Administering the COMP at the institutional level has been problematic. In 1997, only 46 of the 140 stratified random sample of seniors could be convinced to take the test. In 1998, the COMP was course-embedded in several capstone courses. This approach seems to work best. Although the findings of the pilot study are inconclusive due to the small number of seniors taking the COMP, the Assessment Advisory Committee is convinced that the COMP is a valid measure of general education. With the establishment of University 401 in Fall 1998, we expect the administration of the COMP will be expanded and made more efficient to include a better representation of graduating seniors.

In addition, an instrument is being locally developed as a proxy for the COMP. This instrument, in addition to information from student records, should provide accurate estimates of COMP scores. This short assessment tool will be able to be administered to a larger and more representative group while still providing comparisons to the proficiency of general education knowledge at other institutions.

In November 1994, the Assessment Advisory created a committee charged with writing a plan for implementing the assessment of written communication across the majors to fulfill the first of the eleven general education goals: Students will communicate clearly in written English, demonstrating their ability to comprehend, analyze, and interrogate critically. The Committee drafted a ten step process for assessing written communication.

Currently, we are in step five of the process. In this step a blind sample of 300 essays has been selected from essays collected in ENGL 101 and ENGL 102 and distributed to six evaluators. The evaluators will assess each essay on six criteria: 1. Addresses topic and demonstrates understanding of the subject; 2. Reflects organization appropriate to the purpose and the interaction between writer and reader (structure and coherence of presentation, unity of focus, and construction and ordering of paragraphs); 3. Reflects format (mechanics) appropriate to the writing situation. Format includes punctuation, spelling, capitalization, footnoting/bibliography forms, graphics, or other elements of typography or appearance; 4. Demonstrates the use of sentence structure to establish and clarify meaning (appropriate conventions of grammar and usage, as well as appropriate coordination, subordination, and parallelism of ideas); 5. Demonstrates style, word choice, and coherence as a communicator; and, 6. Reflects comprehension, analysis, and synthesis of information and ideas appropriate to the assignment.

In March 2000, essays Will be collected from seniors in departmental capstone courses. These writing samples will be assessed using the same criteria used to assess the freshmen samples. A comparison of freshmen and senior samples will determine if students are writing at a level acceptable to the Committee, show differences or similarities in the writing abilities of native versus transfer students, and assess the curriculum used in freshmen English courses.

The University of South Carolina requires that students achieve proficiency in one foreign language at the level set by the student's College. Students must have a foreign language proficiency score on record by being tested in the language they studied in high school. USC Testing Services is in charge of test administration and offers language proficiency/placement tests throughout the year, including during orientation.

Passing the final exam in a 122 foreign language course or passing Phase 11 of the Proficiency/Placement Test means the student has satisfied the foreign language requirement for any college of USC, thus meeting the ninth General Education Goal: Students communicate orally and in writing in a foreign language.

USC's Oral Communication Project promotes course-embedded oral communication activities, which include theory, practice and assessment, in courses across the curriculum. An audio-video lab was developed for students to use for oral communication activities. The project facilitates the development of standard performance evaluation forms. The Oral Communication Project offers training for evaluators, as well as theoretical instruction to students and faculty. The project also provides assessment services to instructors, upon request. A core overlay requirement is now under consideration that would include a menu of courses across the curriculum with oral communication components.

In September 1995, the Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis, with the cooperation of University 101 instructors and staff, administered a survey of computer use to 1,102 University 101 freshmen. In April 1997, the same survey was administered to a random sampling of 83 exiting seniors. The intent was to determine the computer skills of entering freshmen as compared with those of exiting seniors. The results of the surveys demonstrate a dramatic increase in internet, spreadsheet, and database usage. Although this increased usage cannot be directly correlated to knowledge gained as a result of course requirements, survey responses indicate that students are gaining valuable computer skills while attending USC Columbia.

The results of the computer surveys were used to design computer modules in University 101 courses and to inform Computer Services of students' hardware and software knowledge and needs.

Majors and concentrations provide students with specialized knowledge and skills. Primary responsibility for assessing the majors falls to academic departments and programs and external accrediting agencies, where applicable.

Assessment of majors submitted as part of accreditation or a South Carolina Commission on Higher Education program review from the following areas are described in the current report: Bachelor of Arts Degree in English, Masters of Art in English and American Literature, Master of Fine Arts Degree in Creative Writing, and Doctor of Philosophy Degree in English.

Assessment of majors submitted as interim reports at the midpoint of either an accreditation or a South Carolina Commission on Higher Education program review cycle from the following areas are described in the current report: Anthropology, Applied History, Clinical-Community Psychology, Economics, Experimental Psychology, Geography, History, International Studies, Medicine, Philosophy, Political Science, Religious Studies, School Psychology, and Sport Administration.

Assessment of Majors Submitted as Part of Accreditation or a South Carolina Commission on Higher Education Program Review

The Department prides itself on good teaching--and justifiably. From the very beginning, new tenure-track faculty are evaluated each year by the Teaching Committee, and their faculty mentors oversee their teaching just as much as their research and general amalgamation into the Department. Thus evidence of good teaching--not only student but also extensive peer evaluation--ranks equal with evidence of scholarly or creative productivity as a prerequisite for tenure and promotion.

In evaluating teaching generally, the Department uses several different methods that recognize the diversity of teaching styles and subjects.

In cases of the formal review of a faculty member, as in tenure and promotion, a tenured member of the faculty always analyzes the student evaluations of many years to identify patterns and trends, problem areas and strengths. All reviews contain reports from colleagues who visit classes, portfolios that contain representative teaching material (syllabi, handouts, tests, essay assignments), and course grade-sheets.

All faculty must have their classes evaluated by their students toward the end of each course, but they have some choice as to the instrument used. All surveys must include the Department basic-question form, but other methods of evaluation can be used in addition. Thus some faculty find the nationallynormed ETS form quite useful, while others rely more on narrative evaluation.

Moreover, and even more troublesome, students in the two varying secondary and elementary education programs, whose advising the College of Education had delegated to academic departments in the University, present special problems to English faculty advisors unfamiliar with S.C. State Certification for public-school teaching.

Students understandably hope to have one trusted advisor throughout their four- or five-year program, an advisor informed about various curricular options and problems, always available to answer questions and to help them with any academic difficulty.

Such a hope is often frustrated, but not because the Department is primarily responsible. It takes a lot of time, commitment, and experience to become an effective advisor, given the various complications described above, not to mention many other matters that go into good advising. The typical faculty member, however well-intentioned, rarely makes an expert advisor. He/she rarely gets enough experience on a constant basis--advising a dozen or so students once a semester is never that--to learn and remember all the many tricks. Also, that faculty member periodically is relieved of advising duties because of sabbatical leave or because of heavy service-loads of other kinds. Thus students must be reassigned to other advisors.

However, this Department is strongly committed to the principle that every student majoring in English deserves accurate, helpful, complete, and conscientious advising. One of the most salient concerns of the current Undergraduate Director is that this kind of advisement should be the norm, and so it will be.

The Department mails all graduates a detailed questionnaire to gauge student satisfaction with the program and to identify problems and weaknesses. These alumni questionnaires have been conducted for more than ten years. Admittedly, in the past, the Undergraduate Director, and perhaps the Department Chair, reviewed the results, and then filed the questionnaires.

Beginning this past year, the Undergraduate Committee has begun reviewing the responses and has been charged with making recommendations, if warranted, for improvement or change in our program.

In fact, as a result of last year's assessment, the Department initiated workshops to prepare students for applying to graduate school. And this year's assessment of the questionnaire has generated discussion concerning how well our major prepares students for the GRE, and more importantly, for graduate school. The new senior seminar, by the way, is one response to this need.

All candidates for the M.A. degree in English are required to complete certain essential requirements: meet specified course distributions:

• pass a 3-hour comprehensive written examination,
• demonstrate reading knowledge of one foreign language, and
• complete and submit for approval a final thesis.

Students pursuing the M.A. in English must earn at least 30 graduate credit hours, distributed among courses determined by the student in consultation with her/his advisor and approved by the Graduate Director.

The Graduate School has established and monitors, in concert with the English Graduate Program Director, the six-year window for completion of all M.A. requirements. It is the shared responsibility of the Graduate Director, the students individual advisors, and the students themselves to insure that all necessary forms and applications are submitted by, and examinations completed within, the required deadlines. The Graduate Student Handbook, published annually by the Graduate Program and given to each student in the program and to all faculty, spells out the program requirements and deadlines for their completion.

The Graduate Director initially advises all entering M.A. program students. Generally by the end of the first term of study, however, the student selects their principal faculty advisors who, in turn, usually serve as the student's thesis directors. Although the students are free to change their advisors, under normal circumstances these faculty members will be the student's mentors and advisors for their entire M.A. career.

The Graduate Program Committee continuously monitors the M.A. curriculum, policies, and procedures. In 1997-98, for example, the Committee is restructuring several courses in the catalogue and revising/clarifying the written comprehensive policies and procedures in the M.A. program.

As a consequence of the intensified emphasis on the professional preparation of Ph.D. program students in the Department of English, M.A. program students have become increasingly aware as well of the importance of establishing professional credentials, should they wish to proceed into a doctoral program at USC or elsewhere. Consequently, M.A. students have begun to participate in regional professional conferences and seek publication of their work with some successes.

While the results of individual course surveys indicate that the overall quality of instruction within the Department of English is high, it was clear from the ongoing curriculum review of the Graduate Program Committee, interviews with program students, and modest success of program students on the job market that essential changes were required in the curriculum and operation of the Ph.D. program in English with an emphasis in English and/or American literature. The M.A. student has benefited from this 1995-96 revision of the Ph.D. program curriculum insofar as it has affected the content (increased concern with current critical and theoretical issues) and the conduct (increased emphasis on a publishable, end-of-term product) of courses that they routinely enroll in, together with the Ph.D. program students.

All candidates for the M.F.A. degree in Creative Writing are required to complete certain essential requirements:

• meet specified course distributions, pass a 3-hour comprehensive written examination,
• demonstrate reading knowledge of one foreign language, and complete and defend a final thesis.

Students pursuing the M.F.A. must earn at least 45 graduate credit hours, distributed among courses determined by the student in consultation with her/his advisor and approved by the Graduate Director.

To insure quality of instruction in the Graduate Program, all creative writing faculty are required to hold a Ph.D. or equivalent degree, or possess a national reputation as a writer of distinction.

The Graduate School has established and monitors, in concert with the English Graduate Program Director, the six-year window for completion of all M.F.A. requirements. It is the shared responsibility of the Graduate Director, the students individual advisors, and the students themselves to insure that all necessary forms and applications are submitted by, and examinations completed within, the required deadlines. The Graduate Student Handbook, published annually by the Graduate Program and given to each student in the program and to all faculty, spells out the program requirements and deadlines for their completion.

The coordinator of the creative writing program initially advises all entering M.F.A. program students. Generally by the end of the first term of study, however, the student selects their principal faculty advisors who, in turn, usually serve as the student's thesis directors. Although the students are free to change their advisors, under normal circumstances these faculty members will be the student's mentors and advisors for their entire M.F.A. career.

The Graduate Program Committee continuously monitors the M.F.A. curriculum, policies., and procedures. In 1997-98, for example, the Committee is restructuring several courses in the catalogue and revising/clarifying the written comprehensive policies and procedures in the M.F.A. program.

As a consequence of the intensified emphasis on the professional preparation of Ph.D. program students in the Department of English, M.F.A. program students have become increasingly aware as well of the importance of establishing professional credentials, should they wish to proceed into a doctoral program in literature at USC or elsewhere, seek immediate academic employment, or enter into a professional writing career. Consequently, M.F.A. students have actively organized and participated in public readings, published a journal of creative writing (Yemassee), and published their work widely.

Insofar as M.F.A. students devote half of their course work to classes in the literature curriculum, they have benefited from the overall transformation of the Department of English. More immediately, with the partial reallocation of published creative writers on the literature faculty to the creative writing program, the hire of a new assistant professor in creative writing in 1996-97, and the Department's (and University's) decision to hire a distinguished writer to a senior position in 1997-98, the M.F.A. students have and will continue to see an even greater transformation in the quality of faculty within their program.

While the results of individual course surveys indicates that the overall quality of instruction within the Department of English is high, it was clear from the ongoing curriculum review of the Graduate Program Committee, interviews with program students, and modest success of program students on the job market that essential changes were required in the curriculum and operation of the Ph.D. program in English with an emphasis in English and/or American literature. The M.F.A. student has benefited from this 1995-96 revision of the Ph.D. program curriculum insofar as it has affected the content (increased concern with current critical and theoretical issues) and the conduct (increased emphasis on a publishable, end-of-term product) of the literature courses that they routinely enroll in, together with the M.A. and Ph.D. program students.

Doctor of Philosophy Degree in English

All candidates for the Ph.D. degree in English are required to complete certain essential requirements: pass a qualifying examination for candidacy:

pass an 8-hour comprehensive written examination, pass a comprehensive oral examination, demonstrate reading knowledge of two foreign languages, and complete and defend a dissertation.

Students pursuing the Ph.D. in English with an emphasis in English and/or American literature must earn at least 36 graduate credit hours, distributed among courses in their chosen major and minor fields of concentration, as determined by the student in consultation with her/his doctoral committee. Students pursuing the Ph.D. degree in English with an emphasis in Composition and Rhetoric, students must earn at least 48 graduate credit hours, distributed among stipulated courses in English/American Literature, Linguistics, Composition, and Rhetoric.

The Graduate School has established and monitors, in concert with the English Graduate Program Director, the eight-year window for completion of all Ph.D. requirements. It is the shared responsibility of the Graduate Director, the students individual advisors, and the students themselves to insure that all necessary forms and applications are submitted by, and examinations completed within, the required deadlines. The Graduate Student Handbook, published annually by the Graduate Program and given to each student in the program and to all faculty, spells out the program requirements and deadlines for their completion.

The Graduate Director initially advises all entering Ph.D. program students. By the end of the first term of study, however, the student selects at least four faculty members to constitute her/his doctoral committee. This committee comprises the student's director of studies (i.e., the principal academic advisor and mentor), one or two additional faculty members within the student's major field of concentration, often (but not necessarily) one faculty member representing the student's minor field of concentration, and one credential faculty member from outside the Department of English. Although the student is free to change the constitution of this committee, under normal circumstances this committee will advise the student throughout the doctoral program, from qualifying examination, through the program of studies, the written and oral comprehensive examinations, and the dissertation proposal, to the completion and defense of the dissertation.

The Graduate Program Committee continuously monitors the Ph.D. curriculum, policies, and procedures. In 1995-96 the Committee completely redesigned the Ph.D. program in English with an emphasis in English and/or American literature; in 1996-97, in addition to adding one course to the graduate catalogue (ENGL 735--Postcolonial Literature and Theory), the Committee fine-tuned the policies and procedures for implementing this new degree design; for 1997-98, the Committee is restructuring several more courses in the catalogue and revising/clarifying the written and oral comprehensive policies and procedures in the Ph.D. program. There has been a steady increase in publication by Ph.D. program students from 1993 to 1997, comprising a 100% gain from 1993 to 1995 (10 to 20), and an extremely impressive 210% gain from 1995 to 1997 (20 to 62). As with its faculty, the distinction of the Ph.D. program students in the Department of English is most visible in their success in presenting their work to a professional audience.

While the results of individual course surveys indicates that the overall quality of instruction within the Department of English is high, it was clear from the ongoing curriculum review of the Graduate Program Committee, interviews with program students, and modest success of program students on the job market that essential changes were required in the curriculum and operation of the Ph.D. program in English with an emphasis in English and/or American literature. The 1995-96 revision of this program's curriculum has made it increasingly possible for the English faculty to train students as aspiring professional scholars by offering the students a more efficient and effective, closely monitored program of study. The Graduate Program's collateral decision to reduce enrollments, moreover, has both raised the quality of students admitted to the program and insured these students the opportunity for greater individual contact with their professional mentors.

Student course evaluations (which are carried out for every instructor in every course taught, every semester), show that the graduate courses in the English department are well-received by the students in the program. Our ratings for all courses and instructors are between 2.5 and 5.0 (on a scale of 1 to 5) for the past two years. These results are consistent with the high quality of our teaching faculty and with our commitment to providing the best graduate education available in the Southeast.

In the past five years the Department of English has experienced approximately a 45% transformation of its faculty, with the death or retirement of 10 members and the hiring of 14 new professors, 11 of whom were beginning assistant professors. There will be at least three more retirements in the next two years, and for 1997-98 the department has launched searches for six new faculty members. Throughout this period of transformation, the department has been able to take advantage of a buyer's market for truly outstanding young scholars and has succeeded in the last three years in hiring its first-choice candidate in each search. In effect, the department has changed dramatically over the last five years and will continue to change in the foreseeable future. With this change has come an extraordinary elevation of the department's quality so that it is now in the first tier of institutions in the Southeast.

The Graduate Program of the Department of English is one of the largest graduate degree programs at USC. Our graduates are a valuable resource to the State of South Carolina, to the entire Southeastern region, and increasingly to the Nation at large. The Graduate Program expects to continue to supply qualified educators, professional scholars, experienced analytical thinkers, and distinguished writers to these communities well into the future.

In the fall of 1995 the National Research Council ranked the USC Department of English in the top fortythree percent of the Nation's 127 Ph.D. granting institutions. This ranking was highest of any Ph.D. program in the College of Liberal Arts and second only to the ranking of the Department of Chemistry within the university. Although such national reputations develop slowly and often at some remove from actuality, the Department of English is confident that the increase in its faculty quality and the emergent prominence of its graduate degree students will translate to an even higher ranking in the next NRC survey.

Assessment of Majors Submitted as Interim Reports at the Midpoint of Either an Accreditation or a South Carolina Commission on Higher Education Program Review Cycle

A faculty retreat was held in January, 1997 to assess graduate and undergraduate programs. Out of this retreat came the realization that programs needed to be adjusted to better fit the needs of the students and skills of the faculty. To improve the program, a series of meeting were held by ad hoc committees. Suggestions were made for revising Anthropology programs. Many of these suggestions were implemented by the faculty.

Peer review of teaching was initiated in the Spring of 1997. Faculty teaching similar courses met to compare syllabi, examinations, course presentations, etc.

The Department conducted a survey of alumni graduating since 1987 to assess satisfaction with the program, job success, and perceptions of new developments and trends in the field that may affect educational programs. High levels of satisfaction with the program were noted. There is a need for attention to the effects of managed care and changes in the training program. Faculty are working on curricular changes.

Recently, the Department of Clinical-Community Psychology underwent a self-study and accreditation review by the American Psychological Association. The Program was reaccredited. However, some concerns were raised about the level of research productivity of the clinical faculty. The Program is focusing on replacement of retiring faculty with research active faculty. Two research-active faculty members were recruited for the tenure track beginning in 1998-99 academic year.

In the undergraduate major in Economics, the primary assessment mechanism is Economics 511, Senior Seminar in Economics. This course requires students to exhibit statistical skills, computer skills, and communication skills through close interaction with faculty in term papers and projects.

A substantial number of Economic majors did not have sufficient background in intermediate economic theory upon entering the course. This was largely due to students who switched from other programs into the economics major after the sophomore year. many of these students then delayed taking one or both of their required intermediate economic courses (ECON 321 - Intermediate Microeconomics; ECON 322 -Intermediate Macroeconomics) until their senior year.

To improve the program, the undergraduate advisors implemented a tougher course sequence requirement policy approved by the Economics faculty. Students transferring into Economics from other programs are required to take ECON 321 and ECON 322 before their senior year. Students taking heir senior-level Economics courses now have a better background and learn more from their classes.

The major assessment activity for the MA and PhD programs in Economics is the maintenance of communication with students following their graduation. This communication includes assistance with placement, joint research, and contact at professional meetings. Our annual newsletter facilitates networking of faculty and former students.

Exit surveys of graduating seniors were conducted by the Undergraduate Office to assess overall satisfaction and solicit suggestions for improvement. Students report high levels of satisfaction, especially noting the dedication and commitment of the faculty. Faculty have received this information as reinforcement for their efforts along with encouragement to continue their efforts toward students and on their behalf.

A survey of currently enrolled students was conducted to assess students competing demands and to derive an accurate profile of Experimental Psychology students. The vast majority of the students work 20+ hours per week in paid employment that appears to compete with their class attendance and involvement in classes. Students report studying less than faculty expected, but report above average GPAs. The faculty is examining the scheduling of course offerings to ensure the availability of courses in light of student work schedules. The faculty is also examining the assignments made outside of class and the rigor and expectations of instructors.

An assessment of faculty teaching is done each semester through the use of course evaluations by enrolled students. Participation in this assessment process is mandatory for all faculty. The evaluation form is administered by a graduate student for each class and returned to the main office. In addition to a scanned answer sheet, students are asked to evaluate strengths and weakness of both the course and the instructor using short answer responses. These responses are subsequently collated by the department and given to the instructor as a summary and placed in the faculty member's file. Evaluations of graduate students who teach courses are done in the same manner. We have recently (1996) instituted a peer review of teaching as well for all graduate assistants, and assistantlassociate professors. Senior faculty are assigned one course a semester to visit and write an extensive narrative on the performance and offer suggestions for improvement. The bi-annual review of teaching effectiveness helps identify problems that the instructor can resolve in his/her presentation or handling of the class. The peer review of teaching has been useful and we are now discussing the possibility of conducting these for all faculty. This survey and the, peer review are used by the Departmental chair as an integral part of the annual review of faculty performance. It can (and does) affect salary decisions and the distribution of resources. It also enables the chair to make the best use of faculty in teaching assignments.

The Geography Curriculum Committee did a complete review of the undergraduate program and major curriculum changes. The Committee considered teaching and research strengths in the department and career opportunities within different subfields as the basis for revising the curriculum. It was felt that students were completing the undergraduate program with too little training in Geography. We also felt there was a need for deeper involvement in the subfield of concentration which would enhance employment opportunities as well as prepare students for graduate studies. Results of the assessment resulted in the increase of the required hours for the major from 30 to 33. Three separate tracks were created (Physical/Environ mental; Human/Economic; and Geographic Techniques). We also revised the core requirements with the creation of new foundation and capstone courses.

Beginning two years ago, both as a self-study and as part of a blue-ribbon panel appointed by the Dean, the Department of History examined all of its activities. The Department learned that it needed to add one course to its undergraduate program and revise several aspects of its graduate programs. The Department of History is currently experimenting with a gateway course for all History majors, and is still in the process of revising its graduate programs.

Early in the Spring, 1997 semester, the Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee on International Studies distributed a questionnaire to all International Studies (I.S.) majors, soliciting their impact on, and recommendations for, revising the major. The I.S. majors had suggestions on new courses, making the major more user-friendly, increasing curriculum flexibility, and making the major more appropriate for future careers. Student feedback was taken into account by the International Studies Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee in their proposed revisions which were approved by the Government and International Studies (GINT) Faculty and subsequently by the Faculty Senate.

During the Spring of 1997, at the request of the GINT Department, the Dean of the College convened an external review committee of distinguished academicians from other universities. This Blue Ribbon Panel was charged with evaluating all of the Department's degree programs, both graduate and undergraduate. The Panel made numerous suggestions for change to all International Studies degree programs. The Department appointed several committees to discuss and/or solidify the Panel's recommendations. The proposals thus generated have nearly all been adopted by the faculty and are now undergoing review at the University level.

In addition to the ongoing solicitation of student evaluations of all courses and all teaching faculty, all M-1 students meet in small groups with the Dean during their first year of Medical Education. Student leaders also meet monthly with Student Services and Medical Education and Academic Affairs personnel and quarterly with the Dean. All M-11 and M-IV students meet individually every year with Student Services, Medical Education and Academic Affairs, and Curricular Affairs personnel for discussion of perceptions of the educational program and for career planning and professional development. Feedback from these regular group and individual meetings has resulted in the identification of needs for additional library and computer resources, for additional security on the School of Medicine and clinical campuses, and for curricular enhancements / modifications in specific areas. Based upon these student-reported data, a plan is in place for enhancement of the Medical Library, campus lighting has been improved, an emergency call box has been installed in the School of Medicine student parking area, a new administrative structure for educational computer resources has been put in place, and curricular enhancements are in place (e.g., the Standardized and Simulated Patient Program for M-11 students and Capstone Month for M-IV students) or are planned for the 1998-1999 academic year (e.g., additional small-group learning activities).

The members of the School of Medicine Curriculum Committee have been involved in a three-year-long comprehensive assessment process during which each School of Medicine basic science course and clinical clerkship is being reviewed in light of current accreditation standards, student feedback, the health care needs of South Carolina, the educational and future professional needs of students, available resources, and current pedagogy in medical education. This process is ongoing, with basic science courses and clinical clerkships under review by faculty teams and Curriculum Committee subcommittees. To date, needs for improved integration of basic science and clinical science topics during the M-1 and M11 years and for a computerized curriculum database for purposes of curricular tracking have been identified. A plan is in place for the 1998-1999 academic year to improve basic science/clinical science integration in the M-1 and M-11 years by ensuring that the Introduction of Clinical Practice courses in the M-1 and M-11 years integrates the basic science knowledge derived from basic science courses and that related basic science and clinical science curricular topics are being addressed simultaneously during the academic year. The School of Medicine Curricular Affairs and Faculty Support Office has obtained computer software for a curriculum database and is in the process of entering relevant data.

During AY 1994/95 the Department established a new standing Committee on Teaching. During AY 1995/96 this Committee met and drafted guidelines for peer visitation and assessment of teaching. The guidelines require every Assistant or Associate faculty member to have one of their classes visited every two years. The purposes of these new procedures are to promote a deeper and more detailed dialog on approaches to teaching philosophy, with the goal of insuring that Philosophy Department classes are taught well, and to provide an additional means to assess faculty teaching for the tenure, promotion and annual review. Department faculty approved these guidelines on May 2, 1996.

During AY 1996/97, the Committee on Teaching implemented these guidelines. Three faculty had their classes visited and assessed by peer faculty on the Teaching Committee. The result was a very valuable addition to student class evaluations.

In addition, during this past academic year, the Committee on Teaching developed a new student evaluation form for use in all Philosophy classes. The new form conforms to University and CHE mandates on student evaluation forms. It also is computer readable.

During Spring of 1997, all undergraduate majors were invited to attend meetings to discuss their concerns, needs, and ideas about the Political Science major. Out of these discussions ideas about course needs and curriculum flexibility were generated. Undergraduate Political Science degree requirements were revised during the 1997-98 academic year. Student recommendations were taken into account by the committee which developed the revisions.

At the department's request, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts appointed a review panel of distinguished scholars from other universities to review all Political Science degree programs during the Spring of 1997. The department appointed committees which during 1997-98 proposed revisions taking into account these suggestions for both undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Political science. The department has adopted many of these suggestions. Many of the suggestions are now undergoing review at other levels in the University.

The Religious Studies Department conducted a program review of graduate assistantship support as compared with that of the University's nine aspirant peer institutions in the AAU. The Department is significantly underfunded for graduate assistantships. Discounting departmental ly-generated money (e.g. Honors College teaching) and internal adjustments (borrowing from other areas of our operating budget) our assistantship budget is 37.5% of our peer institutions assistantship budgets. To improve the program the department is reducing the number of assistantships; - the two-year phase-in will be reflected in 199899 and 1999-2000 - to bring the average assistantship up from $3,217 to the average of the University's aspirant AAU institutions - $5,125.

The Department conducted an internal evaluation of the MA program, focusing primarily on the structure and goals of our course on Methods as an appropriate introduction to, and integral part of, the entire program of study. The Methods course, as it was previously conceived and implemented, did not get students started on serious research that would lead to the writing of a substantive thesis. The old version of the course did introduce students to the range of methods in the study of religion, but it needed to do more. The Methods course has been completely revised. The Department has now offered it two times in the new format, and it is constantly being fine-tuned.

The School Psychology Program was reviewed for accreditation by the American Psychological Association in 1997. This involved an extensive self-study of the curriculum, student success in post degree placements andstudent satisfaction, as well as faculty productivity. The program was recommended for re-accreditation and commended for the strength of faculty and preparedness of program graduates. Weaknesses were noted in the level of institutional support (e.g. stipends and assistantships; for students) and integration of cultural diversity principles. As a result, the program is more aggressive in seeking fellowship support for students. The faculty are working to integrate attention to cultural diversity into the curriculum and has designated this area as a required competency in the qualifying examinations. In addition, the department intends to more aggressively pursue hiring faculty that will enhance diversity.

The Department of Sport Administration utilizes the College of Applied Professions Assessment for teacher evaluation. All courses taught in the Fall, Spring and Summer are evaluated by the students. The evaluations indicate strengths of our faculty in effective teaching. The students realize the quality of undergraduate teaching and would take additional courses from the professors. Student evaluations of teaching are just one aspect of teaching effectiveness. The Chairman of the Department reviews all teaching evaluations and suggests improvements if indicated by statistical data. Above average teaching methods are shared with other faculty members during SPTA faculty meetings.