Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 1.

Published byJames Fox Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 1

2 Topics to Cover  Institutional Effectiveness & Assessment  program review overview  UK’s program review schedule & current process  administrative units participating in 2011-2012 cycle  program review components: self study, external review, and implementation plan  role of Planning, Assessment, and Institutional Research  sources that inform review  2011-2012 program review calendar  contacts  questions 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 2

3 What is Institutional Effectiveness? “ “The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission” (SACS Core Requirement 2.5). 32012-2013 Program Review Orientation

4 What is Assessment? Assessment is the process by which … “the institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results” (SACS Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1). 42012-2013 Program Review Orientation

5 What is Assessment at UK? “Assessment is used to monitor the University’s effectiveness in achieving its mission, vision, and goals. The (UK AR 1:4) “Assessment is used to monitor the University’s effectiveness in achieving its mission, vision, and goals. The University and its units shall demonstrate an explicit use of assessment results to facilitate resource allocation and budgeting decisions in support of their strategic plans and to ensure quality enhancement” (UK AR 1:4) 52012-2013 Program Review Orientation

6 What assessment activities monitor UK’s Institutional Effectiveness efforts? Strategic Planning Identifies and prioritizes the actions the University and its units can take to help it best accomplish the University’s goals and fulfill its mission (AR 1:4) 6 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation

7 What assessment activities monitor UK’s Institutional Effectiveness efforts? Annual Progress Reporting  Dynamic process for reviewing, updating and revising strategic planning efforts over a 3-5 year period  Answers the following questions in a systematic and thorough way :  “How are we doing? ---Actual Results  “What things are working? ---Reflection and Analysis  “What needs to happen next?” ---Improvement Action 72012-2013 Program Review Orientation

8 What assessment activities monitor UK’s Institutional Effectiveness efforts? 6 yr Periodic Program Review : the primary vehicle for assessment of educational and administrative units and for documentation of institutional effectiveness (AR 1:4). 424 Units participate in Program Review 77 Administrative and Educational Support units 18 Colleges and Schools 307 Academic Departments and degree programs 22 Research Centers 8 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation

9 Program Review Overview  Background: Program Reviews in Kentucky  Governing Regulation IX-I  Administrative Regulations 1:4  required every 5-7 years for all academic and administrative units (exceptions may be negotiated to align with specialized accreditation cycle) Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 9

10 UK’s Program Review Schedule Schedule & Current Year Progress Updates  Purpose:  communicate to organizational entities the full 6-yr review cycle and when units can expect to undergo program review  Goals:  provide the transparent and accurate maintenance of the review schedule for the university’s educational (academic) and administrative units; and  monitoring unit progress  Administrative Units participating in 2011-2012 Cycle  President: 2 units  Provost: 3 units  EVPFA: 3 units Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 10

11 Program Review Overview, continued  What is the purpose and goal of program review?  to improve the quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning, research, public service, and operations; and  to develop recommendations leading to organizational improvement based on internal evaluation with appropriate input from external experts Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 11

12 Program Review Overview, continued  Who is responsible for satisfying program review?  President, provost and executive vice presidents  deans, vice presidents, associate vice presidents, associate and vice provosts, department chairpersons, directors, and other administrators  Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness  unit/area faculty, staff, and/or appropriate personnel Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 12

13 What are the components of UK’s program review process? 13 Unit/Program Self – Study (internal Review) SWOT Analysis External Review within UK outside UK Recommendations Implementation Plan Quality Enhancement Agenda Annual Progress Report Documentation of enhancement results & Informs Strategic Planning & Budget 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation

14 Program Review Components I.*Self-Study Report (include as appropriate):  program documents  resources  input from affected constituents  adherence to policies and procedures  evaluation of quality and productivity  analysis of strengths and recommendations for quality enhancement  Elements evaluated:  centrality  competitive /comparative advantage  cost effectiveness  demand  quality  distinctiveness *Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 14

15 What are the components of UK’s program review process? 15 Unit/Program Self – Study (internal Review) SWOT Analysis External Review within UK outside UK Recommendations Implementation Plan Quality Enhancement Agenda Annual Progress Report Documentation of enhancement results & Informs Strategic Planning & Budget 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation

16 Program Review Components, continued II.i. External Review (completed by External Review Committee)  examine the self-study report;  use appropriate data collection techniques to assure objectivity;  assess validity of conclusions reached in self-study;  identify additional strengths and recommendations for quality enhancement; and  prepare a final report—report made available to faculty, staff employees, and students Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Slide Reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 16

17 Program Review Components, continued II.ii. Administrative External Review Committee  appointed and charged by administrator to whom the unit head reports  consists of 4-5 members—stakeholders and constituencies affected by the unit program and services  4-5 faculty and staff employees, or students from outside the unit  1-2 ex-officio members, appointed to support external review committee  following external review, meets with unit and its leadership to discuss preliminary findings and writes report Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 17

18 Program Review Components, continued II.iii. External Review Committee Report considers the unit’s…  Program documents: strategic plan (i.e. mission statement, goals, and objectives, & criteria for measuring progress); primary contributions to UK’s mission and vision, organizational chart or structure, & annual progress reports  Resources: adequacy of budget, facilities, equipment, personnel, including faculty and staff numbers demographics, and support from other university units essential to effective operations (e.g., research, engagement, development, alumni affairs, human resources, facilities management, financial units, & information technology)  Input from Affected Constituents: evaluation data from faculty, staff, and students affected by the delivery of program and services to the unit. Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 18

19 Program Review Components, continued II.iii. External Review Committee Report considers the unit’s…  Adherence to Policies and Procedures: evidence of adherence to university policies and procedures (e.g., registration, student activity fees, hiring practices, etc.)  Evaluation of Quality and Productivity: evidence of quality of the collegial culture and climate  Faculty and staff employees, communications and interactions;  Orientation, advising, and other student services programs;  Learning outcomes;  Customer or client satisfaction;  Business and operating procedures; Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 19

20 Accreditation and the External Review Process  Fully Accredited Programs/Units: Accreditation Self- Study, Accreditation Review and Accreditation Report  May Substitute for:  UK’s self-study  UK’s External Review, and  UK’s External Review Committee Report  Will NOT Substitute for:  Program Review Implementation Plan  Partially Accredited Programs/Units: Accreditation Review and Accreditation Report  May ONLY Substitute for:  External Reviewer (s) for the UK External Review 202012-2013 Program Review Orientation

21 What are the components of UK’s program review process? 21 Unit/Program Self – Study (internal Review) SWOT Analysis External Review within UK outside UK Recommendations Implementation Plan Quality Enhancement Agenda Annual Progress Report Documentation of enhancement results & Informs Strategic Planning & Budget 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation

22 Program Review Components, continued III. Implementation Plan  Sets agenda for change and quality enhancement over the next 5-7 year cycle;  unit faculty, staff, and/or students under the leadership of unit head define unit agenda based on self-study and external review report/recommendations;  must be approved by unit head’s supervisor;  used by unit to document future plans and resource needs for consideration in budgetary decision-making; and  supports annual progress reporting Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 22

23 Sources that inform Review  unit website  peer benchmarking and “best practices”  last unit self-study reports (2005-06, or 2006-07)  annual progress reports (past 3 years)  most recent accreditation or certification results and recommendations  formative and summative assessments  qualitative– focus groups, interviews, etc.  quantitative—satisfaction surveys, employer surveys, etc. http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html  Institutional data (provided by Office of Institutional Research) for examples see: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.htmlhttp://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 23

24 Institutional Data Sources Institutional data compiled by the UK Office of Institutional Research can be found at: www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html www.uky.edu/IRPE/ie/supportdata.html www.uky.edu/IRPE/colleges.html 242012-2013 Program Review Orientation

25 Program Review Calendar *Calendar  Purpose:  communicates steps and timeline for completing program review; and  ensures timely completion *Refer to administrative calendar for 2012-2013 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 25

26 Additional Program Review Questions General Program Review Process  Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Email: mia.alexander-snow@uky.edu Office phone: 257-2873 6-Year Schedule  Connie Vaughn Program Planning Coordinator Email: csvaug1@email.uky.edu Office phone: 257-7915 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 26

27 Presentation Contact Information Mia Alexander-Snow Office for Planning & Institutional Effectiveness Website: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ie.htmlhttp://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ie.html Roger Sugarman Office of Institutional Research Website: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/welcome.htmlhttp://www.uky.edu/IRPE/welcome.html 272012-2013 Program Review Orientation

Download ppt "Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness 2012-2013 Program Review Orientation 1."

Similar presentations

The PRR: Linking Assessment, Planning & Budgeting PRR Workshop – April 4, 2013 Barbara Samuel Loftus, Ph.D. Misericordia University.

The PRR: Linking Assessment, Planning & Budgeting PRR Workshop – April 4, 2013 Barbara Samuel Loftus, Ph.D. Misericordia University.
Institutional Effectiveness (ie) and Assessment

Institutional Effectiveness (ie) and Assessment
Using the New CAS Standards to Assess Your Transfer Student Programs and Services Janet Marling, Executive Director National Institute for the Study of.

Using the New CAS Standards to Assess Your Transfer Student Programs and Services Janet Marling, Executive Director National Institute for the Study of.
STRATEGIC PLAN Community Unit School District 300 7/29/2013 1.

STRATEGIC PLAN Community Unit School District 300 7/29/
Campus Improvement Plans

Campus Improvement Plans
HLC Writing Team 0 Mike Schaefer - Chair of SPARC 0 Lynn Burley - Director of Academic Assessment 0 Janet Wilson - Faculty Senate President 0 Dianna Winters.

HLC Writing Team 0 Mike Schaefer - Chair of SPARC 0 Lynn Burley - Director of Academic Assessment 0 Janet Wilson - Faculty Senate President 0 Dianna Winters.
PREPARING FOR SACS Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs July 13, 2004.

PREPARING FOR SACS Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs July 13, 2004.
Institutional Effectiveness Operational Update Presentation made to the Indiana State University Board of Trustees October 5, 2001.

Institutional Effectiveness Operational Update Presentation made to the Indiana State University Board of Trustees October 5, 2001.
IT Strategic Planning Project – Hamilton Campus FY2005.

IT Strategic Planning Project – Hamilton Campus FY2005.
UK’s Program Review for Educational Units Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Roger Sugarman, PhD Director,

UK’s Program Review for Educational Units Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Roger Sugarman, PhD Director,
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.

Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) Standard One Institutional Mission and Goals, Planning and Effectiveness Task Force Members Juanita.

Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) Standard One Institutional Mission and Goals, Planning and Effectiveness Task Force Members Juanita.
The Pathway to Success Goal IV Strengthen and Leverage Programs of Strength and Promise.

The Pathway to Success Goal IV Strengthen and Leverage Programs of Strength and Promise.
ONE-STOP SHOP: INTEGRATED ONLINE PROGRAM REVIEW AND BUDGET PLANNING Daylene Meuschke, Ed.D. Director, Institutional Research Barry Gribbons, Ph.D. Assistant.

ONE-STOP SHOP: INTEGRATED ONLINE PROGRAM REVIEW AND BUDGET PLANNING Daylene Meuschke, Ed.D. Director, Institutional Research Barry Gribbons, Ph.D. Assistant.
 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and.

 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and.
Reaffirmation of Accreditation: Institutional Effectiveness Southern Association of Colleges and Schools February 2008 Stephen F. Austin State University.

Reaffirmation of Accreditation: Institutional Effectiveness Southern Association of Colleges and Schools February 2008 Stephen F. Austin State University.
Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Planning & Institutional Effectiveness Tara Rose, MPA Assessment Roger Sugarman, PhD Institutional Research.

Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Planning & Institutional Effectiveness Tara Rose, MPA Assessment Roger Sugarman, PhD Institutional Research.
Graduate Program Review Where We Are, Where We Are Headed and Why Duane K. Larick, Associate Graduate Dean Presentation to Directors of Graduate Programs.

Graduate Program Review Where We Are, Where We Are Headed and Why Duane K. Larick, Associate Graduate Dean Presentation to Directors of Graduate Programs.
Maureen Noonan Bischof Eden Inoway-Ronnie Office of the Provost Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association Annual Meeting April 22, 2007.

Maureen Noonan Bischof Eden Inoway-Ronnie Office of the Provost Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association Annual Meeting April 22, 2007.
Sub-theme Three The Self-Assessment Process and Embedding QA into the Life of an Institution by Terry Miosi, Ph.D. UAE Qualification Framework Project.

Sub-theme Three The Self-Assessment Process and Embedding QA into the Life of an Institution by Terry Miosi, Ph.D. UAE Qualification Framework Project.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google