Provost’s Council
July 9, 2013
2:00 pm.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245
Members Present: Dan
Averette, Jackie Blakley, Amanda
Blanton, Tim Bowen, Todd Crisp-Simons, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Robin
McFall, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords
Members Absent: Scott
Harvey
Others Present: Gayle Arries, Phil Smith
Length of Meeting: 2.0 hours
The minutes of the June 25, 2013 meeting were approved as
presented.
Galen gave an overview of the academic program review
process, and noted that one of the goals at the end of the process was
reflection and improvement of the process.
Team 2, comprised of Robin McFall, Amanda Blanton, and Lynn Lewis,
reviewed the CPT program. Phil Smith
answered questions and provided more information for the team and the Provost’s
Council.
Focus Area 1:
Phil discussed the need for greater clarity with the number
of employees, graduation rates, and placement.
Phil noted the negative impact of not being able to contact a graduate
to confirm placement. The CPT department
is trying various methods to stay in contact with students to help confirm
needed data.
Focus Area 2:
If the department referenced college data in its program review,
it did not cite the data. The
department will be sure to cite sources in the next program review. The CPT department will continue to use and
update the departmental grid with outcomes and courses to show if the course is
applicable to that outcome. To help
future program review, Phil suggested creating a metric of items needed as
documentation in the review narrative.
The department welcomes advisory committee feedback and may
use the feedback to make changes to the curriculum. The committee feedback is highly effective
because it can initiate change.
Focus Area 3:
Since there was no evidence to show the outcome, this area
was underdeveloped. In the next program
review cycle, the department will provide better documentation.
Under Curriculum Design and Review, Phil reported that CPT
faculty meet to review the curriculum.
The curriculum is revised based on advisory committee feedback and
faculty involvement.
·
CPT self-paced courses are college level
courses.
·
Students have different skill levels and some
complete the assignments more quickly and easily.
·
Most students use the entire semester to
complete the course.
·
The course is designed with multiple levels of
simulation and assessment before taking the final section test.
·
The course design is effective because it is
immersive and engaging.
·
Only about 20% test out with the exemption exam.
·
95% of incoming student do not have the proper
proficiency. A placement test would be
helpful for CPT students.
The department needs to document outcome review with meeting
minutes and curriculum change forms.
The marketing plan is too generic, and the department will
meet to discuss and improve the plan.
In conclusion, Phil noted the following items to improve the
CPT program:
·
More formally capture what the CPT department is
doing.
·
Be more specific and flesh out answers.
·
Use terminologies (WIDs).
·
Create a better way to track graduates.
·
Create its own data mechanism for support.
Sarah Shumpert asked for clarification on what should be
included in the APR presentations. It
was noted that the presentation should focus on the plan and the impact of the
plan, and answer any questions. The
Institutional Effectiveness department will send a reminder e-mail to the
remaining APR departments.
It was decided that the remaining APR teams will report at a
later meeting.
Under Announcements, Sarah announced that Katy Goforth has
resigned, and that position will be posted shortly.
Key Talking Points:
1.
The APR will help expose college-wide issues and will
help the college create better processes to address them.
2.
Consider the use of a technical proficiency placement
test.
3.
Review of marketing plans.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Recorded By: Anne Bryan
Next Meeting: Tuesday,
July 23, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 248A/B
