Academic Program Plan to Plan by stariya

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 18

									        THE PLAN TO PLAN
           Prepared By

THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW AND
    PRIORITIZATION TASK FORCE

         November 19, 2003
             Academic Program Review and Prioritization Task Force Plan to Plan


Presidential Charge ................................................................................................................................3

Objectives ................................................................................................................................................3

Rationale .................................................................................................................................................3

Communication Plan ..............................................................................................................................5

Decision Making ......................................................................................................................................5
   Academic Program Evaluation ...........................................................................................................5
   Academic Program Prioritization .......................................................................................................6

Task Force Membership.........................................................................................................................6

Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................................6

Role of Consultants .................................................................................................................................7

Academic Programs ................................................................................................................................7

Criteria for Review .................................................................................................................................7
   Criterion One: Educational Mission ...................................................................................................7
   Criterion Two: History, Development, and Expectations of the Program ..........................................7
   Criterion Three: Size, Scope, and Productivity of the Program .........................................................8
   Criterion Four: External Demand for the Program .............................................................................8
   Criterion Five: Internal Demand for, Impact, Justification,
                   and Overall Essentiality of the Program .....................................................................8
   Criterion Six: Quality of Program Inputs and Processes ....................................................................9
   Criterion Seven: Quality of Program Outcomes ...............................................................................10
   Criterion Eight: Revenue and Other Resources Generated by the Program
                     as well as Costs and Other Expenses Associated with the Program.......................10
   Criterion Nine: Incorporation of the Undergraduate Framework
                    for Competitive Positioning Model .........................................................................12
   Criterion Ten: Opportunity Analysis of the Program .......................................................................13

Calendar of Task Force Activities .......................................................................................................13

APPENDIX A: ACADEMIC PROGRAMS TO BE REVIEWED AND PRIORITIZED .............16




Thiel College                          Academic Program Review and Prioritization                                                                  Page 2
Presidential Charge
From October, 2003, through mid-April of 2004, a Task Force will conduct the simultaneous review and
prioritization of all current academic programs. The purpose of this review is to strategically align
academic programs with 1) the needs and expectations of prospective and current students; 2) the
College‘s revised mission; and 3) the Undergraduate Framework for Competitive Positioning. Strategic
alignment will occur through an analysis of individual academic programs that is based on clear criteria,
and which will lead to one of the following decisions for each program:
         Enrich or expand resources for the individual program.
         Maintain the individual program at the current level of resources.
         Consolidate the individual program, and resources needed for it, with other programs.
         Reduce resources support for the individual program.
         Close the individual program (with proper attention given to the importance of sufficient
             notice and due process).

Thiel will greatly benefit from strategic program review and prioritization because the process will
provide sound rationale for decisions about individual programs, generate guidelines for the allocation
of scarce institutional resources, and enhance the College‘s marketability.

Objectives
There are two objectives for the program review and prioritization process. They are:
   1. Complete a simultaneous review of all academic programs using a common set of criteria.
   2. Make recommendations for the classification of all programs regarding strategic allocation of
       resources.

Rationale
For more than a year Thiel College has been engaged in a very intensive and highly productive strategic
planning process under the guidance of Dr. Gary Quehl of Quehl Associates. The results of this process
are due to the hard work of the Strategic Planning Steering/Strategic Planning Committee and the
widespread participation by members of the College community. This process concludes with the
adoption of the plan by the Board of Trustees on October 24 of 2003. Thereafter, strategic planning
moves to its most important phase—continuous implementation.

At its core, Thiel‘s strategic plan has ten Key Strategic Directions that will drive the College toward its
vision of success for the foreseeable future. The chief priority is the Academic Programs/Student
Learning Strategic Direction. This direction states:

        ―The College will improve intellectual life by developing academic programs and clear program
        priorities, initiatives to enhance the socio-academic culture, understanding of and appreciation
        for its Lutheran heritage, and further efforts to engage in serious consideration of the curricular
        issues.‖




Thiel College              Academic Program Review and Prioritization                                Page 3
Two implementing objectives under this key direction identify the need for program review:
       ―Thiel College will, based upon the review of academic programs and tailored use of our
         consultant‘s model for prioritization:
            a. determine how to fairly, effectively, and quickly establish priorities
            b. evaluate the strength of academic programs
            c. make judgments, realizing that certain programs will be more important to the
                mission and vitality of the College even though all may have equal intrinsic value.

           ―Thiel College will identify and provide appropriate resources to strengthen high priority
            academic programs.‖

There are four strategic issues underlying the Academic Programs/Student Learning Key Strategic
Direction. Two of these strategic issues are particularly important to academic program review and
prioritization:

       ―The College‘s academic program and socio-academic culture are seriously deficient in meeting
        the goals and needs of many students. Consequently, the College experiences difficulty in
        recruiting a prepared and motivated student body and in retaining them through graduation.‖

       ―The College desires to grow for various reasons. Developing new academic programs and
        properly identifying and selling existing strong academic programs are two ways to spur
        enrollment growth. However, due to insufficient knowledge about the external environment,
        inertia within the academic area, and concerns about ‗institutional fit,‘ the College has been
        unable to make as much progress as is required. If the College does not engage effectively in this
        creative work, it will fail to achieve the desired and needed growth in student body size.‖

As a component of the strategic planning process, the College has developed a competitive positioning
model with the assistance of Dr. Ron Wendeln of Prescience Associates. The new competitive position
both requires Thiel College to modify its curriculum to serve more adequately those students it recruits
and provides direction in making curricular decisions. This is born out in the following excerpts from
the Strategic Plan Report.

       Thiel is adopting a competitive model that repositions the College ―so… it can ably serve the
        students that it recruits. These…are degree-seeking students whose range of abilities varies from
        the very capable and motivated…to the ‗at risk‘ student who lacks both the requisite skills and
        motivation to earn a degree in the conventional time sequence of four or five consecutive years.‖

       ―The…model allows the College to become distinctive by providing a (significant) goal towards
        which Thiel can move. We can now be intentional about what we do. The model allows the
        College to adequately serve the students that (it actually) recruits and provides opportunities for
        institutional growth and innovation…‖

So central are academic programs to the very core of what Thiel College is about that the Board of
Directors has mandated the review, development, and prioritization of academic programs as the top
priority for the 2003-04 academic year‘s implementation of the Strategic Plan.




Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                                Page 4
Communication Plan
It is essential that the College community be kept informed of the process and its progress, and allow for
periodic feedback. As a consequence, the Task Force will do the following throughout the process.

       Post Task Force documents to the College‘s Web site.
       Present updates at Faculty Meetings.
       Present at Town Meetings.
       Publish in T-notes.

Decision Making
Academic Program Evaluation

It is spurious to assume that truly ―objective‖ judgments can be made about any given program, or that
the Task Force can utilize extensive statistical analysis in arriving at ultimate ―truth‖ about the rating of
a program. Instead, it is better to assume that great care in selecting definitions, criteria, criterion
indicators, data elements, and formats for each and every academic program can enable intelligent, well-
intended professionals systematically to gather data and information and arrive at ―informed‖ judgments
with whatever rating systems are used. The key is that the approach have its roots in goal-based,
criterion-referenced evaluation rather than in a political-negotiation model of assessment and judgment.

The Task Force intends to use flexibility and imagination in crafting a variety of rating systems that are
appropriate for rating the different criterion indicators. Quantitative ratings will be used to rate even
qualitative criterion indicators. The choices include:

       For quality input measures, multiple-point rating systems can be very useful (e.g., ―High,‖
        ―Medium,‖ ―Low,‖ ―Exceptional‖; ―Strong,‖ ―Adequate,‖ ―Weak‖), as can a four-point Lickert-
        type scale for measuring intensity.

       Trend lines might be designated as ―Growing,‖ ―Stable,‖ or ―Declining.‖

       Quality output measures require more subjective judgments and often follow a four-point scale
        to measure importance (e.g., ―Not Important,‖ ―Somewhat Unimportant,‖ ―Somewhat
        Important,‖ ―Important‖) or level of agreement (e.g., ―Strongly Disagree,‖ ―Somewhat Agree,‖
        ―Somewhat Disagree,‖ ―Strongly Disagree‖) or satisfactions (with similar alternatives).

       There are other rating alternatives to consider for specific tasks. Some criteria (e.g., indirect cost
        allocations, revenues and expenses generated, percentage of graduates passing state licensure,
        student retention) are easily quantifiable, while other criteria may need to be rated according to
        degree of sufficiency (e.g., ―Does Not Meet Expectations,‖ ―Meets Expectations,‖ ―Exceeds
        Expectations‖).

       Dickeson1 reports that some campuses use the traditional five-point grading scale to assess
        criteria by awarding ―A‖ through ―F,‖ denoting excellence. Other campuses approach certain
        criteria with standard ―Yes‖/―No‖ or ―Essential/Not essential‖ ratings.


1
 Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance
(Jossey-Bass, 1999),
Thiel College              Academic Program Review and Prioritization                                  Page 5
       Dickeson2 also identifies a 100-point rating system for quantifying quantitative and qualitative
        criteria.

Academic Program Prioritization

Yet another need is for the Task Force to arrive at judgments about over-all academic program
prioritization. Dickeson favors categories of rankings rather than a rank-ordering of all individual
programs. The Task Force agrees with this approach and will use the categories of rankings shown
below.

   Five program categories:
    Candidate programs for enrichment and/or expansion
    Candidate programs for maintaining current level of support
    Candidate programs for consolidation with other programs
    Candidate programs for reduced level of support
    Candidate programs for closure

Each program will be placed in one of these five categories. Further, the Task Force will try to place an
equal number of programs in each category. This is suggested by Dickeson since resource allocation
decisions require prioritization, and that prioritization must involve a hard but honest understanding that
all programs are not equal, and that some share greater congruency than others with the future of the
College.

Task Force Membership
Members of the Program Review and Prioritization Task Force are:
Robert Olson, Co-chair    Judith Newton, Co-chair
Don Achenbach             Jesse Amar
Paul Baglyos              Mike Balas
Susan Breckenridge        Susan Cowan
Mark DelMaramo            Angelo Giannini
Jenni Griffin             Mark McGrath
Joyce Minor               Merv Newton
Susan Richards            Bill Robinson
Dan Sirls                 Cindy Sutton

Responsibilities
The main tasks of the Program Review and Prioritization Task Force are:
1. Prepare the Program Review Plan
2. Coordinate the work of data collection
3. Review and analyze data
4. Prioritize academic programs




2
 Ibid, pp. 84-85.
Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                                Page 6
Role of Consultants
Dr. Gary Quehl of Quehl Associates served effectively as coach to the Strategic Planning
Steering/Strategic Planning Committee throughout the strategic planning process. Dr. Quehl will
continue his service to the College by acting as coach to this Task Force throughout the program review
and prioritization process.

Dr. Ron Wendeln of Prescience Associates will provide data analysis for the Task Force.

Academic Programs
An academic program is any activity or collection of activities that leads to a major, minor, degree,
certification or well-defined portion of the Core requirement and consumes resources (dollars, faculty,
staff, space, equipment, time). A list of academic programs that will be included in the review and
prioritization process is found in Appendix A.

Criteria for Review
The Task Force has identified ten criteria to use in the review and prioritization process. Each criterion
involves statements that will guide the process as it relates to the criterion topic. Responses to these
statements will be obtained through a variety of data gathering mechanisms. These responses will serve
as indicators of evidence needed to address each criterion. The statements and associated indicators of
evidence are listed below.

Criterion One: Educational Mission – Weight: 18%

The purpose of the first criterion is to establish the extent to which there is a connecting relationship
between each program and the achievement of Thiel’s mission. In fact, because Thiel will have
completed strategic planning before academic program review and prioritization formally begins,
Criterion One must reflect both Thiel‘s former and revised missions. A three-part qualitative
assessment of each program reviewed will include:
 A written summary evaluation of the extent to which the program has contributed to the achievement
    of Thiel‘s former stated mission (i.e., prior to the adoption of the Strategic Plan).
 A written summary evaluation of the extent to which the program is currently positioned to achieve
    Thiel‘s revised mission (i.e., as adopted in the Strategic Plan).
 A written assessment of what will be needed to bring the program into full compliance with Thiel‘s
    revised mission.

Criterion Two: History, Development, and Expectations of the Program – Weight: 5%

Answers to indicators for this criterion can provide important information about program efficacy.
While primarily qualitative in nature, a rating system format can be prepared to assess program
maturity, adaptability, and congruence with Thiel‘s expectations. Criterion indicators are:
 What the program has done to meet changing student needs, expectations, and profiles (e.g., students
   more likely to enroll part-time, having family and work responsibilities, inadequately prepared for
   the rigors of college work, remediation required in certain areas, insufficient motivation and
   likelihood to persist and succeed).
 The maturity of the program (a relative newcomer building toward a survival threshold vs. a mature
   cornerstone of Thiel‘s overall curriculum).

Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                              Page 7
Criterion Three: Size, Scope, and Productivity of the Program – Weight: 10%

Since this criterion looks at hard numbers, quantitative data will be formatted and collected. Criterion
indicators are:
 The number of Thiel students served by the program for each of the past five years.
 The number of faculty and staff assigned to the program (indicating increases/decreases over the past
   five years).
 The number of credit hours generated by the program for each of the past five years.
 Whether the program is growing, declining or maintaining, and the reasons why.
 Average class size of required courses and elective courses in the program.
 Number of students served in major courses.
 Number of students served in elective courses.

Criterion Four: External Demand for the Program – Weight: 18%

The third criterion is to assess the external need for, and attractiveness of, each program. The formats
can be mostly data based—readily available international, national, regional, and local statistics. But
there is a caution: The Task Force will place greater emphasis on regional statistics as compared to
international and national data because most Thiel students are drawn from the immediate region.
Criterion indicators are:
 Graduates by headcount enrolled in programs for the past five years. (Enrollments provide a sense of
    direction and can prompt questions about the choices students have been making.)
 How demand is being met by competing institutions that offer the same program (e.g., are they
    experiencing the same kinds of proportionate enrollments in the program?).
 Demonstrated, documentable potential for future program enrollment.
 The correspondence of program offerings to program demand (e.g., is there demonstrated need for a
    full-blown program to meet demand, or will an area of concentration or a minor do?).
 Sufficiency of demand to mount a master‘s degree in the program.
 Forces that are at work in Thiel‘s surrounding service region that are likely to affect the program
    (i.e., whether or not external demand suggests a need for the program to continue).

Criterion Five: Internal Demand for, Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality of the
                Program – Weight: 10%

Three to five-year quantitative data on internal demand are available and can be appropriately
formatted. Scoring this criterion might be accomplished by rating the relative dependence that Thiel has
on a program. Criterion indicators are:
 Proportion of headcount enrollments for major, minor, core liberal arts requirements, and other
    service purposes.
 The relationship of the program to other academic programs and institutional needs.
 What the impact of consolidating or discontinuing the program would be.

There are a number of questions to guide the shaping of answers to these criterion indicators: Does the
program serve people in ways that no other program does? Does the program respond to a unique
societal need that Thiel values? To what extent does the program help Thiel differentiate itself from
other colleges and universities?




Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                             Page 8
Criterion Six: Quality of Program Inputs and Processes – Weight: 4%

This criterion seeks to address the quality of a program‘s inputs and to evaluate the processes that may
be in place to take advantage of these resources. While a major shift is taking place today toward
measuring what a college actually accomplishes with its resources (see Criterion Seven), there is no
question that quality inputs make a difference in sustaining quality. Both quantitative data and
qualitative information will be formatted and collected for seven different categories of inputs.
Criterion indicators for each of these input categories are given below.

Faculty (Current faculty profiles and numbers, breadth and depth of program exposure, and knowledge
bases):
 Proportion of full-time faculty with terminal degrees that are appropriate for the program or given
   field.
 Number of full-time faculty.
 Percentage of total course coverage by full-time faculty.
 Proportion of part-time faculty with terminal degrees that are appropriate for the program or given
   field.
 Number of part-time faculty.
 Percentage of total course coverage by part-time faculty.
 Faculty expertise in related fields that bear on the program.

Students (The congruence between students in a program and the likelihood of their being successful):
 High school rank in class.
 High school GPA.
 SAT or ACT scores.
 Placement test scores.

Curriculum (Whether the curriculum of the program is appropriate to the breadth, depth, and level of
the discipline):
 Qualification of the program for specialized accreditation.
 Extent to which the program is designed to provide integration vs. the expectation that students
    themselves must do the integrating somewhere along the way (e.g., senior year capstone course).
 When the curriculum was last revised to ensure up-dating of knowledge in the field.
 Whether the curriculum is meeting changing needs of Thiel‘s student cohorts (e.g., compensatory
    programs for at-risk students, honors programs, intensive courses for adults, the use of evening and
    weekend formats).

Adaptation to Technology
 The degree to which the program has adopted advancements in technology to enhance learning,
   reinforce computer skills and computer literacy, attract technological support to Thiel, promote
   faculty and student research, and advance program-related public service.

Equipment, Facilities, and Other Resources (The extent to which the program possess capital assets):
 The currency of equipment and materials.
 The suitability of laboratories and specialized facilities needed to ensure adequate preparation of
   students in the program.
 Significance of and access to information resources in the library and other learning sites.
 Institutional resources required to bring the program up to a flagship level of quality: faculty,
   curriculum, facilities.

Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                              Page 9
Criterion Seven: Quality of Program Outcomes – Weight: 5%

The guide for this criterion can be summarized in a single question: What is the demonstrable
effectiveness of a program in preparing students for their future? While assessing quality outcomes is
more difficult and less precise than assessing quality inputs, both quantitative data and qualitative
information can be formatted and collected. Criterion indicators are:
Student Learning Outcomes (The congruence between intended and actual learning outcomes for the
program, including examples of unusual student performance the program can demonstrate):
 Student satisfaction with Thiel.
 Graduate satisfaction with program, core and Thiel.
 Placement of students in jobs within their program area.
 Placement of students in graduate and professional schools.

Faculty Outcomes (Measures of faculty ―productivity‖ that are believed to be related to program
learning outcomes and exemplary student performance):
 A survey will be conducted to identify out-of-class faculty activities (e.g., curricular innovations,
    conferences attended in field, external public service, publications, research underway, papers given
    in the field at professional meetings, etc.).

Criterion Eight: Revenue and Other Resources Generated by the Program as well as Costs and
                 Other Expenses Associated with the Program – Weight 16%

A program is usually seen as a cost center, not a revenue producer. But in fact, a program generates
resources in addition to spending them. It is important to identify the net balance between the two in
arriving at conclusions about quantitative data generated.

Revenue and Other Resources

Quantitative revenue and other resource indicators are:
 Enrollment generated revenue (the internal subsidy needed to account for the enrollment a program
  attracts).
 Program‘s contribution margin.
 Cross-subsidies (the subsidy a program receives for services it provides to other internal programs;
  also, whether the program is a net payer or net receiver).
 Research grants (what the program generates for itself, and what indirect cost recovery it generates
  for Thiel; also, the College‘s reliance on this source of funds for purposes other than indirect costs).
 Equipment grants (whether the program attracts equipment or other capital items, and whether other
  programs have made use of these resources; also, whether these items represent outlays Thiel would
  have had to make without grants, and at what value).
 Fund raising (whether Thiel has received gifts because of the program; also, the significance of
  program-restricted funds and whether they should be a factor in judging the relative worth of the
  program).
 Other resources (whether the program generates revenues from admission fees, special fees,
  laboratory fees, ticket revenues, other user fees, or by other means that help to offset some or all of
  the expenses associated with the program).




Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                              Page 10
Qualitative revenue and other resource indicators are:
 Program-specific training relationships with community colleges, technical schools, and other
  entities.
 Relationships with business corporations that lead to undergraduate and/or graduate enrollments,
  consulting arrangements, research contracts, and corporate philanthropy.
 Economic development relationships with local or regional communities that are job-creating and
  otherwise mutually beneficial

Costs and Other Expenses

Few things are more complicated and frustrating than the contrasting theories and practices of cost
analysis in higher education—particularly as costs relate to ―benefits.‖ Before plunging into this arena,
the Task Force will review pages 48-53 (cost/benefit analysis) of a publication Gary Quehl wrote in
1999 with the assistance of two colleagues: “Fifty Years of Innovations in Undergraduate Education:
Change and Stasis in the Pursuit of Quality.” (This publication can also be searched on-line at Gary H.
Quehl (See Pubs-The Lumina Foundation for Education).

It is precisely because cost accounting systems within colleges and universities vary in sophistication
that Bob Dickeson chose not to arbitrarily propose standard indicators for Criterion Eight. However,
these are some guidelines that the Task Force will keep in mind:

   First, the ultimate goal is to assign the College’s total academic educational costs to the sum of what
    the Task Force defines as its academic programs. To achieve this goal it is necessary to measure all
    direct and indirect costs associated with delivering each academic program. This means that the
    Task Force must define what direct and indirect costs are—and what data elements and measures
    will be included for each (e.g., what judgment will be made about allocating the college-wide results
    of tuition price discounting to each academic program?).

   Second, analyzing individual program costs, as against program revenues, is the key outcome of this
    criterion. However, the Task Force will use caution in concluding that the net cost/revenue of any
    given academic program is the most important factor in making ultimate judgments about it. There
    are three reasons: 1) Some programs (e.g., biology, nursing) simply are more costly than others (e.g.,
    philosophy, sociology). 2) Some programs may not yield net revenues but are critical to servicing
    other parts of the academic program (e.g., core liberal education requirements). 3) And some
    programs (even those producing net revenues) may be too expensive relative to the College-wide
    academic program budget and the need for strategic balance among programs.

   Third, it is desirable to identify demonstrable efficiencies from the way a program operates, and
    which result in tangible benefits to the College. (Programs that have been better than others at
    driving efficiencies or improving productivity will be given appropriate credit.)

   Fourth, it is important to return to Criterion Five and ask what investment in new resources would
    be required to bring a program to a high level of quality. When actual answers to this question are
    obtained and analyzed, the truth depth and breadth of the ―resources imbalance problem‖ that may
    exist within Thiel will be revealed.




Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                             Page 11
Criterion Nine: Incorporation of the Undergraduate Framework for Competitive Positioning
                Model – Weight: 10%

At the heart of Thiel‘s Strategic Plan are foundational building blocks needed to address the College‘s
revised mission and systematically implement the Framework for Competitive Positioning Model.

Criterion Nine is critical because each program under review needs to demonstrate how it actively and
systematically contributes to each of the Framework‘s four components: Talent Development—At-Risk
Students, Talent Development—Honors Students, Four-Year Experience, Experiential Learning
(pages 12-14 of the Strategic Plan).

To accomplish this, the Task Force has selected criterion indicators for each of the four Framework
components. While this approach is most likely to generate qualitative information from each program,
the use of one or more rating systems by the Task Force described in the Decision Making section of this
paper can produce quantifiable results.

Talent Development: At-Risk Students

The guide for this criterion may be summarized in a single question: How do academic programs, areas
of study, and para-educational programs enable under-prepared students to be academically successful,
to persist, and to graduate? The criterion indicator is:
 How the program serves the needs of at-risk students in reading, writing, and mathematics that
    would be potentially appropriate for inclusion in a developmental semester.

Talent Development: Honors Program Students

The guide for this criterion may be summarized in a single question: How does the Honors Program
stimulate intellectual enhancement, promote personal and professional development, and encourage
creativity? The criterion indicator is:
 How the program expands the opportunities for students to do honors work in accordance with the
    Undergraduate Framework.

Four-Year Experience

The guide for this criterion may be summarized in a single question: How does each component of the
Four-Year Experience complement, reinvigorate, and extend the other components of the Thiel
Experience for traditional and non-traditional-aged students? The criterion indicator is:
 How the program relates to each of the components of the Four Year Program—First Year:
   Exploration of a Major, Second Year: Global Issues, Third Year: Ethical Issues, Fourth Year:
   Leadership.

Experiential Learning

The guide for this criterion may be summarized in a single question: How does each program include
out-of-the classroom educational opportunities that complement and enhance the academic experience?
The criterion indicator is:
 How the program includes an experiential learning component, e.g. internships, mentoring,
    community, and professional experiences for groups and individuals, that expand classroom
    knowledge of the program area.


Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                            Page 12
Criterion Ten: Opportunity Analysis of the Program – Weight: 4%

As Criterion Two looks to the past to assess a program, Criterion Ten looks to the future. That is,
Criterion Ten invites the providers of a program to make a case for it being able to seize important
opportunities not yet considered. Thus, program innovations that help Thiel graduates to succeed in an
ever-changing world are at the heart of Criterion Ten. Qualitative criterion indicators are:
 The existence of external environmental forces or trends that suggest opportunities for the program
    to provide new or different service.
 Opportunities for the program to continue, but in a different format.
 Opportunities for gains in productivity that might salvage a program.
 Cost-containment measures for a program that might result from restructuring and/or technological
    innovation.
 Cooperative or collaborative relationships with other programs (internal or with other institutions or
    organizations).
 Potential ways in which the curriculum of the program might be re-engineered.
 Opportunities for combining courses or sections of the program with other program units.

Calendar of Task Force Activities
October 8, 2003       Task Force consultation with external experts
                      Dr. Marcia Sauter, Provost of the University of Saint Francis, and Dr. Gary Quehl
                      meet with the Task Force. Dr. Sauter led a highly successful academic program
                      review and prioritization process. Dr. Sauter shares with the Task Force ―lessons
                      learned‖ about academic program review and prioritization. Dr. Quehl serves as a
                      coach to the Task Force.

October 16, 2003      Organize Task Force and make refinements in the draft “Guidelines” paper
                      The Task Force establishes ground rules and procedures for working together
                      from the beginning to the successful completion of the process. The Task Force
                      also determines what will be included in the final draft of the Guidelines for the
                      Thiel College Task Force on Academic Program Review and Prioritization paper.

November 3, 2003      Prepare the Plan to Plan
                      Using the ―Guidelines‖ paper, the Task Force prepares the Plan to Plan for
                      academic program review and prioritization. The Plan to Plan is submitted to
                      President Masters for his review by November 3.

November 7, 2003      Review of Plan to Plan by President Masters
                      President Masters completes his review of the Plan to Plan and if necessary make
                      modifications in it, in consultation with the Task Force.

November 13, 2003 Presentation of Plan to Plan
                  Shortly after the Task Force has forwarded the Plan to Plan to the entire faculty, it
                  formally presents the Plan to Plan to the faculty during a Town Meeting and
                  solicits feedback.




Thiel College             Academic Program Review and Prioritization                            Page 13
November 21, 2003 Submit Plan to Plan to President Masters and Planning and Budgeting
                  Committee
                  After consultation with the faculty has taken place, the Task Force makes changes
                  in the Plan to Plan that it considers appropriate and provides President Masters,
                  the faculty, and Planning and Budgeting Committee a copy of the final document.

November 24, 2003 Implementation of Plan to Plan
                  The Task Force immediately proceeds to implement the Plan to Plan.

Prior to November 27, 2003 Prepare formats
                   The Task Force makes final decisions on data and information forms and formats
                   for each criterion and criterion indicator. (Once the Task Force has made
                   decisions by October 20 about what criteria and criterion indicators will be used
                   in program review, Susan Richards and Don Achenbach assist the Task Force in
                   designing forms and formats for each criterion and criterion indicator.)

December 1, 2003     Forward forms and formats
                     The Task Force forwards information forms and formats for each criterion and
                     criterion indicator (along with specific instructions) on December 1 to appropriate
                     faculty leadership in each academic program identified for review.

December 1, 2003- Gather data and information
 January 30, 2004 The faculty leadership in each academic program proceeds to collect data and
                  information and records results on the forms and formats provided by the Task
                  Force. The results from each program are then forwarded to the Task Force.

January 31, 2004- Board action on the Plan to Plan
  February 1, 2004 The Plan to Plan is reviewed and adopted by the Board at its January 31-
                   February 1, 2004 meeting.

February 2, 2004-    Review and make judgments about program results
 March 12, 2004      During the period the Task Force conducts a comprehensive analysis of the
                     quantitative and qualitative criterion data and information that have been provided
                     for each program. The Task Force arrives at two decisions for each program: 1) A
                     quantitative rating judgment on each of the ten criteria and 2) An over-all
                     quantitative rating judgment. Then, given these judgments, the Task Force
                     assigns each program to an appropriate category for over-all academic program
                     prioritization (See page 5). Acting on behalf of the entire Task Force, Dean Olson
                     and Professor Newton forward all results and recommendations to President
                     Masters.

March 15, 2004-      Review by the president and the faculty
 April 9, 2004       President Masters reviews the results of Task Force recommendations and, in
                     consultation with the Planning and Budgeting Committee, makes preliminary
                     decisions about over-all program prioritization. President Masters‘ preliminary
                     decisions are then shared with the entire faculty, and feedback is sought from
                     them in a variety of ways (e.g., Town Meeting, divisional/departmental meetings,
                     written and e-mail responses). Thereafter, President Masters considers faculty
                     feedback before arriving at a final decision.


Thiel College            Academic Program Review and Prioritization                            Page 14
April 16, 2004   Presidential decision
                 In consultation with the Planning and Budgeting Committee and other key
                 stakeholders, President Masters makes a final decision on over-all program
                 prioritization for recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

May 7, 2004      Final Board action
                 The full Board takes final action on academic program prioritization at its
                 May 7, 2004 meeting.

May 14, 2004     Presidential announcement
                 President Masters announces the Board‘s action to the Thiel community, as well
                 as the methods and timetable by which the plan for academic program
                 prioritization will be implemented.




Thiel College       Academic Program Review and Prioritization                             Page 15
      APPENDIX A : ACADEMIC PROGRAMS TO BE REVIEWED AND PRIORITIZED

Stand-alone Associate of Arts Degree
      Liberal Studies

Stand-alone Cooperative Programs
      EWHA Woman‘s University

Academic Programs by Department

1. Art Department
     Art major
       Cooperative Programs
          (2-2 or 2-1-1 Programs) Art Institute of Pittsburgh
          Drew University Art Semester (Spring term, junior year)

2. Biology and Allied Health Department
     Biology major – traditional track
        Cooperative Programs
           Physician Assistant
              (3-2) Masters Program – Chatham College
              Gannon (Program pending)
           Respiratory Care – Indiana University of Pennsylvania
     Biology major – Conservation biology track
        Cooperative Programs
              Forestry and Environmental Management (3-2 Masters Program) – Duke University
     Speech and Hearing Science major
     Medical Technology program
        Cooperative Programs
           Medical Technology (3-1 Program) – Hospital with an ASCP-approved program
     Cytotechnology program
        Cooperative Programs
           Cytotechnology (3-1 Program) – Hospital with an ASCP-approved program
     Physical Therapy program
        Cooperative Programs
           Physical Therapy
              (4-2) Doctoral Program – Chatham College
              Gannon (Program pending)

3. Business Administration and Accounting Department
     Accounting major
     A.A. in Accounting
     Business Administration major
       Cooperative Programs
           Art Institute of Pittsburgh – Culinary Arts
           Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science (5 semester/3 trimester Program)
     Economics minor
     International Business major
     Business Communication major (Also listed with Communication Studies Department)

Thiel College           Academic Program Review and Prioritization                       Page 16
4. Chemistry Department
     Chemistry major
      Cooperative Programs
      Pharmacy (2-3 Program) – Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM),
                                School of Pharmacy
     Major with Environmental Chemistry Option
     Biochemistry minor

5. Communication Studies Department
     Communication major
     Business Communication Major (Also listed with Business Department)

6. Education Department
     Certification
     Elementary Education major

7. English Department
     English major

8. Environmental Science
     Environmental Science major

9. Gerontology Program
     Minor

10. History Department
     History major

11. Honors Program

12. Languages Department
     French minor (requires 6 hours of off-campus courses)
     Spanish major
     German minor (requires 6 hours of off-campus courses)
       Cooperative Programs
             Study Abroad
             Short Program Abroad
             The Saltillo Experience

13. Legal Studies Program
     Minor

14. Mathematics and Computer Science Department
     Mathematics major
     Actuarial Studies major
     Computer Science major
     Management Information Systems major
     A.A. in MIS


Thiel College            Academic Program Review and Prioritization                 Page 17
15. Performing Arts Programs
     Performing Arts minor
     Music minor
     Church Music minor
     Theatre minor

16. Philosophy Department
     Philosophy major

17. Physics Department
     Physics major
       Cooperative Programs
              Engineering (3-2 Program)
                     Case Western Reserve University
                     University of Pittsburgh
              Engineering – Youngstown State University
              Mechanical Engineering Technology (3-2 Program) – Point Park College

18. Political Science Department
     Political Science major
     International Studies Minor
       Cooperative Programs
               United Nations Semester
               Washington Semester Program
               Semester in Washington
               Capitol Semester

19. Psychology Department
     Psychology major
       Cooperative Programs
             Occupational Therapy – Gannon (Program pending)

20. Religion Department
     Religion major
     Parish Education major

21. Sociology Department
     Sociology major
     Juvenile and Family Justice major

22. Core Courses
    Competencies
       English Language – OWE I and II
       Foreign Language – One year
       Mathematics – Any math course except Basic Math
    Integrative Requirement
       History of Western Humanities I and II
       Interpreting the Jewish and Christian Scriptures
       Science and Our Global Heritage I and II
       Health and Physical Education Courses
Thiel College           Academic Program Review and Prioritization                   Page 18

								
To top