Presentation on theme: "Oral Roberts University PROGRAM REVIEW Dr. Cal Easterling Dr. Gweth Holzmann Dr. Connie Sjoberg."— Presentation transcript:
Oral Roberts University PROGRAM REVIEW Dr. Cal Easterling Dr. Gweth Holzmann Dr. Connie Sjoberg
ORU’s PROGRAM REVIEW
ORU PROGRAM REVIEW The Program Review Panel, convened by the Director of Institutional Research, conducts a program review process for all academic programs of the University. The review process will be completed for each ORU academic program once during every ten year period.
Fourfold Purpose (1)to provide evidence for the pursuit of and ongoing achievement of the University’s mission; (2) to demonstrate accountability for the academic programs delivered by this University; (3) to encourage program improvement and innovation; and (4) to provide information to assist University-level decisions about program revisions, program deletions, and resource allocation based upon program prioritization.
PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS PROGRAM INDICATORS POSSIBLE DECISIONS REVIEW
SELECTED INDICATORS Demonstrated Student Learning Outcomes (University-Wide Level) Expenditure/Faculty FTE Expenditure/Student FTE Research/Students Research-Publish/Faculty Expenditure/Credit Hour Field Tests/Professional Tests Community Service/Faculty Faculty Survey Community Service/Students Future Growth or Decline Potential Current Student Survey Student/Faculty Diversity Employer/Graduate Faculty Survey Demonstrated Student Learning Outcomes (Program Level) General Ed Assessment Assessment: Catalog, Use of Rubrics, ePortfolio, etc. Student Opinion Surveys Alumni Survey Expenditure/Credit Hour
POSSIBLE DECISIONS FROM PROGRAM REVIEW PHASE OUT: The program should be eliminated. REVIEW: Some pressing issues or concerns raised by the Panel’s review of the program need immediate investigation by appropriate administrators and faculty. MAINTAIN but REVIEW: The program should be continued but its review has raised questions or concerns about specific aspects of the program that should be further investigated and addressed by appropriate administrators and faculty.
POSSIBLE DECISIONS FROM PROGRAM REVIEW MAINTAIN: The program should be continued. This recommendation should not be misconstrued to mean that such programs have sufficient resources to maintain quality, or that they should be maintained 'as is'. Many programs in this category make strong appeals for specific types of additional support, usually staffing and/or equipment. ENHANCE: The program should be provided significant additional resources.
Formulae for Program Review Program Budget = (Program Faculty Salaries / Dept. Faculty Salaries) X Dept. Budget Cost Per Faculty FTE = Program Budget / Faculty FTE Cost Per Student FTE = Program Budget / Student FTE Cost Per Credit Hour = Program Budget / Academic Year Credit Hours in Major
First Year Process Self-study by the academic unit responsible for the program. If the program is externally accredited, the Program Review Panel will accept the self- study prepared for the external agency in lieu of the ORU-prescribed document.
40. Diversity Training Dr. Collier organized at least a diversity of thought issue in hosting Dr. Phllip Johnson on the whole Intelligent Design and Evolution issue which was attended by students, faculty and was open to the public and many local Tulsa residents attended. Drs Collier and Weed both teach in the Philosophy of Science honors course which is multi disciplinary by its vary nature, bringing together elements of thought from theology, history, ethics, behavioral science, philosophy, and science. 41.Mentoring Students Faculty advisors assume the role of mentors on a regular basis. Faculty invite students to their homes and spent quality time with them outside of the formal class setting, particularly in the Senior Paper context. The Chemical Instrumentation and Quantitative Analysis classes are really mentoring sessions between faculty and students as they solve problems together. 42.Learning CommunityLearning Community The American Chemical Society is definitely a learning community as students and faculty meet one a month for activities and special seminars. The MCAT self assessment and self study mentoring group is another learning community as students meet to share ideas and information about getting into medical school. The Philosophy of Science and Christian Worldview group composed of chemistry students and chemistry faculty is a learning group designed to enhance the learning experience. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO ENHANCE FACILITATION OF LEARNING- PROGRAM LEVEL 43.Eighth Floor Coupon HoursDrs. Weed and Klehm are both certified Master teachers and have led multiple workshops 44.Eighth Floor Other All departmental faculty have attended one or more Eight Floor classes and are now actively designing and using Power Point presentations in their teaching. Most have presentations and notes on either a web site or on eli. 45.Professional Meetings Attended 58 th Annual American Scientific Affiliation meeting in Lakewood, Colorado presentation on “Teaching Honors Level Philosophy of Science/Origins in a Christian University Environment” (Dr. Collier). 46.Conferences/Meetings on Campus Arranged and hosted (in conjunction with the Faculty Christian Worldview Committee) the internationally known founder of the Intelligent Design Movement and author of the best selling book titled Darwin on Trial UC Berkeley professor emeritus Professor of Law Philip Johnson., 47.Visitation of Classrooms by ChairOnce per academic year usually in the spring semester. 48.Visitation of Classrooms by PeersFaculty usually choose this pathway in the spring semester. 49.Faculty Mentoring ActivitiesSeveral faculty have been involved in the New Faculty Mentoring Program. 50.Professional Development Plans (completed, approved, and reviewed)See attached Appendix B 51.Leadership Development Activities (for faculty) 52.Leadership Development Activities (for students) The American Chemical Society student affiliates chapter holds annual elections for its officers. This is an excellent leadership training opportunity. An annual report to the main office of the ACS must be written before school ends. The club holds numerous events during the academic year. 53.Faculty Participation in CCCU Events, AuSable, Heart, etc. Drs Weed and Collier together with undergraduate theology faculty from ORU regularly attend CCCU Calvin College meetings on Christian Worldview, Ethics and Philosophy of Science. 54.Student Participation in CCCU Events, AuSable, Heart, etc.Biomedical Chemistry majors often attend the summer AuSable course to earn one of their required biology field course credits. 55.Student Opinion Survey (Rank, Average, Participation)-Supply Grid for Faculty Members in Program For fall 203, chemistry was 8 th with 100% of the faculty participating for 100% of the classes taught and 466 student responses with a cumulative average of See attached Appendix C ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM 56. ACT/SAT Average ScoreACT = GPA (Provided by Registrar) CAAP Test (Students in Program) a.Essay (Writing) b.Science ReasoningScore = 55 (Critical Thinking for one student) Score = 65 (Science Reasoning for one student) c.Mathematics 59.CAAP Test (Students in General Education Courses within Program)
PROGRAM REVIEW SURVEYS Faculty Survey Current Students Survey Alumni Survey Employer/Graduate Faculty Survey
SECOND YEAR PROCESS Site visit by members of the Program Review Panel. Program Review Rubric completed by panel members and submitted. Analysis of the self study by a third party from a similar program at another university.
Program Review Volunteers Last NameFirst NameHome DepartmentAssigned Program DimiceliVincentCSC/MathematicsChemistry DoernerLaurieNursingChemistry MullicanLenoreMod. LanguageChemistry ChapmanRobertUnd. BusinessGraphic Design MeyersKayEnglishGraphic Design WeisLisaUnd. EducationGraphic Design LampJeffreyUnd. TheologyStudio Art LarremoreJaysonHis-Hum-GovStudio Art SjobergConnieInst. ResearchStudio Art SheltonJamesUnd. Theology(2006) WeedKennethChemistry(2006)
Program Review Rubrics CRITERIAEXEMPLARY 4 COMPETENT 3 ACCEPTABLE 2 QUESTIONABLE 1 UNACCEPTABLE INSUFFICIENT DATA 0 SCORE ITEM 1 History Complete history with faculty timeline, changes in the program, relates the program to the ORU mission. Shows how history laid a foundation for the future. Complete history, faculty timeline, changes in the program, relates the program to the ORU mission History but does not relate the program to the ORU mission? Incomplete or vague history or reveals non- fulfillment of mission Not attempted ITEM 2 Accreditation or Professional Comparison Meets 90% of accreditation or professional standards AND compares favorably to an exemplary program elsewhere Meets 70% of accreditation or professional standards AND compares favorably to an exemplary program elsewhere Meets at least 50% of accreditation or professional standards AND compares to an exemplary program elsewhere Does not meet at least 50% of accreditation or professional standards OR compares unfavorably to an exemplary program elsewhere Not attempted ITEM 3 Employment Opportunities for Graduates Provides convincing evidence of current employment opportunities for graduates AND credible and favorable projection of future job opportunities Provides convincing evidence of current employment opportunities for graduates AND credible projection of future job opportunities Provides evidence of current employment opportunities for graduates OR credible projection of future job opportunities Cannot provide evidence of current employment opportunities for graduates AND no credible projection of future job opportunities Not attempted
Program Review Questions for Third Party Reviewers 1.Based on the information provided, do you have any comments on the correlation of the program with the overall mission of the university? 2.Based on the information provided, do you have any comments on the cost of the program, per value to the students? 3.Suggestions for improvement in terms of faculty development--further education, publications, presentations, grant proposal writing, etc. 4.Are there any essential substantive areas in this field that we are not covering, or that we are dealing with inadequately? 5.What are your thoughts regarding the curriculum--course variety, logical sequence, or unnecessary or outdated courses? Are there any fundamental or cutting edge topics we should address? 6.Do you have a comment on your perception of the overall quality of this program (based on the information provided)? 7.Do you have a comment on your perception of the overall prestige or academic reputation of this program? 8.If you were to become the director of this program, in which direction do you think it should be moved over the next five years? 9.Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Alumni survey. 10.Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Current Student survey. 11.Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Faculty survey. 12.Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Employer/Graduate Faculty survey. 13.Are there other questions or data that we should require from this program? 14.Other comments (if any).
Third Year Process The program has an opportunity to respond to the suggestions of the Program Review Panel by submitting an action plan for the correction of all concerns.
Future Considerations Streamline Program Review process to at 3-5 year cycle. Consider a Program Review process for the co-curricular programs and services on campus.
Oral Roberts University PROGRAM REVIEW All the documents to which we have referred are available at: