1

Creating Institutional Buy-In to the Credit Program/Discipline Review

ProcessA Baldrige-Inspired Approach

Bao HuynhDirector of Institutional Research

Richland College

Teaching, Learning, Community Building

1

2

Overview

• Demographics & Baldrige Perspective• History / Purpose• Quantitative Data• Qualitative Data• Scoring Mechanism• Use of Results

2

3

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

4

Purpose

• Continuous Improvement/Agility

• Accountability

• Student Learning Outcomes

• Institutional Effectiveness

• Assessment of program/discipline viability

4

5

Quantitative Data

• “We are data-informed; we are not data-driven”

• Data supplied by the Office of Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness

• Three key indicators of performance

5

6

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

7

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

8

Scoring MechanismKey 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

9

Scoring MechanismKey Performance Indicator #1

9

10

Scoring MechanismKey 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

11

Credit Program Review Scoring Mechanism

Key Performance Indicator #2

11

12

Scoring MechanismKey Performance Indicator #3

100 points

Remain fiscally responsible and sound Measures:

• Program Cost to Income Ratio

12

13

Scoring MechanismKey Performance Indicator #3

13

14

Scoring MechanismSummary Sheet

14

15

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

16

Credit Program ReviewUse of Results

“One of the most devastating results of a review effort is inaction.”

Barak and Breier

16

17

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

18

Future Plans

• Incorporate assessment of student learning outcomes into the review

• Expand program review to include all administrative and student support services

19

Creating Institutional Buy-In to the Credit Program/Discipline Review

ProcessA Baldrige-Inspired Approach

Bao HuynhDirector of Institutional Research

Richland College

Teaching, Learning, Community Building

19