1 / 25

UK’s Program Review for Educational Units

UK’s Program Review for Educational Units. Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Roger Sugarman, PhD Director, Office for Institutional Research. program review overview

jalia
Télécharger la présentation

UK’s Program Review for Educational Units

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UK’s Program Review forEducational Units Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Roger Sugarman, PhD Director, Office for Institutional Research

  2. program review overview • program review schedule & current process • educational units participating in 2011-2012 cycle • program review components: self study, external review, and implementation plan • sources that inform the review • program review calendar • contacts • questions Topics to Cover 2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

  3. Background: Program Reviews in Kentucky • Governing Regulation IX-I • required every 5-7 years for all academic and administrative units (exceptions may be negotiated to align with specialized accreditation cycle) • Role of Council of Postsecondary Education (CPE) Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 ProgramReview Overview 2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

  4. What is the purpose and goal of program review? • to improve the quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning, research, public service, and operations; and • to develop recommendations leading to organizational improvement based on internal evaluation with appropriate input from external experts • Who is responsible for satisfying program review? • President, provost and executive vice presidents • deans, vice presidents, associate vice presidents, associate and vice provosts, department chairpersons, directors, and other administrators • Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness • unit/area faculty, staff, and/or appropriate personnel Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 ProgramReview Overview, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

  5. Schedule & Current Year Progress Updates • Purpose: • communicate to organizational entities the full 6-yr review cycle and when units can expect to undergo program review • Goals: • provide the transparent and accurate maintenance of the review schedule for the university’s educational (academic) and administrative units; and • monitoring unit progress UK’s Program Review Schedule 2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

  6. College of Agriculture: • 4 departments/college • 21 degree programs • College of Arts and Sciences: • 9 departments • 21 degree programs • College of Engineering • 1 center • 9 departments • 27 degree programs • College of Fine Arts • 2 departments • 9 degree programs • College of Medicine Educational Units participating in 2011-2012 Cycle 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  7. College of Agriculture • Animal and Food Sciences (BSASC, MS, PhD) • Food Science (BSFOS) • Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering (BSBN, MSBAE, PhD) • College of Agriculture (interdisciplinary) (BSAG) • Merchandising, Apparel & Textiles (MSMAT) • Home Economics (MS) • Human Nutrition (BS) • Nutrition and Food Science (BSD, BSFOS, BSHE, BSHN) • Nutrition and Food Science—Hospitality Management (BSHM) • Crop Science (Ms, PhD) • Plant & Soil Science (BSHPS) • Plant Physiology (PhD) • Soil Science (PhD) Educational Units Participating in 2011-2012 Cycle 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  8. College of Arts & Sciences • Biology (BA/BS, MS, PhD) • Economics (BA/BS, MS) • Geology (BA/BS, MS, PhD) • Hispanic Studies (BA/BS, MS, PhD) • Spanish (BA/BS) • History (BA/BS, MA, PhD) • Mathematics (BA/BS, MA/MS, PhD) • Applied Mathematics (MS) • Mathematical Statistics (MS, PhD) • College Administrative units Educational Units Participating in 2011-2012 Cycle 2011-2012 Program Review Workshop

  9. College of Engineering • Biomedical Engineering (BSCHE, MSBE, MSPMBE, PhD) • Materials  Engineering (BSMAE, MsMSCE, PhD) • Civil Engineering (BSCIE, MCE, MSCIE, PhD) • Computer Engineering (BSCOE) • Computer Science (BSCS, MS, PhD) • Electrical Engineering (BSEE, MSEE, PhD) • Mechanical Engineering (BSMEE, MSMEE, PhD) • Mining and Mineral Engineering (BSMIE, MME, MSME, PhD) • Manufacturing Engineering (MSMSYE) • All Administrative units Educational Units participating in 2011-2012 Cycle 2011-2012 Program Review workshops

  10. College of Fine Arts • Art Education (BA, MA) • Art History (BA, MA) • Art Studio (BFA, MFA) • Art Administration (BA) • Theatre (BFA, MFA) Educational Units Participating in2011-2012 Cycle 2011-2012 Program Review Workshop

  11. I. *Self-Study Report (include as appropriate): • program documents • resources • input from affected constituents • adherence to policies and procedures • evaluation of quality and productivity • analysis of strengths and recommendations for quality enhancement • may be substituted, in part, with accreditation report from external accrediting agency • Elements evaluated: • centrality • competitive & comparative advantage • cost effectiveness • demand • quality • Distinctiveness *Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Program Review Components 2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

  12. Accreditation Report may substitute for: • UK Self-Study, ONLY if : • approved by President, Provost, or appropriate executive vice president, AND the Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness • 2 External Reviewers, ONLY if : • program was visited by an on-site committee in order to obtain external accreditation AND accreditation report approved by the Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness Accreditation Review WILL NOT substitute for: • UK’s External Review • UK’s External Review Committee Report • UK’s Implementation Plan Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Program Review Components, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

  13. II.i. External Review (completed by UK’s External Review Committee) • examines the self-study report; • uses appropriate data collection techniques to assure objectivity; • assesses validity of conclusions reached in self-study; • identifies additional strengths and recommendations for quality enhancement; and • prepares a final report—report made available to faculty, staff employees, and students Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Program Review Components, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  14. II.ii. Educational Unit External Review Committee • appointed by the Dean after consultation with the elected college faculty council or appropriate college body (for departments/school reviews) • Provost consults with University Senate Council to seek nominations (for college level reviews) • consists of 6-8 members—primarily faculty • 2-faculty in same discipline or college and who are external to University • 1-2 ex-officio members, appointed to support external review committee • following external review, meets with unit and its leadership to discuss preliminary findings and writes report Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Program Review Components, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  15. II.iii. External Review Committee Report considers: • Program documents: strategic plan (i.e. mission statement, goals, and objectives, & criteria for measuring progress); primary contributions to UK’s mission and vision, organizational chart or structure, & annual progress reports • Resources: adequacy of budget, facilities, equipment, personnel, including faculty and staff numbers demographics, and support from other university units essential to effective operations (e.g., research, engagement, development, alumni affairs, human resources, facilities management, financial units, & information technology) • Input from Affected Constituents: evaluation data from faculty, staff, and students affected by the delivery of program and services to the unit. Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Program Review Components, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  16. II.iii. External Review Committee Report considers: • Adherence to Policies and Procedures: evidence of adherence to university policies and procedures (e.g., registration, student activity fees, hiring practices, etc.) • Evaluation of Quality and Productivity: evidence of quality of the collegial culture and climate • Faculty and staff employees, communications and interactions; • Orientation, advising, and other student services programs; • Learning outcomes; • Customer or client satisfaction; • Business and operating procedures; Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Program Review Components, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  17. III.Implementation Plan • Sets agenda for change and quality enhancement over the next 5-7 year cycle. • unit faculty, staff, and/or students under the leadership of unit head define unit agenda based on self-study and external review report/recommendations. • must be approved by unit head’s supervisor. • used by unit to document future plans and resource needs for consideration in budgetary decision-making. • supports annual progress reporting. Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06 Program Review Components, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  18. Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T)are considered with regard to the following areas: • General • Alignment of program to department, college, university, and CPE initiatives • Program • Curriculum • Transfer equivalences and course substitutions • Effectiveness /Student Learning Outcomes • Grade distribution • Innovative delivery methods • Partnerships, research, and other engagement activities • Benchmarking Program Review Content: SWOT 2011-2012 Program Review Workshop

  19. Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T)are considered with regard to the following areas: • Faculty • number and balance of faculty types • scholarly activity (number of peer –reviewed publications, creativity activity, and/or funding by year for the past 3-5 years or last review) • assignments (teaching, research, and service) • teaching loads (numbers of classes by program and number of students served) • thesis and dissertations supervised over the past five years • faculty development and mentoring Program Review Content: SWOT, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  20. Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T)are considered with regard to the following areas: • Resources • Space (instructional, laboratory, office) • equipment and facilities • Staff • Students • quality of incoming students • evidence of quality of education (placement, licensure pass rates, awards) • retention, progression , and completion • satisfaction Program Review Content: SWOT, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  21. Institutional data (provided by Office of Institutional Research) for examples see: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html InstitutionalSources that inform Review 2011-2012 Program Review Workshop

  22. unit website • peer benchmarking and “best practices” • last unit self-study reports (2004-05, or 2005-06) • annual progress reports (past 3 years) • most recent accreditation or certification results and recommendations • external consultant reports • department/unit statements of good teaching qualifications practices (if appropriate) UnitSources that inform Review 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  23. Appendix/Supplemental Materials • program curriculum materials (catalog copy at minimum; selected syllabi if appropriate, etc.) • program handbook(s) • current faculty CVs • faculty annual evaluation standards and procedures • faculty promotion and tenure criteria (dept., college, univ.) • most recent accreditation or certification results and recommendations • representative samples of undergraduate and graduate work (thesis, dissertations, publications, awards, & recognitions) UnitSources that nform Review, continued 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  24. *Calendar • Purpose: • communicates steps and timeline for completing program review; and • ensures timely completion *Refer to educational unit calendar for 2011-2012 cycle Program Review: Calendar 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

  25. General Program Review Process • Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Email: mia.alexander-snow@uky.edu Office phone: 257-2873 Institutional Research and Data • Roger Sugarman Director, Institutional Research Email: rpsuga0@uky.edu Office phone: 257-7989 6-Year Schedule • Connie Vaughn Program Planning Coordinator Email: csvaug1@email.uky.edu Office phone: 257-7915 Program Review: Questions 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

More Related