c. Self-Study
The academic program under review will generate a written report, addressing each of the 12 topics listed below. All stakeholders (administrators, faculty, staff, students, clinical partners, and alumni) should have the opportunity to provide input into the self-study.
For each topic, the program will produce a narrative that provides evidence of key areas in which the program is showing excellence and identify key areas in which the program needs improvement. Each topic narrative will not exceed one, single-spaced page with the exception for future opportunities, which can be up to two pages Therefore, the total narrative should be no longer than 13 pages. Additional evidence and examples may be appended.
1.
Curricular design. Which principles of adult learning support the design of the curriculum? What are the program terminal outcomes, and how do individual course learning objectives map to them? How has the program ensured the relevance of content and innovative delivery methods?
2.
Clinical education. How does the program identify, vet, and evaluate sites for clinical placements? How does the program support preceptors in facilitating student achievement of learning goals? What needs to change to keep pace with the future?
3.
Enrollment. What outreach and recruitment activities does the program employ to engage prospective students? What criteria does the program apply to make admissions decisions? How are enrollment targets decided? What have been the trends in enrollment?
4.
Student experience. What initiatives has the program implemented to improve the quality of the student experience? How effective is faculty advising? What academic support services does the program offer? How does the program collaborate with the Office of Student and Alumni Services and other MGH Institute units to enhance student satisfaction?
5.
Learning outcomes. What evidence of teaching effectiveness does the program collect? How does the program track alumni and employers to determine longitudinal performance? What benchmarking data are available to compare the program with peer organizations?
6.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion. What goals does the program have for recruiting students, staff, and faculty from underrepresented minority groups? How does the program create an inclusive learning and work environment for people from all backgrounds? How are students prepared to provide culturally sensitive care?
7.
Interprofessional education and practice. How does the program prepare students to demonstrate mastery of the competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice? How do students interact with students and practitioners from other health professions? What is the effect of these interactions?
8.
Research and scholarship. What are the trends in faculty scholarly and research output? What steps have been implemented to increase scholarly productivity? How are students included in research opportunities?
9.
Faculty and staff development. What activities are in place to move faculty members toward promotion? What supports are available to support full-time and part-time faculty members in improving teaching effectiveness? How are work assignments for faculty and staff equitably distributed? What opportunities do staff members have to develop professionally?
10.
Effectiveness of program administrative structure. How is the administrative structure designed for maximum efficiency and effectiveness? How are resources managed optimally? How does the program ensure smooth working relationships with other MGH Institute units and external partners?
11.
Evaluation and improvement. What processes does the program have to identify areas for improvement? What areas for improvement have specialized accreditors recommended? Describe an example of how the program has used data to identify a deficiency, introduced an improvement, and measured a change.
12.
Future opportunities. Ideally, what will the program look like in five years? What possibilities exist for new degree or continuing education activities? What external partnerships and funding opportunities would allow the program to better achieve its goals and advance the MGH Institute’s strategic priorities?