Date: April 1, 2002

To: Accreditation Oversight Committee

From: Kathy Hill

Subject: AIC Progress Report: Program Review/Health Indicators

I. Summary of Original Problem

According to the Leeward Community College 2000 Self-Study Report, the UH Community College system began to use Program Health Indicators (PHI) to evaluate academic programs in 1992-93. Some of the outcome indicators were the same across the system to allow for comparisons while other outcome indicators were individually selected to represent needs and functions of specific units. In addition, funding sources such as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1900 mandated some of the PHI outcome indicators. This PHI model categorized data in three areas—demand, efficiency, and outcome; streamlined the six-year review process; and enhanced institutional decision making.

The following problems were associated with the PHI review model at LCC:

A. The PHI model was intended to review all academic programs, but was primarily used to review vocational-technical programs granting certificates and degrees.

B. The PHI model had a vocational slant that might require modification to meet

the needs of all academic programs.

C. Some outcome information was not readily available—graduation placement.

D. The PHI model had been used successfully to collect outcome indicators, but this model lacked the systematic structure and process necessary for campus personnel to review the data and use it for better evaluation, planning, decision making, and program improvement.

The ACCJC Evaluation Report recommended "that the college reexamine and adapt the application of the Program Health Indicators (PHI) model (or other appropriate program review model) to all its programs, and especially to student services, so that a structure, process, and culture are developed for its effective use in planning, decision making and program performance improvement."

II. Present Status of the Problem

Currently, the PHI model is being used to review vocational programs. Since the Accreditation Team's visit in October 2000, the college has taken a more holistic approach to program review and student learning outcomes. A combination of college-related experiences can affect and influence students' learning outcomes; therefore, the focus of the review model has shifted to include services as well as all academic programs.

III. Possible Solutions to the Problem

This AIC has divided into two subgroups. One subgroup has been developing a program review model and the other subgroup has designed a survey/questionnaire that has been sent to all division chairs and/or unit heads.

The program review model supplements the University of Hawaii, Executive Policy – Administration, E5.202 Review of Established Programs, June 1987 and the PHI model to provide the structure and process for reviews of all programs and services in regards to student learning outcomes.

The survey/questionnaire instrument will collect information on the types of review processes that are already in place at this time, the types of data that are being collected, the methods that are being used to analyze collected data, and suggestions for useful program review processes.

A member of this committee has also been following up on a Faculty Senate suggestion to find sample program review models from other institutions that the ACCJC finds to be acceptable.

Four other action plans under this AIC deal with the review process policy: 1) the PHI model and its appropriateness for the Student Services Division; 2) the PHI model and its relationship to the College's mission, institutional evaluation, and planning; 3) the review process structure; and the plan to make sure that all affected constituencies are informed about and participate in the assessment process. As the review model is developed, these action plans will be addressed and incorporated.

The final action plan in this area involves establishing an Institutional Assessment Committee to document and measure achievement of academic and non-academic institutional outcomes. To avoid duplication of efforts, it has been suggested that an Institutional Assessment Committee focus on achievement in non-academic service areas and an Academic Assessment Committee (under the Degrees and Certificates AIC) focus on achievement in academic areas.

IV. Review of Proposal by Campus Community

After the survey/questionnaire results have been discussed and analyzed and the proposed program review model has been revised and accepted within this committee, the proposed review process model will be presented to the entire campus for feedback. Since this program review process will affect everyone on campus, it is imperative that everyone has an opportunity to voice opinions and suggestions before it is presented to the Faculty Senate and Campus Council.

V. Plan to Shift from Planning to Implementation

After the structure and process of the program review model have been defined, the implementation phase will begin. An institutional researcher or other designated individual will oversee the timing of the review process and assist faculty and staff in each unit to understand and identify student learning outcomes and determine valuable potential outcome objectives.