University of Cincinnati Program Review (E-Review)

Comprehensive Program Review Academic Coordinating Committee Progress to Date Andrea Lindell, Co-Chair Kristi Nelson, Co-Chair January 2008

Comprehensive Program Review Purpose Evaluate programs against criteria Gather data about Assessment and Evaluation Prepare for alignment with the USO Gather information to assist with preparations for the HLC/NCA visit Prepare for the implementation of PBB

Timeline Update Phase I (Spring 2007 – Winter 2008)  Review list of programs with Registrar and College Deans to ensure consistency  Identify potential problems that create discrepancies and make corrections  Clarify PASLA nomenclature across colleges Phase II  December 2007/January 2008 Established Review Criteria Developed E-Review Prototype Developed Process for Review Shared with AOC, Associate Deans Council, Cabinet

Timeline Update (cont’d) Phase II (cont)  January –February 2008 Continue development of E-Review program Test Program  February –March 2008 Finalize and extract list of programs for review Test Interface for IR data Beta Testing of E-Review program Migration of database to Provost Office servers Test run from Provost Office servers

Timeline Update (cont’d) Phase II (cont)  March 2008 E-Review goes live for data input by colleges  April 2008 ACC conducts a test review of college submissions, focusing on Graduate Programs  May – August 2008 ACC reviews Program data Creates Sub-committees as necessary

Program Review Criteria Accreditation/Graduate/Undergraduate Review /No Specialized Review –When –By whom –Outcomes of review –Response to review recommendations –Next review date IR Data –Enrollment history (5 years) –Graduation rates –Retention data –Instructional FTE –Faculty Course Summary

Program Review Criteria (cont’d) # of tracks within program/major (if applicable) Brief Program Description Mission Statement and Alignment with College/University Mission/UC|21 Academic Priorities Alignment with Fingerhut’s USO (placeholder at present) Impact of market / competitive needs for program and/or impact of program on market Budget/Resources (Placeholder at present)

Program Review Criteria (cont’d) Features of the Program Internship Clinical Placement Co-op international Co-op domestic Performance Exhibitions/Creative Work Undergraduate Research Laboratory/Studio Other Experiential Learning (text box) Domestic cultural competence Global cultural competence

Program Review Criteria (cont’d) Study Abroad Service Learning domestic Service Learning international Problem- or case-based instruction Instructional Technology (text box) Distance Learning Library Research Component Significant student writing (at least a four page paper) Student presentations (in-class) Student presentations (out of class including professional meetings) Corporate collaborative Interdisciplinary connections or perspective Students are members of professional organization Other Features of Program, con’t

Program Review Criteria (cont’d) Assessment Practices - Standardized test (list) - Portfolio assessment - e-portfolio assessment - Pre-/ post testing - Focus groups - Professional certification –student pass rates - General Education assessment - Skill proficiency testing (list) - Internal Review - External Review - Other

Program Review Criteria (cont’d) Best Practices for Tracking Graduates –Exit Interviews –Focus Groups –Graduating Student Surveys –Employer Surveys –Electronic Communications (New Technologies): i.e. InCircle, Facebook groups, Linkedin –Tell us about your opportunities through newsletter or e- newsletters –Other

Program Review Criteria (cont’d) If the program were to be closed, list the impact on the university and community: 1) 2) 3) And If the program were to be closed and you could retain the resources, list three ways you would redirect the resources: 1) 2) 3)