"IMPROVING THE PROCESS"

I feel one of the fundamental problems that exacerbated all the other problems with this process was the timescale we were suddenly expected to do everything in. It felt like the CAC was "caught out". I propose that the CAC produces a "timeline" or "calender" that highlights the recurring responsibilities of the CAC e.g., course outline review, program review, assessment review etc.....What are the deadlines, when does it start/finish etc etc....This should be distributed throughout COM particularly to those that the CAC's responsibilities are dependent on e.g., faculty and division chairs for course outlines and program coordinators for program reviews. This document should be available online and in the curriculum hand book - which incidentally also needs to be updated asap. edited 12:14, 22 Feb 2012

I agree that the timescale was totally out of control. Program reviews are due in by the end of the spring semester, usually every three years. One recommendation from the program prioritization is the next program reviews should be turned in by May 2013 which is only two years this time. CAC should review them first thing in fall or over the summer. This document needs to be revised to coincide with the information needed for program prioritization. Course outlines are good for 5 years. Assessment reports are due in every year before the end of the spring semester. Assessment Plans are due in during the first week of the fall semester.

I agree that the timescale was totally out of control. A person like me with limited knowledge of program evaluation would need more time and training on program evaluation. To be honest, I think, my reading team did not make a thorough evaluation on the program we reviewed. I would suggest that program evaluation process should follow some kind of a timeline as Karen mentioned above.

Let me throw this one out there too:.....

What about the actual program reviews themsleves. All the program reviews seemed very different. Different formatting, different structure, different layout. Could we not develop a generic template for the program reviews that has to be followed by the authors. This would surely make the writing of the program reviews easier and also the reading of them. If you have...say 40 documents to read.... its easier if they all follow the same structure/format and layout - instead of them all being different and having to sift through them over and over again to pull out the needed information......... edited 13:35, 22 Feb 2012

Totally agree with the annual timeline for CAC to use when reviewing program reviews and course outlines. Since we will be preparing for a year in advance, allocate review periods (say 2-3wks)for program reviews in the timeline,so the review is thorough and comprehensive. Allocate also training periods for programs, so when program reviews are due, they are complete.

I would also recommend that program reviews follow an approved format/template like the course outlines so it would be easier for readers and reviewers.

For your information - I am currently working on behalf of the CAC with Faculty Senate and HRC to establish the roles and responsibilities of a program coordinator. All program coordinators received an email from us this morning asking them to complete a questionnaire so we can receive feedback from those currently in this position. I think this links in here. If the role and responsibility of the program coordinator is clearly defined for all it will make the process much smoother. edited 12:48, 24 Feb 2012

I agree that this was too much to do in too little time. As mentioned before, I would think that it all would go easier, for everyone involved, if there were a template for both course outlines and program reviews, especially program reviews. I also think people need to be trained. I know I sure could have used some; and it seems that several of the program reviewers could have used some training also. Can the course outline changes and program reviews be staggered so that we are not trying to do all of them at one time? I also agree with the idea of a published schedule for course outlines and program reviews.

I forgot. Why not give a copy of the checklist for program reviews to the program review writers as they write their review? If they know what is going to be looked for, they might include it. At least it would help.

The timeline I agree is important and I also think that authors of reviews should also work together with faculty involved in the program so they know what things are being measured and what kind of data thay are expected to collect. There also has to be uniformity in how these reports are put together. One thing I noticed was, some reviews had their assessment worksheets while others did not have them. There needs to be a set framework in writing the review.

thanks everyone, keep the comments going, this is great. Just to pull things together, so far we are proposing the following;
1) Generic template for program reviews and course outlines.
2) Published CAC timeline for all CAC's re-occurring responsibilities.
3) Published "roles and responsibilities of program coordinators"
4) Training for ALL program coordinators

Perhaps all of this could be incorporated into a new version of the curriculum handbook???? edited 16:51, 24 Feb 2012

I have no additional comments. I agreed with previous members have shared on the program review process. With the synopsis that Kathy provided above, yes it capture the main points of the comments posted earlier.
I want to thank all members of the CAC for the hard and extra work that we all have put in to make our work easier and thank Kathy for her leadership in this process.
Keep it up.

I agree with the follwoing comments already made:
Need for generic template; training for program coordinators; uniformity in format of reports (not necessarily content); and availability/accessibility of needed data for program review on wiki, IRPO site or Curriculum Handbook.

May I suggest that programs reveiws be allocated into a time-table so that program reveiws are conducted yearly depending on program rather than CAC members doing reviews every three years. I believe this would prevent the "great rush" and allow differentiation between factual data from reviewers' observations or reflections in the reports.
Thank you to all members for the wonderful learning opportunity I've had in this committee. I am learning a lot from participation in this committee.

I agree with the four findings above and wish to resound Kasi's suggestion regarding creating a time-table that reflects a proactive and on-going process approach of reviewing programs. Thank you Kathy for pushing everyone forward and steering the way!

Kathy,
Regarding the proposal number 1 which is about generic template for program reviews and course outlines, I think instead of program reviews it should be program evaluations. For program reviews, we have already the checklist and rubrics for recommendations .Thank you. edited 11:17, 29 Feb 2012

I just want to add my support for comment #11 posted by Kathy in which she summarized the suggestions posted by members. I can't think of any further to add.