51ÉçÇø

Processes & Responsibilities in the Use of Assessments for the Cycle of Program Improvement

Director of Assessment and Academic Improvement: Each semester during the second week after grades are due, the director of assessment and academic improvement runs all unit and program data that has been administered using Livetext. All unit data are organized and assembled for distribution at the aggregate level and disaggregate level (by program and campus when possible). These data are reported to the appropriate Assessment Council subcommittee.

Subcommittee of Assessment Council: After receiving the data from the director of assessment and academic improvement, the subcommittee establishes a meeting time, prior to that semester’s Assessment Council meeting, to review and analyze the data. The subcommittee is to consult with the appropriate faculty, programs, or departments as the data are reviewed and analyzed. Each subcommittee then prepares a written report of the data that was examined, who reviewed it, the date(s) of review and analysis, the current status of the data, and recommendations for program improvement including recommended action steps. These recommendations are discussed at the Assessment Council meetings.

Assessment Council: At each meeting, the Assessment Council subcommittees present their data analysis and recommended action steps with the overall group. The Assessment Council reviews the subcommittees’ analyses and action steps and responds to the recommendations. If Assessment Council responds that the recommendations need revision, they are returned to the subcommittee. If the feedback is for ongoing program interventions and/or review, it is returned to the program for continued improvement. If the recommendations require a major change in the Unit or a change in policy, they are forwarded to the Unit for the Preparation of Education Professionals (U-PEP) for a first reading.

Unit for the Preparation of Education Professionals (U-PEP): At each quarterly U-PEP meeting, Assessment Council subcommittees report to the group for a first reading. Following the first reading, feedback is given to the subcommittee about the analysis and recommended action steps. Members of U-PEP are asked to discuss the recommendations with their appropriate faculty, programs, or departments prior to the subsequent U-PEP meeting. If the recommendations need to be revised, the plan goes back to the respective subcommittee for modification. If the recommendations are approved, they are presented at the next meeting for a second reading. At the next U-PEP meeting, the recommendations as well as the garnered feedback are presented to the group for a second reading. The recommendations are moved forward to the next stage of the review/improvement cycle. The approved plan is sent for implementation to the appropriate faculty, programs, or departments.

Implementation: Once U-PEP delivers an approved plan for program/unit improvement, the appropriate faculty, programs, and departments implement the plan. Official communication with U-PEP stakeholders (K-12 partners, regional faculty, Athens faculty, administrators, and students) is provided from the Unit head and an opportunity for feedback is given. Each semester, the implementers provide feedback to U-PEP about the progress of the improvement plan which is documented at the U-PEP meeting.