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

1

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

2

Topics to Cover

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

2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

3

Background: Program Reviews in KentuckyGoverning 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


Program Review Overview

4

Program Review Overview, continued

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 2011-2012 Program Review Orientation Workshops

5

UK’s Program Review Schedule

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


6

Educational Units participating in 2011-2012 Cycle

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

2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

7

Educational Units Participating in 2011-2012 Cycle

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)


8

Educational Units Participating in 2011-2012 Cycle

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

2011-2012 Program Review Workshop

9

Educational Units participating in 2011-2012 Cycle

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

2011-2012 Program Review workshops

10

Educational Units Participating in2011-2012 Cycle

College of Fine Arts Art Education (BA, MA) Art History (BA, MA) Art Studio (BFA, MFA) Art Administration (BA) Theatre (BFA, MFA)


11

Program Review ComponentsI. *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:

centralitycompetitive & comparative advantagecost effectivenessdemandqualityDistinctiveness

*Slide reference citation: University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations (AR)1:4:11/15/06


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



Program Review Components, continued

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



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 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.



16

Program Review Components, continuedII.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;



17

Program Review Components, continuedIII. 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 2011-2012 Program Review Workshops

18

Program Review Content: SWOT

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


19

Program Review Content: SWOT, continuedStrengths (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


20

Program Review Content: SWOT, continued

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


21

Institutional Sources that inform Review

Institutional data (provided by Office of Institutional Research) for examples see: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html


http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html

22

Unit Sources that inform Review

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)


23

Unit Sources that nform Review, continued

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)


24

Program Review: Calendar

*CalendarPurpose:

communicates steps and timeline for completing program review; and

ensures timely completion

*Refer to educational unit calendar for 2011-2012 cycle


25

Program Review: QuestionsGeneral Program Review Process Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD

Director, Planning and Institutional EffectivenessEmail: [email protected] phone: 257-2873

Institutional Research and Data Roger Sugarman

Director, Institutional ResearchEmail: [email protected] phone: 257-7989

6-Year Schedule Connie Vaughn

Program Planning CoordinatorEmail: [email protected] phone: 257-7915


mailto:[email protected]



Documents

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