Five-Year Periodic Program Review
Periodic academic program reviews provide a systematic approach for ensuring and 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 facilitate 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 the 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 5-7 years
• Programs with professional accreditation - follow the accreditation cycle
• Programs with concerns may be required to have more frequent (expedited) reviews or follow-ups
Steps in the Process
1. Dean convenes Chair(s) of programs scheduled for review in a meeting with a member of the Provost leadership team.
2. Chair establishes a timeline and identifies faculty to compile Self-Study
3. Program recommends and Dean selects external reviewer(s) who are scheduled for the semester following completion of the self-study
4. External reviewer(s) conduct on-site visit and submit a report of the review within 6 weeks of completing the visit
5. External reviewer(s) submit Final Review by early Spring Semester
6. Dean and Chair meet with the Provost to discuss findings and establish an action plan that includes the following:
a. Statement of overall academic health of the program
b. Agreed upon changes to curriculum or other issues that need to be addressed
c. Identification of resource needs, if any
d. Timetable to address identified issues
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.)
• Program positioning (competitors, what distinguishes Lesley's program)
• Program adaptability (meeting changes in market and employer needs)
• Future directions/strategic plans (internal and external environment)
Specific Data to be included in Self-Study (Provided by Office of the Provost or Chief Information Officer)
• 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 that includes a timeline, detailing how the program plans to build on the strengths and address any weaknesses identified.
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 market and employment needs?
- What is the contextual/regulatory environment (if any) relevant to this program?
- Who are key competitors and how does our program compare?
- How is the program regarded in the “market?” What evidence do you have?
- 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 this program contribute to the institutional mission and strategic vision?
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 and learning outcomes
- 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 are the results of assessment used to inform ongoing program implementation and program development?
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?
- 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? i.e., FTE, qualifications, scholarly/creative contributions, professional/disciplinary leadership
- What roles do faculty play in course development, faculty mentoring, student advising?
- What evidence do we have of faculty teaching effectiveness?
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?
- 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: Adapted from 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.
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.
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