Summary of AY2000-2001 Program Review

Introduction

For the past nine years, Washburn University departments have engaged in a process of self-study and peer review known as "program review." Developed nearly a decade ago, 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, 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 are attached to this document. Copies of the program self-studies are on file in the Academic Affairs Office.

Departments Reviewed in AY2000-2001

Eight academic departments and 6 administrative areas where reviewed in the last academic year. These include:

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 14 departments reviewed in AY2000-2001, 13 were evaluated to be operating at an acceptable level, and one department was rated low. No outstanding ratings were given, and no departments were found to have significant problems.

Summary of Recommended Actions

The most common recommendation for academic departments was to continue to develop outcome assessments for student learning. Some academic departments were asked to review programmatic activities relative to staffing needs in more detail. Several administrative areas must also monitor staffing needs and activities as impacted by the Living Learning Center. The department receiving a "low" rating was provided an action plan for improvement.

Conclusion

The current academic year marks the completion of the second 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 for 2000-2001

Denise Ottinger, VPSL

Mary Lou Herring, Controller

Kevin Charlwood, Assistant Professor, Mathematics, College of Arts and Sciences

Barbara Clark, Associate Professor, School of Nursing

Judy Druse, Curriculum/Media Librarian, Mabee Library

Robert Hull, Associate Professor, School of Business

Richard Martin, Associate Professor, OLT, School of Applied Studies

Judith McConnell, Professor, Education, College of Arts and Sciences

Harold Rood, Professor, Philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences

David Ryan, Professor, School of Law

Shiao-Li Ding, Associate Professor, Music, College of Arts and Sciences

David Freeman, Professor, Political Science, College of Arts and Sciences

Wanda Hill, VPAT, co-chair

Ron Wasserstein, VPAA, co-chair