QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Transcription

1 PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE Completed proposals must be signed by the submitter s supervisor and a member of PEC (see page 2). Proposals should be submitted electronically as an attachment to ir@pulaskitech.edu. The Office of IRPE will forward proposals to Quality Council for review Name of Submitter: Mary Ann Shope & Susanne C. Ashby, PhD Date: February 2, 2016 Describe your quality improvement idea and explain why PTC should take on this project at this time. It is critical to our stakeholders that program review be a meaningful process that does indeed contribute to the overall quality of our programs and the college s functionality by honestly documenting all aspects of a program without burdening participants under an unmanageable workload and immense data requirements. The goal of this action project is to develop a program review model that integrates our emerging continuous improvement mindset with our current processes of curriculum review, planning and budget, educational and unit planning, and accreditation along with policies and initiatives regarding student equity, basic skills and enrollment management. This research-based program review model will be comprehensive in how it delineates the review process, data collection/analysis methods, and validation processes. Overhauling our current process to include key terminology, templates and scoring instruments, along with clear timelines, flowcharts and tracking mechanisms will serve to make the process more meaningful and less cumbersome while adding transparency and clarity to the results and how they are reported and disseminated. Once developed, the process will be piloted by a cross-section of instructional programs, and services such as student support, administrative, library and counseling. After revising the review process based upon feedback from the pilot groups, the process will become a part of the cultural mindset enjoying cyclical usage across the college. While adequate, the current PTC program review process follows the standards set out by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE). ADHE has not updated this process for several years. In this interim, priorities in higher education have changed, and these changes now require that we review the state process and revise it to make it more specific to PTC. For example, the process is not integrated into the college s newly developed planning and budget processes or used to enhance the accreditation cycle. The process is not standardized across the instructional disciplines or across the various services. It does not integrate with our newly developed student learning assessment program or routinely draw from data compiled by our IR Office. A fully integrated model will streamline processes, provide consistency and, where needed, provide standardization of collection and reporting templates, and validation instruments. It will enhance transparency and dissemination of results by addressing the use of technology for improved efficiency and effectiveness. It will also ensure that all instructional programs and services are reviewed routinely while also providing critical information regarding their results to the newly revamped budget process. With these in place, the review process better informs institutional planning and budgeting, the college master plan, and each department s/ program s goals and objectives. Updating the program review process to better integrate with our other newly revised processes across the college was earmarked as an outstanding opportunity previously. Engaging in such an endeavor at this time will provide PTC with a PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE PAGE 1 OF 9 FORM UPDATED 01/16

2 program review model that is integrated and reflects the approach of continuous quality improvement as well as the new budget process. What steps need to be taken to put your idea into action? The overall goal of this AQIP Action Project is to upgrade the College s Program Review process to better integrate it with the newly revised planning and budgeting processes, and the updated master plan in order to provide continuous quality improvement with our programs and services. The chart below provides an overview of the goals and tasks to be accomplished along with a timeline for completion. Integrated Program Review Project Timeline Project Goals & Milestones 1) Form Program Review Action Team and perform research and Web literature review of best models and practices. Annotated Bibliography with list of preferred elements Metrics List of Committee members with meeting schedule; Annotated bibliography completed; List of preferred program review elements drafted. Due date March 31, 2016 Other measures for assessing the None Project Goals & Milestones 2) Delineate Logic Model, Process, flowcharts, form templates and annual schedule for review by key stakeholders Logic Model, Process, flowcharts, form templates and annual schedule Metrics Feedback Form completed by reviewing stakeholders: Program Directors, Deans, Chairpersons, AVPs, Perkins Coordinator, Faculty Senate, and Staff Senate, Academic Affairs Committee, Assessment Committee, Academic Programs Committee, IR&E Committee; Feedback solicited between May 1 31, 2016 Due date May 1, 2016 Other measures for assessing the None Project Goals & Milestones 3) Revise all materials from Goal #2 and then draft Program Review Manual and Program Review Website Program Review Manual and Program Review Website with templates and forms Metrics Feedback Form completed by reviewing stakeholders: Program Directors, Deans, Chairpersons, AVPs, Perkins Coordinator, Faculty Senate, and Staff Senate, Academic Affairs Committee, Assessment Committee, Academic Programs Committee, IR&E Committee; Feedback solicited between August 1 31, 2016 Due date August 1, 2016 Other measures for assessing the None Project Goals & Milestones 4) Final revisions of Pilot Materials completed and reviewed prior to pilot Page 2 of 9

3 Program Review Manual and Program Review Website with templates and forms Metrics Feedback Form completed by reviewing stakeholders: Program Directors, Deans, Chairpersons, AVPs, Perkins Coordinator, Faculty Senate, and Staff Senate, Academic Affairs Committee, Assessment Committee Due date September 30, 2016 Benchmark Draft of Pilot materials reviewed by Provost & President Project Goals & Milestones 5) Administer pilot test of materials among a cross-section of programs/services followed by Focus Group Completed program review report forms posted and reviewed by Program Review Committee and Assessment Committee Metrics Feedback from Focus Group Sessions Due date January 31, 2017 Pilot Test: October 1 December 31, 2016 Focus Group Sessions: January 9 31, 2017 Other measures for assessing the Program Review Reports completed and posted on Website Project Goals & Milestones Metrics Due date Other measures for assessing the Final revisions in program made and final report disseminated Final Report None March 1, 2017 [completion date] Final results and materials presented to the following Committees: Deans Cabinet Academic Assessment Committee Institutional Research & Effectiveness Committee Quality Council Academic Programs Committee Academic Affairs Committee Faculty Senate Staff Senate List the key stakeholders involved by position/department. This sustainable model will be collaboratively developed by a cross-disciplinary team of faculty and staff with input from the faculty and staff senates, program directors, and administration. The project will have input from across the College s various programs and services as well as the many committees currently in operation as part of our shared governance model. The Program Review Action Team will be comprised of the following positions and group representatives: Associate Vice President of Learning, Assessment Coordinator, 2 Program Directors, 1 Dean, 4 Departmental Chairpersons, IR Office representative, Assessment Committee Chairperson, Academic Planning Committee Chairperson, Perkins Coordinator, 1 representative from Faculty Senate and 1 representative from Staff Senate. Page 3 of 9

4 At each phase of the project, any materials developed will be reviewed by the following standing committees: Deans Cabinet Academic Assessment Committee Institutional Research & Effectiveness Committee Academic Programs Committee Academic Affairs Committee Faculty Senate Staff Senate Each Committee will be provided a presentation of the work accomplished and a copy of the materials developed along with a Feedback Form. The Committee members will be provided approximately 2 4 weeks to review and complete the feedback form. During the pilot test of the materials, approximately 3 to 5 different programs and services will be asked to perform a Program Review using the newly developed processes and materials. This then opens the project to an even wider audience. Key Stakeholders Name Position Department Mary Ann Shope AVPL Admin. Pam Cicirello AVPL Admin Susanne Ashby Assessment Coordinator Learning Mike McMillan Dean Business & IT Jeanne Williams Dean Allied Health & Human Services Joe McAfee Chair T&I Nicolette Smith Chair Philosophy & Interdisciplinary Studies/ Languages Brenda Bradley Chair History Benjamin Peacock Program Director Allied Health Affiliates Renee Smith Director Culinary & Hospitality Management Sherry Bowman Program Director Practical Nursing Jason Green Director Distance Learning Richard Moss Director STEM Success Julie Starkey Director Student Services-LR South Nancy Sparks Director Career Pathways Terry Hunkapiller Director Perkins Wendy Davis Dean Library Catherine DiVito Registrar Student Services/Staff Senate Representative Abigail Perrine Technical Writer IR Office Laura Govia Instructor English/Faculty Senate Representative Page 4 of 9

5 What is the timeline for your project? The basic project timeline is provided below. Project Timeline Time Frame March 1 - March 31, 2016 April 1 May 1, 2016 May 1 August 1, 2016 August 1 September 30, 2016 October 1 December 31, 2016 January 9 31, 2017 February 1, - March 31, 2017 February 1, - March 31, 2017 Tasks 1) Form Program Review Action Team and perform research and Web literature review of best models and practices. 2) Delineate Logic Model, Process, flowcharts, form templates and annual schedule for review by key stakeholders 3) Revise all materials from Goal #2 and then draft Program Review Manual and Program Review Website 4) Final revisions of Pilot Materials completed and reviewed prior to pilot 5) Administer pilot test of materials among a cross-section of programs/services followed by Focus Group 5.A) Focus Group sessions 6) Final revisions in program made and final report disseminated 6.A) Program Review Webpage created with all developed materials posted How will you measure success? Following a basic design cycle, attainment of our stated goal will be measured in two distinct ways: completion of final deliverables and satisfactory feedback from focus groups and other reviewers/users of materials throughout the process. All data collected during iterative feedback loops will be compiled, analyzed, and reported on to the stakeholders/committee members throughout the process. Findings will inform revisions of materials which will be reviewed with Committee members after each iteration until a final product has been realized. A complete report will be submitted to all appropriate oversight committees. The Webpage and documents posted therein will also be formally presented to the many stakeholders, program directors/coordinators, Department Chairs and Deans throughout the college upon completion. Explain how your project aligns with an outstanding opportunity identified by HLC, an AQIP category, PTC s Strategic Goals, or an institutional Key Performance Indicator (KPI). See pages 3-4 for a complete list and description of these items. This project addresses all three of the aforementioned criteria: A) HLC-identified outstanding opportunity, B) AQIP category and C) a Strategic Goals with KPIs. Page 5 of 9

6 A) This project addresses the outstanding opportunity of Helping Students Learn as identified by HLC in regard to the following: To develop and explicate the processes by which considerations of feedback from external and internal sources are made, prioritized, and implemented to create, modify, or discontinue programs and courses. As the Program Review Process has not been updated recently, it is an appropriate time to fully address this process and its procedures in order to establish an integrated process using research-based practices. The information gleaned from a more integrated approach will better inform faculty and staff of programmatic needs. B) This project also addresses the AQIP category of Quality Overview. The primary intent of this project is to update and upgrade the program review process so that it goes above and beyond the ADHE minimum requirements while better integrating the program review process into our newly established Continuous Quality Improvement culture and into our newly established budget infrastructure. C) This project directly addresses one Strategic Goal and KPI while indirectly addressing another. The PTC Strategic goal of Continuous Planning and Effectiveness is directly addressed as the goal of this project is to evaluate the current program review process and seek to improve the effectiveness of the process which will impact our programs and services. It addresses the KPI of annual departmental assessments while simultaneously striving to improve quality of programs and services. Indirectly, this project addresses the Strategic Goal of Student Learning and Success and the commensurate KPI of committing to student success through effective programs and services that assist students in achieving their goals. Through a researchbased program review process that better integrates its process with PTC goal setting and budget management, PTC will more effectively leverage programmatic improvements that positively impact student learning. What additional resources will be required to complete your project? The resources of personnel time and duplication costs (committee members time, web services time, paper, toner) will be affected. The cost to Committee members time during the 12 month period is estimated at an average of % per week. For the principal project leaders the time designated to this task is estimated at an average of % per week for the duration of the project. The cost for additional paper and toner ink is estimated at pages for drafts and final copies and ## toner cartridges for a range of #### to #### pages. Currently, funds for duplication work will be drawn from the Assessment Office and the Department of Learning. Approval I am aware of this proposal: Supervisor Signature: Date: PEC Member: Date: Approval Comments: Page 6 of 9

7 OUTSTANDING OPPORTUNITIES Outstanding Opportunity To develop and explicate the processes by which considerations of feedback from external and internal sources are made, prioritized, and implemented to create, modify, or discontinue programs and courses. Develop and communicate the processes involved in collecting, reviewing, and communicating data used to determine if students have met learning and development expectations. To provide data on stakeholder satisfaction beyond student satisfaction and to understand how the institution is perceived by the broader community. Organize institutional planning processes and evaluate risks. AQIP Category Helping Students Learn Helping Students Learn Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs Planning and Leading Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship AQIP CATEGORIES Helping Students Learn Design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and on the processes required to support them) that underlie the institution s credit and non-credit programs and courses. Planning and Leading How the institution achieves its mission and lives its vision through direction setting, goal development, strategic actions, threat mitigation, and capitalizing on opportunities. Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs Determining, understanding and meeting needs of current and prospective students and other key stakeholders such as alumni and community partners. Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship Management of the fiscal, physical, technological, and information infrastructures designed to provide an environment in which learning can thrive. Valuing Employees The institution s commitment to the hiring, development, and evaluation of faculty, staff, and administrators. Quality Overview Continuous Quality Improvement culture and infrastructure of the institution. This category gives the institution a chance to reflect on all its quality improvement initiatives, how they are integrated, and how they contribute to improvement of the institution. Page 7 of 9

8 PTC STRATEGIC GOALS AND KPIs PTC Strategic Goal Student Learning and Success. PTC will continue its commitment to student success by providing programs and services that will help students achieve their goals. Continuing Education and Community Engagement. PTC will provide continuing education and community services that are responsive to the needs of citizens and organizations in central Arkansas. Economic and Workforce Development. PTC will address the workforce development needs of central Arkansas by (a) developing and strengthening partnerships with area school districts, colleges, universities, and hospitals; (b) delivering high quality technical programs that respond to the changing employment needs and opportunities in the region; and, (c) providing high quality customized training for business and industry. Access. PTC will provide central Arkansans with accessible, high quality, affordable technical education and university transfer programs. Quality Learning Environment. PTC will provide a quality learning environment by promoting Key Performance Indicators Successful Course Completion Course Pass Completion Successful Development Course Completion DevED Student Transition and Successful Completion of Gateway English DevED Student Transition and Successful Completion of Gateway Math Graduation Rate Transfer Rates Assessment of SLOs (Program Level) Employer Satisfaction with Graduates General Student Satisfaction Graduate Satisfaction Graduate Employment Licensure Pass Rates Community awareness and positive image Employee satisfaction with internal communications Continuing education participant satisfaction Number of continuing ed classes delivered vs. offered Revenues vs. expenditures Student satisfaction Employer partner satisfaction Total Non-Credit Contact Hours Enrollment SSCH FTES Fall-to-Fall retention, first-time, full-time, degreeseeking Fall-to-Fall retention, first-time, part-time, degreeseeking Satisfaction with technology and support services Satisfaction with buildings and maintenance Page 8 of 9

9 PTC Strategic Goal Key Performance Indicators excellence in teaching and learning and maintaining up-to-date facilities and technology. Sustainability. PTC will continue seeking additional financial, physical, and human resources to support the development and ongoing improvement of our programs and services. Continuous Planning and Effectiveness. PTC will continuously assess and respond to changing student and community needs, evaluate and improve the effectiveness of our programs and services, and update our planning goals and strategies. General fund expenditures as percent of budget General fund revenues as a perfect of budget Tuition revenue as a percent of budget Reserve balance Foundation income Employee turnover Follow annual plan Annual departmental assessments 3 AQIP Action Projects Quality Culture Page 9 of 9