Guidelines for
Academic Program Review

I. Purpose

Program review is intended to be a positive, collegial undertaking conducted for the purpose of improving the quality of academic programs and the stewardship of institutional resources. Its major purposes are:

    A. To improve the effectiveness of each academic program.

B. To make timely, well-informed decisions about program priorities and resource support.

II. Process

Each degree program is reviewed on a regular cycle by the Program Review Committee in cooperation with the program faculty, school dean, and Office of Institutional Research. Recommended changes in program content or standards will proceed through the established academic governance process. Recommended changes to supporting resources will proceed through the established budgetary process.

Annual assessment reports from the school dean are combined with other data to provide the information base for a comprehensive review of designated programs when they come up in the cycle. Other data include number of majors and graduates, formula revenues, costs, credentials of the program faculty, and student surveys.

Program review reports are due from the schools to Institutional Research before the beginning of the fall semester. Program review information is due from Institutional Research to the Program Review Committee by early fall semester. Committee recommendations are due to the Provost by the late fall.

III. Criteria and Evidence

A. Quality

1. Student Performance

Types of evidence: achievement of stated learning expectations, comparative test scores, admission to a higher-level degree program, employment, student and alumni satisfaction.

2. Faculty qualifications

Types of evidence: terminal degrees and professional achievements.

3. Learning support

Types of evidence: student and faculty satisfaction; data on access, use, services, and equipment or holdings.

B. Enrollment Demand and Graduation Rates

Types of evidence: enrollment and graduation trend data

C. Cost/productivity

Types of evidence: Since state formula funding is intended to track average program costs, the student-faculty ratio, adjusted for graduate/undergraduate mix, will be used as a comparative productivity measure. Other considerations include operating costs particular to a given program, as well as any corresponding fees. Collaboration that results in resource sharing is also worth noting. Routine operating expenses for each school are budgeted in accordance with an institutional formula and do not differ from program to program.

D. Need/Relevance

Types of evidence: course support to other degree programs; assistance in meeting critical workforce needs; relation to institutional mission and priorities.

E.      Graduate-level Standards

If the program is a graduate one, the academic school should provide indication of how the expectations and standards of the program are appropriate for that level, as distinguished from undergraduate programs. Evidence may include reference to faculty credentials, admission standards, student assignments, evaluation procedures, etc.

IV. Responsibility for Information and Process

Provost & Deans

  • Select programs for review
  • Provide information on faculty qualifications

Deans

  • Provide annual assessment report
  • Provide any relevant data not covered below
  • Provide, with program faculty, a response to criterion E above

Program faculty

  •  Respond to surveys and other requests for information.
  • Meet with Academic Affairs Committee, as requested

Institutional Research Office

  • Provide enrollment and graduation data
  • Provide cost and productivity data
  • Note any off-setting fees or other revenues or enhancements particular to the program
  • Assemble all data and provide to Committee and Provost

Program Review Committee (A joint committee of the Graduate Studies Committee and the Undergraduate Affaires Committee):

  • Review criteria, process, and information provided
  •  Develop any questions and concerns and consult with program faculty, dean, and/or provost, as relevant
  • Make recommendations to Provost (to be shared with Academic Council) and report to Faculty Council

V. Analysis and Recommendations of the Committee

Analysis should demonstrate how student performance/assessment directed continuous improvement in the program.

Analysis should include a brief summary of perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program with regard to the program-review criteria.

Recommendations should note any changes that appear to be desirable with regard to program quality, effectiveness, cost, and resource support.

VI. Cycle of Reviews

1998-1999: Psychology, Management, Counseling

1999-2000: Humanities, Accounting, BSIS (elementary education)

2000-2001: Communications, MAIS, Secondary Education

2001-2002: Criminal Justice, BAAS, AED

2002-2003: Computer Science/Mathematics, MBA, C and I (graduate)

2003-2004: Psychology, Management, Counseling

2004-2005: Humanities, Biology, Accounting, BSIS (elementary education)

2005-2006: Communications, MAIS, Secondary Education

2006-2007: BAAS, Criminal Justice, AED, MBA

2007-2008: Computer Science/Math (BS), Psychology, Marketing, C&I

2008-2009: Nursing (BSN), Biology, Global MBA, CED

Back

  
 

 

Institutional Research Office

 

Academic Program:_______________________________    Date:_____________

Program Student: 

1. Enrollment

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Undergraduate

 

 

 

 

 

PB

 

 

 

 

 

Graduate

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

2.   Degrees awarded   

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Undergraduate

 

 

 

 

 

Graduate

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

Program Faculty: 

 1.  __________  Full-time* faculty (head count primarily assigned to program)

 2. __________   Part-time** faculty FTE (fall semester)

3. __________   Total faculty FTE

4. __________   % of Full-time faculty with terminal degree in field or related field

5.  __________   % of Part-time faculty with terminal degree in field or related field

6.  __________ Average number of professional publications by full-time faculty in past 3 years and percent of faculty involved

7. __________  Average number of professional conference presentations by full-time faculty in past 3 years and percent of faculty involved 

8. __________  Average number of external grants awarded to full-time faculty in past 3 years and percent of faculty involved

9. __________  Average number and percent of full-time faculty holding office or performing significant services to professional organizations in the past 3 years

10.__________ Average number and percent of full-time faculty engaged in significant public service related to their professional field in past 3 years

* Deans are included when they teach (one course as 0.25 FTE). Faculty on modified or half-time contracts count as 0.5 FTE.
**Part-time FTE count as .2 per 3-credit course.

Costs/Productivity (IR Officer):

The following data are based on fall semester credits generated, formula revenue projection  (at 100%), and average faculty salary expenditures for the fall semester.  All credits generated by the faculty member are attributed to the faculty member, regardless of course classification.

 

Program

Institution

Variance

1. Full-time faculty (headcount)

 

 

 

a.  Average credits generated

 

 

 

b.  Student-faculty ratio

 

 

 

2.  Part-time faculty (FTE at .2 per course )             

 

 

 

a.  Average credits generated

 

 

 

b.  Student-faculty ratio

 

 

 

3.  Combination of full-time and  part-time FTE

 

 

 

a.   Average credits generated per faculty FTE

 

 

 

b.  FTE student-FTE faculty ratio

 

 

 

c.  Average formula revenue per faculty FTE

 

 

 

d.  Average salary expenditure per faculty FTE

 

 

 

4.      Any unusual M & O costs particular to the program (M&O is otherwise assigned by formula)

 

 

 

5.      Any special fees or other revenues generated by program

 

 

 
 
     
 

 

 

School Dean & Program Coordinator     

Assessment of Student Learning

Academic Program: ________________________________Date:______________

Please use the form for the assessment. You may type on the form or attach files to the form.

1. 1.  Please briefly describe the goal of the program.

 

 

2. 2.  List below or attach a copy of the expected learning outcomes (student learning objectives) for the program.

 

 

3.      Indicate the primary methods of assessing whether the expected results have been achieved and the criteria of measurement.

 

 

4. Summarize learning outcome assessment.

a.    Include the assessment results and comments on the actual learning outcomes for the past year or assessment interval, especially in relation to expected results in step 1.

b.   Include any relevant information gathered, such as survey on student/alumni satisfaction, job placement, and employer satisfaction. Indicate how the survey data is reviewed and used.

 

 

5. Indicate how assessment information is used in efforts to improve the effectiveness of the program, noting examples and/or documentation.

Attach any documents tracking the use of the assessment information.

 

Back
 		  
 

 

 

Program Faculty

Program:________________________ Date:_______________

Your program is up for its turn in the 6-year cycle of program reviews. A description of the Academic Program Review procedures is attached. You are asked to assist the Academic Affairs Committee and the Provost’s office by responding to the following questions and completing the attached questionnaire. Email it back to the Office of Institutional Research.

Please note what you consider to be significant accomplishments, issues, and/or concerns for this program related to:

1. Enrollments

 

2. Student performance

 

3. Faculty credentials and professional involvement and contribution

 

4. Resource support

 

5. Learning support (complete attached survey)

 

6. Other Comments

 

Back

  
 

 

 

Program Review Committee

 

The cyclical review of academic degree programs is intended to provide collegial, comprehensive attention to the quality and resources of each program, as well as to comply with accreditation mandates. It is additional and complementary to the annual assessment reports done by each school and the routine assessment of student learning results in the program. The review focuses on the overall performance of a program, including enrollment and fiscal data.

The review process is not perfect. The data available may not be sufficiently program specific, and data that could be helpful may not be collected or may not be compiled in a way most useful to analysis. Especially in the case of interdisciplinary programs (MAIS, Secondary Education, etc.), it is difficult to represent data in an informative way, and not all of the review procedures may be applicable. The intention, therefore, must be to provide meaningful review, while recognizing the limitations and cost/benefit considerations involved in compiling and communicating relevant data.

Relevant questions to ask of any program are the following:

  • Are the expected learning outcomes of the program clearly defined?
  • Are credible procedures in place for assessing the expected outcomes in the program?
  • Are the results of assessment being used to try to improve the program?
  • Do faculty have appropriate credentials for the level of instruction?
  • Are faculty participating in the professional life of their discipline?
  • Are enrollments and graduation rates stable, growing, or declining?
  • Are student-faculty ratios reasonably in line with university averages?
  • What kinds of information would be helpful for future reviews of the program?

Data on salary costs and formula revenue are provided for comparative purposes, but do not warrant much analysis. Salary costs are mainly related to field, rank, and years in rank. Formula revenues must cover a good deal more than faculty salaries. The student/faculty ratio provides the best overall indicator of program productivity.

The committee should feel free to call on the provost, institutional research officer, dean, or program faculty, should it have questions or need further information. Also, the institution’s Fact Book contains a good deal of data that may be helpful. Committee recommendations are due to the Provost by early November.

Back

  
 

 

 

Learning Support Survey

Academic Program: ________________________________ Date: ______________

Please indicate your assessment of learning support for the program in each of the following areas.

 

More Than Adequate

Adequate

Less Than Adequate

Not
Applicable

Library

        

Books

        

Periodicals

        

Data Bases

        

Technology

        

Study space

        

Hours of operation

        

Services provided

        

Information Technology

        

Technology Equipment

        

Hours of operation

        

Services provided

        

On-Line Course Support

        

Hours of operation

        

Services provided

        

Academic Center

        

Hours of operation

        

Testing and tutoring services

        

Facilities and other resources

        

Classrooms

        

Labs

        

Instructional equipment

        

Please provide explanation on any areas considered less than adequate.

 

Back

  
 

 

 

Time Table for 2006-07 Program Review

2006-2007: BAAS, Criminal Justice, AED, MBA

6/4/2007

IR distributes program review documents

8/10/2007

Program review reports are due from the schools to IR

8/20/2007

Fall semester starts

9/3/2007

Program review information is due from IR to the Program Review Committee

11/3/2007

Committee recommendations are due to the Provost
 

Back

  

Back