|
Why Do Program Review?
|
|
|
Value to College.
|
|
|
a.
|
“The mission of Westmont College is to provide a high quality undergraduate liberal arts program in a residential campus community that assists men and women toward a balance of rigorous intellectual competence, healthy personal development, and strong Christian commitments.” Program review is one way to document our commitment and effectiveness towards this mission.
|
|
b.
|
No one department or program can satisfy all aspects of the mission statement; each program makes its own unique contributions. Program review is one way to determine if institutional priorities and goals are being met as each department contributes to the total effort.
|
|
|
|
Value to Educators.
|
|
|
a.
|
To provide a forum for professional enrichment and encouragement in areas of course and program development and pedagogy; a place to share “best-practices” and a safe place to receive constructive criticism.
|
|
b.
|
To provide suitable tools for departments to review curriculum and goals, identify strengths, and discuss means of addressing identified program weaknesses.
|
|
c.
|
To help develop departmental priorities and rationale for requesting college funds intended to strengthen a weak program or make a good program better.
|
|
|
|
Value to Students.
|
|
|
|
a.
|
To encourage educators to ask themselves regularly how they can improve teaching practices and departmental efforts to enhance student learning.
|
|
b.
|
To become more intentional in designing an educational program that strives towards meeting the objectives of various College statements:
(i.) the college mission statement,
(ii.) “What Do We Want For Our Graduates”, and
(iii.) “Standards for Student Learning Outcomes.”
|
|
|
Desired Elements of a Program Review Process
|
|
|
It shall value both “educator inputs” and “student learning.”
|
|
|
|
a.
|
To encourage educators to ask themselves regularly how they can improve teaching practices and departmental efforts to enhance student learning.
|
|
b.
|
To become more intentional in designing an educational program that strives towards meeting the objectives of various College statements:
(i.) the college mission statement,
(ii.) “What Do We Want For Our Graduates,” and
(iii.) “Standards for Student Learning Outcomes.”
|
|
|
2.
|
It shall recognize the diversity of methods for measuring teaching and program effectiveness and student learning. One set of “assessment tools” will not be prescribed for use by all departments. Rather, departments will be encouraged to determine the best “assessment tools” for their program and courses.
|
|
3.
|
It shall acknowledge that:
|
|
|
|
a.
|
Some educational objectives can be achieved during the student’s enrollment in a course and/or the College.
|
|
b.
|
Achievement of some educational objectives will not be successfully assessed for years after graduation.
|
|
c.
|
Some educational objectives, although vitally important to the mission of the College, will not be quantifiable or amenable to assessment.
|
|
|
4.
|
It shall affirm the value of measuring student learning but does not succumb to “teaching to a test.”
|
|
5.
|
It shall emphasize the importance of inviting students into a learning environment, which maximizes the opportunity for learning to take place, if students are receptive to the invitation to learn. It shall acknowledge that educators are responsible to make learning as inviting and effective as possible, but are not responsible for every student who fails to learn. Some students will elect not to benefit from the educational experience.
|
|
6.
|
It shall offer a process that is manageable and not onerous. Program review will emphasize “process” and not final “product”. The ideal program review process might be characterized as follows:
|
|
|
|
a.
|
Careful communication between the Program Review Committee and each department throughout the process, including discussion about: (i.) the scope of the review program, (ii.) program review methods to be used, and (iii.) the scope of the department’s report.
|
|
b.
|
Departments would develop program review methods that could be implemented “naturally” in an ongoing manner throughout the year requiring little extra effort to perform. Over the years, departments would collect a body of evidence that would be useful to both the department and the institution.
|
|
c.
|
Departments would be encouraged to use the results of their program review to make appropriate changes and enhancements to their program.
|
|
d.
|
Once every five years, departments would write a brief summary report and submit it to the Program Review Committee that would include:
(i.) a description of their program review activity,
(ii.) a summary of their results, and
(iii.) a summary as to how the department has benefited from their program review. (It is envisioned that this report would be under 10 pages in length.)
|
|
|
7.
|
It shall give departments significant autonomy in defining the scope of their self-study within the broad parameters set by the College.
|
|
8.
|
It shall encourage departments to avail themselves of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Use of an external consultant in the review process.
|
|
|
Use of an internal consultant in the review process.
|
|
|
9.
|
It shall affirm the value of a review “cycle” which includes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goal Setting
|
|
|
Implementation
|
|
|
Assessment
|
|
|
Program modification
|
|
|
Repeating a - e
|
|
