Agenda Item No. ______
Washburn University Board
of Regents
SUBJECT: Summary of Program Review
Activities during Academic Year 2003‑2004
DESCRIPTION:
See attached.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Board of Regents information item.
___________________ _________________________
(date) Jerry B.
Farley, President
Summary of AY2003-2004 Program Review
September 20, 2004
Introduction
For the past twelve years, Washburn
University departments have engaged in a process of self-study and peer review
known as "program review." Program review provides the opportunity
for every program to evaluate itself and to be evaluated by others on a regular
basis. Part introspection and part peer review, Washburn's program review
process is an important component of the University's administrative processes.
Every department (academic and
administrative) is reviewed on a five-year cycle. Departments that are being
reviewed in a given year begin by conducting an internal self-study, looking at
mission, goals and objectives, outcomes, strengths and weaknesses, and then
suggest plans for improvement over the next five years. This self-study is
presented as a report to the Program Review Committee, which is co-chaired by
the VPAA and the VPAT, and has a campus-wide representative membership of
faculty and staff. The committee reviews the self-study documents, interviews
the departments, then prepares a summary report for each department under
review. The committee's report includes a rating of the program and
recommendations for future action.
Copies of the Program Review Committee's
summary reports and the program self-studies are on file in the Academic
Affairs Office.
Departments Reviewed in AY2003-2004
Seven academic departments and five
administrative areas where reviewed in the last academic year. These include:
Academic Departments: Education,
English, HPEES, Mass Media, Philosophy, Social Work, Theatre
Administrative Departments: Finance,
Student Health Services, Human Resources, Intercollegiate Athletics, KTWU
Two departments (Finance and Human
Resources) were reviewed ahead of the normal review schedule to address
concerns expressed in their previous program review.Summary of Ratings
Programs may be rated as
"outstanding," "operating at an acceptable level,"
"low," or "significant problems,". In the "grading
scale" of the program review process, operating at an acceptable level
means that the department is meeting its goals and objectives. In other words,
"acceptable" is a good grade. Only programs that are demonstrated to
be truly exceptional are given outstanding ratings.
Of the 11 departments reviewed in
AY2002-2003, 10 were evaluated to be operating at an acceptable level, and one
(Student Health Services) was rated outstanding.
Summary of Recommended Actions
The Program Review Committee continued to
pay particularly close attention to the assessment programs of academic
departments. Assessment of student learning is becoming part of the culture of
the University, so the Program Review Committee wanted to ensure that
assessment programs are healthy and thriving. Therefore, the committee placed
an emphasis on closing assessment Afeedback loops@. That is, departments were challenged to
ensure that assessment data is used to effect change where necessary.
Additional funding was recommended for one
department. Both departments that were
reviewed early (Finance and HR) were recommended for return to the normal
program review cycle. Two departments
were challenged to strengthen their collaboration, and to report back in two
years on their progress.
Conclusion
Academic Year 2003-2004 marked the second
year of the third five-year cycle. Program review is an essential activity for
the campus, as it requires of each area a time of introspection, and provides
all areas with a better understanding of the mission, goals and objectives of
each area.
Program Review Committee members
2003-2004
Ron Wasserstein
(VPAA) and Wanda Hill (VPAT), co-chairs
Denise Ottinger (VPSL), Chris Leach
(Director of Finance), Dean Corwin (Mabee Library), Nora Clark (Nursing), Bill
Roach (Business), Jay Memmott (Social Work), David Ryan (Law), Tony Naylor (CAS
B Creative and
Performing Arts), Bill Wagnon (CAS B Social Sciences), Cecil Schmidt (CAS B Natural
Sciences and Mathematics), Robert Stein (CAS B Humanities), Michael Rettig (CAS B Education and
HPEES), Mary Gannaway (student), Matthew Rodriguez (student)