Academic Program Review
The College, as part of the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Open Pathways Accreditation Core Component 4.A.1, undertakes regular reviews of each academic program. The purpose of the Program Review is to evaluate the quality, productivity, and role of College programs in the fulfillment of the College’s Mission and Strategic Plan. The process encourages self-study and planning based upon program assessment results, addresses comparability among review reports, and strengthens linkages connecting the College’s strategic planning process with that of individual programs. Information developed during the review process is used in budgetary and planning decisions.
Each program, as determined by the appropriate council, should conduct a review once every five years or when the program is considering a substantial change to its services.
The timeline will be:
Aug-Nov of Review Year
Program will gather data and information -
Program Review Data Meeting with Assessment Coordinator and IR
Feb-May of Review Year
Program will write the Program Review document
Jun-Jul of Review Year
Appropriate Dean will review the Program Review document
Sept-Oct of Following Year
Program Review will be evaluated by Assessment Committee
Nov of Following Year
Program Review will be evaluated by Provost
December of Following Year
Program Review will be submitted to Executive Council during budget
Feb-May of bi-annual non-Review Years
Program will meet to review goals and budget requests -
Annual Review Day with Assessment Coordinator
As the purpose of program review is many fold, it also has multiple audiences and will be made publicly available. Currently a website is being constructed to house the Program Review documents and the feedback gathered during each review.
There are two program review documents; one has an academic focus and the other has a learning support focus. These documents are not static and will change and are adaptable to the needs of the individual program. Any and all feedback can be submitted to the Associate Dean of Curriculum and Assessment or the Assessment Coordinator.
Program Review Evaluation Process
Once a program review document has been created, it will go through a review process. This review process will provide multiple opportunities for feedback.
First, the program review document will be evaluated by the appropriate dean. The dean’s role is to evaluate the document as a whole for any areas that could be improved and to assent he/ or she agrees with the information presented. If the dean wishes to have changes made, the dean and program will do so in collaboration. Once the dean approves of the document, he or she will give it to the assessment coordinator.
Second, the assessment coordinator brings the program review document to the Assessment Committee. The Assessment Committee will break into sub-groups dependent on the number of program review documents submitted. Each group will evaluate the document with the “Program Review Checklist” and review the document for any grammatical issues that may be present. Once the checklist and grammatical edit has been completed, these will be returned to the dean to share with the program. After the dean and program have reviewed the checklist and made any necessary changes, the dean will submit the program review document to the Provost for evaluation.
The Provost will evaluate the program’s action plan and budget requests to ensure alignment throughout the Academic Affairs division. If the Provost wishes to have changes made, the Provost and the dean will do so in collaboration. Once the Provost approves of the document, he or she will submit the program review document to the Executive Council for strategic planning and budget consideration. The Provost will also notify the Assessment Coordinator of the approval, and the Assessment Coordinator will post the approved program review document on the website along with any correlating feedback.
*This section contains large .pdf documents that may not be accessible through mobile devices.
ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW DOCUMENTS
|PROGRAM||MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED PROGRAM REVIEW||UPCOMING PROGRAM REVIEW DATE|
|Administration of Justice||Spring 2016||2020-2021|
|Allied Health||Spring 2016||2018-2019|
|American Sign Language||Spring 2016||2019-2020|
|Arts & Humanities (General Education)||2018-2019|
|Computer Information Systems||Spring 2016||2019-2020|
|Construction Technology Management||Spring 2016||2019-2020|
|Fire Science||Spring 2016||2020-2021|
|Nursing||Spring 2016 2017-2018||2021-2022|
|Paramedic Studies||Spring 2016||2020-2021|
|Physical & Biological Sciences (General Education)||2017-2018||2022-2023|
|Pre-Health Careers||2018-2019 (Postponed)||2021-2022|
|Social & Behavioral Sciences (General Education)||2017-2018 (2018-2019 in draft)|
NON-ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW DOCUMENTS
|PROGRAM||MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED PROGRAM REVIEW||UPCOMING PROGRAM REVIEW DATE|
|Business & Administration Office||2017-2018||2022-2023|
|Financial Aid & Veteran Services||2021-2022|
|Information Technology Systems (ITS)||2016-2017||2021-2022|
|Registration & Enrollment Services||2021-2022|
|Student Development - Advising||2017-2018||2022-2023|
|Student Development - Recruitment||2019-2020|
|Student Development - Student Activities||2020-2021|
|Student Development - Testing, New Student Orientation, START||2021-2022|
|Student Development - Tutoring, Disability Resources, Trio, Early Alert||2018-2019|
The data and information for these reviews were gathered by each department chair individually, and the results were shared with Institutional Research and Assessment (IRA) and posted on its website. The results of annual program data were also shared with the College President and Board. While the results were used to assess the currency, relevancy, and quality of the programs, the process was time-consuming, and not all of the information gathered proved useful. When the College eliminated department chairs as part of an organizational structure change in FY 15, Academic Affairs began researching a new program data model that could provide departments and divisions with relevant data without creating excessive burden.
Through a collaborative effort between Institutional Research, our HLC Assessment Academy Workgroup, and Finance Department, a reporting framework was developed that requires fewer resources to produce actionable information.
This new Program Data template is intended to provide comprehensive information via a reporting practice that is both systematic and sustainable. The primary objective of the report is to examine programs (degree & certificate) by looking at the actual courses taken by students declaring that program. Those courses are divided into developmental, 100 level, 200 level, and subject groupings. Data therein includes: 1) enrollment, 2) course success rates, 3) tuition revenue generated, and 4) overall course expense. This allows for a clear picture of how students in a given major select and perform in the courses that support that major. Identifying how courses relate to programs is vital for those programs that have broad curricular offerings; such as the General Education program. This template accomplishes that goal. We anticipate developing this template to include other relevant information as we continue to develop our new Program Review report. In addition, deans, DCs, faculty, Curriculum Committee, and Articulation Task Forces (ATFs) continually review the currency and relevancy of CCC programs.
Between FY 2009 and FY 2014, CCC department chairs annually conducted program review. The model used was developed by department chairs (DCs) and division deans in 2008 and piloted in FY 2009. A review cycle in which programs would be reviewed in a three- to five-year interval was established in 2010. Each department chair conducted at least one departmental program review annually with an occasional year-long hiatus from the process.
The review documented the program’s role in fulfilling the learning and teaching Mission of the College. Items in the review included enrollment patterns, staffing, technologies employed in teaching, and decision making processes. Additional sections of the program review included addressing results from assessment of student learning and programmatic changes as a result of assessment results; frequency of curricular review and curricular updates; the program’s role in meeting College curricular needs, such as general education requirements, multicultural courses, prerequisites or requirement for other programs; and the program’s accomplishments in support of the College’s current Strategic Plan.