using program review to facilitate change mississippi association for institutional research march...

Using Program Review to Facilitate Change

Mississippi Association for Institutional Research March 31, 2005

Terri M. Manning, EdDCentral Piedmont Community College

Some history….

CPCC is the largest community college in both the Carolinas with approximately 60,000 students.

We have over 100 instructional program areas including for-credit, continuing education and literacy

We have almost 50 administrative and student affairs units

Some history….

When we started this process (1998), the College had done nothing truly “IE related” since the last SACS visit in 1992 when they received a recommendation for every must statement in section III.

The IR office staff had rolled over and all institutional memory was gone.

We had less than 5 years to put every program and unit through a review process.

Under the New Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards Core Requirement 2.5 states “The institution engages

in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement, and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.”

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 states “The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.”

IE at Central Piedmont

CPCC established an IE committee in 1998 and an IE website in 2000 (http://inside.cpcc.edu/IE)

Committee members were from various instructional departments, student services and administrative/business offices

The committee established an IE plan for the college

1: InitiateEnvironmental

Scan

Quality Improvement

5: Assess Outcomes& Measure Goal Achievement

8 Step Institutional Effectiveness Cycle

6: Utilize Resultsto Plan Improvements

2: Establish CollegePriorities & Goals

3: Allocate &Integrate Budget

4: Deliver Programs & Services

Conduct Unit Reviews

Conduct Teaching EvaluationsGeneral Education Assessment

College Surveys

7: Reallocate Budget

8. Make Changes

Visual of the IE Plan

Four Major Overlapping Pieces of the IE Plan

Program/Unit Review

College Assessment

Process

Annual GoalSetting Cycle

General Education

Assessment

Annual goal setting and follow-up required by all units

Program/unit review on a 3-5 year cycle

College assessment plan involving surveys, assessment and data analysis

The evaluation of general education

Developing the Process

We wanted to create a meaningful program/unit review process

We wanted programs to complete the process having learned something valuable (not a document to set on a shelf)

We wanted the process to be “outcome-based” to stand the test of time

Developing the Process

The first review process was created for instructional programs (main focus at most institutions)

During the 1998-99 year, 18 programs were reviewed (approximately 100 programs over five years)

The perception at the beginning was that “this is just another academic exercise”

But the results were very different than any review process previously completed

Organizational Stages of Outcome Evaluation

Disbelief & Denial

Paralysis - Passive resistance

Anger and antagonismResistant & Reactive

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 4

Depression - exhaustionCompliance - Passive reactive

Acceptance & adaptationChallenge & competitionCatalyst - Proactive

Stage 5

Stage 3Bargaining - no time/no moneySeek outside sources

Instructional Program Review

The review process contained five sections: I. The Program Profile II. Program Content III. Student Learning Outcomes IV. Need for Change V. Future Issues


Tasks accomplished through review: Defined their program Detailed faculty and staff (credentials, prof. dev,

accomplishments) Unit mission or purpose Link unit mission to the college mission Defined the content of their program Defined the population served Determined student learning outcomes specific to their program Set outcome objectives Performed some means of assessment Analyzed results Determined strengths and weaknesses Created strategies for improvement Determined future needs (including curricular change, needed

resources, staff and space) All units had to complete a one-year follow-up

Identifying Outcomes

We focused on two types of measures:

Instructional Outcomes Program Outcomes Student Learning Outcomes

Administrative Outcomes (outcomes for administrative programs)

Administrative Outcomes

Many units do not directly serve students or they want results within their units that are not truly student outcomes.

They want to improve services or approach an old problem in a new way.

They want to become more efficient and effective.

They will set administrative outcomes.

My Administrative Outcome Objectives

1. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the faculty/staff survey will perceive that Planning and Research responds quickly to their requests for data.

2. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will perceive that Planning and Research makes a significant contribution to the College.

3. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will perceive that Planning and Research contributes to the effectiveness of CPCC.

4. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will indicate that Planning and Research produces enough reports to meet the planning and information needs of faculty and staff.

Administrative Outcomes for Instruction Objectives set for the program (has nothing to

do with students outcomes) Example

to recruit one new faculty member to seek and gain accreditation to increase retention by 10% to send each faculty member to at least once

professional conference per year to gain funding for an innovative program through

a grant proposal

Outcomes

"Outcomes" are benefits for people: changes in knowledge, values, position, skills, behavior or status. More simply stated, outcomes are typically what service providers hope recipients achieve once they complete a program or receive services. This is not the “what” but the “why” of education.

Types of Outcomes

Student learning outcomes are outcomes related to the learning that takes place in the classroom. We measure improvements in writing, speaking, understanding the scientific method, etc.

Program outcomes are the benefits to a student who receives an associate degree in Nursing or completes a certificate in Network Administration? Typical outcomes might be licensure exam scores, job placement, etc.

Outcome objectives are just objectives that relate to the identified outcomes.

Program Outcome Model

Resources Services Products or Results of

Activities

Staff Education (classes) Numbers servedBuildings Services FTE (input next year)Facilities Counseling Classes taughtState funds Student activities Students recruitedFTE

ConstraintsLawsState regulations

INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS

Program Outcomes Model

> > >

Benefits for People

*New knowledge *Increased skills

*Changes in values *Modified behavior *Improved condition *Altered status

INPUTSINPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES


Rules for the process included: Involvement on the part of all faculty in the

department under review (not just one person). It is recommended that the program begin with a brief faculty retreat to discuss and divide tasks.

All programs must use at least one external committee (advisory groups are fine) to provide feedback to programs.

All programs must utilize feedback from students.

During the first few years…

Planning and Research conducted training on “how to conduct program review” with each unit scheduled to go up for review that year.

A staff member from Planning and Research served as a liaison to each program being reviewed to help them with the process.

What We Learned….

The first group was dragged kicking and screaming through the process

Faculty had very little time for the details Faculty had trouble identifying “student

learning outcomes” The results produced great marketing

materials Once they saw the results, faculty embraced

the process

What Happened

Deans used the results to make a case for resources

The administration became interested in what was learned through the review process

Instruction created a position to deal mainly with program review and IE issues within instruction

Faculty knew their programs were working

IE Committee Decision

The instructional program review process was successful

The review of instructional units was important – but administrative/student services units helped create an environment conducive to learning at the college and supported the learning process

Administrative units should go through a similar process

IE Committee Decision, cont.

Create a committee to draft a similar process for the administrative and students services areas of the college

Administrative units were spread across three VP areas

Two representative from each VP area participated in drafting the new review process

We spent approximately six months creating a workable process

The Administrative Unit Review Design

I. The Unit/Program ProfileA. The Mission/Purpose

1. Role unit plays in the college mission2. Unit/program goals as they relate to the

college’s mission B. The Staff

1. Professional and administrative staff (b-e since the last review)

a. Position description/dutiesb. Credentials (full and part-time, if any)c. Accomplishments (if applicable)d. Service to college, community and

nation

The Administrative Unit Review (continued)

B. The Staff (continued)

e. Professional development activities

2. Classified Staff

a. List of names and positions

b. List of required credentials (if any)

C. The Customer/Client Served

1. Breakdown of students/faculty or staff by type or demographic information (thorough explanation of who is served)


II. Definition of Services or ProgramA. Definition of day-to-day duties of the unit B. Innovations, new projects, new

initiatives, local, state-wide or national effortsC. Required functions of unit (description

and status of compliance)1. SACS requirements2. State mandates3. Federal mandates4. Other


III.Administrative Objectives and Student Outcomes (where appropriate)

A. Administrative objectives (2-3 objectives)B. Outcomes (or status if incomplete) of

innovations, new projects, new initiatives, local, state or national efforts

C. Assessment explanation (what was assessed, who, when, how many)

D. Results of administrative objectives based on assessment

Assessment of Administrative Units

During the year of program review, the “Annual Faculty/Staff Survey” contained questions from those units being reviewed.

Results were given to each unit and broken out by campus and job type

http://www.cpcc.edu/planningClick on “survey results”


IV. Need for Change A. Strengths identified by external sources,

faculty, staff and studentsB. Weaknesses identified by external

sources, faculty, staff and studentsC. Recommendations by faculty, staff,

external sources and students to improve the unit's services and programs

D. Strategies for change (based on input from A, B & C above) - closing the loop

E. A one-year follow-up brief report to the Unit VP reporting on the progress of D above (due April 15, the year following review)


V. Future Issues - Resources needed for future effortsA. Market trends within the broad service unit or

program area (based on best-practices, the literature or training received)

B. Anticipated future changes and needs (based on market trends)

C. Resources, equipment, space, staffing and work load changes needs for future

growth or continuationD. Future plans of unit

Assistance from the Website

The IE website: http://inside.cpcc.edu/IE

Explanation of IE process Templates and forms for review “Solid” examples for clarification Schedule for review

Unit Review – Lessons Learned

To do this well you need several critical pieces:1. Support from the top (President or Chancellor,

Vice Presidents or Vice Chancellors)

2. Buy in from the grassroots level (participation in the development of the process)

3. Across-the-college participation (no one is exempt)

4. Technology to make it easy (web page and review templates)

5. Technical support from institutional research

Administrative Response

Units spend a lot of time working on the program review.

If we want them to take it seriously, we have to take it seriously.

Once reviews are reported at the end of the year, their Dean or Vice President/Chancellor need to: 1. Read them 2. Respond to them

Appropriate Administrative Response

Sit down with the unit (group meeting) Give them your attention Discuss what was learned Discuss their major issues Discuss what they need to make

improvements Actually attempt to direct resources to them to

make those improvements Then they do not see it as an academic

exercise

Overall Benefits

#1 No recommendations in the area of Institutional Effectiveness from SACS during the October 2002 re-accreditation visit

The college became change-oriented Units had to define strategies for change Didn’t have to be perfect but rather making continuous

progress Strategies for change helped identify needed resources for

units Units had to “close the loop” with the one-year follow-up

(couldn’t promise and not deliver) Once they started, we couldn’t get them to stop doing it.

Overall Benefits

Units became empowered to perform their functions in an optimal manner and to ask for what they needed (no one noticed them before, now they do) Created data to support needs Accomplishments were reported to major

administrative groups across the college (President’s Cabinet, Planning Council, IE Committee, etc.)

Overall Benefits

The college community understood the purpose and function of every unit

Senior administration realized the benefits and became strong supporters Data are reported annually from program/unit

review VPs became stronger advocates for their units

making changes to improve services

Administrative Units Reviewed

Security Health and Safety OfficeHuman Resources Professional DevelopmentResource Development The FoundationEEO Office President’s Office Facilities Management Distribution Services Facilities Design/Construction Planning and ResearchFinancial Services PayrollBudgeting Financial Reporting Purchasing Accounts PayableCashiering Audit and ComplianceBasic Skills Reporting Inventory ControlBookstore Campus Printing Vending Information TechnologyAdmin. Computing Services Marketing and Community

Relations

Students Affairs Units Reviewed

Counseling and Advising Financial Aid/Veteran’s Affairs Career Services Disability Services “Campus-based” student services (6 campuses) Admissions and Records Registration Services The Library The Academic Learning Center (tutoring) Testing Center Graduation Office Student Life

Five Units

Some Brief Results

An Instructional Program

Workplace Basic Skills This program is a literacy initiative that goes

directly into the worksite and teaches ESL classes, GED prep and GED classes.

During their review, they surveyed both employers and students.

This was the first time they had ever done this.

What They Learned

Employers said: 43.8% of employers reported increases in

employee performance as a result of participation in the program.

31.3% reported a reduction in absenteeism by participants.

87.5% said classes improved the morale of their employees

37.5% said participants received raises 50% said communication had improved.

What Students Said

70.2% reported being able to fill out job forms better 35.5% said they could now help their children with

their homework 91.1% said they felt better about themselves 44.4% said they had received a raise, promotion or

opportunity as a result of the courses 86.3% said their ability to communicate in the

workplace had improved

What Has Happened Since

Their assessment data has shown up in their marketing brochures to employers.

Their enrollment has grown dramatically. They have received funding and marketing

support from Charlotte Reads (considered a model adult literacy program).

Planning and Research

Weaknesses Identified: Data/information needs to be disseminated to the grass roots

level of the College (not just administration) Data needs to be made more accessible and easier to

understand Strategy for Change:

Make improvements in the department’s webpage Place more information on the webpage

Result: Units are using data to make decisions Planning and Research has a heavily used website with user-

friendly spreadsheets, tables and an online Fact Book. In-person requests for data have dramatically declined because faculty/staff are using the webpage

Professional Development

Weaknesses Identified: Instructors could not attend training sessions due to the

times they were scheduled (top of the hour when classes were scheduled on the half hour)

Strategy for Change: Starting times for all training sessions will be adjusted

to begin on the half hour rather than the hour Results:

More faculty were able to attend trainings and numbers increased in some areas

The Bookstore

Weaknesses Identified: Communication between faculty and staff and the

bookstore management needs improvement Strategies for Change:

A bookstore advisory committee has been formed. Action items identified will be followed up to insure that the bookstore is meeting the needs of faculty/staff

Results: Decided to outsource the bookstore Worked with faculty to ensure an adequate number of

books were available at the beginning of the term Created a process to move books from campus to campus

to accommodate student needs Created more buy-back centers on the campuses to

improve services

Information Technology Services

Weaknesses Identified: Better follow-up is needed on Help Desk requests Requests need to be answered faster Have knowledgeable people at the Help Desk

Strategies for Change: Employ students with pertinent certification to man the Help

Desk Empower Help Desk staff with decision-making ability that

helps provide the required level of service Results:

Help Desk created a tracking system that has radically improved time from request to completion

Major Benefits for IR Office

We created work for ourselves with great payoff. Each unit being reviewed had a liaison from IR to

help them with surveys, objectives, etc. Now, everyone knows us. They think we are very helpful and a great asset to

the institution. They call us for information and then listen to what

we say.

“Best” Results of “Best” Practice

Better use of data across the college We have become more student/customer focused Review gives direction for goals and needed changes Departments are empowered to do their jobs (can’t slip

through the cracks and be unnoticed) Problems must be resolved (there is no hiding and no

excuses) Surveys provide needs assessment data as well as

evaluation which gives departments direction

For a copy of this presentation

Contact Terri Manning [email protected] Download or print presentation: http://www.cpcc.edu/planning

Click on “studies and reports” Listed as MAIR Program Review Presentation

using program review to facilitate change mississippi association for institutional research march...

Documents