-
Gail Chermak (Speech and Hearing Sciences)
-
Alan Genz (Mathematics)
-
Greg Kessler (Architecture and Construction Management)
-
Darcy Miller (Teaching and Learning)
-
Terry Umbreit (School of Hospitality and Business Management)
Continually Improve the Quality of Our Program Offerings and Delivery
Continual improvement of any entity implies that assessment and evaluation are ongoing, valued activities. In order to improve a program, those responsible for the program must establish benchmarks, collect data that demonstrates progress toward meeting those benchmarks, and use the data collected to improve the program. Those responsible for the process must possess specific knowledge and skills, which will vary depending on the scope of the assessment/evaluation (i.e., course work assessments vs. program evaluation). In addition, conducting quality assessments/evaluations, providing thoughtful analysis of the results and implementing the recommendations involves personnel time, resources, and support.
Barriers to Continually Improving Program Quality
1. Lack of Time, Skill, and Personnel to Conduct Quality Program Evaluations
It is critical to acknowledge the time and commitment necessary for quality assessments/evaluations. If faculty are to design and conduct quality program reviews, they need to acquire assessment skills and be afforded the time and resources necessary for rigorous analysis and evaluation.
2. Missing Incentives to Program Review
There seems to be no incentives built into the system for programs to take on reviews and evaluations. The current system of Faculty Senate mandated cyclic program reviews is faulty, in that a great deal of work and time goes into preparing for and participating in the program review, with little if any impact of the results toward the improvement of the program or unit. Other issues related to program reviews/incentives:
-
Institutional Research data often perceived as worthless
-
No direction or guidance from administration or from the Faculty Senate in conducting these reviews
-
No feedback upon completion
-
Deans are not part of process
-
No office or administrator or time table identified for implementation of recommendations
-
No consequences either positive or negative at the conclusion; no rewards are given to departments that conduct program reviews, evaluations
3. Innovations are Difficult
Interdisciplinary study and collaboration across programs provide for innovations that can create stronger programs. Although there are examples across the university of successful collaborations (e.g., Disability Studies Minor in Speech and Hearing Sciences), the structure of majors and cross-college accounting of student credit hours discourages departments and students from interdisciplinary studies of issues. Issues such as cross-listing courses (which department gets the credit hours), reward and recognition of faculty (how do faculty account for load); and funding (need funding apart from, not in competition with, departmental funding for the major) need to be resolved if interdisciplinary innovations are successful.
4. Difficulty Offering Service Courses and Grade Point Barriers
Cross-college service courses contribute to the quality of many programs; however, lack of communication and coordination across units can adversely impact programs. For example, courses in one department might be cancelled, with serious implications for students in another department or college (e.g., FSHN for Hotel majors). As departments look for ways to save resources and cut back on service courses, they tend to protect graduate programs and the major, leaving the service or general education courses most vulnerable to elimination or contingent staffing (adjuncts, TA's, part-timers). These are most likely to be the courses built into other departments' schedules of studies, and are also the courses most critical to developing key bodies of skills and information. Currently, there is no mechanism for addressing such cross-university curricular issues. Also, changes in grade point requirements, such as the College of Business's accreditation requirement of 2.5 GPA for majors and minors, create problems across campus. However, there is no mechanism to negotiate resolution of issues.
5. No Outlet to Share Cross Discipline Expertise
Currently there is no mechanism to share curriculum/evaluation expertise across departments/colleges. If faculty could share this type of knowledge and skill, all departments could benefit.
6. Tenure and Promotion Issues
If program quality is important is important to departments and to the university, then contributions toward quality improvement should be considered favorably in tenure and promotion processes. Currently, what is valued in those processes are almost exclusively within the realm of publications, grants, and creative arts, albeit with growing consideration given to teaching. If programs are to be improved, then the efforts of the faculty who engage in this process need to be rewarded and valued.
Solutions to Continually Improving Program Quality
1. Time, Training, and Personnel Needed
If program improvements are to be continual, faculty need time (e.g., release time), training, and assistance (in the form of other personnel and resources) to design and conduct quality evaluations. Some departments may not have faculty knowledgeable about assessment practices. Such departments would need training. Also, assembling and analyzing data is labor intensive. Help moving from paper and hand tallies to electronic data collection is needed. Involve units with expertise in these areas (e.g., CTLT, IR, etc.)
2. Improve Program Review Process
There needs to be incentives built into a program review structure. The current program review process should be evaluated for its usefulness and quality. Perhaps a new structure of program reviews should be developed, with faculty as the lead designers, as they would be knowledgeable about the targets and outcomes desired. Technological assistance will be critical, in terms of data collection and analysis. Meaningful outcomes and action steps must result from the review. In a phrase, "the assessment loop" must be closed. The results of any review needed to be used to be considered valuable. Reviews need to guide resource allocation; deans and the Provost must be involved at some level. Program review outcomes should inform a dean's request (i.e., budget hearing) for resources from the Provost.
3. Creation of an Office of Undergraduate Education
Possible functions:
· Advocate with Provost for resources needed for
service courses
· Help disseminate and discuss university-wide
issues affecting undergraduate education (e.g., Metro
could be used to capture data about unmet course needs,
GPA issues, scheduling conflicts between dept's., etc.).
Improve articulation between General Education and
colleges.
· Broker agreements, establish processes and
policies
· Help with grade point barriers, service course
establishment, and interdisciplinary efforts
· Serve as the facilitator to share cross
discipline expertise
4. Adjust Tenure and Promotion Criteria
Reward faculty for contributions toward improving the quality of our programs and their delivery.
5. Fund Innovation
Increase opportunities for funding of innovative efforts to improve program quality and delivery (e.g., Undergraduate Teaching and Learning Improvement Grants program). Showcase the funded programs to allow other units to benefit from the innovative programs developed across the university.
Summary of Findings to Improve Program Quality and Delivery
The Working Group concluded that ongoing program assessment and evaluation are crucial to program quality improvement and delivery. The group identified a number of barriers to conducting quality assessments and implementing review recommendations, as well as a number of barriers to program innovation. These barriers include: lack of time, skill, and personnel; lack of incentives; structural and financial limitations; tenure and promotion criteria; and, limited opportunities to disseminate programs successes /innovations across disciplines. Given these barriers, it is the opinion of the Work Group that continual improvement in program quality and delivery will only take place with significant academic leadership from the Provost. The current program review and evaluation process must be elevated in priority, with faculty release time and financial resources provided to enhance the quality of the review process. It is recommended that an Office of Undergraduate Education be created to address a number of the issues that are seen as barriers to program improvement. This Office would be responsible for coordinating undergraduate program reviews, directing quality improvement initiatives, and fostering interdisciplinary study and collaboration. Faculty must be offered incentives to reward their efforts in program assessment/evaluation and their contributions must be recognized during the tenure and promotion process.