Standard Number 3.4.1: The institution demonstrates that each educational program for which academic credit is awarded

Each educational program is approved by the faculty and administration. Evidence ix mixed for Part B. For example, “New Course Forms” address learning outcomes and assessments, and a Comprehensive Program Review Cycle is in place. On the other hand, several important documents do not include adequate attention to program and learning outcomes (e.g., Form B—Proposed New or Revised Programs, Course Revision Forms). Program Review Criteria focuses little on learning outcomes. There is no documentation to support that programmatic and student learning outcomes are assessed in departmental annual reports. The On-Site Review Committee should examine (1) the Annual Departmental Reports, and (2) hard copies of the program Review Reports in the Provost’s Office to determine the extent to which the institution establishes and evaluates program and learning outcomes.

Documents Addressing Programmatic and Learning Outcomes

Georgia Southern University conducted a review of the course approval/revision documents listed as part of the Compliance Certification for Comprehensive Standard 3.4.1. The cover sheet of the New Course Form contains specific guidelines related to learning outcomes and assessment. Item four on the cover sheet specifically requests information on the expected student learning outcomes of the course. Item five then asks how these student learning outcomes will be assessed. This information is critically reviewed by the Undergraduate and Graduate [Curriculum] Committees.

The process for proposing new programs on this campus (Form B: Proposed New or Revised Programs) requires units to append to the form a new program proposal in Board of Regents format. The Board of Regents policy governing new academic programs is found in their Academic Affairs Handbook (§ 2.03.02). This policy mandates that institutions submit first a preliminary proposal; then if approval is received from the Board of Regents, a second formal proposal is submitted. Item four (i) under the Format for New Program Proposal specifically requires a list of student outcomes associated with the program. Item eleven pertains to assessment. Programs are asked to “indicate the measures that will be taken to assess the effectiveness of the program and the learning outcomes of students enrolled.” This information is conveyed to the Undergraduate and Graduate Committees for their consideration in the evaluation of the program.

Establishment and Evaluation of Program and Learning Outcomes

The main venue for discussion of student learning outcomes and assessment at Georgia Southern University is the Institutional Effectiveness Plan (IEP). Current examination of outcomes and assessments for all units should concentrate primarily on the IEPs. Under the proposed planning process discussed in our focused response to Core Requirement 2.5 and Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1, the IEP will replace the departmental Level III Strategic Plan and will become the source from which Program Reviews and Annual Reports are derived as demonstrated in the schematic below.

Georgia Southern University
Planning Process Schematic at the Department Level

Samples of both departmental Annual Reports and Program Review are available for your inspection in hard copy format. The sample of Annual Reports is also available electronically for review.

Comprehensive Program Review

The University System of Georgia’s Comprehensive Program Review policy (Academic Affairs Handbook, § 2.03.05) was developed by the Administrative Committee on Institutional Effectiveness and endorsed by the Administrative Committee on Academic Affairs in July 2000—approximately the same time frame as Georgia Southern University’s development and implementation of its strategic planning process (see Table 3.3.1a—Georgia Southern University’s Planning and Assessment Timetable). The policy mandates that each institution periodically review its programs in a manner consistent with the institution’s ongoing efforts in institutional effectiveness and strategic planning. Specifically, the University System Office requests information on the program’s quality, viability, and productivity efforts in teaching and learning, scholarship, and service as they relate to the institution’s mission. Program reviews must utilize both quantitative and qualitative data, demonstrating that findings are grounded in facts. Moreover, the policy states that program reviews must be used to guide improvements in programs within the context of the institution’s mission and strategic plan.

Georgia Southern University has now completed three program review cycles under this policy, utilizing the University System’s recommended model. Since the actual program review submission transmitted to the System Office takes the form of a narrative, there is a lack of consistency in how learning outcomes are addressed, and the format does not lend itself to a discussion that focuses specifically on learning outcomes. The University System Office has also expressed concerns related to the linkage of analysis with data and inappropriate use of assessment data in its feedback to the University. To address these issues, a university committee was formed in 2004 (with representation from each of the colleges) to study the program review process on this campus and recommend changes. This group has played an important role in the reconceptualization of Georgia Southern’s planning and assessment processes. Under the proposed system, program reviews will be derived directly from Institutional Effectiveness Plans and hence will be tied directly to the assessment of programmatic and learning outcomes.

The university program review committee developed the Comprehensive Program Review Process and Format, which is also posted on the Provost’s Office web site; this process and format is designed to give the University time to reformulate and better link its planning, assessment, and program review functions. A sample program review narrative summary and data analysis was also developed to help guide programs. Finally, the committee posted an updated program review cycle. As shown in the prescribed format, student learning outcomes are to be addressed under the discussion of relevancy of curriculum which in turns informs the viability of the program; however, given the Board of Regents’ mandated program review format, these discussions will still be folded into a much broader discussion of the program.

Departmental Level Annual Reports

Between 1994 and 1998, assessment of institutional effectiveness was a component of Annual Reports. Since 1998, college and support unit departmental level Annual Reports have typically been a mechanism for conveying a summary of activities and achievements, not a measure of direct assessment of learning outcomes. Even so, many of the changes and improvements listed in the Annual Reports are derived from the use of results and outcome assessments. Again, today, the assessment function is primarily assigned to the Institutional Effectiveness Plan. Under the revised planning process (see schematic above), these various functions and reports will now be more effectively integrated into the overall planning process. Henceforth, the writing of Annual Reports will be guided by the Institutional Effectiveness Plans so linkages with learning outcomes will be more readily apparent throughout all of these reports.