Academic Policy  1620.12

Guidelines for Program/Department Review

  1. Required Components of Self Study and Report
    The institutional goals will provide a primary basis for program review: 1) improving academic quality and reputation; 2) increasing the size and quality of the student body; 3) enhancing diversity among students, faculty, and staff; 4) increasing public support, particularly from federal and state governments; 5) increasing private support.

    Within this framework and consistent with institutional goals, departments will be expected to identify specific objectives for the programs of study and research in which the department is engaged, including service and other outreach and entrepreneurial activities, as part of the basis for review.

    Self-Study documents will respond to the following items as the first step in program review.

    Append the profile data provided by the Office of Institutional Research, University Libraries, and Treasurer’s Office for reference as needed in the report. Provide a statement on departmental endowment resources, including annual income, expenditures and general descriptions of the sources and magnitude of the gifts to the department endowment from alumni and other sources. Also append summary data on program inputs such as student profile (average high school GPA, average ACT score, college GPA) and faculty member summary of highlights (two-page summary for each faculty member and professional staff member listing credentials and most recent notable achievements). Provide a statement on faculty turnover for the previous five years including numbers of departures and circumstances including reasons for leaving.
    1. Provide quantitative and qualitative evidence from direct and indirect measures of the extent to which the intended educational (learning) outcomes of each program in the department are being achieved. Include benchmarking data. Provide three years of data. Cite evidence that strong performance is recognized when identified through annual review or other processes. Cite evidence that unsatisfactory performance is addressed.
        [Note: evidence will be expected to include such things as achievement on senior exams, projects, capstone courses, standardized test scores and rankings including licensure and GRE exams, honor rankings, professional placement and job offers (including acceptance for post-graduate study), competitive achievements within the discipline, alumni distinction and achievement. If the program offers a PhD degree, provide a profile of the graduates of the program during the previous 5 to 10 years with positions currently held and a brief statement on accomplishments. Provide organizational process for analyzing results of inferences drawn from evidence of student performance and learning. Cite changes made to the curriculum or the way it is offered as a result of the assessment of the learning outcomes. Provide time lines for intended teaching program enhancement and growth.]
    2. Provide quantitative and qualitative evidence from direct and indirect measures of the extent to which the intended research and creative outcomes of each program in the department are being achieved. Include benchmarking data. Provide three years of data. Cite evidence that strong performance is recognized when identified through annual review or other processes. Cite evidence that unsatisfactory performance is addressed.
        [Note: evidence will be expected to include such things as quantity and quality of publications, performances, shows, presentations, citations, awards, grants, and contracts. Provide time lines for intended research program enhancement and growth.]
    3. Provide quantitative and qualitative evidence from direct and indirect measures of the extent to which the intended outreach/service/entrepreneurial outcomes of department/program initiatives are being achieved. Include benchmarking data. Provide three years of data. Cite examples that strong performance is recognized when identified through annual review or other processes. Cite evidence that unsatisfactory performance is addressed.
        [Note: evidence will be expected to include such things as assessment of program effectiveness, numbers and types of services or programs provided, numbers and types of participants and recipients of services, partnerships and other collaborative and joint ventures, income and resources expended and gained. Provide time lines for intended service program enhancement and growth.]
    4. Provide evidence of breadth/focus and currency for each program, including the program’s consistency with good practice as exemplified in peer institutions and as identified by professional organization(s). Cite evidence of the coherence and integration of all required courses and activities within the program design. Cite evidence that programs systematically introduce students throughout the program experience to their prospective workplaces and professionals in the field. Cite evidence of how students are systematically involved in research and service by program requirements and activities.
    5. Provide qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding how the department promotes and supports those interdisciplinary initiatives in which it or its faculty participate.
    6. Provide evidence of quality and quantity of academic advising and mentoring of students at each level of study. Include evidence to document inputs (preparation, maintenance of student files, and structure) and outcomes (student progress, retention, and satisfaction). Cite examples that strong performance is recognized when identified through annual review or other processes. Cite evidence that unsatisfactory performance is addressed.
    7. Provide evidence that understanding of and respect for cultural diversity is reflected in the curriculum of each program, in program activities, in assignments of program responsibilities and duties; in honors, awards, and scholarship recognition; in recruitment. Cite evidence that strong performance is recognized when identified through annual review or other processes. Cite evidence of means used to address lack of cultural understanding and respect for cultural differences in the curriculum, teaching, learning, department activities. Include outcomes data.
    8. Cite evidence of kinds of support provided for retention of qualified students from term to term and of support for student progress toward and achievement of graduation or their alternate academic goals. Include outcomes data.
    9. Analyze and cite evidence of the extent to which resources from all sources are adequate/inadequate to support progress toward program, department and institutional goals. Identify the additional/different resources (including policy, practice, and organizational structure) that would most contribute to the program/department’s ability to meet institutional goals.
    10. Cite evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of department operations and programs.
    11. For programs that provide professional training, cite evidence of job prospects for graduates of each across the next five years.

      For programs not linked to specific professions/occupations, cite evidence of the extent to which graduates are able to find jobs or further education to meet their expectations.

      Cite any evidence for change in job prospects during the next five years.
    12. Identify challenges facing the program(s)/department that could be addressed or ameliorated without additional funding.
    13. Provide any additional information that will facilitate an understanding of the program/department operations, status, goals, and achievements. Should the department wish to identify needed changes in operations, programs, or other changes in direction, that statement should be included along with a rationale related to benchmarking and good practice.
    14. Conclusion: Explain and interpret the data provided in 1-13 in the context of the department’s recent history (most recent 7-years). Cite any unusual achievements and challenges. Relate the data to that for programs and initiative counterparts at peer institutions where possible.

Reformatted for Web October 1, 2014
5/21/10