Richland College
Creating Institutional Buy-In to the
Credit Program/Discipline Review
Process
A Baldrige-Inspired Approach
Bao Huynh
Director of Institutional Research
Teaching, Learning, Community Building
1
1
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
Demographics & Baldrige Perspective
History / Purpose
Quantitative Data
Qualitative Data
Scoring Mechanism
Use of Results
2
History
• Completed annually at Richland since
1996-97
• Original design by a DCCCD team of
Instructional Deans and Faculty in late
1980’s
• Revisions by Richland’s Academic Council
• Current version – revised 2007
3
3
Purpose
•
•
•
•
•
4
Continuous Improvement/Agility
Accountability
Student Learning Outcomes
Institutional Effectiveness
Assessment of program/discipline viability
4
Quantitative Data
• “We are data-informed; we are not datadriven”
• Data supplied by the Office of Planning
and Research for Institutional
Effectiveness
• Three key indicators of performance
5
5
Qualitative Data
• “We turn to wonder, we do not rush to
judgment”
• Contextual Information
• Provided by Executive Deans, Program
Coordinators, Vice President for Teaching
& Learning
6
6
Scoring Mechanism
•
Three Key Performance Indicators
– Increase program contact hours
– Improve student success
– Maintain fiscal responsibility
•
Five Measures
– Contact hour change from:
•
•
previous year to current year
two years previous to current year
– % A,B,C grades
– % in-class retention
– Ratio of Program Cost to Income
7
7
Scoring Mechanism
Key Performance Indicator #1
100 points
Increase annual contact hour generation
Measures:
Positive growth from
• Year 2 to Year 3 (50 possible points)
• Year 1 to Year 3 (50 possible points)
8
8
Scoring Mechanism
Key Performance Indicator #1
9
9
Scoring Mechanism
Key Performance Indicator #2
200 points
Improve Student Success
Measures:
• % of A,B,C Grades (100 possible points)
• % in-class retention(100 possible points
• Student Outcomes Assessment to be
added at a later date
10
10
Credit Program Review
Scoring Mechanism
Key Performance Indicator #2
11
11
Scoring Mechanism
Key Performance Indicator #3
100 points
Remain fiscally responsible and sound
Measures:
• Program Cost to Income Ratio
12
12
Scoring Mechanism
Key Performance Indicator #3
13
13
Scoring Mechanism
Summary Sheet
14
14
Use of Results
Executive Deans, Program Administrators
and Faculty for each program/discipline:
• Conduct a SWOT every 5 years
• Review their DCCCD Market Share
• Review Trends in Student Preferences
by Schedule Type
15
15
Credit Program Review
Use of Results
“One of the most devastating results of
a review effort is inaction.”
Barak and Breier
16
16
Lessons to Share
• Remember what is important
• Provide examples of how deans can use
data to address opportunities or capitalize
on successes
• Find more than one way to share the data
17
Future Plans
• Incorporate assessment of student
learning outcomes into the review
• Expand program review to include all
administrative and student support
services
18
Richland College
Creating Institutional Buy-In to the
Credit Program/Discipline Review
Process
A Baldrige-Inspired Approach
Bao Huynh
Director of Institutional Research
Teaching, Learning, Community Building
19
19