1. 1 Creating Institutional Buy-In to the Credit Program/Discipline Review Process A Baldrige-Inspired Approach Bao Huynh Director of Institutional Research Richland College Teaching, Learning, Community Building 1

2. 2 Overview Demographics & Baldrige Perspective History / Purpose Quantitative Data Qualitative Data Scoring Mechanism Use of Results 2

3. 3 History Completed annually at Richland since 1996-97 Original design by a DCCCD team of Instructional Deans and Faculty in late 1980’s Revisions by Richland’s Academic Council Current version – revised 2007 3

4. 4 Purpose Continuous Improvement/Agility Accountability Student Learning Outcomes Institutional Effectiveness Assessment of program/discipline viability 4

5. 5 Quantitative Data “We are data-informed; we are not data- driven” Data supplied by the Office of Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness Three key indicators of performance 5

6. 6 Qualitative Data “We turn to wonder, we do not rush to judgment” Contextual Information Provided by Executive Deans, Program Coordinators, Vice President for Teaching & Learning 6

7. 7 Scoring Mechanism Three Key Performance Indicators –Increase program contact hours –Improve student success –Maintain fiscal responsibility Five Measures –Contact hour change from: previous year to current year two years previous to current year –% A,B,C grades –% in-class retention –Ratio of Program Cost to Income 7

8. 8 Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #1 100 points Increase annual contact hour generation Measures: Positive growth from Year 2 to Year 3 (50 possible points) Year 1 to Year 3 (50 possible points) 8

9. 9 Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #1 9

10. 10 Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #2 200 points Improve Student Success Measures: % of A,B,C Grades (100 possible points) % in-class retention(100 possible points Student Outcomes Assessment to be added at a later date 10

11. 11 Credit Program Review Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #2 11

12. 12 Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #3 100 points Remain fiscally responsible and sound Measures: Program Cost to Income Ratio 12

13. 13 Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #3 13

14. 14 Scoring Mechanism Summary Sheet 14

15. 15 Use of Results Executive Deans, Program Administrators and Faculty for each program/discipline: Conduct a SWOT every 5 years Review their DCCCD Market Share Review Trends in Student Preferences by Schedule Type 15

16. 16 Credit Program Review Use of Results “ One of the most devastating results of a review effort is inaction.” Barak and Breier 16

17. 17 Lessons to Share Remember what is important Provide examples of how deans can use data to address opportunities or capitalize on successes Find more than one way to share the data

18. 18 Future Plans Incorporate assessment of student learning outcomes into the review Expand program review to include all administrative and student support services

19. 19 Creating Institutional Buy-In to the Credit Program/Discipline Review Process A Baldrige-Inspired Approach Bao Huynh Director of Institutional Research Richland College Teaching, Learning, Community Building 19