Transcript Reinventing Program and Services Review at Chaffey College

Reinventing Program and Services
Review at Chaffey College
Marie Boyd
Giovanni Sosa
Tom Vitzelio
Presentation Overview
SETTING THE STAGE
 THE PROCESS
 PROBLEMS
 THE RESULTS
 REWARDS
 FUTURE GOALS

SETTING THE STAGE
Chaffey completed a
program review (“PSR”) every year.
 The Problems:
Labor intensive process
 Undefined process = No real substantive comments
 Evolved into a budgeting focused process
 Discontent with the decision making process
 Slow SLO process
 Confusion regarding the definition of a “ program”

SETTING THE STAGE

Dr. Sherrie Guerrero decided that a new PSR
was to be launched.
Summer of 2008: revising the PSR templates in
Curricunet
 Fall 2008: fine tuning new model and dialoging with
the PSR committee.
 Spring 2009: reading and critiquing the SLO portion
of PSR was now established under the SLO
Committee
 February to March 2009: development of
resources and training for both the PSR writer and the
SLO Committee Readers

THE PROCESS

The SLO Committee was divided into reading teams

AUOs (administrative unit outcomes)


SLOs


Faculty and staff from instructional programs
Hybrid programs


Administrators and non-instructional staff members
either an AUO team or SLO team.
The SLO Committee:

Decide the desired progress of the program SLOs/AUOs
THE PROCESS

A consistent set of comments



5 phases of the assessment cycle
Goal: consistency among teams of readers
Institutional Research online evaluation form


Electronically submitted to IR
Copy for programs being evaluated
Chaffey PSR Screen Shots:
Program Mission and Overview
Chaffey PSR Screen Shots:
Program Goals and Outcomes Assessment
Chaffey PSR Screen Shots: Program
Curriculum Mapping Matrix
Chaffey PSR Screen Shots:
SLO Committee Comments
Chaffey PSR Screen Shots:
Institutional Research Summary E-Form
PROBLEMS


New Curricunet design did not norm to the 5 phase of
the assessment cycle exactly
Catching up after the SLO process had gone “cold”


Tight time frame for the SLO readers





5 phases of the SLO process, and a common language
training on the new tools,
establishing a common understanding of the task, and the
evaluation
The SLO Committee readers had two weeks to read 127
program reviews (Over 600 AUOs and SLOs) and provide
feedback to the PSR Committee
Alignment with IR online evaluation form and Curricunet
SLO/AUO section of PSR
Technical glitches with the online evaluation form
THE RESULTS
Different “GOALS”
 Evaluation of “student-centered”
 Differences in writing outcome statements
and benchmarks.
 Consistent comments = all program
SLO/AUOs were “graded” with the same
rubric.

THE RESULTS

Programs with difficult selected forms of assessments.

Many did not know about the unique and exciting
possibilities of assessment format

Heavy reliance on “pre/post” test.

Widespread confusion regarding “reflective dialogue”
REWARDS

Program goals are student-centered

Chaffey has an actual count – a complete picture
– of the status of program AUOs and SLOs for
the first time ever.

All programs have a consistent set of
recommendations to follow to jump start the
SLO process which had gone cold
REWARDS

The SLO Co-coordinators know exactly the sorts
of interventions and advice to offer to specific
program SLOs

Suggestions for more interesting, engaging, and
AUTHENTIC forms of assessment

Noticeably more involvement and positive
dialogue regarding the outcomes assessment
process at Chaffey among faculty, staff and
administrators
NEW FOCUS:
FUTURE GOALS







Modify the Curricunet SLO screens
Streamline the IR electronic survey
Improve the ability to search the database
Reword comments/recommendations for
clarification
Continue to create an authentic link between SLO
PSR process and the planning/budgeting process
Include students in the overall SLO process
Improve the communication and dialogue between
the SLO Committee and the PSR Committee