Program Selection and Evaluation
The goal of the program selection process is to collaboratively develop and support a sustainable portfolio of safe, effective, and academically meaningful global learning opportunities that advance student success, experiential learning, and institutional priorities.
Program selection considers both the academic and strategic value of a program and the institutional resources required to support it.
The selection process includes the following steps:
- College review: Dean's Designees review proposals using the Program Proposal Evaluation Rubric and assess alignment with college priorities.
- OGO evaluation: OGO reviews for integration of place-based learning, student access and recruitment, program design and logistics, and the preliminary risk review.
- Workload assessment: OGO evaluates anticipated staffing, support, and implementation requirements using the Program Workload Matrix.
- Portfolio selection: Outcomes from above reviews are used to develop a sustainable portfolio of programs that can be effectively supported and successfully delivered.
Deans and college leadership play an important role in identifying which programs most directly support their college's academic priorities and student needs.
Because OGO has limited staffing capacity, a favorable proposal evaluation does not guarantee selection. Some programs may need to be modified, deferred, or not offered in a given cycle.
Evaluation
Program proposals are evaluated using two complementary tools designed to support a transparent, consistent, and resource-conscious selection process.
Program Proposal Evaluation Rubric
The Proposal Evaluation Rubric assesses the academic and strategic value of each program as well as the logistical viability.
Proposals undergo both college-level and OGO review, with consideration given to:
- Alignment with University strategy and college priorities.
- Academic quality, curricular integration, and contributions to degree completion.
- Opportunities for experiential and work-based learning.
- Student demand, access, affordability, and anticipated enrollment.
- Program leadership, design, and operational feasibility.
- Meaningful engagement with host communities and cultures.
- Health, safety, and risk management considerations.
Proposals will be consistently evaluated using a standardized scoring framework, which will inform program prioritization.
Each college will have a Dean's Designee who is responsible for the proposal review and scoring according to College goals and priorities. This may include financial approval for college-funded programming.
Dean's Designees are as listed below:
| College | Dean Designee |
|---|---|
| Chaddock + Morrow College of Fine Arts | Karla Hackenmiller hackenmi@ohio.edu Associate Dean |
College of Arts and Sciences | TBC |
| College of Business | Andrew Pueschel pueschel@ohio.edu Director, CIBED |
| College of Health Sciences and Professions | TBC |
| Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine | TBC |
| Honors Tutorial College | TBC |
| Patton College of Education | Connie Patterson patterc1@ohio.edu Associate Dean |
| Regional Higher Education | TBC |
| Russ College of Engineering and Technology | TBC |
| Scripps College of Communication | TBC |
| University College | TBC |
Program Workload Matrix
The Program Workload Matrix evaluates the amount of OGO staff support required to develop and administer each program.
Programs vary significantly in their operational complexity. The workload assessment considers factors such as:
- Whether a program is new or recurring;
- Program director experience;
- Budget and financial complexity;
- Logistical coordination, including transportation, accommodations, and onsite arrangements;
- Whether a program is using a provider such as WorldStrides;
- Student enrollment strategy and specialized advising requirements;
- Program locations, itinerary complexity, and risk management needs.
Each program receives a workload score reflecting the anticipated level of staff involvement. Lower scores indicate programs requiring less OGO support, while higher scores indicate programs requiring more extensive resources.
OGO's capacity is determined by the cumulative workload of the program portfolio, rather than a fixed number of programs. Consequently, the number of programs selected each cycle will depend on the types and complexity of the proposals received.