Date post: | 23-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gillian-pauline-turner |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
SOAR – Preparing for LaunchTask Force Information
January 2015
Today’s Agenda
• 1. Welcome• 2. Methodology underlying the initiative• 3. Support service & academic program lists• 4. Survey questions for authors• 5. Process & workflow for authors and Task
Forces• 6. Next steps for launch• 7. Q&A
Greetings!
Coordination Committee Goalsfor Methodology• Goal 1: Define overarching initiative methodology
– to provide clear, transparent guidelines for program definition, survey questions
– that will drive data entry & program evaluation process,– safeguard process integrity, – and generate valid, meaningful outcomes.
• Goal 2: Listen to and incorporate Task Force feedback to accomplish the above
• Goal 3: Facilitate efficiency & effectiveness with sensitivity to time, effort of Task Forces, Authors, Approvers
Academic Methodology Overview (Sensible, Consistent)Step 1: List of “programs” populated using Campus Connection “academic plans” for AY 2013-14, including
– Majors, 2nd majors, minors, certificates, pre-majors
Step 2: “Program” refined to “a function engaged in by faculty,” leading to adjustments, per Task Force input
– 2nd Majors (removed as not distinct)– Essential Studies, Service Courses, Research/Scholarly/Creative
Activity, Service (added)
Step 3: Based on a list of “centers” and “institutes,” additional items added to Academic Programs list if functions engaged in by faculty
Step 4: Vice Presidents & Deans provide input regarding the programs identified for their unit. In no case are programs allowed to be “rolled up” (i.e., any of the above combined into one “program”)
Support Services Methodology Overview (Sensible, Consistent)Step 1: List of “programs” populated using PeopleSoft Department Code numbers as of AY/FY 2013-14, excluding those associated with academic departments
Step 2: Based on a list of “centers” and “institutes,” additional items added to Support Services Programs list based on function
Step 4: Vice Presidents & Deans provide input regarding the programs identified for their unit. In no case are programs allowed to be “rolled up” (i.e., multiple Department Codes combined into one “program”)
Because Code number may encapsulate multiple “functions” (i.e., designated purpose, activity, or service that, regardless of its size, does not fundamentally change), VPs & Deans identify any additional programmatic functions within each Code
Step 4: Guideline: anything falling outside of management, leadership, or administration (M/L/A) should be identified as a separate function
Support Service & Academic Program List Overview (Task Force-driven)
Survey Questions for Authors(Sensible, clear, meaningful, doable)
Three-Step Process & Workflow Overview(Straightforward for all)
Authors (Department Heads)
Electronic submission via SharePointData & survey questions provided
Approvers (Deans or Vice Presidents)
Receive electronic submission & data filesApprove & submit Authors’ program surveys
Taskforces
Receive approved program surveysConduct reviews of program surveys
Author Process & Workflow Overview(Straightforward)
PreparationInformation session on survey questions & data
AuthoringData & survey questions provided
Delegate writing as appropriate
Completion
Electronic submission to Approvers via SharePoint
Task Force Process & Workflow Overview(Straightforward)
Preparation
Norming sessions to establish review consistency
Review
All reviews are submitted anonymously
Completion
Data are aggregated & used to categorize each program
Survey Questions for Authors(Sensible, clear, meaningful, doable)
Survey Questions for Authors(Easy Data Entry)
SOAR Process Creates Common Language for Dialogue
• Generates snapshots based on collective peer evaluation
• Becomes information tool
• Creates common language for dialogue, discussion
• Predicated on commonly held & applied guidelines for time, effort
Evaluation Rubric
• Straightforward; Easily Internalized, Applied, Understood, & Interpreted
Support Service Programs
• Total Number of Programs: 200
• Review time per Program will vary– Guideline of 15 minutes per Program
• Process predicated on load-sharing– Rubric, norming, inter-rater reliability
• Time Commitment per TF Member:– Reviewing 1/2 of programs: 25 hours
• Approximately 2.5 hours/week
Academic Programs
• Total Number of Programs: 800
• Review time per Program will vary– Guideline of 15 minutes per Program
• Process predicated on load-sharing– Rubric, norming, inter-rater reliability
• Time Commitment per TF Member:– Reviewing 1/4 of programs: 50 hours
• Approximately 5 hours/week
Academic Programs
• Total Number of Programs: 800– “Service” programs: 83– “Service course” programs: 82– “Essential Studies” programs: 79– “Research/Scholarly Activity” programs: 83
• Each adds approximately 20 total hours:– Reviewing 1/4 of programs: 0.5 hour/week
Task Force Process MethodologyReview Sheet
• Easy online access to Program Evaluation Sheet
• Anonymous
• Submission automatically aggregates data for processing without identification
Sample Academic Program Output
Sample Program – Academic
Resources
Opportunity/Impact
ExpandTransform
Rethink Enhance
Sample Support Service Program Output
Sample Program – Support Service
Resources
Opportunity/Impact
ExpandTransform
Rethink Enhance
Timeline for Initiative Completion• Jan. 12-15 – process meetings with TFs, Authors• Feb. 2 – distribute survey questions, program-specific data to Authors• Feb. 16 – Priority deadline for Author survey completion
– Approval by Deans & Division Heads begins
• March 2 – Final deadline for Author survey completion– 4 weeks total to author – assumes staggered submission– Priority deadline for approved reports by Deans & Division Heads
• March 16 – Final deadline for approved reports from Deans & Division Heads– 4 weeks total to Approve – assumes staggered submission
• May 15 – TFs complete their program evaluations– 10 weeks total
• June 1 – TF co-chairs complete executive summary of TF evaluation results and recommendations
Timeline for SOAR Completion• Jan. 12-15 – process meetings with TFs, Authors• Feb. 2 – distribute survey questions, program-specific data to Authors• Feb. 16 – priority deadline for Author survey completion
– Approval by Deans & Division Heads begins– Rolling Task Force review begins as soon as practicable
• March 2 – Final deadline for Author survey completion– 4 weeks total to author – assumes rolling submission– Priority deadline for approved reports by Deans & Division Heads– Rolling Task Force review continues
• March 16 – Final deadline for approved reports by Deans & Division Heads– 4 weeks total to approve – assumes rolling submission– Final deadline for Task Force review to begin
• May 15 – Task Forces complete their program reviews– 9-13 weeks total review time