Program/Major Periodic Review
To a certain extent, every major or program is continuously reviewed, and consequently it is frequently adjusted in small ways. In addition, it is essential that programs undergo a more systematic assessment on a periodic basis, according to the rotation scheduled outlined in the document Ohio Valley University Mission, Goals, Assessment, and Evaluation. The elements of this period assessment are described below.
Before beginning the period assessment, the one leading the review should consult with the school chair, the college dean, and the vice president for academic affairs in order to be made aware of any relevant issues, concerns, or opportunities, etc. By the end of fall semester, the results of the periodic assessment should be presented as a written report that is submitted to the relevant school chair and/or dean, vice president for academic affairs, and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness; copies will also be given to the Deans Council and Faculty Assessment Committee. Recommendations for program change should also be submitted to Academic Council. It is ultimately up to the vice president for academic affairs to determine whether recommendations should be adopted, especially as they relate to program continuance, program staffing, and program budget. When decisions are made or action taken based on the report’s recommendations, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness should be informed.
I. The following program information/data should be collected and, as appropriate, evaluated (in many cases, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness should provide this data in order to ensure consistency across programs):
A. Program mission and goals, which includes school/program mission statement, learning outcomes, curriculum map, assessment methods, and linkage of learning outcomes to assessment methods.
B. Program structure (from the catalog)
C. The trend in program enrollment
D. Credentials of those teaching in the program; at minimum, this would be full-time faculty and regular adjuncts.
E. Changes in program staffing (full-time and part-time) since the last periodic review.
F. Percentages of courses and/or credit hours taught by full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty
G. Aggregated course evaluations across all faculty who taught in the program during the period of review
H. Number of advisees for each advisor in the program
I. Library resources available to students in the program, including databases
J. Any other resources available to the program (e.g., endowment, scholarships, dedicated space)
K. Courses that link learning with the community
L. Changes made in the program since the last systematic review
M. Any program accreditation reports sent to national professional association or specialized accrediting agencies
N. Results from assessment testing (Major Fields test, departmental tests, etc.)
O. Results from any exit surveys administered by the program
P. Graduation survey results
Q. Alumni survey results (if available for your program)
R. Ongoing collaborations with the community
S. A comparison of the curriculum for this program with that of peers (e.g., sister institutions and other WV or ACA institutions)
II. The following individuals should assist in analyzing the data:
A. Faculty teaching in the program (full-time, part-time, and adjunct)
B. Current student or students
C. Outside advisors from the community (probably members of the program’s, school’s or college’s advisory board)
III. The assessment report will contain the following elements:
A. General Information
1. Date report prepared and reviewed
2. Personnel
a. List of primary author(s) and contributors
b. List of reviewers (including their position, e.g., adjunct faculty, alumni, student, community member, faculty at another institution)
B. An overview of the program
1. Mission and goals
o School and/or program mission statement
o Learning Outcomes should be listed.
o A chart matching learning outcomes to coursework (a curriculum map) should be referenced here, but included as an appendix.
o List key assessment methods
o List key assessment methods for each learning outcome.
2. Program Structure
o Include description of major from the current catalog
3. The trend in program enrollment
o Note: Number and name this and all subsequent figures and tables, e.g., “Figure 1: Trend in Program Enrollment.”
4. The credentials of those teaching regularly in the program (presented in format that seems appropriate for the program). At minimum, it should include full-time faculty and regular adjuncts (a potential definition of a regular adjunct: those who have taught four or more courses in the past two years and who likely will continue to teach in the program); the program review author will determine whether to include those no longer teaching in the program.
5. Changes in full-time and part-time staffing in the program during the review period (e.g., when someone resigned or retired, when someone began employment). Adjuncts do not need to be included in this listing.
6. Percentages of courses and/or credit hours taught by full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty. For some programs, it may be useful to separate this by general education courses and program courses, especially if enrollment in the general education courses far exceeds enrollment in the program courses.
7. A summary of aggregated course evaluations. For some programs, it may be useful to separate this by general education courses and program courses, especially if enrollment in the general education courses far exceeds enrollment in the program courses.
8. A summary of advising load of faculty members. It should reflect all the faculty members’ advisees, not just those in the program. This data is available from the registrar or from the annual program reports.
9. A list of resources available to the program (library, collaborations with the community, advisory council, dedicated rooms, specialized equipment, endowments, endowments, scholarships, etc.). Budget figures should not be included, as these are often for the school instead of for a specific program.
10. A list of courses that link learning with the community using the format of the sample table. Be sure to list the course number and name, whether or not the course is required, and a description of how learning is linked to the community.
11. A list of program changes since last review and the reason(s) for each change. This should be program structure changes, new courses, etc.—not personnel.
12. A summary of program reports sent to national associations or accreditors. The full-report should not be included in the body of this report; if it is included with this report, it should be as an appendix.
C. Analysis of data should include the following:
1. A summary and discussion of the results of key assessments of student learning outcomes. This section should be organized by learning outcome.
2. A summary and discussion of other indirect assessments not covered in section C-1 (e.g., graduation or alumni surveys)
3. A discussion of the program’s success in integrating faith and learning
4. A discussion of how well the program fulfills its goals (program, school, and/or college)
5. A summary of the comparison with selected peers’ curriculum
6. A description of the program’s strengths
7. A description of the program’s weaknesses and/or challenges/threats
8. A description of the program’s opportunities/aspirations for growth or change
D. Outcomes (recommendations):
1. In what ways does this program contribute to the mission of the university?
2. Should the program’s mission and/or goals be adjusted, and if so, how?
3. Is our current staffing appropriate? If not, what needs changed? How should these changes be prioritized?
4. Do the assessment tools for this program need to change? If so, how?
5. How can faith and learning be more effectively integrated in this program?
6. What changes should be made to the curriculum (adding new courses, deleting courses, changing content of current courses, etc.)? (When recommending changes, the effect of these changes on other programs at OVU should also be considered.)
7. How can we more effectively link learning with community? (Questions to consider: Are there additional collaborations with the community that should be explored? How can we incorporate civic engagement more effectively into this program? How can we more effectively integrate service learning in this program?)
8. What are the budget needs of this program?
9. For what reasons should this program continue?
E. Outcomes (implementing recommendations):
1. Who is responsible for putting these recommendations into effect?
2. What is the timeline for putting these recommendations into effect?
3. What resources are needed to put these recommendations into effect?
4. What is the budget for these resources?
This information is best presented in a table like that below.
Recommendation / Person Responsible / Timeline / Resources / Budget2
SAMPLE ASSESSMENT REPORT
This report takes elements from previous (or fictitious) to show what data to present. It may be simplest to use the tables and figures below—replace this data with your own.
A. General Information:
The following report was prepared in the fall of 2014 and uses data available through May 2014. Steven Hardy served as the primary author, using data gathered by him and by Carolyn Sturm.
The report was reviewed by these individuals, who had the opportunity to ask questions and make further recommendations.
· Ethan Ash (program alumnus)
· Missy Bannister (adjunct faculty)
· Kyle Carlsen (program alumnus)
· Gavin Fury (current student)
· Wes Harrison (Chair, School of Liberal Arts at OVU)
· Rebecca Hoff (English department faculty at West Virginia University-Parkersburg)
· Blake Jones (OVU History faculty)
· Carolyn Sturm (program faculty)
· Jayne Whitlow (retired English teacher from Parkersburg South High School)
B. An Overview of the Program
1. Mission and Goals Present the School Mission statement (and/or the program mission statement), student learning outcomes for the program (a chart matching learning outcomes to coursework, i.e., a curriculum map, should be referenced, but included in an appendix), key assessment methods, a matching of the key assessment methods to the learning outcomes. No commentary is needed; these are just presented
The following are the learning outcomes for the English Program were created in the summer of 2014; they are a restatement of goals that had been written when the program was established in 2005.
Mission: We seek to educate students in the fields of behavioral sciences integrating biblical faith and service to God and humanity.
Learning Outcomes:
- Knowledge base in Western literature:
a. Develop knowledge of key texts of British literature
b. Develop knowledge of key texts of American literature
c. Develop knowledge of key texts of European literature
d. Develop knowledge of theoretical approaches to literature
e. Develop knowledge of literary terminology
- Research skills
a. Gather, evaluate, and synthesize information from a variety of sources
b. Use sources ethically
c. Document research using MLA formatting
- Communication skills
a. Apply knowledge of English grammar, mechanics, and syntax
b. Write effectively in a variety of styles
c. Develop proficiency in oral communication
- Connections between the major and the outside world
a. Recognize literary allusions and figures of speech
b. Recognize how literary texts can be valuable in one’s faith journey
c. Understand that all texts are subject to multiple interpretations
Curriculum Map
These learning outcomes have been mapped to the curriculum; a chart showing this mapping is appended to this document.
Assessment Methods
Students’ learning is assessed through the following methods. With the exception of the Senior Seminar exit interview, which has yet to be administered, all of these assessment methods have been used since at least 2012.
· ETS Major Fields Test – Literature in English
o This test is administered during the semester when a student takes ENG 451: English Senior Seminar, ordinarily in the student’s final or penultimate semester.
· Student grades (e.g., major tests, research projects, writing assignments, and final grades)
o Student performance evidence that the student has gained the requisite knowledge
· Graduation survey
o The graduation survey for English majors is administered during ENG 451: English Senior Seminar.
· Senior Seminar project
o Students in ENG 451: English Senior Seminar complete an extensive research project on a topic related to the major. They write a paper of at least 20 pages and present the project orally to departmental faculty.
· Senior Seminar exit interview
o Students in ENG 451: English Senior Seminar are interviewed about their OVU experience (including such things as classes, information presented, range of works studied, opportunities available, perceived gaps in knowledge, how they can help they can provide the program in the future, etc.).
Assessment methods linked to learning outcomes.
A. Knowledge base in Western literature
- ETS Major Fields Test
- Student grades
- Graduation survey
- Senior Seminar project
- Senior Seminar exit interview
B. Research skills
- Senior Seminar project
- Student grades
- Graduation survey
- Senior Seminar exit interview
C. Communication skills
- Senior Seminar project
- Student grades
- Graduation survey
- Senior Seminar exit interview
D. Connections between the major and the outside world
- Graduation survey
- Senior Seminar exit interview
2. Program Structure (from the most recent academic catalog)
Students majoring in English must meet the following requirements:
1) Satisfy the General Institutional Requirements for a Bachelor’s Degree.
2) Satisfy the requirements of the General Education program, which includes the following:
§ General Education Course Requirements
§ Bible Course Requirement
§ Writing Competency Requirements
§ Diversity Requirement
§ Foreign Language Requirement
3) Receive formal admission to the English program, preferably during a student’s sophomore year; the application is part of ENG 299.
4) Meet the following grade requirements:
§ Earn a grade of B or higher in College Writing I (ENG 131) and College Writing II (ENG 132).
§ Earn at least a 2.75 GPA on the required literature, genre, and writing courses.
§ Earn a grade of C or higher on all required courses.
5) Earn no more than 6 hours of electives in technical fields.
6) Complete 6 credit hours in a single foreign language.