10 Cohort Report

Photo by Myriam Jessier on Unsplash

We believe that reporting findings from academic program reviews to the university community demonstrates the institution’s public commitment to improving program outcomes through transparent and evidenced-based decision-making (Hoare et al., under review).

While program reviews have utility at the program and departmental level, we also see the potential for program reviews to have significant impact at the institutional level; however, sufficient evidence for institutional change “requires accumulation of reviews” (Conrad & Wilson, 1985, p. 77)

Therefore, to support institutional planning, the Office of Quality Assurance develops a Cohort Report— an aggregate report summarizing themes that emerged from the departments participating in the Program Review Course— that reflects both an internal and external lens. The Cohort Report is presented to APPC and Senate to inform strategic academic planning every time a Program Review Course is delivered.

We also see value in conducting a qualitative and quantitative meta-analysis or meta-synthesis of the Cohort Reports once every five to seven years. At that point in time, institutions may be able to pull data from upwards of 40 program reviews, thus offering significant opportunities to illuminate patterns and trends across the institution.

Internal data used to inform institutional planning

  • A thematic analysis of the cohort’s SOAR results aims to illuminate common strengths, opportunities, and barriers for academic planning and program improvement.
  • Common core questions from student and faculty surveys provide information about the learning environment, adequacy and accessibility of student support services, student achievement of program learning outcomes, and program strengths and opportunities, just to name a few.

 

External data used to inform institutional planning

  • An analysis of the cohort’s external reviewer recommendations and commendations offers a comparative review and perspective from disciplinary experts external to the university.
  • Common core questions from alumni and employer surveys provide information about program relevancy to societal, economic, and industry needs; students’ academic preparedness for further studies; and program strengths and opportunities, just to name a few.

We believe that the Cohort Report provides a comprehensive assessment and recommendations for academic planning that spans disciplinary boundaries and may offer a solution to Coombs’ (2017) call for direct linkages between program reviews and institutional strategic planning.

A benefit of sharing aggregate findings is the potential to identify needs for faculty learning and development programming offered through the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching; similarly, findings may inform improvements to academic advising, student support services; and illuminate systemic barriers to student success.

References

Conrad, C. F. & Wilson, R. F. (1985). Academic program review. Institutional approaches, expectations, and controversies. Association for the Study of Higher Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED264806   

Coombs, V. (2017, February 7). Institutions should link program reviews to strategic plans. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/call-action-marketing-and-communications-higher-education/institutions-should-link-program  

Hoare, A., Dishke Hondzel, C., Wagner, S., & Church, S. (submission to occur in June 2022). A program review course for facilitating academic program review.

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Program Review Handbook by Alana Hoare, Catharine Dishke Hondzel, and Shannon Wagner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book