Program Review Committee
Friday, February 8, 2012, 9am – 11am
Boardroom
Notes: Utpal Goswami, Keith Snow-Flamer, Cheryl Tucker, Barbara Jaffari, Jon Pedicino, Mike Cox, Steve
Stratton, Jeff Cummings, Dana Maher, Angelina Hill, Tanya Smart, Brie Day, Rachel Anderson, Vinnie Peloso,
Hillary Reed, Anita Janis, Crislyn Parker-notes
1. Approve January 25, 2013 Meeting Notes
Approved as corrected
2. Instructional Program Reviews
2.1 Discussion of Member Pre-Review Process
The committee agreed this approach is working. The committee will continue to evaluate.
There was some discussion regarding 88, 99 and 40 courses in assessment. The committee agreed that 88
course can be hidden, but 99s should be included and 40s when they are offered.
2.2 Discussion of Instructional Reviews
2.2.a Addiction Studies: this program is successful with no full time faculty support. Labor market
data supports possible growth. Agreed revitalization should be addressed
somehow, but
program
does not meet AP 4021 criteria for program revitalization, so is beyond the role of
the PRC.
2.2.b Academy of Justice-completed; need number of degrees in 1.3
2.2.c Behavioral & Social Sciences-completed. This review is a model for how to prepare Section 3:
Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities.
2.2.d Biology, etc. (added to agenda): There is some confusion in resource requests for staff, because
both DN and MC had positions funded then cut: where do requests fall, as recurring or
new? Good
model for discussion taking place among faculty. Completed.
2.2.e Dental Assisting-completed: Completed
2.2.e Early Childhood Education: Completed
3. Feedback Survey on 2012-13 PRC process
The committee discussed the proposed program review feedback survey and agreed it should be sent and
completed prior-to and for inclusion in the April 6 planning summit. Keith and Utpal will meet in late
March to collate program review committee feedback.
Question 2 in the survey will be revised to match service areas; hyperlinks will be added to the template,
as will data set instructions. PRC will make notes of possible author misinterpretation of templates. Agreed
question 4 will remain in the survey.
4. Other:
Possible misinterpretation by authors: move comment section from below section 2.9 (labor market data)
to follow section 2.9. Reword for clarification. Clarify in instructions that section 1.3 requires the number of degrees and/or certificates offered.
Clarify in the resource request instructions that ongoing resource requests need be included only if it is
for an increase due to increased costs is being asked.
The budget section is difficult to import into a spreadsheet; some revision in the future will be needed in
this section for import and collapse.
In the program plan section create hot link to institutional plans as a reminder to link planning.
Discussion to provide guidance for the next program review process.
Institutional question: how to maintain a quality program with no full time faculty.
Institutional question: debrief with BPC the program review process to determine how to help authors
submit resource requests that are less amorphous. Suggestions: create a general institutional estimated
price list, (i.e. above $2500 or below; create a shopping check-list).
5. Future Agenda Items: NA
Next meeting Friday, February 22
0
