|
Periodic Program Review
Program Review links | Guidelines
for Systematic Review
All undergraduate programs are required to undergo
a comprehensive periodic program review. The Vice Provost for Academic
Affairs and Deans will set the review timetables for periodic program
review, coordinate the review with regular accrediting reviews of
programs, and ensure that the appropriate procedures are followed
and that reviews are completed in a timely manner.
There are two options for Periodic Program Review.
Option 1: If an undergraduate program is accredited
by a national or other recognized accrediting organization on a
regular basis not to exceed ten years, then the external review
meets the intent of this policy. The final report from the accrediting
body should be sent to the Provost, Dean, and the Department Chair
or Program Director. A program eligible to be reviewed under Option
1 may choose, in consultation with the Dean, to undergo review procedures
outlined in Option 2. Programs are encouraged to use the Option
2 review procedures as an interim or readiness review in preparation
for specialized accrediting review.
Option 2: For programs not eligible for Option 1,
there will be a comprehensive review at least once every six years.
Review Requirements
- Description of program mission and analysis the program's centrality
to the school and university mission and strategic plan
- Program costs as analyzed by the State Council productivity
review
- Actual and projected student enrollments, retention and graduation
rates over the past five years, and employment or post-baccalaureate
study of its graduates
- Quality of faculty in teaching, research, and discipline-related
public service
- Assessment of student attainment of the program learning goals
- Student and alumni satisfaction information using university-wide
survey instruments (must be coordinated with the Office of Institutional
Research and Evaluation)
- Identification and use of similar programs from the university's
peer institution list for comparison and bench-marking in such
areas as curriculum, number of majors, graduation rates, and quality
of faculty. (A library of information about peer institutions
is maintained by the Office of Institutional Research and Evaluation.)
- Evaluation of education support resources including support
staff, advising, teaching space, equipment, computing facilities,
and technical assistance.
- Program goals for next three to five years.
- Specialized accrediting reports where appropriate.
Review Process
According to the review timetable, the Dean will initiate the
review by notifying the Department Chair or Program Director. The Department faculty and Chair or Program Director will select
a review committee of three to five persons representing a mix
of academics from peer institutions (see Appendix C), faculty
from other departments within the university, and professionals
involved in the field either as employers of students or practitioners
of the subject. The review committee may include students or alumni. The Department Chair or Program Director and faculty will conduct
a self-study including, but not limited to, review requirements
specified above, and will submit a self-study report to the review
committee. The review committee will prepare a program review report based
on the self-study and other information it deems appropriate.
Site visits by the review committee are strongly encouraged. The
review committee will send a draft of the report to the Department
Chair or Program Director for comment and corrections (if necessary).
The final report will be sent to the President, Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs, Dean, and Department Chair or
Program Director. A Memorandum of Understanding regarding enhancement strategies,
correction of deficiencies (if any), or plans to eliminate (where
appropriate) will be developed between the Department Chair or
Program Director, Dean, and Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs within six months of receiving the final report. The final
report and the Memorandum of Understanding will be the basis for
a plan of action for the Dean, Department Chair or Program Director,
and faculty and will be a basis for either the next periodic review
or annual monitoring (if required).
Report Format
1. Mission analysis
2. Program cost analysis
3. Enrollment, retention, and graduation rates
4. Faculty quality
5. Assessment of student learning
6. Student and alumni satisfaction
7. Education support resources
8. Peer program bench-marking
9. Program goals
10. Review Committee report
Timetable
The Periodic Program Review process should be initiated
at the beginning of the fall semester and completed within that
academic year.
Program Review links | Guidelines
for Systematic Review
|
