| Email: | glanier@uwf.edu |
| Institution: | University of West Florida |
| Address: | Honors, Pace Hall 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, FL 32514 |
| Phone: | 850-474-2934 |
| Institution Type: | Regional Masters Comprehensive, Public 4-year |
| Program Type: | Institution-wide honors program |
| Program Enrollment: | 450 per year |
| Previous Honors Positions: | Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences (2002 to present) |
| Present Position: | Director, University Honors Program (since 1998) |
| NCHC Member Since: | 1989 |
Site Visit and Honors Program Reviews:
- University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire (2011)
- DePaul University (2011)
- Loyola University of New Orleans (2011)
- North Carolina A & T State University, (2010)
- Eastern Illinois University (2010)
Further details available upon request.
Other Activities Related to Honors Assessment:
- Co-author, A Practical Handbook for Honors Program and Honors College Assessment and Evaluation, with Rosalie Otero and Bob Spurrier
Co-facilitator, NCHC Assessment and Evaluation Institute, 2012 (Lincoln) 2010 (Atlanta); 2008 (Portland) - Co-Author, “Benchmarking Quality in Challenging Contexts: The Arts, Humanities, and Everything In –Between,” Jossey-Bass
- Curriculum and Assessment workshops/consultations (University of Central Arkansas, University of Central Michigan, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, North Carolina A & T State University
- Presentations on Honors Program Assessment and Honors Student Leaning Outcomes at NCHC Conference (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010)
- Past President, Southern Regional Honors Council, Florida Collegiate Honors Council
Self-Identified Areas of Special Interest and Experience of NCHC Recommended Site Visitors
- Assessment of Honors Outcomes
- Budgeting
Graduation Criteria - Leadership & Enrichment Programs
- NCHC Involvement
- Research about Honors
- Recruitment & Retention of Students
- Honors Faculty Development
- Extracurricular & Co-curricular Activities
- Student Honors Organizations
- Honors Curriculum Design
- Experiential Education
Curriculum Vitae
On the Role of the Site Visitor as Consultants & Program Reviewers
The primary goal of a site visitor is to help others advance the mission of Honors in the academy. An NCHC site visitor is there to offer assistance, to advise, to see things differently from an outsider’s perspective; it’s as simple as that. At its core, Honors is about enhancement—academic enhancement, personal enhancement, and for the site visitor, program enhancement. An NCHC site visitor should always remember that Honors, like Dante’s universe, is driven by desire: students want to be in Honors, Honors directors want their programs to be good and to get better; institutions want Honors to be part of their structure for lots of reasons including prestige, increased student enrollment and retention, better facilities, a better reputation, etc. Therefore, any and all interactions that a site visitor would have with the students, faculty, staff and administration from the host institution should be as positive as possible. The purpose of all assessment should always be to improve the situation at hand, so an NCHC site visitor must be ready to assist, not detract or belittle.
That said, a site visitor must be professional, honest, and objective. In essence, an Honors Program review is very much like any program review in an academic discipline (like NCATE for Education, AACSB for Business, NASM for Music, etc.). The object of such a review is to examine both the written and on-site evidence relating to the performance of the program in all its many facets. As such, a site visitor must first do all the necessary homework and thoroughly read and prepare all the material submitted (although I do hope that most will be humane about these submissions).
Secondly, the site visitor must, must, must listen. Not talk, listen. The site visitor is on campus to gather as much information as possible in what is really an impossibly short time. Professionalism and collegiality are a must, but the temptation to regale the hosts with extensive pointers and lessons on “how we do it at University X” has to be resisted. The written report provides the opportunity to offer a list of recommendations, and that is the vehicle where positive suggestions that emerged during the visit should be raised.
Lastly, the site visitor must respond with the written report in a timely fashion – preferably two, but certainly no more than 3 weeks. Although some important, maybe even crucial, observations may emerge during the visit (and the exit interview), the site visitor must remember that the report constitutes a written document that can and should be used to effect change—sometimes drastic and unwanted change. As such, the site visitor needs to be extremely sensitive to the language used in the report so as to effect meaningful and positive change and not, be it intentional or unintentionally, plant landmines.
