Conducting an Effective and Useful Program Review Process

Conducting an Effective and Useful Program Review Process Patty Francis Associate Provost Institutional Assessment & Effectiveness

Background Information SUNY, MIDDLE STATES, AND SUNY ONEONTA

SUNY Assessment ¥ Provost’s Advisory Task Force on the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (November 2000) Recommendations Implementation of campus-based Assessment of the Major (i. e. , program review) effective Fall 2001 ¥ Program reviews to be conducted every 5 -7 years and to include evaluations by external reviewers and assessment data on student learning ¥

SUNY Assessment (cont. ) ¥ Board of Trustees’ Resolution on Streamlining Assessment (March 2010) ¥ ¥ ¥ Ended SUNY Assessment Initiative Called for campuses to have in place assessment plans that meet or exceed Middle States standards and those of specialized accreditors Implications for registered academic programs ¥ Regular review that includes assessment of student learning and external review process

Middle States Expectations ¥ ¥ Clearly articulated statements of expected student learning outcomes for all programs that aim to foster student learning and development A documented, organized, and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning Assessment results that provide sufficient, convincing evidence that students are achieving program learning outcomes Evidence that student learning assessment information is shared and discussed with appropriate constituents and is used to improve

Program Review at SUNY Oneonta ¥ Has been in place since 2001 ¥ Originally on 5 -7 year schedule, now on 7 -year schedule (with externally accredited programs able to coordinate program review and self-study processes) ¥ Observations about process Good news: they generally get done ¥ Bad news: quality is uneven, especially with respect to student learning assessment data ¥

Expanded Role of OIAE ¥ ¥ Annual workshops are held for programs beginning the process Feedback to be provided on submitted reviews ¥ ¥ To be sent to program, dean, and Provost May require some re-submission, especially if SLO data weak/missing

Effective Program Review FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS

Getting Started ¥ Carefully review resources on College’s assessment website (http: //www. oneonta. edu/academics/Assessment/) ¥ ¥ Guidelines and Procedures for the Review of Academic Programs are found on website and contain a detailed description of self-study report formatting and content In Fall 2012 Provost Thompson approved APAC recommendation that College adopt the SUNY University Faculty Senate guidelines for program review (http: //www. suny. edu/facultysenate/files/Program_Review. pdf)

Key Components of Self-Study Process ¥ Consideration by faculty of program’s mission, goals, and expected student learning outcomes ¥ ¥ ¥ Development of timeline for conducting and completing self-study process Identification of external reviewers and submission of names to dean ¥ ¥ ¥ Goals include student learning, but also include teaching effectiveness, student engagement, student perceptions of program, scholarly accomplishments, service, and professional development Can be from other SUNY institutions Three names submitted to dean, who selects two to visit campus Submission of budget to dean for external reviewers

Self-Study Sections 1. 2. 3. 4. Title Page Table of Contents Introduction and General Information Assessment of Student Learning ¥ ¥ Student learning outcomes Description of direct and indirect measures Conclusions regarding student learning Plans for change based on assessment data

Self-Study Sections (cont. ) 5. Program data (Program Data Summary Table is NOT needed) A. B. C. D. Enrollment trends over past 5 years, impact of those trends, and expected changes for future Retention and graduate outcomes Faculty accomplishments, FTE’s, and role of adjunct faculty Resources (facilities, operational budgets) Use of technology in teaching and learning 7. Benchmarking 8. Program’s response to external reviewers’ report 9. Appendices (only external reviewer report required) 6.

Recommended Timeline ¥ Spring before year self-study to be conducted ¥ ¥ Fall Semester ¥ ¥ Collection and analysis of information to be included in document October ¥ ¥ Faculty review of process and requirements, planning, etc. Selection of external reviewers and submission of name/budget to divisional dean for approval November ¥ Verify reviewers and set dates for site-visit

Recommended Timeline (cont. ) ¥ March 15 ¥ ¥ April ¥ ¥ Prepare penultimate draft of self-study and distribute to faculty External reviewers visit campus and submit report within two weeks of visit (visit includes meeting with divisional dean and Provost) May ¥ Faculty construct response to external reviewers’ report and finalize self-study document and submit to divisional dean and APIAE

Conclusions MESHING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Relating Annual Report, Program Review, and Assessment Plan Processes Annual Report – due every year, includes section on assessment of student learning ¥ Program Review – due every 7 years, includes analysis of range of processes and outcomes ¥ Assessment Plan (i. e. , APAC) – encompasses three-year period, requires reporting on annual basis effective 2011 -12; exclusive focus is student learning ¥ ¥ Recent APAC recommendations regarding reporting of assessment results in Annual Report