Committee Evaluation of Program Reviews The Program Review Committee discusses all sections of the template submitted by each program. Three members are designated each week to thoroughly review sections pertaining to data analysis, assessment, and planning. Each designated reviewer provides a summary of how effectively the program completed the review. Reviewers look for evidence that program actions are driven by achievement and outcome assessment data, and that the resulting planning actions contribute to the Strategic and Education Master Plans. Reviewers also look to see that each resource request is directly tied to a planning action that is explicitly linked to institutional planning or is driven by observable assessment results. The Program Review Committee reviews each program review, relying on the detailed analysis from the designated reviewer, and comes to consensus about feedback to provide to the authors. Authors are provided recommendations for improving the analysis of their program as appropriate, and they are made aware of work that the committee finds exemplary. This feedback is sent to program leadership (e.g., Associate Dean) shortly after the committee’s review, and the program lead shares this feedback with the authors. The Program Review Committee also documents trends that surface across program reviews (e.g., assessment evidence is resulting in similar conclusions), as well as any changes that could be made to improve the process for the next year (e.g., refining aspects of the template or datasets). This information is documented each meeting for inclusion in the program review executive summary. College of the Redwoods | Program Review Rubric Mission Data Analysis – General Data Analysis – Student Equity Groups Assessment Exemplary Aligns with the mission of the college; Identifies the program’s impact on the college; Clear and concise Insightful commentary regarding factors that may have contributed to the data outcomes; Analysis lends itself to potential action plans for improvement; Student equity group differences were clearly identified; Potential factors leading to student equity differences were discussed; Analysis included potential actions for improving student equity Program improvements evaluated by reflecting on a significant amount of assessment activity that has taken place; Acceptable Aligns with the mission of the college;
Scope and reach are present but limited; Clear and concise Sufficient explanation regarding district comparison/trend; No comment was required based on the instructions; Possible factors impacting the program were discussed, but it is unclear how they motivate plans for improvement Equity group differences within the program were identified; Differences compared to the district were identified; Analysis was limited or absent Developing Fails to align with the mission of the college; Identifies basic functions of the program but not the greater purpose; Unclear, wordy or missing Absence of analysis (e.g., comparison to district) despite being required by the instructions; Absence of explanation on how data outcomes impact plans for improvement Equity data indicated large differences across equity groups, but differences were not identified; Student equity differences were not identified and not discussed; Analysis was absent Enough assessment activity has taken place such that the program can reflect on what it has learned; Insufficient assessment activity completed for the program to enable reflection on assessment‐
based changes Evaluation of Past Plans Program Plans & Resource Requests Specific program changes linked directly to assessment findings; Program changes driven by assessment findings were evaluated for improvement (loop closed). Past actions were carried out and evaluated; Impact of past actions is clearly described Program changes are loosely linked to assessment findings; Future evaluation of assessment driven changes is provided Current status of actions taken is clear; Impact of past actions has not been evaluated, but evaluation plan is included; Clear explanation as to why the action was not completed Planning actions are loosely related Planning actions directly link to stated institutional planning actions; to institutional planning actions; Planning actions are clearly based on Lists numbers of institutional assessment findings; planning objectives, but planning actions are not stated; Actions lead to impacts that can be Unclear how expected impact will be measured; measured; Every resource request has a Evaluation of the action is discussed, corresponding action linked to a plan but unclear if it has been or assessment results incorporated into assessment plan; Every resource request has a corresponding action linked to a plan or assessment results Exemplary Acceptable The amount of assessment activity was inaccurately reported; Any evaluation of assessment driven changes is absent Current action status is unclear; Actions taken do not reflect actions from past year; Impact of the past actions was not evaluated, and there is no plan for evaluation in the future Planning actions are not linked to institutional plans; Planning actions are not tied to assessment results; No indication of measurement of expected impact; Resource requests are not tied to specific planning action or assessment results Developing