1 Establishing a New Gallaudet Program Review Process Pat Hulsebosch Office of Academic Quality CUE – 9/3/08: CGE – 9/16/08

2 Expectations in Higher Education  Academic quality  Sustainable and continuous improvement  Systematic review (assessment) and improvement of quality at all levels Program faculty Department Chairs Deans Faculty governance (for an institutional perspective) Provost -  Reports to President and BOT  Integrated – not ad hoc – systems for assessment = Shared governance

3 What is quality?  [What you teach] -  What students learn  University Indicators (e.g.) (see Gallaudet Strategic Plan Plan/Goals_Objectives_and_Indicators.html) National Survey of Student Engagement: Academic Challenge and Active and Collaborative Learning # of students who are enrolled # of students who are retained Time it takes to graduate % of students who achieve the target outcome in literacy  Student Learning Outcomes Assessment (Data, Analysis & Use)

4 Program Review  Program review (Academic Program Review: APR) is the evaluation of a program’s contribution to students, faculty, the institution and the larger community --- to the mission.  Program review is also a process of self-study— based on data: What is the program doing effectively? Where can the program continue to improve?  Based on assessment of student learning  Based on institutionally significant data

5 Establishing a New Gallaudet Program Review Process Timeline  AY FALL, 2008  Development of Program Review Criteria, Protocol, Implementation Plan, Timeline, Recommendations for Governance  Communication with Gallaudet Community  End of November: Proposal to Senate; request for January agenda SPRING, 2009  January – Presentation to Senate  Communication with Gallaudet Community  February to March – Continued discussions with Senate, Senate Ex Committee, and Provost’s Governance work group  April – Faculty review of proposal  AY First cohort of programs begin self-study (Fall) Second cohort of programs begin self-study (Spr)  AY First Program Review by Councils

6 Academic Program Review: Self-Study  The Self-Study identifies the key strengths and weaknesses of the Unit’s programs. It includes strategies for continued development of its strengths and correction of its weaknesses. In the process of preparing the Self-Study, the unit revisits and renews its Action Plan for the Strategic Plan, trends and “best practices” in the field. The Self-Study should also provide existing data from sources such as the Strategic Planning Reports, Annual Assessment Updates, trienniel Assessment Reports, and Institutional Research that will assist the Review Team in understanding the Unit’s work.

7 Program Review is intended….  ….to provide helpful information through a process that is designed to be thorough yet not excessively burdensome to faculty and administrators. In this light, the data collected and reported in the APR process should be that which has been collected in a systematic and routine manner and not specifically for the purpose of this report. Eastern Kentucky University Academic Program Review Resource Manual ( )

8 Program Review  Built from planning and assessment that the program has already done: Program action plan for institutional strategic plan (to be developed this Fall) Program Outcomes (developed last year) Assessment Reports (begun last year) Institutional Research data (data warehouse)

9 Program Review  Results of program reviews are used to make decisions about: Enhancement Continuation Merger/consolidation Reduction or elimination

10 Key Features of Proposed Academic Program Review (APR)  APR comprehensive and periodic review (every 6-8 years)  For accredited programs, coordinates w accreditation review Accreditation report may constitute major part of Program Review  APR a function of Academic Affairs in conjunction with College Deans, Department Faculty, and Academic Senate

11 Sample Components of Program Review 1)Program’s contribution to GU’s Mission and Strategic Goals Success of the program in fulfilling its mission according to its own strategic plan action plans and indicators Productivity, viability, and quality indicators (according to Dept. strategic plan) Recruitment, retention, and graduation trends Other evidence of progress towards strategic goals

12 Sample Components of Program Review (continued) 2)[Concerns of prior program reviews] 3)Assessment of student learning Assessment of student learning/success Student/Alumni/Employer evaluations of the program Analysis of assessments Past program improvement based on assessments 4)Additional indicators of program achievement 5)Qualifications of program faculty 6)Priorities for continued improvement (based on 3 and 4)

13 Sample Program Review Timeline  One Year: Program conducts self-study  One Year: Program Review by Council, External Reviewer, Program  Council, Dean, Provost Recommendations to Dean, Provost, and Council Department responds to recommendations and develops Action Plan Provost forwards executive summary of the review to President’s Office  One Year: Program acts on Review Recommendations; reports back to Councils and Academic Affairs on progres

14 Senate Council Roles in APR  Finalizing the Program Review Criteria, Implementation Plan, Protocol, Timeline, relationship with Governance, and a communication plan – Approval ( )  Developing Determining (after consultation with Deans) the cycle for reviews of departments and centers Who’s first? When? Suggestion: Pilot test the first group ( )  Monitoring the quality of the review process ( ) by: Receiving and reviewing the departments self study Establishing and maintaining minimum criteria for reviews to ensure the regular collection of uniform data for the University Receiving copies of the individual reviews and responses Receiving an annual report from the Provost giving the results of the reviews completed or in progress

15 Office of Academic Quality in APR  Supporting the development of Program Review criteria, Implementation Plan, Timeline, and Protocol through: Examples from other universities Comparative analyses of Program Review process at other universities Supporting communication through websites and other PR Providing technical assistance re. MSCHE and other accreditation requirements Supporting integration of Program Review process with Institutional Research and Office of Assessment