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

Slides:



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

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.
STRATEGIC PLAN Community Unit School District 300 7/29/
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
 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.
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.
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.
Organization Mission Organizations That Use Evaluative Thinking Will Develop mission statements specific enough to provide a basis for goals and.
Assessment & Evaluation Committee A New Road Ahead Presentation Dr. Keith M. McCoy, Vice President Professor Jennifer Jakob, English Associate Director.
The Faculty Leadership Role on Accreditation Julie Bruno, Sierra College Roberta Eisel, Citrus College Chris Hill, Grossmont College Richard Mahon, Riverside.
University Strategic Resource Planning Council Budget.
Year Seven Self-Evaluation Workshop OR Getting from Here to There Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
SACS Reaffirmation Project Compliance Certification Team Orientation Compliance Certification Report Thursday, September 30, – 11:00AM 209 Main Building.
University of Massachusetts Boston FY11 Budget Process February 25, 2010.
Basic Workshop For Reviewers NQAAC Recognize the developmental engagements Ensure that they operate smoothly and effectively” Ensure that all team members.
Accreditation follow-up report. The team recommends that the college further refine its program review, planning, and resource allocation processes so.
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) 101 Del Mar College January 8, 2007 Loraine Phillips, Ph.D. Interim Assessment Director Texas A&M University.
“PLANNING” CREATING A CULTURE OF EVIDENCE Elizabeth Noel, PhD Associate Vice President, Research Office of Research and Development.
University of Idaho Successful External Program Review Archie George, Director Institutional Research and Assessment Jane Baillargeon, Assistant Director.
ACCREDITATION Goals: Goals: - Certify to the public and to educational organizations that the school is recognized as an effective institution of learning.
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.
SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,
NEASC FIVE YEAR REPORT FITCHBURG STATE COLLEGE JANUARY 2007.
What could we learn from learning outcomes assessment programs in the U.S public research universities? Samuel S. Peng Center for Educational Research.
Florida Tech’s University Assessment Committee For A Continuing Culture of Assessment.
Meeting the ‘Great Divide’: Establishing a Unified Culture for Planning and Assessment Cathy A. Fleuriet Ana Lisa Garza Presented at the 2006 Conference.
UWF SACS REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION PROJECT Presentation to UWF Board of Trustees November 7, 2003.
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006 JoLynn Noe, Assistant Director Office of Assessment
Western Carolina University Office of Assessment A Division of the Office of the Provost.
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
STRATEGIC PLANNING & WASC UPDATE Tom Bennett Presentation to Academic Senate February 1, 2006.
Academic Program Review Committee Report Faculty Senate meeting November 11, 2008.
External Review Team: Roles and Responsibilities A Very Brief Training! conducted by JoLynn Noe Office of Assessment.
2008 Spring Semester Workshop AN INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP T. Gilmour Reeve, Ph.D. Director of Strategic Planning.
Strategic Planning for the Department of Health and Human Performance Iowa State University T. Gilmour Reeve Director of Strategic Planning Office of the.
SPC Advisory Committee Training Fall 2015 Institutional Research President’s Office SPC 10/9/20151.
Moving Successfully Toward SACS Reaffirmation: An Introductory Discussion Presenters Dr. Cathy Fleuriet Associate Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness.
KSU’s Quality Enhancement Plan.  Current Core Requirement 2.12  The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that (1)
HLC Criterion Five Primer Thursday, Nov. 5, :40 – 11:40 a.m. Event Center.
UK Leadership Team Meeting, July 6, SACS Reaffirmation Project: July Assessment Update Presented by: Dr. Mia Alexander-Snow, Director, Planning &
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Standard Two Les Steele Executive Vice President.
 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.
1 Institutional Quality and Accreditation: A Workshop on the Basics.
Strategic planning A Tool to Promote Organizational Effectiveness
Academic Program Review Workshop 2017
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
Department of Political Science & Sociology North South University
Institutional Effectiveness Presented By Claudette H. Williams
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
Overview of accjc stanard IV
Fort Valley State University
Accreditation follow-up report
Get on Board: Reaffirmation 2016
Presentation transcript:

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

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

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) Program Review Orientation

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) Program Review Orientation

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) Program Review Orientation

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) Program Review Orientation

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 Program Review Orientation

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 Program Review Orientation

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/ Program Review Orientation 9

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 Cycle  President: 2 units  Provost: 3 units  EVPFA: 3 units Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/ Program Review Orientation 10

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/ Program Review Orientation 11

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/ Program Review Orientation 12

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 Program Review Orientation

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/ Program Review Orientation 14

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 Program Review Orientation

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/ Program Review Orientation 16

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/ Program Review Orientation 17

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/ Program Review Orientation 18

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/ Program Review Orientation 19

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 Program Review Orientation

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 Program Review Orientation

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/ Program Review Orientation 22

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  formative and summative assessments  qualitative– focus groups, interviews, etc.  quantitative—satisfaction surveys, employer surveys, etc.  Institutional data (provided by Office of Institutional Research) for examples see: Program Review Orientation 23

Institutional Data Sources Institutional data compiled by the UK Office of Institutional Research can be found at: Program Review Orientation

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

Additional Program Review Questions General Program Review Process  Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Office phone: Year Schedule  Connie Vaughn Program Planning Coordinator Office phone: Program Review Orientation 26

Presentation Contact Information Mia Alexander-Snow Office for Planning & Institutional Effectiveness Website: Roger Sugarman Office of Institutional Research Website: Program Review Orientation