1 / 9

Instructional Program Review Guidelines

This guideline focuses on modifying the instructional program review process to ensure more meaningful evaluation findings, improved relevancy, and enhanced program effectiveness through comprehensive planning and assessment. The modifications aim to streamline the process, align program review with planning modules, and provide expanded support for ongoing assessment. Recommendations include moving to a non-staggered cycle for all complete comprehensive program reviews in the same year. Pros and cons are discussed with options to either maintain the current status quo or adopt a re-envisioned approach.

lavine
Download Presentation

Instructional Program Review Guidelines

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. InstructionalProgram Review Guidelines Recommended Modifications Georgie Monahan, PR Coordinator Sheri Sterner, Institutional Effectiveness April 15, 2014

  2. Guideline Review Process for Instruction

  3. Comprehensive Evaluation Findings - PR

  4. Comprehensive Evaluation Findings - SLOs

  5. Guideline Modifications Less Meaningful (Current) More Meaningful (New) Program Relevancy Program Curriculum Planning Program Effectiveness Summary/Closing Planning (planning module) • Description of program • Access & Enrollment • Success & Retention • SLOs • Planning

  6. Schedule: 4th cycle • Program Review (begins 2015-16) • Year 1: Comprehensive program review (CPR) • Year 2: Annual update (goal status + ARR) • Year 3: Annual update (goal status + ARR) • SLOs/Assessment (ongoing) • Year 1: CPR synthesis of previous cycle in CPR + scheduled assessment • Year 2: Scheduled assessment • Year 3: Scheduled assessment

  7. Enhancements • TracDat (program review, SLOs, planning) • One stop, accessible reports, easier updates • Streamlined & focused on outcomes • Expanded support from IR • Re-focused peer review (upcoming discussion) • Better alignment of campus program review & planning processes

  8. Alignment Recommendation • Recommendation to non-staggered cycle • All complete CPRs same year • Pros/Cons • Discussion about programs • Maintain status quo • Re-envisioned

  9. Feedback

More Related