GPC Home
 
  Plan for Assessing Student Success  
     

 
top
 
   
  Introduction  
     
     
 

The purpose of education at Georgia Perimeter College [GPC] is to provide students with a solid foundation for intellectual development and an ability and desire to make contributions to society. As a public institution, GPC strives to develop students who are well-informed, effective citizens; who actively participate in civic and community affairs; who cultivate self-awareness; who appreciate the arts; and who will pursue lifelong learning. GPC also provides opportunities to students to develop leadership skills and artistic abilities. It has been said that colleges have three curricula: the one that appears in the catalog, the one that professors teach, and the one that students actually learn. To what degree does the curriculum asserted on paper or imagined by deans and faculty accurately portray what goes on in the minds of students? Making the three curricula visible to determine that students are actually learning what we teach is the business of assessment, an activity practiced by every division at Georgia Perimeter College. Effective July 1, 1996, GPC underwent monumental organizational and governance changes. Included in these changes was a new mission statement, new planning goals, budgetary process changes, policymaking changes, and decision-making changes. The decentralization of the College's organization and decision making created the need to totally revise the assessment process that had been operational to that point. As a result, over the next two years the College developed a new mission statement, a new strategic plan and process, revisions to its General Education Outcomes, a new academic and non-academic assessment process, a new shared governance procedure, new Institutional Factors of Success, and a new program review procedure.

The current efforts to assess educational offerings are both top-down and bottom-up processes, involving appropriate constituencies at every level. The primary guiding document is the Mission Statement and all key assessment documents are drawn from its dictates. The assessment and planning of academic programs is multi-dimensional. The base document of the Mission statement has been used to develop strategic plans, the General Education Outcomes, the Institutional Factors of Success, and the academic unit assessment plans. From each of these plans, the College takes information drawn from assessment, and in turn uses it to close the loop from assessment efforts made. Reports from the CTL and the Office of Institutional Research and Planning along with the other assessment documents, are used by units from top to bottom in annual planning, both budgetary, operational and curriculum directed. At the executive level, for example, assessment data collected during the year is used at the annual planning retreat for revisions to the strategic and operational plans. An additional external factor influencing all assessment planning is the Chancellor's Office of the Board of Regents. Much of the planning has been created to draw from BOR strategic initiatives.

 
     
 
top
 
   
     
  Executive Summary  
     
 

This progress report provides a description of an assessment process which places the faculty, individually and collectively, in charge, and defines an administrative structure which will promote and support assessment activities.

By using various planning tools such as surveys, exercises, meetings, and electronic communications, the plan represents an institution-wide conceptualization of the assessment process shaped by the faculty. The conceptual framework presented in this report has been implemented and tested within the institution and proven to be realistic. The assessment process originates and returns back to the unit mission, goals and objectives. It also considers inter-unit impact of the assessment process and opens up channels which could lead to a change in institution's mission, goal and objectives. Inclusion of all decision-making units in the assessment process will definitely increase the likelihood of leading to institutional improvement.

The plan aims to integrate assessment with the academic functions of the institution and to support and strengthen assessment as part of the academic culture. The report shows that assessment is already a part of the academic culture of GPC. At the same time, the campus needs a common language which will ease the communication between units and create an infrastructure which will promote, motivate and support the units.

Implementation of the assessment process showed that the timeline is realistic and fast enough to produce reliable input in the direction of institutional improvement. The administration of the academic assessment process operates through the Executive Committees of the College, with guidance from the Office of the Vice-President of Academic and Student Affairs and the Center for Teaching and Learning Academic Assessment division. This organizational structure places the assessment where it belongs, underscores faculty ownership, and emphasizes that student learning is an outcome of faculty teaching and can not be improved without addressing faculty instructional development.

As it is well known, assessment is an ongoing process. We hope to see many changes in the process which would be an indication of improvement. The plan promotes a modest start and improvement over time by faculty learning from each other, instead of one which promotes a "perfect" plan with a dead-end.

 
     
 
top
 
   
  The Context for Planning  
     
 

Founded by the citizens of DeKalb County and the DeKalb Board of Education under the Junior College Act of 1958, the College opened as DeKalb College in 1964 as the only public junior college in the State supported and controlled by a local Board of Education. It was established in order that any resident of the DeKalb School District who held a high school diploma or its equivalent and who desired to seek two years of postsecondary education might have the opportunity to do so.

The College's South Campus opened in 1972. Also beginning in 1972, students enrolled in DeKalb Area Technical School were able to enroll dually in vocational and collegiate programs, and the College was designated DeKalb Community College. As growth continued both for DeKalb County and the College, the North Campus was added and began operation in 1979. DeKalb College pioneered in Georgia in open-door admissions, personalized approaches to instruction, and community-related curricula and activities.

In 1985, DeKalb Vocational-Technical School was placed under the governance of a new statewide board for vocational-technical schools with daily operations remaining under the control of the DeKalb County School System. Students enrolled in specific Associate in Applied Science degree programs continue to enroll dually in the College and the Technical School, which is now known as DeKalb Technical College.

In 1986, when DeKalb County relinquished its support, the College was accepted by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia as the thirty-fourth member institution.

Designed to be readily responsive to the educational needs of the community, the College began offering dual programs in cooperation with Gwinnett Technical Institute in the fall of 1987. In addition, it offers at its Lawrenceville Campus a broad range of courses to students seeking Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degrees.

During spring 1993, DeKalb College in cooperation with Clayton State College, DeKalb Technical Institute, and Rockdale County Public Schools formed the Rockdale Center for Higher Education, which offers both credit and non-credit courses.

In November 1997, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia approved changing the name of the College from DeKalb College to Georgia Perimeter College to reflect its expanding mission and its service throughout the metro Atlanta area. As part of changing the College's name, the names of the campuses were changed to identify the cities in which they are located.

The College's academic offerings correspond with curricular content and requirements of the University System of Georgia. The College also serves as a community cultural center for the performing arts in music and drama. Curricula feature transfer, learning support, career, continuing and distance education programs as well as joint educational offerings with other System institutions and State-supported technical institutes. Associate degrees are awarded to graduates who complete the two-year transfer and career programs.

Evaluation, appraisal, and assessment of the quality of courses, programs, and services have been practiced at GPC for years. With an active institutional research program, it was clear that substantial outcome-oriented evaluation was already taking place including longitudinal profiling of the student body as a whole, student opinion surveys, and analysis of graduation and retention rates through the BOR.

The College is doing a great deal, but these efforts fell short in important ways. For example, the goals of general education and the majors are not directly evaluated through student outcomes, i.e. that students demonstrate that they have acquired the skills, techniques, and knowledge required. Even less frequently are the assessment techniques related directly to well articulated curricular objectives. The result, prior to 1996-97, was that assessment efforts were not tied into institutional planning and resource allocation as directly as they should be. Perhaps most important, the results of assessment are not systematically used to improve student learning in a regular, ongoing way.

To overcome some of these shortcomings in the College's assessment activities, a series of planning events made up of faculty and students representative of the governance committees with a major stake in assessment (and supported by staff familiar with the current institutional research efforts), worked during the Spring of 1998 to develop a plan specifically to assess student learning across the campus. The group's principal objective was to develop a conceptual model for the assessment which would be generally applicable at each level where student learning and achievement take place. These levels would include the course; the discipline curriculum and major; the general education program and its components.

The conceptual model was to unify the assessment process across units, in each case beginning with the institutional mission, moving to unit goals and objectives, then to the assessment and analysis phase leading to appropriate action at the individual, unit, or institutional level as the case may be. The process would be controlled through the governance system by the faculty (Executive Committees). In addition, rather than an intrusive chore imposed by an outside agency, the process ought to be compatible with the natural responsibilities of faculty members committed to teaching in their respective disciplines.

The Assessment of Student Learning is a discipline and program-based process aimed at improving the teaching and learning at GPC. It is intended to determine how well what students are actually learning conforms to the objectives of that academic enterprise. Although the assessment process will produce a body of information which will be useful in the preparation of discipline and institutional self-studies, the primary purpose is program improvement.

 
     
 
top
 
   
  The Institutional Mission and Goals  
     
 

A community committed to learning and to becoming a preeminent associate degree-granting institution, the faculty, staff, administrators, and students of Georgia Perimeter College share the following aspirations:

  • To gain national recognition as a community of learners
  • To assume a national leadership role in developing creative, technologically advanced academic and student services programs
  • To serve as a model for other institutions in developing collaborative partnerships to deliver public services, technical assistance, lifelong learning, and economic development training

A regional, multi-campus unit of the University System of Georgia, Georgia Perimeter College strives to meet the changing expectations of our diverse collegiate and community constituencies by providing effective, innovative, lifelong educational opportunities. We are committed to diversity, continuous improvement, high academic standards, and the efficient use of resources. In decision-making at all levels, the enhancement of our students' lives is our first priority. Georgia Perimeter College, a non-residential institution, serves diverse populations of traditional and non-traditional students in Greater Metropolitan Atlanta. Placing learning first, we provide accessible and affordable high quality undergraduate credit and non-credit programs for students seeking to complete an associate degree, transfer to a senior college or university, prepare for immediate entry into a career, pursue personal goals or enhance current workplace skills. Our curriculum specializes in liberal arts and professional preparation and promotes international and intercultural understanding. We also serve the broader community as an educational, cultural, and economic resource.

Our academic programs and student support services focus on careful assessment of our learners' abilities, achievements, and needs, accommodations of their special requirements and resources, and guidance in the development and realization of their expectations and goals. We thus offer specialized sequences of courses and support programs that promote academic and personal success for students of varying levels of academic preparation. We encourage excellence in teaching, provide a technologically advanced learning environment, support innovative strategies for meeting the learning styles of all students, and promote learning by engaging students actively and collaboratively.

In meeting the educational needs of the citizens of Georgia for the 21st century, we share with all other institutions in the University System of Georgia the following characteristics:

  • A supportive campus climate, necessary services, and leadership and development opportunities, all to educate the whole person and meet the needs of students, faculty, and staff
  • Cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender diversity in the faculty, staff, and student body, supported by practices and programs that embody the idea of an open, democratic, and global society
  • Technology to advance educational purposes, including instructional technology, student support services, and distance education
  • Collaborative relationships with other System institutions, State agencies, local schools and technical institutes, and business and industry, sharing physical, human, information, and other resources to expand and enhance programs and services available to the citizens of Georgia

Georgia Perimeter College shares the following commitments to the citizens of Georgia with other associate degree level colleges of the University System of Georgia:

Placing learning first, we provide accessible and affordable high quality undergraduate credit and non-credit programs for students seeking to complete an associate degree, transfer to a senior college or university, prepare for immediate entry into a career, pursue personal goals, or enhance current workplace skills.

    A commitment to excellence and responsiveness within a scope of influence defined by the needs of the local area and by particularly outstanding program or distinctive characteristics that have a magnet effect throughout the region or state

    A commitment to a teaching/learning environment, both inside and outside the classroom, that sustains institutional excellence, functions to provide University System access for a diverse student body, and promotes high levels of student learning

    A commitment to a high quality general education program that supports a variety of well-chosen associate programs and prepares students for transfer to baccalaureate programs, learning support programs designed to ensure access and opportunity for a diverse student body, and a limited number of certificate or other career programs to complement neighboring technical institute programs

    A commitment to public service, continuing education technical assistance, and economic development activities that address the needs, improve the quality of life, and raise the educational level within the College's scope of influence

    A commitment to scholarship and creative work for the specific purposes of supporting instructional effectiveness and enhancing institutionally relevant faculty qualifications

 
     
 
top
 
   
  Philosophy  
     
 

Learning outcomes assessment is a natural and ongoing component of the instructional process. Its purposes are multiple and include aspects of accountability to students, the public, and various controlling agencies. The purposes are not exclusive of each other and can be achieved in a compatible manner.

The process of assessing learning outcomes should be viewed as a means to an end--that end being improved instruction. As such, the focus of any program should be an ongoing account of the nature and quality of the institution, driven predominantly by internal needs and goals. As part of assuming the professional responsibility that goes with teaching, faculty, along with other areas of the College, should identify specific learning outcomes. The process of assessment should not place an undue burden on individual students, not on select groups of students. The results, once analyzed, should form the base for organized change which will make a positive influence on student learning.

Learning outcomes assessment is neither precise nor perfect, and its data should be interpreted with that in mind. It is a way of thinking about quality that comes from our willingness to continually examine, question, and, as necessary, alter what we do as an educational institution.

The uses of learning outcomes assessment are many and can be quite broad. Although we may not ignore the regulations and directives of controlling and governing bodies in regard to accountability, the goal of learning improvement and the identification of instructional quality is of prime importance. Indeed, this is the area in which we should be more accountable to the students, staff, Board of Regents, State and the general public.

Learning outcomes assessment should be used to provide feedback to faculty which will allow them to strengthen and improve the educational process and result in more appropriate, more extensive, or higher level learning

 
     
 
top
 
   
  Purpose of Undergraduate Assessment at GPC
 
     
 

The assessment of educational outcomes should enable the College to:

  • Make improvements in program structure, in course content, and in pedagogy.
  • Provide individual students with periodic indications of their performance relative to program objectives and facilitate placement and advisement.
  • Evaluate the competence of its graduates, "competence" being understood to include not only expertise within a discipline, but also attainment of the objectives of the University's general education program.
 
     
 
top
 
     
   
  Principles of Academic Assessment  
     
 

In line with its assessment plans, the College developed its principles of academic assessment in 1998. The assessment principles are:

  1. The primary aim of assessment at Georgia Perimeter College is to involve faculty in the evaluation of academic programs in order to (a) provide evidence of program quality, (b) permit documentation of changes in program quality, (c) establish a longitudinal database documenting consistently high academic standards, and (d) show evidence of student learning.
  2. The Georgia Perimeter program is designed to measure the skills, knowledge, and accomplishments specified in our mission statement.
  3. Assessment is an on-going process designed and implemented by the faculty in keeping with the mission statement of the College, and the departments in which the programs are located.
  4. Defining goals for each program area is the most important step in establishing an assessment program. For each academic major, goals are defined, students' progress toward these goals are monitored, and results are used to continue, modify, or reinforce aspects of the program to insure continuous advancement in program quality.
  5. No single approach to assessment is universally accepted. Therefore, different methods of assessment are appropriate for different programs. The faculty for each program is responsible for determining the methods and appropriateness of the assessment measures used.
  6. Assessment will focus on courses and programs, rather than individual faculty performance.(Program evaluation measures will be considered confidential. Identities of individual people will not be released.)

In Georgia, each institution of higher education is allowed to fashion its own accountability program and GPC has constructed a multi-faceted model which includes long- and short-term assessment of academic skills and knowledge related to courses, discipline, and programs. Following an adequate time for improvement to be incorporated into the course, a reassessment would be made to determine the impact. If the results are not satisfactory, it is expected that the improvement/assessment cycle would be repeated immediately; if the results are satisfactory, the cycle can be repeated in three to five years.

 
 
top
 
   
  Planning Educational Success at GPC  
     
 

Georgia Perimeter College has a multi-faceted assessment plan drawing both from its mission and the strategic planning process.

Chart 1

Overview of Strategic Planning and Relation to Assessment

The first, the GPC Strategic Plan develops priority initiatives drawn directly from our mission, the results of strategic analysis, and campus and department planning. Strategic planning as demonstrated in Chart 3.2 (Strategic Planning Process), includes strategic analysis, strategic decision making and campus and departmental planning.

Chart 2

Strategic analysis is focused on the current state and external environments of Georgia Perimeter College. This phase is composed of three steps: external; internal assessment and review of critical success factors.

The GPC Institutional Factors of Success include student learning outcomes, and program access and quality. In student learning outcomes, the success of GPC's students is the principal indicator of its success as an educational institution. A successful student possesses essential knowledge of a discipline and has developed skills to learn independently, think analytically and provide leadership. This indicator is measured by the General Education Outcomes, knowledge assessment in the GPC Academic Unit Assessment Plans, Regent's Tests, retention rates, and graduation rates. This information is located in our Institutional Factors of Success and in the Board of Regents data on graduation and retention. Program Reviews, conducted on a seven year cycle, are also used to analyze quality indicators in our academic offerings.

Program access and quality, as guided by our mission, provides learning opportunities to individuals who demonstrate ability to benefit from its educational program. Program access means maintain a diverse student populations and ensuring that the institution is financially affordable for all those qualified to attend. The quality of programs is determined by the academic stature of the faculty, the integration of learning and scholarship and the outreach provided by the College. Assessment of program quality involves continuous evaluation of the degree, curriculum, and demand for academic programs, the use of innovative teaching and learning techniques, and success in recruitment and retention. These areas are evaluated in our Institutional Factors of Success (see infra), Program Review and the GPC Fact Book.

Strategic plans are developed on a general three-year cycle and revised to meet the changing needs of the College's service area. Strategic plans are reported annually to the Board of Regents, as mandated

 
     
 
top
 
   
  Governance Structure of Assessment  
     
 

Academic assessment is developed by GPC faculty. The primary development of assessment plans resides in the Executive Committees.

The second related body is the Advisory Committee for Assessment, which serves as a liaison for assessment ideas and issues and providing leadership to the academic units and discipline committees in implementing the College's assessment plan.

 
     
 
top
 
   
  The Academic Assessment Advisory Committee Operating Procedures  
     
 

Name of Organization

    Advisory Committee for Academic Assessment

Purpose of the Division of Academic Assessment

    The division of Academic Assessment in the Center for Teaching and Learning has major responsibility for assisting the College's academic assessment process and for coordinating, planning, and implementing strategies for assessment of major fields of study, general education, and academic programs (program review).

Purposes of Committee

    The purposes of the Advisory Committee for Academic Assessment are to serve the College as the primary advisory body to the Academic Assessment division of the Center for Teaching and Learning. Members serve as liaison for assessment ideas and issues to their constituencies while fulfilling their committee responsibilities as college citizens. Members may also provide leadership, if requested, to executive committees and academic units as they help foster the implementation of a comprehensive academic assessment plan for the College.

Membership

    In recommending and appointing members to this committee, attention shall be given to representation that includes faculty, students, and administrators from the following units, with recognition of the primacy of faculty, who are among those most directly and extensively involved in the academic achievement of students. At least half of the committee members shall be faculty. The Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning will prepare a slate of nominees, in coordination with the Provosts, for appointment by the Vice-President of Academic and Student Affairs from the following faculty bodies:
    • Humanities Social Sciences Business Administration Joint Enrollment Teacher Education Science Fine Arts Math Nursing Distance Learning Honors Program Fire Management Dental Hygiene INTP Learning Support
    • Physical Education
    (It is recommended that that the Chairs of the Executive Committees, or a designated representative, serve in the capacity for each of the key discipline groups.) To recognize the direct support to students educational development, one (1) representative from Enrollment Management and Student Affairs, will be appointed upon the recommendation of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs.To recognize the importance of assessment and planning, one (1) representative from IRP will be appointed upon the recommendation of the Executive Vice President for Finance and Administrative Affairs.To recognize the importance of linkage to campus leadership at least one (1) Provost and one (1) Academic Dean shall be appointed to serve on the committee.To recognize the importance of who we serve, at least two (2) students will serve on the committee annually.

Leadership

    The Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning will chair the committee. A co-chair, elected from the members, will serve a one-year term that is renewable.The chair and co-chair are responsible for scheduling meetings, preparing agendas, minutes of all meetings, and other responsibilities requested by the committee. Agendas will be sent to members in advance of a meeting and minutes will be published in a timely fashion. Agendas and minutes will be published on a web-site so they are available to the campus community as well as the members of the committee. They may also be communicated by electronic mail.

Subcommittees

    Ad hoc subcommittees deemed useful to the work of the committee may be formed. Each subcommittee will recommend a chair, whose appointment will be confirmed in writing by the chair or co-chair of the committee. The chair of each subcommittee will set meeting dates, prepare agendas and minutes, which will be published on the committee Website.

Decision Making

    Committee recommendations are decided by a simple majority vote of the membership.The co-chairs shall give appropriate consideration to majority, plurality, and minority aspects of issues recommended by the committee. The committee should work toward incorporation of all points of view whenever possible to ensure a sense of voice and community for all constituencies.All members of the committee shall have voting rights. In the event that a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, he or she may designate an alternate from the same constituency by notifying one of the co-chairs prior to the meeting. The alternate shall have all the rights and privileges of the regular members for the designated meeting.

Meetings

    The committee will meet at least twice each semester, but often enough to fulfill the responsibilities of the committee. Meetings can be scheduled at the call of the chair and co-chair, or upon the request of four committee members.

Member Terms

    Members are appointed for three years and consecutive appointments are permitted. In the initial years of the committee, appointments should be staggered to provide for continuity. A random process shall be used to determine one, two, and three-year terms.

Changes in Operating Procedures

    These operating procedures may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the entire committee membership.
 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Executive Committees The Discipline Coordination Plan  
     
 

The following discipline coordination plan was introduced to the faculty at Fall Convocation 2000. The plan provides faculty with a clear delineation of their role and responsibilities as they relate to the oversight and the effectiveness of their respective academic disciplines. The plan also outlines the process for the review and assessment of academic programs and delineates the responsibility and charge to the faculty in overseeing their respective academic disciplines. Each discipline/special program/course is assigned to a Coordinating Dean for oversight. The Coordinating Dean's responsibility is to aid in communication between the various constituencies, facilitate discipline coordination, monitor the activities of the discipline group and advise as appropriate. Campus Deans of Academic Services have a broad responsibility for oversight of academic disciplines on their respective campuses. In turn, their role as Coordinating Dean is an extension of these responsibilities from the campus to college-wide. The Coordinating Dean will serve in an advisory and administrative capacity to work in a collaborative manner with faculty to shape and guide the academic vision. It is the goal that all faculty will share in this responsibility equally and that this coordination will facilitate a stronger collaborative structure between faculty and administration. Orientation meetings for faculty and administration will be scheduled to ensure that all involved understand this process. This structure, through better communication, will facilitate more effective collaboration across the College, provide a venue for faculty to discuss the issues and reach consensus within their discipline and improve the continuity of the curriculum through more efficient implementation of changes across the College.

Commonalities
Oversight for curriculum is a college-wide responsibility. Every effort has been made to ensure that all faculty will have the opportunity for equal participation within their discipline structure. Each discipline will develop specific operating policies and processes for committee organization, responsibilities and charges for these committees and the method for selecting membership to the discipline committees. This will give the faculty the opportunity to develop a process that will address the needs of all of the campuses. The College is organized into ten academic areas. Eight areas represent programs of study housed in their respective academic disciplines. The configuration of the ninth group reflects specialized programs/courses which are non-discipline specific. The final group has responsibility for general education outcomes and General Studies.


Georgia Perimeter College Discipline Groups: 2001/2002

  1. Business Administration- Coordinating Dean: C. Washburn Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering- Coordinating Dean: E. Molloy Health, Wellness,& Health Career Programs
    • Physical Education- Coordinating Dean: V. Carson Health Information Technology (N/A)- Coordinating Dean: R Swofford Nursing- Coordinating Dean: V. Carson
    • Dental Hygiene- Coordinating Dean: C. Washburn
    Sciences- Coordinating Dean: R. Swofford Social Sciences- Coordinating Dean: E. Molloy ESL/Foreign Languages- Coordinating Dean: C. Washburn Humanities- Coordinating Dean: V. Carson Fine Arts- Coordinating Dean: C. Washburn Specialized Programs/Courses
    • Fire Management- Coordinating Dean: R. Swofford Interpreter Training- Coordinating Dean: V. Carson International Studies (N/A)- Coordinator: VP/ASA Interdisciplinary Studies ((N/A)- Coordinator: VP/ASA Applied Technology (ATEC) (N/A)- Coordinating Dean: C. Washburn
    • Higher Education Seminar (HEDS) (NA)- Coordinating Dean: C. Washburn
  2. General Studies and General Education Outcomes- Coordinator: Deans

The one common committee for all of the disciplines will be an Executive Committee. (see Discipline Charge for respective discipline committees) Membership will include Department Chairs or appropriate designees and faculty representation, as appropriate for that discipline. The Chair of the Executive Committee will be elected from the current committee membership by the members of the Executive Committee. Faculty representatives to the Executive Committee will be elected at the beginning of each Spring term. Disciplines with campus based criteria for Executive Committee membership will rotate members as follows: Clarkston and Decatur/Rockdale will change membership during the odd fiscal years and Lawrenceville and Dunwoody/Alpharetta will change membership during the even fiscal years. Discipline committee structures with course based committee membership rather than campus based representation on the Executive Committee will determine the rotation of members that best serves the discipline as long as faculty members serve two-year terms with ½ the membership rotating each year. Terms will begin on the first day after the end of the Spring term. During the inaugural "2000/2001" year of the plan, the Executive Committee will be elected during the Fall Convocation Meetings or as early in the Fall semester as possible. Clarkston and Decatur/Rockdale members will rotate off in Spring 2001 and Dunwoody/Alpharetta and Lawrenceville will rotate off in Spring 2002 for disciplines with Executive Committee membership that is campus based. Disciplines with Executive Committee membership that is course based will determine the rotation schedule, for the first year, which meets the needs of the discipline as long as half of the members rotate off in Spring 2001. Alternative models may be implemented in consultation with the appropriate Coordinating Dean. (i.e. Dental Hygiene, Interpreter Training) Minutes will be taken at all discipline committee meetings for distribution to the discipline faculty members and forwarded to the Coordinating Dean. These minutes will be used for communication purposes and as an archive for the discipline.

Executive Committee Charge:

  • Reviews and maintains the discipline's "Program of Study". Reviews and revises, as needed, the discipline's operating policies. Develops and oversees the discipline's committee structure. Develops the charge for each discipline committee. Oversees the Web content for the discipline. Develops a yearly calendar for the discipline incorporating the College timelines. Ensures that the content of advisement sheets is current. Maintains the discipline's common course outlines. Recommends representation and ensures communication between the discipline and the Regents Advisory Committee representatives. Supports and facilitates discipline specific professional development. Oversees discipline specific academic policies and procedures. Collaborates with the appropriate office on AP, CLEP, and Credit by Exam issues. Monitors program assessment and review. Reviews and approves discipline academic initiatives. Ensures program objectives are developed.
  • Other discipline related activities as needed.

Discipline Charge:

  • Develops operating procedures for all committees. Establishes an outline of the committee structure for the discipline. Establishes membership criteria for the discipline's committees. Develops procedures with respect to voting.
  • Develops amendment/change processes for operating procedures.

Through the Executive committees quality assurance through assessment is owned by the faculty of each discipline. Some Executive committees may are better at managing and experimenting with assessment than others. As is true for students, professors learn new things by doing them, and assessment is a new thing for most. Within the broad limits identified above, individual departments decide how to create the assessment instruments for their disciplines and match it to their own goals. Therefore, success can be incremental and uneven, but it is sure. GPC's assessment focus is on internal improvement and it draws its power from what dedicated professor's honor: Sharing their scholarship with dedicated apprentices. Yet the byproduct of sincere internal assessment is the proficiency not only to survive, but also to prosper from review. Through authentic assessment, Boyer's scholarships of discovery, integration, and application are transformed into the scholarship of teaching.

 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Academic Units Assessment Plans  
     
 

The first major area of evaluation of academic programs is the Academic Unit Assessment Plans with assessment of the 32 programs of study offered by the College. The Academic Unit Assessment Plans were developed by the Discipline Committees, which were renamed and reconfigured in 2000 to become the College Executive Committees. Every academic program at GPC must prepare/revise an academic unit assessment plan each academic year. Each department chair or program director shall prepare the plan and forward it to the Academic Dean on each campus. In turn, it is forwarded to the Center for Teaching and Learning, Division of Academic Assessment. Academic Program Assessment Plans should be included as part of each discipline's annual planning process and used for both budgetary and curricular changes. Each plan consists of a mission statement that is consistent with that published in the College catalog, a program goal statement that flows and is consistent with the College's mission statement, intended outcomes/objectives, multiple assessment criteria and procedures for each intended outcome/objective and an analysis of use of results. Departments are encouraged to use multiple measures for each objective and to blend quantitative and qualitative measures. Because of this, departments should formulate plans that reflect their disciplines, both in measurement, evaluation techniques and tradition. These may include but are not limited to nationally normed and standardized objective measures, locally developed objective and essay tests, exit interviews, oral exams, portfolios, projects, performances, course embedded measures, and locally developed surveys, questionnaires of employers, and alumni surveys. The original discipline committees developed a matrix relating planning and evaluation of academic units and programs of study. Each developed matrix has the purpose of the unit, defines it goals and results, describes means of evaluation and use of the evaluation results. The results are used in the budgetary and planning process by department chairs, and the College Executive Team. The cycle originates with the unit's goal/mission and returns to this stage as the cycle is completed. Through various actions taken by a unit, the cycle interconnects with cycles from other units and with the institutional assessment cycle as a whole. Since the model cycle will be employed by all the units, the assessment process will be consistent across the campus. In addition, the similarity among assessment cycles will have the beneficial effect of providing multiple measures of effectiveness of the academic program as a whole. Rather than impose a new approach upon units, it is intended that the cycle provides a conceptual framework for assessment which is compatible with appraisals currently being carried out in most units within a less formalized structure.

Unit Goal/Mission
The cycle begins with a statement of the mission and goals particular to that unit. While they should be compatible with the institutional mission, the unit goals may be quite specific and initially may not take into consideration the mission and goals of other units. The institutional assessment cycle is designed to integrate the goal and mission of all units. Even if it is not true at the beginning, this dynamic process will in time integrate unit and institutional goals.

Learning Objectives Learning objectives will flow from the unit's mission and goals and will be detailed enough to cover the different functions of the unit. Based upon the unit's goals, an individual instructor for a course, or the discipline faculty in the case of a major, will identify the specific learning objectives. They may be as specific as those for a particular course (for example, understanding a cost/benefit analysis) or as general as those for the major (for example, provide students with a basic understanding of the nature and functioning of the economic system).

Expected Outcomes
Units must next specify, based upon their learning objectives, a variety of expected outcomes, measurable in qualitative or quantitative terms. Depending upon the unit's goals, the expected outcomes may be stated as cognitive, behavioral, or attitudinal characteristics. The outcomes can be as specific as being able to solve differential equations, being able to integrate trigonometric functions, or being able to interpret the results of a factor analysis, or as broad as being able to explain how the development of mathematics has been part of the evolution of civilizations and is intimately interwoven with their cultural and scientific development. At this stage in the assessment cycle the expected outcomes represent predictions of how student learning will be demonstrated.

Assessment Methods and Tools
Each unit will select or develop its own assessment methods and tools. Assessment methods may be based on descriptive or experimental data collection processes. These methods will include portions of examinations in key courses, recitals, locally-developed examinations, surveys, oral examinations, professional licensure examinations, standardized comprehensive examinations, portfolios, alumni follow-up surveys, and the like. Different units may select and develop differing assessment methods and tools to measure the same or similar expected outcomes. This will have the advantage of creating multiple assessment measures more likely to capture the complete range of student achievements and promote innovative and "better" assessment techniques as their results are shared during the assessment cycles with other units.

Observed Outcomes
When the assessment method, tools, and techniques have been utilized with the appropriate students, the results will be analyzed by the unit itself and interpreted in terms of the expected outcomes identified earlier during the planning phase. The results will become part of one or more assessment outcome documents. These may include discipline or program self-study reports, annual discipline/division/committee reports, institutional data summaries, and accreditation self-study reports. Neither the process of appraisal nor knowledge of the results automatically leads to constructive change and improvement. The assessment model must include an action stage, providing for a response to the results of the assessment of student achievement. The most direct action, and that which routinely occurs at the present time, is for the results to be provided to students and used in improving their achievement. Action may occur as the modification by faculty of a course or a discipline curriculum, or by a governance committee of a program or administrative unit. In particular, the assessment process must, as a matter of policy, influence the institution's decision-making processes which determine curriculum, pedagogy, and resource allocation. At the action stage the cycle provides for sharing recommendations for change based upon documented results of the assessment process.

One of the outcomes of unit assessment will often be a modification of that unit's statement of missions and goals. An Assessment Committee (see below) will both guide the process and act as a clearinghouse for information and recommendations which emerge from the unit assessment cycles. One of its responsibilities will be to provide information to other units, appropriate governance committees, the administration, and the Campus Senate, which may result in modifications of units or institutional goals.

 
 
 
top
 
   
  General Education Outcomes  
     
 

The general education program, or core curriculum as it is identified in Georgia, is defined as that portion of the collegiate experience that addresses the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values characteristic of educated persons. It is unbounded by disciplines and honors the connections among bodies of knowledge. Georgia Perimeter College has established eight general education goals. General Education provides the foundation upon which students develop these skills and knowledge; it provides the academic background necessary for the completion of the requirements for a degree.

The GEOs were first developed in the early 1990's to assess student learning outcomes in the core curriculum. In 1995, the second revision of its efforts was made by a committee comprised of faculty from the Institutional Effectiveness Policy Council (with elected college-wide representation). The committee revised the general education outcomes, identified measurable observable results and identified data sources. In 1999 the GEOs underwent further revision based on changes made to courses during semester conversion. The current General Education Outcomes are cited on the chart below:

Outcome
Competency
Multiple Indicators
Assessment Criteria
Students will
communicate effectively through
oral
communication,
reading & writing
Reading Students' success rate on the Regents' Test 60% of all students will pass the Regents test on their first try
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Writing Students' success rate on the Regents' Test 60% of all students will pass the Regents Essay on their first try
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Oral Communication Students' performance on assessment of outcomes in COMM 1201 70% of all students will score a C or above on their assessment
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to GEO 80% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Demonstrate effective problem-solving and
critical thinking
skills
(i.e., organizing,
interpreting, and
evaluating ideas
Critical thinking Students' success rate in ENGL 1102 & with assigned research paper 60% of all students will receive a C or above on their res. Paper
Students' performance on course-based assessment test questions requiring higher order thinking skills 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Problem Solving Students' exposure to group problem-solving 70% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Understand, interpret,
and communicate quantitative
dataMathematics
Students' performance on assessmentof outcomes in math courses Math 1101, Math 1111, Precalculus and Calculus 70% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Locate, organize,
and analyze
information through
the use of a
variety of computer applications
Computer
Skills
Students' performance on assessment of outcomes in courses in which the computer plays an integral roll in the instructional process, e.g., CISM 2601, CSCI 1301 and ATEC 1203 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Demonstrate an understanding
of the importance
of arts & literature
in the human experience
Appreciation of
the arts
Students' performance on assessment of learning outcomes in humanities electives, e.g., ARTS 1301, DRMA 1301, MUSC 1301, FILM 1301 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Understand basic
scientific theories
and apply scientific
inquiry in a variety
of subjects
Knowledge of scientific theories Students' performance on assessment of learning outcomes in science courses 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Critical thinking in scientific areas Students' performance on the Assessment of learning outcomes in laboratory science courses 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with Educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Identify, analyze,
and evaluate global economic, political,
historical, and
geographic forces
Knowledge Students' performance on assessmentof learning outcomes for courses, e.g.,POLS 1101, SOCI 1101, and ANTH 1102 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Critical thinking Students' performance on assessment test questions requiring higher order thinking skills in courses such as POLS1101, SOCI 1101, and ANTH 1102 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Identify and apply
the basic concepts
of wellness
Knowledge Students' performance on assessment of learning outcomes in PHED 1101 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Application of wellness concepts Students' performance on specific class activities in PHED 1101 requiring application of wellness concepts 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above
Apply the
knowledge
of personal,
societal,
and cultural
development to
living and working
in a culturally diverse WorldAwareness
of diversity
Students' performance on assessment of learning outcomes in courses such asHIST 2111 , HIST 2112 and GEOG1101 60% or above will receive a C or above on assessment exams
Students' satisfaction with educational experiences as related to this GEO 70% will rate their skills as "some improvement" or above

Student Educational Satisfaction Survey for Georgia Perimeter College

To understand our success in providing a quality educational environment at Georgia Perimeter College, we appreciate your responses to the items below. Directions: Please respond to the following questions by darkening the numbered spaces on the attached scantron sheet with a number two pencil. Please mark the ones that best describe your situation or your opinion of the educational experiences provided by Georgia Perimeter College. Please write any comments in the spaces provided. Demographic Information:

Campus



1. What is your primary campus?

  1. Clarkston Conyers Decatur Dunwoody
  2. Lawrenceville

Age


2. How old are you currently?

  1. 19 or under 19 to 21 22 to 25 26 to 35
  2. 36 and over

Ethnic Background


3. What is your ethnic background?

  1. Asian Black Hispanic White
  2. Other

Gender


4. What is your gender?

  1. Female
  2. Male

Degree Choice


5. What type of degree are you seeking?

  1. Associate of Arts Associate of Science Associate of Applied Science Certificate
  2. Other

General Education Outcomes:


6. My ability to read effectively has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.

  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
7. My ability to write effectively has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
8. My ability to speak effectively has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
9. My ability to think critically has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
10. My ability to use problem-solving skills has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
11. My ability to use the computer has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
12. My ability to understand the importance of arts and literature has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
13. My ability to use mathematics has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
14. My ability to understand basic scientific theories and apply scientific inquiry has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
15. My ability to understand the effect of economic, political, historical, and geographic forces has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement
16. My ability to understand the basic concepts of health and wellness has shown the following improvement due to courses taken at GPC.
  1. No improvement Little improvement Some improvement Much improvement
  2. Great improvement

Program of Study:

Please choose one program of study only and darken space #1 for the program that pertains to you. See the next section for dual degree programs.
17. Anthropology (AA)
18. Arts (AA)
19. Biology (AA)
20. Business Administration (AS)
21. Chemistry (AA)
22. Computer Science (AS)
23. Dental Hygiene (Career) (AS)
24. Engineering (AS)
25. English (AA)
26. Fire Management (Career) (AAS)
27. Foreign Language (AA)
28. General Studies (AS)
29. Health and Physical Education (AS)
30. History (AA)
31. Interpreter Training (Career) (AAS)
32. Journalism (AA)
33. Mathematics (AA)
34. Music (AS)
35. Nursing (Career) (AS)
36. Philosophy (AA)
37. Physics (AA) (M)
38. Political Science (AA)
39. Pre-Dentistry/Pre-Medicine/Pre-Pharmacy (AS)
40. Psychology (AA)
41. Sociology (AA)
42. Teacher Education (AS)
43. Theatre (AA)


Dual Degree Programs with Gwinnett Technical College or DeKalb Technical College:

Please choose one program of study only and darken space #1 for the program that pertains to you.

44. Accounting (AAS)
45. Advanced Machine Tool Technology (AAS)
46. Business and Office Technology (AAS)
47. Commercial Photography (AAS)
48. Computer Information Systems (AAS)
49. Computer Programming (AAS)
50. Dental Assisting (AAS)
51. Drafting (AAS)
52. Electronics Technology (AAS)
53. Environmental Horticulture (AAS)
54. Hotel, Restaurant & Travel Mgmt. (AAS)
55. Industrial Maintenance Technology (AAS)
56. Industrial Technology (AAS)
57. Interiors (AAS)
58. Marketing Management (AAS)
59. Medical Assisting (AAS)
60. Medical Laboratory Technology (AAS)
61. Microcomputer Specialist (AAS)
62. Paramedic Technology (AAS)
63. Physical Therapist Assistant (AAS)
64. Radiologic Technology (AAS)
65. Respiratory Therapy (AAS)
66. Surgical Technology (AAS)
67. My satisfaction level with the general experience in my program of study is

  1. Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied
  2. Very satisfied
68. My satisfaction level for specific skills and knowledge learned in my program of study is
  1. Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied
  2. Very satisfied

Comments on General Education:

69. Please comment further on any aspects of your general education experience at Georgia Perimeter College.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


Comments on Overall Experience at Georgia Perimeter College:

70. Please provide any additional comments regarding your experience at GPC.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

The GEOs are evaluated biennially. The first cycle following semester conversion, was forwarded to the Office of Academic Affairs and distributed to all Deans and Department chairs for use in its strategic planning, linking the results to both curricular and budgetary changes. The GEO results are on file in the Center for Teaching and Learning. The undergraduate curriculum encourages students to set the events of the world in broad perspective and to bring a reasoned approach to the challenges they may face. To achieve these purposes, the College seeks to impart the following abilities and knowledge to its students:

Analytic, Problem-solving, and Decision-making Skills

Such skills include the ability to understand and interpret written and oral texts, and to recognize, develop, evaluate, and defend or attack hypotheses and arguments. These skills are to be developed throughout all undergraduate programs in all courses.


Oral and Written Communication Skills
Skills in expository, argumentative, and creative writing, and in effective speaking and listening, are to be developed through extensive and regular writing assignments, oral presentations, and participation in discussions.

Appreciation of Cultures

All students will gain an understanding of the traditions which influence American culture and of the traditions of other cultures in order to develop a respect for and a sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity. Students will become aware of increasing global interdependence.

Scientific Literacy All students will have experience in the methods of scientific inquiry and laboratory investigation and gain knowledge of scientific and technological developments and their influence on society. By establishing college-wide goals and requiring each program to devise its own objectives, ownership and accountability for general education are placed in the hands of program faculty. The college-wide goal statements are intentionally stated broadly to give programs the flexibility to operationalize the general education goals through objectives that are relevant to their program while providing an educational experience beyond the goals of the program. During the Fall 2001 semester, faculty teaching general education discipline courses will be required to explicitly link the objectives of their courses to the general education goals. For example, if a social science course is to be used to fulfill general education requirements, then it should be clear which general education goals are addressed in the course, the ways the students might achieve those goals, and how student attainment of the goals will be assessed. These courses will then form the core of general education courses for the College. The review report will include a matrix (curriculum map) indicating general education objectives for the program, the location of the objectives within the curriculum, and the method of assessing the objective. The first step will be to complete a general education course audit for each course required in the program. The course audits identify where the general education goals and objectives are developed and assessed within the program curriculum. Courses which strongly emphasize general education goals ought to also include the assessment of those goals. Within their program courses, faculty can design assignments to assess general education that are directly related to course content and thus will hold significance for students. Course-embedded general education assessments can range from "traditional" measures such as test items to "alternative" assessments such as portfolios to "authentic" assessments such as performance-based assessment. Such courses, then, can be used to provide direct measures of students' general education development within a meaningful context, that of the program course content. Once the course audits are completed, a general education program audit can be done. This audit will yield a visual representation of the general education goals developed through the program-specific objectives of the courses required in the curriculum of the program. Together the course audit and the program audit will enable program faculty to demonstrate which general education goals are addressed by program specific-objectives within the curriculum of their program, which courses within their programs specifically address the general education objectives, and how student attainment of the objectives are addressed. Both audits will be included in the program review report.

Assessment of General Education Goals
In addition to assessments embedded in program-required courses, the Office of Academic Assessment, a division in the Center for Teaching and learning, also surveys students to ascertain the degree to which they believe their educational experience at the College contributed to their growth in the general education goal areas. While not a direct measure of student learning, student surveys can be a good proxy measure.

The College is also exploring the use of nationally normed commercial tests for assessing student attainment of general education for 2002. These tests are best used to assess reading comprehension, critical thinking, scientific reasoning, the ability to solve math problems, and writing skills such as knowledge of grammar and correct usage. Some of the tests are designed to be completed in forty minutes and could be administered during a class period. One advantage of administering a nationally normed test is that one will then be able to compare the performance of GPC students to that of students in comparable community colleges.

 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Institutional Success Factors  
     
 

As an extension of strategic planning, the College developed the Institutional Factors of Success. Each of the factors was drawn directly from the College mission statement and measures specific criteria reflected in both mission and strategic planning efforts. The College currently has outcomes areas that it monitors on a regular basis, including academic satisfaction measures from students. Graduation and retention rates, licensure pass rates in several programs, and the areas are highlighted below in bold:


Institutional Effectiveness Success Factors
FY 1998 - 2002


Success Factor 1: High-Quality Educational Programs


Related Mission Statement:

Georgia Perimeter College, a nonresidential institution, serves diverse populations of traditional and nontraditional students in Greater Metropolitan Atlanta. Placing learning first, we provide accessible and affordable high quality undergraduate credit and noncredit programs for students seeking to complete an associate degree, transfer to a senior college or university, prepare for immediate entry into a career, pursue personal goals or enhance current workplace skills. Our curriculum specializes in liberal arts and professional preparation and promotes international and intercultural understanding.


Standards:

  • Seventy percent of the College's students will report that they are satisfied with their general academic experience at GPC. Faculty salaries will be at or above regional averages for two-year institutions in the Southeast; the target part-time faculty percentage is 40%. Students in career programs will pass licensure or certification examinations at or above national and state levels. Students should transfer at a rate at or above the national and University System averages for two-year colleges; students should do as well as native students at the transfer institution. Retention of students through the associate degree should be at or above University System averages.
  • The College's tuition rate will remain competitive; the percentage of students qualifying for financial aid will increase.

Indicators:

1.1 Regents and ACT Student Satisfaction Surveys
1.2 Student Financial Aid Awards
1.3 Tuition Comparisons
1.4 University System Retention Reports
1.5 University System Graduation Reports
1.6 State Examination Pass Rates for Nursing, Dental Hygiene, and Interpreter Training
1.7 Faculty Salary Comparisons
1.8 Faculty Section Report
1.9 CPE Exam Results
1.10 University System Retention and Graduation Reports


Success Factor 2: National Recognition and Pre-Eminence

Related Mission Statement:

A community committed to learning and to becoming a pre-eminent two-year, associate degree-granting institution, the faculty, staff, administrators, and students of Georgia Perimeter College share the following aspirations: To gain national recognition as a community of learners; to attain a national leadership role in developing creative, technologically advanced academic and student services programs; and to serve as a model for other institutions in developing collaborative partnerships to deliver public services, performing arts activities, technical assistance, lifelong learning, and economic development training.

Standard:

  • Each academic program of the College will receive at least one national recognition each year, and each non-academic area of the College will receive at least one national, regional, state, or Regents recognition each year.

Indicators:
2.1 Faculty/staff leadership roles in national, regional, University System organizations and activities
2.2 Faculty/staff presentations and participation in national, regional, and University System forums
2.3 Student leadership roles and awards in national, regional, and University System organizations and activities


Success Factor 3: College Values-Diversity, Improvement, Stewardship

Related Mission Statement:

A regional, multi-campus unit of the University System of Georgia, Georgia Perimeter College strives to meet the changing expectations of our diverse collegiate and community constituencies by providing effective, innovative, lifelong educational opportunities. We are committed to diversity, continuous improvement, high academic standards, and the efficient use of resources. In decision-making at all levels, the enhancement of our students' lives is our first priority.

Standards:

  • The College's workforce should reflect the diversity of its community. The College's budget allocation among functions (instruction, academic support, student services, institutional support, and plant operations) should fall within regional norms. The College should invest between 1.5% and 3% each year in improving its current facilities. The enrollment of students with disabilities and international students should strive to reflect the external community.
  • Enrollment in the College's continuing education program will increase by 10% each year.

Indicators:
3.1 EEO Reports
3.2 College and Campus Enrollment Reports
3.3 Budget Comparisons to SREB and Regents Institutions
3.4 List of Regents Major Capital Outlay Projects, Regents Minor Capital Outlay Projects, and Renovation Projects
3.5 Continuing Education Enrollment Report
3.6 Enrollment Report of Disabled Students
3.7 Enrollment Report of International Students

Success Factor 4: Student and Academic Support Services

Related Mission Statement:

Our academic programs and student support services focus on careful assessment of our learners' abilities, achievements, and needs, accommodation of their special requirements and resources, and guidance and assistance in the development and realization of each student's expectations and goals. We thus offer specialized sequences of courses and support programs that promote academic and personal success for students of varying levels of academic preparation. We encourage excellence in teaching, provide a technologically advanced learning environment, and support innovative strategies for meeting the learning styles of all students, and promote learning by engaging students actively and collaboratively.

Standards:

  • The College's investment in academic support (LRC's, instructional technology, ISS, etc.) will be above the averages of the University System and comparator institutions. Staff salaries will be at or above regional averages for two-year institutions in the Southeast.
  • Staff development and training will increase each year by 10% and aid in quality staff retention.

Indicators:
4.1 ISS Report
4.2 LRC Attendance and Circulation
4.3 Investment in Technology
4.4 Staff Salary Comparisons
4.5 Staff Retention and Continuity report
4.6 Staff Development and Training Programs Offered

The Institutional Factors of Success were distributed throughout the campuses and received recommendations for changes from the Faculty Senate, Academic Affairs Policy Council, the Support Staff Assembly Council and the Institutional Effectiveness Policy Council. Following their suggested revisions, the final document was approved by the executive team in 1999 and the evaluation of critical success factors were initiated.

 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Introduction  
     
 

The last collegewide method used for academic planning and evaluation for academic programs lies within the newly developed program review process. Although efforts for program review have been under development in the College during the last year, the BOR announced the statewide members of the university system should wait for BOR guidelines on the process. In fall 2000, the Board of Regents issued a document calling for program reviews with the central them of "viability" of a program. It is operationalized through the measures of: 1) Quality (the teaching/learning experience of the students as determined by various assessment strategies and techniques, accomplishments of the faculty and satisfaction of students with the program; 2) Program faculty - assessment of scholarship of faculty; 3) Centrality - degree of fit between the program and the mission of the institution; 4) Utility - projected demand for the program, and 5) Vitality - the vigor of the program, the degree to which the program is renewed, focusing on the currency of the curriculum, the infusion of technology. As part of the College's efforts to gear up for program review as designed by the BOR, GPC initiated one-page reviews of each academic unit analyzing their strengths and weakness for the academic year 1999-2000. These documents are in the Academic Assessment web site (http://gpc.peachnet.edu.edu/~ctl/aa)

A document was developed through the Division of Academic Assessment in the Center for Teaching and Learning for program review during the 2000-2001 academic year. This document evaluates the above listed BOR mandated measures of vitality. The first cycle of program review is to be completed July 1, 2001.

 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Template  
     
 

Academic Discipline Program Review and Self-Study

Academic Unit Name: __________________________________________
Location: ____________________________________________________
Department Chairs: ____________________________________________
Chair of Executive Committee: ___________________________________
I. Academic Discipline (For this section, please insert the GPC 2000-2001 Program of Study Assessment Template) Describe the role and scope of the academic discipline and provide the official description/purpose/mission. List discipline goals, provide a brief description on how progress towards these goals is assessed (measured), provide results of assessments, and describe how results have been used to improve department. (SACS 3.1)

Program of Study Goals and Assessment

YearGoalsOutcomesAssessmentsResults Use/Documentation
       
       
       

Staffing Summary Collegewide MERGE ALL CAMPUSES (Completion by department chairs)

StatusNumber Average Teaching Load
Full-Time Faculty   
Professor   
Associate Professor   
Assistant Professor   
Instructor   
    
Part-Time   
Support Staff  N/A
    

What policies/procedures/formulas are followed when assigned teaching loads (are number of preparations, number of students taught, nature of course, departmental committee assignments, advising, availability of support staff, college committee assignments, research, and service factored)? Summary by department chairs (collegewide) Semester Credit Hour Production For the past three years, please list department Semester Credit Hour Production.

Department Semester Credit Hour Production

YearFallSpring Summer
     
     
     

Describe the scope and the impact of offerings in the department.

For the year (2000-2001), all department chairs should complete the following chart, by campus.

CampusCourse IDYear# Sections Percentage Taught By P/T Was demand higher than ability to supply?
        

Has this changed significantly over the past three years? If so, please describe. II. Academic Programs

    A. Need:

      1. Specify area, state or national need for graduates. Cite any pertinent studies or data. (Include any Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) data or studies in appendices).

      2. Identify interest on the part of local groups, industry, research centers, other educational institutions, or state agencies. Indicate the nature of contact made with these groups and the results of these contacts.

    B. Curriculum: How does the program ensure that the curriculum stays current with practices in the field? How are curriculum changes initiated and processed at the discipline level? (SACS 4.2.3, 4.2.4) (List any general methods such as professional development, college-sponsored workshops, etc.) Please describe curriculum updates over the past three years.

    Curriculum Updates

    Course CodeCourse TitleDate Reviewed/Updated/Revised Documentation
         
         

    C. Instruction.

      1. How is instruction evaluated in this program or department? Explain how results of instructional evaluation have been used to improve instruction over the past three years. Department chairs should provide specific anecdotal data. (SACS 4.2.4) 2. Please certify whether all syllabi in the program/department provide written information about the goals and requirements of each course; the nature of the course content; and the methods of evaluation employed to measure the extent to which students are meeting the goals of the course. Indicate also whether the methods of instruction are appropriate to the goals and capabilities of students and that any experimentation with methods to improve instruction are adequately supported and evaluated. Attach copies of current syllabi for all courses in the program of study taught in this discipline as an appendix in alphabetical order. (SACS 4.2.4) This area pertains to full-time faculty only. Submit Spring 2001 syllabi only. 3. Please describe the methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of this program (i.e., use of standardized tests, comprehensive examinations, assessment of the performance of graduates in advanced programs or employment, sampling of the opinions of former students). If this was described earlier, please indicate where. (SACS 3.1, 4.2.4) Use the GPC Program of Study Assessment Plan. 4. By department, please describe how the program/department provides a learning environment in which scholarly and creative achievement is encouraged. (General overview only) If this was described earlier, please indicate where. (SACS 4.2.4)

      5. If applicable, please indicate the degree to which clinical and other affiliations with outside agencies for which credit is awarded is under the control and supervision of the program. (SACS 4.2.4)

    D. Briefly discuss the academic advising process in this program of study. Are advisors trained and is there an advising handbook for your campus? Requires completion by department chair. (SACS 4.2.5) E. Course Completion Rate. (SACS 3.1)

    The following information refers to program of study courses offered within the department.

    Course CodeCourse TitleSemester# Started# Completed % Completed
           
           
           

    F. Technology instruction. Describe how technology is used for curriculum delivery. Do you plan to increase the use of technology? How effective are the department's efforts? Please specify. Requires completion by department/campus. G. Certification/Licensure. (SACS 3.1) Where applicable, please list the number of students attempting to obtain certification or licensure and the number who were successful over the past three years. H. Resources (SACS 4.1, 4.2.4) Statements in this area require completion by department chairs, based on their campus' situations. Break out your answers under each question by campus.

      1. What additional faculty are needed to improve quality of program or to meet needs of students? 2. What are the special strengths in available library resources as they relate to the current program? What is the departmental library budget? Is this adequate? 3. Are facilities available to meet current needs of program? What additional facilities, if any, are needed in order to improve the quality of the programs being offered? 4. What additional fixed and moveable equipment is needed to improve the quality of the program being offered? 5. What special student support services does the program utilize? Are these adequate?

      6. What additional technology resources are needed to improve the instructional program and administrative operations?

    I. Program Plans (Completion by the Executive Committee)

      1. Based on the data and discussion, which have been presented, please analyze and describe the strengths of this program. 2. Please analyze and describe the weaknesses of this program. 3. What action steps do you have to address weakness? How do you plan to assess progress in these steps? Improve Activity Chart

      (This should be used as justification for funding during the budget process.)

      Improvement ActivityResources NeededCompletion Date and Responsible IndividualsMeasures of Performance Process(es) Involved
            

      4. Describe the progress, which was made in addressing last year's action plans. Show specific examples of how you used assessment results to adjust action steps, goals or improve the program. 5. What do you foresee as the future of this program?

        a. Enrollment Trends - ( Note: I sent enrollment trend reports by IRP with this template)

          1. Provide information on anticipated changes in program size. Requires completion by department chair/campus.

          2. What capacity does the program have to absorb additional enrollment without significant added cost? Please indicate rationale.

        b. Immediate and long-range challenges - Requires completion by department chair/campus.

        c. Opportunities for development - Requires completion by department chair/campus.

      6. If this program is not meeting the strategic goal of academic excellence, what will it take to make it and its graduates excellent?

Upon receipt of the program review analysis, and final deliberation of all available information, the department chairs, deans and executive committees recommend to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs to continue the program with no changes in program resources, increase their program resources, or reduce program resources. Program review documents can be found in the GPC Annual Report Card. From this information, each level of the College makes strategic and operational decisions.

 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Policies & Procedures Introduction  
     
 

It is the policy of Georgia Perimeter College [GPC] to conduct regular reviews of undergraduate instructional programs. The goal of academic program review at GPC is the improvement of programs based on information gathered and analyzed during a cyclical review process. In conducting program review, institutional faculty and administrators assess progress over time, analyze costs and benefits of programs, and make strategic decisions about program modification. The procedures outlined below offer guidelines for rigorous and meaningful review in a context of institutional freedom to design individual review processes, to employ elements of the academic audit model now in use in many institutions, and to select internal and external benchmarks. It is understood that academic program review is one component of an overall institutional effectiveness plan; other components include strategic planning, assessment of student learning outcomes, and assessment of outcomes in administrative areas. An in-depth undergraduate program review provides a mechanism for constructive change. It provides the opportunity to review, to evaluate, and to plan in a collegial and reasoned setting.

The material, which follows, describes guidelines and procedures for conducting in-depth reviews every seven years. The purpose is to guide both the units being reviewed and the reviewers. The intent is to facilitate the review and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process.

 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Policies & Procedures Model for Program Review  
     
 

General Overview

The faculty of Georgia Perimeter College has responsibility for the quality of undergraduate instructional programs. Georgia Perimeter College, the Executive Committees, the Academic Affairs Policy Council, and the Provosts and Academic Deans have oversight responsibilities in this area. Through the Executive Committees, in-depth reviews of undergraduate programs following a standard format are conducted approximately once each seven years. The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs initiates a schedule of reviews, notifying the chair and discipline dean of programs proposed for review. (see Appendix IV, Review Schedule). This initial report will summarize the academic program review plan and process adopted by the institution, outlining the procedures and methods to be used. An initial list of the programs to be reviewed during the institution's full program review cycle is provided.

Self-Study and External Review
Each program under review will conduct a self-study focusing on relevant data such as program admissions, student credit hours, number and percentage of graduates, cost/student credit hour, and resources committed to the program. The self-study should include defined expectations and a measurement of these expectations relative to internal standards and external benchmarks. Following the self-study conducted during the year of the review cycle, the programs will select an external review team. This team of external experts will conduct a site visit in the second half of the review year and submit a report to the college of their findings.

Evaluative Elements Based on Board of Regents guidelines, appropriate input and evaluative elements of an academic program review include:

Mission
- program mission, relation to institution mission, relation to University System mission, needs of students, and demand for graduates

Teaching and Learning, Research and Scholarship, and Service - evaluation of these program functions should include, but may not be limited to, the following kinds of elements:

Students
- percent and number of majors and graduates, percent and number of graduates passing professional and qualifying examinations, diversity, selectivity, skills at entry, service course enrollments, program applications compared to program capacity, credit-hour generation, and student learning, satisfaction and evidence of success in meeting student needs and learning outcomes.

Facilities
- space (adequacy and condition), cost, technology labs, equipment, library, and other indicators of adequacy of campus infrastructure to support the program.

Curriculum - coherence, currency, relevance to program learning outcomes and student needs, course sequencing or frequency of course offerings, and enrollment patterns.

Other Learning and Service Activities - advising, tutoring, internships, service learning, practica, study abroad, and career planning and placement.

Research and Scholarship
- faculty and student involvement, productivity, reputation, level of financial support, mentoring and development opportunities for new faculty.

Service
- projects completed and outcomes (program, division/school/college, institution, community and/or region levels) and contributions to mission. The following performance indicators should be addressed in all program reviews.

Dedicated Resources (Human, Physical, Fiscal)
Faculty qualifications. The program meets all regional accreditation requirements for faculty qualifications. It is suggested that the program meet discipline-based accreditation requirements, whether or not special accreditation is sought. Faculty/student ratio. The program reports the faculty/student ration and demonstrates that it is adequate and efficient for its mission. (Suggested: The faculty/student ratio meets the standard recommended by accrediting organizations.) Instructional technology. The program demonstrates that instructional technology is current and is adequate for the institution's mission. Facilities and non-instructional technical support. The program demonstrates that its physical facilities and non-instructional technical support are current and adequate for the program's mission. Learning resources for faculty and students. The program demonstrates that the library and other information resources are current and adequate for the mission and that they meet the requirements of the relevant accreditation body. Budget Resources. There is evidence that the program has financial resources necessary to support its teaching, research, and outreach efforts as appropriate to program and institutional mission.

Program, Learning, and Service Outcomes
Faculty/graduate ratio. The program's faculty/graduate ratio is computed and judged to be appropriate to the program's mission. Success of graduates. The program's graduates find appropriate employment or meet post-graduation educational goals in light of market trends and the needs of the state. Scholarly contribution. The program's scholarly productivity is appropriate to the mission of the program and the institution. Community services and outreach. The program's activity in community service and outreach is appropriate to the mission of the program and institution. Retention rates. The program demonstrates that retention rates are appropriate for the program and the student population. Student learning outcomes. Graduates of the program demonstrate that the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors of general education have been maintained and advanced. Graduates of the program exhibit mastery of their discipline.

Processes
Curriculum review. The program demonstrates that periodic review of the curriculum (focusing on coherence, level, and comparison with similar programs) is carried out, based on assessment of learning outcomes and other types of feedback, such as practice in the field. Design of learning experiences. Learning experiences are designed to reinforce the general attributes of a college graduate through recognized good practices such as the following:

    High expectations of students
    Coherence in learning
    Synthesizing experiences
    Integrating education and experience
    Active learning
    Ongoing practice of learned skills
    Prompt feedback to students
    Collaborative learning
    Significant time on task
    Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning

Attrition rates. The program monitors attrition rates in light of similar rates for comparator institutions, with particular attention to sub-populations of the student body. The program demonstrates that it has a process in place to monitor and promote student progress. In addition, institutional program review plans must meet the requirements of the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Criteria, Section 3.1. (in part):

    The institution must develop guidelines and procedures to evaluate educational effectiveness, including the quality of student learning and of research and service. This evaluation must encompass educational goals at all academic levels and research and service functions of the institution. The evaluation of academic programs should involve gathering and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate student achievement. Measures to evaluate academic programs and general education may include the following: evaluation of instructional delivery; adequacy of facilities and equipment; standardized tests; analysis of these, portfolios, and recitals; completion rates; results of admissions tests for students applying to graduate or licensing examinations; evaluations by employers; follow-up studies of alumni; and performance of student transfers at receiving institutions. The institution must evaluate its success with respect to student achievement in relation to student achievement in relation to purpose, including as appropriate, consideration of course completion, state licensing examinations, and job placement rates.

Professionally Accredited Instructional Programs

The periodic in-depth review of academic programs subject to professional accreditation will be scheduled to coincide with the accreditation or reaccreditation review. The accreditation self-study will take the place of the self-study described in the following pages. The accreditation site visit and report will supplement the external review component called for in this policy of the Executive Committee. Self-studies will be made available to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs at the same time that they are submitted to the accrediting body. The Provosts, President and the faculty will receive summaries of those findings of the accreditation review body that bear upon the instructional program.

Timing of Reviews

Academic program reviews must be scheduled carefully and well in advance. Advance notice will be provided to the chair of the executive committee, department chairs, and the responsible college dean that a review is being scheduled. Coordination among these individuals is essential to assure scheduling of all Review Committee members, especially the external members. Tentative time lines should be agreed upon, with consideration of the impact of summer activities on scheduling.

Composition of Program Review Committee

At the minimum, the Review Committee is to be comprised of the Executive Committee of the reviewed program, any additional members of the Faculty (who may or may not be members of the Executive Committee), the Discipline Dean, and one student. Additional participants may be desirable, especially external members where professional programs are involved. The inclusion of a representative of the employing profession may be particularly helpful.

The External Review
The external reviewers to be used in the second phase of the review should be highly knowledgeable and reputable leaders in the field under review (see Appendix I, Guidelines for External Reviewers).

Travel arrangements and expenses for the external reviewers, including travel, lodging, meals, and any honorarium, are the responsibility of the Office of the Vice-President for Academic and Student Affairs whose program is being reviewed.

Self-Study Report

A major initial step in the program review process is the preparation of a departmental self-study. Self-study is process, not print. In order to derive maximum benefits from the external review effort, it is crucial that the "self-study" be approached as a process of communication and planning rather than as an exercise in generating paper. The self-study is an opportunity for departmental colleagues to review departmental accomplishments, to share concerns and aspirations, and to develop long-term vision and strategies. The self-study report simply documents the matters considered during self-study and the conclusions emerging from that process.

Appendix I provides guidelines for the preparation of the self-study report. The subjects that should be emphasized in a particular self-study will depend upon the nature of the program under review and will be agreed upon at the time the review is scheduled. This document should be prepared collectively by the faculty and administration of the program unit. The report should provide thorough descriptive materials about the program and should also offer an assessment of departmental strengths, weaknesses, needs, and opportunities. It should clearly and succinctly address the goals and activities of the department, indicate how those fit into the mission of the university, and assess the effectiveness of the program. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning can assist in providing statistical information to units. Ten copies of the self-study are to be submitted to the Provosts and Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs at least one month in advance of the scheduled site visit. In general, the review should be designed to be comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of a department's educational contributions.

Pre-Review Meeting

Prior to the site visit, the Provosts, VPASA and Discipline Dean will meet the on-campus members of the Review Committee. The self-study document will be reviewed, and the Director will advise the Committee on procedures and significant issues to be examined during the site visit. During this orientation, individual Committee members may be assigned responsibility for specific topics of inquiry and the agenda of the on-site visit will be reviewed. If the discipline dean has requested of the Review Committee that attention be given to specific aspects of the program, that will be presented for incorporation.

Site Visit

Following review of the self-study report, the External Reviewers are scheduled for and will conduct a site visit in the department. The site visit is typically one and a half days in length, but may be extended if deemed desirable by the Committee. Responsibility for the schedule and agenda of the site visit should be assumed jointly by the chairs of the program being reviewed and the chair of the Executive Committee. The visit allocates time to interview the discipline dean(s), the department chairs, faculty, staff, and students. Confidentiality must be assured in these discussions. Additional materials may be requested and reviewed at this time if appropriate. Time should also be arranged for any faculty or staff member or undergraduate student who wishes to have a private meeting with the Review Committee. The Committee also examines the instructional facilities used by the program. The opportunity should be extended for additional feedback to the Committee after the site visit, to allow input from faculty and students who may not be present at the site visit, or who may have follow-up comments. At the conclusion of the site visit, the Committee, in executive session, should allocated time to review its findings and discuss its sense of the review. This is a particularly important opportunity to share the observations of the external reviewers. Following this discussion the Committee should agree upon format, content, and assignments for various components of its review report.

At the conclusion of the site visit, the Provosts, discipline dean and/or the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs may wish to confer with the external reviewers prior to their departure.

Review Committee Report

When the External Reviewers have completed their review, they prepare a report of their findings. This report provides evaluations and recommendations. The contributions of the external reviewers and other committee members will be integrated into a single report. No format is specified for this report, but it should address the quality, vitality, and direction of the academic program being reviewed in coordination with the Board of Regents guidelines. It should also comment on the quality of the students in the program, the productivity of the faculty, the leadership of the program, and the continued relevance of the program. It is essential that all Committee members agree upon the structure and nature of the report, and the responsibility for preparation of its various sections. Unless the Committee agrees otherwise, the creation of the draft and final version of the report are the responsibility of the Executive Committee chair and discipline dean(s). A draft of the Review Committee's report(s) should be completed within thirty days of the site visit and circulated to Committee members for their input. Following this, a final draft is to be submitted to the Provosts and the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs no more than two months following the site visit. After factual information has been confirmed, the report will be formally reviewed by the Executive Committee.

BOR Report

A two-page report is due to the Board of Regents by June 30th of the cycle year summarizing the findings of the self-study and the external review team. The Executive Committee and the Discipline Dean should prepare this report. A copy should be given to the President, Vice-President of Academic and Student Affairs and the Provosts for review one month prior to its submission to the BOR.

Implementation

Completion of the review should lead to positive actions to enhance program quality. Accordingly, there must be action to implement each of the Review Committee's recommendations. Following a study of the self-study report and the review report, the President will convene a meeting including the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, chair of the Executive Committee, Provosts, the discipline deans, and the department chairs to discuss the recommendations and findings of the program review. This should result in a memorandum of understanding by these participants as to what specific actions are to be taken, by whom, and in what time frame. It becomes a part of the review record and is used by the Executive Committee to guide follow-up activities.

Follow-up

Annually the Executive Committee is to reexamine recent program reviews and the memoranda of understanding which resulted, and determine from the responsible parties if the expected actions have been completed as agreed.

 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Policies & Procedures
 
     
 

Appendix I: Guidelines for Self-Study Report

There is no set format for the self-study report. The following outline is indicative of the type of content that is viewed to be essential to any such study. Additional information is invited if it will enhance the effectiveness of the presentation. Materials that do not relate to the objectives of the program review process should not be included. Attention should be given to the process of the self-study, not simply the content of the final report. Departments are strongly encouraged to use the period of self-study as an opportunity to achieve a particular departmental purpose; for example, to revise curricula, to formulate methods of assessing "end of program" outcomes, to more fully involve "stakeholders" in program evaluation and design. Self-studies conducted to achieve internal purposes will be much more productive than those undertaken to meet some external requirement. Thought should be given to the process of self-study: e.g., the ways in which various groups--including departmental faculty and committees, undergraduate majors, and, possibly, prospective employers--will be involved in the self-study process and the steps that will comprise that process. The particular subjects emphasized in the self-study report will depend upon the purposes set by the department for its period of self-study as well as the features of the particular undergraduate programs offered by the department. The following outline suggests the contents that should be considered for inclusion in the self-study report.

  • I. Mission
    • · The mission of the program in relation to the GPC mission and the University of Georgia mission.
    II. Background and Statement of Goals
    • · This should include a brief history of the program, including recent changes, and any recent or impending accomplishments or problems. There should be a clear statement of how the department and programs relate to the mission of the University. Specific goals, directions, and objectives for the future should be identified, along with a discussion of specific obstacles, needs, or opportunities. Has the department re-defined the learning objectives of its degree programs in recent years? How do the goals and objectives for the individual degree programs relate to the overall goals and objectives of the department, and college? This section should provide a context for the rest of the self-study.
    III. Description of the Review Process including Committee Members IV. Findings in Terms of Each of the Following:
    1. VIABILITY
      1. Introduction Explanation of Data
        • Students
          • Percent and number of majors Percent and number of graduates/transferees
          • Diversity: Sex and racial composition
        • Faculty
          • Numbers of part-time and full-time faculty Proportion of class sections taught by part-time faculty Diversity: Sex and racial composition of f-t faculty Credentials: Faculty Roster by term and number and proportion of faculty by highest degree Professional development
          • Faculty productivity
        • Costs
          • Full-time faculty salaries as proportion of total institutional full-time faculty salaries Average full-time faculty salary
          • Expenditures (f-t and p-t faculty salaries, overload, joint enrollment, and compensation, etc.) per FTE student
        • Facilities
          • Space: Adequacy and condition Technology Labs
          • Equipment
        • Curriculum
          • Currency: Marketability, demand, relevance to community
          • Course sequencing and frequency of course offerings: evaluation of best order to facilitate learning, offered often enough
        • Library
          • Adequacy for student needs
          • Adequacy for faculty needs
        • Other Learning and Service Areas
          • Advising: Number of advisees by major, satisfaction with advisement
          • Tutoring: Number of tutees by major and subject, satisfaction with tutoring
      2. Summary of Data related to Viability of Program
      PRODUCTIVITY
      1. Introduction Explanation of Data
        • Credit-hour generation: Number and proportion of GPC total Student-faculty ration Average class size Number of graduates-full-time faculty ratio Average full-time faculty workload (number of classes) Range and average credit hour production per f-t faculty member Relevance to student needs: ACT Enrollment Patterns by course
        • Other Learning and Service Areas
          • Internships Service learning Practica
          • Career planning and placement
      2. Summary of data related to Productivity of Program
    2. QUALITY
      1. Introduction Explanation of Data
        • Skills at entry: SAT Scores, CPE Scores, HS GPA Percent and number of graduates passing professional exam Achievement of student learning outcomes Evidence of success in meeting student needs & learning outcomes
          • Graduate Exit Survey' Employer Survey
          • Alumni Survey
        • Evidence of success in meeting learning outcomes
          • GPC transfers' GPA at receiving institution in major
          • Student progress
        • Curriculum
          • Relevance to alumni employers' needs: Employer Survey
          • Coherence: Relevance and effectiveness in relation to learning outcomes
        • Student satisfaction with program
          • Graduate Exit Survey
          • ACT Student Opinion survey
        • Retention Rates
      2. Summary of Data related to Quality of Program
    V. RECOMMENDATIONS VI. PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE PROGRAM VII. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED PLAN
  • VIII. DATE OF NEXT SCHEDULED REVIEW
 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Policies & Procedures
 
     
 

Appendix II: Guidelines for Selection of External Reviewers

  1. External reviewers should be respected peers with proficiency in the areas of specialization that are important to the unit being reviewed. Reviewers should be experienced academicians, who understand university operations and undergraduate education, and who are able to evaluate realistically the unit's strengths and weaknesses relative to similar units at other comparable institutions, the unit's operations, plans for growth and development, and the professional activities of faculty members. If an undergraduate program review is being conducted in conjunction with another review (e.g., accreditation or graduate review), the reviewers should be aware of the objectives of the undergraduate program review as well as those of the related review. It is preferable to avoid former mentors or close personal friends of faculty members, former employees or individuals who have applied or are likely to apply for a position at GPC, or individuals from institutions substantially different in character from GPC who will be less likely to understand specific circumstances here. The long-run viability of the unit, and the credibility of the review, will be enhanced by identifying thoughtful, knowledgeable, and objective external reviewers.
  2. When nomination individuals to serve as external reviewers, the dean and/or department chair should provide names, current addresses and phone numbers, and a brief statement of the individual's qualifications. This should be several sentences summarizing the individual's expertise and any previous experience with this unit or faculty.
 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Policies & Procedures
 
     
 

Appendix III: Performance Indicators

Indicator
  1. Percent and number of majors Percent and number of graduates/ transferees Diversity: Sex and racial composition Skills at entry: SAT scores, CPE scores, high school GPA Credit-hour generation: Number & proportion of institutional total Student satisfaction with program: Graduate Exit Survey Student satisfaction with program: ACT Student Opinion Survey (Collected biennially but reported annually) Self-ratings on general education outcomes: Graduate Exit Survey GPC transfer students' GPA in major at receiving institution Student progress (grades) Retention rates Number of part-time and full-time faculty Proportion of class sections taught by part-time faculty Full-time faculty salaries as proportion of total institutional full-time faculty salaries Average full-time faculty salary by rank Expenditures per FTE student Student-faculty ratio Average class size Diversity: Sex and racial composition of full-time faculty Number and proportion of faculty by highest degree Number of graduates/full-time faculty ratio Average full-time faculty workload (number of classes) Range and average credit-hour production per f-t faculty by program, by division, and by discipline Library: Adequacy for student needs (Collected biennially but reported annually) Library: Adequacy for faculty needs (Collected biennially but reported annually) Relevance of curriculum to student needs (Collected biennially but reported annually) Enrollment patterns by course Percent and number of graduates passing professional and qualifying exams Faculty productivity Professional development Space: Adequacy and condition Technology Labs Equipment Curriculum coherence Curriculum currency Course sequencing and frequency of course offerings Internships, service learning, practica, Career planning and placement Number of students' job inquiries by employment area, number of placements by employment area
  2. Library: Adequacy for faculty needs - Assessment of library holdings
Semester
  1. Student learning outcomes: achievement of general education outcomes and discipline-specific learning outcomes Advising: Number of advisees by major, satisfaction with advisement
  2. Credentials: Current
 
 
     
 
top
 
   
  Program Review Policies & Procedures  
     
 

Appendix IV: Review Process Schedule

Schedule 2000-2001: SACS Self-Study
2001-2002: SACS Self Study and Site Visit, Group 1 Review Year
2002-2003: Group 2 Review Year
2003-2004: Group 3 Review Year
2004-2005: Group 4 Review Year
2005-2006: Group 5 Review Year
2006-2007: Group 6 Review Year
2007-2008: Group 7 Review Year
Groups

  • Group 1: Career: Dental Hygiene, Fire Management Group 2: Nursing, Business Administration (AS), English, Journalism Group 3: Arts (AA), Arts (AS), Music (AS), Theatre (AA), Mathematics (AA) Group 4: Biology (AA), Chemistry (AA), Geology (AA), Physics (AA) Group 5: Health and Physical Education (AS), Foreign Language (AA) Group 6: Teacher Education (AS), History (AA), Philosophy (AA), Political Science (AA)Psychology (AA), Sociology (AA)
  • Group 7: Interpreter Training, General Studies, Career Programs with Gwinnett and DeKalb Technical Colleges
 
 
     
 
top
 
 
   
 
Copyright© 2005. This information is published by
Debra Moon
GPC Questions/Comments/Help
Last updated August-2005
http://www.forchuteckconsulting.com
http://www.forchuteckstudio.com
http://www.isecurehost.com