Academic Program Review TERRI WILL GIVE THE WELCOME January 14, 2016 Presenters: Faculty Representatives from the University Assessment Committee (UAC)

Why Program Review? Ensures ongoing tracking and documentation of student performance on learning outcomes and related metrics. Important as it relates to our mission, and current strategic plan Meets institutional accreditation requirements for documentation of evidence of the improvement process Sustained assessment process Processes result in information useful to the program Improvement based on results TERRI

This workshop will cover: The multi-year schedule for program review The timeline (including due dates) for the process The role that Dept. Chairs play in the process The role that Deans play in the process The difference between: An annual update A full review How to navigate through, and complete the new form TERRI

The multi-year schedule Each academic program will complete a full review every 3rd year. For the years in between, an annual update is completed. This year (2015-16) - begin use of the multi-year schedule TERRI -Multi-year schedule was vetted with Deans and departments, and was based first on aligning with disciplinary accreditation schedules. -Organized by College/School (e.g. CAHSS), Department (Global History and Languages) and unit within that division (e.g. BA in History)

Timeline/Due Dates for Reviews Annual Update: Form due in from Department Chair to Dean by Friday, March 18th Form due in from Dean to Institutional Research by Friday, April 15th Full Review: Form due in from Department Chair to Dean by Friday, April 1st Form due in from Dean to Institutional Research by Friday, May 6th TERRI

Roles for the Process Department Chairs/Program Coordinators Coordinate participation in the program review. This involves: Completion of the program review form Engaging faculty in the review process Sending completed review to Dean by the due date Academic Deans: Read over completed program review Set up a meeting to discuss/adjust Send completed review to Institutional Research by the due date TERRI Why sent to IR – Review archived, shared with UAC , UAC reviews for assessment process – follow-up with leadership Process does not end with a final report from IR or UAC – ongoing (conversations, assessment, improvements, etc.)

Special Tabs in Program Review Form Please take note of the following tabs within the form: Schedule Instructions Terminology & Clarifications Reference Codes KALEN

Types of review: The Annual Update An Annual Update has 3 components: Documenting improvements made and/or planned for outcomes that fell short of the benchmark in the most recent full review; (Ref: 2014) Documenting any new or ongoing initiatives or activities focused on improvement – not necessarily directly linked to programmatic student learning outcomes; and Documenting strategies used to engage the program’s faculty in the review process. KALEN

Types of review: The Full Review A Full Review has 6 main components: Assessment of programmatic student learning outcomes (undergraduate – form A1, or graduate – form A2) Retention/Graduation Rate/Time-to-Degree (form B) Placement (form C) Faculty Engagement in process (form D) Assessment of Writing Across the Curriculum – course level learning outcomes (undergraduate programs only) – (form E) Assessment of General Education – course level learning outcomes (undergraduate disciplines in the arts & sciences only) – (form F) KARIM

Full Review: Assessment of Programmatic SLOs Appropriate form: FR-Form A1 (UG) or A2 (GR) Why different: Different Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (ISLOs) to align with Programmatic Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Type in SLOs Identify which ISLOs and Strategic Plan Themes align with each programmatic SLO Review results from a recent assessment of learning at the program level related to stated outcome: What tool/project/paper/presentation, etc. was used to demonstrate achievement of the outcome? Where was the tool/project/paper/presentation used? KARIM

Full Review: Assessment of Programmatic SLOs Review results from a recent assessment of learning at the program level related to stated outcome (continued): How often is this measurement taken? When was the last measurement? Identify the benchmark/threshold established by program faculty to determine adequate demonstration of learning for the outcome The benchmark defines acceptable performance E.g. 85% of students achieve a rating, on term paper reviewed with rubric, of “meets expectations” KARIM

Full Review: Assessment of Programmatic SLOs Review results from a recent assessment of learning at the program level related to stated outcome (continued): Identify the actual results from the most recent measurement E.g. 45% achieved a rating of “meets expectations” Interpret the findings using the benchmark E.g. Outcome not achieved What action(s) will be taken as a result of the finding? E.g. Strengthen coverage of material in curriculum where demonstrated learning was below expectations (determined by rubric used to evaluate the term paper) Are any resources needed to take the proposed action? KARIM

Full Review: Retention/Graduation Rate/Time-to-degree Appropriate form: FR-Form B For undergraduate programs – Complete B1 Refer to retention & graduation rate statistics in data profile from IR Identify any known issues that negatively impact retention or graduation of students in your program. List actions needed for improving retention and/or graduation rate, and identify what resources you believe would be needed for the action to occur. For graduate programs – Complete B2 (lower on form) Identify known issues with time-to-degree for students in the program, and propose actions & resources (as with the undergraduate programs) to address issue(s). HARVEY

Full Review: Placement Appropriate form: FR-Form C This form intended for undergraduate programs, although graduate programs may provide information if available. For recent graduates (within past 3 years), provide statistics (percentage of graduates, if known) from each graduating class who went on to graduate study, are employed full-time, etc. List any known graduate schools attended by recent graduates/alums. Provide additional context for how information was collected/received and/or challenges program faces in collecting placement information from graduates. HARVEY

Full Review: Faculty Engagement in Process Appropriate form: FR-Form D Consists of just 1 question: What tactics/strategies were used within the department to engage faculty in the program review process? HARVEY 2010 Self Study Recommendation: “The University Assessment Committee, along with appropriate administrative and academic leadership, needs to refine the current Program Review Process to: (a) Foster inclusion and promote active participation of all individuals in the unit creating the review;

Full Review: Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Assessment Appropriate form: FR-Form E, for UG programs only Consists of same prompts as for the Programmatic SLOs (Form A1), although WAC assessment is for course-level outcomes. Many programs had submitted WAC proposals to the GEC several years ago, outlining where program-specific writing ability is developed within the curriculum. Although curriculum may have changed, the approved WAC proposals may provide a foundation for reference. Benchmarks may differ for students at different stages in the curriculum – lower for introductory writing-based courses, and higher for courses in which discipline-specific writing ability should be appropriate for any graduate of the program. KALEN

Full Review: General Education SLO Assessment Appropriate form: FR-Form F, for UG programs in the arts & sciences only General Education Assessment through this program review process is course-based, and references the spring 2015-approved SLOs. Rationale: Ensures a distributed system of course-based assessments of student learning related to General Education learning outcomes Align each course level outcome referenced with: ISLOs addressed by course outcome statement Strategic Plan Themes addressed by course outcome statement Gen Ed Skill Areas addressed by course outcome statement Gen Ed Distribution Areas addressed by course outcome statement Respond to same prompts as for the Programmatic SLO and WAC assessment KALEN

Any Questions? ALL