Lines of Inquiry (LOIs) are the critical research questions being addressed by the Working Groups. LOIs are intended to address the institutional priorities and Standard Criteria. Below are the initial LOIs for each Working Group.
Working Group I
- What are the processes for the development, approval, implementation, and assessment of the institution’s mission and goals? To what extent are the processes regular, collaborative, and inclusive?
-
To what extent do UMBC’s mission and goals guide decision-making and governing processes related to: 1) planning, 2) resource allocation, 3) program and curriculum development, 4) teaching excellence, 5) learning outcomes, and 6) institutional improvement?
- In what ways do/don’t UMBC’s mission and goals align with and support student success, scholarly activity, and community engagement?
- How do we assess our mission and goals, make the results readily available to stakeholders, and use these results to guide improvement?
- Where are there areas for improvement and what are the recommendations to address these moving forward?
Working Group II
- What are the policies, processes, and practices that ensure 1) an environment fostering respect for academic, intellectual, and expressive freedoms, 2) a climate that supports diversity, equity and inclusion, 3) fair and impartial HR operations, and 4) the avoidance of conflict of interest, and 5) that grievances are handled appropriately?
- To what extent do UMBC’s policies, processes and practices honestly and truthfully communicate to UMBC’s internal and external constituencies to allow them to make informed decisions about their education?
- How and to what extent does UMBC ethically support diversity and inclusion, affordability and accessibility to higher education through its services and programs?
- How do we assess UMBC’s ethics and integrity as evidenced in the conceptualization, creation, and deployment of policies, processes, and practices, and use these results to guide improvement?
- Where are there areas for improvement and what are the recommendations to address these moving forward?
Working Group III
- In what ways does/doesn’t UMBC provide programs of study that are: 1) reasonable in credit hours for student work required; 2) sufficient in content and program length to meet objectives of degree; 3) clearly and accurately described so students can understand and follow; 4) sufficient in opportunity and resources to support programs and all student progress; 5) adequately reviewed and approved in all aspects of the educational process if provided by 3rd parties?
- How (and how well) does the institution provide students with a broad range of rigorous educational programs at all levels that promote the synthesized acquisition of essential skills and knowledge, encompassing the DEIA principles critical to UMBC’s mission?
- To what extent are the FT & PT faculty at UMBC: 1) rigorous and effective in all aspects of the teaching and learning process; 2) qualified; 3) sufficient in number; 4) provided sufficient opportunity, resources, and support for growth and innovation; and 5) regularly and equitably reviewed based on disseminated, fair and clear expectations and procedures?
- How do we assess the effectiveness of the UMBC learning experiences for all students?
- Where are there areas for improvement and what are the recommendations to address these moving forward?
Working Group IV
- To what extent does UMBC provide accurate and complete financial information? To what extent does UMBC have ethical, clearly stated policies and procedures for 1) admission; 2) identification and support of those lacking in preparation; 3) evaluation of transfer credit and other educational experiences; 4) safe student record maintenance and release; 5) equal regulation of extramural activities and entities?
- To what extent does UMBC provide processes and support services to enhance: 1) student retention through advising and mentoring; 2) student goal achievement including program completion, transfer, post-UMBC placements (jobs, post secondary, etc.); 3) and review and approval of any such services delivered by a 3rd party?
- In what ways does/doesn’t UMBC’s support of the student experience align with our priorities, mission and vision elements?
- How do we assess our disagregated student achievement and use these results to guide new strategies for improvement? How do we assess the effectiveness of our students support services?
- Where are there areas for improvement and what are the recommendations to address these moving forward?
Working Group V
- How does UMBC ensure that education goals are clearly articulated and assessment is consistently occurring across all colleges and programs, supporting the institution’s mission and goals of providing a high quality education, preparing students for graduate school and/or workforce entry, and preparing students to be socially responsible global citizens?
- How does UMBC ensure that student learning outcomes at all levels and across all programs are measurable and meaningful, and how are assessment results used for continuous improvement related to student learning and success outcomes, such as improvements in pedagogy, curricula, and support services?
- How does UMBC promote a culture of assessment for continuous improvement? In what ways does the institution provide appropriate supports for faculty and staff efforts to assess student learning?
- How does UMBC review assessment practices to determine how effective they are and possible areas for improvement?
- Where are there areas for improvement and what are the recommendations to address these moving forward?
Working Group VI
- To what extent are institutional plans/objectives (unit- level and institution-wide) clearly stated and appropriately assessed to demonstrate their alignment with the institution’s mission and priorities, and used to inform resource allocation and institutional improvement?
- In what ways does UMBC demonstrate a well-defined decision-making process, clear assignment of responsibility and accountability, and communication of assessment of its planning and improvement processes that allow for constituent participation?
- How does UMBC show that resources–fiscal, human, physical, and technical–provide adequate support to its operations in the fulfillment of its mission and priorities?
- How does UMBC assess the effectiveness of its planning, resource allocation, and institutional improvement processes to demonstrate its ability to sustainably support its mission and priorities?
- Where are there areas for improvement and what are the recommendations to address these moving forward?
Working Group VII
- Outline the roles, responsibilities, and accountability structure of UMBC’s shared governance system, and how it leads to inclusive decision making for the institution.
- Describe the USM Board of Regents and how this governing body exercises appropriate authority and decision-making as it relates to the operations, fiscal management, and academic excellence of UMBC.
- What evidence shows that the President has the appropriate credentials, experience, authority, and qualified administrative support structure to fullfill the responsibilities of the position and guide UMBC to attain its mission and goals?
- To what extent does UMBC maintain an administration with qualified individuals responsible for their functional areas, and provide them with the supports and resources needed to effectively complete and assess their duties? How effective are current administrative structures in maximizing resources and effectively distributing available resources in alignment with the institution’s mission and goals?
- What are the systematic procedures in place for ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the leadership, shared governance, and administrative units, and how is this information used to inform future changes? What mechanisms are in place to provide opportunities for communication and feedback between governing bodies and institutional groups? How are potential conflict of interest issues that could affect institutional decision-making processes addressed and minimized?
- Where are there areas for improvement and what are the recommendations to address these moving forward?