UK’s Program Review for Educational Units Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Roger Sugarman, PhD Director,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Setting internal Quality Assurance systems
Advertisements

Using the New CAS Standards to Assess Your Transfer Student Programs and Services Janet Marling, Executive Director National Institute for the Study of.
CYPRUS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Internal Evaluation Procedures at CUT Quality Assurance Seminar Organised by the Ministry of Education and Culture and.
Strategic Plan Briefing Session Progress and Challenges Spring
2015 Workshop Permanent Status and Promotion Policy and Procedures Overview.
Process Management Robert A. Sedlak, Ph.D Provost and Vice Chancellor, UW-Stout Education Community of Practice Conference At Tusside in Turkey September.
1 Southern Connecticut State University Graduate Council Academic Standards Committee Procedures for Southern Connecticut State University.
About Administration Requirements/ Processes Particulars Master of Engineering Degree Designed for Distance Learning A collaborative program designed by.
Graduate Program Review Prof. Emad Ali. Major Review Steps Self-study Report External evaluation Apply actions for improvement.
 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and.
Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Planning & Institutional Effectiveness Tara Rose, MPA Assessment Roger Sugarman, PhD Institutional Research.
Maria Thompson Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs Academic Affairs Restructuring Proposal 23 April 2012.
Strategic Planning Summit GAP/Committee Chairs/IE December 5,
Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Program Review Orientation 1.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT
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.
Federal Emphasis on Accountability in Higher Education and Regional Accreditation Processes Carla D. Sanderson Commissioner, Southern Association of Colleges.
Getting to Know Your Academic Senate A Guide for Faculty, Staff, and Students of SJSU Why you need to know about the SJSU Academic Senate.
Ron Strauss Lynn Williford Jim Dean Office of the Provost.
Collaborative Programmes Annual and Periodic Quality Assurance Arrangements Rebecca Broome Quality Management Division November 2007.
Basic Workshop For Reviewers NQAAC Recognize the developmental engagements Ensure that they operate smoothly and effectively” Ensure that all team members.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Orientation to the Engineering Education System.  Organization of engineering education  Community college role in engineering education  The engineering.
University of Idaho Successful External Program Review Archie George, Director Institutional Research and Assessment Jane Baillargeon, Assistant Director.
Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Program Review Orientation 1.
University of Central Florida Assessment Toolkit for Academic, Student and Enrollment Services Dr. Mark Allen Poisel Dr. Ron Atwell Dr. Paula Krist Dr.
WHO Global Standards. 5 Key Areas for Global Standards Program graduates Program graduates Program development and revision Program development and revision.
Practicing Meaningful Learning Outcomes Assessment at UGA Department of Crop and Soil Sciences August 10, 2015 Dr. Leslie Gordon Associate Director for.
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science Review and Planning Process Fall 1998.
POST-TENURE REVIEW: Report and Recommendations. 2 OVERVIEW Tenure Field Test Findings Recommendations This is a progress report. Implementation, assessment,
Proposal Development by Faculty in an Academic Unit College, School, Department, or Program Proposal Preparation Office of Academic Programs, Assessment,
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006 JoLynn Noe, Assistant Director Office of Assessment
Faculty Governance Jane Dillehay Faculty Chair Jan Hafer AAUP Chair 12 August 2011.
Continuous Improvement. Focus of the Review: Continuous Improvement The unit will engage in continuous improvement between on-site visits. Submit annual.
Briefing Michael Mulvey PhD Director of Academic Affairs and Registrar
STRATEGIC PLANNING & WASC UPDATE Tom Bennett Presentation to Academic Senate February 1, 2006.
External Review Team: Roles and Responsibilities A Very Brief Training! conducted by JoLynn Noe Office of Assessment.
KSU’s Quality Enhancement Plan.  Current Core Requirement 2.12  The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that (1)
October 14, 2014 Reaffirmation of UofL.
Presentation on Outcomes Assessment Presentation on Outcomes Assessment toCCED Mohawk Valley Community College October 11, 2004.
Proposal Development by Faculty in an Academic Unit College, School, Department, or Program Proposal Preparation Office of Academic Programs, Assessment,
UTPA 2012: A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE DIVISION OF THE PRESIDENT Approved by the President in Spring  Provide students with a quality educational.
 Julie Bruno, Sierra College  Roberta Eisel, Citrus College  Fred Hochstaedter, Monterey Peninsula College.
1 Establishing a New Gallaudet Program Review Process Pat Hulsebosch Office of Academic Quality CUE – 9/3/08: CGE – 9/16/08.
Presented by the Outreach & Training Subcommittee of College Planning Council, as required by Section V.8 of the College Planning Council Handbook College.
Strategic planning A Tool to Promote Organizational Effectiveness
Academic Program Review Workshop 2017
Academic Program Review
Principles of Good Governance
DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITY OF PRISHTINA/KOSOVO
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
The Application Process Understanding the IERs (Institutional Eligibility Requirements ) 2106 TRACS Annual Conference.
The Role of Students in Program and Course Evaluation
New Program Proposal Workflow Chart
GOVERNANCE COUNCILS AND HARTNELL’S GOVERNANCE MODEL
Department of Political Science & Sociology North South University
Quality Assurance and Enhancement at The University of Edinburgh
New Program Director Workshop:
Clinical Engineering Lecture (3).
Programme Review Dhaya Naidoo Director: Quality Promotion
Sam Houston State University
Orientation to the Engineering Education System
New Certificate Program
External Examiner Reports
New Degree (Undergraduate, First Professional, Graduate) Program
Orientation to the Engineering Education System
Sam Houston State University
Fort Valley State University
Orientation to the Engineering Education System
Program Modification “Academic Year 2019” Assumption University
Presentation transcript:

UK’s Program Review for Educational Units Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Roger Sugarman, PhD Director, Office for Institutional Research 1

Topics to Cover  program review overview  program review schedule & current process  educational units participating in cycle  program review components: self study, external review, and implementation plan  sources that inform the review  program review calendar  contacts  questions Program Review Orientation Workshops 2

 Background: Program Reviews in Kentucky  Governing Regulation IX-I  required every 5-7 years for all academic and administrative units (exceptions may be negotiated to align with specialized accreditation cycle)  Role of Council of Postsecondary Education (CPE) Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/ Program Review Orientation Workshops 3 Program Review Overview

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  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/ Program Review Orientation Workshops 4

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 Program Review Orientation Workshops 5

Educational Units participating in Cycle  College of Agriculture:  4 departments/college  21 degree programs  College of Arts and Sciences:  9 departments  21 degree programs  College of Engineering  1 center  9 departments  27 degree programs  College of Fine Arts  2 departments  9 degree programs  College of Medicine Program Review Workshops 6

Educational Units Participating in Cycle College of Agriculture  Animal and Food Sciences (BSASC, MS, PhD)  Food Science (BSFOS)  Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering (BSBN, MSBAE, PhD)  College of Agriculture (interdisciplinary) (BSAG)  Merchandising, Apparel & Textiles (MSMAT)  Home Economics (MS)  Human Nutrition (BS)  Nutrition and Food Science (BSD, BSFOS, BSHE, BSHN)  Nutrition and Food Science—Hospitality Management (BSHM)  Crop Science (Ms, PhD)  Plant & Soil Science (BSHPS)  Plant Physiology (PhD)  Soil Science (PhD) Program Review Workshops 7

Educational Units Participating in Cycle College of Arts & Sciences  Biology (BA/BS, MS, PhD)  Economics (BA/BS, MS)  Geology (BA/BS, MS, PhD)  Hispanic Studies (BA/BS, MS, PhD)  Spanish (BA/BS)  History (BA/BS, MA, PhD)  Mathematics (BA/BS, MA/MS, PhD)  Applied Mathematics (MS)  Mathematical Statistics (MS, PhD)  College Administrative units Program Review Workshop 8

Educational Units participating in Cycle College of Engineering  Biomedical Engineering (BSCHE, MSBE, MSPMBE, PhD)  Materials Engineering (BSMAE, MsMSCE, PhD)  Civil Engineering (BSCIE, MCE, MSCIE, PhD)  Computer Engineering (BSCOE)  Computer Science (BSCS, MS, PhD)  Electrical Engineering (BSEE, MSEE, PhD)  Mechanical Engineering (BSMEE, MSMEE, PhD)  Mining and Mineral Engineering (BSMIE, MME, MSME, PhD)  Manufacturing Engineering (MSMSYE)  All Administrative units Program Review workshops 9

Educational Units Participating in Cycle College of Fine Arts  Art Education (BA, MA)  Art History (BA, MA)  Art Studio (BFA, MFA)  Art Administration (BA)  Theatre (BFA, MFA) Program Review Workshop 10

Program Review Components I. * 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  may be substituted, in part, with accreditation report from external accrediting agency  Elements evaluated:  centrality  competitive & comparative advantage  cost effectiveness  demand  quality  Distinctiveness *Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/ Program Review Orientation Workshops 11

Accreditation Report may substitute for:  UK Self-Study, ONLY if :  approved by President, Provost, or appropriate executive vice president, AND the Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness  2 External Reviewers, ONLY if :  program was visited by an on-site committee in order to obtain external accreditation AND accreditation report approved by the Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Accreditation Review WILL NOT substitute for:  UK’s External Review  UK’s External Review Committee Report  UK’s Implementation Plan Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/ Program Review Orientation Workshops 12 Program Review Components, continued

II.i. External Review ( completed by UK’s External Review Committee)  examines the self-study report;  uses appropriate data collection techniques to assure objectivity;  assesses validity of conclusions reached in self-study;  identifies additional strengths and recommendations for quality enhancement; and  prepares 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/ Program Review Workshops 13

Program Review Components, continued II.ii. Educational Unit External Review Committee  appointed by the Dean after consultation with the elected college faculty council or appropriate college body (for departments/school reviews)  Provost consults with University Senate Council to seek nominations (for college level reviews)  consists of 6-8 members—primarily faculty  2-faculty in same discipline or college and who are external to University  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/ Program Review Workshops 14

Program Review Components, continued II.iii. External Review Committee Report considers:  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/ Program Review Workshops 15

Program Review Components, continued II.iii. External Review Committee Report considers:  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/ Program Review Workshops 16

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.  supports annual progress reporting. Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/ Program Review Workshops 17

Program Review Content: SWOT Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T)are considered with regard to the following areas:  General  Alignment of program to department, college, university, and CPE initiatives  Program  Curriculum  Transfer equivalences and course substitutions  Effectiveness /Student Learning Outcomes  Grade distribution  Innovative delivery methods  Partnerships, research, and other engagement activities  Benchmarking Program Review Workshop 18

Program Review Content: SWOT, continued Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T)are considered with regard to the following areas:  Faculty  number and balance of faculty types  scholarly activity (number of peer –reviewed publications, creativity activity, and/or funding by year for the past 3-5 years or last review)  assignments (teaching, research, and service)  teaching loads (numbers of classes by program and number of students served)  thesis and dissertations supervised over the past five years  faculty development and mentoring Program Review Workshops 19

Program Review Content: SWOT, continued Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T)are considered with regard to the following areas:  Resources  Space (instructional, laboratory, office)  equipment and facilities  Staff  Students  quality of incoming students  evidence of quality of education (placement, licensure pass rates, awards)  retention, progression, and completion  satisfaction Program Review Workshops 20

Institutional Sources that inform Review Institutional data (provided by Office of Institutional Research) for examples see: Program Review Workshop 21

Unit Sources that inform Review  unit website  peer benchmarking and “best practices”  last unit self-study reports ( , or )  annual progress reports (past 3 years)  most recent accreditation or certification results and recommendations  external consultant reports  department/unit statements of good teaching qualifications practices (if appropriate) Program Review Workshops 22

Unit Sources that nform Review, continued Appendix/Supplemental Materials  program curriculum materials (catalog copy at minimum; selected syllabi if appropriate, etc.)  program handbook(s)  current faculty CVs  faculty annual evaluation standards and procedures  faculty promotion and tenure criteria (dept., college, univ.)  most recent accreditation or certification results and recommendations  representative samples of undergraduate and graduate work (thesis, dissertations, publications, awards, & recognitions) Program Review Workshops 23

Program Review: Calendar *Calendar  Purpose:  communicates steps and timeline for completing program review; and  ensures timely completion *Refer to educational unit calendar for cycle Program Review Workshops 24

Program Review: Questions General Program Review Process  Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Office phone: Institutional Research and Data  Roger Sugarman Director, Institutional Research Office phone: Year Schedule  Connie Vaughn Program Planning Coordinator Office phone: Program Review Workshops 25