Periodic and Expedited Program Review

Five-Year Periodic Program Review

Periodic academic program reviews provide a systematic approach for documenting the quality of academic programs. Through this process, faculty and administrators work collaboratively to identify programs and areas that may need additional attention. The ultimate goal is to ensure program excellence and develop strategies for continuous improvement. Targets of the review are curriculum integrity, coherence of course offerings, quality of teaching, expertise of the faculty, and student learning outcomes. To be optimally meaningful, the program review is informed by data collected since the last program review. Thus, a program review is an assessment of the past, a statement of the present, and a plan for the future.

Goals of Program Review

Improve the quality of the program
Ensure the quality of instruction
Document student learning outcomes
Maintain currency in the discipline
Assess the resource needs of the program to support academic planning
Demonstrate accountability to specialized accreditation/approval bodies

Frequency of Reviews

Programs that do not have professional accreditation – every 5 years
Programs with professional accreditation - follow the accreditation cycle
Programs with concerns may be required to have more frequent reviews or follow-ups

Steps in the Process

Dean notifies Chair in Fall-A that review will commence in subsequent Fall-B Semester
Chair identifies faculty to compile Self-Study by end of Spring-B Semester
External Reviewer(s) selected and notified by end of Spring-A Semester
External reviewer(s) conduct on-site visit in Fall-C Semester
External reviewer(s) submit Final Review by early Spring-C Semester
Dean and Chair meet with Provost to discuss findings and implications of Review
Provost, Dean, and Chair produce a memorandum of understanding that contains:
1. Statement of overall academic health of the program
2. Agreed upon changes to curriculum or other issues that need to be addressed
3. Identification of resource needs
4. Time table to address identified issues

Required Sections of the Self-Study

(see Key Areas for Program Review for sample guiding questions)

Mission and history
Program policies and processes
Program content, learning outcomes and assessment
Program relationship to other programs and/or degree levels
Student demographics, retention and completion; alumni and employer satisfaction
Program resources (faculty, technology, library, facilities, etc.)
Future directions/strategic plans (internal and external environment)

Specific Data to be included in Self-Study (Provided by Institutional Research)

Student information: demographics, enrollment, retention and completion data
Alumni information: career and further education
Instructional delivery information: course enrollments and credits delivered by modality, core faculty workload, adjunct utilization
Assessment information: APAR reports, use of data from the assessment of student learning outcomes

Potential Outcomes of Periodic Program Review

Accommodations as an excellent program with no issues to address
Accommodations as a quality program, with minor or few issues to address
Program needing significant improvement within a specified time frame
Program identified for phase-out

Within 90 days of the report of the external reviewer, the program shall develop an action plan detailing how the program plans to build on the strengths and address any weaknesses identified.

Expedited Institutional Review

The academic Deans and the Provost regularly receive data on enrollment trends, student retention, graduation rates, average class size, student evaluations, and faculty activities. As these data are shared with Department Chairs and Division Directors on a regular basis, trends will become common knowledge. Deans are encouraged to discuss these data with the appropriate people in their respective schools/colleges. In between regular program reviews, particular attention is paid to programs with declining enrollments trends, low graduation rates, or evidence of unsatisfactory teaching. Unsatisfactory teaching may be evidenced by some combination of 1) below average teaching evaluations over a number of semesters, 2) students not meeting learning objectives, 3) insufficient depth in the curriculum, 4) absence of faculty with expertise in necessary areas, 5) out of date equipment, instrumentation or facilities, and 6) insufficient number of faculty.

If evidence becomes available that suggests that a program is not living up to the University’s expectations of providing a quality educational experience for students, the Provost, in conjunction with the Dean and the Department chair or Division Head, will initiate a conversation that may lead to an expedited review of the program. The primary goal of such a review would be to determine if there are ways in which the University can strengthen the program to a level of excellence; or, if strengthening is not possible, develop a thoughtful plan for phasing out the program. An expedited review should take place over a period of not more than six (6) months to allow for a timely, but thorough analysis.

Expedited Institutional Review Process

Step One (Pre-Review Meeting)

The Provost and Dean shall meet with the Department Chair or Division Director (DC/DL), an academic advisor, and the program faculty for a full discussion of the information that is leading to the need for an expedited review. Differences of interpretation of the data will be considered and the need for other information will be identified.

Step Two

A small internal review team (here after referred to as “the review team”), comprised of the Dean, the Department Chair or Division Director, an appropriate number of faculty from the program, and one faculty member from outside of the unit, will come together to conduct a study of the factors that have created the concerns about the program (e.g. declining enrollment trends, changing market, lack of adequate faculty, poor student advising practices, ineffective marketing strategies, lack of institutional resources, etc.) In the first meeting, the review team will set a six-month meeting timeline and discuss the kind of information and resources that will be needed from the Provost or other parties in order to adequately review the program.

Step Three

Academic Advisory Committee (AAC) will be notified that an expedited review has been initiated, along with the information that gave rise to the review and a tentative timeline for completion of the review. Thereafter, the review team will provide status reports on the expedited review at the monthly meetings of AAC until the review is concluded and a final decision is made. The role of AAC throughout the process will be to monitor the process and provide advice to the Provost and the review team as it conducts its review.

Step Four

An “expedited institutional review report” will be written by the review team, with a detailed set of recommendations for strengthening the program or a clear recommendation for phasing out the program and its potential impact on other programs. That report will be presented to AAC by the Dean of the school, accompanied by other members of the review team, and discussed at one of its regular monthly meetings, as final input to the Provost.

Step Five

The Provost will review the Report and input from AAC, gather any additional information deemed necessary, and meet with the program faculty to discuss the report before making a decision.

Step Six

If the decision is to strengthen the program, the Provost will work with the Dean and the faculty of the program to develop a detailed Program Improvement Plan. This Plan may require the services of an external consultant, equipment upgrades, funding for faculty development, funding for curriculum development, or other resources.

In the event that a phase out is deemed necessary, the following steps will be followed:

Step Seven

The Provost will meet with the Dean, the program faculty, and the advising staff to notify them of the decision to phase out the program and a tentative time table for doing so.

Step Eight

The Dean will notify the faculty of the school of the decision to phase out the program and the tentative time table for doing so.

Key Areas for Program Review: Sample questions to guide the self-study

Mission and General Overview

What is a brief history of the unit/program, i.e., how has it evolved and how have the original expectations changed and why?
How has the program adapted to changing student demographics and needs?
What is the contextual/regulatory environment (if any) relevant to this program?
Is the unit/program guided by a unified vision/conceptual framework?
Who are key competitors and how does our program compare?
How is the program regarded in the “market?”
Is this program unique in serving students (i.e., it is not offered at any other institution) or does it offer a learning experience that is unique in some way?
How does the program relate to the professional field and to careers in the field?
How does the program vision/mission relate to the school in which it is located and to the institution?
Does the program serve a societal need the institution values?
How does this program contribute to the institutional mission and strategic vision?
How is this program connected to other institutional or program initiatives?

Program Procedures, Content and Learning Outcomes

Does the unit have published policies and procedures, or accepted practices for:
- Program and course development and approval
- Regular program, curriculum and course review
- Monitoring and reviewing student academic progress
- Mentoring of course and program content, and faculty teaching
How has the curriculum been reviewed and how has it changed to incorporate changes in the field and to meet the changing needs of students?
How are field-based learning opportunities integrated into the program?
Does the program have clearly articulated learning goals/outcomes linked to courses or experiences in the program for which faculty and students must show accountability in teaching and learning?
What evidence do we have to document student learning outcomes?
How do we assess students?
How are the results of assessment used to inform ongoing program implementation and program development?
Have delivery formats been adapted to meet the changing needs of students? (e.g., intensive, evening and weekend)

Students Demographics, Enrollment, Retention and Completion

What is the external demand for this program? Do there appear to be trends in admissions/enrollment data?
What are the characteristics of our students?
Is/how is the student population changing?
- Admissions data
- Demographic data (age, gender, race/ethnicity)
- Enrollment trends
- Student/faculty ratio
- Graduation/completion rates
How are students advised and supported?
What evidence do we have of alumni satisfaction and accomplishment?
What evidence do we have of employer satisfaction?
How many students are being served? Credit hours generated? Degrees or certificates awarded?

Faculty

What are the characteristics of faculty:
- Degrees
- Years of relevant experience
- Scholarly and creative contributions to field
- Currency of participation in professional field or academic discipline
- Ratio of full/part-time instructors
How many faculty and staff are assigned (teaching and non-teaching responsibilities)?
What roles do faculty play in course development, faculty mentoring, student advising?
What evidence do we have of faculty teaching effectiveness?
What documentation do we have of the public service contributions of faculty?

Other Resources and Facilities

How has the program taken advantages of new technologies to enrich the curriculum, enhance student learning, and prepare students to function in the high tech world?
How current are equipment and course materials?
Does the program have the necessary laboratories, studios or specialized facilities?
Are library resources and services sufficient to support the program?
How do the services of Student Learning and Academic Development contribute to student success in this program?
To what extent are students engaged in co-curricular activities? How do co-curricular activities contribute to outcomes for this program?
To what extent are the facilities conducive to quality learning experiences?
What resources does the program generate? e.g., enrollment, grants, fundraising, special fees or events, relationships benefiting the institution
What costs are associated with this program?
What investments would need to be made to maintain or increase the quality?

Future Considerations

Could this program benefit from new collaborations or relationships (internal or external)?
Could productivity be increased by cost containment or technological innovations?
What are new possibilities for curriculum/program delivery?
What is the strategic plan for keeping pace with changes in the field, for attracting and serving new populations?

Sources: Inquiry questions from SOE Quality Project 10/04

Dickeson, R. C. Prioritizing academic programs and services: Reallocating resources to achieve strategic balance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Guide for an Expedited Program Review Report

Expedited Review Triggers and Analysis

What information gave rise to the need for expedited review?
- Long-term or dramatic enrollment declines
- Inability to retain good faculty
- Lack of resources to replace vacant positions over an extended period of time
- Student complaints about curriculum, faculty, advising
- Inability of students to get jobs in their field
- Inadequate facilities, equipment to stay current
- Inadequate number of core faculty
- Evidence of program being out of touch with current field

Mission and General Program Information

Brief History of program
Program resources (FTE faculty, FTE staff, Space, Equipment, other)
Uniqueness of program (comparison to other programs in area)
Typical employment or advanced education opportunities followed by graduates
Alignment with University mission and strategic plan

Program Statistics

Enrollment trends over last 5 years
Student retention and graduation rates
Student/faculty ratios over last 5 years
Contribution margin over last 5 years
Student profiles (HS, GPA, SAT)
Performance on any standardized tests, licensure, etc.
Budget over 3-5 year period

Program Curriculum and Student Learning Outcomes

Structure of the curriculum
Course syllabi well written with clear guidance to students
Content of courses is current and captures student interest
Faculty qualified to teach at all levels
Curriculum has appropriate depth, especially at upper levels
Faculty have expertise across the specializations
Faculty actively engaged in assessment of student learning

Proposed strategies for addressing identified problems

Explore the ways in which other institutions have addressed this issue
Seek new leadership
Employ an external consultant to provide guidance
The unit should take advantage of other resources on campus
Hiring X number of new faculty would greatly strengthen the program
Faculty need to be more creative in recruiting, teaching, and engaging students
The institution needs to reassess the resource support for this unit

Recommendations

First draft revised by S. Williams and V. Carlo on March 9, 2015

Second draft revised on March 29, 2015 after input from AAC

Third draft revised on April 21, 2015 after input from AAC

Fourth draft revised on April 29, 2015 after input from AAC Co-Chair V. Carlo

Approved by Provost Williams on Oct 6, 2015. Omission of step nine in the expedited review

Up one level

Academic Policies