Program Review Process: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Ensure Quality and Accountability

Higher Learning Commission Conference | Chicago, IL | April 2009

Overview• Introductions

• APUS Mission and Demographics

• Goals of the Program Review Process

• Program Review Process, Tools, and Resources

• Use of Continuous Improvement in Business Program

• Use of Fact Books to Drive Decisions

• Conclusion and Dialogue

Introductions

Frank McCluskey, Ph.D.Executive Vice President and Provost

Jennifer Stephens, Ph.D.Dean of Assessment

Chad Patrizi, ABDDean of Business Administration

Our Mission

To educate the nation's military and public service communities by providing respected, relevant,affordable, and student-focusedonline programs which prepare them for service and leadership in a diverse, global society.

Who We Are• Founded in 1991 as American Military

University to provide affordable and convenient distance learning to service members

• In 2002, expanded reach to national security,public safety and other professionals seeking affordable education and online convenience, establishing American Public University System with member institutions: American Military University and American Public University

• We are a 100% online for-profit school that serves 49,000+ students who study online from 100 countries.

Relevant Degree & Certificate Programs 74 online programs at the undergraduate andgraduate level

• Specialized educationfor those who serve innational security andpublic service professions

• Liberal arts andprofessional studiesprograms, many that are uniquely availableonline

Graduate24%

Undergraduate76%

% of Students by Degree Program

% of Students by School

Student Body Profile

Program Review Process

• Course books

• Electronic resources

• Learning strategies

Library and Learning Resources

• Student learning outcomes

• Instructional strategies

• Evaluation procedures

• Academic rigor

Curriculum Assessment

• Expert reviewer report

• Industry Advisory Council report

External Reviewer Feedback

Paper Free Process

Electronic Repository of Information

• Analysis of faculty credentials and expertise to ensure breadth and diversity

Faculty

• Student demographic information

• Enrollment History

• Growth trends

Students

• Curricular Mapping

• Assessment measures

• Fact book

Learning Outcomes Assessment

Paper Free Process

Electronic Repository of Information

• Program benchmarking with similar programs and institutions

Program Benchmarking

• Evaluation of findings

• Program recommendations

• Three year proposed strategic plan

Program Directory Summary

• Dean’s observations

• Meeting minutes

Program Review Findings

Paper Free Process

Electronic Repository of Information

Data Utilization forProgram Review

• Introduction

• Bachelor of Business Administration Program (BBA) vs. Institutional EOC (end of course survey)

• Without Micro and Macro Economics

• Fact Book

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

Clear course objectives Course assignments supported course objectives

Course materials relevant to objectives

Course assignments fairly evaluated work

Instructor's teaching style appropriate Knowledgeable instructorInstructor provided feedback to inquiries within 72 hours

Instructor provided grades and appropriate feedback within one week

Interactions between the instructor and the students were positive

Interaction among classmates created a sense of community

Electronic classroom easy to navigateAssignments easy to post Technical support questions answered within 2 days

BBA Program Average (n=1139) 4.42 4.42 4.50 4.31 4.27 4.45 4.35 4.29 4.40 4.01 4.53 4.49 3.87

Institutional Average (n=28344) 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.37 4.35 4.44 4.38 4.27 4.44 4.02 4.39 4.48 3.83

BBA Program vs Institutional EOC Data 2006

Data Utilization forProgram Review

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

BBA Program vs Institutional EOC Data 2006 w/o Micro and Macro Economics

BBA Program Average (n=1139) 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.39 4.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Institutional Average (n=28344) 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.37 4.35 4.44 4.38 4.27 4.44 4.02 4.39 4.48 3.83

Clear course objectives

Course assignments supported

Course materials relevant to objectives

Course assignments

fairly evaluated

Instructor's teaching style appropriate

Knowledgeable instructor

Instructor provided

feedback to

Instructor provided grades and appropriate

Interactions between the

instructor and

Interaction among

classmates

Electronic classroom easy

to navigate

Assignments easy to post

Technical support

questions

Data Utilization forProgram Review

Data Utilization forProgram Review

Conclusions & Dialogue