Planning changes to University Portfolio site

Planning changes to University Portfolio site Josh, Nils & Jayme met today to talk about revising the public portfolio for the 2009-10 year.

Presently we only have materials from Dec 2009 in there.

Our goal is to have it close to final by Aug 20, since we get busy with other stuff then.

Key Questions:
Audience. Our hypothesis: NWCCU Reviewers (these are exhibits to Jane’s Univ level report) + WSU Deans and Provost + Other programs (we would be able to send a program to look at the work of another program easily).
How much scores do we show? College averages? All programs? Colleges as navigational aid to programs? The issue here is the politics of “public.”

.

Advertisements

Sanity Checking the May 17 scores

We have done a process to review language and scores on individual responses.  A couple weeks ago, Ashley led an activity to compare (in each dimension) across 4 programs. That found a couple anomalies.

This is an experiment to compare across the 22 programs that provided a report May 17. (Actually a few are not finished in the scoring process)

The activity uses a spreadsheet of the OAI contact, the Reviewer, the program and its scores.  The activity is for each OAI Contact to filter the list on themselves as contact, and then sort the programs by score on one dimension at a time — and see if the programs are in a reasonable ordinal order.

The activity continues for each reviewer, to filter on the programs they reviewed and then sort the programs by score on one dimension at a time —  and see if the programs are in a reasonable ordinal order.

The result is a variety of transects across the data, with the opportunity to spot something that is out of order

Different ideas were offered about what to look for:

  1. programs who’s scores were more than 1/2 point out of wack
  2. programs that were not in the right “bin” relative to others in that bin

The spreadsheet looks like this