Summary
of External Reviewers’ Reports
on Undergraduate Education at NC State University
Prepared
for
Dr. Kermit L. Hall, Provost
and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
and Professor of History
Based
on Reviews by
Dr. Betsy Barefoot
Brevard College and the University of South Carolina
Dr. Jessie
Delia
University of Illinois-Champaign
Dr. Martha Garland
Ohio State University
Dr. Emily
Moore
Iowa State University
Dr. M.
Rick Turner
University of Virginia
July 10, 2000
Executive
Summary
The results
of the external review of undergraduate education at NC State were
both illuminating and challenging. In general, the reviewers praised
the University for its long-established strengths in science and
technology and for its efforts to craft a more inclusive and challenging
academic experience in other areas. The highlight of each area of
review is described, along with its overall assessment, below:
Academic
Advising: very strong in the First Year College, which may serve
as a valuable model for the entire University provided advisers
are not overworked, and in Academic Support Programs for Student
Athletes.
Administrative
Support: very strong in Admissions, Financial Aid, Registration
and Records, and University Planning and Analysis.
Recruitment
and Retention of Underrepresented Students: weak in terms of coordination
of efforts, assessment of programs, commitment to student success,
and communication with students.
General
Education Curriculum: strong in cross-curricular efforts to centralize
a philosophy of the GERs; weak in expansiveness and impact of liberal
arts education
First
Year College: very strong in programming, assessment, and administrative
support (national benchmark already); less strong in terms of future
directions and resources; weak in resources (including staffing)
and facilities
Hewlett
Initiative: very strong in commitment and success but less strong
in institutional impact
Service
Learning: very strong in commitment but very weak in institutional
impact
Honors
programming: strong in energy and initiative but weak in articulating
a relationship with the Scholars Program. Very weak (an institutional
issue) in leveraging scholarship monies to bring the most academically
attractive students to NC State and the Honors Program.
Summary of External Reviewers’ Reports
on Undergraduate Education at NC State University
Table of Contents
Charge to the Review Team and criteria for evaluation
General Approaches for Institutional Effectiveness
2.1
Academic Advising
2.2 Administrative Support
2.3 Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Students
3.0
Specific Programs
3.1 The General Education Curriculum
3.2 The First Year College
3.3 The Hewlett Initiative
3.4 Service-Learning
3.5 The Honors Program
4.0
Conclusions
5.0
The Evolution of a Vision: Some Recommendations
Appendix:
Reviewers’ Credentials
Summary of External Reviewers’ Reports
on Undergraduate Education at NC State University
This
report summarizes the results of the external review team’s
visit to NC State University March 8-9, 2000. Our team was comprised
of experts on various topics regarding undergraduate education (see
Appendix for credentials of reviewers):
Dr. Betsy
Barefoot, Brevard College and the University of South Carolina,
evaluated the First Year College.
Dr. Jessie
Delia, University of Illinois-Champaign, evaluated General Education,
Foreign Language, and the Honors Program.
Dr. Martha
Garland, The Ohio State University, evaluated the General Education
Curriculum, the Hewlett Initiative, the Honors Program, and Service-Learning.
Dr. Emily
Moore, Iowa State University, evaluated the First Year College and
the support for underrepresented students in terms of retention
and graduation.
Dr. M.
Rick Turner, University of Virginia, evaluated the support for underrepresented
students in terms of retention and graduation.
1.0 Charge to the Review Team and Criteria for Evaluation
Specifically,
we were asked to address the following questions:
Are goals
and objectives identifiable and, if so, are they appropriate for
that area?
Are the goals and objectives stated in measurable terms? If not,
what is needed?
What seem to be the identifiable programmatic strengths and weaknesses?
Are the programmatic linkages sufficient?
Was the appropriate assessment/evaluation conducted?
For the area that you reviewed, what other institutions should serve
as benchmarks?
Do you have a sense that a vision is evolving?
Various
reports, raw data, brochures, and other forms of information were
provided to each of us, according to our area(s) of specialization,
prior to our visit. We had the opportunity to request additional
information before, during, and after our visit. Depending on our
area of review, members of the external review team met with numerous
individuals and groups during the visit, typically in 1-2 hour blocks
of time. An exit interview with the Provost and Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Affairs concluded the campus visit, and we completed
individual reports that serve as the basis of this overview.
The results
of the investigations provide some valuable insights into the strengths
and weaknesses of various factors impacting the undergraduate experience
at NC State. Some recommendations for remedying weaknesses are also
provided.
Importantly,
and as with any limited site visit, our brief observations, interviews,
and resulting perceptions may not reflect the realities or complexities
of any program or the University. Thus, the degree to which these
comments are used as the basis for decisions should be carefully
explored. Nevertheless, this information should be especially valuable
to the EOM, the provost’s staff, deans, department heads, and
others who are responsible for helping to craft the best possible
experience for NC State students.
This
report first summarizes the strengths and weaknesses noted in the
broadest aspects of the review: (1) academic advising, (2) administrative
support, and (3) recruitment and retention of underrepresented students.
Then, it summarizes the evaluations of specific programs and activities:
(1) the General Education curriculum, (2) the First Year College,
(3) the Hewlett Initiative, (4) Service Learning, and (5) the Honors
Program.
2.0 General Approaches for Institutional Effectiveness
This
section describes three general elements of institutional effectiveness
in undergraduate education: academic advising, administrative support,
and recruitment and retention of underrepresented students. Because
some of these issues are described in the context of particular
programs, some overlap in subsequent sections does occur.
2.1 Academic Advising
We reviewed
academic advising in the contexts of the First Year College and
the Academic Support Programs for Student Athletes.1 We were particularly
impressed with the care and quality of advising in the FYC and ASPSA
(and especially impressed that ASPSA reports to the Provost, rather
than to the Director of Athletics). We also note that the quality
of advising in the FYC is having a measurable impact on all students’
expectations for advising and, thus, on the approaches to advising
being considered and practiced by the academic colleges.
The primary
concern for the quality of advising in the FYC stems from the College’s
understaffing and overwork of its advisers. As one reviewer reports,
"The advis[e]rs were reluctant to acknowledge it, but many
of them are being stretched to the limit (and beyond). They are
obviously committed to their work and they hesitate to ever say
‘no.’"
Relations
with underrepresented student populations, particularly African
American students, were scrutinized during our visit, and some of
the observations have particular implications for advising. First,
the message that the use of academic support programs (tutorial
services, the Transition Program, ASPSA, and others) may significantly
improve first-year students’ academic performance should be
revised as a positive opportunity for strong students, rather than
as a lifeline for those doomed to failure. The value of these services
is a message that students must hear consistently from faculty members,
academic deans, orientation counselors, advisers, and others throughout
their NC State experience. Further, it is unrealistic to rely on
routine programs and activities alone to remedy the poor graduation
rates of African-American students, which result partly from the
racial inequities in educational access and opportunity. Institutional
goal setting must take this into account. Finally, more assessment
of the long-term effectiveness of particular programs and a longitudinal
study of students’ long-term satisfaction with their NC State
experience should be pursued. (For more on underrepresented students’
issues, see Section 2.3 below.)
Administrative Support
From
meetings with the staffs of Admissions, Financial Aid, University
Planning and Analysis, and the Registrar’s Offices, we investigated
the relations between these offices and Undergraduate Affairs. We
feel particularly favorable regarding the support UPA provides for
assessment and the overall quality of the Financial Aid office.
Admissions needs few changes since it is doing a good job of selecting
from a strong pool of applicants.
We have
strong concerns, however, about the limited amount of financial
aid distributed relative to student need and the marginal use of
scholarship funds to attract strong students, especially those from
underrepresented groups.
Recruitment
and Retention of Underrepresented Students
As noted
in section 2.1 on academic advising, we felt some unevenness in
the goals for the success of underrepresented students and the messages
and commitments to fulfilling those goals. While the University
provides a number of programs promoting the success of underrepresented
students—especially the Transition Program which takes a caring,
hands-on, "tough love" approach—the overall assessment
of the effects of these programs and the quality of life for underrepresented
students at NC State is not good. Urgently needed is a holistic
assessment of the characteristics of African-American students entering
NC State and the academic, economic, and cultural environments from
which they come to the University (i.e., from schools with fewer
resources, less prepared teachers, fewer college-preparation courses,
etc.).
The elements
that may be interfering with the University’s commitment are
extensive. First, initial correspondence from the African-American
coordinators communicates a poor success rate for African American
students in their first year—a message that, while realistic,
hardly encourages students’ positive attitudes about their
potential for success. Related to the issue of communication is
the University’s rather consistent practice of aggregating
some ethnicities as "other," which is perceived as a devaluation
of these students. Second, the lack of assessment of the long-term
effects or student satisfaction with the programs offered makes
the value of these programs suspect. Additionally, the programs
do not seem linked in any effective way. Third, and equally critical,
is that the staff and administrators are also disconnected. We note
that the lack of coordination and appreciation (i.e., trust, respect,
and value) among the African-American coordinators, the deans, and
upper level administration makes it difficult to get a sense that
a vision is evolving. The institutional climate at this stage is
not conducive to supporting African-American students.
We suggest
that the responsibility for seeing that underrepresented students
take advantage of academic support services is critical to the success
of these students and the most important goal that the Division
of Undergraduate Affairs can establish. Thus, the connection between
the messages the University sends, the quality and inter-relatedness
of programs, and the relations between staff and administrators
are keys to improving the context of the undergraduate experience
of underrepresented students. A seamless system of communicating
the value of academic support programs in positive terms is the
action needed.
3.0
Specific Programs
This
section focuses on five distinct programming efforts at NC State,
all designed to enhance the quality of the undergraduate experience,
as well as boost retention and graduation rates of your students:
the General Education Curriculum, the First Year College, the Hewlett
Initiative, Service-Learning, and the Honors Program.
The General
Education Curriculum
The external
review resulted in some positive assessments of the general education
curriculum at NC State, particularly the encouragement for students
to fulfill their GERs at the upper level, rather than taking freshman
courses in their junior and senior years and finding them unchallenging.
Both writing/speaking across the curriculum and the effort to craft
a centralized philosophy of GER courses function as unifying features
of the undergraduate curriculum.
Although
noting that the GER requirements at NC State imitate their status
at other Research I institutions and that the structure of those
requirements is basically sound, we see that the highly decentralized
nature of NC State threatens a campus-wide body of GERs and that
requirements are uneven in the strength of some of those requirements.
We also caution that the reliance on CHASS to provide courses for
GERs may overtax that faculty and its resource needs. The broad
inclusion of faculty from across campus into a GER cluster can be
based on the Hewlett model, especially since the faculty involved
in that initiative are so passionately committed to the strengthening
of general education.
The possibility
that students are being shortchanged in the liberal arts is another
matter of concern. Recognizing the institution’s strengths
in science and technology, we nevertheless feel that scientists
and technologists need to address the issues facing humanity and
the relevance of those issues for all citizens—issues that
are most powerfully addressed by a liberal arts curriculum and faculty.
As evidence of this weakness, attention to cultural diversity, internationalization
of the curriculum, and study abroad seem to get short shrift at
NC State, in spite of the likelihood that your graduates will be
playing significant roles in global industries and economies.
As a
specific concern for the GERs, the foreign language requirement
is extremely weak for developing effective communicators. Again
the issue of globalization arises, with the role of the foreign
language department specifically carved out to encourage students
to overcome ethnocentricity and to seek international preparatory
experiences. Students should be encouraged to view second languages
as valuable entrees into broader educational and career explorations
within the context of their disciplinary majors.
The First Year College
Overall,
the First Year College garners outstanding reviews, specifically
for the quality of administrative and staff leadership, along with
its programming, advising, and place in the University. Indeed,
the FYC can serve as a benchmark program for any other Research
I university that wishes to design a structure to offer more intentional
advising and student support services either for all new students
or for students who have not declared a major upon entry. The FYC
is bringing more and more stakeholders onboard in its concerns for
first-year student success; further, it is proving to be a powerful
recruiting tool for Admissions.
Assessment,
particularly quantitative analysis, is another outstanding feature
of the FYC and can serve as a model for other institutions and programs.
We are particularly pleased that the assessment team has identified
learning outcomes and developed a system for measuring those outcomes.
These outcomes inform the FYC staff and administration on ways to
improve student learning as benchmark measures, reflecting a vision
for future assessment and investigations of learning. The assessments,
to date, also reveal that the general objectives of the FYC are
being realized, especially with respect to student retention and
satisfaction.
Additionally,
the FYC is noted for the following strengths:
its clear
and accepted role in the University that, because of the absence
of a curriculum, does not threaten or compete with other academic
colleges;
sound and innovative administrative leadership;
a student body that is increasingly qualified academically;
support from upper-level administration;
a well designed and delivered year-long orientation course; and
manageable size
The primary problems with the FYC are staffing issues (overworked
advisers; no permanent director), the lack of a clear vision for
the future of the College (currently seen as being in a "holding
pattern"), the lack of authority to effect a change in the
status of students, and the inadequacies of space and resources.
The staffing issues, described earlier, center on the need to hire
more advisers and to hire the permanent director. Together, the
staff and director should draft a strategic plan to chart the future
of the FYC, noting the need to address issues of space and resources,
as well as the need to change the name of the College to reflect
its large cohort of sophomores. These problems are compounded by
the third: the lack of authority to effect a change in the status
of students—i.e., the inability to do anything about the large
numbers of students "trapped" in the FYC. Unfortunately,
the move to some version of a general college may not remedy that
problem, and institutional change is most likely needed to address
the problem.
Contributing
to this problem, of course, is the placement of students in the
FYC who are not undecided, but who are inadmissible into their first-choice
colleges. These students typically have a lower AI and resent being
in the FYC; consequently, their performance often suffers, and they
may create dissension among the other students.
An additional
area of concern is the connection between the FYC and some important
offices and aspects of the University. First is the perception that
FYC and Student Affairs have little interaction. Equally troublesome
is the questionable value of the connection between University Housing
and the FYC. While the original structure of the FYC made it a residential
college, ongoing program developments may have made the usefulness
of this arrangement passe. Further concerns focus on the increasing
inadequacies of space and facilities for the burgeoning college.
While
the social and integration aspects of the FYC are strong, more consideration
should be given to the academic integration of these students into
the University, and few practices have proven more successful nationally
than involving first-year students with the research interests of
the faculty to encourage communication, teaching, and exploration
of academic possibilities. This approach, however, requires institutional
commitment to rewarding faculty for such activities when they are
reviewed for tenure and promotion.
Some
final comments highlight some critical issues and possibilities
for the future of the FYC:
With
increasing numbers of liberal arts students entering the University,
the appeal of the FYC is certain to grow—further swelling the
population of the College and draining its resources.
The increased popularity of the FYC may make it a holding tank for
students who are not admissible into their first-choice colleges.
The University should investigate the various models of general
or university colleges before restructuring the FYC to take on this
role.
The FYC offers a home for other innovative initiatives in academic
programming, including learning communities, undergraduate research
opportunities, and connections between first-year and upper-level
students as co-teachers or mentors.
The Hewlett Initiative
The Hewlett
Initiative, a cohort of faculty committed to specific student outcomes
(inquiry, critical thinking, intellectual enhancement and maturity,
and student responsibility for learning) and using inquiry-guided
instruction as the basis for students’ development, is clearly
enhancing the undergraduate experience and faculty involvement in
undergraduate education. The vehicles for promoting these outcomes—first
year seminars and inquiry-guided instruction courses—are particularly
appealing in their structure and their early prompts for students
to take responsibility for their own education. The primary weakness
noted is the tendency for those involved to constitute the entire
movement, rather than having a wider impact on the whole faculty.
Ongoing issues will inevitably focus on how to broaden the appeal,
practice, and impact of this movement.
Service-Learning
While
applauding the University’s incorporation of service-learning
and especially the incorporation of student participants in leading
the movement, we note even more marginalized participation and support
for this effort than for the Hewlett Initiative. Again, some means
for expanding the attractiveness and impact of this movement is
required.
3.5 The Honors Program
The newly
designed Honors Program deserves recognition for its energy, despite
several organizational obstacles. The primary obstacle is what appears
to be a competing program: the Scholars’ Program. While the
Scholars’ program is recognized as "a co-curricular, primarily
student-affairs oriented enterprise," we foresee serious turf
issues as the Honors Program gets established.
We are
also gravely concerned with the apparently disorganized way in which
the University administers merit scholarship money. Although a better
approach is to recognize the value of such monies in recruiting
highly qualified students and placing the authority to offer such
scholarships in the hands of admissions and financial aid personnel,
we did note that this idea seemed to garner intensely resistive
body language.
4.0 Conclusions
The results
of our visit were both illuminating and challenging. In general,
we praise the University for its long-established strengths in science
and technology and for its efforts to craft a more inclusive and
challenging academic experience in other areas. The highlight of
each area of review is described, along with its primary strength(s)
and weakness(es), below:
Academic
Advising: very strong in the First Year College, which may serve
as a valuable model for the entire University provided advisers
are not overworked, and in Academic Support Programs for Student
Athletes.
Administrative
Support: very strong in Admissions, Financial Aid, Registration
and Records, and University Planning and Analysis.
Recruitment
and Retention of Underrepresented Students: weak in terms of coordination
of efforts, assessment of programs, commitment to student success,
and communication with students.
General
Education Curriculum: strong in cross-curricular efforts to centralize
a philosophy of the GERs; weak in expansiveness and impact of liberal
arts education (including, especially, foreign language) and weak
in comparison to college-level curricular offerings and funding
First
Year College: very strong in programming, assessment, and administrative
support (national benchmark already); less strong in terms of future
directions and resources; weak in resources (including staffing)
and facilities
Hewlett
Initiative: very strong in commitment and success but less strong
in institutional impact
Service
Learning: very strong in commitment but very weak in institutional
impact
Honors
programming: strong in energy and initiative but weak in articulating
a relationship with the Scholars Program. Very weak (an institutional
issue) in leveraging scholarship monies to bring the most academically
attractive students to NC State and the Honors Program.
The
Evolution of a Vision: Some Recommendations
In addressing
the strengths and weaknesses of various factors and programs in
undergraduate education, the question of the evolution of a vision
for undergraduate education at NC State is, perhaps, the most significant.
In general, we do feel that a vision is evolving, although that
vision is not particularly clear in some areas. The following recommendations
from the individual reports seem particularly germane to this issue.
The First
Year College may hold the most productive vision for academic advising
at NC State.
In order for NC State to have a coherent plan for helping underrepresented
students succeed, they need to get a more consistent message from
faculty, deans, and advisers that academic support programs are
in place to help them succeed. In broader terms, however, the institution
needs to make concerted efforts to improve the campus climate for
these students and for academic coordinators.
The General Education curriculum should continue to seek a central
philosophy on which goals are centered and courses are selected,
looking more pointedly at the liberal arts offerings as a valuable
resource for these requirements.
The First Year College needs its staff and new director to chart
a vision for the future of the College that would increase the staff
and other resources, move students more rapidly into their college
of choice, and re-evaluate or re-establish the commitment to various
programmatic components and relations with other University entities.
Both the Hewlett Initiative and Service-Learning (and, predictably,
any other pedagogical or curricular innovation) must find a way
to move beyond the "choir" and into the broader consciousness
of the institution.
A more coherent plan to put the award of scholarships into the hands
of Admissions and Financial Aid to recruit the most academically
attractive students is critical to the success of the Honors Program
and to the prestige of the University.
Our notes
of institutional and programmatic strengths and weaknesses, combined
with challenges for creating a coherent vision for undergraduate
education, suggest there is much work to be done. That work must
be a top priority for the Division of Undergraduate Affairs, which
must be able to rely on its partners throughout the University community
to reach the institutional goal of becoming a national benchmark
in undergraduate education. Indeed, as one reviewer notes, "The
Division of Undergraduate Affairs’ performance has been admirable,
and if it is to extend its role as a central campus unit supporting
improvement in undergraduate education, it will need to deepen its
involvements with the colleges and with the central campus bodies
supporting developments in general education, honors, and other
initiatives."
Based
on our review and collaborating with its partners, we recommend
that UGA produce a follow-up report, addressing the specific strengths
and weaknesses of the various initiatives identified in our review.
That follow-up report should outline more strategic plans and directives
for enhancing strengths, diminishing weaknesses, and creating a
coherent vision for undergraduate education at NC State.
Appendix:
Credentials of Visiting External Reviewers
Dr. Betsy Barefoot, Brevard College and the University of South
Carolina, evaluated the First Year College:
Betsy
Barefoot currently serves as Co-Director of the Policy Center on
the First Year of College, funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable
Trusts and located on the campus of Brevard College in Brevard,
NC. Prior to assuming this position in October of 1999, Dr. Barefoot
spent 11 years as Co-Director for Research and Publications at the
University of South Carolina's National Resource Center for The
First-Year Experience, where she conducted ongoing research on the
first-year seminar in American higher education and edited a variety
of publications on the first-year experience. She holds degrees
from Duke University (B.A.) and The College of William and Mary
(M.Ed. and Ed.D.). In her role with the Policy Center, Dr. Barefoot
continues her research and publishing on issues related to student
retention and the design and delivery of first-year initiatives.
She also consults with college campuses around the nation and world
on the structure and assessment of first-year programs.
Dr. Jessie
Delia, University of Illinois-Champaign, evaluated General Education,
Foreign Language, and the Honors Program:
Jesse
G. Delia has been Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since 1994. He
completed his Ph.D. in Communications and Human Relations in 1970
at the University of Kansas.
Dean
Delia’s research centers on studies of communication development
across the life span. Among the most cited scholars in his discipline,
he has received the National Communication Association’s Golden
Anniversary Prize for scholarship, its Distinguished Scholar Award
for career research achievements, and recognition through its program
of Endowed Mentor Fellowships for contributions to the education
and careers of his forty doctoral advisees. He also has been recognized
for excellence in undergraduate teaching by UIUC and is a recipient
of the Central States Communication Association’s Outstanding
Teacher Award. As Dean of the UIUC College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,
his agenda has focused on enhancing and strengthening the central
disciplines, interdisciplinary programs, and undergraduate education.
Dr. Martha Garland, The Ohio State University, evaluated the General
Education Curriculum, the Hewlett Initiative, the Honors Program,
and Service-Learning:
Dr. Garland
was appointed Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies in October
1997 and currently oversees all academic aspects of undergraduate
education, from students’ initial contact with Ohio State through
their graduations. Dr. Garland earned a bachelor’s degree in
history from Tulane University and the University of London in 1964.
She holds a master’s degree in medieval history from Cornell
University and a doctorate in modern British history from Ohio State.
A faculty member in the Department of History, in 1993 she became
Associate Dean of the College of Humanities, and in 1996-97 she
served as Undergraduate Dean of Arts and Sciences.
Dr. Garland
has served on numerous university committees, including co-chairing
the 46-member Committee on the Undergraduate Experience (CUE). The
committee investigated all aspects of the student experience at
Ohio State and in 1995 published an extensive report with strong
recommendations for improvements, many of which already have been
implemented. Dr. Garland is currently leading a focused effort to
improve the University’s approach to undergraduate teaching
and to increase student retention and graduation rates.
Dr. Emily Moore, Iowa State University, evaluated the First Year
College and the support for underrepresented students in terms of
retention and graduation:
Emily
L. Moore, Ed.D. is Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy
Studies in the College of Education at Iowa State University. She
previously served as Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Dean
of Faculty at Concordia University, St. Paul, Minnesota. She was
Dean of Teacher Education and interim Academic Dean at Concordia
College, Ann Arbor, Michigan. She was also Director of the Health
Education Department of Metropolitan Hospital and Health Centers,
Detroit, Michigan.
She serves
on the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
Health Education and Leadership Program work group on HIV/AIDS prevention
education for colleges and universities. She is a consultant-evaluator
with the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
Dr. M. Rick Turner, University of Virginia, evaluated the support
for underrepresented students in terms of retention and graduation:
A native
of Hartford, Connecticut, Dr. Turner holds the Bachelor of Arts
from Linfield College, Master of Social Work from the University
of Connecticut, and Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education Administration/Policy
Analysis from Stanford University. He has served as Dean of the
University of Virginia's Office of African American Affairs since
August 1988. Since his arrival, the University has boosted its African-American
graduation rate to 87%, among the highest of any public institution
of higher education.
In addition
to his role as Dean, Dr. Turner also serves as an adjunct faculty
member of the University of Virginia's Department of Sociology,
teaches courses on "Sociology of the African-American Community"
as well as multicultural education. He has served as a consultant/speaker
to numerous educational foundations, higher education institutions,
public and private schools, community organizations, municipal and
federal agencies. He has also spoken and written extensively about
African-American academic achievement, affirmative action, and the
recruitment, retention, admission and graduation of African-American
students, other students of color, and student athletes.
For his work, Dean Turner has received numerous awards, including
the Crispus Attuck Award for Higher Education Leadership, the Ron
Brown Award for successfully educating African-American youth and
other students of color, the Parents Advisory Association Warrior
Award for his student advocacy, the NAACP Award for his commitment
to the needs of the community, and Outstanding Black Faculty/Staff
Award for his devotion to his students.
1 Although the reviewers did get materials about the Virtual Advising
Center, scheduling conflicts precluded a demonstration of the web
site or an interview with Director Andrea Irby.
|
