terms and shall take office at the first meeting following election.

·         One Adjunct Faculty member shall be elected from each faculty unit of the University to serve a one-year term.

The Faculty Senate meets eight times during the academic year. All faculty members except those with full-time administrative appointments above the level of Department Head are invited to attend, but only Senate members may vote on issues. Before each meeting, the Faculty Senate sponsors an informal dialog or rap session between faculty and the President or Provost (or designee), during which University business is discussed.

In addition to the Faculty Senate’s own standing committees—Committee on Committees, Ways and Means, Academic Planning and Development, Governmental Concerns, and the UL System Faculty Advisory Council—ad hoc committees are appointed as needed by the Executive Officer of the Senate. Over the past 10 years, the Senate has formed ad hoc committees on the status of women, adjunct faculty, pay equity, and student evaluation of instruction. Agendas, committee reports, minutes, motions, and other items are found on the Senate’s website.

Faculty also participate in governance through appointment to the Graduate Faculty, which meets each semester and votes on matters affecting graduate education. Such appointment recognizes significant scholarly accomplishments and confers on a faculty member the “right to participate in the governance of graduate education at the departmental, college, and university levels.” The University’s Graduate Council, composed of representatives from each academic unit offering graduate programs, meets monthly to review curriculum and policy changes for publication in the Catalog and to hear student appeals.

Examples of Implementation of Faculty Authority in Academic and Governance matters:

1.       In Spring 2015, the President appointed a steering committee chaired by two faculty members, and composed of faculty and staff members and a student, to write the Strategic Plan 2015-2020.

2.       Faculty Affairs first proposed changes to the University’s tenure clock policies to avoid an unnecessary delay in the official granting of tenure, which were subsequently approved by the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate in turn proposed that UL Lafayette revise its policy for requested extensions of the tenure clock, which was subsequently adopted.

3.       In Spring 2019, the President appointed a task force of faculty and staff to implement the Strategic Plan 2015-2020’s Governance Strategic Imperative I: Establish a shared governance model that facilitates trust, teamwork, and cross-functional collaboration, and aligns all stakeholders to the Vision and Mission.

B. Program Approval

At UL Lafayette educational programs for which academic credit is awarded are approved consistent with institutional policy. The University follows broad guidelines in governing the proposal and approval of new programs and online programs. The creation, design, and approval of a new academic program involves the faculty in the originating department; the administration at the department, college, and university levels; and the BOS and the BOR. The curriculum for a new degree program or an option within a degree program is designed and approved by the faculty with expertise in the degree area, who have full control over the degree requirements and major course content. Proposals to create the new degree program are authored by faculty and approved by the Head of the department and the Dean of the college in which the program will be housed. The Provost and University President must grant final approval to proceed with the application for approval by the BOS and the BOR.

·         Academic Affairs Program Development Website

·         New Program Development Policy

·         Guidelines for New Program Proposals

·         Online Program Proposal Guidelines

·         New Program Development Process

The process of approval by the two Boards requires the creation of a Letter of Intent, which must address issues of program need, faculty, prospective students, financing, facilities, equipment, and library and other resources available to support the program.

The timeline of the creation of the MS in Informatics illustrates the program approval process:

·         February 26, 2015—Letter of Intent to develop a new program, authored by faculty of the School of Computing and Informatics and the Dean of the College of Sciences, submitted to Office of Academic Affairs

·         May 5, 2015—Review and approval by Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs

·         May 14, 2015—Submission of Letter of Intent to BOS

·         June 25, 2015—Approval of Letter of Intent by BOS

·         August 28, 2015—Receipt of BOR’s staff request for additional information

·         October 6, 2015—Response to the BOR’s staff request for additional information, plus letters of support for program

·         November 12, 2015—Submission of revised Letter of Intent and Budget Form to BOR

·         December 10, 2015—Approval of Letter of Intent by BOR (BOR Minutes, BOR Agenda, UL System Board Action)

·         May 9, 2016—Submission of Full Proposal to BOS

·         May 11, 2016—Receipt of additional questions from BOS

·         June 1, 2016—Submission of revised Full Proposal to BOS

·         June 7, 2016—Initiation of external review process

·         February 21, 2017—Receipt of external reviewer’s report

·         March 30, 2017—Submission of revised Full Proposal to BOS (one new course on Cloud Computing and Big Data Applications was added at the suggestion of the external reviewer)

·         April 20, 2017—Approval of Full Proposal by BOS

·         May 22, 2017—Approval of Full Proposal by BOR

·         November 8, 2017—Approval of MS in INFX course changes by the Graduate Council’s curriculum committee, for inclusion in the 2017-18 Catalog

·         Spring 2018—Program implementation

·         August 23, 2018—Submission of Progress Report on MS in Informatics Program (17 students enrolled)

C. Faculty Responsibility for Curriculum

UL Lafayette places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty. The faculty’s responsibility in matters of course content and curriculum is manifested in the University’s process for establishing new courses and programs, which typically begins in the departments, with faculty proposals and input. When changes in curriculum are motivated by outside professional or state governing board reviews, final responsibility for their development and implementation rests with the faculty.

Ongoing evaluation of the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum is also the responsibility of the faculty. All academic programs are reviewed periodically at the departmental, college, university, and BOR levels to evaluate their quality and their effectiveness in supporting the University’s mission.  Departmental faculties conduct the evaluation of courses and curricula differently, depending on the college and discipline. Faculty recommendations for changes in an existing undergraduate curriculum are routed through the Dean’s office, then to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs –Academic Programs, who has been designated by the Provost to grant final institutional approval. The sample curriculum changes below illustrate this process:

·         Biomedical Engineering Minor

·         Industrial Technology BSI.T.

·         Insurance and Risk Management BSBA

Changes in graduate curricula require the approval of the college Dean, the Dean of the Graduate School, and the Provost. 

·         Sample Catalog Change-Computer Science MS

·         Sample Catalog Change: Psychology MS

All educational programs and courses at UL Lafayette are approved by the faculty through the curriculum committee structure at the department, college, and university levels and, ultimately, by the Provost. All course additions, deletions, and changes, as well as curriculum revisions require the approval of the departmental curriculum committees, Department Head, Dean, and Provost. New courses and course changes require the approval of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the Graduate Council’s Curriculum Committee, both having all faculty membership. To add, delete, or modify an undergraduate course, faculty members complete one of the course change request forms:

·         Graduate Course Change Form

·         Graduate Course Style Guidelines

·         Graduate New Course Form

·         Undergraduate Course Change Form

·         Undergraduate Course Style Guidelines

·         Undergraduate New Course Form

Following approval of an undergraduate course by the Department Head/Program Coordinator and the Dean, the proposal is submitted to the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, a faculty committee whose purpose is to encourage the orderly growth of the University’s course offerings and to recommend to the administration only those changes that the committee feels reflect the needs of the students. Following processing by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the request is routed for approval to the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs — Academic Programs. The request is then processed by the Registrar’s Office and returned to the Office of Academic Programs, which ensures that the Catalog reflects the course addition, change, or deletion.

For graduate courses, a course change request goes from the college to the Graduate Curriculum Committee, which reviews all course additions, deletions, and changes for courses after approval by the department head and appropriate dean. The Graduate Curriculum Committee reviews all changes for courses carrying graduate‐level credit. The committee is appointed by the chair of the Graduate Council and includes full-time faculty who are members of the Graduate Faculty (but not necessarily members of the Graduate Council) from each academic college. Following processing by the committee, the requests are routed to the Graduate Council, the Graduate Dean, and the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs — Academic Programs. Internal processing through the Registrar’s Office and the Office of Academic Programs is the same as for undergraduate level courses.

Academic Freedom

The faculty’s role in determining course content and curriculum is underscored by the BOR Statement on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Responsibility, reprinted in the University’s Faculty Handbook:

Academic freedom is the right of members of the academic community freely to study, discuss, investigate, teach, conduct research, and publish as appropriate to their respective roles and responsibilities. Because the common good depends upon the free search for and exposition of truth and understanding, full freedom in research and publication is essential, as is the freedom to discuss scholarly subjects in the classroom… for academic freedom to endure, academic responsibility must be exercised. Faculties at each institution should clearly and explicitly establish minimum levels of expected professional performance and responsibility. A proper academic climate can be maintained only when members of the academic community meet their fundamental responsibilities.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Academic Affairs Division Courses

Academic Affairs Program development website

Biomedical engineering minor

BOR Letters of Intent Policy: Board of Regents Academic Affairs Policy 2.04

Committee Membership Invitation

Committee Membership List 18-19

Curriculum Change Form - IT BSIT

Directors of Schools, Department Heads and Coordinators

Faculty Affairs Proposed Changes to Section V of Faculty Handbook

Faculty Handbook – BOR Academic Freedom statement

Faculty Handbook – Graduate Faculty

Faculty Handbook – Tenure Extension

Faculty Handbook U and Senate Committees: Appendix B

Faculty Handbook: Organization 

Faculty Senate Constitution, Article 2: Membership

Faculty Senate Website

Governance Committees and Councils

Governance Task Force

GR Course Change Form

GR Course Style Guidelines

GR New Course Form

Graduate Council Handbook

Graduate Council Information

Graduate Education Task Force

Guidelines for New Program Proposals

Ideal Professor, Citizenship and Service

Insurance and Risk Management BSBA

International Initiatives Task Force Report

Letter of Intent Template

New Program Development Policy

New Program Development Process

Online Program Proposal Guidelines

Preamble of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate

Procedure for Making Changes to the Faculty Handbook

Sample Catalog Change : Computer Science MS

Sample Catalog Change : Psychology MS

Sample Curriculum Committee Approved Courses

Sample Filled Course Change Forms and Committee Report

Senate Agenda 2-6-2019-Senate Committees

Senate Minutes Slate

Senate Minutes, December 2, 2015

Senate Proposal and approval of Tenure Extension Policy

Senate Rap Session Invitation

Senate SEI Committee Report 4-24-2019

Service on Committees

Strategic Plan 2015-2020: Governance SI 1

Strategic Planning Steering Committee Charge

U committees senate agenda

UG Course Change Form

UG Course Style Guidelines

UG New Course Form

UL Lafayette Strategic Planning Report

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Reviewer Action Sheet

University Councils and Committees

University’s Organizational Chart

 

10.5     Admissions policies and practices

The institution publishes admissions policies consistent with its mission. Recruitment materials and presentations accurately represent the practices, policies, and accreditation status of the institution. The institution also ensures that independent contractors or agents used for recruiting purposes and for admission activities are governed by the same principles and policies as institutional employees.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

Undergraduate Admissions

Requirements for undergraduate admission are outlined in recruitment materials, the University Catalog, and the University Website – Admissions Tab. The regular review of this information and its compliance with the Louisiana Board of Regents Admission Standards helps to ensure that this information is consistent and accurate.

The Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment promotes the mission of UL Lafayette by working to attract qualified applicants, thereby helping the University to “develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.” Applicants for undergraduate admission are classified as first-time freshman, transfer, re-entry, or non-degree. All undergraduate applicants must complete and submit an application for admission through the online application system. Additional information may be required to determine if the applicant meets admissions requirements.

First-Time Freshman

First-time freshman applicants are those who have not earned college-level academic hours since high school graduation (with the exception of the summer immediately following high school graduation).  First-time freshman applicants are required to submit an application fee, ACT or SAT scores, and a high school transcript in support of their application for admission. UL Lafayette follows the minimum admission standards for regular freshman admission for a statewide university as determined by the Louisiana BOR. Each of following requirements must be met to be considered for regular admission as a first-time freshman to the University:

·         Completion of Regents’ Core of 19 units (from TOPS University or Core 4 Curriculum);

·         Minimum overall high school GPA of 2.00;

·         Minimum high school GPA on core courses of 2.50 (or ACT Composite of 23); and

·         ACT English of 18 or above and ACT Math of 19 or above (or other equivalent as defined by the BOR).

Transfer

Transfer applicants are those who have attended another university/college since their high school graduation. In addition to the application for admission, transfer applicants are required to submit an application fee and transcripts from all universities/colleges attended for initial application review. If an applicant has completed fewer than 24 college-level academic hours, then ACT or SAT scores and high school transcripts will also be required for admission consideration. UL Lafayette follows the minimum admission standards for regular admission of transfer students for a statewide university as determined by the BOR. Transfer applicants must meet one of the following requirements to be considered for regular admission to the University:

·         Earn a transferrable Associate Degree (AA or AS) or higher;

·         Earn a minimum of 24 college-level academic hours with a minimum GPA of 2.25, including completion of a college-level English and a college-level Mathematics course designed to fulfill general education requirements with a grade of C or better; or

·         Meet first-time freshman admission requirements and be in good standing with the previous institution attended.

Re-Entry

Re-entry applicants are those who have previously attended UL Lafayette only. Students must apply for readmission if they fail to attend one or more regular semester(s) at the University. In addition to the application for admission, re-entry applicants are required to submit an application fee. They must also have a minimum GPA of 1.50 to be considered for regular admission to the University.

Non-Degree

Undergraduate non-degree applicants are those who intend to enroll at the University, but do not plan to pursue a Bachelor’s degree. For non-degree consideration, including High School Dual Enrollment, Special Non-Degree, Post-Baccalaureate, Visiting Student, or DOORS (Diversified Opportunities for Older and Returning Students), applicants must provide an application fee, high school transcripts, and/or university/college transcripts in support of their application for admission.

Other Considerations

International applicants are required to submit additional information, regardless of the admissions category to which they apply. All international applicants must provide the following:

·         Proof of English proficiency;

·         Copy of passport;

·         Chronological record of education; and

·         Proof of financial guarantee (if I-20 or DS-2019 needed).

To satisfy the English proficiency requirement, an undergraduate international student must meet one of the following criteria:

·         Minimum ACT English sub-score of at least 18 or its SAT equivalent;

·         Minimum score of 70 (Internet-based test)/523 (paper-based test) on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL);

·         Minimum score of 6.0 on the International English Language Testing System test (IELTS);

·         Minimum score of 50 on the Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE Academic); or

·         Completion of high school education in a country with English as the official language.

Unofficial application materials are used in the initial consideration of an application for admission; however, official application materials are required upon an offer of admission. Applicants who register for class and have not provided official application documents by the fifth day of the semester (third day of the summer session) will have their registration cancelled and a hold placed on their account.

Degree-seeking applicants who do not meet admissions requirements may submit an Application for Admission by Committee to be considered for admission by exception. The application for Admission by Committee is available upon request, and these applications are reviewed by the Admission by Exception Committee. Criteria considered in the admission decision include GPA, high school academic history and improvements in academic performance, extracurricular activities, work experience, life events that have had an impact on academic performance, and letters of recommendation. In all cases, the final admission decision will be based on the applicant’s potential to be academically successful at the University. 

Recruitment Materials

Prospective students and applicants receive recruitment and admissions information through one or more of the following:

 

·         University Travel Brochure

·         Campus Visit Experience

·         UL Virtual Campus Experience

·         UL Explore/High school/Transfer Fair

·         Email/letter from recruitment Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) system (Ellucian CRM Recruit)

·         University Admissions Website

·         University Catalog

The Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment, in collaboration with the Enrollment Management leadership and the Office of Communications and Marketing, develops recruitment materials, presentations, website content, and programs that accurately represent the University’s policies and procedures related to undergraduate admission. While the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment develops the initial concept and messaging for recruitment materials, the Vice President for Enrollment Management and the Office of Communications and Marketing have final approval regarding content and design of recruitment materials. Final approval is needed before recruitment materials/information can be ordered, sent, or shown to prospective students/applicants.  

 

The Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment utilizes a CRM system to organize communications sent to prospective students and applicants. The implementation of CRM Recruit in June 2019 (effective for admission for Summer 2020 forward) provided the opportunity to thoroughly review all prospective student and applicant communication plans, guaranteeing consistency in messaging and branding and ensuring approval of Enrollment Management and Communications and Marketing for all recruitment messages and materials.

The Admissions tab on the University home page is widely used and is a comprehensive source of information. Prospective students use the website for basic information about the University, admissions criteria, financial aid, scholarships, and programs of study, as well as a preview of the general student experience through interactive tour/videos. A wide variety of on-campus programming for prospective students is available regarding academic programs and admissions policies of the University.   

University policies related to undergraduate admissions are reviewed at least annually as part of the University Catalog update process. The leadership team in Undergraduate Admissions reviews relevant Catalog information and proposes corrections/updates to the Vice President for Enrollment Management. If approved, the corrections/updates are sent to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs for inclusion in the next edition of the University Catalog. As part of this review process, updates are made to the Admissions website, as needed, to keep the website in alignment with the University Catalog regarding undergraduate admissions policies and procedures. The Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment works closely with the Office of Communications and Marketing for any changes to website information related to admissions policies and procedures. 

Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment staff members undergo extensive training on undergraduate admissions policies and procedures upon their initial hire. (training documents) Annual training sessions are held in June and July to ensure a uniform approach to admissions processing and to provide staff members with the opportunity to refine procedures leading to a streamlined admissions process for applicants. Recruitment staff members attend additional training sessions with each academic college/department annually before the recruitment season. Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment also conduct monthly staff meetings to keep all staff members abreast of changes to policies and procedures that affect their role in the undergraduate admissions process.

Recruitment staff members attend more than 850 college and high school fairs and programs throughout the year. Off‐campus visits are made for presentations to College Nights, Parent Nights, special-interest groups such as ACT “prep” classes, and Advanced Placement (AP) and Honors classes. Counselors travel the entire state and occasionally visit the surrounding states of Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi. The statewide travel schedule is organized by the Louisiana Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers (LACRAO), which divides the states into zones. Initial and annual training sessions are designed to emphasize accurate presentation of information pertaining to the University and the degrees it offers. These training sessions reinforce procedures related to undergraduate admission, and allow the staff to review relevant documentation for reference, such as departmental training documents, the University Catalog, the University’s website, etc.

The Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment works with the undergraduate academic colleges to include accurate and up-to-date information regarding degree programs in all recruitment materials, presentations, and outreach efforts. Discipline-specific recruitment materials are designed within the academic colleges and generally highlight academic programs and research, not specific admissions requirements. The academic colleges work with the Office of Communications and Marketing to ensure consistency in discipline-specific recruitment materials.

Graduate Admissions

Included in the University’s Mission Statement is the commitment to offer graduate programs that “seek to develop scholars who will variously advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the material conditions of mankind.” The mission of the Graduate School complements this greater University purpose by further committing to “design and maintain intellectually rigorous programs that lead students to extend their knowledge, expand their capabilities, and develop critical thinking skills and expertise necessary to conduct original research.” The Graduate School’s admissions policies and practices are designed to ensure the admission of students capable of achieving these ends.

The requirements for graduate admission are outlined on the Graduate School website and also in the University Catalog. With the assistance of an ad hoc committee composed of faculty from all academic colleges housing a graduate program and the graduate program leadership, the Graduate Council conducted a review of the requirements for admission to graduate studies at UL Lafayette. This review, along with a previous Graduate Council review of application and admission policies for international graduate applicants, resulted in a revision of the policies governing graduate applications and admission. These revised policies have been approved for inclusion in the 2019-2020 Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog, and will be used to evaluate graduate applications for Fall 2019 and subsequent semesters. 

Students may be admitted to the Graduate School in one of the following four categories: Degree students, Certificate students, Special Non-Degree students, and Entrée students. All applicants must submit an application through the online application system. Upon application, prospective Degree students and Special Non-Degree students must provide transcripts from all colleges previously attended. These applicants may submit unofficial transcripts, which may be used for application evaluation and review. An official transcript from all colleges previously attended is required upon admission; registered students who do not provide official transcripts by the fifth day of the semester have their registration cancelled and admission rescinded. Upon application, prospective Degree students must provide letters of reference from at least three individuals and, depending upon the degree program to which they seek admission, the official results of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT). Non-degree seeking applicants (i.e., certificate program, special non-degree, and entrée applicants) must apply to the Graduate School and provide official transcripts demonstrating proof of baccalaureate degree.

To be eligible for regular admission to the Graduate School in a master’s program, an applicant must satisfy general requirements for admission to the University; hold a baccalaureate or a master's degree from a regionally accredited institution; provide official documentation of an undergraduate grade-point average of not less than 2.75 (4.0 scale) on all work attempted, or an undergraduate grade-point average of not less than 3.0 (4.0 scale) on the last 60 semester hours or last 90 quarter hours (coursework completed in the United States only), or a graduate grade-point average of 3.0 (4.0 scale) on all previously earned graduate degrees; and demonstrate English language proficiency, if applicable.

To be eligible for regular admission to a doctoral program, an applicant must satisfy general requirements for admission to the University; hold a baccalaureate or a master’s degree from a regionally accredited institution; provide official documentation of an undergraduate grade-point average of 3.0 (4.0 scale) or a minimum grade-point average of 3.3 (4.0 scale) on all graduate work attempted; and demonstrate English language proficiency, if applicable.

Beginning with Fall 2019 applications, the Graduate School will no longer require satisfactory official GRE or GMAT scores as a University-wide graduate admission requirement. Instead, such requirements shall be determined by individual graduate degree programs. In evaluating these scores as part of the application process, individual graduate admission committees use a portfolio approach. This practice is in line with the Education Testing Services (ETS) recommendation that standardized test scores not be used as a cut-off and/or a single criterion to make admissions decisions. Thus, while GRE and GMAT test scores are part of the application, they are but one of the factors considered for admission—as well as funding—decisions.

Some applicants may be required to demonstrate English language proficiency. Applicants who hold a baccalaureate or graduate degree with primary instruction in English from an accredited institution in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand are not required to demonstrate English proficiency. All other applicants must demonstrate English proficiency by submitting satisfactory Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or International English Language Testing System (IELTS) official scores. The Graduate School reserves the right to require proof of English proficiency of other applicants when deemed warranted. TOEFL scores below 550 on the written examination or 79 on the internet-based examination, and IELTS scores below 6.5 are not considered satisfactory. Upon entering the University, students may also be required to take the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) placement test. Graduate Teaching Assistants may have additional English language proficiency requirements.

Conditional admission may be considered for applicants to graduate degree programs who do not meet the criteria for regular admission defined above. In such instances, the following criteria are used to appeal for conditional acceptance: the applicant’s GPA in the major field of study; the number of successfully completed hours in the applicant’s major field of study; the strength and appropriateness of the applicant’s undergraduate curriculum; letters of reference; a strong score on the GRE or GMAT if submitted as part of the application; and/or publications and professional or other experience relevant to the field of study.

An applicant who is ineligible to register in any previously attended institution as a graduate is not admissible to the Graduate School (without completing a formal appeal process). The Graduate School, in cooperation with the Graduate Council and the University Committee on Graduate Student Success and Retention, reviews these admissions criteria and their relation to graduate student success. Individual graduate programs may require additional application materials, establish different application deadlines, and/or establish higher standards than the minimum admission requirements maintained by the Graduate School. Each graduate program reviews its admissions standards and curriculum annually. Finally, the Graduate Student Appeals Committee, a standing committee of the Graduate Council, reviews requests for admission/readmission by prospective graduate students who have been denied admission and graduate students who have become ineligible to continue in graduate study; the policies and procedures governing these appeals are outlined in the University Catalog and on the Graduate School website.

Graduate Recruitment

The staff of the Graduate School and faculty within the individual graduate programs are responsible for developing recruitment materials, presentations, and programs that accurately represent the University’s graduate policies, practices, and programs. These individuals work in partnership with the staff of the Office of Communications and Marketing to create high-quality, accurate recruitment print materials like the Graduate School Brochure and individual degree program brochures. They also develop web content that offers guidance for those applying to graduate school, and highlights the University’s graduate programs, students, graduate faculty, and alumni. All content produced goes through multiple levels of review and, as appropriate, is vetted and approved by the individual graduate programs, the Office of Communications and Marketing, and the Graduate School. Here are samples of reviewed recruitment materials:

·         GR Sample Architecture Program, Grad School, and Communications & Marketing Review

·         GR Sample Geology Program, Grad School, and Communications & Marketing Review

Staff of the Graduate School and/or the Office of Communications and Marketing produce content that is then reviewed for approval or emendation by the Dean of the Graduate School. Upon approval, content is sent to the Graduate Coordinator of the program to review and to provide feedback. Revisions are made, with input from both the Graduate School and Communications and Marketing, and materials are returned to the Graduate Coordinator. Upon approval of the graduate program, web content is then scheduled in the Graduate School content calendar for posting to various webpages (Department/Grad Program/Grad School) and via social media.

The Admissions tab on the University’s homepage provides a link that connects prospective graduate students to the Graduate School website. When used together, the Admissions link and the Graduate School’s Prospective Students tab provide accurate information about the admission process, the graduate degree programs offered at UL Lafayette, housing options, tuition and fees, and assistantships, fellowships, and other funding opportunities. Print materials and web pages are regularly reviewed and updated.

The Graduate School is engaged in multiple recruitment activities, offering:

·         programming to UL Lafayette undergraduates interested in pursuing graduate studies, including “Gear Up for Grad School,” “Road Map to Grad School: Round Table Discussions with the Dean,” and “Intro to the GRE for Students”;

·         recruitment support through the GRE Search Service and the McNair Scholars Directory;

·         participation in various Career Fairs and Grad Expos at UL Lafayette and at other universities as funding permits;

·         funding to individual graduate programs to attend recruitment events/conferences, to produce recruitment materials, and to advertise;

·         dedicated funds for the recruitment of minority graduate students; and

·         review and update of content accuracy and financial support for use of the GradSchoolMatch.com platform.

Undergraduate and Graduate Recruitment Partnerships

The Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment and the Graduate School work in partnership with the Office of Distance Learning to produce recruitment materials and web content for the University’s online undergraduate and graduate programs. When using independent contractors to design and write advertorial content for search, display, and social media use, nothing is posted or used unless there is prior review and approval from the University, as outlined in these advertising contracts: Academic Partnerships Contract and Thruline Contract.

Independent contractors used for recruiting purposes and for admission activities are bound to the same principles and policies as institutional employees. Before any ads are approved for publication, they must pass through three stages of approval:

1.       Office of Distance Learning.  The Office of Distance Learning works directly with marketing partners to ensure ad sets meet the agreed upon briefs, the standard of work as contractually outlined, and the branding and diversity reflective of the University and distance learning programs.

2.       College or Department. Distance Learning management review ad materials with Deans and Department Heads for messaging and imagery to ensure the ads accurately and appropriately represent each college and program.

3.       Office of Communications and Marketing. Final approval is given by the University Office of Communications and Marketing, which reviews ad materials for consistent messaging, as well as adherence to all UL Lafayette brand standards and guidelines for design, text, graphics, colors, and images.

Once all parties have reviewed and approved materials, the Office of Distance Learning serves as the liaison to the marketing vendor to ensure changes are carried out.

Additionally, all websites, web content, communication plans, and messaging created by independent contractors for recruitment purposes go through multiple levels of review and, as appropriate, are vetted by the individual academic programs, the Office of Communications and Marketing, the Office of Distance Learning, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Recruitment, and the Graduate School. No content is posted or used unless approved by all internal parties. Content also is reviewed each semester by the on-campus parties and updated regularly. Additionally, monthly conference calls are held with independent contractors, in addition to in-person, on-campus check-in meetings at least once per year, to ensure accuracy of recruiting and admission information.

Supporting Documents

Academic Partnerships Contract

Ad Hoc Review

Admissions tab on the University home page  

AP Check-in Calls

AP Process Review Agenda

BOR Admissions Standards

Campus Visit Experience

Catalog: Graduate School Admission

Catalog: Graduate Student Appeals

Committee on Graduate Retention and Success

Email Sample – Communication Plan Review

Email Sample – Social Media Review

Email Sample – Website Review By OCM

Email/letter from CRM Recruit

ESL Requirements

Geology Highlights

GR Sample Web Content Calendar & Review

GR Sample Web Content with Program, Grad School, and C & M Review – ARCH

GR Sample Web Content with Program, Grad School, and C & M Review – GEOL

Grad Admissions – Website

Grad Appeals Process

Grad Council International Review

Graduate Program Brochures

Graduate Programs

Graduate School Brochure

Graduate School Mission Statement

Graduate School Recruitment Programming and Flyers

Graduate Student Appeals Website

Graduate Student Highlight

Interactive Tour/Videos

Prospective Graduate Student Website

Revised Graduate Admission Policies

Thruline Check-in Calls

Thruline Contract

Training Documents

UL Explore/High school/Transfer fair/

UL Virtual Campus Experience

UL Visit Us

ULL 2018-2019 Catalog

ULL 2019-20 Catalog

University Mission Statement

University Travel Brochure

 

10.6     Distance and correspondence education

An institution that offers distance or correspondence education: (a) ensures that the student who registers in a distance or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the course or program and receives the credit. (b) has a written procedure for protecting the privacy of students enrolled in distance and correspondence education courses or programs. (c) ensures that students are notified, in writing at the time of registration or enrollment, of any projected additional student charges associated with verification of student identity.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

A. An institution that offers distance or correspondence education ensures that the student who registers in a distance or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the course or program and receives the credit.

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, through its Distance Learning Leadership Council and the Council's Student Authentication Task Force, has instituted the following policies and procedures to address student authentication, consistent with current accreditation standards.

Identity Management

All enrolled students receive individual secure logins for the University learning management system (LMS), Moodle. Student accounts are automatically generated by the University’s Student Information System (Banner). Students activate their own accounts through the Banner Password Self Service.

The University has adopted student authentication policies for hybrid and online courses, based on a course-by-course method and implemented by trained faculty members:

1.       At least one additional authentication measure must be implemented by course instructors and professors. The Office of Distance Learning assists in establishing these and other measures, in collaboration with colleges and departments.

2.       Additional measures should be consistent among multiple sections of the same course with different course instructors.

3.       The syllabus for each course identifies additional student authentication measures.

4.       Colleges and departments are ultimately charged with enforcement of additional measures.

Additional measures to be selected by departments and colleges may include:

1.       Proctored examinations. Students enrolled in electronic courses may be required to take proctored exams. Instructors are responsible for providing students with test dates, proctor requirements, and other details of the exam process in the course syllabus. Instructors must accommodate the proctoring requirements of students who are in a separate geographic location, and an appropriate alternate proctor within their region must be authorized. 

The Distance Learning Leadership Council has adopted guidelines to assist faculty in using any form of proctoring in hybrid and online courses. Options for proctored examinations include:        

a.       Physical proctoring centers for exam delivery. If a course is designed with a high-stakes exam, then physical proctoring may be appropriate and required. The instructor must make provisions to allow multiple approved proctoring sites.

b.       Virtual proctoring. Hybrid and online students may be required to purchase a live monitoring service that connects to their computer and "watches" them take an exam.

2.       Use of LMS tools. Reporting functions that exist within the LMS, such as Logs, may be used to detect possible cases of academic dishonesty. Logs can be used to see what pages the student accessed, the time and date they accessed it, the IP address used by student, and student actions (i.e., view, add, update, delete).

3.       Other student identity technologies. Faculty also have access to identity verification methods, such as Examity ID Verification and ProctorU Uauto. These services authenticate a student’s identity using fingerprint, face and voice biometrics, or multiple-choice questions about their personal history, such as last street address, name of elementary school, or mother’s maiden name.

B. An institution that offers distance or correspondence education has a written procedure for protecting the privacy of students enrolled in distance and correspondence education courses or programs

The Chief Information Officer and the Director of Communications and Marketing have verified that UL Lafayette’s existing Student Privacy Policy is in effect for all distance learning activities. The Office of Distance Learning website publishes a student privacy statement and the University's privacy policy, which apply to all students, including those enrolled in distance and correspondence education.

C. An institution that offers distance or correspondence education ensures that students are notified in writing at the time of registration or enrollment of any projected additional student charges associated with verification of student identity

To inform students of additional charges associated with verification of student identity, UL Lafayette requires a standard note be posted in the registration system for all courses coded as hybrid (HY) and online (OL). This note alerts students that the class has additional costs and directs students to a website explaining the costs, including additional costs for student authentication. Proctoring costs vary depending on the course, and instructors include projected costs in syllabi and other course materials available to students.

 

Supporting Documents

Banner Password Self Service

Examity ID Verification

Faculty Guidelines for Proctoring in Distance Learning Courses

Moodle Logs Screenshot

Office of Distance Learning: Student Privacy Statement

ProctorU Uauto

Sample Distance Learning Additional Cost Note

Standard Costs Page

Student Authentication Policy

University Privacy Policy

 

10.7     Policies for awarding credit

The institution publishes and implements policies for determining the amount and level of credit awarded for its courses, regardless of format or mode of delivery. These policies require oversight by persons academically qualified to make the necessary judgments. In educational programs not based on credit hours (e.g., direct assessment programs), the institution has a sound means for determining credit equivalencies.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette employs sound and acceptable practices for determining the amount and level of credit awarded for courses, regardless of format or mode of delivery. The amount and level of credit awarded are reviewed and determined by persons academically qualified to make the necessary judgments. Course and credit policies and procedures are published in the academic Catalog and on the Academic Affairs website.

The University operates on the semester system and awards academic credit to students in units that are standard across higher education in the U.S. The University standard for credit is defined as

… a measurement of course work completed satisfactorily. Ordinarily, one semester-hour credit is given for one hour of class attendance a week for a period of one semester. However, in some courses, such as laboratory courses, two or three "clock hours" of attendance a week are required to earn one semester hour. A specified number of credits must be earned for a degree. Other colleges and universities may operate on a "quarter basis," that is, dividing the year into four quarters and giving quarter credits. Quarter credits multiplied by two-thirds equal semester credits. Semester credits multiplied by one and one-half equal quarter credits.

 

In addition, the University’s courses meet the requirements of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for the University of Louisiana System, which state “For each semester hour of credit, a traditional lecture or laboratory course shall strive to meet a minimum of 750 minutes. Final exam periods may be counted as class time when computing required minutes.” All “face‐to‐face” instruction adheres to this required seat‐time policy.

The University adheres to the standard Carnegie Credit Hour formulas for Lectures and Lecture-Combinations:

·         One credit hour of lecture requires 750 minutes of class time per semester.

·         One credit hour of lab requires 1,500 minutes of class time per semester or 2,250 minutes, with approval.

A detailed chart shows the Credit Hour-Contact Hour equivalencies.

 

The Graduate and Undergraduate Curriculum Committees, which approve all new courses, monitor credit hour assignment for each new course proposed. The Registrar's Office uses this time‐credit formula when providing faculty and departments the time slots in which to schedule classes, and it reviews all non‐standard class‐time requests to ensure each course meets the minimum number of minutes.

 

The University’s adopted Credit Hour Policy supporting the long-practiced standard with regard to credit hours awarded for academic work in non-traditional formats states that

 

The student learning outcomes for a course must be the same regardless of whether the credit hour(s) is delivered in the traditional format or by equivalent academic activities. For online, hybrid, or other courses offered in a non-traditional format where there is no traditional section for comparison, courses must include contact and content sufficient to maintain high academic quality and standards commensurate with credit hours awarded and similar to face to face courses. This includes but is not limited to internships, independent studies, experiential learning activities, and online courses. For all modes of delivery, instructors’ expectations for learner participation in required course interactions (frequency, length, time minimums) must be clearly stated, and must constitute equivalent instruction to other modes of delivery of the same or similar course material.

The policy also specifies that credit hours awarded per hour of contact for lab courses follow the University’s standard credit hour-contact hour equivalencies chart.

In extending its current practice for the determination of credit hours to distance learning, flexible delivery platforms and other nontraditional courses, the University adheres to the SACSCOC Credit Hour Policy Statement, the Louisiana Board of Supervisors Minimum Length for Academic Courses Policy, and the Louisiana Board of Regents Seat-Time Policy for Academic Credit Policy.

The BOR Credit Hour Policy states that

 

All classes [awarding three hours credit] must be of reasonable length and include both content and contact sufficient to maintain high academic quality and standards commensurate with credit hours awarded for a "traditional" three-semester hour lecture class. The basis for such certification of learning is a valid, credible assessment system which reliably determines whether a student possesses clearly identified, standards-based knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Similarly, SACSCOC Credit Hour Policy states that

 

At least an equivalent amount of work as required outlined in item 1 above [which describes contact hour requirements for traditional face to face courses] for other academic activities as established by the institution including laboratory work, internships, practica, studio work, and other academic work leading to the award of credit hours.

The standards embodied in the University’s Credit Hour Policy are ensured by the University course approval process, the Head of the department offering the course, and through the University-wide student learning outcomes assessment process, which monitors student learning outcomes.

UL Lafayette does not award academic credit for course work taken on a noncredit basis. The University recognizes the validity of the recommendation in the current edition of the American Council on Education’s Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services, and will grant credit for certain military schools subject to the approval of the Director of Admissions and the student’s academic dean.

All UL Lafayette courses are approved by the faculty through the curriculum committee structure at the department, college, and university levels and, ultimately, by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, using course approval forms. All course additions and changes, as well as curriculum revisions, require the approval of the departmental and college curriculum committees, as well as the approval of the Department Head, Dean, and Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs. Procedures at the departmental and college levels vary among departments and colleges. Course changes may be brought before the Department Head/Program Coordinator, the department curriculum committee, or other appropriate committees/subcommittees, or the full departmental faculty, depending on the department’s defined practice or on the significance of the proposed change. Many departments have curriculum committees that meet regularly to review and evaluate the curriculum and recommend changes. All distance learning course offerings are approved by the Department Head and Dean.

Upon approval of an undergraduate course by the Department Head/Program Coordinator and the Dean, the proposal is submitted to an administrative staff member in Academic Affairs to check for compliance with the University Style Guide and completion of information. After review and acceptance by Academic Affairs, completed forms signed by the individual initiating the course change, the Department Head/School Director, and the Dean, are digitized by Academic Affairs and provided to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, a faculty committee whose purpose is to encourage the orderly growth of the University’s course offerings, and to recommend to the administration only those changes that the committee feels reflect the needs of the students and the standards of the University. Following processing by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the request is routed for approval to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, who has been designated by the Provost to give final institutional approval to the request.

Graduate courses follow similar credit hour policies. For graduate courses, upon approval by the Department Head/School Director and the Dean, the request goes from the college to an administrative staff member in Academic Affairs to check for compliance with the University Style Guide and completion of information. Upon review and acceptance by Academic Affairs, completed forms signed by the individual initiating the course change, the Department Head/School Director, and the Dean, are digitized by Academic Affairs and provided to the Graduate Curriculum Committee. The Graduate Curriculum Committee, a standing subcommittee of the Graduate Council, reviews all course additions, deletions, and changes for courses that award graduate-level credit. The committee is composed of one or two members of the Graduate Council, and two or three members of the graduate faculty, chosen to achieve balance and breadth of experience on the committee. Following processing by the committee, the requests are routed to the Graduate Council, the Graduate Dean, and the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs. Each step of this review process entails a rigorous review of course aims, content, and student learning outcomes, and ensures that each course includes contact hours and content sufficient to maintain high academic quality and standards commensurate with credit hours awarded and similar to equivalent face-to-face courses.

In the course approval process, the difference in expectations between undergraduate and graduate students can be seen most clearly in mixed enrollment courses, which are numbered 4XXG. These courses may be taken by juniors and seniors for undergraduate credit and by graduate students for graduate credit. These courses must be approved by the Graduate Curriculum Committee. The University mandates that a distinction be made between the graduate and undergraduate students in the course. The Course Addition, Deletion, or Change Request Form submitted to the Graduate Curriculum Committee includes the following requirement: “If ‘G’ course, explain extra requirements for graduate students”; sample completed forms reflect the extra requirements imposed on graduate students in 4XXG:

 

·         ANTH 493G Syllabus

·         CMCN 469G Syllabus

·         CMCN 490 Syllabus

·         EDCI 450 Syllabus

·         FREN 460G Syllabus

·         POLS 487G Syllabus

·         PSYC 425G Syllabus

·         PSYC 426G Syllabus

·         SOCI 445G Syllabus

·         SOCI 480G Syllabus

 

Supporting Documents

ANTH 493G Syllabus

Board of Supervisors Credit Hour Policy

BOR Seat Time Policy

Catalog Credit Definition

CMCN 469G Syllabus

CMCN 490 Syllabus

Committee on Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines

Course and Credit Policies and Procedures

Course Approval Forms

Credit Hour-Contact Hour Equivalencies Chart

EDCI 450 Syllabus

FREN 460G Syllabus

Graduate Credit Hour Policies

Graduate Curriculum Committee Credentials

Graduate New Course Form

Military Credit Guide

Nontraditional Course Credit Hour Policy

POLS 48G Syllabus

PSYC 425G Syllabus

PSYC 426G Syllabus

SACS-COC Credit Hour Policy

Sample Graduate Curriculum Committee Reports

SOCI 445G Syllabus

SOCI 480G Syllabus

Style Guidelines

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Credentials

 

10.8     Evaluating and awarding academic credit

The institution publishes policies for evaluating, awarding, and accepting credit not originating from the institution. The institution ensures (a) the academic quality of any credit or coursework recorded on its transcript, (b) an approval process with oversight by persons academically qualified to make the necessary judgments, and (c) the credit awarded is comparable to a designated credit experience and is consistent with the institution’s mission.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette recognizes that beneficial learning experiences occur outside of the University’s campus. Therefore, the University has policies and procedures for evaluating, awarding, and accepting credit for transfer, advanced placement, and professional certificates. The regulations governing transfer of credit, advanced placement, and other forms of alternative academic credit are published in the University Catalog. Credit is not awarded for experiential learning.

A. UL Lafayette ensures the academic quality of any credit or coursework recorded on its transcripts.

In general, UL Lafayette accepts all credits awarded by a regionally accredited institution. To facilitate transfer of credit, the University has developed articulation agreements that indicate course equivalencies. All articulation agreements require faculty review of course syllabi from the transferring institution to ensure course quality and compatibility with UL Lafayette offerings. The Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) compiles a statewide general education, natural sciences, and business Course Articulation Matrix listing hundreds of courses and their equivalents at every two‐ and four‐year state institution. In addition, UL Lafayette has separate articulation agreements with major transfer feeder institutions, South Louisiana Community College and Louisiana State University – Eunice. Finally, the University has established “2 + 2” programs with these two institutions. In all of these documents, course equivalencies have been determined with the qualitative input and approval of the relevant academic programs. In the course of periodic reviews, faculty members provide a syllabus assessment of course content and learning outcomes and make recommendations for any course addition or deletion in these articulation matrices.

The BOR Articulation Matrix, as well as information related to the articulation agreements and “2+2” programs, is available to the public on the Academic Affairs website.

The Admissions Office determines which transfer courses are acceptable to the University. All courses with a grade of “D” or better, from regionally accredited colleges and universities, are transferable to the University, though those courses may not be applicable to a degree. The application of a given transfer course to a degree program is determined by the Department Head and Dean. The Board of Regents’ Articulation Matrix developed by the State of Louisiana is used in determining equivalents for many lower‐level courses. Additional requirements and exceptions to this general policy are applied in the following units:

·         College of Nursing and Allied Health Professions: Students who transfer from another institution into the BSN program are subject to the same rules regarding credit and progression as UL Lafayette’s “native” students. For example, nursing students may enroll in required nursing courses only twice; a student who earns a “D,” “F,” or “W” a second time must leave the nursing program. Transfer students’ past records are evaluated according to the same criteria.

·         College of Engineering: Technical courses leading to a two‐year associate degree or to a four‐year technology degree are accepted only by the Department of Industrial Technology. Engineering courses at or above the 300 level are accepted toward a degree only if they were taken in an engineering program accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).

·         International Students: The Office of Admissions makes a determination of an international student’s eligibility for admission based on the credentials submitted for evaluation. An international student is considered a transfer student if he or she has attended a postsecondary educational institution. International transfer students must meet all of the minimum admissions requirements as set by the University, and by the college and the department in which admission is sought. In addition, international students must submit evidence of English proficiency in the form of an official Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) result.

Undergraduate Colleges

First‐time freshmen are eligible to earn college credit through several programs. Advanced Placement credit is awarded to highly qualified high school students based on their scores on the College Entrance Examination Board’s (CEEB) AP exams. A list of credits UL Lafayette awards for the various scores for each of these examinations is found in the University Catalog.

Students who have participated in the College Entrance Examination Board’s College Level Examination Program (CLEP), the College Level GED program, the American College Test’s Proficiency Examination Program (PEP), or other recognized advanced placement programs may submit transcripts of these examinations to the Office of Admissions for evaluation and possible credit.

First‐time freshman and transfer students who have not enrolled in any college‐level English or Mathematics course, and who have special competence in a given academic area, may also qualify for college credit through the University’s own Advance Credit Exam (ACE). Generally, ACT scores serve as a guide to eligibility for this program, and credit may be automatic or may depend on successful completion of oral or written examinations conducted by the academic department in question. Credits may be awarded in Biology, Business Systems Analysis and Technology (BSAT), Chemistry, Communication, Computer Science, English, Mathematics, Modern Languages, Music, Physics, and Visual Arts.

A student may apply to the appropriate academic Dean to take a credit examination for skills‐based and knowledge‐based courses at the 100 and 200 levels in which no term paper is required and class participation in discussion is not a central component for the course. In addition, certain 300‐ or 400-level courses may be considered appropriate for credit by examination. Academic departments and Deans determine courses appropriate for individual credit examinations. Only students who are regularly enrolled and who claim special competence gained through practical experience, extensive training, or completion of courses in non‐accredited institutions may apply for a credit examination. Additional information on credit examinations can be found in the University Catalog.

The University recognizes the validity of the recommendations in the current edition of “A Guide to the Evaluation of Education Experiences in the Armed Services” and grants credit for certain military schools, subject to the approval of the Director of Admissions and the student’s academic dean.

Graduate School

The Graduate School recognizes the appropriateness of accepting credits completed at another regionally accredited institution for course work equivalent to course work at UL Lafayette. The Graduate School requires evidence of correspondence between transferrable credit and credit offered by UL Lafayette. A maximum of nine or 12 semester hours of transfer graduate credit may be applied toward fulfillment of requirements for a master's degree, depending on the total number of credits required for the degree. An unspecified number of semester hours of transfer graduate credit may be applied toward fulfillment of requirements for the PhD. No doctoral program accepts more than half of the candidate’s degree credits from another institution. Transfer of graduate credit requires the approval of the Dean of the Graduate School, and is subject to conditions outlined in the University Catalog.

B. UL Lafayette ensures an approval process with oversight by persons academically qualified to make the necessary judgments.

Transfer Credit Evaluators in the Office of the University Registrar are responsible for working with the appropriate academic colleges and faculty to ensure accurate and timely evaluation of transfer credits. The team currently includes two full-time Transfer Credit Evaluators and an Associate Registrar, and another two evaluator positions are expected to be filled in Fall 2019, as part of a concerted campus effort to enhance the transfer credit evaluation process, and to review transfer credit policies and practices.

The Transfer Credit Evaluators are well qualified—each has a Bachelor’s degree and prior experience working with transfer credits—and they are well trained. Over the Summer and Fall 2018 semesters, the team members attended training conducted by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). They then engaged in numerous meetings with academic colleges and faculty to ensure full understanding of the departments’ course offerings, including course descriptions and learning outcomes.

The Registrar’s Office has also successfully implemented College Source’s Transfer Evaluation System (TES) software to enhance the speed and accuracy of transfer credit evaluations. This software allows the transfer credit evaluators, academic colleges, and academic departments to access catalogs from hundreds of post-secondary institutions. The software also offers an electronic workflow that allows the Transfer Credit Evaluators to send an evaluation request to an appropriate academic department for evaluation. The system then documents the evaluation decision made by the academic department, which allows the transfer credit evaluator to add the evaluation to the articulation table in Banner. The University has also purchased the Transferology software for implementation in Fall 2019. This tool allows prospective students to gauge the transferrable credit hours that may apply to their degree program upon admission to the University.

Ultimately, all decisions about determining appropriate course equivalencies between UL Lafayette and any other institution rely on the content expertise of qualified faculty members in their respective subject areas. The University’s articulation tables, as well as individual assessments of courses for the purpose of transfer credit, have been developed with input from the relevant academic units on campus. The Board of Regents’ Articulation Matrix is updated on a yearly basis, and articulation agreements with other institutions are periodically reviewed for curriculum accuracy.

C. UL Lafayette ensures that the credit awarded is comparable to a designated credit experience and is consistent with the institution’s mission.

The University records all academic credit not originating from the institution on the official academic transcript. Both transfer credit earned under an articulation agreement and credits not earned under an articulation agreement are clearly labeled as transfer credit at the beginning of the official transcript. The name of the institution where the credit originated is also clearly visible to the reader. AP and other examination-based credits are also displayed on the transcript.

Supporting Documents 

Articulation: Academic Affairs

BOR Articulation Matrix

Catalog College of Engineering

Catalog College of Nursing and Allied Health Professions

Catalog Credit by Other Means

Catalog GR Course and Credit Regulations

College Entrance Examination Board Advanced Placement Program

ETS Website: TOEFL

Grade, Credit, and Time Requirements

Military Guide

Other Advanced Placement Programs

Sample TES Evaluations

Sample Transfer Pathway MOU: LSU-E

Sample Transfer Pathway MOU: SLCC

Transcript Samples

 

10.9     Cooperative academic arrangements

The institution ensures the quality and integrity of the work recorded when an institution transcripts courses or credits as its own when offered through a cooperative academic arrangement. The institution maintains formal agreements between the parties involved, and the institution regularly evaluates such agreements.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette hosts a wide variety of cooperative arrangements that advances educational goals, and ensures the quality and integrity of the work recorded, when transcripting courses and credits through these arrangements. These include articulation agreements and exchange agreements with international and U.S. institutions, language immersion agreements with international institutions, clinical and field experience placements for course credit, and student internship programs, all of which the University regularly evaluates.

Memoranda of Understanding

In order to delineate transfer pathways between two-year programs offered at Louisiana community colleges and four-year programs at UL Lafayette, the University established articulation agreements with Baton Rouge Community College, Louisiana State University at Eunice, South Louisiana Community College, and SOWELA Technical Community College. The faculty in the relevant disciplines at each institution are responsible for establishing course equivalencies within articulation agreements, and for ensuring that curricular requirements meet the University's expectations for quality of instruction. Agreements are reviewed regularly by participating institutions, as specified in the contracts and agreements. Following review by qualified faculty, all contractual and consortial agreements are approved by the relevant Dean, the Provost, and the President, to ensure they meet the objectives of the relevant degree program and adhere to the mission of the University.

In addition to university‐wide oversight, each of the University’s consortial and contractual agreements is individually negotiated and monitored at the departmental level. As an illustration, the Department of Modern Languages has negotiated numerous contractual agreements that provide opportunities for immersive language instruction to UL Lafayette students. For example, the University has an agreement with the Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara in Mexico to offer comprehensive programs in Spanish as a second language. The department has also entered into agreements with the Université Ste. Anne in Nova Scotia and L'Université de Moncton in New Brunswick to provide French immersion experiences for UL Lafayette students. Additionally, exchange agreements exist between UL Lafayette and numerous French universities through the Council on the Development of French in Louisiana (CODOFIL) Consortium; and the University has separate exchange agreements with several French university partners: L’Université de Poitiers, the Université de Strasbourg, L’Université Rennes 2, and the University of Caen Basse-Normandie. In all these agreements, the faculty of the Department of Modern Languages and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts reviewed and approved academic programming provided by other universities to ensure it meets acceptable standards for awarding credit, and that it is compatible with the University’s mission. Prior to the Provost’s and President’s review and signature, all memoranda of understanding with international partners are reviewed by the Office of Operational Review and by the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs. Since July 1^st, 2018, the Executive Director of Global Engagement also reviews these international agreements.

Consortia

The University offers two graduate degrees through consortial arrangements with other Louisiana universities: the EdD in Educational Leadership through the College of Education, and the Master of Science in Nursing. The EdD is offered in concert with Southeastern Louisiana University, and allows a student to pursue one of four concentrations: Curriculum Leadership, Exceptional Learner, Higher Education Administration, and K-12 Leadership Education. Students take all coursework toward the degree at their home institution, so transcripting credit earned at other institutions is unnecessary. The only overlap between the two institutions is the requirement that a student’s Dissertation Committee include at least one member from the collaborating university.

The online Master of Science in Nursing program, with specialty concentrations in Family Nurse Practitioner and Nursing Education, is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, and is offered through a consortium of four universities, the Intercollegiate Consortium for a Master of Science in Nursing (ICMSN), composed of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, McNeese State University, Nicholls State University, and Southeastern Louisiana University. These universities collectively developed a comprehensive curriculum, offered independently at each institution, which prepares professional nurses at an advanced level of theoretical and clinical practice in order to address present and potential health needs of South Louisiana. UL Lafayette students take all coursework at their home institution, and therefore transcripting credits earned at other institutions is unnecessary.

Internships

Various colleges and departments offer internship programs, allowing students to participate in on-the-job work experiences and achieve student outcomes that relate to their major while receiving academic credit. These programs are available in the College of Business, the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Sciences, the College of Education, the College of Nursing, and the College of Engineering. In the Nursing department, for example, formal agreements with clinics, hospitals, and doctors are in place for clinical sites, where students engage in direct care clinical activities at health care institutions throughout the state. Similarly, MS in Speech Language Pathology students participate in clinical internships. Affiliation agreements with public schools, private practices, nursing homes, and hospitals provide graduate clinicians with direct care clinical experiences under the supervision of the licensed service provider employed in those settings.

Agreements and student placement in clinical and internship sites are monitored by internship coordinators or designated faculty members in the relevant departments, who verify that the work conducted during the internship meets appropriate learning outcomes and standards in the discipline. For transcripting, internship courses are included in individual curricula for credit-granting purposes, such as ACCT 398 (Internship in Accounting), BADM 398 (Internship in Business Administration), or BLAW 398 (Internship in Business Law).

 

Supporting Documents

Articulation Chain of Approval Email

Biology, 2017

Business, 2017

CCNE Accreditation

CODI Agreement Template

CODOFIL MOU

Communication Internship Syllabus and Documents

Educational Leadership Program

ICMSN MOU

Informatics MOU 2015

Internship Inquiry

Liberal Arts Internships & Assistantships

List of Internship Courses Offered

Memoranda of Understanding

Moody Internship Program

MOU Review

MOU with L’Université de Moncton

MOU with L’Université de Poitiers

MOU with L’Université Rennes 2

MOU with Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara

MOU with Université de Strasbourg

MOU with Université Ste. Anne

MOU with University of Caen Basse-Normandie

Nursing Consortium

Nursing Partnerships

Nursing SOWELA MOU 2018

Poitiers MOU Review and Renewal

Process for Memoranda of Understanding with International Universities

Sample Nursing Clinic Agreement

Sample Nursing Doctor Agreement

Sample Nursing Hospital Agreement

School of Geosciences Internships

SELU Consortial Agreement

Teacher Intern Residency

 

11.1     Library and Learning/Information Resources [CR]

The institution provides adequate and appropriate library and learning/information resources, services, and support for its mission.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette provides to its students and faculty adequate library collections and other information resources in keeping with its mission as a doctoral‐granting higher research institution.

University’s Mission

According to its Mission Statement, UL Lafayette “offers an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture. We develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.” To support this mission, the Library actively seeks to add value to students’ experience at the University by providing access to print and digital resources to promote academic excellence and to satisfy the requirements of courses and degree programs. The Library seeks to provide an environment in which students and faculty can conduct research, collaborate with peers, study, and advance knowledge effectively. It provides flexible learning spaces, technologically advanced private and group work spaces, individual and collaborative study spaces, and reading rooms and technology zones.

The Library is actively engaged in the acquisition and preservation of cultural artifacts including historical books, manuscripts, photographs, Cajun & Creole music recordings, and the enhancement of archival technology. The Library has created a digital institutional repository that provides worldwide digital access to research, scholarship, and creative work by UL Lafayette faculty and students, and recognition of the University’s scholarly impact on learning and research.

The Library supports the Association of College and Research Libraries Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, and its commitment to the pursuit and promotion of education and information literacy through its resources and services reflects the University’s primary mission. The Library is committed to the development of information-literate individuals who value lifelong learning, possess critical and analytical thinking skills, and are thoughtful consumers and producers of meaningful, quality information.

A comparison between the overall size of the Library's collection, whether owned or made available through electronic or other means, and the collections of a peer group consisting of colleges and universities of similar size with the Carnegie Classification Code of Doctoral High Research (R2) demonstrates that UL Lafayette’s students and faculty have access to resources that are comparable to those available to students and faculty at peer institutions and adequate to its mission. Table 11.1 – 1 compares UL Lafayette’s library collection with that of four peer institutions.

Table 11.1 – 1: IPEDS Provisional Release Data (2016-2017)

Library Services

The University Libraries system is composed of several libraries: Edith Garland Dupré Library serves as the main library, which provides cataloging and technical support to the following libraries: the Instructional Materials Center contains books representative of a school library, and the Reading Center provides support for literacy and research–both are housed in Maxim Doucet Hall. The University Art Museum Library contains books housed in the Paul and Lulu Hilliard University Art Museum; and the William S. Patout III Sugar Library in Patoutville, LA, contains books and materials relative to the sugarcane industry.

The mission of Edith Garland Dupré Library, as an integral part of UL Lafayette, is to support fully the instructional and research programs of the University by providing access to information through the teaching, acquisition, organization, and preservation of information resources in all formats to the University's academic community, the region, and the state.

Edith Garland Dupré Library is a welcoming environment conducive to research and other campus activities and services. Campus Wi-Fi access allows students, faculty, and staff to access Library resources from anywhere on campus. User authentication provides remote access to electronic resources.

The main Library facility floor plan includes the following:

·         Floor space: 222,000 square feet

·         300 computer stations for accessing library resources

·         Space capacity for over 2,000,000 volumes

·         Space capacity to seat approximately 3,000 students

·         Library Instruction SMART Classroom

·         Two conference rooms

·         66 study carrels

·         Eight large group study rooms

·         Four individual study rooms

Holdings

As of June 2018, the Library’s holdings included 575,679 titles in the general collection; 969,475 volumes in the general collection; 545,950 electronic books; 1,224 current serials subscriptions; 227 electronic databases; and 468,351 government documents. In FY2017-2018, the Library spent $2,090,153.48 on resources. Table 11.1 – 2 lists the Library’s areas.

Table 11.1 – 2: Edith Garland Dupré Library Areas

Departments

University Libraries Public Services encompasses the following areas: Circulation/Reserve Desks; Reference & Research Services and Reference Online Center; Reference Print Collection; Distance Learning Services; Microforms; Interlibrary Loan; Library Instruction SMART Classroom; and User Engagement Services. Each of these areas supports the research and educational needs of the UL Lafayette community by providing research, instructional, and outreach services.

Reference & Research Services provides informational resources in support of the academic and research programs of the University and provides professional and expert reference assistance and instruction to students, faculty, staff, and to the general public in their research or information-seeking processes. The Government Information University Libraries print collection is located adjacent to Reference & Research Services and is a selective depository, collecting nearly forty percent of federal documents. Personnel are available to assist users during all operating hours. Computer stations are available in the department for assistance with library resources and U.S. Government information. Research inquiries can be made through the Ask a Librarian service, which is available during all operating hours.

The Library is equipped with five computer labs: two (2) Library STEP Computer Labs, Graduate Student Computer Lab, Reference Online Center Services Lab, and Library Instruction SMART Classroom, providing approximately 300 computer workstations with a full range of application software and on-site support for shared printing at a central location for use by faculty, staff, and students. The Library is part of the University’s computer sustainability plan. Computer labs are updated on a planned cycle using technology funds from student fees. Printing is available for all users.

Circulation Services includes the main circulation desk and reserve desk. Library materials may be checked out with a valid University ID card. Depending on status, the circulation period for books is three weeks or longer. Renewal of materials that are not overdue is available online and at the Circulation Desk. The Reserve Desk contains books and materials placed there by faculty members and graduate teaching assistants for the use of their students. These may include books from the library collection, personal copies of books, course notes and sample exams, and other items.

Interlibrary Loan service supports the research and educational needs of the UL Lafayette community by providing access to materials not held in the Library's collections. The Department conducts all transactions in accordance with the Louisiana Interlibrary Loan Code, the National Interlibrary Loan Code, ALA Interlibrary Loan Code, and U. S. Copyright regulations.

The Library’s Distance Learning Services Department provides assistance and support to students and faculty participating in hybrid and online courses. Distance learning students are entitled to library resources equivalent to those offered on campus. The Library provides resources for reference and research assistance; guides and tutorials; embedded library services in Moodle, remote access via user authentication to all of the Library's online holdings, including databases, journals, eBooks and reference collections; article and book delivery of in-house library materials not available in full text online; borrowing materials from other libraries through the Library’s Interlibrary Loan service; and borrowing resources from other Louisiana institutions via the LOUIS reciprocal borrowing program. The University’s Office of Distance Learning design team actively collaborates with the Library instruction team to ensure that all distance learning faculty are aware of library collections and can include them in their curriculum planning. Both teams share best practices.

Technical Services encompasses the following areas: Cataloging, Collection Development, E-Resources & Serials, IT Services; and Special Collections. Each of these areas supports the research and educational needs of the UL Lafayette community by providing web services, library materials acquisitions, and the identification and access of books and materials.

Special Collections includes the Louisiana Room, the Rare Book Collection, the University Archives and Acadiana Manuscripts Collection, the Cajun & Creole Music Collection, the Ernest J. Gaines Center, and the U.S. Government Information collection. Special Collections houses various materials such as books, periodicals, manuscripts, maps, microforms, DVDs, CDs, phonograph records, photographs, vertical files, and Louisiana state documents. Special Collections fully supports the mission of the Library and University by the preservation of and access to information resources in all formats. Special Collections also provides professional and expert reference assistance and instruction to students, faculty, staff, and to the general public via email, phone and the Live Chat application.

Learning/Information Resources

The Library is a member of the statewide academic library consortium called LOUIS. LOUIS was begun in 1992 by both public and private institutions of higher learning in the state as a means of establishing a cost-effective collaboration to assist with the procurement of resources and technology for libraries as written in the LOUIS Consortia Agreement. Through LOUIS, the Library obtains its online public access catalog, which uses the SirsiDynix product Symphony, and its Interlibrary Loan system, ILLiad. Membership in LOUIS also provides the Library with access to several online resources including EBSCOhost, which provides its primary discovery tool EBSCO Discovery (EDS). The consortium formed a working group in 2018 to review the shared online resources provided to its members. The Library also participates in the LOUIS reciprocal borrowing program, which provides on-site borrowing privileges among the state’s colleges and universities.

The Library provides an online catalog for information about its holdings and an extensive range of electronic databases and eBooks for users to access for their research needs. The Library is a participant of the worldwide OCLC Consortium, in which cataloging records are maintained and shared, utilizing the latest national standards. The online catalog is available 24/7 remotely and via Library computers.

The Library pays an annual membership fee to LYRASIS. Several online research databases are purchased through the membership, and reduced costs for supplies are available. LYRASIS provides professional development opportunities through online and onsite training.

The Head of E-Resources & Serials, along with the departmental librarians, consults regularly with university academic departments on the selection of print and electronic serials in order to meet the educational and research needs of the departments. The Library’s Serials/E-Resources Committee meets regularly to prioritize and review current and potential subscriptions.

Print Journals. The Library has approximately 172 current print subscriptions. It owns complete back files of most serial titles in the collection.

Full Text Journals. The Library is increasing its online full-text holdings in response to demands by academic faculty. The Library currently has approximately 1,052 individually subscribed electronic journals. The Library’s full text publication application, EBSCO’s Publication Finder, provides information on journals, eBooks and other materials that are available in full text via subscriptions or through open-access protocols. Library users may access these full-text publications either remotely via authentication or on campus. Users may search by title, ISSN/ISBN, subject, or discipline. Access to online journals varies according to publisher and access model.

Electronic Databases and Selected E-Resources. The Library currently subscribes to approximately 227 online research databases and 545,950 eBooks that support the educational and research needs of the University. Electronic databases provide subject-level indexing information from journal and magazine articles, U.S. government publications, and many other online resources. A growing number of eBooks is available for full-text downloading by users. These and other Library electronic resources are accessible on campus and remotely. A complete listing, both alphabetically by name and arranged by subject, of the Library's databases is available through the Library's website. Sample research database subjects include Art & Architecture, Computer Science, Engineering, History, Modern Languages, and Psychology. Many of the resources are retained as part of the Library’s consortium membership with LOUIS, and others are purchased independently by the Library. The University’s Office of Distance Learning designates funds for online databases to support the variety of online programs that it offers. In 2018, Distance Learning provided $150,695.99 for online resources. The Office of Distance Learning is also working with the Library’s Distance Learning Librarian to investigate Open Educational Resources (OER) to be used in online courses. Due to the growing demand of electronic resources, including full-text journals, the Library has responded by purchasing more online subscriptions to fully support the curriculum and programs of the University.

Collection Development

The Library strives to continually maintain depth of the collections through book orders and journal requests. The major source of funding for acquisitions is institutional allocation, while some funding comes from gifts, grants, and self-generated funds. The Library Dean allocates the budget to each University department according to level of degree program for the purchase of library materials that will support classroom instruction and research.

University faculty control the selection of books, materials, serials, and online resources for the Library along with the assistance of departmental librarians. The departmental librarians actively seek suggestions for additions to the Library collection from members of the faculty. The designated departmental librarian coordinates the identification and purchasing of library resources and provides an online form for year-round submission of requests. After purchased materials are processed, the librarian sends the faculty representative a webpage link that lists all new materials and their location information. The departmental librarian also sends subject-specific publication announcements on a periodic basis. In addition, with the current trend towards online journals, the Head of E-Resources and Serials is also involved in directing the decision-making process of transitioning print to online journals as well as consulting with faculty to review their departmental journals and databases.

A Library faculty member serves on the University’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. All educational programs and curricula at UL Lafayette are approved by the faculty through the curriculum committee structure at the department, college, and University levels and, ultimately, by the Provost. Using the Undergraduate and Graduate Course Change Forms, faculty designers of proposed new courses must consult with the Library regarding the present and future availability of library resources needed for the course.

The University’s “UL Lafayette Guidelines for the Proposal of a New Academic Program” requires the department to consult with the Library regarding adequate library holdings, library expenditures, and access to materials in order to initiate the proposed programs.

The Library maintains a formal collection development policy to ensure that it includes in the collections the books, periodicals, and other appropriate library materials to support the institution’s mission, research, and programs and/or provide access to them. The policy is general and applicable to all University programs and is available on the Library’s website and given to academic departmental liaisons. Replacements follow the same collection development policy as original purchases. The Library also maintains a deselection policy, which includes the process of removing outdated and obsolete resources from the Library’s collection.

Departmental Accreditation Feedback

The Library works with departments who have discipline-specific accrediting agencies to identify appropriate resources to ensure that the Library is meeting those needs. The Library has written reports for the College of Engineering, departments of Visual Arts, Computer Science, Nursing, and the School of Music & Performing Arts. The departments report the favorable outcome regarding the Library from these agencies.

School of Music: National Association of Schools of Music 2018 Accreditation report on the Library:

The visitors were impressed with the knowledge and dedication of the library staff. It appears that the holdings and equipment in the Edith Garland Dupré Library sufficiently meet the needs of the School of Music and Performing Arts. There appears to be adequate library assistance, both in-person and virtual, a good system of acquisition, and a plan to address needs. Funding for the main library seems sufficient to provide resources. There is good communication between the music librarian and the music faculty. The need for conservation/preservation of materials is conscientiously monitored. (…) It appears that the institution meets NASM standards with regard to maintaining viable library and learning resources to support the size and scope of all undergraduate and graduate programs.

Department of Nursing: Doctorate of Nursing Practice, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Self Study, July 2018:

UL Lafayette Dupré Library provides faculty and students with a full range of library services and bibliographic instruction. Present library holdings are adequate to meet current and proposed teaching needs. In addition to physical presence, the library has a website with access links that support scholarly work and research. The library provides students and faculty with online support through many electronic databases which provide access to full-text and abstracted journal articles, and governmental documents. Online library resources also include useful tutorials for searching reference data bases, obtaining access to online journals and abstract services, and evidence-based practice databases. A distance learning librarian is available to provide assistance to both faculty and students, and this librarian is embedded in course sites through Library Q and A forums. Active chat time with librarians increases students’ ability to accurately and thoroughly utilize all online library resources.

Learning/Information Services

The Library develops services to improve engagement with its users. It offers a variety of services and information resources that meet the mission of the university and the needs of the University community. Members of the public are welcome to visit and peruse the Library's resources and access federal and state documents. Learning and information services offered include:

·         360 interactive library tour ·         ADA equipment ·         Circulation/Reserves ·         Collaboration Stations (large screen monitors and mobile white boards) ·         Computer Labs (4) with printing ·         Copy machines ·         Departmental Librarians ·         Embedded librarians in Moodle ·         Government Information ·         Group and Individual Study Rooms ·         ILL

·         LOUIS Reciprocal Borrowing Program ·         Library instruction via SMART classroom or classroom visits ·         Microforms ·         Online catalog ·         Research services (chat, text, email, individual appointments) ·         Roving research services (visits to dorms, Writing Center) ·         Scanners ·         Subject Guides & Tutorials ·         USB outlets ·         Website

The following support services are offered through the Library as opposed to other academic support offices, as viewed on the Edith Garland Dupré Library News & Events and Publicity webpages:

·         24-hours during last week of classes and finals

·         Writing Center Satellite and Biology Tutoring

·         Academic Stress Release Week (massages, therapy wall, games, therapy dogs/Pups & Popsicles)

·         Charging Stations/Lockers

·         Graduate Computer Lab

·         Health & Wellness Fair

·         Lactation Room

·         Open Mic Poetry Readings

·         School supplies vending machine

Assessment

The Library continually assesses and improves its services and facilities. The University Library Committee, a Faculty Senate Committee, meets to discuss library initiatives and awards the annual Jefferson Caffery Research Award, which is awarded to an undergraduate or graduate student paper that utilizes materials in the Library’s Special Collections. Library personnel regularly submits grants for new equipment and technology. The Library also uses a variety of methods to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of its services. Statistics for pertinent services during AY2017-18, derived from the Library Annual Report, BlueCloud Analytics, and Library Surveys, follow.

·         Hours of operation: 94 hours per week; and 24/7 during the week prior to and during final examination periods

·         Circulation: 19,483

·         Reserves: 1,520

·         Interlibrary Loan: 1,724 borrowed; 1,987 loaned

·         Reference inquiries: 8,430 (total of directional, basic, and extended reference questions); 2,342 (total chat, text, and email reference questions)

·         Library instruction: 317 sessions; 5,956 students; 353.25 instruction hours

·         Gate count: 728,252 (total from both front and rear entrances) University student population 17,297

·         Community engagement: 9 events; 736 attendance; Ernest J. Gaines Center: 8 events; 466 attendance

In AY2017-2018, the Library initiated an inventory project, whose goals were to assess usage, age, and condition of the collection. The yearlong project revealed cataloging issues, underuse of certain subject areas, and many duplicates as noted in the Library Annual Report 2017/2018. Circulation staff reported on the project statistics, listed in Table 11.1 – 3.

Table 11.1 — 3: 2017-2018 Inventory Project

 

With Library faculty input from departmental librarians and library administrators, this study led to the deselection of materials and consolidation of designated areas. For example, a portion of the Reference Collection moved to the general stacks to provide for a collaborative study area for students, and the Encyclopedia collection was reduced in order to create future quiet spaces for individual study.

Cataloging collaborated with staff from Circulation to discard outdated and obsolete encyclopedias and yearbooks. The total number of volumes discarded was 1,013. During the ongoing inventory project, Circulation staff discovered many materials on the shelf without barcodes or records in Workflows. Cataloging staff worked on adding monograph materials back to the catalog. They added barcodes, loaded the records, and added holdings to OCLC.

The Library Committee on Assessment meets regularly to discuss assessment measures and outcomes as recorded in LiveText. The Library conducted user satisfaction surveys in Fall 2012, Spring 2015, and Fall 2018. The Library responded to comments from the surveys by reclaiming group study rooms previously used for other purposes, purchasing additional mobile white boards, and installing food vending machines. The Library also collaborated with the Student Government Association to supply dry erase markers and Scantron forms, and with the Food Services Department to extend the hours of the Library’s coffee shop. The academic and research faculty’s comments showed a growing demand for electronic resources, including full-text journals. The Library has responded by purchasing more online subscriptions to fully support the curricula and programs of the University.

 

Supporting Documents

Ask a Librarian

Association of College and Research Libraries Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Ed

Circulation Services

Course Change Procedures

Curriculum Committee Forms

Departmental Librarians

Edith Garland Dupré LibGuide for Distance Learners

Edith Garland Dupré Library

Edith Garland Dupré Library Collection Development Deselection Policy

Edith Garland Dupré Library Collection Development Policy

Edith Garland Dupré Library Departmental Librarians

Edith Garland Dupré Library Distance Learning Web Site

Edith Garland Dupré Library Mission Statement

Edith Garland Dupré Library News & Events

Edith Garland Dupré Library Publicity

E-Resources & Serials

Graduate Course Change Form

Graduate Student Computer Lab

Head of E-Resources review of departmental journals and databases

Hilliard University Art Museum

Institutional Repository

Instructional Materials Center

Interlibrary Loan

IPEDS Provisional Release Data (2016-2017)

Jefferson Caffery Research Award

Library Annual Report 2017/2018

Library Floorplan

Library Instruction SMART Classroom

Library Materials Order Form

Library Online Catalog

Library Survey Fall 2012

Library Survey Fall 2018

Library Survey Spring 2015

Library Surveys

LOUIS Consortia

LOUIS Consortia Agreement

LOUIS Reciprocal Borrowing Card

LYRASIS Membership

New Program Development Form

New Program Development Guidelines

Public Services University Libraries

Reading Center

Reference and Research Services

Reference Online Center

Reference Research Services

Reserve Desk

Special Collections, Cajun & Creole Music Collection, Ernest J. Gaines Center

STEP Labs

Summary of Funds

Technical Services

U. S. Government Information

University Mission

William S. Patout III Sugar Library

 

11.2     Library and Learning/Information Staff

The institution ensures an adequate number of professional and other staff with appropriate education or experiences in library and/or other learning/information resources to accomplish the mission of the institution.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette provides a sufficient number of qualified staff, with appropriate education or experience in library and/or other learning/information resources, to accomplish the mission of the institution. The library personnel are included in the Library’s Annual Report along with their titles and years of service.

Based on the criteria for adequacy of library staffing included in the 2018 revised Standards for Libraries in Higher Education developed by the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Library’s faculty and staff are sufficient in qualifications to accomplish the Library’s mission to support fully the instructional and research activities of the institution’s faculty, students, and staff. The Library implements many of the proposed indicators and sample outcomes of the Standards. For example, in Principle 8 - Personnel, one of the Performance Indicators, 8.6, states that library personnel keep current with library technology, applications, and infrastructure and participate in ongoing training. The Library faculty and staff participate in webinars and vendor training sessions; attend conferences such as the LOUIS Users Conference, the Louisiana Library Association Annual Conference (LLA), and the EBSCO Discovery Service Training; and present regularly on Library initiatives and share best practices.

Edith Garland Dupré Library employs eighteen full-time librarians, including a Dean and an Associate Dean. All library faculty possess an ALA-accredited MLS/MLIS, and some have additional subject master’s degrees. Librarians at UL Lafayette hold faculty status and rank. Three librarians have tenure: one at the rank of Professor, two at the rank of Associate Professor. Six librarians are at the rank of Assistant Professor and are also on the tenure-track. One librarian holds the rank of Senior Instructor, and seven librarians hold the rank of Instructor.

UL Lafayette accepts the Association of College and Research Libraries’ ACRL Statement on the Terminal Professional Degree for Academic Librarians as its defining standard. The ACRL states that the master's degree from a program accredited by the American Library Association, or from a program in a country with a formal accreditation process as identified by ALA’s Human Resource Development and Recruitment Office is the appropriate terminal professional degree for academic librarians.

Each librarian is assigned as a liaison to a particular department and/or academic college, allowing open communication between the Library and faculty and students. The adequate staffing of professional librarians allows for each faculty librarian to provide services such as collection development and library instruction to their assigned subject areas, departments, and/or academic colleges within the University. Position descriptions are updated and maintained by the Library Dean’s office. The position descriptions serve as a reference for new positions and/or for the reorganization of current positions to meet the needs of the Library and its users. A library organizational chart is also updated and maintained by the Dean’s Office. The Library faculty, degree qualifications, positions, and ranks are identified in the UL Lafayette Library Faculty Qualifications table.

Library faculty are appointed through the same process as other University faculty. The appointment process is outlined in the Faculty Handbook –Appointment Process (Section V). During the interview screening process, Library faculty candidates are asked to give presentations to demonstrate their ability to present effectively and professionally to faculty and at conferences, and to demonstrate their ability to instruct users.

Librarians are evaluated annually as outlined in the Faculty Handbook (Section V). Each faculty member's supervisor performs the annual evaluations, based on the faculty member’s self-reported workload report. There are three areas in which Library faculty are evaluated for merit, tenure, and promotion: Library Responsibilities, Research and Scholarship, and Service. The faculty member’s supervisor assigns a rating to the evaluation, based on a departmental rubric. The merit, tenure, and promotion process for the Library faculty is similar to that of tenure-track faculty in other academic units, as identified in the Faculty Handbook, Section V, pages V6-8, Tenure and Promotion Guidelines.

As with all members of the University faculty, the Library faculty members are obligated to participate in both professional development activities and University activities. The Library administration encourages participation and leadership in professional organizations. Because of this support, librarians regularly hold elected positions in national, regional, and state professional organizations, serve on statewide working groups, and produce books, papers, articles, grants, and poster sessions as part of their professional development and research. Through their membership on Listservs, forums and other online avenues, the Library faculty develop and maintain relationships with national peers, keep up-to-date with and share best practices and troubleshooting techniques, and resolve issues.

Librarians also serve on various committees throughout the University. Librarians are members of the Faculty Senate, serve on standing and ad-hoc committees, and participate in all University-wide faculty-related activities. The Library administration also participates on campus-wide decision-making committees. All Library faculty and staff attend in-house, on-campus, and off-site training sessions. Both Library faculty and staff are allotted time to take formal coursework at the University, and some employees take online courses at other institutions. All Library employees receive information about workshop and training opportunities, as well as other internal library news, via the Library’s Listserv, Library Council minutes, and departmental meetings.

Faculty receive supplemental travel funds to attend conferences and workshops. These include the American Library Association Midwinter and Annual Conferences, Association of College and Research Libraries Conference, LOUIS Users Conference (LUC), Louisiana Library Association (LLA) Annual Conference, Society of American Archivists, Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference, and others. The Library administration also provides opportunities for travel to consortia meetings and training workshops.

The Library employs three unclassified staff members: the Library IT Coordinator, the IT Systems Specialist, and the Executive Assistant to the Dean of Libraries. Position descriptions are updated and maintained by the Library Dean’s office. The Library’s unclassified staff members are listed in the UL Library Unclassified Staff Qualifications table.

In addition, the Library employs thirty-five civil service support staff members. All are classified as Library Specialists. All classified employees of the Library are appointed in accordance with State of Louisiana Civil Service Regulations. Each position has specific job requirements to determine proper classification or job title. The Department of Civil Service sets the minimum qualification requirements and the pay range to which the position is assigned. The following position classifications are used by the Library:

·         Library Specialist 2  

·         Library Specialist 3

·         Library Specialist Supervisor

All classified employees undergo a probationary period of two years from the date of hire. They are trained by the Library faculty or, in some instances, by Library Specialist Supervisors, and the supervisor of the classified employee must hold planning and evaluation sessions with the employee annually. Position descriptions and daily work schedules of staff are updated regularly by the employee, employee supervisor, and the Dean’s office. The Library support staff members are identified by name, title, and their Civil Service classification on the UL Lafayette Edith Garland Dupre Library Classified Staff chart.

As with all members of the University staff, the Library staff are able to participate in both professional development activities and University activities. The Library administration encourages participation and leadership within the Library and in professional organizations. Because of this support, staff regularly participate in library committees and professional organizations, serve on statewide working groups and attend conferences. The Library also conducts regular staff meetings and development activities, such as presentations on disaster prevention and new developments in library services.

Library services are augmented with nonprofessional staff who work throughout the Library assisting librarians and library specialists. The Library is assigned three graduate assistants (GA) who work in IT, Instructional Services, and Reference & Research Services. The University’s English Department assigns two GAs to the Ernest J. Gaines Collection. Forty student aides work throughout the Library assisting librarians and library specialists. Student aides work at both Circulation Desks, in Serials, Collection Development, Cataloging, and in Special Collections. According to the Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, indicator 8.7 states that library personnel engage with library student employees to provide mentoring and work that enhance the students’ overall academic experience. The Library’s GAs and student workers are often provided opportunities beyond their regular assignments to plan Library events, serve on library committees, and assist with research projects, such as the current QEP. Library personnel develop strong connections with the students and often serve as references for academic and employment opportunities.

In addition to the Library personnel, staff from the library’s consortium and other University departments also assist with IT for the Library. The staff at LOUIS, the academic library statewide consortium, supports and helps maintain the ILS, Discovery Service, consortial databases, and acquisitions, among other services. The University’s Information Technology services provide the Library with technical assistance such as networking, authentication, and server space.

In addition to the Library’s personnel, staff from other University departments provide assistance; for example, the Center for Louisiana Studies, the Department of English, and the Department of History, Geography, and Philosophy frequently collaborate with Special Collections. The Library instruction team works with various University departments across campus to plan, assess, and improve library instruction.

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) suggests that benchmarking can be used to demonstrate whether a library is staffed at levels comparable to similar institutions with related characteristics. For purposes of this analysis, UL Lafayette is compared to a peer group consisting of colleges and universities of similar size holding the Carnegie Classification Code of Doctoral High Research (R2). The data in Table 11.2 — 1 is from the ACRL Metrics Academic Library Trends & Statistics Portal.

Table 11.2 — 1: Library Personnel at Louisiana Board of Regents’ Selected List of Institutions

of Similar Size and Carnegie Classification of Doctoral High Research (R2)

 

In the last five years, the Library has added a new faculty member, two unclassified positions, and two civil service positions. The Library was also awarded two additional graduate assistants by the Graduate School. With the addition of a rear entrance/exit, the Library hired an additional 20 student workers. All public service access points are covered by library employees during operating hours.

Given the number of professional and other staff, their appropriate educational background and professional training, and the resources at their disposal, UL Lafayette ensures that the Library is adequately equipped to accomplish the mission of the institution.

 

Supporting Documents

ACRL Metrics Academic Library Trends & Statistics Portal

ACRL Statement on the Terminal Professional Degree for Academic Librarians

Civil Service Staff Position Description (Collins)

Civil Service Staff Position Description (Gautreaux)

Committees Library Members

EBSCO Discovery Service Training

Faculty Handbook Section V

Faculty Handbook, Section V, pages V10-11, Evaluation of Faculty

Faculty Position Description 1 (Flockton)

Faculty Position Description 2 (Stapleton)

Faculty Workload Document

Faculty-Handbook Appointment

Library Annual Report 2017/2018

Library Council Minutes (June 2015)

Library Council Minutes (March 2019)

Library Faculty Annual Evaluation Form

Library Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation Form

Library Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation Rubrics

Library Faculty Merit, Tenure and Promotion Guidelines

Library Faculty Qualifications table

Library Organizational Chart

Library Personnel Directory

LOUIS

LOUIS Users Conference

Louisiana Civil Service Job Description - Library Specialist 2

Louisiana Civil Service Job Description - Library Specialist 3

Louisiana Civil Service Job Description - Library Specialist Supervisor

Louisiana Library Association Annual Conference

Notes & Tracings Newsletter

Poetry to the People Flyer

QEP Email

Standards for Libraries in Higher Education

Travel Training Workshop

UL Lafayette Edith Garland Dupre Library Classified Staff

UL Library Unclassified Staff Qualifications table

Unclassified Position Description

 

11.3     Library and Learning/Information access

The institution provides (a) student and faculty access and user privileges to its library services and (b) access to regular and timely instruction in the use of the library and other learning/information resources.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

A. Student and Faculty Access and User Privileges to Library Services

The University Libraries system is comprised of several libraries: The Edith Garland Dupré Library serves as the main library, which provides cataloging and technical support to the following libraries: the Instructional Materials Center contains books representative of a school library, and the Reading Center provides support for literacy and research; both are housed in Maxim Doucet Hall. The University Art Museum Library contains books housed in the Paul and Lulu Hilliard University Art Museum, and the William S. Patout III Sugar Library in Patoutville, LA, contains books and materials relative to the sugarcane industry.

Edith Garland Dupré Library Access

The Library, located less than a ten-minute walk from anywhere on campus, is readily accessible to students and faculty. They have adequate, barrier-free access to the Library for over ninety hours per week. The Library’s general collections are accessible at all hours of operation, as are services, including the Reference/Research Desk, Reserve Desk, Circulation Desk, and Reference Online Center and STEP computer labs. The Library’s electronic resources are available 24/7 to accommodate students and faculty needing remote access.

The Library compiles an annual report with statistics and departmental summaries, documenting the activities, programs, usage, and personnel during the fiscal year. The report contributes to the Library’s efforts toward continued improvement of user access.

The Library is equipped with five computer labs: two STEP Labs, Graduate Student Computer Lab, Reference Online Center University Libraries, and the Library Instruction SMART Classroom. Together, these facilities provide approximately 300 computer workstations with a full range of application software and on-site support for shared printing at a central location for use by faculty, staff, and students. The Library is part of the University’s computer sustainability plan. Computer labs are updated on a planned cycle using technology funds from student fees. Free printing is available for all users.

The department of Reference and Research Services provides informational resources in support of the academic and research programs of the University, as well as professional and expert reference assistance and instruction to students, faculty, staff, and to the general public in their research or information-seeking processes. The Library’s Ask a Librarian service provides virtual reference assistance that is available an average of 80 hours per week, and personnel are available to assist users during all operating hours. The service includes reference services via live chat, e-mail, text messaging, and social media. The Special Collections department also provides professional and expert reference assistance and instruction to students, faculty, staff, and to the general public in their research or information-seeking processes via email, phone, and the Live Chat application.

Circulation Services includes the main circulation desk and reserve desk. Library materials may be checked out with a valid University ID card. Books circulate to students for a three-week loan period with renewal privileges, to graduate students for one semester, and to faculty for an academic year. Circulation policies define loan periods, fines, lost book fees, and other concerns.

The Library provides an online catalog for information about its holdings and an extensive range of electronic databases and eBooks for users to access for their research needs. The Library is a participant of the worldwide OCLC Consortium, in which cataloging records are maintained and shared, utilizing the latest national standards. The online catalog is available 24/7 remotely and via Library computers.

The Library subscribes to thousands of online resources. Electronic databases provide subject-level indexing information from journal and magazine articles, U.S. government publications, and many other online resources. A growing number of eBooks are available for full-text downloading by users. Many of the resources are retained as part of the Library’s consortium membership with LOUIS, while others are purchased independently by the Library. Due to the growing demand for electronic resources, including full-text journals, the Library has purchased more online subscriptions. Library users, including distance learners, may access online resources remotely via authentication.

Access to Additional Services

Students and faculty have access to the following services:

 

·         ADA equipment

·         Collaboration Stations (large screen monitors and mobile white boards)

·         Copy machines

·         Embedded librarians in Moodle

·         Government Information

·         Group and Individual Study Rooms

·         Microforms

·         Roving research services

·         Scanners

·         Subject Guides & Tutorials

·         USB outlets

Access to Holdings of Other Institutions

For resources not available on campus or remotely, the Library provides various services to its users, whether remote or located on campus.

 

The Library operates a professionally staffed interlibrary loan department, which uses the ILLiad interlibrary loan system and provides electronic desktop delivery of documents. In FY2017-2018, the Library Interlibrary Loan borrowed 1,724 items and loaned 1,987 items.

 

The Library is a member of the statewide academic library consortium called LOUIS. Through LOUIS, the Library obtains its online catalog, which uses the SirsiDynix product Symphony, and ILLiad. Membership in LOUIS also provides the Library with access to several online resources including EBSCOhost, with its primary discovery tool EBSCO Discovery (EDS). The Library also participates in the LOUIS reciprocal borrowing program, which grants on-site borrowing privileges to the state’s colleges and universities. In addition to participating in the LOUIS reciprocal borrowing program, UL Lafayette students can use their Cajun Card to obtain a Lafayette Public Library card, which can be used at any branch to borrow books.

 

When the Library is closed, users may access online resources remotely and take advantage of the following resources, which are available 24/7:

 

·         Library Online Catalog

·         Library Website, which offers LibGuides and 360 virtual tours

·         Research Databases

·         Full-Text Journals and eBooks

·         Interlibrary Loan request forms and document delivery

B. Access to Regular and Timely Instruction in the Library

Edith Garland Dupré Library offers continuous instruction in the use of library resources in a variety of ways to the University, middle and high schools, and the local community.

Reference & Research Services

The Reference & Research Services department provides services to individual users during all hours of operation. In addition to drop-in service at the reference desk on the first floor of Dupré Library, the department’s “Ask a Librarian” service provides virtual reference assistance that is available an average of 80 hours per week. The service includes reference services via live chat, e-mail, text messaging, and social media. The chat widget and reference contact information are featured prominently on the Library home page and are visible throughout the Library website and from within most of the Library databases.

Special Collections also provides professional and expert reference assistance and instruction to students, faculty, staff, and the general public for their research or information-seeking processes via email, phone and the application.

Library users requiring specialized or lengthy assistance can use the appointment-based reference service, which allows the Library faculty to devote more attention to the particular questions and needs of an individual researcher. Such appointments can be made with most Library faculty members and traditionally have taken place in the Library, but, in the Fall 2018 semester, Dupré Library piloted virtual reference appointments. This developing program is particularly useful in supporting library users with reference and instruction needs who may not be able to visit the Library in person, including distance learning students.

Library Instructional Services

Dupré Library’s instruction team consists of the Head of Instructional Services, the Head of User Engagement and Instruction Librarian, and a Graduate Teaching Assistant. In addition, most of the Library faculty lead instructional sessions for specialized courses and disciplines and are considered a part of the instructional team. This team supports student research through:

 

·         Reference services at the reference desk, via phone, email, chat, and text

·         Research appointments in which students meet with a Library faculty member for help with a particular research project

·         Library instruction classes, both general and targeted to support specific research assignments in any university course

·         Development of exercises allowing professors to extend student library and/or research skills, including scavenger hunts for particular types of resources

·         Development and maintenance of research guides by subject area and on request for specific classes and assignments

·         Library tours highlighting general services and special archival resources

·         A 360 tour, available from the Library webpage, providing both an overview of key library resources and direct access to reference help and library databases

The Library instruction team collaborates with faculty from other departments to develop, assess, and continually improve both in-person and online exercises to directly address the learning objectives and information literacy benchmarks relevant to any particular course, assignment, or major. Professors can email the Head of Instructional Services to request library instruction. This online instruction request form is also available through the Instructional Services website.

Upon request, the library instruction team develops and refines curricula that support research in each discipline, and works directly with students to support their academic research needs. Library faculty (including the Departmental Librarians assigned to each academic department) design class sessions to teach research skills upon request. They are available to students and faculty for individual research appointments to design course-specific research guides, and to play a research-supportive role in any course. Most first-year students receive library instruction in both their required UNIV 100 and 100-level English classes.

In AY2017-2018 the Library’s instruction team made at least 5,967 student contacts through 328 classes, outreach sessions, individual research requests, and tours. In addition to the 238 library instruction classes, the librarians provided 64 one-on-one research sessions. The Ernest J. Gaines Center led 23 tours of the Center’s archives and general library tours and gave 3 outreach presentations.

In terms of academic department requests for instruction, the top two in AY2017-2018 were English with 80 class requests, and UNIV 100 with 64. Other departments that scheduled a significant number of instruction sessions included History (16 class requests), Modern Languages (12), and Performing Arts and Education (with 7 each). As each request is received, Instructional Services works with the requesting professor to identify students’ primary research needs and agree on learning objectives and a lesson plan for their Library visit that will meet those objectives. The Library provides introductory tours and encourages all professors to consider scheduling library instruction once topics are chosen for a class research assignment, so that students can learn about using library resources in the context of accomplishing a practical and immediate research goal. If a class does not have a research assignment, the librarian either works with the professor to identify a topic the class can research together, or engages the students in a series of hands-on exercises chosen in advance in cooperation with the professor.

ACRL Framework for Information Literacy

The Library instruction team always incorporates at least one of the key elements of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education in each class. These standards, established in 2016 by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), focus on the ways in which students think about academic research, and establish foundational concepts necessary for the development of information literacy. By incorporating the ACRL Framework in library instruction, the team ensures that while addressing the immediate research needs of students, they also continually contribute to the students’ information literacy.

Library Research Course

ENGL 305 (Research in the Information Age) is a one-hour credit course designed to sharpen basic library skills and introduce advanced library research. The course is offered during the Spring semester to students who have met the prerequisites for all ENGL 200- and 300-level courses. The small class size makes it easy to support the development of both generally useful and discipline-specific research skills related to the major and coursework of each student. The primary objectives of the course are:

 

·         To provide library orientation and instruction to groups, demonstrating the effective utilization of the available library resources and services

·         To provide effective classroom instruction targeted to the specific level of the user's understanding and needs, as established in advance by collaboration between the library instructor and course instructor

·         To provide current and effective instruction in the form of printed and online resource handouts, tutorials, and database guides

Evaluation of Instruction

Each year a library assessment plan is submitted to the University. During AY2018-2019 the effectiveness of library instruction was measured using:

 

·         Formative assessment throughout library instruction for visiting classes, using shared Google Docs for student notetaking during research on specific topics.

·         More than 700 student surveys, voluntarily completed at the end of a random sampling of classes, including students in:

o   UNIV 100

o   English Courses, primarily 100-level

o   A variety of interdisciplinary 200-500 level classes

·         Surveys of all faculty who brought classes to the Library or requested integrated library instruction

·         Emails, discussions, instruction interviews with faculty requesting additional library instruction, and other informal feedback

During the semester, the Head of Instructional Services periodically checks the Google Docs provided to classes for research note-taking to see how students are progressing in their research. These documents, initially used in the course of library instruction, often become the place where students, working individually or in groups, continue to keep their research notes throughout their course. Keeping notes in a document shared by the whole class facilitates peer learning and allows both the librarian and the class professor to monitor student progress and provide additional support and feedback as needed. Whether the students have learned to use the Library effectively is clearly evident in their selection of the sources tracked in these documents, and in the feedback received from faculty about the quality of their bibliographies before and after library instruction.

Access to Library Instruction

Library Instructional Services provides on-site instruction throughout the Library and in its SMART classroom. This room is fully equipped with audiovisual and telecommunication access and student computers, all recently upgraded through a University STEP grant. Rolling white boards in the Reference Online Center (ROC) Lab are available for student use throughout the semester and have also proved valuable in library instruction, allowing individual students or small groups to map the research process, and then present and discuss each map with the class. Library Instructional Services also provides off-site instruction throughout the campus, presenting in classrooms, faculty offices, and other locations, including high schools with dual enrollment programs.

The Head of Instructional Services has established and maintains a Google Drive folder of shared and accessible resources for the instruction team. This folder is continually updated and is used to share sample exercises, templates, and copies of the specific guides and exercises used by each class. Such resources support continuous improvement in both the quality and consistency of library instruction, and offer a convenient method for library instructors to share best practices and build on the experience and instructional design assets of the entire staff.

Online student access to library services and regular and timely instruction in the use of the library and other learning/information resources

The Library’s Distance Learning Services Department assists and supports students and faculty participating in hybrid and online courses. Distance learning students are entitled to library resources equivalent to those offered on campus. The Library provides reference and research assistance; guides and tutorials via embedded library services in Moodle; remote access via user authentication to all of the Library's online holdings; article and book delivery of in-house library materials not available in full text online; borrowing of materials from other libraries through the Library’s Interlibrary Loan service; and borrowing of resources from other Louisiana institutions via the LOUIS reciprocal borrowing program.

Students enrolled in online programs who are not able to access the physical libraries may access online resources remotely and take advantage of the following resources, which are available 24/7:

·         Library Online Catalog

·         Library Website, which offers LibGuides and 360 virtual tours

·         Research Databases

·         Full-Text Journals and eBooks

·         Interlibrary Loan request forms and document delivery

While the Library makes every effort to accommodate distance learners and researchers, certain library services—such as computer labs, scanners, copiers, microforms equipment, Special Collections, non-circulating items, mobile white boards, collaboration stations, and charging stations—are only available while to those visiting the Library.

The UL Lafayette IT Service Desk provides technology support via telephone, email, web, and online chat to all University students, which facilitates online access to library and other information resources, and will soon offer a self-service portal in ULink. To accommodate online learners, Service Desk hours were recently expanded to include evening and weekend coverage. Current operating hours for the Service Desk are Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.; Friday 7:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.; and after hours and weekend support provided online or by telephone. A complete catalog of information technology services that facilitate online access to learning and information resources is available to students.

 

 

Supporting Documents

ACRL Framework for Information Literacy

Ask a Librarian

Circulation Services

Edith Garland Dupré LibGuide for Distance Learners

Edith Garland Dupré Library 360 Tour

Edith Garland Dupré Library Circulation Policies

Edith Garland Dupré Library Distance Learning Web Site

Edith Garland Dupré Library Hours

Edith Garland Dupré Library Instruction Request Form

Edith Garland Dupré Library Instructional Services

Edith Garland Dupré Library Research Guides

Edith Garland Dupré Library Web Site

Electronic databases

ENGL 305 (Research in the Information Age)

Faculty and Student Surveys      

Graduate Student Computer Lab

Hilliard University Art Museum

Information Technology Catalog

Instructional Materials Center

Interlibrary Loan

IT Helpdesk

Lafayette Public Library Card

Library Annual Report 2017/2018

Library Instruction SMART Classroom

Library Management System

Library Online Catalog

Library Visit Feedback Survey 2018 PDF

Library Visit Feedback Survey 2018-English Class PDF

LOUIS Consortia

LOUIS Consortia Agreement

LOUIS Reciprocal Borrowing Card

Reading Center

Reference Online Center University Libraries

Reference Research Chat 1 PDF

Reference Research Email 1 PDF

Research Databases

Special Collections

Special Collections Research Email 1 PDF

Special Collections Research Email 2 PDF

STEP Grant Collaboration Grant 2013

STEP Grant Collaboration Grant 2016

STEP Grant Smart Classroom

STEP Labs

STEP Sustainability Plan

UNIV 100 Syllabus

UNIV100 Class Feedback Survey 2018 II PDF

Using shared Google Docs for student notetaking during research on specific topics

William S. Patout III Sugar Library

 

12.1     Student support services [CR]

The institution provides appropriate academic and student support programs, services, and activities consistent with its mission.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette provides appropriate academic and student support programs, services, and activities consistent with its mission. 

The University’s Mission: 

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette offers an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture. We develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition.

University of Louisiana at Lafayette Values:

We strive to create a community of leaders and innovators in an environment that fosters a desire to advance and disseminate knowledge.

In addition to the mission and value statement, the University also fosters the following core values:  equity, integrity, intellectual curiosity, creativity, tradition, transparency, respect, collaboration, pluralism, and sustainability.

In pursuit of this mission for its diverse student population, the University deploys student support services across four of its six divisions, including Academic Affairs, Administration and Finance, Enrollment Management, and Student Affairs. Whether enrolled in main campus or online courses, students can access information about student services through the UL Lafayette website, the student portal (Ulink), the Student Handbook, Student Policies website, Campus Resources, and the University Catalog. The many student support services available to online and other non-traditional students are discussed in each section.

Student Active Learning

Academic Success Center (Academic Affairs). The Academic Success Center provides a variety of services for undergraduate students in a comfortable environment, including academic advising, DIY Workshops, and the GradesFirst Early Warning Program, and connects students with further academic support in other departments. Academic Success Advisors assist first- and second-year undergraduates in transitioning to the University, choosing a major that fits their skills and interests, and selecting the right courses.

Office of Career Services (Student Affairs). The Office of Career Services provides programming designed for face-to-face as well as online students. Services include career assessments, career counseling, job search services, career fairs, a cooperative education program, résumé writing assistance, etiquette dinner, and the “On-Campus Interview” program. The “Collaborate with Us” program allows faculty to avoid cancelling a given session of an academic course if they cannot attend on account of illness or conference attendance, etc. In such instances of unavoidable instructor absence, Career Services will step in and provide a targeted career guest presentation.

Office of Distance Learning (Academic Affairs). The Office of Distance Learning assists in offering undergraduate and graduate students an online learning environment. Services offered include Online New Student Orientation, online tutoring, and coordinating, organizing, and facilitating electronic courses, and program delivery in concert with academic colleges, departments, and other University stakeholders. In addition, Distance Learning provides electronic learning opportunities by facilitating partnerships with other educational institutions, business and industry, and community and public agencies. To increase student readiness for their first online course, the Office of Distance Learning offers a free, self-paced, new student orientation course. The transition course includes seven topics designed to help students assimilate to learning online and learn about online student resources and support at the University. The tutorial also outlines some of the basics for communicating in an online environment.

University Libraries (Academic Affairs). The Edith Garland Dupre’ Library services at UL Lafayette provide both undergraduate and graduate students a variety of programming services in face-to-face meetings, online, and via telephone. Embedded librarian access within Moodle provides students with a full range of consistent and personalized services, including links to books, journals, and databases; available library guides; creation of video and/or screenshot tutorials for assignments; and extended assistance in research and information literacy. Dupre’ Library also provides technology services and resources to meet the needs of the students, including ways for students to interact with each other and build a community of scholars. Large screen monitors and mobile whiteboards offer more student-centered areas that foster collaboration, using informal spaces to promote active and social learning, and spaces where students can access technology together and share information. Computer labs are available for researching, typing, and printing papers and projects, and charging stations and lockers are provided. These programs serve the University’s mission by enhancing the Library’s role as a vital and effective resource for students.

Graduate School (Academic Affairs). The Graduate School at UL Lafayette provides a full calendar of services and programming to undergraduate and graduate students pursuing post-baccalaureate study face to face and via distance learning technologies. These include thesis and dissertation workshops/review and editing, professional development, New Graduate Student Orientation, writing support, mentoring programs, Graduate Student Appreciation Week, and “Gear Up for Grad School,” a graduate application preparation program. In addition to support provided for traditional graduate students, the Graduate School also provides evening programming and remote office hours to non-traditional and part-time students whose schedules fall outside the normal 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. business hours. Professional Development Programming opportunities are designed as “add on” components to meet student needs across the curriculum and build upon skills developed in individual disciplines. Topics aim to encompass essential transferable knowledge, as well as to strengthen existing skills at the core of graduate education and professional preparation for any employment sector.

Hilliard University Art Museum (Academic Affairs). The Hilliard University Art Museum provides programming for face-to-face meetings, as well as for students at a distance. Some of the programs offered by the museum include Creative Conversations, guided tours of exhibitions, Freshman Day, and Research Guides. These programs bring the campus and community together for multi-disciplinary presentations that provide new perspectives on the museum's exhibitions and collection, offering diverse perspectives on culture. Faculty may arrange guided tours of exhibitions for their classes, to enable students to broaden insights into art exhibitions; to engage in thematic discussions about personal responses to artworks; and to promote empathy, culture, critical thinking, and diverse views of the human condition.

Student Support Services (Academic Affairs). Student Support Services in the Department of Special Services provides educational federal programming designed to motivate and support face-to-face and distance learning students from disadvantaged backgrounds and to help minority students overcome class, social, academic, and cultural barriers. Programs include: the Student Support Services Regular Program, targeted programming for veterans, Teacher Prep, Disability, STEM, the Ronald E. McNair Program, and the Louis Stokes-Louisiana Alliance for Minority Participation. These programs provide services to students from middle school to post-baccalaureate educational work, assist with securing financial opportunities, and provide academic and social support to cultivate academic aspirations and an environment of success in higher education.

Academic Support Services

The Learning Center (Academic Affairs). The Learning Center provides free individual peer tutoring, peer group tutoring, and supplemental instruction. Tutoring is aimed at remedial and entry-level science, math, and business courses, and includes individual and study group tutoring. Individual tutoring sessions range from 30 to 60 minutes, by appointment, and one to two-hour study groups are offered on a weekly basis. Services include help preparing for final exams. In addition, the Learning Center offers tutoring for select junior-level physics and math courses. Tutors are current undergraduate students who demonstrate academic success in their programs, maintain an average 3.5 cumulative GPA, and excel in the courses in which they tutor. Demand tends to be highest for tutoring that supports courses in math, biology, and chemistry, but requests can be made for additional and more advanced courses. The Supplemental Instruction (SI) program offers free academic assistance to students enrolled in historically challenging courses. SI Leaders are students who have previously completed the course with an A, have been recommended by a faculty member, and have participated in SI training. SI Leaders attend class sessions with students, then lead them through four hours of out-of-class review sessions every week. Tutoring and Supplemental Instruction services provided by the Learning Center contribute to the mission of UL Lafayette by strengthening the leadership, time management, independent learning, organizational, and communication skills developed among our SI Leaders, student staff, and student visitors.

Math Lab (Academic Affairs). The Math Lab is operated by the Mathematics department during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, and provides students with additional academic support. Graduate students pursuing degrees in Mathematics assist undergraduate students in 100- and 200-level mathematics courses on a first-come, first-served basis in the Fall and Spring semesters.

The Writing Center (Academic Affairs). The Writing Center helps both undergraduate and graduate students, whether distance or on campus, realize all aspects of the University's mission. In addition to technical writing assistance and the development of personal expression in all aspects of the writing process, the Center supports equity by helping students analyze and explore issues of justice and fair treatment, as well as assisting students in writing and speaking ethically and honestly. By encouraging transparency and the sharing of information, the Writing Center asserts and insists upon empathy and esteem for everyone, recognizing the inherent worth of diverse cultures and perspectives embodied in the University’s mission. 

Student Engagement

Office of First-Year Experience (Academic Affairs). The Office of First-Year Experience offers programs designed to ensure a successful and well-supported transition to the University, including Freshman Week, the Peer Mentor Program, The Big Event, Living Learning Communities, Cajun Connection, and New Student Convocation. All programs are assessed and support the University’s mission by building an educational environment that fosters friendships and connects students to the academic experience. The Big Event, for example, a day of community service, gives UL Lafayette students the opportunity to volunteer in their communities in their own ways. Through the opportunity to participate in a range of projects, students gain a sense of citizenship and social responsibility, while fulfilling the University’s mission of giving back to the community through service.

Office of International Affairs and Global Engagement (Academic Affairs). The Office of International Affairs and Global Engagement offers students a range of programs that include International Orientation, International Hour, OPT Workshop, Tax Information Session, Intensive English Program (for prospective students), and Multicultural Week. Remote students are accommodated through online programming. Events during Multicultural Week include a Multicultural Expo, Trivia Night, Ms. International Pageant, Immigration Session, Diversity Night, and community service projects. Multicultural Week specifically supports the mission of UL Lafayette by highlighting “diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage and culture,” and all of the international programs support the University’s efforts to “advance knowledge.”

Orientation (Enrollment Management). The Office of Orientation offers New Student Orientation, SOUL Camp, Student Orientation Staff Retreat, SOUL Camp Retreat, and SOUL Camp Trainings. During Orientation, students have the opportunity to engage with faculty members from across the curriculum, learn about University resources and involvement opportunities, discuss important transition issues, meet with an academic advisor in individual areas of study, and register for classes. Orientation further supports UL Lafayette’s mission by providing new students the opportunity to meet a diverse range of peers in their small group sessions. Students participate in small-group activities highlighting the diversity of our campus community, as well as the importance of their role in supporting this diversity.

SOUL Camp is a unique experiential transition program that supplements New Student Orientation and is designed to provide students with the skills and networks to succeed at the University and beyond.  Through a combination of community service projects; educational speakers; social activities; interaction with faculty, staff, and upper-class student mentors; and team building exercises, students leave camp as engaged members of the campus and greater community. Consonant with the University’s mission, one of SOUL Camp’s goals is to educate students on campus diversity. The diversity panel offers freshmen the opportunity to anonymously write down any questions they have relating to diversity at the University, and the panel answers each query publicly. Students then break into small groups and complete a “personal and Social identity wheel,” furthering their understanding of the ways in which they individually contribute to the diversity of the campus community. Leadership skills are developed during Ragin' Routine Rounds, during which students attend information sessions and learn more about their personal leadership styles, and how their leadership participation can improve student organizations.

Recreational Sports (Student Affairs). The Recreational Sports department provides programs in Fitness, Aquatics, Open Recreation, Intramural Sports, and Club Sports. Intramural Sports provides students with leagues in approximately 20 different sports each year. Students can sign up as self-selected teams or as individuals to be placed on a team. Facilities include a state-of-the-art Student Fitness Center that allows students, faculty, and staff to engage in a variety of fitness regimens. Additional programming includes Group X fitness programs and classes, and small-fee personal training. Benefits of these activities include stress management, feelings of well-being, improved self-confidence, and overall improved health. Other reported learning outcomes include an increase in group cooperation skills, improved multicultural awareness, and stronger academic performance. Student Fitness Center activities, Group X fitness programs and classes, and Personal Training opportunities contribute to the overall health and wellness of students, as well as to the mission of UL Lafayette.

Residential Life (Student Affairs). Campus residence halls include suite style, junior suite style, graduate, and traditional style living arrangements. Apartments include one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, as well as family housing.  24-hour security is provided within the residence halls in the form of Front Desk Agents.  Services provided to students of on-campus housing include meal plans, phone, cable television, and internet. Resident assistants and area coordinators promote the University’s mission by creating a culturally enriching environment that empowers residents to grow together as leaders while building affinity for their community. 

Student Engagement and Leadership (Student Affairs). The Office of Student Engagement and Leadership provides online and face-to-face activities, such as the Emerging Leader Summit, Ragin’ Leadership Academy, Student Organization Resource Center, the Lunch & Lead program, and other student programming. The Student Organization Resource Center is available to student organization officers and members to assist with planning, scheduling, and promoting events; training and transitioning officers; and developing organizational structure and operations through the online portal called OrgSync. The Lunch & Lead program consists of bi-weekly and/or monthly seminars focusing on topics related to organizational development and student leadership, including ethical decision-making, effective event planning, and best practices in recruiting members, among others. These programs support the University’s mission in the areas of integrity, intellectual curiosity, creativity, transparency, respect, and collaboration.

Student Government Association (Student Affairs). The Student Government Association (SGA) supports and advocates for undergraduate and graduate student needs, and acts as a student voice in University governance and the campus community. The SGA supports unity, teamwork, diversification, acknowledgment of excellence, mutual respect, and a dedication to the positive development of all individuals.

Student Publications (Student Affairs). The University’s student population produces two primary publications: The Vermilion and L’Acadien. The Vermilion has been the student newspaper since 1904, and is distributed on Wednesdays during the Fall, Spring, and Summer semesters, except major holidays and semester breaks. In addition to the print publication, articles are posted online. The Vermilion provides its readers with coverage of campus and community current events, Ragin’ Cajuns sports, and student and faculty activities. It also offers editorials and commentaries and carries advertisements. L’Acadien is the University’s yearbook. First published in 1912, it chronicles each academic year. Its staff is composed of students who write and edit copy, contribute photographs, and handle graphic design. The University’s student publications allow students to engage in intellectual curiosity, as well as providing creative leadership and learning opportunities for student staff writers, editors, and photographers.

University Program Council (Student Affairs). The University Program Council (UPC) organizes and oversees programming for undergraduate and graduate students, including Homecoming events, Lagniappe Day, the Miss UL pageant, the Krewe of Roux Mardi Gras Parade, film screenings, bowling, pool parties, and other activities. All events and programs are free and are designed to provide students with healthy entertainment; enhanced exposure to cultural traditions; and broadened opportunities in diversity, school spirit, learning, and leadership from fellow classmates.

Office of Veteran Services (Enrollment Management). The Office of Veteran Services assists current and former members of the military, as well as dependents, who are receiving education military benefits. The office provides direct services, as well as referrals to numerous campus and community resources, to online and face-to-face graduate and undergraduate students. The program works to support the mission of the University by helping veterans, military dependents, and current service members with access to higher education and personal assistance in achieving their academic goals, thereby improving the human condition.

Student Well Being

Counseling and Testing (Student Affairs). Counseling and Testing provides counseling, psychological testing, proctoring services, support groups, workshops, presentations, and outreach. The Counseling and Testing Center offers an unlimited number of counseling sessions free of charge to all University students, faculty, and staff. The Testing Center administers proctored examinations, several nationally based examinations, and institutional examinations for students and faculty, as well as non-University students.

Dining Services (Administration and Finance). Campus Food Services endeavors to support the University mission by providing well-prepared, nutritious, and cost-effective food choices to a growing and diverse community. A variety of meal plans is designed to suit individual student needs.

Office of Disability Services (Student Affairs). The mission of the Office of Disability Services is to provide extensive post-secondary services to students with psychological, physical, and learning disabilities. Disability Services seeks to ensure that qualified students with disabilities are provided equal access and reasonable accommodations appropriate to their disability in all University programming and academic pursuits. Additionally, the Office of Disability Services assists faculty in meeting federal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All programming supports the mission of the University by ensuring that qualified students with disabilities receive equal access to all programs, facilities, and services offered.

Office of Student Financial Aid (Enrollment Management). The Office of Financial Aid's mission is to assist a diverse population of undergraduate and graduate students, whether face-to-face or distance learners, in accessing quality educational opportunities. Assistance is provided to students and families through the administration of all available federal, state, institutional, and other financial aid programs. Electronic communications and notifications walk students and families through the completion of necessary financial documents, such as the Master Promissory Note and exit counseling, regardless of location. By coordinating a variety of need-based and merit-based financial aid programs, the office serves as an integral component in the recruitment and retention efforts of the University's enrollment management initiatives.

Office of Public Safety (Student Affairs). The Office of Public Safety is responsible for providing the highest quality of safety and security services through the coordinated efforts of the Police Department, Emergency Management and Emergency Operations, Parking Enforcement, Physical Security Systems (e.g., cameras, access control, emergency call boxes, and emergency notification system), Environmental Health and Safety, Risk Management, and Hazardous Materials. The focus is on responding to short-term concerns while developing long-range strategies consistent with academic and University public safety priorities. The following departments are led by the Director of Public Safety:

UL Lafayette Police Department (UP) maintains a close working relationship with area law enforcement agencies, criminal justice components, and all University administrative departments. The University Police unit is located at the center of campus, and maintains 24-hour patrol coverage on foot, on bicycles, and in motor vehicles. Officers respond to crimes, illnesses, fires, service calls, traffic accidents, and other emergencies.

The Office of Environmental Health and Safety/Risk Management works to reduce accidents, hazards, and risk exposure by maintaining safety systems and regulations; provides safety training to the students, faculty, and staff of the University; manages the UL Lafayette Emergency Notification System (ENS); oversees hurricane preparedness and response; and informs the campus community of health issues. All students are encouraged to register and update their cell phone numbers with the University’s ENS, which alerts students, faculty, and staff of steps to take in case of a campus emergency.

Clery Compliance reporting allows students, faculty, and staff to stay informed of all aspects of security issues, crime statistics, and information distribution that affect and directly impact the University population. The University’s Campus Annual Security and Fire Report includes statistics for the previous three years concerning reported crimes that occurred on campus, in certain off-campus buildings or property owned or controlled by the University, and on public property within or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus. The report also includes University policies concerning campus security, such as policies concerning alcohol and drug use, crime prevention, the reporting of crimes, sexual assault, and other matters. 

Student Health Services (Student Affairs). The mission of the Student Health Services (SHS) is to provide quality, accessible, cost-sensitive primary medical care and active health promotion to students within the UL Lafayette community. SHS offers a medical clinic, immunization compliance, athletic training observation hours, nurse practitioner student observation hours, health education guest lectures, and educational and medical programming. The University Immunization Compliance Program ensures that the laws enforcing immunization requirements and documentation for institutions of higher learning in the state of Louisiana have been fully implemented to protect UL Lafayette students from infectious diseases in the course of their studies. By supporting student efforts to remain healthy and productive, SHS supports the University mission of developing the next generation of community leaders and innovators.

Student Ombudsman (Student Affairs). The University Ombudsman receives and acts on student grievances, and exhibits impartiality, honesty, integrity, and overall mature judgment while acting on student grievances. The Ombudsman apprises students of their rights, and protects those rights during deliberations involving disciplinary actions against students and student course grade appeals.

Student Rights and Responsibilities (Student Affairs). The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities initiates and implements disciplinary procedures in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct. The goals of the office are to cultivate the educational development of students by promoting behavior that fosters a safe and civil environment through active community participation, and to facilitate student learning and development regarding community standards by balancing individual and community rights. The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities also assists in coordinating the Dean on Call program in which a Dean of Student Affairs may be contacted 24 hours a day and seven days a week to assist students in need. The Students of Concern Team is a campus resource dedicated to assisting students who may be in distress, or are experiencing challenging or difficult life circumstances, and providing consultation and intervention when students exhibit aggressive, concerning, or disruptive behaviors. The primary focus of the team is on taking a proactive approach to identify students who are struggling, and to provide early intervention, resources, and referrals, both on campus and in the community.

Student Support

Cajun Card Services (Administration and Finance). The Cajun Card is the official student ID, and the key to accessing multiple resources and services on campus such as meal plans, parking, vending, library, and athletic events. Each term students can make a monetary deposit onto the Cajun Card, creating Cajun Cash, similar to a debit account. The advanced functionality of the card helps meet the basic student needs of educational necessity and safety, and the increased convenience and potential of the card supports the University’s mission by facilitating a more convenient financial experience, allowing students to focus on learning.   

SGA Child Development Center (Student Affairs). The Child Development Center offers child care services for children of students, staff, and faculty of the University between the ages of 12 months and seven years. The Center provides a quality, professional environment for the nurturing, care, and development of preschool children of the University community. The Center is state licensed, and operated by the University in conjunction with the Student Government Association (SGA), with observation and demonstration facilities from various academic departments. The goal of the Child Development Center is to provide the child care assistance necessary for student parents to complete their degree programs.

Information Technology (Administration and Finance). Students at UL Lafayette have access to technology integration in the majority of courses offered at the University. Access to University computing resources assists students, whether face-to-face or at a distance, in their academic pursuits. First-time freshmen and transfer students receive their username, with instructions on creating a password, with their invitation to orientation. Students and other members of the campus community have access to various resources such as the wireless network, STEP Lab computers, University Portal, Zimbra Email, and Moodle, all maintained by University Computing Services. 

A University email account is established at the time of username activation, and is part of a student, faculty, or staff member’s primary contact information, which is kept current with the University Registrar’s office.

The University’s web portal is an essential part of a student’s academic career, and provides online access to the following University processes and resources:

·         Register for classes	·         Access Financial Aid
·         View on-line schedule of classes	·         View your registration appointment
·         View your class and finals schedule	·         Access tutoring services
·         View your tuition and fee bill	·         Estimate your GPA
·         View your unofficial transcript	·         View your Holds
·         Access your University email	·         Submit address changes and update personal information

 

Learning Management System (Moodle) (Administration and Finance). The University’s online Learning Management System, Moodle, is a specialized location on the University’s website that allows students to access online materials for courses. Accessed via username and password, Moodle allows students to access course materials and grades, exchange files, participate in class discussions, send email to members of the class, and take online quizzes/surveys. Moodle meets the goals and values of the University’s mission by advancing knowledge and fostering collaboration among students.

Student Government Association’s Legal Assistance Program (Student Affairs). The Student Government Association's Legal Assistance Program is intended to provide undergraduate and graduate students, on campus or at a distance, with high quality legal advice at no cost to the student. These legal services include educating students about their rights and responsibilities in legal matters, as well as providing notary services.

Office of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement (Office of the President). The mission of the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement is to foster inclusion, appreciation, and understanding of diversity by advising the President and the University community on diversity-related initiatives, issues, and goals. This office sponsors programming that includes Project ALLIES Workshop, Orientation Resource Fair, Graduate Student Orientation, and various other workshops. The mission of Project ALLIES (Alliance Linking Leaders In Education and Services) is to provide a network of informed students, faculty, and staff who are willing to be visibly supportive of members of the University’s LGBTQ community. The Graduate School and the Office for Campus Diversity have partnered to provide academic and social support to under-represented and minority graduate students at the University. Named for the first African American to receive a graduate degree at UL Lafayette, the James Jackson Community of Scholars is dedicated to providing support, community, and professional development to minority students, so they may thrive in their individual programs of study. These programs support the University’s mission by educating students about the issues and concerns facing minority members of the University community, and by helping to build and cultivate a network of support for under-represented graduate students.

Ragin’ Cajuns Store (Administration and Finance). The Ragin’ Cajuns Store supports the educational experience by providing all course materials and related resources necessary for students, faculty, and staff in a financially responsible manner. With multiple campus locations, The Ragin’ Cajuns Store is a one-stop source for all textbooks, school and office supplies, Ragin’ Cajuns apparel, gifts, and gear. Supplemental materials, including general reference and study guides, are also available. Students can find a large inventory of used and rentable textbooks, as well as an assortment of school, office, art, architecture, nursing, and engineering supplies. Other convenient services include Textbook Buyback, Grad Expo, and free special-order programs.

Office of Transportation Services (Administration and Finance). The Office of Transportation Services provides fair, equitable, and accessible parking and transportation for faculty, staff, students, and visitors to the University. Residence hall students who plan to have a vehicle on campus qualify to purchase permits online or at the Transportation Services Office prior to the first day of class each semester. Commuter students can purchase parking permits for a limited number of on-campus spaces. Transportation Services provides transit operations to those faculty, staff, and students who need to park remotely through dedicated, free bus transit routes and efficient service.

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Success Center

Cajun Card Services

Cajun Connection

Campus Annual Security and Fire Report 2018

Campus Resources

Career Fairs

Career Services

Class Registration

Clery Compliance

Code of Student Conduct

Collaborate with Us

Counseling and Testing

Counseling Events

Dining Plans

Dining Services

Disability Services

Disability Services Annual Report

Dissertation Boot Camp

Distance Learning

Emerging Leader Summit

Environmental Health

Etiquette Dinner

Finals Schedule

Financial Aid and Scholarships

First Year Surveys

First-Year Experience

Freshman Week

Graduate School

Graduate School Events

Graduate School Events Calendar

Graduate School Orientation

Graduate Student Appreciation Week

Graduate Student Mentoring

Group Fitness Activities

Group Tutoring

Hilliard Annual Report 

Hilliard Programs

Hilliard Tours

Hilliard University Art Museum

Individual Tutoring

Information Technology

International Affairs/Global Engagement

Intramural Sports

James Jackson Community of Scholars

Job search services

L’Acadien

Learning Center Final Exam Help

Learning Center Flyer

Learning Management System (Moodle)

Legal Services

Living Learning Communities

Math Lab

New Student Convocation

New Student Orientation

Office of Distance Learning Vision

Office of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement

Office of Equity, Diversity, and Community Engagement Goals

OIA Annual Report

On-Campus Living Handbook

Online Student Orientation

OrgSync

Orientation

Peer Mentor Program

Personal Information

Project Allies

Public Safety

Ragin’ Cajuns Bookstore

Ragin’ Leadership Academy

Recreational Sports

Recreational Sports Facilities

Residential Life

Residential Life Mission and Vision

Résumé Writing Assistance

Sample Moodle Course Page

Sample UPC Events Fall 2018

SGA Child Development Center

Soul Camp

Sports Classes

SSS Brochure

Student Academic Web Portal Home

Student Engagement and Leadership

Student Government Association

Student Grade Appeals

Student Handbook Website

Student Health Services

Student Health Services Brochure

Student of Concern Program

Student Ombudsman

Student Polices

Student Publications

Student Rights and Responsibilities

Student Support Services

Student Union and Union Programming Council

Supplemental Instruction Program

The Big Event

The Learning Center

Transportation Services

Tuition & Financial Aid

UL Lafayette Student Profile

UL Lafayette Website

ULink Student Services

University Catalog

University Libraries

University Police

Vermillion website

Veteran Services

Veterans Application

Writing Center

 

12.2     Student support services staff

The institution ensures an adequate number of academic and student support services staff with appropriate education or experience in student support service areas to accomplish the mission of the institution.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette employs an adequate number of qualified staff members to effectively serve the student affairs departments. These staff members are equipped with the appropriate skills, education, or experience to carry out the mission of the division to which they are assigned, as well as that of the University.

While student support staff are employed in a number of divisions across campus, the core of student support is the Division of Student Affairs (DSA). The DSA is a collection of 13 departments working together to support the student experience and to provide a vibrant campus community for more than 18,000 students at the University. The division is composed of more than 110 professional staff members and approximately 260 student employees.

The 13 departments work together to address campus and student needs in the following areas:

·         Career Services ·         Child Development Center ·         Counseling & Testing ·         Dean of Students ·         Student Government Association ·         Disability Services ·         International Affairs ·         Public Safety/University Police ·         Recreational Sports

·         Residential Life ·         Student Engagement & Leadership ·         Fraternity and Sorority Life ·         Student Organizations ·         Spirit Squad ·         University Programming Council ·         Student Health Services ·         Student Publications ·         Student Rights & Responsibilities

The DSA supports the University’s mission to “offer an exceptional education informed by diverse worldviews grounded in tradition, heritage, and culture [and]… develop leaders and innovators who advance knowledge, cultivate aesthetic sensibility, and improve the human condition” by providing services, opportunities, and programs that contribute to student success, personal development, and campus community. The division’s mission is to “…provide quality services and guidance to the University community which foster intellectual, emotional, and social growth, delivered professionally with concern for the dignity of each individual.” The University Strategic Plan identifies “cultivate a student body that is intellectually curious and civically engaged by developing an infrastructure that ensures student success” as a strategic initiative. To fulfill this initiative the DSA provides services, support, and student engagement opportunities to meet the needs of undergraduate and graduate students.

The DSA’s values reflect the University’s values, and inform the short- and long-term goals of the division. These values are the underlying principles that guide daily operations and decision-making:

·         Engagement: The DSA emphasizes the critical importance of engagement as a means of promoting personal growth and learning in all aspects of students’ lives. The DSA approaches engagement as a process rather than a product, with the intention of building community to foster intellectual curiosity, civic responsibility, leadership, and respect for others.  

·         Inclusion: The DSA fosters the continuous development of an inclusive campus by intentionally working to build a community where all students feel welcomed, supported, and celebrated.

·         Support: DSA staff are dedicated to supporting students and the University community as they contribute to the mission, goals, and values of the University. They value community and provide opportunities for students to be active and responsible members of the campus and global community.

·         Leadership: The DSA makes every effort to be leaders in the campus community through their actions, service delivery, and dedication to students. As educators, in partnership with students and faculty, they provide quality leadership opportunities that are challenging and rewarding. They are intentional in the design and delivery of engaging and empowering experiences that foster the development of ethical, responsible, and collaborative leaders.

·         Integrity: DSA staff are committed to ethical practices, civility, and accountability in their work. They operate and educate their students in an atmosphere of openness and are committed to the highest professional standards in all endeavors.

Staff Training and Development

All student support staff are required to complete training offered by the University of Louisiana System and the Board of Regents. In addition, staff are encouraged to attend professional development opportunities offered by the Division, the University, the University of Louisiana System, and through the professional organizations affiliated with their area of specialty and with student affairs in general.

Qualifications and Credentials

Student Support Services Staff have the qualifications to meet the missions, values, and strategic imperatives described above. In Table 12.2 – 1, each job description identifies the minimum education and experience qualifications for each position, as well as the duties and responsibilities, and provides the staff member’s curriculum vitae demonstrating qualifications. When announcements are posted for new or vacant positions, the required qualifications and expectations are clearly stated. Prior to posting, each position announcement and description is reviewed to ensure the hiring of qualified and experienced staff to serve the students and community at the University.

Table 12.2 — 1: Academic and Student Support Services Staff

 

 

Supporting Documents

Career Services

Child Development Center

Counseling & Testing

Dean of Students

Disability Services

Division of Student Affairs

Division’s mission

Fraternity and Sorority Life

International Affairs

Professional development

Public Safety/University Police

Recreational Sports

Residential Life

Spirit Squad

Student Engagement & Leadership

Student Government Association

Student Health Services

Student Organizations

Student Publications

Student Rights & Responsibilities

University Programming Council

UL Lafayette Strategic Planning Report

University’s mission and values

 

12.3     Student Rights

The institution publishes clear and appropriate statement(s) of student rights and responsibilities and disseminates the statement(s) to the campus community.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance            o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities at UL Lafayette publishes clear and appropriate statements of student rights and responsibilities, and disseminates these statements to the campus community. 

Student Code of Conduct

The University publishes a Student Code of Conduct that contains clear, comprehensive, and appropriate statements of student rights and responsibilities, based substantially on the Model Code, a template recommended as a source of best practices by the Association for Student Conduct Administrators.

When students choose to accept admission to UL Lafayette, they accept the rights and responsibilities of membership in the University’s academic and social community. As members of the University community, students are expected to uphold its values by maintaining a high standard of conduct both on and off campus. As explained in the Student Code of Conduct, the University considers an individual to be a student when an offer of admission has been extended and thereafter, as long as the student has a continuing educational interest in the University. The University retains conduct jurisdiction over students who choose to take a leave of absence, withdraw, or have graduated for any misconduct that occurred prior to the leave, withdrawal, or graduation.

The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities administers the Code, and publishes it to all members of the University community through the Know the Code website, social media, email, and educational programs. The University also publishes the academic policies contained in the Code in the University Catalog. The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities communicates the Code during undergraduate and graduate orientations, international student orientation, residential floor meetings, and by letter sent each semester via email to every student at the University. 

Academic Conduct

The University’s policy on academic misconduct is published and distributed in the Student Code of Conduct and in the University Catalog under the Academic Honesty tab. The University expects all work for which a student will receive a grade or credit shall be an original contribution or shall be properly documented to indicate sources. Abrogation of this principle entails dishonesty, defeats the purpose of instruction, and undermines the high goals of the University. All UL Lafayette students are expected to be familiar with the academic dishonesty policy, as well as any academic policies specific to their colleges or departments. Students found in violation are held accountable through a range of sanctions, from receiving a grade of “zero” for this assignment, to a grade F for the semester, to dismissal.

Student Rights

FERPA

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of students' education records, establishes the rights of students to inspect and review their education records, and provides students with an opportunity to ensure that inaccurate or misleading information in their education records is corrected. More information about student FERPA rights is available to students on the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities’ website.

Campus Security

The University’s Annual Security and Fire Report is published on the UL Lafayette Police website, and communicated to the community through email and University announcements. The report includes, in accordance with the Clery Act, statistics for the previous three years concerning reported crimes that occurred on campus, in certain off-campus buildings, or on property owned or controlled by the University, on public property within, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus. The report also includes University directives concerning campus security, such as policies concerning alcohol and drug use, crime prevention, the reporting of crimes, sexual assault, and other matters including fire safety. 

Grievances

Complaints by students are handled in a number of ways, including filing a grievance through the Student Government Association (SGA). The SGA also provides an Ombudsman to assist with academic and discipline grievances. The Ombudsman serves as an intermediary between students and the services that the University provides. Additionally, the Ombudsman advocates for students during discipline and grade appeals processes. Faculty, staff, and administrators can refer students to the Ombudsman for any of these matters.

Students are encouraged to first bring matters to the attention of the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs at the University. 

Standards for On-Campus Living

The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, the Office of Residential Life, and the Office of University Housing are responsible for all aspects of on-campus living. Standards, rights, and expectations for University housing are published on the Office of University Housing’s website.

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Honesty

Academic Honesty - Penalties

Annual Security and Fire Report

Code of Conduct

FERPA information Webpage

Model Code

Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities

Ombudsman

SA Grievance Webpage 

Sample Security and Fire Report

Sample-Email Notice to Student Community

Standards for On-Campus living 

Student Code Website (Know the Code)

 

12.4     Student Complaints

The institution (a) publishes appropriate and clear procedures for addressing written student complaints, (b) demonstrates that it follows the procedures when resolving them, and (c) maintains a record of student complaints that can be accessed upon request by SACSCOC.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

A. Publishes appropriate and clear procedures for addressing written student complaints

UL Lafayette publishes appropriate and clear procedures for addressing written student complaints. 

The primary procedures for addressing general undergraduate and graduate student complaints are through the Student Government Association, the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, and the Ombudsman. The University also provides free legal assistance to students. All complaint policies apply equally to face-to-face and online students, and all complaint procedures include the ability to file complaints by telephone or electronically from any location. 

 

The Student Code of Conduct spells out the procedures for addressing general student complaints. Clear policies and procedures for specific kinds of student complaints are also published by many departments on campus. These written procedures are tailored for specific purposes and are meant to offer students a voice and platform to raise concerns or issues in a responsible and evidence-based manner, in a variety of different circumstances. Table 12.4 – 1 lists information on grievance procedures for students.

Table 12.4 – 1: Appeals, Complaints, and Grievance Procedures for Students

 

B. The University demonstrates that it follows the procedures when resolving them

When the University receives a complaint via online submission or another of the processes stated above, the appropriate procedure is followed, as the following examples demonstrate:

·         A graduate student contacted the Dean of the Graduate School about problems with the parking pass purchasing process. The Dean of the Graduate School contacted the Dean of Students and Director of Transportation. The Director of Transportation then emailed all parties with information about a glitch that occurred with the purchasing system. A few days later a meeting occurred with the Dean of Graduate School, Dean of Students, and Director of Transportation, and other concerns were raised from phone complaints received by SGA from students about a lack of parking for graduate assistants. This meeting led to discussion about additional options that could be explored to address the shortage of parking. The solution to this issue was to create parking at an additional location and to add a shuttle service.

·         A student filed a student discipline appeal in response to a responsible finding for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. Specifically, the student was found responsible for academic dishonesty, and was issued a zero for the assignment and disciplinary probation. The student contacted the Chair of the Student Discipline Appeals Committee and subsequently met with the Chair. The student then met with the Ombudsman to prepare for a hearing before the committee, which was completed a few weeks later. The hearing occurred, and the committee voted to grant an appeal in this case.

·         Residential Life staff provided the Title IX Office with a report from a student’s father, which alleged that his son was sexually assaulted on campus by his roommate. Upon receipt of the report, the Title IX Coordinator met with the Complainant to discuss the Title IX Complainant Preliminary Meeting Information. During the meeting, the Title IX Coordinator received the student’s allegations through a written statement. The Title IX Coordinator also addressed safety concerns, resources available to the student, and a path for resolution. Here, the student chose to resolve the issue through a Voluntary Resolution, in lieu of a formal investigation, with a request that he no longer share a room with the Respondent and that the Respondent agree to a Temporary No Contact Order. Following the meeting with the Complainant, the Respondent met with the Title IX Coordinator. The Respondent provided an account of the incident. Additionally, the Respondent was advised of his rights and resources. The Respondent was provided the procedural option selected by the Complainant, and the request for a modification of their current on-campus living arrangements. The Respondent advised that the Voluntary Resolution Agreement would be the best option for him; he requested the transfer into another dorm and agreed to a Temporary No-Contact Order. The Title IX Coordinator worked with the housing staff for the student’s transfer. The Title IX Coordinator communicated the procedural resolution to the Dean of Students and University Police.

C. The University maintains a record of student complaints that can be accessed upon request by SACSCOC.

UL Lafayette maintains records of student complaints that can be accessed upon request by SACSCOC:

·         The Vice President for Student Affairs maintains a log of non-academic student complaints received through the Dean of Students office and SGA.

·         Title IX complaints are logged in the Title IX Office.

·         Each office with an appeal process keeps record of complaints, processes, and outcomes of these processes. For example, University Housing has a housing exemption process for students who should reside on campus, but do not wish to for several reasons. Students may appeal their denied exemption through the appeals process. All records for these processes are kept in STARREZ, the University’s housing software program. Sample complaints from other offices are available upon request.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Academic Suspension Appeals

Admission by Committee

Code of Conduct, sections 5 and 6

Contract Release

Disability Grievance & Appeals

Discipline Appeal

Financial Aid Appeals

General Student Complaints: online programs

Grade and Discipline Appeals

Grade Appeal Procedure

Grade Appeal webpage

Graduate School Appeals

Housing Exemption Process

Immunization Appeals

Legal Assistance  

Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities

Parking Citations Appeals

Prospective Student Complaints

Sample Emails Appeal Process

Sexual Harassment/Discrimination

Sexual Misconduct Policy

SGA Grievance Form

Student Athletes Handbook

Student Conduct Appeals

Title IX Example

Title IX Office

Tuition and Fee Appeals

 

12.5     student records

The institution protects the security, confidentiality, and integrity of its student records and maintains security measures to protect and back up data.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette protects the security, confidentiality, and integrity of its student records, and maintains security measures to protect and back up this data.

Types of Student Educational Records

The University considers education records to be those records that contain information directly related to a student, and which are maintained by UL Lafayette or by a party acting on behalf of UL Lafayette. Education records may exist in the form of records, files, documents, or other media/materials.

The student educational record contains directory and non-directory information. Directory information is defined as information contained in the education records of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. As such, directory information may be disclosed without prior consent of the student. Directory information at UL Lafayette includes: student name, address(es), telephone number(s), classification, email address, photograph, place and date of birth, major field of study, dates of attendance, degree and date received, academic awards and honors, the most recent previous education agency or institution attended by the student, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, and weight and height of members of athletic teams.   

Non-directory information is any educational record not classified as directory information. This private information is not released to anyone, including parents of the student, without written consent from the student, or under the strict exceptions as defined under the FERPA law.

Employee Access to Student Educational Records and Training

The University maintains policies that ensure compliance with FERPA. Employees of UL Lafayette may need access to student records to perform their job duties. Examples include employees in the academic colleges, academic departments, and academic/student support areas. Employees are responsible for protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and security of records that they access.

Prior to receiving access to student information via Banner, employees must submit an official security request through the Help Desk. The request requires the employee to specify the type of student information they are requesting, and to provide a justification describing the job duties that require the access. The security request must then be approved by the employee’s supervisor before it will proceed. Once the supervisor approves, the request is then submitted to the Registrar’s Office for review and action, if warranted. If it is determined that the employee legitimately requires access to the requested student information in order to perform official duties, the Registrar’s Office will conduct appropriate training with the employee on the proper use of the Banner screens and FERPA. Once training is completed, access is granted to the employee.

Integrity of Student Records

Accuracy and integrity of student records is accomplished via a number of processes, procedures, and internal controls.

Final grades are reported by instructors of record at the conclusion of a semester/term during the assigned grading period. The Registrar’s Office opens grading on Banner and communicates instructions to instructors of record. Instructors enter final grades via their secure Banner login. At the conclusion of the grade reporting period, the Registrar’s Office closes grading access on Banner and posts grades to student records.

Changes to student records are handled via established business processes and procedures. Students may initiate a change of address, change of name, change of social security number, etc., by contacting the Registrar’s Office. The student must complete the appropriate change request form and provide all appropriate documentation (such as a marriage certificate or court order for a name change). The Registrar’s Office processes all appropriate records changes and maintains appropriate documentation on file. Grade changes are initiated by faculty and must be signed by the Department Head and
Dean before being hand-delivered to the Registrar’s Office.

Security Measures

The Office of Enterprise Application Services (EAS) has established policies and procedures to protect the security of student records. Individuals requiring access to information must log in using their unique University Login Identification (ULID) through a single secure login process. The user is authenticated and then granted access to the data using Louisiana state security protocols (unique identifiers and passwords). Access by students to these services is controlled via the secure login profile established by each eligible user. The profiles and unique identifiers are maintained in a secured database or server that follows the Louisiana state security standard with regard to the creation of a username and password as per the State of Louisiana Office of Technology Services’ Information Security Policy. The password must conform to the state security and University standards established with respect to length, type, and number of symbols and characters. When appropriate or necessary, data passed over the Internet through the web applications for faculty, staff, or students are encrypted.

Student academic records are maintained in the University’s computer-based Integrated Student Information System (Banner), which is provided and maintained by the University Office of Enterprise Application Services. The student system as installed in the UL Lafayette computing platform includes integrated modules for student admissions, student records, registration, financial aid, student billing, accounts receivable, and degree audit.

Student system access for administrative users is granted based on a formal approval from the University administration and based on the user’s position responsibilities. Banner user access is controlled by standard system access profiles prescribed by administrative personnel for various user categories. The University Registrar is the designated data steward for student records and Banner subsystems that include business processes associated with registration, course catalog and scheduling, advising, grade management, degree audit, academic curriculum, and student data. Access to sensitive system functions and capabilities is restricted to the smallest practical number of administrative users. The Office of the Provost must approve all external requests for student data. Access to Banner is deleted upon student and staff exit from employment or any change of University status. The Human Resources department initiates this process when an employee separates from the University; the Information Technology department then communicates with various campus areas to ensure that the employee’s access is deactivated. This entire process takes place in and is documented on the Cherwell system.

Web-based student access to personal records requires a secured socket layer connection across the Internet (256-bit encryption). Such access requires authentication using a password selected by the student. Students can also request that certain information be repressed.

EAS has established an inventory of all devices that contain personal data in accordance with the Database Security Breach Notification Law, SB205 Act 499, of the State of Louisiana. The Database Security Breach Notification Law requires notification to any Louisiana resident whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of a security breach.

Records Storage

Educational records are maintained both centrally and within organizational units across campus. Records are housed electronically in Banner, Banner Document Management (BDM), and on shared drives on the University network.

Colleges

Education records maintained in the academic colleges for their students may include data related to admissions, transfer credits, academic progress, graduation eligibility, faculty data, advising, change of academic program, petitions, appeals, transcript data, and internal academic data. Table 12.5 – 1 lists the locations of the academic colleges that house student records.

Table 12.5 – 1: Academic Colleges that house student records

 

Academic Departments

Departmental offices maintain education records that may include limited admissions and transfer credentials, data on academic progress, faculty recommendations, advisors’ comments relating to registration and changes of program, limited placement data, departmental exam results, and foreign language proficiency information.

Administrative and Student/Academic Services

Various University support offices house student records, including the Registrar’s Office, Academic Success Center, Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, Undergraduate Admissions, and Financial Aid. Offices ensure the integrity of the data they maintain via a combination of procedures manuals, employee training, and internal control methods.

 

Supporting Documents

Banner Security Request for access form

Banner Security Request form on Help Desk

Banner Security Request to remove access form

Example FERPA material Covered During Training

Faculty Grade Entry Training Guide

FERPA Policy University Catalog

FERPA training handout

LA Information Security Policy

LA Statutes: Database

QC Control Reports

Sample Change of Grade

Updating Equivalents for Students

 

12.6     student debt

The institution provides information and guidance to help student borrowers understand how to manage their debt and repay their loans.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette has implemented a financial literacy program based on Financial Avenue that offers the following 10 individual courses:

·         Psychology of Money

·         Foundations of Money

·         College and Money

·         FAFSA

·         Loan Guidance

·         Earning Money

·         Credit and Protecting your Money

·         Spending and Borrowing

·         Debt and Repayment

·         Future of Your Money

These courses are formatted to allow students to track their progress as they proceed through each course. The Financial Aid Office can track the number of students who have completed the courses and their scores, and compiles the results. 

The availability and requirement of course completion are as follows:

·         Required as part of UNIV 100, the mandatory first-time freshman seminar, where it is included in the course-embedded Financial Aid Orientation Presentation;

·         Required as part of the financial aid suspension appeals process;

·         Available to any instructor on campus to include as course content; and

·         As information sent each semester via email to all current students advising them of the availability of courses beginning Fall 2019.

The Financial Aid Office keeps course completion reports and test summary reports. A financial aid contact person is available at any time to assist students with any additional questions during or after the course, as referenced on the Financial Aid Contact webpage.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Financial Aid Contact webpage

Financial aid suspension appeals process

Financial Avenue

Financial Avenue Course completion reports

Financial Avenue Courses

Financial Avenue Test Summary Reports

Financial Literacy Course Descriptions

Financial Literacy Pre-Post Test Graph Spring 2019

Financial Literacy results Spring 2019

UNIV 100 Syllabus

 

13.1     FINANCIAL RESOURCES [CR]

The institution has sound financial resources and a demonstrated, stable financial base to support the mission of the institution and the scope of its programs and services.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette has a sound financial base and has demonstrated financial stability as evidenced by its financial ratios and bond ratings.

Financial Ratios

Key ratios are an important year-to-year financial measurement, and the University’s financial stability may be measured historically by examining its Composite Financial Index (CFI). The CFI methodology was developed by Prager, Sealy & Co., LLC, KPMG, and Attain, and provides a comprehensive understanding of the financial health of the institution by comparing multiple indicators. Analyzing the trends of an institution’s CFI score over a period of years enables a more stable long-term view of an institution’s financial stability given fluctuations in internal and external circumstances. As outlined in the Strategic Financial Analysis for Higher Education-Seventh Edition, the CFI measure is established by first answering the four key specific questions concerning financial health of an institution and calculating a financial measure that addresses the overall question of whether an institution is financially healthy:

·         Are resources sufficient and flexible enough to support the mission? - Primary Reserve Ratio

·         Are debt resources managed strategically to advance the mission? - Viability Ratio

·         Does asset performance and management support the strategic direction? - Return on Net Asset Ratio

·         Do operating results indicate the institution is living within available resources? - Net Operating Revenues Ratio

Table 13.1 — 1 gives UL Lafayette’s CFI for the past five fiscal years.

Table 13.1 – 1: University of Louisiana at Lafayette Composite Financial Index (CFI)

Adjusted for GASB Liabilities

 

The ratio calculations are based on information presented in the audited financial statements of the University of Louisiana System provided in Standard 13.2.

It should be noted that because the composite score of the University is greatly affected by the implementation of GASB Statement 16 - Accounting for Compensated Absences, GASB Statement 68 - Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, and GASB Statement 75 - Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, the effects of the liabilities and related expenses associated with these GASB statements have been adjusted from the ratio calculation.

Primary Reserve Ratio

The primary reserve ratio measures an institution’s financial health by comparing accumulated reserves to annual operating demands. It is calculated by dividing expendable resources at the end of a period by the operating expenses incurred during that period. Minimal financial health for the ratio is deemed to be 0.4. Many factors have caused the ratio to decrease since FY2013-2014. Since that period, the University has been reinvesting in its infrastructure and personnel to include the implementation of a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) management information system. All of these objectives were part of the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020. The reinvestment in personnel resulted in increases in salary and related benefits expenses due to merit increases in FY2015-2016 and FY2017-2018. The reinvestment in the University’s infrastructure has caused a decrease in expendable resources but has increased the capital assets of the University. While these internal investments have had a short-term negative effect on the University’s primary reserve ratio, they will have a long-term positive effect.   

Viability Ratio

The viability ratio measures one of the most basic determinants of clear financial health: the availability of expendable net assets to cover debt should the institution need to settle its obligation as of the balance sheet date. While a ratio of 1:1 or greater is desirable, public institutions can operate effectively at a ratio far less than 1:1 because of the ongoing benefit of student fees pledged/dedicated to the future debt. In addition, the University is in the middle of a major capital expansion program, which has had an impact on this ratio; however, the University's debt service coverage ratio for each of the outstanding bond issues reflected in the University’s financial statements meets or exceeds requirements in all cases.

Return on Net Asset Ratio

The return on net asset ratio determines whether the institution is financially better off than in previous years by measuring total economic return. Like others, this ratio is more meaningful when reviewed over time. An improving trend, as is the case at the University, indicates the institution is increasing its net assets and is likely to be able to set aside financial resources to strengthen its future financial flexibility.

Net Operating Revenue Ratio

The net operating revenue ratio indicates whether an institution was able to conduct operating activities by using just the operating revenues generated during the period. The ratio is calculated by dividing the net operating revenues by the operating revenues. Minimal financial health for the ratio is 2 percent, meaning that operating revenues exceed operating expenses by 2 percent of operating revenues. As shown in Table 13.1 – 1 above, the net operating revenues ratio is on a positive trend after decreases in FY2014-2015 and FY2015-2016. Operating revenues, particularly tuition and fees, have increased in each of the years shown in spite of decreasing state support, because of tuition rate increases coupled with steady enrollment. The ratio in FY2017-2018, while within the recommended range, decreased because of a merit award, which increased salary and related benefits expenses. In addition, because of renewed investment in capital assets, depreciation expense has increased. 

Composite Financial Index (CFI)

The CFI has remained relatively stable within the trend period given the reinvestment program the University embarked on during this same period and its ability to offset the declining state support with self-generated revenues. This provides another demonstration of the University’s financial stability.

Bond Ratings

While financial ratios indicate past and present financial stability in relation to specific data, bond ratings provide a more holistic evaluation of an institution’s financial stability. On March 29, 2018, S&P Global Ratings assigned its “BBB+” long-term rating to the University’s series 2018 student housing and parking project revenue bonds, issued for the Ragin' Cajun Facilities Corp. (a blended component unit). At the same time, it affirmed the “BBB+” underlying rating on the series 2010, 2012, and 2017 student housing and parking bonds. In addition, S&P Global Ratings affirmed its   “A-” rating on the series 2010 higher education revenue bonds (Student Union bonds) and affirmed its “BBB+” rating on the series 2013 revenue bonds issued for the Lewis Street parking garage project and athletic facilities project. It stated in the review that the outlook on all ratings is stable. This independent assessment by a third party provides additional support to University’s financial stability.

 

Supporting Documents

SP Rating 2018

Strategic Plan 2015-2020: Faculty SI 1 and 2

13.2     financial documents [CR]

The member institution provides the following financial statements:

An institutional audit (or Standard Review Report issued in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the AICPA for those institutions audited as part of a system wide or statewide audit) for the most recent fiscal year prepared by an independent certified public accountant and/or an appropriate governmental auditing agency employing the appropriate audit (or Standard Review Report) guide.

A statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year.

An annual budget that is preceded by sound planning, is subject to sound fiscal procedures, and is approved by the governing board.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative           

A. Institutional Audit

UL Lafayette is required to submit its annual financial report to the University of Louisiana System. UL Lafayette’s annual financial report is then consolidated by the System Office with the other eight institutions in the University of Louisiana System (ULS). ULS’s financial statements are audited and an opinion is provided by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor on an annual basis. As UL Lafayette is the largest institution in the ULS, the Legislative Auditor audits segments of UL Lafayette's financial transactions every year to assist them in providing an opinion on the ULS financial statements:

·         FY2017‐2018 ULS Audit

·         FY2016‐2017 ULS Audit

·         FY2015-2016 ULS Audit

·         FY2014-2015 ULS Audit

·         FY2013-2014 ULS Audit

The FY2018-2019 ULS Audit will be available in December 2019. The University's financial reports are compiled in accordance with the National Association of College and University Business Officers, as well as the Governmental Standards Board and any other reporting requirements required by the State of Louisiana. For the year ended June 30, 2018, the University implemented GASB Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions (OPEB). Statement No. 75 was issued in June 2017 and is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2017. Statement No. 75 addresses accounting and financial reporting for OPEB for health care and life insurance that are provided to employees of state and local governmental employers. In addition, Statement No. 75 replaces the requirements of Statements No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, as amended, and No. 57, OPEB Measurements by Agent Employers and Agent Multiple-Employer Plans, for reporting OPEB. The cumulative effect of applying Statement No. 75 is reported as a restatement of beginning net position for fiscal year 2018. The restatement of all prior year deferred outflows and inflows was not practical, so only deferred outflows related to fiscal year 2017 OGB contributions were recorded at implementation.

The University also receives support from other non-profit organizations established primarily to assist the University with its mission. Ragin Cajun Facilities, Inc. (RCFI) is a non-profit organization that assists the University in expanding and repairing facilities on its campus. As the University is the primary source of the revenues generated by RCFI, the results of their financial operations are blended with the University’s financial statements. In addition, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Foundation has been established with the sole purpose of supporting the educational mission of the University. As of June 30, 2018, the Foundation had total assets of $199,562,505 with net assets of $158,707,055.

B. Financial position of unrestricted net assets

·         Statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year is provided. 

·         Statement is also provided without the effects of GASB liabilities consisting of compensated absences, OPEB, and net pension liability.

C. The member institution provides an annual budget that is preceded by sound planning, is subject to sound fiscal procedures, and is approved by the governing board.

The statewide annual budget process is established, directed, and supervised by the Governor’s Division of Administration, which grants broad oversight of higher education and its financing to the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR), as viewed in the BOR Instructions. The University’s immediate management board is the UL System Board of Supervisors (BOS). Annually, at its August meeting, the BOS examines and approves the UL Lafayette operating and capital outlay budgets for the fiscal year (July 1–June 30).

In general, administrative units within the University begin the budget planning process for the next academic year during the Fall semester, with the assumption of a stand‐still budget. It is the charge of each unit to ensure its budget is aligned with and advances the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020. Unit heads may during the Fall and early Spring request in writing additional funds for various purposes—new positions, salary adjustments, extraordinary expenses for projects such as accreditation, capital outlay, etc. Such requests are sent through the chain of command, and once the University receives official notification of the University's funding level through the Appropriation Letter from the State Office of Planning and Budget, final decisions regarding the budget request are made by the President with the advice of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice President for Administration and Finance. The BOR requires submission of the operating budget request for the upcoming fiscal year in early Summer.

Beginning in FY2013-2014 the University implemented a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) management information system (Banner). The ERP has provided units with online access to queries that provide comparisons of budgeted to actual expenses along with the ability to access details of all transactions. Plans are in place to utilize the online self-service budget capabilities of the ERP, which include budget approval based on the organizational hierarchy, during the development of the FY2020-2021 budget.

At every stage of the budget process, the University’s Division of Administration and Finance has primary responsibility for implementing and monitoring the budget. Changes are generally made to the operating budget during the fiscal year, which may reflect changes in revenue or expenditures. These changes are only made with proper administrative authorization of the Vice President for Administration and Finance and the University President.

The budget is also monitored by the UL System BOS. The UL System requires institutions to provide quarterly Financial Status Reports on Operating Revenue and Expenditures, as well as other major funding sources; financial reports on Specified Restricted Funds; and Certification of Ongoing Assurances to the BOS.

 

Supporting Documents

Strategic Plan 2015-2020  

Appropriation Letter

BOR Instructions

FY19 Budget Submitted to BOR

FY2013-2014 ULS Audit

FY2014-2015 ULS Audit

FY2015-2016 ULS Audit

FY2016‐2017 ULS Audit

FY2017-2018 UL AFR

FY2017‐2018 ULS Audit

Sample Quarterly Report

Statement of Unrestricted Net Position

Statement without GASB

System approval of UL budget

 

13.3    financial responsibility

The institution manages its financial resources in a responsible manner.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative 

UL Lafayette manages its financial resources in a responsible manner. The University’s financial ratios and bond ratings, discussed in detail in Standard 13.1, indicate that the institution’s resources have been managed responsibly, and that it is operating within its means. From the adoption of an annual operating budget to the preparation of financial statements, the University has maintained consistent operating performance. Despite significant reductions in state appropriations, UL Lafayette has maintained and grown its academic programs, facilities, and administrative and operational support. The University has continued to invest strategically in facilities, academic programs, student life, athletics, and parking, all of which have helped to ensure continued strength in enrollment and concomitant revenue stability. The University has continued to show growth in enrollment, graduation rates, and self-generated revenue over the past ten years. The University’s financial ratios demonstrate financial stability and a well-managed financial organization.

Revenues

Since 2010, the University's dependency on student tuition and fees has become even more critical for the University's long-term viability. Tuition rates increased 10 percent per year as authorized by the Louisiana Legislature beginning in FY2010-2011. The additional revenue resulting from these increases has been maximized by the University's ability to maintain a reasonably stable enrollment over the course of the past several years. The authority to increase tuition extended through FY2015-2016, as the University continued to meet the performance objectives outlined in the Louisiana Granting Resources and Autonomy for Diplomas (GRAD) Act. Also, Act 377 of 2015 (extended by Act 293 of 2017) gives the University the authority to establish mandatory fees to be charged to students. This authority exists through FY2019-2020. Given the increases in tuition and decreases in state funds over the last decade, the relative proportion of total operating funds from these two sources has changed drastically, from 56 percent self-generated and 44 percent state funds in FY2009 to approximately 86 percent self-generated and 14 percent state funds in FY2019. Chart 13.3 – 1 illustrates this trend.

Chart 13.3 — 1: State Appropriations Compared to Self-Generated Revenues

 

Despite the significant increases in tuition rates, UL Lafayette's tuition still remains comparable to the average for similar SREB institutions, and enrollment has remained steady. Chart 13.3 – 2 illustrates enrollment for the last five fiscal years.

Chart 13.3 – 2: UL Lafayette Fall Enrollment Headcount

 

Total Net Assets

UL Lafayette has seen a reduction in Total Net Assets of $323.2 million as presented in the financial reports. The University must report Compensated Absences, Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), and Net Pension Liability as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The University does not receive funding for these items through the State, thus causing a reduction in Total Net Assets until this expense/liability is totally recognized. When the expenses/liabilities are added back to the financial statements, Total Net Assets have increased from $372.8 million to $391.2 million over the same five-year period, as shown in Chart 13.3 – 3.

Chart 13.3 — 3: Total Net Assets FY2014-2018

Unrestricted Net Assets

The University has seen a reduction in Unrestricted Net Assets of $22.6 million as presented in the financial reports. Chart 13.3 – 4 shows the unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant and plant-related debt. The Compensated Absences, OPEB, and Net Pension Liability have been added back to Unrestricted Net Assets. When these expenses/liabilities are added back to the unrestricted net assets, unrestricted net assets (exclusive of plant and plant-related debt) shows a decrease from $65.6 million to $42.9 million. This decrease is attributable to the University reinvesting in its infrastructure and personnel.

Chart 13.3 — 4: Unrestricted Net Assets FY2014-2018

Examination of Operational Outcomes

The University has shown a positive “bottom line” over the past five years, as shown in Chart 13.3 – 5. While there has been a gradual decline in operational results, primarily due to continued declines in state funding, these reductions have been partly offset by tuition increases.

Chart 13.3 — 5: Operations “Bottom Line” Without Depreciation FY2014-2018

Examination of Operation Cash Flows

The operation cash flows have been positive over the past five years, as illustrated in Chart 13.3 – 6.

Chart 13.3 – 6: Cash Flows Before Capital Items FY2014-2018

 

Capital Investment

Over the ten-year period reported in Chart 13.3 – 7, UL Lafayette has reinvested in its campus facilities and infrastructure. The maintenance, acquisition, construction, and improvements of University facilities are critical to the University’s continued health. To fulfill its mission, UL Lafayette makes ongoing strategic capital investments for additional academic, student life, athletic, residential life, and parking facilities. UL Lafayette funds its capital requirements through state capital appropriations, donations, and issuing bonds. 

Chart 13.3 – 7: Current Debt Comparted to Long-Term Debt FY2009-2018

 

Supporting Documents

Enrollment Trends

Financial Ratios

SREB Averages

 

13.4     Control of Finances

The institution exercises appropriate control over all its financial resources.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette’s administration adheres to the standards promulgated by the Government Accounting Standards Board and the generally accepted accounting principles and standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Responsibility for formulating and administering policies and procedures that ensure appropriate levels of control over the University’s financial resources is assigned to the Vice President for Administration and Finance. Mr. Jerry Luke LeBlanc became Interim Vice President for Business and Finance at the University on July 1, 2008 and became Vice President for Administration and Finance effective May 2009. He was formerly Commissioner of Administration for the State of Louisiana. Prior to his appointment as Louisiana Commissioner of Administration in 2004, Mr. LeBlanc was State Representative for District 45 of the Louisiana House of Representatives. He also served as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the House/Senate Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Jerry Luke LeBlanc and Associates, Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, where Mr. LeBlanc practiced for over 25 years as a state certified commercial appraiser and real estate broker, was formed in 1979. Mr. LeBlanc holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration.

Financial oversight is also provided by the Office of Internal Audit, reporting directly to the University President and UL System BOS. Excerpts from the Internal Audit Charter, which discuss the Director of Internal Audit’s responsibilities and functions are detailed in the UL System’s Policy and Procedures Memorandum FB-IV.(1-a). These reporting relationships ensure independence, broad coverage, and adequate consideration of audit findings and recommendations.

To ensure that qualified professionals staff the departments responsible for monitoring, tracking, and safeguarding the financial resources of UL Lafayette, Human Resources uses a pre-employment process that verifies that staff have the skills, training, and education necessary to perform their jobs. As part of this process, Human Resources personnel compare resumes and transcripts with written job descriptions and verify that all critical financial personnel have the required credentials to perform their duties. In addition, background checks of all University personnel are conducted prior to hiring.

The departments in the Division of Administration and Finance have duties and responsibilities that are segregated to establish proper oversight for financial transactions. They provide the appropriate level of control and ensure compliance with external and internal policies and procedures, such as cash handling policies and purchasing policies and other bid guidelines. The University’s ERP system (Banner) enables the University to utilize electronic approvals based on organization hierarchy for requisition and purchase orders. Starting in FY2019-2020, the University is using Chrome River to electronically account for La Carte (State expense) credit card purchases, including travel. This system replaces a manual credit card log process and travel pre-approval. After review and approval by the appropriate budgetary units, all financial transactions are reviewed, approved, and recorded by these departments, as applicable.

 

The Banner system provides budgetary units with online access to their financial account data, including budget variance reports. These reports are reviewed by the administrators of the applicable budgetary units. Financial reports showing the financial performance of the whole institution are also provided to senior management. The reports are used to assess the financial performance of the institution and to make financial decisions.

Bond Ratings

S&P Global Ratings stated in their bond rating review of UL Lafayette that the outlook on all ratings is stable. (For detailed discussion see Standard 13.1.) This independent assessment by a third party provides additional evidence that the University is exercising appropriate control over its financial resources.

Internal Audit

The Internal Auditor reports directly to the President and is responsible for performing internal audits and risk assessments on departments and programs. An annual audit plan is established each year, and audits are conducted throughout the year. All Internal audit reports are provided to the Legislative Auditors and the UL System. UL Lafayette manages risk as it relates to financial resources through internal controls and segregation of duties. The Internal Auditor reviews audit findings reported by other universities within the UL System in order to gauge whether such risk areas should be included in the annual audit plan, in an effort to minimize risk.

Legislative Auditor

Additional control over UL Lafayette’s financial resources lies with the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, one of the largest public accounting practices in the State of Louisiana, serving as the watchdog of public spending and overseeing more than 3,500 audits of state and local governments and their related quasi-public enterprises. The staff conducts annual independent financial and performance audits, identifying critical issues to protect public resources and tighten control systems.

Each year, the auditors conduct a financial and compliance audit and an audit of federal award programs. Should there be any reportable findings, they are included in the management letter along with the University’s response. As the University is part of the UL System, a management letter is issued instead of a full audit report. The University information is consolidated with other system institutions of the UL System, and the audit report is issued in the name of the System. The financial information at the System level, along with all reportable findings, is included in the Single Audit for the State of Louisiana. Table 13.4 – 1 lists audit reports for the last five fiscal years.

Table 13.4 — 1: Audit Reports FY2013-2018

 

UL Lafayette strives to have no audit findings included in the management letters issued by the Legislative Auditors. If audit findings are detected, management takes the appropriate corrective actions to ensure that there are no repeat findings in subsequent years. 

Financial Aid Audits

The Office of the Louisiana Legislative Auditor performs an annual audit of federal financial aid programs at UL Lafayette each fiscal year. Upon completion of the audit, the Louisiana Legislative Auditor provides a compliance report on requirements applicable to each major program and internal control over compliance in accordance with Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (or, Uniform Guidance). 

No “material weaknesses” were identified in the most recent FY2017-2018 management letter. There were no findings in FY2017-2018 regarding financial aid.

 

Supporting Documents

Departments of Administration and Finance

Example Requisition Approval History

Funds Handling Guidelines

Internal Audit Report

LeBlanc (CV)

Purchasing policies

Sample Background Check

Sample Budget Query

System Policy and Procedures Memorandum FB-IV.(1-a)

13.5     Control of sponsored research/external funds

The institution maintains financial control over externally funded or sponsored research and programs.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

Financial control over UL Lafayette sponsored research and programs is the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President for Research, Innovation, and Economic Development (VPRIED) and the Vice President for Administration and Finance (VPAF). The VPRIED is tasked with pre-award responsibilities and reports to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The VPAF maintains post-award administration and compliance and reports directly to the President. This is shown in the University’s Organizational Chart, and individual positions are detailed in the organizational charts for the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) and Sponsored Programs Finance Administration and Compliance (SPFAC).

The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP), which reports to the VPRIED, is responsible for pre-award administration tasks that include the review and processing of proposals for research programs. ORSP provides oversight and support at the proposal stage for budgeting, cost sharing, indirect cost calculations, subcontracts, and other related issues to proposal submission for externally funded sponsored research. All proposals are routed for approval by the ORSP, SPFAC, Vice President for Administration and Finance, and the VPRIED through the Internal Proposal Approval Form (IPAF) website. These approvals must be obtained prior to submitting proposals to potential sponsors. All proposals contain an IPAF to verify that the required documentation and reviews have occurred. ORSP closely reviews all proposal budgets, subcontracts, and indirect cost calculations to ensure accuracy and makes any necessary revisions prior to submission.

The Office of Sponsored Programs Finance Administration and Compliance (SPFAC) manages all post-award administration activities and reports to the VPAF. SPFAC oversees and manages award negotiation, expenditure review and approval, research accounting, compliance, reporting, and closeouts for all sponsored agreements. All expenditures associated with sponsored programs are reviewed and approved by SPFAC to ensure that cost principles, consistency, allowability, allocability, and reasonability, are met as seen in the Sample Approved Expenditures. All sponsored program agreements are routed with an Award Data Sheet for approvals by the Principle Investigator, Operational Review, the VPRIED, the VPAF, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, who is the Authorized Representative for the University and the signature authority.

Procedures and policies governing the proposal process and expenditures of external funds, such as the Investigator Toolkit, are provided on the ORSP and SPFAC websites.

In FY2018, a total of $55 million in expenditures were processed on externally sponsored programs through SPFAC. In association with the A-1 audit, conducted by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, over $20 million were directly related to federal awards. The audit found “no material weaknesses” in financial reporting or internal control. There was no management letter issued in FY2018.

 

Supporting Documents

IPAF Approved Example

IPAF website

IPAF website approval form

Office of Research and Sponsored Program org chart

University Organizational Chart

ORSP website

SPFAC Award Data sheet

SPFAC Org Chart

SPFAC Sample Agreement

SPFAC Sample Approved Expenditures

SPFAC website

Toolkit

VPAF website

VPRIED website

 

13.6    Federal and state responsibilities

The institution (a) is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the most recent Higher Education Act as amended and (b) audits financial aid programs as required by federal and state regulations. 

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

A. The institution is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the most recent Higher Education Act as amended.

UL Lafayette is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV, and there are currently no issues with the University’s Title IV programs. The University has no limitation, suspension, or termination action by the U.S. Department of Education with regard to student financial aid or other federal programs. Furthermore, the institution is authorized through September 30, 2024 to participate in Federal Student Financial Aid Programs under the Program Participation Agreement. The University has not been placed on the reimbursement method, nor has it been required to obtain a letter of credit in favor of the Department of Education.

The institution meets the requirements described in the Federal Student Aid Blue Book. Specifically:

·         The institution’s Financial Aid Organizational Chart and staff listing show that it has the administrative capability required.  

·         The institution provides Student Consumer Information.

·         The institution meets the Records Maintenance and Retention Requirements as outlined in the Federal Student Aid Handbook, Ch. 7, which states that institutions must keep comprehensive, accurate program and fiscal records related to its use of FSA program funds and must retain all required records for a minimum of three years. The University is committed to ensuring that all students’ FSA records are governed by the student confidentiality rights of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

B. Audits

UL Lafayette regularly audits financial aid programs as required by federal and state regulations.  

·         The AY2016-2017 A-133 Audit required by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget shows that UL Lafayette meets the Financial Responsibility Standards and that there are no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies identified. There was one finding in the 2017 A-133 Audit regarding timely return of Title IV funds. The University’s leadership has addressed these issues by implementing procedural and processing changes to avoid this finding in the future.

In April of 2015, the U.S. Department of Education performed a Program Review of the 2014-2015 award year. UL Lafayette complied with all requirements and corrected all findings discovered during the review. The University received the Final Program Review Determination Closeout Letter on May 15, 2018.

The University’s Cohort Default Rates (CDR) between 2012 and 2015 are as follows:

·         2015 3-Year Draft CDR – 6.8%

·         2014 3-Year Official CDR – 7.9%

·         2013 3-Year Official CDR – 7.8%

·         2012 3-Year Official CDR – 7.6%

 

Supporting Documents

Agreement Eligibility and Certification Approval

AY2016-2017 Audit letter

AY2016-2017 Audit Response

Consumer Information

Federal Student Aid Handbook

Financial Aid Organizational Chart

Financial Aid Staff

Participation Agreement

U.S. Department of Education Final Program Review Determination Closeout Letter

 

13.7     physical resources

The institution ensures adequate physical facilities and resources, both on and off campus, that appropriately serve the needs of the institution’s educational programs, support services, and other mission-related activities.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

Located in Lafayette, Louisiana, UL Lafayette has more than 17,500 students enrolled (head count), making it the second largest university in the state of Louisiana, as well as the largest in the University of Louisiana System. The University has nearly seven million gross square feet of space across 281 buildings situated on 1324 acres in the parishes of Lafayette, Iberia, St. Martin, and Acadia. While the majority of these buildings are located on either the main campus, the south campus, or the research commons campus within the city of Lafayette, the University also has facilities at the New Iberia Research Center (NIRC),  the Cade Farm Laboratory, the Center for Ecology and Environmental Technology (CEET), and the Marine Survival Training Center (MSTC). The campus-built environment is an essential and integral part of the University's teaching, learning, research, economic development, recreation, athletic, and housing functions.

Campus Master Plan

In 2010, Architects Southwest was retained to develop and assist in the implementation of a Master Plan for the University. The plan, completed in May 2013, has as its primary goal to support the University Strategic Plan. The proposed campus transformation was initiated with the demolition of Guillory, Vermilion, and Lafayette Halls to create a plaza of green space in the heart of campus adjacent to the Student Union. Consultants met with the President, Provost, all Vice Presidents and Deans, and various faculty and student groups. Input was also gathered from members of the Lafayette City Parish Government.

In 2012, students voted to approve a self-assessed student fee to support implementation of the Master Plan. Besides guiding the University as it continues to grow and develop, the plan will contribute to student academic success, build a stronger sense of community, improve the quality of life on and around campus, enhance safety and sustainability efforts, and foster opportunities for economic development. The plan successfully weaves three currently incongruent adjacent landmasses—the main campus, the St. Landry Street corridor, and the research park—into one cohesive University District through an articulation of uses, patterns, transportation idioms, and environmental sensitivity.

Campus Facility & Infrastructure

Academic Facilities

There are 24 academic buildings on the University’s main campus that provide academic classrooms and seminar rooms, teaching labs and research labs, as well as administrative offices for the nine colleges and 42 departments. The first initiative called for in the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020 is prioritization of upgrades to academic facilities, an initiative that has driven the University’s facilities investments over this period. Over the past 15 years, technology enhancements have been undertaken in all academic buildings, providing wireless connectivity, state-of-the-art open and class computer classrooms through the SMART/STEP initiative, as well as state-of-the-art technology in the auditoriums of Angelle Hall, Hamilton Hall, Hawthorne Hall, H.L. Griffin Hall, Oliver Hall, and Wharton Hall.

All aspects of physical facilities at the University are maintained by the Facilities Management department. Working with the offices of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs, the Student Government Association (SGA), as well as the President and the Campus Facilities Planning Committee, the department works to ensure that student academic and research facilities adequately support the University’s mission and are directly tied to the University’s Master Plan. As improvements and modifications are made to campus facilities, the University works with Architects Southwest to keep the plan updated annually. In Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) surveys from Spring 2010 through Fall 2016, students rated the instructional facilities with an average of 4.42/5.

Deferred maintenance issues are prioritized and are addressed based on the allotted funds by the State and the University in each fiscal year. The State allotments are apportioned by the system boards, and funding is divided among the universities within each system. In this fiscal year, UL Lafayette’s deferred maintenance is part of the UL System’s $348,587,477 estimate. Funding for deferred maintenance was fairly common until FY2006-2007, when this funding stopped until 2013. Deferred maintenance issues affect every public two- and four-year institution in the state. Institutions have roofing, HVAC/electrical/mechanical, life safety code compliance, ADA, infrastructure, and other needs. Since 2016, the State has provided funding for deferred maintenance at a reduced rate, and the University has addressed the shortfall in line with other physical improvements.

The University contracted with ABM Industries Inc for campus-wide custodial services in 2015. ABM employees work closely with Facilities Management in overseeing the custodial needs of the University. Besides remarking on the cleaning benefits of daily custodial services, students, staff, and faculty have noticed improvements in reporting minor repairs in lighting, locks, restrooms, and circulation areas.

The University has collaborated with the community wherever possible to achieve its facilities goals. For example, in accordance with the Master Plan and the Strategic Plan 2015-2020, in order to provide the College of Engineering with the necessary space for their growing enrollment, the School of Geosciences was relocated from Madison Hall to Hamilton Hall, allowing Engineering to expand its number of classrooms and research labs. The move benefitted both departments, but required special consideration regarding the relocation of the extensive rock library and rock labs of the School of Geosciences. University administrators entered into discussion in 2013 with City of Lafayette officials about the possibility of utilizing excess space at the City’s Science Museum in downtown Lafayette, located adjacent to the University’s main campus. As a result of the discussions, the City agreed to provide space for a new public Geology Museum, as well as a state-of-the-art rock lab for faculty and graduate student research. This endeavor provides as much for the University and School of Geosciences as it does for the community-at-large, with the permanent housing of the curated rock specimens, which are more readily accessible to the public and school groups throughout Acadiana.

Student Union, Bike paths, On Campus Parking, and Intramural Sports Center

Student Union

Student Union construction was completed just prior to the return of students for the start of the Spring semester 2015. The renovation and expansion project began in late 2012. The new Union has about 178,000 square feet, or about 50,000 square feet more than the original structure. It offers multiple dining options, areas to relax and study, meeting rooms, campus offices, as well as the Bayou Bijou Theater, Student Union Administration, Cajun Card, Dean of Students, Student Engagement and Leadership, Student Cashier Center, UL Dining Services, International Affairs, Study Abroad, Student Government Association, Post Office, and the Bookstore.

Bike Paths, Bike Stations, and Parking

New bike lanes now occupy the outer two lanes of St. Mary Blvd. in each direction, between Taft and St. Landry Streets, with motorists using the two inside lanes, to increase cyclist safety and to manage traffic flow. These are among the bicycle and pedestrian improvements included in the University's Master Plan. The bike lane project was also a joint effort between UL Lafayette and Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG). The University provided $70,000; LCG designed and installed the bike lanes.

The Master Plan proposed four bike stations, five bike locker stations, and 10 bike racks per parking area, as well as 10 new parking facilities throughout campus. To date, three multi-level parking towers have been built and put into use: Taft Street Garage, McKinley Street Parking Tower, and Girard Park Circle Parking Tower.

Student Housing

Since 2010, the University has invested in developing a physical campus community that serves its resident students. Over the course of developing the Master Plan, students were most interested in two areas: housing and parking. Over the past 10 years and as directed by the Master Plan, the University has demolished 13 residence halls. The majority of the residence halls were 25 to 30 years beyond their useful life as a result of their age and construction components. Replacement buildings were built on University property by Ragin Cajun Facilities, Inc. (RCFI), a 501(c)(3) incorporated in January of 2001, and operated by a Board of Directors (William Crist, Jerry Luke LeBlanc, Hunter Trahan, David Fontenot, and Nick Gachassin, Jr.). New housing fees collected from residents are used for repayment of the construction debt. All properties are managed and maintained by the Housing Office.  Table 13.7 – 1 shows type and capacity of the University’s student housing facilities.

Table 13.7 – 1: Student Housing Data

 

In all of the residence halls throughout each of the three residential areas, students are provided with swipe card access/24-hour security, state-of-the-art telecommunications including high speed internet with Wi-Fi capability, and learning/study centers on each floor.

The University’s modern residential facilities accommodate 2,989 of its students. All residences provide parking adjacent to the residence halls. Despite this large number of on-campus residents, every semester the Housing Office has to turn away hundreds of students seeking on-campus housing, as there is not yet a sufficient number of beds available. The University has experienced a high demand for on-campus, apartment style housing for upperclassmen and graduate students. As a result, Facilities Management, through RCFI, has developed The Heritage at Cajun Village apartment housing, which is currently under construction and scheduled to open in Fall 2019. The complex is an on-campus residential community exclusively for upperclassmen that offers an independent lifestyle but is well within short walking distance of the entire main campus.

Facilities Management, in collaboration with the Campus Facilities Planning Committee and RCFI, published in Spring 2016 a Request for Expression of Interest: (RFEI) University Commons to explore the development of the 250-acre area known as the University Commons, including additional housing for students, as well as faculty and staff. The major opportunities for private investment are offices, restaurants, retail and entertainment uses, research, performing arts, convention center, and residential uses, provided they are integrated within a larger mixed-use environment. The total area subject to private investment and development is approximately 195.5 acres.

Student Dining Facilities

The University has dining facilities and food courts in and around the main campus, all of which are maintained and serviced by Sodexo. The newest dining facilities are those found in the newly renovated Student Union, the largest and most utilized being the Cypress Lake Dining Room, which serves prepared on site (or to order) breakfast, lunch, and dinner and serves 4,000 to 5,000 students on any given week day. The University Club is reserved for faculty and staff and offers the same menu items as in the Cypress Lake Dining Room. For more casual food selections, Sidelines and McAlister’s Deli serve salads, sandwiches, and beverages. The Brew is a coffee shop with a limited selection of sandwiches and pastries. The Ragin' Cajun Food Court at the Agnes Edwards Hall (Formerly the Conference Center), Café Fleur de Lis in Legacy Park, Jazzman’s Café in Dupré Library, Jamba Juice in Bourgeois Hall, and Zeus between Oliver and C.L. Rougeou Halls serve the campus community throughout the day with more options for casual food selections.

Athletic Facilities

UL Lafayette runs a 14-sport (seven women’s & seven men’s) Division I Athletics Program and participates in the Sun Belt Conference. The NCAA basketball court for UL’s basketball teams is the Cajundome Complex. Facilities for football (Cajun Field), baseball (Tigue Moore Field), softball (Lamson Park), track & field and soccer (Cajun Track/Soccer Facilities), and tennis (Cajun Courts) are all located adjacent to the Cajundome, in the University Commons.

The Athletic Facilities Master Plan, composed of three tiers, was proposed in March of 2013 and approved by the UL System BOS one month later. Tier 1 projects include the renovation of Cajun Field, the Ragin’ Cajuns football stadium, completed in the Fall 2014 season, and the renovation of the Ragin' Cajuns Track and Soccer Facility. Cajun Field was modified with new concessions and rest rooms at the south end zone and nearly 6,000 new seats. This raised the Cajun Field seating capacity to nearly 37,000 seats. The grassy area in the north end zone increased stadium capacity to about 42,000.

The Leon C. Moncla Indoor Practice Facility was first unveiled in August of 2007. The 88,791-square foot facility was built by architect Gene Sellers for approximately $4.5 million. The facility houses a full 120-yard football field turf surface purchased from the New Orleans Saints, as well as a basketball practice facility that includes a full court with six goals, locker room, video room, player’s lounge, and meeting room. The facility also has drop-down batting cages above the west end zone that are utilized by the basketball, softball, and golf teams. Baseball and softball players use the turf for infield practice. Soccer, tennis, and track teams also use the facility.

In Fall 2014, ground was broken for the annex to the Leon C. Moncla Indoor Practice Facility. Appropriately named the Athletic Performance Center, the facility houses a 12,000-square foot weight room, a state-of-the-art athletic training room, and a 150-seat auditorium. It also includes a new football locker room and new offices and meeting rooms for the Ragin' Cajuns football coaching staff. The facility was completed and opened for use in Fall 2017.

The basketball court in the Cajundome was replaced by a court used in the NCAA Women's Basketball National Championship game. It was refinished with new paint in the Summer of 2012.

Off-Campus Facilities: Marine Survival Training Center (MSTC)

The UL Lafayette Marine Survival Training Center trains personnel from the petroleum, aviation, and maritime industries in emergency procedures and use of the lifesaving equipment available to them. Its mission is to provide the best marine safety training available by using state-of-the-art facilities and experienced, motivated instructors. The off-campus site is leased through the Lafayette Regional Airport Commission adjacent to Lafayette Regional Airport. Facilities include two enclosed pools for survival craft training and underwater helicopter egress training covering U.S.C.G. and commercial helicopters and equipment.

Facility Improvements

In the past five to seven years, the University has completed the following projects that directly support the University’s mission, strategic, and master plans. These projects have improved instructional space, research and academic activities, student housing, recreation services, and pedestrian safety enhancements (see UL Lafayette Building Changes Since 1990).

Projects Under Construction

·         New apartment style housing on main campus, the Heritage at Cajun Village (completion in August 2019)

·         Madison Hall renovations in partnership with Frank’s Casing Inc. ($25 M, and applying for state match)

·         Roy House Renovation to accommodate the Center for Louisiana Studies and UL Press ($1.5 M expected completion by Fall 2020)

Recent Facility Improvements: Completed Projects

·         Baseball Stadium completed February 2017 ($12.3 M)

·         Athletic Project: Stadium Expansion completed August 2014 ($5.9 M)

·         Lewis Street Parking Garage completed November 2014 ($24 M)

·         Fletcher Hall Additions and Renovation completed January 2015 ($5.6 M)

·         Renovation and Expansion of Student Union completed August 2015 ($51 M)

·         Athletic Project: Athletic Performance Center completed October 2015 ($17.1 M)

·         Athletic Project: Track/Soccer Offices completed October 2015 ($4 M)

·         Student-funded Welcome Wall and Quad Renovation completed January 2016

·         Student Housing: Legacy Park (Phase 1A) completed January 2005 ($19 M)

·         Student Housing: Legacy Park (Phase 1B) completed August 2010 ($12 M)

·         Acadiana Law Enforcement Training Academy - 2^nd floor renovation 2010 ($575,000)

·         Student Housing and Parking Project completed August 2012 ($103 M)

·         Creamery renovation to accommodate Louisiana Archaeology Lab completed February 2019 ($145,000)

·         Whittington House renovations to accommodate Distance Learning Office completed March 2019 ($190,000)

·         New Transportation and Maintenance facility completed February 2019 ($1.7 M)

Capital Planning Process

Every year in response to the notification from the State Board of Regents (BOR), Facilities Management (FM) prepares and submits a Five-Year Capital Plan and Annual Major Repair and Renovation Funding Request. All capital requests are prepared using BOR guidelines and in conjunction with the recently completed Master Plan. The FY2015-2020 Capital Request for Major projects totals $82,403,019. All such requests are reviewed, discussed, and prioritized by the Campus Planning Committee, whose membership represents stakeholders from throughout the campus community, who are appointed by the President.

Facilities Energy Efficiency and Sustainability

UL Lafayette recognizes that efficiency and sustainability are important. In 2010, the University invested in a Building Energy Management System (BEMS), a computer-based system that helps to manage, control, and monitor building technical services (HVAC, lighting, etc.) and the energy consumption of devices used by the building, providing the information and the tools that building managers need both to understand the energy usage of the buildings and to control and improve the building’s energy performance.

Following the University’s Sustainability Strategic Plan, awareness for efficiency and sustainability improvements are implemented campus-wide, including replacing lighting ballasts for more energy efficient lighting, retrofitting lighting with LED technology, and installing one-pint per flush high efficiency urinals in all restrooms across campus. Beginning with the plans for the new Student Union, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) standards were followed in order to achieve the first LEED certified building on campus. RCFI has just completed its second LEED certified building on campus in the Research Commons.

The University is noted for supporting a natural swamp in the center of campus. Cypress Lake is a unique University landmark that is a habitat for native cypress, irises, alligators, turtles, birds, and fish, as well as a hangout for students and a point of interest for tourists visiting the region. The swamp and the numerous centennial oaks around campus have led to the University being designated as a Tree Campus USA. 

Recently the University received a donation of LED lighting for experimenting with cost savings on exterior lighting. It was necessary to spend $15,000-20,000 for poles required for mounting and testing the LED lighting for efficiency. The site selected for the initial test is the UL Alumni Center.

Facilities Management Services Division

Facilities Management (FM) is responsible for the planning, design, construction, renovation, and maintenance and operation of all facilities at UL Lafayette. The goal of FM is to provide safe, clean, attractive, and energy efficient buildings that are conducive to teaching, research, living, and recreational activities. FM meets this goal through a customer-focused system to respond to specific requests and requirements.

The FM departments include Facility and Energy Services, Facility Planning, Facility Design and Construction, Property Control, Grounds Services, and Property Leasing. FM works with the Institutional Data Coordinator in the Division of Academic Affairs to maintain and update all the space and room inventories across campus for the annual BOR Facilities Utilization report, the biennial NSF Facilities Survey, and other reporting needs.

From a maintenance perspective, all buildings have coordinators who are responsible for their assigned facility areas. These coordinators report to the Associate Director of Public Safety any problems with mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. Selective contract services are used for specialized maintenance functions such as roof repair, elevator maintenance, building environment controls, and fire alarm systems. The preventative maintenance process is based on manufacturer recommendations and prioritized listing of critical equipment such as chillers, air handling units, pumps, and emergency generators. This process is used for all major facilities on the main campus and in the Research Commons, and for remote academic, research, and recreational facilities.

Facilities Management utilizes TMA Maintenance Management System primarily to issue scheduled (i.e. preventative maintenance) and non‑scheduled work orders to technicians to make repairs to the University’s buildings, equipment, vehicles, and campus grounds, and as a mechanism to process charges and expenses associated with this maintenance, which can include the payment to outside vendors and contractors, as well as interdepartmental charges to departments that are self‑generating and pay for their own services. Every area, room space, parking lot, electrical and mechanical equipment, and grounds area is inputted into TMA, and the system can be used to generate and track  work orders. FM also uses TMA for the following:

·         Accounting and inventory for Dollar Cost Average not-for-profit store (central receiving), where technicians have easy access to inexpensive materials that they regularly use.

·         Elaborate scheduled maintenance custom checklist for major equipment (chillers, air handlers, boilers, electrical transformers, sub‑station, etc.) in accordance with the operations and maintenance manuals set forth by the equipment manufacturer.

·         Custom maintenance schedules for non‑technical items still under the responsibility of FM, such as fire alarm and fire safety monitoring and inspection service, fleet vehicle safety inspection, etc.

·         Technician tracking with personnel information, hours worked on work orders, etc.

The University processes approximately 21,000 work orders each year.  

Building Systems Renovations

The combination of preventative maintenance and recent major capital equipment replacements has resulted in a significant improvement in the working environment for students, faculty, and staff. Through state emergency repair funding and internal funding, the University has renovated and upgraded its existing buildings, including Fletcher Hall, H.L. Griffin Hall, Girard Hall, Angelle Hall, Fletcher Hall, and Hamilton Hall.

South Louisiana presents special building maintenance challenges. Both Angelle Hall and H.L. Griffin Hall have had extensive water damage from flooding. Angelle Hall’s flooding was the result of deteriorating below-street drainage maintained by the City of Lafayette. In Fall 2013 the City undertook a $1 M drainage project to replace and restore services to this vital part of campus. Simultaneous with the City’s work, Facilities Management was working with architects and contractors to facilitate the repairs and renovations necessary for Angelle Hall so as to begin the restoration as soon as the City completed its work. In the Spring of 2013, contractors took over the project and by Fall 2014, the work had been completed. The scope of the work included re-roofing and waterproofing the building, as well as making necessary repairs to interior ceilings, which were also damaged by water. Angelle Hall serves the needs of the School of Music and Performing Arts in the College of the Arts.

Following a flooding event in the H.L. Griffin Hall auditorium as a result of extremely heavy rains, which exceeded what had historically been experienced over the past 40 years, Facilities Management made a determination that the sub-surface drainage around the auditorium had failed and needed to be repaired. Contractors were brought in under an emergency plan in the Summer of 2014 to repair the drainage at the site. In the Fall of that same year, the drainage failed again and flooded the H.L. Griffin auditorium once more. At this time, Facilities Management determined that the drainage system should be completely replaced and that the foundation of that portion of the building should be shored up to prevent a future flooding event. As a result of the flooding and because the auditorium was 45 years old and showing the results of extensive wear over the years, it was completely renovated. Following the bid guidelines for state contracts, the contractor began work within a week of the contract award. Asbestos-free ceiling tiles, LED lighting, resurfaced and repainted plaster walls, state-of-the-art technology, a theater sound system, and new furnishings were installed. The auditorium work was completed for the Fall 2015 semester and continues to be the most academically utilized auditorium on campus. H.L. Griffin Hall is the home of the Humanities in the College of Liberal Arts.

Fletcher Hall, which houses the College of the Arts, received funding through the state for emergency repair funding. Fletcher Hall opened in 1977, and the original design called for its interior atrium to be covered in glass, but because of budget constraints, it was built with an open-air courtyard instead. Years of exposure to rain resulted in extensive water damage. Phase I of the repairs was undertaken in Fall 2013. The renovation project corrected leaks and added 20,000 square feet of educational space to the second floor. The first-floor exterior walls were repaired, cleaned, weatherproofed, and coated to complement new metal panels used on the exterior of the upper floors. A sprinkler and fire-alarm system was added to the building. Phase II of repairs must wait for funding priority.

The renovation and restoration of historic Girard Hall was completed in Spring 2012. This classroom building is again occupied and serving students and faculty. Now containing modern classroom space, labs, and offices, the restoration of Girard Hall maintained the building’s original architectural features and ambiance. Completed in 1923, Girard Hall originally housed classrooms and the college’s library. Girard Hall now houses the Department of Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts.

University personnel can place requests for special needs or report problems in their facilities through the online reporting system. Facilities Management will determine if in-house service is sufficient or if an approved contractor is to be contacted for the specific service.

Risk Management

The University Environmental Health & Safety Office (EH&S) works to provide a safe and secure educational environment to the University’s students, employees, visitors, and volunteers. To accomplish its mission, long-term safe practices are created through education and leadership by example. To accomplish this, EH&S assigns various safety responsibilities throughout the campus to departmental employees known as Departmental Safety Coordinators (DSC). These individuals are provided training for their responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities include regularly inspecting all physical facilities and grounds, conducting safety meetings to increase awareness and remedy unsafe conditions to protect all on our campus, and aiding in emergency preparedness and evacuation of building occupants in the event of an emergency. EH&S also works closely with officials in the University's Public Safety Office, Security Office (Cajun Card Services), and the University President's Office, and with officials from city, parish, and state governments.

Through the Louisiana Division of Administration’s Office of Risk Management (ORM), the University maintains insurance on all assets—facilities, equipment, fixed objects such as fencing, exterior lighting, solar panel farms and signage, as well as vehicles. ORM administers the State’s self-insurance program and is responsible for managing all State insurance covering property and liability exposure. Risk Management is also responsible for managing all tort claims made against the State or any of its agencies, whether or not covered by the self-insurance fund. The University’s Chief Administrator of Health and Safety works directly with representatives of ORM, and ORM contracts with a third-party administrator to provide claims adjusting and loss prevention services, but retains its authority to approve all negotiations and settlements.

As part of its program, Risk Management consults with its agency clients on safety and loss control, provides for elevator inspections, reviews agency contracts for insurance and indemnity clauses, and maintains valuations on state-owned property. New facilities and remodeled/renovated facilities are inspected by a representative of ORM in order to maintain the accuracy of the values and replacement costs consisting of gross square footage, building materials, use, and occupancy. Following ORM inspections, the State Fire Marshal sets the maximum occupancy for each space within the facilities.

Annual inspection of all facilities is addressed by a team from Facilities Management and Academic Affairs. Data collected from the inspections becomes part of the permanent data records used for annual facilities reporting to the Louisiana BOR and the biennial NSF Survey of Science and Engineering Research Facilities.

The University’s EH&S Program was originally implemented to satisfy requirements from the ORM. Since its inception, the office responsibilities have evolved to include running multiple operations above and beyond the implementation of a basic safety program.

Physical Inventory

The Property Control department is responsible for the asset management of the University's movable equipment as per the LPAA Property Regulations. This includes assets purchased with State, federal, and private funds, including donated assets. The University conducts annual inventory beginning in the month of October each year. All departments are required to complete annual inventories of their movable assets in accordance with Louisiana State Law. The Louisiana Property Assistance Agency (LPAA) was designated by the Commissioner of Administration as being responsible for the control and disposition of all State movable property and fleet management for the State of Louisiana. These programs operate under the statutory authority of Louisiana Revised Statutes 39:321-332 and 39:361-364.

Movable property regulations provide the framework needed to track movable property throughout its lifespan. Inventory requirements are defined, personnel responsibilities are assigned, and disposal mechanisms for state owned movable property assets are provided within these statutes. They allow LPAA to return as much revenue as possible back to the State from the sale of assets no longer needed by any State agency.

Technology Infrastructure

Information Technology

Information Technology (IT) provides, supports, and enhances computing and networking facilities that serve the academic and administrative needs of the University, with emphasis on those that benefit multiple academic disciplines or administrative subunits.  More specifically, Information Technology:

·         Establishes policies and procedures that promote equitable access to computing for campus users and appropriate use of campus technology;

·         Maintains the Information Technology infrastructure continuity plan;

·         Responds to administrative and support needs of faculty and student body of the University;

·         Ensures the integrity and security of the University’s databases;

·         Evaluates current and future information technology requirements on campus; and

·         Advises and assists members of the campus community in the use of technology needed to accomplish the University’s mission.

·         In fulfilling its mission, Information Technology consists of five primary units: 1) University Computing Support Services; 2) Enterprise Application Services; 3) Network Services; 4) Security Services; and 5) the Project Management Office.  An IT Advisory Council with broad membership guides decision making and prioritization of projects, and an Information Technology Governance Chart defines the flow if IT authority at the University.  A strategic planning process Strategic Planning process guides all IT initiatives and has resulted in transformational Strategic Planning Accomplishments across campus. Other IT Initiatives have developed and been completed as needs have arisen.

Key Centralized Information Technology Resources

University Enterprise Resource Planning System(s) (ERP)

Between the 1980s and 2015, the University operated using a variety of independent software systems that did not allow integrated data management and planning.  In 2010, the University began a process of acquiring approval to solicit bids for an integrated enterprise resource planning system (ERP) to improve its data management and planning processes.  To find a software solution that would fit its needs, the University sought proposals through an RFP from all qualified vendors. Those vendors were required to show they could install and implement an integrated administrative information system (or ERP system) with state-of-the-art software and implementation services. A contract was awarded to Ellucian, Inc., whose proposal centered around the Banner System was graded to best meet the needs as defined in the RFP.

The ERP Implementation Approach included a hosted and managed environment necessary to stand up the system (hardware, application, application components, database, operating systems, etc.) in the cloud, which allowed the University to focus its human capital on business process change, system functionality, training, and maximizing both the tangible and intangible benefits available to the University community using the solution as illustrated in the Network and WiFi Infrastructure map. This approach also facilitated an immersive and operationally independent technical training program that reduced risk and increased system uptime, reliability, and stability of the solution. The Banner Application inventory includes:

·         Banner Student (includes Student Self-Service and Faculty and Advisor Self-Service) ·         Ellucian Recruiter CRM ·         Ellucian Advise CRM ·         Ellucian eTrancripts ·         Banner Communication Management ·         Ellucian Degree Works (Degree Audit) ·         Banner Financial Aid (includes Financial Aid Self-Service) ·         Financial Aid FM Methodology ·         Banner Finance (includes Finance Self-Service) ·         Chrome River Travel and Expense Management ·         Banner Human Resources (includes Employee Self-Service) ·         Talent Management Suite - Learning, Performance, and Recruiting ·         Ellucian International Student & Scholar Management ·         Banner Advancement (includes Advancement Self-Service)

·         Evisions FormFusion ·         Evisions IntelleCheck ·         Banner Workflow ·         Banner Document Management ·         Banner Integration for eLearning ·         Banner Operational Data Store ·         Banner Enterprise Data Warehouse ·         IBM Cognos Software ·         Ellucian Analytics (implementation underway) ·         Ellucian CRM Advance (implementation underway) ·         Ellucian Payment Center by TouchNet ·         T2 Systems (Transportation Management Solutions) ·         StarRez (Housing) ·         Ellucian Elevate (Continuing/Extended Education) ·         Luminis Basic (Portal) ·         Ellucian Mobile - Platform Edition ·         Oracle Software - Application Specific Full Use (Database)

In order to facilitate improved access to application services for University constituencies, most of the “web” properties (both onside and hosted) have a responsive and mobile friendly design, including the ERP, learning management system (Moodle), University website, University Portal (ULink), email, and calendar.

University Learning Management System (LMS) – Moodle

The University currently hosts its learning management system (Moodle) onsite and operates at version 3.13. In addition, the University Office of Distance Learning and distance learning programs provide strategic and tactical leadership in the operation and governance of the system. In that role, they provide a number of educational tools (“Edu Tools”) that support online and hybrid instruction, including: 

Examity. Virtual online proctoring service that is integrated with UL Lafayette’s Moodle LMS.

Panopto. Lecture capture software that enables instructors to create video and audio podcasts of lectures for student viewing at a later time.

ProctorU. Virtual online proctoring service that is integrated with the Moodle LMS.

Turnitin. Online tool that allows faculty to provide detailed feedback on written assignments with the added benefit of ensuring that students are submitting original and properly cited work.

VoiceThread. Web-based sharing and collaboration tool that allows conversations to happen asynchronously. This interactive and immersive tool can create excitement and more participation from students.

Zoom. Online virtual meeting space that can be utilized by instructors to hold synchronous (real-time) meetings and classes with students from any geographic location.

The Moodle system on campus is fully integrated into the University’s ERP system, and student, faculty, and staff access, course registrations, enrollments, etc. are all automated. When course sections are created/scheduled in the ERP, a “course shell” is automatically created in the LMS environment, and upon placement of course materials and other relevant content, the course is activated by the instructor of record and made available to students. In Spring 2019 over 2,100 course sections were activated in the Moodle environment. Table 13.7 – 2 lists Moodle usage in the Fall 2018 semester.

Table 13.7 – 2: Moodle Use Data for Fall 2018

 

In addition to providing instructional support, the Moodle environment also serves as a repository for training materials, support archives, document collaboration, and faculty/staff professional development. University faculty and staff can manage enrollments, post information, and publish internal documentation that requires authentication and authorization. The system (and its subsidiary components) are completely virtualized, redundant, highly available, and scalable. This results in an operational model and environment that a) reduces downtime; b) can be migrated to/from both of the University’s data centers; and c) supports instructional activities year-round, 24/7.

Information Technology Service Desk

The UL Lafayette IT Service Desk provides technology support to all University students, faculty, and staff via telephone, email, Web, and chat, and will soon offer a self-service portlet in the University Portal (ULink).

In the last several years, IT Service Desk hours were expanded to include evening and weekend coverage to better accommodate the needs of both traditional and online learners. Current operating hours for the Service Desk are Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. and Friday 7:30 - 12:30, with after hours and weekend support provided via telephone. General service categories include:

·         Access Services ·         Banner and Enterprise Applications (ERP) ·         Desktop Support Services ·         Digital Learning ·         Email, Calendaring, and Collaboration Services ·         Network Services ·         Online Courses (Moodle/LMS Support)

·         Printing ·         Student Technology Enhancement Program ·         Security Services ·         Software ·         Telephones ·         Web Services ·         IT Support Services

Open-Use Student Technology Enhancement Program Laboratories (Computer Labs)

Open-use Student Technology Enhancement Program (STEP) labs are common areas where students can research information, write papers, and print documents using STEP computers. There is a total of eight locations throughout campus with nearly 400 PCs and Macintosh computers, with a broad array of software applications.

Eight locations on campus accommodate student needs for high-speed, duplex capable printing. The Library (the largest open-use computer laboratory) maintains extended hours, and the Agnes Edwards lab has 24/7 access for students (card access using University ID required). STEP funds 250 printed pages per student each semester and provides an online portal for students to purchase additional sheets as needed.

In addition to the open-use computer laboratories on campus, many departments and colleges operate specialized computer laboratories to host program-specific, computer-based teaching and learning resources for their students, faculty, and staff.

Technology Equipped “SMART/TECH” Classrooms

The University has deployed, maintains, and assists in managing approximately 168 SMART classrooms and technology-enhanced classrooms that include computers, overhead projection systems, sound systems, cameras, multi-media podiums, and Extron controllers/switchers to enhance the instructional experience. These deployment projects are a partnership between Information Technology, STEP, and Academic Affairs. The University has established a sustainability program plan to further enhance the Student Technology Enhancement Program (STEP SMART/TECH) campus-wide, as listed in the STEP Award History report.  

Desktop Support Services (Standard Desktop, Laptop, and Mac computers)

The University has defined and maintains a set of computer hardware and software standards that allow it to provide better and more efficient support for students (lab use), faculty, and staff on campus. In addition, these standards facilitate the ability for the University to leverage its purchasing power directly to obtain the most cost-effective pricing available for computing equipment that meets or exceeds the use case (as well as defined life cycle). The current "standards" include both Windows and Macintosh platforms and have at least one desktop and one laptop model available for each type/operating system. The University standard machine comes with the latest version of Windows/Mac OS, Microsoft Office, AV software, all supported browsers, membership in the Active Directory, Software Center (for software provisioning via self-service), extended maintenance/warranty, and installation/setup/configuration/migration services and can be ordered online.

Network Services

UL Lafayette has a large and complex network that includes over 15,000 wired connections, 47,000 wireless endpoints, 2,600 wireless access points, 32 routers, 420 switches, four Internet Service Provider connections, and two perimeter UTM/firewalls distributed over a large, 70-building main campus and six satellite locations. All buildings having fiber optic cable to allow for high-speed connections to the scalable, redundant, 10 Gbps campus backbone.

Internet1 connectivity is delivered through Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering connections with the Louisiana Optical Network Infrastructure (LONI), LUS (Lafayette Utilities System), and Cox Communications; and LONI provides Internet2 connectivity to the University’s research community. These ISP peering connections are in place to provide a full and robust redundancy plan for Internet bandwidth. These providers supply ISP connectivity to the University campus at the following bandwidth capacities: LONI (2 x 10G), LUS (1G), and Cox (2 x 5G). ISP connectivity for the University’s Science DMZ is provided by LONI (1 x 40G).

The University has joint Internet2 membership through the Louisiana Board of Regents, and the University’s connection to the Internet2 network is made possible through a partnership with LONI, Louisiana’s statewide research and education network. Through this membership affiliation, the University’s students, faculty, and staff have access to Internet2’s nationwide, high-speed network, which connects research and educational institutions in the U.S. and interconnects with international research networks worldwide. Internet2 is the foremost U.S. advanced networking consortium. Led by the research and education community since 1996, Internet2 promotes the missions of its members by providing both leading-edge network capabilities and unique partnership opportunities that together facilitate the development, deployment, and use of revolutionary Internet technologies.

The University’s WiFi networks are available in all academic and residential buildings and in over 65 outdoor areas on campus. Anyone can use WiFi-compatible devices anywhere service is provided–both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands are supported. Most locations also support the higher speed 802.11a/n/ac standards. The wireless service is provided free of charge to University students, faculty, staff, and guests.

Telephone Services

Network Services provides and manages telephone services throughout the main and subsidiary University campuses. Traditional analog and digital services are currently being replaced with a new VoIP service as new buildings are constructed or renovated. Features include voicemail, call forwarding, caller ID, call back, hunt groups, group pickup, self-service portal, video and telephone conferencing, teleworker services, Skype integration, soft phone integration, fax-to-email, contact integration, and instant messaging. Although initially hosted on campus (in both data centers), a hybrid (on campus and cloud) deployment model is being developed to provide a more redundant and resilient solution.

Physical Security Services

E-Lock (Electronically Controlled Doors) service provides an alternative to brass keys for access to areas.  An e-Lock can be configured to allow access for specific individuals during certain times, while maintaining logs of usage. Access to e-Locks can be modified at any time without having to visit the door. The e-Lock technical service partners with the University’s Cajun Card, which serves as the University ID card, library card, meal-plan card, and parking access card, and provides access to copy and printing services and to the Cajun Cash program (declining balance service).

The Information Technology Security Office offers an enterprise-level security video management platform (Video Security as a Service, or VSaaS) to deliver a managed, supported, scalable, and cost efficient “one-stop” service. The platform provides 24/7/365 access to video recorded from cameras installed at UL Lafayette. Video is presented via a web portal in a timeline format for searching, review, and downloading. Recordings begin upon motion and are stored for a minimum of 15 days. Users are issued a user account specific to their cameras. The IT Security Office coordinates and manages the service offering for the user, including system design, installation and configuration, maintenance, and billing.

Virtual Servers, Disk Storage, and Application Services

University Computing Support Services (UCSS) offers a virtual machine/server service and will install and maintain the virtual machine, including appropriate system software. (Specific and specialized application hosting services are also available.) UCSS monitors the systems and provides support based on defined service levels. All computer systems are housed in a UCSS data center, which provides a physically secure, access-controlled location, an inert gas fire suppression system, 24/7 video monitoring, conditioned power, and redundant cooling systems. UCSS also provides network connectivity including hostname registration and permanent IP addresses.

In addition to the Microsoft OneDrive service (part of Office 365), UCSS offers Network File Shares that allow instructional and support departments to have a central location for files to be stored and used by others within the department. Each File Share is initially set up with 100GB per share. These shares are managed and maintained by UCSS to keep them operating properly.

How Information Technology projects are evaluated, prioritized, and funded

Irrespective of the source of funding, UL Lafayette’s Information Technology (IT) projects are typically selected and prioritized based on the following factors:

·         Strategic importance and alignment with IT principles (from the University IT Strategic Plan 2015-2020)

·         Business value to constituents and institution

·         Time to return

·         Ability to execute

These characteristics are evaluated holistically to determine priority, alignment with the core institutional services (either directly or indirectly), and the link to the strategic interests of the institution.

Tactical and operational plans for IT are driven by service benchmarks (and associated peer comparisons, when available), identified and perceived gaps in the IT service catalog, recommendations from University IT Governance Groups, and peer and industry “best practice” as defined in the Information Technology Governance document.

Projects are prioritized if they enhance student experience as it contributes to academic success; improve and/or upgrade faculty resources to facilitate teaching, research, and service; improve and/or upgrade research resources that support cutting-edge research and insightful scholarship; or support and build a shared governance structure that will improve the capacity of the institution to prioritize, enhance, and support the core functions of the University.

Alignment with the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020 is the ultimate criterion for evaluating most large, resource-intensive, information technology projects. These strategic links are supplemented by estimates and measurements of business value of the project to constituents and the institution; time to return on investment of the project; and the ability to execute the project “on time” and “on budget.”  Smaller projects are aligned with the Information Technology Strategic Plan, annual IT Tactical Plans, the STEP Plan, as well as input from constituency and governance groups.

Information Technology Strategic Planning Process Overview

The strategic planning process is an ongoing, iterative one, involving engagement and collaboration with the entire University community. The IT leadership team guides the process in collaboration with the various Information Technology constituency, advisory, and governance groups on campus, as well as input from the University Strategic Planning Committee and the University Strategic Plan, resulting in a fully aligned IT Strategic Plan.

Strategic planning process/steps include:

·         Environmental scan

·         Discussions with campus community

·         Establishment of the Mission, Values, and Vision, and Principles Statements

·         Strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat analysis/exercise (SWOT - Identification of Priorities)

·         Definition of goals, objectives, and associated strategies to execute (and defining links between University Plan and IT Plan)

·         Development of tactical and operational action plans

Current Information Technology Initiatives

Science DMZ Project

The UL Lafayette Network Services Department (within the Office of Information Technology, or OIT) received funding through an NSF Campus Cyberinfrastructure (CC-NIE) grant to enhance the research network environment on campus by deploying 40 Gbps transport capacity between campus research centers, and to increase the connection to Internet2, through LONI, to 40 Gbps. This project has provided the University the capability to transport multiple circuits in 10 Gbps increments directly to researchers, research laboratories, and research centers deep within the campus, as well as to accommodate the growing scientific data demand between high performance computing (HPC) resources located on campus and across the world over Internet2.

Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) Implementation

The Office of Information Technology is in the process of implementing a new Service Management platform (ITSM) to assist in reducing costs; improving the quality of services; improving student, faculty, and staff satisfaction; improving governance and reducing project risks; and improving flexibility and increasing agility for IT Services. This project will yield a strategic approach for the design, delivery, management, and continuous improvement in the way IT is utilized within the University.  Phase I of the ITSM Implementation project was the migration of incident reporting, and service requests and responses (including escalation paths) to the new system. Phase II (currently underway) includes the development and maturing of the service catalog and integration of billing, provisioning, and identification of service dependencies and requisites.

Cloud Strategy

The University selected and implemented a hosted and managed solution (Ellucian Banner in Amazon Web Services) for its ERP System. The technical advantage of this approach was to ensure that the University’s internal resources were focused on business process transformation as opposed to specifying, building, deploying, and maintaining the technical environment(s) necessary to support the solution and meet increasing availability requirements. The cloud also had the advantage of facilitating a more streamlined and cost-effective disaster recovery and business continuity approach for the University’s mission-critical business applications. Over time, the University will continue to mature its cloud strategy based on the following principles:

·         Cloud options (hosted or SaaS) will be considered, encouraged, and evaluated for all service and application requests.

·         Information Technology will continue to focus efforts on service management and improvement, resource realignment, and automation across the entire technology stack.

·         Virtualization is a key readiness driver for ubiquitous deployment, management of IT systems, applications, and workloads.

·         Technology is dependent on and intertwined with faculty/staff development and business process improvement.

·         Data governance, data standards, and IT Security are integral and paramount to successful solution selection and deployments.

·         In support of the cloud strategy, IT will increase resources in the key areas of integration services, support engineers, and architects, as well as service management/support specialists.

Operational System Resiliency

Over the last year, Information Technology has built a "second site" in Abdalla Hall in the event of catastrophic failure at the primary data center in Stephens Hall. Internet Service Provider points, Firewall/UTM, servers, primary routing equipment, storage, and key "drains" (both I1 and I2 services) exist at both sites and are fully redundant. In addition, this redundancy provides virtual private network services to securely access both the University’s onsite systems/services and its cloud-based platforms.

Research Compliance Platform

The Information Technology Security Office is expanding its security platform to enable researchers, centers, and business units to achieve greater visibility into their security posture and compliance standings. The platform will assist internal groups with risk, vulnerability, and compliance management using assurance report cards that will better enable the University to meet industry standards and regulatory mandates.

Office 365 Project

UCSS is currently in the planning and implementation phase of migrating email, collaboration services, and Office applications to the Microsoft Office 365 Platform. In keeping with its cloud strategy, the platform will provide a highly available service to facilitate access to key Microsoft Office applications including email, calendaring, word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software for students, faculty, and staff.

ERP Maturity Project

In an effort to continue and build upon the successes of its initial Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation Project, the University has identified several additional software modules/components and services to supplement and enhance its ongoing business process transformation. Business process improvements thus far associated with and resulting directly from the initial project include: a) restructuring of the academic calendar to facilitate increased automation and improved course and scheduling flexibility for students; b) improved transfer credit and evaluation processes; c) full automation of the financial aid operation; d) consolidation and integration of the financial aid and scholarship processes; e) reduction in the number of separate payroll cycles; f) realignment of academic programs to facilitate automation/system management of pre- and co-requisite courses; g) more resilient and robust portal (new ULink) and Mobile access for students, faculty, and staff; h) change management processes that empower primary functional teams on campus; i) emergence of a consolidated electronic payment service; and j) real-time reports delivered electronically to target audiences.

In addition to continuing and supporting the ongoing business process transformations, the ERP Maturity Project will:

·         Provide additional support for electronic personnel action forms, faculty load and compensation (FLAC), ACA, and end-of-year (fiscal and calendar) support;

·         Assist in annual/semi-annual upgrade cycles;

·         Build “fine-grain” access controls for student registration/advising;

·         Provide ongoing and continued integration and technical knowledge transfer;

·         Provide Banner 9 support, training, and migration;

·         Offer additional post-implementation support for recent go-lives;

·         Add new customer relationship management [CRM] system for advising;

·         Add new Integrated Continuing Education module;

·         Provide additional licensing for Talent Management and Recruit CRM; and

·         Provide ongoing training and support for technical integrations and technical architecture.

 

Supporting Documents

2015 GeoScience Museum

2018 RC-04 Insurance Summary

2019 Project Report by Stages

Banner ERP Information

Banner ERP Webpage

Bike lanes on St. Mary Boulevard

BOR 2018 Bldg Edit

Cade Farm Site Plan

Café Fleur des Lis

Campus Planning Committee

Capital Outlay 5 year request 2018

Capital Planning Process

CEET Research Site Plan

Certificate of Insurance (5260 ULL generic)

Certification of Annual Property Inventory 2018

Commons Map with Athletics

Environmental Health and Safety Responsibilities

ERP Business Case

Executive Summary: UL Lafayette Housing Project

Facilities Management Organizational Chart

Faculty KPI 1

Fletcher Hall renovations

Improvements under way across campus

Information Technology Governance

IT Strategic Plan 2015-2020

IT Webpage

ITAC-Membership

Jamba Juice

Jazzman's Café

Louisiana Board of Regents Deferred Maintenance

LPAA PROPERTY REGS

Main Campus Map

Master Plan

Master Plan: Three Areas of Campus

Merger of the UL Geology Museum

Movable property regulations

MSTC Site Plan

Network and WiFi Infrastructure

NIRC Site Plan

Office of University Housing: Options

Offices Student Union

Other IT Initiatives

Ragin' Cajun Food Court Conference Center

RFEI University Commons

School of Geosciences teams up with Lafayette Science Museum

SEI Facilities 2010-2106 Data

STEP

STEP Award History

 STEP Lab software applications

STEP labs

Student Dining Facilities

Student Union gives city its first LEED-certified building

Sustainability program plan

Sustainability Strategic Plan

The Athletic Master Plan Final

The Heritage at Cajun Village

UL Lafayette IT Strategic Plan Accomplishments

UL Lafayette IT Strategic Plan Overview

UL Lafayette Acreage

UL Lafayette Building Changes Since 1990

UL Lafayette Demolished Facilities Since 1998

UL Lafayette Major Repair List for 2019-20

University IT Governance Groups

University of Louisiana at Lafayette - General Operations-Compliance Review-9_18_2017

University retains Tree Campus USA title

Work Order Reporting System

Zeus Website

 

13.8     institutional environment

The institution takes reasonable steps to provide a healthy, safe, and secure environment for all members of the campus community.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

Through its policies and procedures; emergency and hazard preparedness; safety training; and student, faculty, and staff wellbeing programs, UL Lafayette’s departments work together to provide a healthy, safe, and secure environment for all members of the campus community.  

Policies & Procedures

The Office of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) regularly reviews its policies and procedures to ensure that all University employees can remain as safe as possible while on the job. The following policies are central to the environmental health and safety of the University community, and are currently in effect and publicly available at the Office of Environmental Health & Safety website.

 

·         Introduction

·         Assignment of Safety Responsibilities

·         Building Safety Inspections

·         Accident Investigation

·         Job Safety Analysis

·         Safety Meetings

·         Job Safety Training Programs

·         General Safety Information

·         Industrial Safety Rules and Information

·         Laboratory Safety Rules and Information

·         Chemical Hygiene Plan

·         Blood Borne Pathogens and Other Communicable Illnesses

·         University Emergency Preparedness

·         University Violence-Free Workplace Policy

·         Environmental Health and Safety Cover Document

·         University Employee Drug Testing Policy

·         University Boiler/Machine Policy

·         University Driver Safety Program

·         University Water Vessel Safety Program

·         Policy Supporting Documentation

In addition to the specific policies, UL Lafayette students, faculty, and staff are responsible for knowing and following the Student Handbook, Faculty Handbook, and Staff Handbook, respectively. Each Handbook describes the expectations for behavior and conduct in the UL Lafayette community, and outlines the procedures to be followed when these expectations are not met. Each of these handbooks contains a variety of information, policies, and procedures that pertain to maintaining a healthy, safe, and secure environment.

Emergencies and Hazards

Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The University has developed and adopted a FEMA-approved All Hazards Emergency Operation Plan (EOP). This document was created with input from all facets and areas of campus and includes provisions to respond to any type of emergency that could impact the University. This plan is modeled after the National Incident Management System (NIMS) methodology of emergency planning. It includes provisions for implementing the Incident Command System (ICS), activating the University’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and coordinating its planning, response, and recovery with Federal, State, and Local agencies as appropriate. The EOP utilizes functional annexes and appendices that address specific functional units within the organization. Because this document is security sensitive to the University, it is not available to the public. However, all employees who participate in the implementation of the EOP have been trained and are given access to the document as needed. UL Lafayette’s EOP identifies the responsibilities of the University regarding emergency management and the activation of the UL Lafayette EOC. The EOP also specifies operating procedures, including notifications of emergencies, along with communications throughout emergent events and the aftermath of the event. It also coordinates support with external agencies and internal UL Lafayette departments for continuity of operations and transition to normal operations.

Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The UL Lafayette EOC provides the University with a 24-hour, 7-days a week, “all hazards” center that is equipped to respond to natural disasters, man-made disasters, acts of terrorism or crime, and no-notice events. The UL Lafayette EOC is designed to protect lives, stabilize an incident, minimize property damage, protect the environment, and provide for the continuation and restoration of essential services. The EOC is a force multiplier, providing situational awareness and improved coordination of public safety activities in order to enhance the safety and security of students, faculty, staff, and visitors on the UL Lafayette campus. EOC staff is composed of full-time University staff members who have been assigned a position-specific area of responsibility based on best practices from NIMS. 

Efforts to coordinate effective University emergency operations are managed through the Interim Director of Risk Management and University Police. The Emergency Operations Core Committee (EOCC) executes all mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery to all natural and man-made hazards. Members of the EOC Teams are required to take Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) online courses. The University maintains a Crisis Communication Plan to include mass notification systems, such as an opt-in emergency text messaging capability and protocol. Other means of mass emergency notification include a desktop alert system, broadcast email, broadcast voice mail, the UL Lafayette Website (main page and ULink, which requires a log in), and social media, including Facebook and Twitter. Emergency communications to students, staff, and faculty includes, weather emergencies, crime incidents on campus, or injuries on campus, among other incidents.

Additional emergency preparedness information is located on the UL Lafayette PD website and the  Office of Environmental Health and Safety website. The Office of EH&S website gives clear emergency procedures, contacts, and resources for students, staff, and faculty, for example, for hurricane preparedness. The University maintains an EOC physical site in Abdalla Hall, where staff may be centrally located to manage and offer support during a crisis. 

Emergency Evacuation Procedures (Drills).  An evacuation drill is coordinated by UL Lafayette EH&S each semester for all residential facilities on campus. Through these drills, emergency response and evacuation procedures are tested at least twice each year and, for some buildings, several times a year. Students learn the locations of the emergency exits in the buildings and are provided instruction on what direction they should travel when exiting each facility for a short-term building evacuation. ULPD and Office of University Housing staff on the scene communicate information to students regarding the developing situation or any evacuation status changes. Evacuation drills are used to educate and train occupants on fire safety issues specific to their buildings. During the drill, occupants “practice” drill procedures and familiarize themselves with the location of exits and the sound of the fire alarm. Subsequent to scheduled drills, an email is sent to student residents informing them of the summary of the drill, and in particular, any challenges identified during the drill, such as students who used the elevator improperly. Students who live in University housing receive information about these procedures during their first floor meetings and during other educational sessions that they can participate in throughout the year, all documented on the University Evacuation website and the shelter-in-place webpage. Housing staff members are trained in these procedures as well and act as an on-going resource for the students living in residential facilities. The UL Lafayette Residence Hall Handbook also contains important safety information about the residence halls and the role of a UL Lafayette student living on campus.

In addition to educating the occupants of each building about the evacuation procedures during the drills, the process also provides an opportunity to test the operation of fire alarm system components.  Evacuation drills are monitored by UL Lafayette PD, EH&S, and University Housing to evaluate egress and behavioral patterns. Participating departments prepare reports that identify deficient equipment so that repairs can be made immediately (sample report FA2018 and sample report FA2019). Recommendations for improvements are also submitted to the appropriate departments/offices for consideration.

Emergency Notification System. The University's Emergency Notification System (ENS) is designed to provide immediate alerts for emergencies and threats on campus. All students and employees must opt in to the ENS via ULink to receive the messages. A test message is sent in the Spring and Fall to ensure that the system is working properly. After every activation of the ENS (either via a test of the system, or in response to an actual emergency), an analysis of the ENS data is performed to ensure that the technologies used are working in line with the University’s expectations (ENS analysis 1 and ENS analysis 2). The University has taken steps to enhance its ability to notify students, faculty, and staff in the event of a public emergency. To maximize effectiveness, multiple overlapping technologies are used. The University has the ability to send alerts with its ENS through text messages, cellular telephone calls, campus landline telephone calls, the University website, University social media sites, and the University hotline. Additionally, some 100 non-employee/non-student persons–for example, contractors working on campus–are enrolled in the University’s ENS based on a genuine need to know.

Emergency Preparedness. The Office of EH&S has developed Emergency Preparedness Guidelines for incidents that may occur on or near the campus, such as natural disasters, bomb threats, chemical spills, fires, and serious injuries. EH&S coordinates fire and emergency response preparedness on campus, which involves coordination with the Lafayette Fire Department, the Lafayette Parish Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, and other State and local emergency responders. Programs include orientations, trainings, response planning, and building evacuation planning/training/exercises. EH&S also works with the Fire Marshal to take corrective actions as identified during building fire code inspections. 

Emergency Response Plan. The University’s Incident Manual includes information about incident teams; University operating status parameters; incident priorities and performance expectations; shelter-in-place and evacuation guidelines; and local contingency and continuity planning requirements, all covered in the Emergency Preparedness Guidelines. University departments are responsible for developing contingency plans and continuity of operations plans for their staff and areas of responsibility. The University conducts numerous emergency response exercises each year, such as tabletop exercises, field exercises, and tests of the ENS on campus. These tests are designed to assess and evaluate the emergency plans and capabilities of the institution.

UL Lafayette police officers and supervisors have received training in incident command and response to critical incidents on campus. When a serious incident occurs that causes an immediate threat to the campus, the first responders to the scene are usually UL Lafayette PD, Lafayette PD, Lafayette Fire, and Lafayette HAZMAT, and they typically respond and work together to manage the incident. Depending on the nature of the incident, other UL Lafayette departments and other local, state, or federal agencies could also be involved in responding to the incident.

Hurricane/Tropical Storm Preparedness. The University maintains an extensive Hurricane Preparedness Plan with representation from all areas of the campus including upper administration. This committee operates on a site-specific document that references preparations and recovery plans for all facets of our campus. Regular meetings are held by the committee to update information and ensure good communication within every organizational unit. All plans are implemented by keeping in mind the safety of the University’s students and employees, as well as preserving the academic mission of the institution.

Code Blue Phones. There are 67 emergency phones throughout the main and south campuses. The phones are easy to recognize with a blue light on top and are activated by pushing an easily accessed call button that automatically connects with University Police.

Asbestos Awareness. This is a one-hour course that presents basic information about the dangers of asbestos fibers in University-owned buildings, the methods available to control hazards, and the actions one must take and avoid when working in an area known or presumed to contain asbestos. Employees receiving this training will not directly handle asbestos material but may encounter asbestos-containing material (ACM) in the routine course of their work. Refresher training on Asbestos Awareness is an annual requirement in the departments of Facilities Management, Housing, Custodial, and Information and Media Networks.

Biosafety Committee. Faculty who use biological materials in the course and scope of their work, as defined by the National Institutes of Health Guidelines are required to submit an application for review and approval to the Biosafety officer. The Biosafety Committee ensures that the faculty member submitting the application has performed a risk assessment and chosen a biosafety level for the work that is in compliance with State and Federal regulations. This includes personal protective equipment, laboratory safety, hazardous materials, and other measures as they relate to the topic. 

Building Access. The Cajun Card Services Office is responsible for producing all identification cards for students, faculty, and staff, and controls card access to buildings and secure areas within buildings.  Requests for access must be approved through the chain of command. All residence halls are equipped with door access controls. Residential students must use their Cajun Cards to access the residential areas or apartment for which they have approved access. All residents must swipe their Cajun Card at the card reader each and every time they enter the residence halls or apartment to record their entry into the building, even if the door has been opened by another individual’s card swipe, and must present their Cajun Card to the desk worker or night guard each time they enter the building, or when asked to do so by a University official (i.e. Community Assistant, staff, faculty, or University Police).

Boat Operator Safety. Boat operator training is required for all University employees who drive any water vessel while conducting University business, including any personal vessel used for State business.   Initial training is required within 90 days of hire or within 90 days of being assigned a duty to operate a water vessel while conducting University business. Participants who complete the online training course are required to send verification of completion, along with the completed Water Vessel Authorization Form to the EH&S Office. Authorization to drive a water vessel is not given until training is complete, a background check is verified through the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the EH&S Director has signed the authorization form.

Building Safety Inspections. Quarterly building safety inspections are conducted to ensure building safety, consisting of two inspections during the Fall semester and two during the Spring semester.  These inspections:

·         Identify hazardous conditions

·         Initiate a method of removing these hazards

·         Assure Office of the State Fire Marshal, Office of Risk Management, and other Federal, State, and local compliance

·         Provide data to study hazard trends, unsafe work environments, etc.

This inspection procedure is designed to accommodate the wide variety of buildings that exist on the University campus. The EH&S Office provides training for these procedures to University employees who conduct building inspections. All inspection forms are reviewed by EH&S, and identified deficiencies are addressed and documented accordingly. Fume hoods located in campus buildings provide the major method of engineering control necessary to prevent employee and student exposure to airborne hazardous materials. With the assistance of a graduate student, all hoods are inspected per regulatory requirements, and work orders are submitted to the Office of Facility Management to correct deficiencies. Following completion of work orders, hoods are re-inspected to confirm that regulatory requirements have been met.

Environmental Safety. The environmental responsibilities of EH&S include management of the environmental impact of University operations and activities and guidance on compliance with local, state, and federal laws concerning environmental protection. EH&S has established a hazardous waste program, an asbestos containment program, and an emergency response team to ensure compliance with environmental regulations.

Police Department. The UL Lafayette Police Department, whose mission is to provide protection and emergency services to the UL Lafayette community, is organized like a traditional police department.  Officers are commissioned with statewide arrest authority per Louisiana Revised Statute 17:1805, and work closely with federal, state, and local public safety agencies. ULPD is staffed 24/7, with approximately 34 sworn personnel and three non-sworn support staff. All officers receive training that exceeds state minimum standards, and use a variety of resources, including traditional police vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, and canines. Officers participate on various team-based response groups, the UL Lafayette Emergency Operations Center, and the Students of Concern Committee. Members of the department routinely speak to various groups on campus and offer online training on active shooter response, criminal trends on campus, and preventing and reporting crime. Online training on subjects such as active shooter response is offered on both the ULPD and Human Resources websites. The campus community can report non-emergency criminal or suspicious activity anonymously on the ULPD website. The ULPD also issues an Annual Report.

Annual Security Report. The UL Lafayette Annual Security Report 2018 includes statistics for the previous three years concerning reported crime that occurred on campus, including certain off-campus buildings owned or controlled by UL Lafayette, and on public property within or immediately adjacent to UL Lafayette or accessible from the campus. The report also includes institutional policies concerning campus safety, such as alcohol and drug use, crime prevention, crime reporting, sexual assault, and others. The 2018 report is the most recent one available. The information covers all Clery crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson) and crimes that are reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for publication in its annual report, the United States Uniform Crime Reports. 

Jeanne Clery Act. The University makes available information on the Jeanne Clery Act, and each year the University files a report with the United States Department of Education stating relevant crime incidents on campus.

Driver Safety. The Driver Safety Course required of all University personnel and students who drive on University business promotes an attitude of mutual understanding, courtesy, and cooperation of the road. Areas addressed include cell phone usage and texting while driving, impaired driving, distracted driving, proper following distance, and techniques for life-long defensive driving. The Cornerstone training system tracks all training and sends reminders when drivers are due to re-train.

Radiation Safety Committee. Faculty who use radiation or radiation-producing machines in their research must submit a radiation use application for review and approval to the Radiation Safety Officer. A Radiation Safety Committee ensures that all activities are carried out in accord with Louisiana law and must approve applications before research can begin. In addition to reviewing applications, the committee is responsible for inspecting laboratories where radiation is used, and the Radiation Safety Officer must approve purchases of radioactive materials.

Student, Faculty, and Staff Wellbeing

Counseling and Testing Center. The Center provides personal counseling, crisis intervention, and short-term psychotherapy for individuals, couples, and groups. The Center offers an unlimited number of sessions, free-of-charge to University students, faculty, and staff. Consultation services and workshops are available to student groups, faculty, and staff. The Counseling and Testing Center supports the University’s mission by aiding students in their personal growth and development and by enhancing their mental and emotional well-being.

Drug and Alcohol Policy. The Drug and Alcohol Policy for Students and the Drug and Alcohol Policy for Faculty & Staff are in compliance with the federal Drug Free Schools and Communities Act and the Drug Free Workplace Act. The policy clarifies and informs students, faculty, and staff of UL Lafayette's position on alcohol/drug related issues and the procedure followed when policy is violated. It is also the intent of UL Lafayette to offer education, short term treatment, and referrals to those who may be affected.

Hazing. The University has an anti-hazing policy, and the Office of the Dean of Students’ website provides students and other UL Lafayette community members with information on State hazing laws and how to identify and report hazing.

Students of Concern Team (SOCT). The SOCT is a campus resource dedicated to assisting students who may be in distress or are experiencing challenging or difficult life circumstances. The SOCT also provides consultation and intervention when students exhibit aggressive, concerning, or disruptive behaviors. The primary focus of the team is to take a proactive approach in identifying students who are struggling and to provide early intervention, resources, and referrals, both on campus and in the community. The SOCT receives information from concerned parties regarding students who may be exhibiting worrisome, disturbing, or disruptive behaviors. The team includes staff members from UL Lafayette PD, Student Health Center, Student Rights and Responsibilities, the Counseling and Testing Center, and the Office of the Dean of Students. They meet regularly to discuss cases, then reach out to offer resources to those students, faculty, or staff.

Sexual Harassment Training. All employees of UL Lafayette are required to complete sexual harassment training within 30 days of hire and once per calendar year. This includes all full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, Classified & Unclassified staff, graduate or teaching assistants, and student workers. The University has partnered with Everfi to provide the training. This course teaches employees how to define sexual harassment, identify potentially harassing behaviors, recognize forms of sexual misconduct, and partner with Human Resources in the student and employee Title IX complaint process at the University. The Sexual Harassment training was mandated by Louisiana Senate Concurrent Resolution 107 passed in 2012, wherein the Louisiana Senate resolved that all State agencies should provide one hour of sexual harassment training to each public employee each year. 

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program. The SANE program allows any UL Lafayette student to have a forensic exam or “sexual assault evidence collection kit” conducted by a SANE nurse. A SANE nurse is specially trained in collecting evidence and working with survivors of sexual assault. The primary mission of the SANE program is to meet the needs of any UL Lafayette student who is a sexual assault survivor by providing immediate, compassionate, culturally-sensitive, and comprehensive forensic evaluation and treatment.

Student Health Services. The mission of the UL Lafayette Student Health Services and the Student Health Center is to provide, promote, and support services that integrate individual health, education for health, prevention of disease, clinical treatment for illness, and public health responsibilities consistent with the educational mission of the University. The organization works with students to make them active partners in maintaining their health. 

Environmental Health & Safety Office. The EH&S Office is tasked with running the University's environmental, health, and safety program; employee and staff safety training; all emergency procedures plans; and fire safety operating systems, including fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, and hood, kitchen, and research bio-safety cabinet suppression systems. It is also tasked with ensuring the safe operation of all fume hoods and elevators on the campus of UL Lafayette. The EH&S Office monitors all hazardous materials on campus through an interdepartmental system called Cameo. A complete (confidential) inventory of locations, quantities, and storage containers of all hazardous chemicals on campus is constantly updated, examined, and reported through the EH&S Office. Safety Data Sheets are also found in this system for the convenience of the faculty and staff. For materials considered to be extremely hazardous, the EH&S Office notifies the department of such exposure, and encourages it to take extra precautions in the handling and use of this material. All hazardous material disposal is arranged and managed by the EH&S Office. 

All regulatory and state required safety training is conducted in-house through the EH&S Office. Using state-of-the-art equipment and hands-on simulation, EH&S staff is thoroughly trained on how to conduct work safely and efficiently. Fire safety is also a major focus on the campus, and EH&S closely coordinates with the State of Louisiana Fire Marshal’s Office on fire inspections and ensures that follow-up activities are carried out to address deficiencies noted in the reports. In addition, safety and environmental training for employees and research staff is offered by EH&S to comply with the Louisiana State Office of Risk Management Loss Prevention Program and to support adherence to statutory requirements for university activities.          

Study Abroad. UL Lafayette’s EH&S Office provides training in emergency management to all faculty and staff of the University’s study abroad programs. The Study Abroad Office offers safety information and pre-departure safety orientation to all students in its programs.

Sustainability. UL Lafayette’s Office of Sustainability helps to provide a healthy environment for all members of the campus community through a variety of programs, from recycling to solar power, as outlined in the Sustainability Strategic Plan.

Tobacco Use. In accordance with Act 211 of the 2013 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, UL Lafayette works to provide a tobacco-free environment for its faculty, staff, students, and visitors. Smoking and the use of all tobacco products is prohibited within all University buildings, facilities, campus grounds, University vehicles, and all property that is owned, operated, leased, occupied, or controlled by the University, except in special situations defined in the policy document. Any advertising, marketing, or promotion of tobacco products or tobacco-related companies is prohibited on a University campus, at University-sponsored events, or through other University assets. Distribution of tobacco products is prohibited on a University campus or at University-sponsored events.

Transportation Services. To minimize traffic congestion on the main campus streets, the UL Lafayette Transit System provides buses to transport commuters to the center of campus from Cajun Field. “UL Geaux Ride” is a vehicle tracking service that provides users with real-time bus locations. Routes can be selected to determine stop locations and arrival times for the next bus. Users can also get real-time message updates so that passengers are aware of last-minute or future changes to routes. In 2016 the University launched Geaux Vélo, a successful bicycle sharing program.

Violence Prevention. UL Lafayette strives to be a violence-free campus as presented in the Violence-Free Workplace Policy. The policy is available to each new employee at their orientation training. Crime statistics for the University are printed yearly and distributed to every employee, and the University Police website provides information regarding violence in the workplace and the Clery Act.

 

Supporting Documents

2017 ULPD Annual Report

Accident Investigation

Annual Security and Fire Report 2018

Asbestos Awareness

Assignment of Safety Responsibilities

Blood Borne Pathogens and Other Communicable Illnesses

Blood Borne Pathogens and Other Communicable Illnesses website

Boater Operator Safety Website

Building Safety Inspections

Cajun Card Services

Chemical Hygiene Plan

Clery Act Student

Clery Act UPD

Code Blue Location Plan – Main & South Campuses

Counseling and Testing Center website

Driver Safety

Drug and Alcohol Policy-Faculty & Staff

Drug and Alcohol Policy-Students

EH&S Training 

Emergency Notification Plan

Emergency Operations Center UL

Emergency Operations Plan

Emergency Preparedness Guidelines

Emergency Response Plan

ENS analysis 1

ENS analysis 2

Environmental Health and Safety Cover Document

Faculty Handbook

Geaux Vélo

General Safety Information

Hazing Policy

How To Respond

Hurricane/Tropical Storm Preparedness

Industrial Safety Rules and Information

Job Safety Analysis

Laboratory Safety Rules and Information

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Regulatory Code Title 33, Part XV: Radiation Protection

Office of Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S)

Office of Environmental Health & Safety website

Policy Supporting Documentation

Radiation Safety Committee

Radiation Use Application

Residential Building Access

Safety & Security for US Students Traveling Abroad

Safety Meetings

Safety Training Programs

Sample completed Inspection Report

Sample Notification

Sample report FA 2018

Sample report FA 2019

Sample Tabletop Study Abroad Training

SANE Program Hearts of Hope

Sexual Harassment/Title IX Training

Shelter-in-place 

Sign Up for Emergency Alerts

SOCT-Student Concerns Committee

Staff handbook

Student Handbook

Student Health Services

Study Abroad Program

Sustainability Strategic Plan

Sustainability Website

Tobacco-Free Policy

Transportation Services

UL Geaux Ride

UL Lafayette Residence Hall Handbook

ULPD website

University Boiler/Machinery Policy

University Driver Safety Program

University Emergency Preparedness

University Employee Drug Testing Policy

University Evacuation Website

University Violence-Free Workplace Policy

University Water Vessel Safety Program

Water Vessel Authorization Form

14.1     Publication of accreditation status

The institution (a) accurately represents its accreditation status and publishes the name, address, and telephone number of SACSCOC in accordance with SACSCOC’s requirements and federal policy; and (b) ensures all its branch campuses include the name of that institution and make it clear that their accreditation depends on the continued accreditation of the parent campus.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

A.      The name, address, and telephone number of the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools are published on the Accreditation page of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette website, as well as in the University Online Catalog. UL Lafayette’s accreditation status is represented in accordance with Commission requirements, and the statement used is the one authorized by SACSCOC and federal requirements.

B.      The University has no branch campuses.

 

Supporting Documents

Accreditation Webpage  

Commission on Colleges

Online Catalog – Accreditation Status

 

14.2     Substantive Change

The Institution has a policy and procedure to ensure that all substantive changes are reported in accordance with SACSCOC policy.

Judgment

x Compliance                  o Non-Compliance         o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette maintains integrity in informing the Commission of substantive changes, in accordance with the substantive change policy. To facilitate compliance, the University’s adopted Substantive Change Policy is posted on the Academic Affairs website, along with policies and procedures on the creation of new programs and significant change to existing programs.

The requirement to monitor institutional changes that are substantive in nature is the responsibility of the University’s SACSCOC Liaison (Currently the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs for Institutional Effectiveness). That office regularly notifies SACSCOC when any non-substantive change occurs, notifies SACSCOC when a substantive change proposal is being prepared, and submits to SACSCOC a substantive change prospectus for each proposed substantive change. Since 2010, UL Lafayette has filed the following substantive change notices and prospectuses with SACSCOC, and received the accompanying approvals:

Table 14.2 – 1: UL Lafayette Substantive Changes 2010-2019

 

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Affairs Program

Letter – BS Kinesiology

Letter – Doctor of Nursing Practice

Letter – MS Kinesiology

Letter – PhD Systems Engineering

Notification – Doctor of Nursing Practice

Notification – MS Kinesiology

Notification – PhD Systems Engineering

Prospectus – BS Kinesiology

Prospectus – Doctor of Nursing Practice

Prospectus – MS Kinesiology

Prospectus – PhD Systems Engineering

Sample Non-Substantive Change Notification

UL Lafayette Substantive Change Policy

 

14.3     Comprehensive institutional reviews

The institution applies all appropriate standards and policies to its distance learning programs, branch campuses, and off-campus instructional sites.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette applies the same standards and policies, and devotes the same attention to quality and integrity, to courses and programs regardless of location or mode of delivery. All educational programs maintain the same academic expectations, student learning outcomes, and academic accountability.

Curriculum and Instruction

During AY2010-2011, the University Council adopted a set of Guiding Policies for Distance Learning that includes a policy statement on the University’s commitment to the rigor of academic programs and the quality of instruction:

Commitment to Academic Quality and Rigor in Electronic Environments
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette places great emphasis on the consistency, continuity, and integrity of the learning environment. All electronic academic courses at the University are considered equivalent to traditional courses, are taught by regular faculty, as well as approved adjunct faculty, and adhere to all the same standards, prerequisites, and requirements as traditional sections of identical courses. Equivalency means the “totality of learning experiences for each learner should cover the same area, even if individual experiences might be quite different” (Simonson, 2007). Regardless of the delivery format, LEARNING is the primary aim, with achievement of stated course and program learning outcomes as the primary assessment measure.

The Office of Distance Learning’s complete set of Guiding Policies are posted online.

Academic and Student Support Services

Students have access to a range of services appropriate to support the programs offered through distance education. These include services such as:

·         Online orientation

·         Online tutoring

·         Web-based library services

·         Career services

·         24/7 technical support

The University also provides a learning management system (Moodle) for sharing electronic communications including the delivery of files, assignments, videos, and other course content.

Faculty and administration

For distance learning, the departments and full-time faculty assume primary responsibility for oversight of program rigor and quality of instruction. The academic departments are responsible for hiring and assigning faculty to all modalities of courses, including distance learning courses. The Office of Distance Learning provides mandatory training for all faculty teaching distance learning courses on best practices for online teaching.

For off-campus cohorts in the MEd in Educational Leadership program, the Program Coordinator schedules and oversees the off-campus sites. Courses held off-site are taught by qualified, full-time UL Lafayette MEd faculty. The off-campus teaching assignments are a regular part of the program’s faculty teaching assignments.

Reporting

All off-campus and distance learning offerings are included when assessing expected student learning outcomes, and student learning outcomes are regularly assessed in online programs.

Physical resources at partnership sites

Cohorts for the MEd in Educational Leadership program are taught as partnerships with regional school districts. The Educational Foundations and Leadership department schedules classes at sites within the school districts served. The facilities are provided by the district, and classes are held in school buildings or at central office facilities, such as board rooms, conference rooms, or staff development centers. School districts ensure that each of the assigned classrooms has extensive computer technology available.

Dual Enrollment

Courses offered at local high schools are taught by teachers who are credentialed by Academic Affairs according to the same standards as regular UL Lafayette faculty. Dual enrollment instructors are hired as adjunct faculty and follow the same guidelines as other adjuncts. Each academic department is responsible for training adjunct dual enrollment instructors.

 

Supporting Documents

24/7 technical support

Career Services

Distance Learning Commitment

Distance Learning Guiding Policies

Guidelines for Dual Enrollment

Moodle

Online Faculty Certification

Online Orientation

Online Tutoring

Rapides Parish Agreement

Sample Comparison Of Online and FTF Outcomes

Sample Departmental Guidelines - History

Sample Dual Enrollment MOU

Sample Online Assessment

Sample PAF With Credential Check

Web-Based Library Services

 

14.4     REPRESENTATION TO OTHER AGENCIES

The institution (a) represents itself accurately to all U.S. Department of Education recognized accrediting agencies with which it holds accreditation and (b) informs those agencies of any change of accreditation status, including the imposition of public sanctions.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

A. Federally recognized agencies that currently accredit the institution

UL Lafayette is represented on the U.S. Department of Education’s Accreditation Database as accredited as an institution by SACSCOC; the University is represented as holding programmatic accreditation from four current USDOE-recognized accreditors, as listed in Table 14.4 – 1.

Table 14.4 — 1: Reports to Accreditors of UL Lafayette Programs

Recognized in the USDOE Accreditation Database

 

 

Each of these listings with USDOE-recognized accreditors is accurate and consistent with the others. As noted on the USDOE database, the University voluntarily withdrew its accreditation of the now-discontinued Dietetics program from accreditation by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics.

Per the Louisiana Board of Regents Program Accreditation Report by Institution with Review Dates the University has 65 programs eligible for accreditation. Of these, 61 are accredited by the relevant professional accrediting agency. There are 51 programs with mandatory accreditation, of which all 51 hold professional accreditations. There are 14 programs that are recommended to have professional accreditations; of these, 12 have professional accreditations.  Table 1.4. — 2 lists accredited programs at UL Lafayette, their accreditors, contact information, and year of most recent review.

Table 14.4 — 2: Accredited Programs at UL Lafayette and Their Accrediting Bodies

 

 

Relevant departmental and college units produce the individual accreditation reports, in response to specific requirements and standards. In order to ensure the representation of the University is accurate and consistent, as well as centralized in the Provost’s Office, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs reviews accreditation reports and subsequent responses thereto prior to the Provost’s and President’s endorsements and signatures. The SACSCOC Liaison apprises SACSCOC of any change in status with another agency.

B. Change of Accreditation Status

UL Lafayette represents itself to all accreditors as a four-year public institution of higher education, accredited by SACSCOC. The University has not undergone any changes of accreditation status as an institution, nor have public sanctions been imposed.

Termination of Accreditation

There have been no terminations of accreditation of any of the accredited programs by a federally recognized accrediting agency.

Voluntary Withdrawal of Accreditation

UL Lafayette notified SACSOC of intent to voluntarily withdraw the accreditation status of the undergraduate Athletic Training program from the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE) on January 3^rd, 2017. CAATE, along with the National Athletic Trainers Association (NATA), have mandated a shift in the Athletic Training degree level from the Bachelor’s to the Master’s degree. The University’s best response to this mandate was to withdraw undergraduate accreditation and apply for re-accreditation at a later time as a newly designed graduate program. This withdrawal becomes effective May 31, 2020, and the cohort of students who enrolled in the Fall 2016 semester are the last to graduate from the accredited program. No new students are to be admitted into the undergraduate program from that point forward. Student records have been kept on file in the School of Kinesiology, in accordance with the withdrawal policies set forth by CAATE, and the University has maintained all other yearly procedures, fees, and documentation required by CAATE in order to keep the program in good standing; the University has agreed to allow all of the students enrolled in the current program to graduate, through a detailed teach-out plan.

Voluntary Inactive Status of Accreditation

The UL Lafayette Didactic Dietetics Program (DDP) has recently been granted inactive status by the Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND). During its January 27-29, 2016, meeting, the ACEND board voted to approve the University’s request for the program to be on inactive status from January 4, 2016, to May 20, 2018. This means that no students were allowed to enroll or transfer into the program during the aforementioned duration, but students already enrolled in the program were allowed to complete their degrees. The University hired an external consultant from another ACEND dietetics program to make recommendations on developing a new curriculum/program that meets the new ACEND standards. In 2016, based on much deliberation and discussion of external and internal reviews, declining enrollment, and suboptimal student pass rates on the RD exam over the previous five years, then UL Lafayette Provost Dr. James Henderson requested that admissions into the Dietetics program (DPD) be discontinued, beginning with the Spring 2016 semester. The Board of Regents approved the termination of the BS in Dietetics on May 22, 2018. Twenty-five Dietetics majors were enrolled during the Spring 2018 semester. Of those, 14 students graduated in May 2018. Of the 11 seniors remaining in the program (all upper division students), 10 graduated in May 2019, and the 11^th failed core courses in the program and is not currently pursuing any degree at UL Lafayette. With ACEND’s approval, UL Lafayette notified SACSSCOC of its discontinuance and received approval; the program remained accredited through May 2019.

of the program termination.

 

Supporting Documents

Accreditation Commission for Programs in Hospitality Administration

Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications

ACEND Letter

American Association of Petroleum Landmen

American Chemical Society

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Approval to discontinue Dietetics Program

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Report

Association of Technology, Management and Applied Engineering (ATMAE)

Board of Regents Program Accreditation Report

Commission on Accreditation for Health Informatics and Information Management Education (CAHIIM)

Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education Withdrawal

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Report

Computing Accreditation Commission of ABET

Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA)

Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology

Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Report

International Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International

National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)

National Association of Schools of Art and Design

National Association of Schools of Art and Design Report

National Association of Schools of Music Report

National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Request to the BOR for the termination of the BS in Dietetics (2018)

Speech-Language Pathology

USDA accreditation

USDOE Dietetics Withdrawal

 

14.5     Policy Compliance

The institution complies with SACSCOC’s policy statements that pertain to new or additional institutional obligations that may arise that are not part of the standards in the current Principles of Accreditation.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

To its knowledge UL Lafayette is in compliance with Commission on Colleges policies as defined in The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement and other documents. Monitoring compliance is the responsibility of the University’s SACSCOC Liaison (Currently the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs for Institutional Effectiveness). The SACSCOC liaison monitors SACS policy changes, and regularly provides updates on evolving Commission requirements and standards to academic and other administrative officers of the University, including particularly Vice Presidents, Deans, and academic Department Heads.

 

14.5.A     Reaffirmation of Accreditation and Subsequent Reports

The University complies with SACSCOC’s policy statements pertaining to new or additional institutional obligations that may arise and are not part of the standards in the current Principles of Accreditation.

Applicable Policy Statement. If an institution is part of a system or corporate structure, a description of the system operation (or corporate structure) is submitted as part of the Compliance Certification for the decennial review. The description should be designed to help members of the peer review committees understand the mission, governance, and operating procedures of the system and the individual institution’s role within that system.

Documentation: The institution should provide a description of the system operation and structure or the corporate structure if this applies.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The University is overseen by two levels of governance. The Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR) is the coordinating board for all Louisiana public postsecondary educational institutions. Under the BOR are four governing boards (frequently referred to as “management boards”), including the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for the University of Louisiana System (UL System), which is the governing board of UL Lafayette.

The governance structure of higher education in Louisiana is represented in Diagram 14.5 — 1.

Diagram 14.5.a — 1:  Louisiana Postsecondary Education Governance Structure

Each Board is composed of exactly 15 members. The distribution of responsibilities between the boards is summarized in Table 14.5.a — 1.

Table 14.5.a — 1: Distribution of Responsibilities between the Governing and Coordinating Boards

 

Supporting Documents

BOS System Board Composition and Authority

Bylaws Section V: Duties, Powers and Functions

Constitutional Authority for Louisiana BOR

Louisiana Postsecondary Chart

14.5.B     Separate Accreditation for Units of a Member Institution

Applicable Policy Statement. If the Commission on Colleges determines that an extended unit is autonomous to the extent that the control over that unit by the parent or its board is significantly impaired, the Commission may direct that the extended unit seek to become a separately accredited institution. A unit which seeks separate accreditation should bear a different name from that of the parent. A unit which is located in a state or country outside the geographic jurisdiction of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and which the Commission determines should be separately accredited or the institution requests to be separately accredited, applies for separate accreditation from the regional accrediting association that accredits colleges in that state or country.

Implementation: If, during its review of the institution, the Commission determines that an extended unit is sufficiently autonomous to the extent that the parent campus has little or no control, the Commission will use this policy to recommend separate accreditation of the extended unit. No response is required by the institution.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette is not a separate unit and is in compliance with this standard.