Program Review Task Force: November 10, 2020

Academic Master Plan – Task Force

November 10, 2020

Present: Paula Barbel, Patty Follansbee, Cathy Houston-Wilson, Jeff Lashbrook, Eric Monier, Paul Moyer, Pam Neely, Kathleen Phillips, Jennifer Ramsey, Jacqueline Slifkin, Chris Wilkens

1. Welcome and Reintroductions
2. It was decided that the secretary position will occur on a rotating basis. Jeff Lashbrook agreed to take the minutes for this meeting. Starting next meeting we will rotate in alphabetical order. Next minute take will be Paula Barbel.
3. CHW reviewed the charge for the academic master planning committees, specifically, each of the three groups that will carry out this process. These groups consist of the AMP Program Review Committee, Innovation Committee and Steering Committee.
   Discussion/Actions: Will our group (Program Review Task Force) be a standing committee and, if so, it should be addressed at some point as to what that might look like and what process would be used for constituting this group. Final report might be a place to address this. Exactly what this report will look like was also discussed and was left at to be determined.
4. CHW Reviewed the major goals of the committee.
   1. Review and agree on the Template
   2. Review and agree on the Scoring Card
   3. Identify Undergraduate Programs that will need to be reviewed
   4. Review data that will be supplied by Institutional Research
   5. Create a timeline (orientation for responders, due date for submission, due dates for individual or group reviews, dates for task force discussion of reviews, date for recommendations to the Provost, date for final report of the committee)
   6. Develop a plan for reporting out to the college community on work accomplished (minutes on the website, Blackboard announcements, Open MS Teams meetings)
   7. Develop a roll-out/orientation plan for those who will be required to fill out the Template
   8. Assess submitted templates
   9. Discuss assessments
   10. Provide recommendations
   11. Develop a final report
       Discussion/Actions: CHW clarified that all programs need to be reviewed simultaneously. In addition, we will only be reviewing undergraduate programs this year. We were also just informed that we would pilot the process with a department from each School. Program reviews generally occur every five years, but will need to get clarification on whether or not that is the plan or if this is a one-time campus review.

5. CHW reviewed the Template and members shared feedback.

   Discussion/Actions: Re: 2.1 (Internal Demand)—a question was raised as to what might be the best metric for contributions to Gen Ed or other programs. Is it # of courses or something else like FTEs, student credit hours (SCHs)? Also asked: how do we divide metrics (these and maybe others) for joint programs? Seemed to be consensus in the group for orientation materials (e.g., glossary, expanded descriptions for prompts) to help clarify what is being asked for those who will be writing their program’s report. For those items that we ask about opportunities, we decided it best not to limit it to “two.” Another question raised was what exactly are we after for 4.6? Finally, we agreed that any other feedback re: template to be sent to co-chairs via email after members have had more opportunity to carefully review.

Meeting adjourned: 4:30

Respectfully submitted: Jeff Lashbrook