Transcript Academic Program and Unit Review at UIS

Academic Program and Unit
Review at UIS
Office of the Provost
Fall 2014
Why UIS Conducts Program and
Unit Reviews
 To identify and analyze program strengths
and areas of concern
 To identify ways to improve the quality and
productivity of programs
 To comply with Illinois Board of Higher
Education (IBHE) requirements
IBHE Requirements for Program
Review
 Program goals and learning outcomes
 Program and course-by-course assessment
 Multiple performance measures (retention, graduation,
institutional metrics, learning measures, etc.)
 Feedback from key stakeholders
 Formal feedback/improvement mechanism for improving
curriculum, instruction and learning
 Demonstrated capacity to efficiently and effectively deliver
programs using technology and data systems
 Findings and recommendations
Best Practices in Program and Unit
Review
 More than 80% of American colleges & universities
surveyed have some form of program/unit review
 UIS process is consistent with best practices in
program/unit evaluation
–
–
–
–
Comprehensive coverage of program components
Grounded in faculty ownership
Review process is broadly participatory
Enhanced feedback
Resources on Box
 Data, prepared by the Office of Institutional Research
 Previous self-study, college memo, dean’s memo, Council
memo(s), IBHE Reports and MOUs (if available).
 PowerPoint and materials from Program Review Workshop.
 Program and Unit Review Guidelines, also available on Institutional
Effectiveness web page:
http://www.uis.edu/academicaffairs/planning/institutionaleffecti
veness/.
 Alumni Survey data, prepared by Office of Survey Research,
available in November.
 Tips, Rubrics, and Process Documents, prepared by Grad Council.
Routing Sheet
 Routing Sheet
– Documents each level of approval, with dates and
signatures
– Must accompany Program/Unit Review at each level
of approval (can be electronically conveyed)
 Instructions for Routing and Approval Process
 Routing Sheet and Instructions are posted on
Box.
What To Expect
 Overview of Process
– Year One
– Year Two
 Timeline
– Year One: Academic Year 2014-15
– Year Two: Fall 2015
– Year Two: Spring 2016
Year One Overview
1. Program or unit identifies self-study committee, lead writer, and
departmental or unit coordinator. This person oversees the
process and is chief contact for the Provost’s Office. Coordinator
should be identified immediately following the Program Review
Workshop.
2. Program or unit completes self-study by gathering and analyzing
data. Consult with Office of Institutional Research and Provost
Office staff as needed.
3. Program faculty or unit staff draft report sections. Program or unit’s
lead writer edits and compiles sections into Program Review report.
4. Program or unit approves report.
5. Copies of report are submitted to College Curriculum Committee
AND Dean (OR to Unit Director’s Supervisor).
Year One Overview continued . . .
6. College Curriculum Committee asks questions, provides feedback to
Program.
7. Program or Unit revises report based on college or administrator
feedback and submits revised report to College Committee and Dean
(note that Dean should not wait for College Committee memo to
review the report).
8. College Curriculum Committee prepares brief approval memo and
forwards it with the report to the Dean (a copy of the approval memo
should be sent to the Program).
9. Dean or Unit Director’s Supervisor prepares a memo outlining
recommendations and forwards all materials to the Provost’s Office (a
copy of the administrative memo should be sent to the Program).
10.The Provost’s Office distributes copies of the Program Review report
and memos to the Councils.
Year Two Overview
 Councils review materials and usually invite program or unit
representatives and dean to a meeting to answer questions
and clarify areas of the report.
 Councils prepare written comments/recommendations in
memos and forward the memos to Campus Senate & Provost.
 Senate hears reports from the Council and votes to approve
the report.
 Provost’s Office develops a Memorandum of Understanding
based on recommendations from Program, Dean, Councils
and makes an official report to the Illinois Board of Higher
Education (IBHE).
Program Review Timelines
Some target dates for the next
24 months . . .
Timeline: Academic Year 201415
Program or Unit
attends Workshop,
appoints
Coordinator,
Committee, and
Lead Writer, and
receives materials
(Oct-Nov 2014)
Program or Unit
drafts self-study and
approves it at
program level (by
March 2015 if
possible)
Program or Unit
forwards self-study
to College
Curriculum & Dean
(by May 2015)
Timeline: Fall 2015
Review by College
Curriculum
Committee or Unit
Director’s
Supervisor;
revisions made if
necessary (early fall
2015)
College Committee
issues memo and
forwards to Dean
and Program (mid
fall 2015)
Dean or
Administrator
issues memo and
forwards all
materials to
Provost’s Office,
with copy of memo
to Program or Unit
(by late fall 2015)
Timeline: Spring 2016
Council receives
materials from
Provost’s Office and
reviews; program or
unit representative
answers questions
(early Spring 2016)
Council prepares
memo and forwards
all materials to
Campus Senate (by
March 1, 2016)
Campus Senate
hears Council
Report and votes to
approve; Provost’s
Office prepares MOU
and IBHE Report
(Summer 2016)
Academic Program Review Guidelines





Program Objectives &
Structure
Assessment of Learning
Outcomes & Curricular
Revisions
Student Characteristics
& Academic Support
Faculty
Learning Environment &
Support Services




Student Demand &
Program Productivity
Centrality to Campus
Mission
Costs
Summary &
Recommendations
Reviews of Minors & Certificates








Program Description & Objectives
Curriculum
Students
Faculty
Student Demand
Costs
Quality & Productivity
Recommendations
Unit Review Guidelines
 Background
 Potential Faculty/Staff
Quality
 Centrality
 Facilities and
Equipment
 Locational Advantages
 Comparative
Advantages
 Cost/Revenue
Relationship
 Quality of Service or
Research
 Additional Productivity
Considerations
 Recommendations
 Statistical Data
Three-Year Review (New Programs)
 Brief general description of program, including learning
outcomes and any developments in curriculum.
 Discussion of positive developments and challenges in
implementation (may involve student demand, changes in
faculty, etc.).
 Plans for or developments in assessment of student learning.
 Analysis of performance measures including, if available: student
enrollment in the program, enrollment in the courses associated
with the program, pattern of course availability, number of credit
hours generated by the program, and number of students
completed.
CASL Mid-Cycle Assessment
Reports
 A new process, approved by Campus
Senate
 Departments now submit an Assessment
Progress Report to CASL in Year Three of
the regular program review cycle.
 The Report will be due no later than May
15th of that academic year.
CASL Mid-Cycle Assessment Reports
Cont.
 In Year Four of the academic program
review cycle, CASL will review the report
and provide formative written feedback
and assistance to the program.
 Departments will be required to include
CASL's feedback in their academic program
review documentation.
For More Information on
Assessment
 See the CASL website:
http://www.uis.edu/assessment/
 The CASL website can help you
– Understand the assessment process
– Prepare for the mid-cycle assessment reports
– Find resources on best practices in assessment
Suggestions
 Get started as soon as possible and anticipate target
dates over the next 18 months
 Use the self-study process and external feedback to
reflect and think about how the program could be
improved
 Involve all program faculty in the evaluation & writing
process
 Respond to the issues raised in the program’s last review
cycle
Suggestions continued…
 Demonstrate how evidence of student learning has
been used to make curricular change
 Analyze the data, including enrollments, and think about
the possible implications of trends
 Address problems directly in the report
 Integrate the review with other planning or
accreditation processes