Provost

4.6 Academic Program Review

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 to improve the effectiveness of each academic program and to make timely, well-informed decisions about program priorities and resource utilization. The program review shall be conducted by the Undergraduate Affairs Committee or Graduate Studies Committee as appropriate to the level of the program.

4.6.1 Process

Each degree program is reviewed on a regular cycle by the Undergraduate Affairs/Graduate Studies Committee in cooperation with the program faculty, college dean, and Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. 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 college 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 survey on learning support.

Program review materials are distributed by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness by June 1. Annual assessment reports are due from the colleges to the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness by August 25. Program review information is due from Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness to the Undergraduate Affairs/Graduate Studies by September 1. Committee recommendations are due to the provost by October 15.

The Academic Program Review for graduate programs is available through the Office of the Provost.

4.6.2 Criteria and Evidence

Program review materials will be evaluated based on the following criteria: quality, enrollment demand and graduation rates, cost/productivity, need/relevance, and graduate level standards, if applicable.

1. Quality indicators
   1. Student performance: Types of evidence include 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 include terminal degrees and professional achievements.
   3. Learning support: Types of evidence include student and faculty satisfaction; data on access, use, services, and equipment or holdings.
   4. Evidence of on-going assessment and continuous improvement.
2. Enrollment Demand and Graduation Rates evaluation: Types of evidence: enrollment and graduation trend data.
3. Cost/Productivity
   1. 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 college are budgeted in accordance with an institutional formula and do not differ from program to program.
4. Need/Relevance
   1. Types of evidence: course support to other degree programs; assistance in meeting critical workforce needs; relation to institutional mission and priorities.
5. Graduate-level Standards
   1. If the program is a graduate one, the academic college shall 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.
6. Assessment Plans
   1. Each degree program shall submit an assessment plan detailing program goals, expected learning outcomes, assessment measures, timeline, and how results will be used for program improvement.

4.6.3 Committee Recommendations

The Undergraduate Affairs Committee or Graduate or Studies Committee should

1. Review criteria, process, and information provided.
2. Develop any questions and concerns and consult with program faculty, dean, and/or Provost, as relevant.
3. Make recommendations to Provost, to be shared with Academic Affairs Leadership Team, and Report to Faculty Council.

The 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.