hlc program review presentation 2009 (3)
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Program Review Process: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Ensure Quality and Accountability
Higher Learning Commission Conference | Chicago, IL | April 2009
Overview• Introductions
• APUS Mission and Demographics
• Goals of the Program Review Process
• Program Review Process, Tools, and Resources
• Use of Continuous Improvement in Business Program
• Use of Fact Books to Drive Decisions
• Conclusion and Dialogue
Introductions
Frank McCluskey, Ph.D.Executive Vice President and Provost
Jennifer Stephens, Ph.D.Dean of Assessment
Chad Patrizi, ABDDean of Business Administration
Our Mission
To educate the nation's military and public service communities by providing respected, relevant,affordable, and student-focusedonline programs which prepare them for service and leadership in a diverse, global society.
Who We Are• Founded in 1991 as American Military
University to provide affordable and convenient distance learning to service members
• In 2002, expanded reach to national security,public safety and other professionals seeking affordable education and online convenience, establishing American Public University System with member institutions: American Military University and American Public University
• We are a 100% online for-profit school that serves 49,000+ students who study online from 100 countries.
Relevant Degree & Certificate Programs 74 online programs at the undergraduate andgraduate level
• Specialized educationfor those who serve innational security andpublic service professions
• Liberal arts andprofessional studiesprograms, many that are uniquely availableonline
Graduate24%
Undergraduate76%
% of Students by Degree Program
% of Students by School
Student Body Profile
Program Review Process
• Course books
• Electronic resources
• Learning strategies
Library and Learning Resources
• Student learning outcomes
• Instructional strategies
• Evaluation procedures
• Academic rigor
Curriculum Assessment
• Expert reviewer report
• Industry Advisory Council report
External Reviewer Feedback
Paper Free Process
Electronic Repository of Information
• Analysis of faculty credentials and expertise to ensure breadth and diversity
Faculty
• Student demographic information
• Enrollment History
• Growth trends
Students
• Curricular Mapping
• Assessment measures
• Fact book
Learning Outcomes Assessment
Paper Free Process
Electronic Repository of Information
• Program benchmarking with similar programs and institutions
Program Benchmarking
• Evaluation of findings
• Program recommendations
• Three year proposed strategic plan
Program Directory Summary
• Dean’s observations
• Meeting minutes
Program Review Findings
Paper Free Process
Electronic Repository of Information
Data Utilization forProgram Review
• Introduction
• Bachelor of Business Administration Program (BBA) vs. Institutional EOC (end of course survey)
• Without Micro and Macro Economics
• Fact Book
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Clear course objectives Course assignments supported course objectives
Course materials relevant to objectives
Course assignments fairly evaluated work
Instructor's teaching style appropriate Knowledgeable instructorInstructor provided feedback to inquiries within 72 hours
Instructor provided grades and appropriate feedback within one week
Interactions between the instructor and the students were positive
Interaction among classmates created a sense of community
Electronic classroom easy to navigateAssignments easy to post Technical support questions answered within 2 days
BBA Program Average (n=1139) 4.42 4.42 4.50 4.31 4.27 4.45 4.35 4.29 4.40 4.01 4.53 4.49 3.87
Institutional Average (n=28344) 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.37 4.35 4.44 4.38 4.27 4.44 4.02 4.39 4.48 3.83
BBA Program vs Institutional EOC Data 2006
Data Utilization forProgram Review
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
BBA Program vs Institutional EOC Data 2006 w/o Micro and Macro Economics
BBA Program Average (n=1139) 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.39 4.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Institutional Average (n=28344) 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.37 4.35 4.44 4.38 4.27 4.44 4.02 4.39 4.48 3.83
Clear course objectives
Course assignments supported
Course materials relevant to objectives
Course assignments
fairly evaluated
Instructor's teaching style appropriate
Knowledgeable instructor
Instructor provided
feedback to
Instructor provided grades and appropriate
Interactions between the
instructor and
Interaction among
classmates
Electronic classroom easy
to navigate
Assignments easy to post
Technical support
questions
Data Utilization forProgram Review
Data Utilization forProgram Review
Conclusions & Dialogue