DARTON COLLEGE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW

Transcription

1 DARTON COLLEGE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW Purpose The Committee should keep in mind and ensure that the institution is engaged in robust review processes and student learning assessment that culminates in continuous improvement in academic review programs and general education. The committee should keep in mind and ensure that the comprehensive review process on campus has a focus on building a culture of evidence to use CPR results to inform curricular change, program development, resource allocation, etc. and that a culture of evidence includes the indicators or outcomes collected, tracked and analyzed to help determine how to improve the quality of a program. The purpose of the committee then is to act as a benign watchdog, an important part of the checks and balances system, of the institution. Process The faculty of a program will conduct a self-study report, in consultation with the Chair, Director, or Coordinator of that particular program. The Chair, Director, or Coordinator will then consult with the Division Dean, whose approval of the report is necessary before the completed report, written by the faculty and Chair, Director, or Coordinator of the program, is submitted to the institution s Program Review Committee. The Program Review Committee will review the report received from the Division Dean and make recommendations and forward these to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will review the report, and as necessary, consult with the Division Dean. Once the Vice President for Academic Affairs has approved the report, the report will be posted to the institution s website under pass-word protection for review by the System Office. Other Important Items The Program Review Committee will be appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Members will serve for three years, on a rotating basis, to help provide institutional continuity and expertise. External reviewers for a Program must be approved by the Division Dean and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The self-study report posted online will include not only responses to items listed under self-study procedures that address quality, productivity, and viability but also an executive summary (narrative) and a detailed self-study report (narrative). The executive summary will be two to three pages maximum; the detailed-self-study report will be 30 pages maximum. The summary and report will follow the order of items outlined by the review templates. Templates Comprehensive Program Review, Darton College, Transfer Programs and Comprehensive Program Review, Darton College Career Programs shall be used for comprehensive program review.

2 Data must be heavily employed in the Comprehensive Program Review in a way that shows analysis and interpretation. In preparing reports, a narrative of clarity, supported by verifiable data, is expected. In other words, no huge blocks of data dumping or uninterrupted narrative. Connect the two elements in reader-friendly format for an audience of intelligent generalists. Program Review Timetable January 2010 Department submits names of up to three reviewers responsible for conducting the Comprehensive Review study for the program (including up to one reviewer from outside the department) to the Division Dean for recommendation to Vice President for Academic Affairs for approval. Reviewers may be Darton College faculty from other departments as well as professionals in the field. Vice President for Academic Affairs responds re: selection of external reviewers to Dean, who responds to department. Department begins work on Comprehensive Program Review. February May 2010 Department conducts self-study based on the performance indicators found in the selfstudy template. June 2010 Department completes self-study and sends report to Division Dean and Review Team. Department arranges for team to conduct on-site review. Team completes review and form and forwards copy to department Chair, Coordinator, or Director, and Division Dean. July 2010 Department Chair, Coordinator, or Director sends completed self-study and evaluation form to the Comprehensive Review Committee. Comprehensive Program Review Committee completes its evaluation of report and sends recommendations to department Chair, Coordinator, or Director, and Division Dean. August 2010 Division Dean and department Chair, Coordinator, or Director develop an improvement plan based on self-study report and findings. Division Dean sends report, including executive summary and detailed self-study, to Vice President for Academic Affairs for approval. Vice President for Academic Affairs, if necessary, consults with Division Dean, before approval. September 2010 Complete report is posted on password-protected website for review and spot-audits by System Office.

3 Darton College Comprehensive Program Review Schedule 2010 Accounting (AAS Degree) Business Computer Systems (AAS Degree) Health Information Technology (AS Degree) Nursing (AS Degree) 2011 Social Science (AS Degree) Humanities (AA Degree) Science (AS Degree) Dental Hygiene (AS Degree) Pre-Medicine (AS Degree) Physical Therapist Assistant (AS Degree) 2012 Human Service Technology (AS Degree) Allied Health Transfer (AS Degree) 2013 SACS preparation. No scheduled Comprehensive Program Reviews Mathematics (AS Degree) Gov. Services (AAS Degree) Business (AAS Degree) Cardiovascular Technology (AS Degree) Histotechnology (AS Degree) Medical Lab Technology (AS Degree) Psychiatric Technology (AS Degree) 2015 Health & Physical Education (AS Degree) Emergency Medical Services (AS Degree) Management (AAS Degree) Respiratory Care (AS Degree) 2016 Office Administration (AAS Degree) Schedule of Comprehensive Reviews for New Programs (seven years not to exceed ten) Program Name Board Approval Date CPR Rev. Date Seven Years Out Associate of Science in June Cardiovascular Technician

4 Associate of Science in May Dietetic Technician Associate of Science in November Diagnostic Medical Sonography Information Provided by the System System Overview The revised comprehensive program review (CPR) procedures recommended in the Program Review Task Force Final Report went into effect Fall, 2009 (see Report for details). The focus of the new CPR process is on quality campus-based program review with the System Office playing an oversight role to ensure USG institutions are engaged in robust review processes and student learning assessment that culminates in continuous improvement in academic degree programs and general education. To that end, each institution will establish a comprehensive program review process that will be reviewed and endorsed by a review team coordinated by the Office of Academic Affairs. Key components of institutional processes will include a required review of general education (i.e., the core curriculum) and specific degree program goals related to diversity. Institutions are also encouraged to review groups of courses considered a program (e.g., English as a Second Language, First Year Experience, etc.). The review team will also conduct spot audits of institutional reviews through an institutional password protected website. To facilitate campus-based reviews, the System Office will provide annual program enrollment threshold reports for informational purposes and resources to advance best practices in CPR across the USG. The System Office objective is to emphasize quality assurance, facilitation, and support. Institutional Responsibilities Each institution will be responsible for maintaining and enhancing their existing CPR processes but develop a system of reporting to the System Office through a password protected web-based institutional portal. Each institution s website should include a description of the CPR process on their campus with a focus on building a culture of evidence to use CPR results to inform curricular change, program development, resource allocation, etc. A culture of evidence includes the indictors or outcomes collected, tracked and analyzed to help determine how to improve the quality of a program. A timeline indicating when degree programs and general education have been or will be reviewed (all

5 new degree programs must be reviewed within seven years of Board approval) must also be available on the website. Institutions are encouraged to use the results of program accreditation reports to inform CPR. Although accreditation reports cannot be used as substitutes, information generated from and in preparation for those reports can be used as part of programmatic comprehensive review.