EVALUATOR TIPS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT WRITING The following slides were excerpted from an evaluator training session presented as part of the June 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2012 EXAMINER TRAINING Examples of NERD Comment Formatting
Advertisements

IMPLEMENTING EABS MODERNIZATION Patrick J. Sweeney School Administration Consultant Educational Approval Board November 15, 2007.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report District Accreditation Forsyth County Schools February 15, 2012.
School Based Assessment and Reporting Unit Curriculum Directorate
2014 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Polishing Feedback Comments Sample 3: Results Strength.
Using Baldrige to Create Organizational Alignment & Integration
June 2002QPRC 2002, Tempe, Arizona A Workshop on Assessing to the Baldrige Criteria Cheryl L. Jennings, Motorola Lynn Kelley, Textron.
School Improvement Through Capacity Building The PLC Process.
Report of the Committee of Visitors Energy Frontier Research Centers and Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis Energy Innovation Hub Office of Basic.
What is Pay & Performance?
Bryan Roach Chairman Crime Stoppers Australia. Strategic Planning The process for defining strategy (direction) and decision making For Crime Stoppers,
© Grant Thornton UK LLP. All rights reserved. Review of Partnership Working: Follow Up Review Vale of Glamorgan Council Final Report- November 2009.
Campus Improvement Plans
Selected Items from a Report of the Higher Learning Commission Comprehensive Evaluation Visit to OSU Pam Bowers Director, University Assessment & Testing.
Program Evaluation Strategies to Improve Teaching for Learning Rossi Ray-Taylor and Nora Martin Ray.Taylor and Associates MDE/NCA Spring School Improvement.
Applicant Name RMPEx Site Visit Opening Meeting Team Leader - Team Members –
Understanding AQIP (Academic Quality Improvement Project) Some slides and/or information have been borrowed with permission from their originators: 1.
System Office Performance Management
Performance Appraisal System Update
ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP: SESSION 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES ACADEMIC AND STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PRESENTED BY THE DIVISION OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.
System Office Performance Management
2010 Performance Evaluation Process Information Session for Staff
Columbia-Greene Community College The following presentation is a chronology of the College strategic planning process, plan and committee progress The.
Self-Assessment for Continuous Improvement: Tools and Techniques 16 September 2009.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Customer Focus Module Preview
Quality and Accreditation (1/3) Certification of Kingdom Tower for “ FIT for PURPOSE ” Series of tests of “Fitness” of sub-systems: Foundation Sub-Systems.
National Frameworks of Qualifications, and the UK Experience Dr Robin Humphrey Director of Research Postgraduate Training Faculty of Humanities and Social.
2014 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Polishing Feedback Comments Sample 1: Process Strength.
Session Goals: To redefine assessment as it relates to our University mission. To visit assessment plan/report templates and ensure understanding for.
February 8, 2012 Session 3: Performance Management Systems 1.
Applicant Name RMPEx Site Visit Opening Meeting Team Leader - Team Members –
Michigan Quality Leadership Award New Examiner Training 2014.
District Workforce Module Preview This PowerPoint provides a sample of the District Workforce Module PowerPoint. The actual Overview PowerPoint is 62 slides.
Scoring 1. Scoring Categories 1 – 6 (Process Categories) Examiners select a score (0-100) to summarize their observed strengths and opportunities for.
Staff Performance Evaluation Process
Focus on Learning: Student Outcomes Assessment and the Learning College.
JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE WORKSHOP
Working Definition of Program Evaluation
National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Developmental Reviews at King Saud University.
December 10, 2007 Denise Shields Shields Resource Group H&HS Performance Measurements Evaluating and Aligning Existing Metrics.
Capacity Self-Assessment as a management tool for organisational development planning u A model used for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration,
University of Idaho Successful External Program Review Archie George, Director Institutional Research and Assessment Jane Baillargeon, Assistant Director.
Institutional Accreditation: What is it? Higher Learning Commission accredits degree- granting institutions in the North Central region. Assurance to the.
Applicant Name RMPEx Site Visit Opening Meeting Team Leader - Team Members –
2008 AHCA/NCAL National Quality Award Program - Step III Overview - Jon Frantsvog Ira Schoenberger Tim Case.
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006 JoLynn Noe, Assistant Director Office of Assessment
Factor0–5%10–25%30–45%50–65%70–85%90–100% Approach No systematic approach to Item requirements is evident; information is anecdotal. The beginning of a.
The Conceptual Framework: What It Is and How It Works Linda Bradley, James Madison University Monica Minor, NCATE April 2008.
Tennessee Center for Performance Excellence Section 2 – Process Evaluation Factors.
Kathy Corbiere Service Delivery and Performance Commission
Revisions to the nwccu accreditation standards: what does it mean for me? Diane E. Waryas.
Pulaski Technical College Accreditation Overview November 19,
Accreditation Overview Winter 2016 Mallory Newell, Accreditation Liaison Office.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation Sugar Grove Elementary September 29, 2010.
1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES RECEIVE A QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Performance Measurement, Program and Project Evaluation.
2016 Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | Writing High-Quality Feedback for 2016 Baldrige Award Applicants.
Canberra Chapter July PMI Chapter Meeting July 2007 PMCDF Competence Framework A presentation by Chris Cartwright.
If I hear, I forget. If I see, I remember. If I do, I understand. Rubrics.
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program | New Examiner Orientation and Examiner Training Experience Welcome to … BALDRIGE.
Instructional Leadership Supporting Common Assessments.
Last Updated: 5/12/2016 Goal Setting and Professional Development Plan Teacher Overview.
AQIP Categories Category One: Helping Students Learn focuses on the design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and on the processes.
Stages of Research and Development
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
NICC Self-Study The Road to Excellence
Applicant Name RMPEx Site Visit Opening Meeting
Chicago Public Schools
UNIVERSITY SUPPORT AND Work Force Leadership Development Workshop
Institutional Self Evaluation Report Team Training
Presentation transcript:

EVALUATOR TIPS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT WRITING The following slides were excerpted from an evaluator training session presented as part of the June 2011 CBFA Conference. Special thanks to Dr. Annette Craven for providing resources she received after participating in a recent national Baldrige examiner training.

Use of Standards & Criteria The Standards and Criteria serve as the basis for: Providing feedback to applicants in the form of Process & Results Strength comments OFI comments

Process Maturity

Individual Review

Individual Review Process Read Overview Read Standards One - Six

Evaluation Dimensions Approach Deployment Results Improvement (Learning)

Approach Appropriateness of methods Effectiveness of the methods The degree to which the approach is repeatable and based on reliable data and information (i.e., systematic)

Systematic Documented Repeated Evaluated Improved

Deployment (Implementation) the approach applied in addressing the requirements is relevant and important to the organization the approach is applied consistently the approach is used by all appropriate work units

Results Current performance Rate and breadth of your performance improvements Performance relative to appropriate comparisons and/or benchmarks Linking results measures to important customer, market, process, and action plan performance requirements identified in the Overview and in Approach-Deployment Items.

Where to Look for Results Results are found throughout the ACBSP Standards, for example: Student/Stakeholder Satisfaction (Standard 3) Student Learning Outcomes (Standard 4) Faculty Deployment & Qualifications (Standard 5) Business Process Results (Standard 6) Performance is generally presented in one of three ways Charts/Graphs Tables Narrative

What Should You Look For? Expected Results Appropriate Comparisons Important Segmentation

Appropriate Comparisons Performance is examined relative to competitors and/or other organizations providing similar products and services Include appropriate comparative data

Improvement (Learning) Refining the approach through cycles of evaluation and improvement Encouraging breakthrough change to the approach through innovation Sharing refinements and innovations with other academic departments or disciplines and processes in your school of business or institution

Writing Evaluator Observations Self-study Standards and Criteria Booklet ACBSP handouts including evaluator workbook

Observation Guidelines Observations should be: Standards and Criterion based Relevant Clear Concise Actionable

Observation Guidelines (Cont.) Observations should not: Parrot the self-study Be prescriptive Be judgmental Conflict with one another

Strength Observations: 3 Components Nugget what the business unit does to merit the score you assign to them Example(s) are the things the organization does with some level of proficiency Relevance Why the observation is important for the business unit (e.g. mission related, etc.)

Strength Observation Example The development of the budget is an integral part of the strategic planning process. This ensures that the budget reflects the business units strategic priorities. As a result, both long-term plans and shorter range operational activities are focused on the organizations mission, vision, and values.

OFIs Is an opportunity for improvement Is not necessarily a weakness Is what prevents an applicant from scoring at a higher level Is tied to the Standards and Criteria

Example of an OFI Observation the business unit, through its strategic planning process has identified four key initiatives with associated goals. It is not clear, however, how these goals are being measured and the lack of an established timeframe make it difficult to gauge progress toward achieving them.

So Whats Explains the significance of the observation so that the business unit doesnt have to ask, So what? Can be used with both Strengths and OFIs though more commonly used with OFIs

Wheres the So What? the business unit, through its strategic planning process has identified four key initiatives with associated goals. It is not clear, however, how these goals are being measured and the lack of an established timeframe make it difficult to gauge progress toward achieving them.

Wheres the So What? the business unit, through its strategic planning process has identified four key initiatives with associated goals. It is not clear, however, how these goals are being measured and the lack of an established timeframe make it difficult to gauge progress toward achieving them.

Guidelines for Results Start with a subject from the self-study or the Criteria Include the time frame you are writing about -- such as in 2009 or from 2005 to 2010 Include the actual numbers observed in the levels or trends Include figure references

Results Strength the business unit operates in a fiscally sound manner as evidenced by its Aaa and AAA bond ratings (Figure 7.3-1) and debt capacity (Figures and ). These results suggest that the business unit makes financial decisions with its long-term financial viability and sustainability in mind.

Results OFI Only 3 of the 13 figures in Standard 4, Criterion 4.3 contain comparative data. Without comparative data it is difficult to evaluate the business units current level of performance or the trends they report in these figures.

Whats Wrong with this Observation? The standard being addressed is in need of improvement. The OFI does not provide enough information – how does the business unit respond to the comment and how do the commissioners identify the weak area.

Whats Wrong with this Observation? An opportunity exists to broaden the advanced educational experience of the faculty by hiring and/or sending current faculty to a broader range of institutions than is currently the case. This may result in a broader base of knowledge for students in the Department of Business. This is a prescriptive comment – the Standards and Criteria do not prescribe which institutions faculty members should be hired from.

Whats Wrong with this Observation? Although the team was delighted with the depth of the understanding and the commitment to assessment, there were numerous closing the loop issues based on the self study report review. Upon examination and audit during the site visit, numerous closing the loop evidences were discovered. Team was delighted is judgmental and the issues discussed in the OFI were resolved while on site. This is not an OFI – it can actually be a strength.

Critique vs. information It is not clear Not addressing both feedback report customers: Commissioner and school/program Too much brevity Lack of clarity; So what? Program Evaluator Self-Study Review not converted to Feedback Report format Comments limited to they have a plan… Preliminary comments not prepared prior to site visit Common Mistakes

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN REVIEWING THE SELF-STUDY: 1.What approach is described? Is it systematic? 2.How is the approach deployed and to what extent for applicable stakeholder groups? 3.Are the results presented? 4. Is there evidence of learning or improvements?

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN REVIEWING THE SELF-STUDY: 1.Are the results presented? 2.Are there three to five data points? 3.Are the results segmented? 3.Are comparisons provided (e.g.,peer, national norm, etc.) ? 4. Are targets/benchmarks identified?