Dr. Michael Reilly Executive Dean, Business Ashford University

Transcription

1 Dr. J. Joseph Hoey VP of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Bridgepoint Education Dr. Kristina M. Cragg AVP of Institutional Research Bridgepoint Education Dr. Michael Reilly Executive Dean, Business Ashford University Ms. Amanda Fluharty Institutional Research Reporting Manager Bridgepoint Education

2 A systematic review of academic programs, to address the quality, viability, and productivity of efforts in teaching and learning, scholarship, and service as appropriate to the institution s mission (RACIE Committee, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, n.d.)

3 Decision making model Goal based model Responsive model Connoisseurship model

4 Formative program improvement, especially of student learning reputation enhancement Summative Resource allocation/re allocation program continuation, consolidation or elimination

5 Internal Program itself Other programs in college or university External Peer programs Specialized accreditors State system Employers of graduates

6 As an integral element of systematic improvement processes When resource reallocation must take place Baseline measurement for new leader Overriding political or public relations concerns Leadership (chair) review of a department Accreditation requirements Federal requirements

7 Within college or division Within institution Within state system By specialized accreditor Federal program review

8 Faculty senate or curriculum committees Dean s office for a large college Institutional effectiveness office Provost/Academic affairs office State system office of planning and accountability Federal funding or review body

9 Annual (desktop audit) 3 year review (community colleges) 5 year review (most typical) 10 year review (graduate schools)

10 Student learning outcomes Use of resources Quality, productivity, viability Duplication (state system level)

11 Kickoff and scheduling External reviewer selection Provision of data packets Self study creation and vetting External reviewer site visit Recommendations Action plan Integration into budget and planning Follow up and monitoring

12 Alignment with mission Student numbers, quality and flow Student learning outcomes Faculty quality, sufficiency and productivity Physical and learning resources Curriculum currency Impact of curriculum on students Direct and indirect costs Reputation relative to peers

13 Common centrally mandated themes (e.g., retention) Best in class evaluation perspective

14 Depends on purpose of review Usually includes recommendations and program continuation Increasingly includes selective discontinuation of programs to rationalize resources

15 Model created through literature review and distillation of previous experiences Five year cycle Student learning outcomes emphasized Internal self study and external review 17 month review completion timeline Data packets from institutional research and assessment

16 Collaborative selection of external reviewers through peer driven process

17 Communicate with committee Beginning Obtain requirements Middle Discuss any data challenges/definitions Progress update End Review the data End Part 2 There will likely be revisions to meet about

18 Understand the elements and definitions from subject matter experts Very helpful when the committee creates a white paper of rules/guidelines But still need to ask questions

19 Start early Especially if this is a new or changed activity for IR Unanticipated data challenges may occur Which definition of a variable to use? Need to talk with the SMEs

20 Review the materials with the committee Review definitions Changes in definitions/ data collection protocol that may impact interpretation of results Welcome feedback

21 If needed, meet to review the materials again Keep the lines of communication open for additional adjustments May find that different programs have different nuances that need IR to help explain

22 Class Profile (HS or college GPA, SAT/ACT, HS class rank, transfer credits, demographics) Enrollment (Total, by program, and three year trends) Average Class Size Student/Faculty Ratio by modality Faculty Composition by modality (number, % doctorate degree, years teaching experience, teaching load, scholarship activity, % faculty by rank) Library Assets (physical holdings, e database holdings, library visits, special holdings)

23 Assessment results of learning by program (Freshmen and Seniors) Average GPA by Major Graduation Rates by Major (total, 100% rate, 150% rates) Student Honors Recipients by modality Student Satisfaction UG Degree Holders Decision to Attend Graduate School (% total, % by program) Alumni Employment (% employed in field, salary increase 1 year post graduation, % professional certification)

24 Which modality offers the program being reviewed? Have there been any changes to the program over review period? Have there been name changes? CIP code changes?

25 Have there been any policy changes that would impact the results? Admissions Program Graduation

26 Table XX. Student Gender for Modality Gender Female Male Program N(%) N(%) Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 ADD MORE ROWS AS NEEDED TOTAL

27 .