Initial Notification By July 1 of the evaluation year Notification of Program Review by the Instructional Design and Assessment Council (IDAC) following a master calendar. Orientation DATE: The department chair/coordinator meets with the dean and the chair of IDAC for an orientation discussion and completion of this timeline. (Orientation date to be set by dean and department chair/coordinator.) Self-Study Drafted DATE: The department chair/coordinator, in collaboration with the entire department, conducts a self-study and generates a written report (see attached Self Study Template, p. 6). Dean Review DATE: Draft of written report is submitted to dean for informal feedback. Self-Study Submitted Deadline: one week before presentation date: DATE: ________ The department chair/coordinator makes revisions and submits final report to IDAC for distribution to ATC. ATC Presentation See presentation guidelines, p. 13. ATC Feedback Deadline for IDAC to send this: two weeks after presentation. DATE: ________ Feedback from ATC and other attendees (excluding the department’s dean and VP) is sent to the department chair/coordinator and department’s dean, either directly or through IDAC chair. Formal feedback from Administration Deadline for dean to send this: four weeks after presentation. DATE: ________ The dean, in coordination with VP of Instruction, provides formal written response to the department. Goal Setting DATE: ________ Based on formal and informal feedback, the department and dean set SMART goals and sends them to the VP of Instruction for final approval. Dean notifies IDAC chair that the department is ready for exit interview. Exit Interview DATE: ________ Department chair and IDAC chair schedule and complete an exit interview on program review process and forwards notification to
stakeholders are needed. (e.g. Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library, SOU if appropriate) No data provided. feedback. (e.g. Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library, SOU if appropriate) Raw data provided but left to the reader to summarize and interpret. but may not be implemented. (e.g. Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library, SOU if appropriate) Somewhat effective tables and charts, but too much raw data clearly responds to external stakeholder feedback. (e.g. Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library, SOU if appropriate) Effective tables and charts which show a summary and analysis of the data. Comments: 4. Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment - See each subsection below. a. Management of course offerings and course outline updates No clear process or schedule for management of courses and course outline updates. Course outlines more than three years old. No process for ensuring content consistency across multiple sections of a course. No regular review of course offerings and course outlines. Outlines are updated when requested by Curriculum Director. Awareness of the need for ensuring content consistency across multiple sections of a course. Course offerings and course outlines are reviewed regularly, at least every three years. Report describes the process for updating official course outlines. Evidence that efforts are being made to ensure content consistency across multiple sections of a course. The department effectively manages the courses it offers, including regularly reviewing their relevance, enrollments, outcomes, assessment methods, and alignment with program learning outcomes. Systems are in place to ensure content consistency across multiple sections of a course. Comments:
b. Outcome statements clear and regularly reviewed Nonspecific or unclear outcome statements. No evidence that outcomes are reviewed on any schedule or regular basis. Some outcome statements are clear and measurable, and reasonably state what students should be able to do as a result of learning. Evidence that outcomes are reviewed when course outlines are updated. Most outcome statements are clear and measurable, and reasonably state what students should be able to do as a result of learning. Outcomes are reviewed based on assessment data. Outcome statements clearly describe what students should be able to do as a result of the learning experience; are assessable; have sufficient substance to drive curriculum planning. Comments: c. Involvement of stakeholders in PLO development and review - internal and external* (if relevant) (Examples of internal stakeholders: students, related departments. Examples of external stakeholders: Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library) Lacks / missing stakeholder involvement in PLO development or review. (Examples of internal stakeholders: students, related departments. Examples of external stakeholders: Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library) Some stakeholder involvement in PLO development or review. (Examples of internal stakeholders: students, related departments. Examples of external stakeholders: Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library) The department includes multiple stakeholders in the development and review of Program Learning Outcomes. (Examples of internal stakeholders: students, related departments. Examples of external stakeholders: Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library) The department includes multiple stakeholders and actively pursues involvement in the development, review, and revision of PLOs. (Examples of internal stakeholders: students, related departments. Examples of external stakeholders: Advisory committees, transfer institutions, employers, Jackson County Library)
Comments: d. PLO assessment plan (Table I, II and Annual Summary) No plan for assessing PLOs. No data collection. No intentional alignment between PLOs and CLOs. Beginning to develop an assessment plan, but may only focus on grade distribution and completion, not learning outcomes. One set of PLOs for multiple programs. A few CLOs are intentionally aligned with PLOs. Multiyear plan for one program OR some but not all PLOs are assessed annually. Every PLO has an identified assessment at the course level. (Direct and indirect assessments?) Some distinction between sets of PLOs for different programs. Clear multi-year plan for each program; ongoing data collection done at the course level; thus, CLOs align with PLOs; cyclical plan in place for collecting and analyzing assessment data, making adjustments, and re-assessing. Distinct sets of PLOs for each program. Comments: e. Assessment data collection and analysis Not clear that learning outcomes assessment data are collected or analyzed. Learning outcomes assessment data are collected by department or program faculty, but not analyzed. Key multi-section courses do not have common assessment methods, tools, or inter-rater reliability. Learning outcomes assessment data are collected used by department or program faculty and analyzed as a team. Key multi-section courses have at least one common assessment method and tool, and there is a recognition of the need for inter-rater reliability. Clear methods of data collection, presentation, and analysis used by department or program faculty; faculty are trained in these areas; courses have consistent assessment methods and inter-rater reliability.
Comments: f. Use of learning outcome assessment results (“Closing the Loop”) No evidence that assessment data are discussed or made available to internal or external stakeholders. Assessment data are discussed, but not used by department or program faculty for course and program improvement. Assessment results are made available intermittently to internal and external stakeholders. Assessment data are discussed and used by department or program faculty to make curricular changes. Assessment data are made available regularly to internal and external stakeholders. Clear flow of evidence for how assessment results are used by department or program faculty to make curricular changes; Changes are analyzed in next assessment cycle. The department has a clear system for making assessment data available to internal and external stakeholders. Comments: g. Program maps No curriculum maps have been developed for any of this department’s degrees/certificates. One curriculum map exists, though there is more than one program offered. Program/department faculty are involved in the mapping process. Generation one curriculum map(s) only, with little detail of connections between courses. Program/department faculty are involved in the mapping process, including adjunct faculty. Program map(s) is/are at least Generation Two; are reviewed as part of yearly cycle and used to determine if curriculum changes are needed; map(s) is/are used as part of faculty training. Program/department faculty, including adjunct faculty, are involved in the mapping process; faculty from supporting
departments are included in the process. Comments: h. Faculty Development There is no clear system or plan for identifying the teaching methodologies and student engagement methods used by department faculty. There is some attention to teaching methodologies and student engagement methods, but it is not systematic; there is no plan to identify faculty training needs in outcome-based design. Department leadership can identify where the multiple teaching methodologies and student engagement methods are being used; the department has a plan to identify faculty training needs in outcome-based design. A range of teaching methodologies is used, including a variety of approaches and innovative student engagement methods; the department can identify faculty training needs in outcome-based design and/or has identified some faculty who can serve as mentors. Comments: 5. Evidence-based changes Change is rarely initiated; changes are not based on examination of evidence. (Evidence includes learning outcome achievement, graduation rates, and/or other sources of data related to student success.) The process of making changes based on available evidence is beginning, but not fully implemented. (Evidence includes learning outcome achievement, graduation rates, and/or other sources of data related to There is a regular process of examining evidence on student success to drive changes. (Evidence includes learning outcome achievement, graduation rates, and/or other sources of data related to student success.) Changes to department offerings, curriculum, staffing, policies, and partnerships are based on the analysis of evidence on student success. (Evidence includes learning outcome achievement, graduation rates, and/or other sources of data related to student success.)
There is no sign of data that would indicate that an honest, broad look at the department /program was taken. student success.) There is some indication that an honest, broad look at the department /program was taken and indicates both strengths and weaknesses. There is strong indication that an honest, broad look at the department /program was taken and highlights both some strengths and some weaknesses. The report courageously provides data showing the current state of the department, showing both serious strengths and serious weaknesses. Comments: 6. Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) (Optional) No attention to ILOs at the program/department level. Programs have identified the ILOs relevant to their Program Learning Outcomes but haven’t developed an assessment plan. Programs have identified the ILOs relevant to their Program Learning Outcomes as well as their assessment points in courses. The department systematically focuses on ILO assessment data. Comments: 7. Summary Missing a summary of strengths and weaknesses. Goals are ambiguous and action steps are unattainable. Includes a brief summary of strengths and weaknesses but still superficial. Goals are not or attainable. Clearly addresses the strengths, challenges, and themes that have emerged. goals are reasonable. Excellent and articulate discussion of strengths and weaknesses. Evidence to confirm that changes lead to improved learning. Comments: 8. Attachments All attachments are Some attachments Attachments included, All attachments are
incomplete or missing; sample syllabus inadequate; no department website. missing or incomplete; syllabus does not contain most current language on policies; course outcomes on syllabus or don’t match the course outcomes in the official course outline; department website out of date. including map; syllabus does not contain most current language on policies; course outcomes on syllabus only partially match the course outcomes in the official course outline; elements of department website out of date. included; every program has a map; sample syllabus is complete and current, including a match between the course learning outcomes listed and the ones in the official course outline; department website is current. Comments: General Comments: Assessed by*: _______________________________*Non-management feedback may be anonymous. Date: ______________