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