Continued review

Photo by: Henoc Kivuye

 

Since the new system of program review published its findings in the summer of 2012, a committee has annually evaluated Oklahoma Christian University programs to see what the school is doing well and what needs to change.

That process of review is on an annual basis and promises changes and adjustments to current academic programs in order to best provide for students, but no absolute program cuts are on its agenda.

Bill Goad, executive vice president, said the program review process is a natural part of every organization and is necessary to maintain the school’s level of educational standards.

“[It’s] to look at what you’re doing, access a systematic way to look at the results you’re getting and say how can we do things better,” Goad said about the program review process. “How can we continually do better for our students and how can we continually do better for our constituents.”

Goad, along with Vice President for Finance Jeff Bingham, Professor of Business and Dean of Graduate Programs Don Drew, Vice President of Academic Affairs Scott LaMascus and Associate Dean for Academics Lee Anne Paris comprise the program review committee.

The committee evaluates academic programs by gathering and analyzing data. They publish their findings in the summer, and that new set of data will then be analyzed in the fall. The program leadership in the spring semester will build appropriate responses and actions they want to take based on those findings. They then report that out in their post-school meetings in May.

The committee finds what programs are problematic and require attention, but they do not dictate a proper course of action. A part of the review process is analyzing and improving retention and graduation rates for every department. Many of the program changes made are tied to these rates.

“Our retention and graduation rates are good for certain areas,” Goad said. “They’re not as good in other areas. Areas that have more of a problem with retention and graduation rates may get more review.”

The program review committee is about producing data and providing findings based on that data. Goad said if a graduation rate is not as good as it should be, then it’s up to the academic programs, departments and leadership to determine how to address the issue.

Goad said there are findings that indicated some programs need to rethink how they’re offering their content. Some programs may have to restructure what coursework they’re offering because the amount of students majoring in a particular field of study may not support the extensive way the field is offered.

“It’s up to those academic programs to work on restructuring their program in some way, shape or form,” Goad said.

Goad did not indicate what those particular programs were.

There were not any academic programs that the findings of the program review committee suggested to cut, however, Goad said program changes are possible.

LaMascus said everything from the program review process of 2013-2014 has been reported to the programs, and nothing has begun for the 2014-2015 school year.

“I know the program changes already in process are excellent opportunities for students in accounting, which is opening a new master’s degree,” LaMascus said. “Art and Design has put a new BA program on the books for next year, and nursing has added a program for registered nurses. These are exciting new programs for OC students and you can expect more changes to emerge as program review and assessment continues.”

While many students in particular fields of study have heard rumors circulating on changing program structures, LaMascus urged students to talk to those who know best.

“The best way to be at ease is to talk with your advisor, get your classes set and focus on your learning,” LaMascus said. “OC faculty is very focused on students’ success and preparation to graduate into a professional job, graduate program or other endeavors that help alumni live as if all they do is for Christ.”

Senior Chelsea Leigh agreed that students should communicate with faculty and staff. From her experiences, they have always been approachable.

“A lot of times students feel like they can’t talk to people – that’s not true,” Leigh said. “I would tell them to be very open with people, but to also try and look at it from the school’s point of view, too. The school is trying to keep our best interests at heart.”

The program review process has made positive changes, according to Leigh, but more could be done.

“Obviously they can only do so much every year,” Leigh said. “There are things I would change about my major, but I think everyone feels like that.”

Leigh, a missions major, said her program might be at times overlooked, but she believes the committee is doing positive work on making academic programs better.

“I think they’re doing a good job of focusing on the [programs] that most of the students are in,” Leigh said. “Most of our students seem to be nursing or engineering and things like that. I feel like they have been paying a lot of attention to that.”

Leigh said she understands that programs need to change in order to match students’ needs.

“I think it is always hard for a school administration to cut anything,” Leigh said. “I trust our administration here to do what is right for students. I would hope that they can keep as many opportunities open to us as possible. I trust them to make the right decision for us.”

The launch of the current program review process intended to review all programs extensively the first year. Goad said the review process could not duplicate that goal on an annual basis.

“That’s really an unworkable model to do year after year,” Goad said. “You can’t really evaluate everything every year. We’ve revised the process some. Every program will get new information that they can use every year, but there won’t be an extensive evaluation of every program every year.”

The review process will continue to change as the committee finds better ways to function.

“We’re always looking to improve,” Goad said. “We will review the program review process annually. If there are improvements to be made we’ll certainly do that.”