Richland College Creating Institutional BuyIn to the Credit

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

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

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 3

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

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

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 6

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 7

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 8

Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #1 9 9

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 10

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

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

Scoring Mechanism Key Performance Indicator #3 13 13

Scoring Mechanism Summary Sheet 14 14

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 15

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

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 17

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

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