Transcript Program Framework Review

Program Framework Review
February 2011
Pamela Miller, Ph.D.
AVP for Learning
Purpose of Program Review
San Juan College recognizes the
importance of a systematic program
review and evaluation process to guide
the continuous improvement of quality
academic programs.
Purpose (cont’d)
The program review process is comprised
of four primary data components:
 Internal analysis
 Stakeholder surveys
 Competitive/peer analysis
 Market analysis
Guiding Principles

The important guiding principles in program
review should be the response to these
questions:
1. How do we define our program and expected
outcomes?
2. What community need does this address?
3. How well are we meeting our program objectives?
4. What are the characteristics of a quality program?
5. What improvements are recommended for
continuous quality improvements?
6. What resources are required to implement those
recommendations?
Why?
Internal Drivers
 Strategic Planning
 Information-Driven Decision Making
 Improved Student Learning Outcomes
 Improved Instruction
 Higher Retention and Completion Rates
 Higher Revenues and/or Lower Costs
Why? (cont’d)
External Drivers
 Accreditation
◦ Higher Learning Commission
◦ School/Program Accreditation
Why? (cont’d)

National “Mood”
◦ Distrust of higher education system
◦ Increased accountability
 Spelling Commission
 Disbandment of regional accrediting bodies with
replacement by federal agency
 Mandatory use of standardized testing
 Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)
 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Who?
The Program Review process and Self
Study Report is managed by the Program
Director/Dept Chair
 A team approached is recommended:

◦
◦
◦
◦
faculty (full- and part-time)
general education representative(s)
appropriate departmental staff
appropriate faculty/staff outside of School in
which program resides
◦ external reviewers (outside of SJC)
What?

Higher Learning Commission criteria
provide the framework for the Program
Self Study
◦ Three primary components:
 Fit with SJC mission
 Planning and Preparing for the Future
 Student Learning and Effective Teaching
 Key Performance Indicators (Program Effectiveness)
 Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
What? (cont’d)

Four primary data components:
◦ Internal analysis
 Imbed assessment activities into the Program
Review cycle
◦ Stakeholder surveys
◦ Competitive/peer analysis
◦ Market analysis
When?


Key performance indicators will be compiled
annually for all programs
A Limited number of programs will be
reviewed in fall 2011 (one from each school)
◦ These programs will pilot the Program Review
process that will be implemented in fall 2012
(5-year cycle begins)
How?

Self Study Report Template/Outline
◦ The self study report is submitted by the
Program Director to the School Dean for
review/revision
◦ The Self Study Report is presented to the
Department and School for review/revision
◦ The School Dean submits the Self Study
Report to the AVP for Learning and the
Learning Leadership Team
How? (cont’d)

Action Plan(s)
◦ One or more Action Plans are drafted by the
Program Director and submitted to the
School Dean for review/revision
◦ The Action Plan(s) is presented to the
Department and School for review/revision
◦ The School Dean submits the Action Plan(s)
to the AVP for Learning and the Learning
Leadership Team
◦ Action Plan(s) are posted on the Portal
How? (cont’d)

Self Study Summary Report
◦ A Self Study Summary Report is prepared by
the School Dean and Submitted to the AVP
for Learning and the Learning Leadership
Team
◦ The Self Study Summary Report is posted on
the Portal
How? (cont’d)

Annual Action Plan Updates
◦ Annual Action Plan Updates are drafted by the
Program Director and submitted the School
Dean for review/revision
◦ The Annual Action Plan Updates are presented to
the Department and School for review/ revision
◦ The School Dean submits the updates to the AVP
for Learning and the Learning Leadership Team
◦ Annual Action Plan Updates are posted on the
Portal
Resources Required

Reference material and professional
development
◦ Outcomes-based assessment
Web-query database (data available from
desktop)
 Self Study Report/Summary and Action
Plan Templates (developing during pilot)
 Stakeholder Surveys (developed during
pilot)

Resources Required (cont’d)

Centralized storage for Program Review
documents (Portal)
◦ Determine what is public and what is not

Stipends for part-time faculty required to
participate?
PART TWO:
Framework for Program Review
Framework for Program Review
HLC Criteria:
1. Fit with SJCMission
2. Planning and Preparing for the Future
3. Student Learning and Effective Teaching
1. Fit with SJCmission
Program purpose/mission statement is
aligned with the College’s mission
 The program is consistent with the
mission or the philosophy of the School
to which it belongs

◦ The program mission documents should
include a strong commitment to high
academic standards and clearly state goals for
learning to be achieved by students
1. Fit with SJCmission (cont’d)
The program administration, faculty, staff, and
students understand and support the
program mission or purpose
 Strategic decisions regarding the program
are mission-driven
 The program administration, faculty, and staff
are appropriately qualified and credentialed
to carry out their responsibilities
 The program administration and faculty
share responsibility for the development and
ongoing review of the curriculum

2. Planning and Preparing for the
Future
The program has adequate resources to achieve
its goals and ensure educational quality
 The program invests in faculty, department,
technology, learning support services, and facilities
 The curriculum is current and relevant, and
prepares students for a career in fields that are in
demand

i.
In what industry(s) does this program prepares
graduates to work?
ii. Identify the occupational title(s) for which the
program prepares students
iii. How is this program differentiated from other
programs in the Division/School?
3. Student Learning and Effective
Teaching

The Program and course learning
outcomes are clearly stated and
measurable
◦ The Program administration and faculty are
involved in defining student learning outcomes
for courses and programs
Each course outcome is directly linked to
one or more program outcomes
 Current course content reflects industry,
State, or National standards

3. Student Learning and Effective
Teaching (cont’d)


The course sequence requires increasing
application of higher-order thinking skills as
students progress through the program
The Program has a formal Assessment Plan
developed by program administration and
faculty and reviewed by the Assessment
Committee
◦ The program Assessment Plan includes
measurement of the CLSO’s
◦ Assessment results inform improvements in
curriculum, pedagogy, instructional resources, and
student services
3. Student Learning and Effective
Teaching (cont’d)

Assessment of student learning outcomes
occurs at the program and course levels
◦ Results obtained through assessment of student
learning are available to program faculty, and
program and university administration
◦ Assessment of student learning includes multiple
direct and indirect measures

The program integrates general education
into all of its undergraduate degree
programs and reviews the effectiveness of its
general education components
3. Student Learning and Effective
Teaching (cont’d)

Effective teaching is routinely measured
and results are shared with program
administration and faculty
◦ The program administration supports faculty
in keeping abreast on the research in teaching
and learning and in technical advances
◦ Each faculty member actively participates in a
professional organization relevant to the
discipline they teach and attends a minimum
of one professional conference each year
3. Student Learning and Effective
Teaching (cont’d)

The program’s systems and structures
enable partnerships that enhance student
learning and strengthen teaching
effectiveness
◦ The program has an Advisory Committee that
meets at least twice a year
◦ The program has a component that engages
students in the community( i.e., Internship,
Service-Learning, Study Abroad)
◦ The program has collaborative ventures with
other higher learning institutions and education
sectors (i.e., K-12 partnerships, articulation
agreements, 2+2 programs)
3. Student Learning and Effective
Teaching (cont’d)

Program assessment includes the evaluation of key
performance indicators, including:









Program Enrollment
Student Demographics
Average credit load
Number of new students
Retention rates
Overall student
satisfaction with program
Number of graduates
Graduation rates
Average GPA






Job placement rates
(related fields)
Student recommendation
of program
Credits taught by full-time
faculty
Faculty credentials
Average class size
License/exam pass rates
(where applicable)
3. Student Learning and Effective
Teaching (cont’d)

Other considerations:
◦ Industry credential/certificate as a program
outcome
◦ Experiential learning components
◦ Special admissions criteria
◦ Accreditation
PART THREE:
Program Review Process
Program Review Process
The Program Review Process (PRC) will review
all academic programs within a 5-year cycle:
 A limited number of programs will be reviewed in
Fall 2011 (1 from each School); these programs
will pilot the Program Review process that will be
implemented in fall 2012 (5-year cycle begins)
 The Program Review rotation will be determined
by considering (1) specialized accreditation, (2)
program enrollment and other key performance
indicators, (3) program ROI, and (4)
recommendations from School Deans and
Program Directors
Program Review Process (cont’d)
Key indicators will be reviewed and
analyzed annually for all programs,
regardless of their position in the
Program Review rotation; these indicators
may prompt an “out of cycle” program
review
 Year 1 programs will begin the Program
Review process in fall 2011

PART FOUR:
Involvement of LLT
Involvement…
Leadership
 Draft/refine Conceptual Framework
 Define Outcome Based Assessment
Program review at SJC
 Develop strategy for faculty inclusion
 Team membership

◦ Value of external reviewers (outside program/
department)

Identify professional development
resources needed
Historical Perspective/Current
Practices
Identify drivers for curriculum changes in
the past 2-5 years
 Measurable program outcomes
 Measurable course outcomes linked to
program outcomes
 CSLO’s linked to course outcomes
 Curriculum mapping
