Academic Program Review: Policies and Guidelines

Overview

Program review is an opportunity for discovery and renewal, enabling a department or program to reflect upon its strengths, limitations, and future direction. Periodic review also serves as a basis for improving programs, aligning department goals with institutional initiatives, and planning at the department, college, and university levels.

St. Cloud State University, through the Office of Academic Affairs, requires regularly scheduled reviews of all academic programs in accordance with Board of Trustees Policy 3.36 Academic Programs, Part 7, and System Procedure 3.36.1, Part 7.

An academic program for the purpose of program review is a presecribed set of courses, experiences, and other requirements that lead to a formal award: degree, certificate, or minor.

The university requires each academic program, department, or administrative unit to undergo review every six years unless it is subject to review by a specialized accrediting body. The term university review will be used to refer to a review not involving an accredited program. Establishing the annual schedule of reviews is the responsibility of the Office of Academic Affaris in consultation with colleges, departments, programs, and administrative units. Review of a new program will occur as part of a department’s next scheduled review unless the program has its own review cycle. In the absence of other arrangements, initial review of a new program that has its own review cycle will occur in the sixth year of operation, that is, five years admission of the first students.

Accredited programs are subject to review on schedules determined by the respective accrediting bodies. The term acreditation review will be used to refer to a review of an accredited program.

Departments that have both accredited and non-accredited programs must arrange for the appropriate review of each program.

As approved by the Office of Academic Affairs, a non-accredited program in a department that is closely related to an accredited program may undergo review on the same schedule as the accreditation review. If acceptable to the accrediting body, a department may include reviews of non-accredited programs in an accreditation review.

Program review extends beyond academic departments and programs to include all administrative units under the Office of Academic Affairs.

Thecurrent list of programs by the nature of review, university or accredation, appears on http://www.stcloudstate.edu/provost/fac_res.asp .

The current schedule of reviews for departments, programs, and other academic units appears at http://www.stcloudstate.edu/provost/fac_res.asp .

Scope of University Review

The scope of university review may include an entire department, an individual degree program, and in some instances a non-degree program. For department-wide reviews, all programs – undergraduate and graduate, on-campus and off-campus, in-class and on-line – are subject to review unless individual programs are designated for separate review. Departments offering only minors also are subject to program review. The scope of individual reviews is subject to consultation among departments, colleges, and the Office of Academic Affairs.

The basic elements of university review are a self-study followed by an external review to which the department or program may respond. Components of a review typically include but are not limited to: student learning outcomes and their assessment; curriculum; faculty; facilities and equipment; enrollments; financial resources; and planning. External reviewers should have sufficient expertise to examine all dimensions of a department or program indicated in the guidelines for the self-study.

Following completion of a university review, the department or program, in consultation with the dean, must address any recommendations for program improvement that emerge from the process.

Administrative units under the Office of Academic Affairs must address findings and recommendations of reviews in consultation with the provost.

Scope of Accreditation Review

The accreditating body will determine the scope and nature of an accreditation review.

Following completion of an accreditation review, the department or program, in consultation with the dean, must address any recommendations for program improvement that emerge from the process.

Assessment and Program Review

Academic program review relies heavily on assessment of student learning outcomes. Findings from annual assessment reports can help identify areas for improvement and point to remedies on an ongoing basis. The compiliation of these reports, findings, and consequent actions in the interval between reviews provide an invalulable resource in preparing a self-study either for accreditation review or university review.

Conversely, results of program review can be valuable for a department or program in setting directions for assessment of student learning in the assessment cycle that begins after the review

Findings from assessment activities appropriate to administratrive units also are to be a basis of reviews of those units.

Planning and Program Review

Academic planning is a dynamic, ongoing activity that relies on the intensive evaluations of departments and programs that emerge from periodic accreditation and program reviews.

Decisions that emerge from college and university wide planning activities depend on the efforts the individual programs, departments, or administrative units place in reviews.

While planning cycles and review cycles are not always in alignment, the results of program reviews should become part of the planning process as expeditiously as possible.

Academic program review is a key element in department, college, and university planning. From this perspective, program review is a key link between assessment of learning outcomes and planning.

Timelines and Procedures for Program Reviews

University Review

The following timeline for a university review anticipates that completion of the review will occur during the scheduled year of the review. Actual dates might vary depending on circumstances such number of programs, involvement of the Graduate Dean, schedule of the reviewers, and schedule of key partcipants.

The procedures identify individuals responsible for initiating and implementing various tasks largely associated with review of departments and programs. These responsibilities generally involve deans and department chairs or program directors. For matters related to review of administrative units that report to the provost, the terms such as provost and administrative unit head appear in brackets.

The conduct of a university review spans two academic years that begins with consultation about the upcoming review at the outset of the first year and culminates with the receipt of an external review and the conclustion of the second year. Additional discussions about the review and resulting recommendations extend into a third year

Academic Year Before the Scheduled Review

September 1:

● The provost or designee meets with the dean and department chair or program director [or head of the administrative unit] scheduled for review to confirm that a review will occur.

● Consultation also will begin regarding dimensions of the review and specific issues for the review to address.

March 1:

The department or program [or administrative unit] submits to the dean and, as appropriate, graduate dean [or provost] the names of 5-10 possible external reviewers and their credentials. Individuals identified as potential reviewers should have prior experience on at least one review team and should be active in their professional organizations. Because of the institution's commitment to affirmative action and cultural diversity, women and persons of color must be included in the list of potential reviewers.

April 1:

● The college dean, in consultation as approprate with the graduate dean, selects external reviewers from the list proposed by the department or program.

● The department or program [or administrative unit] begins the self-study.

● The college dean notifies the Office of Academic Affairs of decisions regarding the dimensions, issues, and external reviewers for the scheduled review.

Academic Year of the Scheduled Review

October 1:

● The department chair or program director [or head of the administrative unit] contacts reviewers to determine the team leader, inquire about availabile dates for the visit to campus, and obtain the reviewers’ home addresses and Social Security Numbers.

● The chair or director [or head of administrative unit] provides the information to the dean [or provost].

● All parties share among themselves all subsequent correspondence with reviewers.

November 1:

● The department chair or program director [or adminstrative unit head] identifies the leader of review team who is responsible for submitting the report and after consultation with the dean or deans [or provost] schedules a two-day site visit for no later than the following April 1.

● The department chair or program director [or adminstrative unit head] begins processing contracts for external reviewers in consultation with the dean’s office and Business Services. A contract must stipulate a variety of items, including:

- a campus visit and its duration with specification of a date or time frame

- submission of a deliverable (i.e. report and recommendations) with specification of a time frame or date of delivery no later than four weeks after the visit

- required elements in the report, particularly an evaluation of student learning outcomes (Note: The Office of Academic Affairs may withhold reimbursement to a college for a review that does not include these stipulated items. It also may require the department or program [or administrative unit] to repeat the review process if the report does not sufficiently address items expected by the university.)

- payment of compensation for the reviewer upon delivery of the agreed upon report

- payment, including reimbursement for expenses, in the form of an honorarium (Note: The university will cover the additional hotel/living expenses for a Saturday stay as long that reduces total expenditures. The department or program [or administrative unit] should make it clear to the reviewers that they are expected to pay their own expenses up front, but that they will be reimbursed according to MnSCU travel policies.)

December 1:

● The department or program [or administrative unit] completes the draft report based on the self-study.

● The department or program [or administrative unit] distributes copies to the dean [or provost], the Office of Academic Affairs, and, as appropriate, the Graduate Dean for review and comment.

January 2:

The dean [or provost] returns the draft self-study with comments to the depatment or program [or administrative unit].

January 15:

● The department or program makes appropriate revisions to the self-study and makes arrangements for printing at Printing Services.

● The department or program [or administrative unit], in consultation with the dean [or provost], establishes with the reviewers a date or dates for the on-campus visit. The dean [or provost] should be available on the chosen dates to meet with the reviewers.

February 1:

● The department or program sends three copies of the self-study to the dean.

● The dean submits a copy of the self-study to the Office of Academic Affairs and, as appropriate, a copy to the Dean of Graduate Studies.

● The adminisrative unity sends a copy of the self-study to the provost.

● The department or program, in consultation with the dean’s office and Business Services, obtains signed contracts at least two months before the on-campus visit. Reviewers may not conduct the campus visit without signed contracts.

● The department or program sends a copy of the self-study and other pertinent materials, such as catalogs and brochures, to each external reviewer.

● The department or program prepares a tentative schedule of meetings and activities for the on-campus visit, which should last two full days. A schedule typically includes one hour and a half meeting with the dean and associate dean [or provost] early on the first day; a reception for members of the unit and the reviewers on the first evening; and a closing meeting with the college dean, associate dean, and, as appropriate, the Graduate Dean [or provost] at the end of the second day. A sample schedule apears in Appendix A.

● The department or program completes arrangements for travel and lodging for the external reviewers and sends a tentative schedule for the visit, including meetings, meals, and receptions as appropriate, to the dean.

● The dean [or provost] sends letters to the reviewers at least six weeks, preferably two months, before the on-campus visit. These letters should identify required items, including assessment of student learning outcomes, and matters of particular interest to appear in the report. A copy of Academic Program Review: Policies and Guidelines should accompany the letter. A sample letter appears in Appendix B.

February 15:

If appropriate, the dean [or provost] suggests modifications to the schedule for the visit.

March 1:

The department or program sends to the dean a final schedule for the visit by the external reviewers; makes arrangements for the visit, include reserving meeting rooms and arrnanging for meals and beverages; and prepares appropriate documents and exhibits for the reviewers.

April 1:

The visit occurs around this date. The department or program [or administrative unit] secures information/signatures for payment during meetings with consultants. (Note: The university will not reimburse members of a department or program [or administrative unit] for meals associated with the visit. The university will reimburse individuals for trips to the airport under existing travel management policies.)

May 1:

The reviewers submit copies of their final written report directly to the dean and the department chair or program director [or provost and head of administrative unit].

June 1:

The dean [or provost], after consultation with the department or program [or administrative unit] determines whether or not the report meets contractual requirements. If so, the dean [or provost] authorizes payment to the reviewers. If not, the dean [or provost] withholds payments pending arrangement with the reviewers of appropriate revisions.

Academic Year Following the Scheduled Review

Administrative units

July 15:

The administative unit submits a written response to the provost. The response should address the findings and recommendations appearing in the review. For example, the reponse may explain the unit’s priorites, identify strategies to address reviewers' recommendations, or explain why specific recommendations do not seem useful, desirable, or attainable.

August 1:

The provost meets with the administrative unit to discuss the reviewers' report and the unit’s response. This should be an opportunity for the provost and the unit to contemplate how to incorporate the results of the review into the planning process.

Departments and programs

September 15:

The department or program submits a written response to the reviewers’ report to the dean. The response should address the findings and recommendations appearing in the review. For example, the reponse may explain the department’s or program’s priorites, identify strategies to address reviewers' recommendations, or explain why specific recommendations do not seem useful, desirable, or attainable.

October 1:

The dean meets with the department or program to discuss the reviewers' report and the department’s or program’s response. This should be an opportunity for the dean and the department or program to contemplate how to incorporate the results of the review into the planning process.

October 15:

The dean prepares and submits to the department or program a written response within approximately three weeks after that meeting.

November 1:

The department or program provides to the Office of Academic Affairs and, as appropriate, the Graduate Dean a two-page executive summary of the self-study, reviewers' report or comments, department or program response (if applicable), and the written comments of the dean.

Accreditation Review

The timeline for the accreditation review process will vary depending the requirements of the accreditating body and other factorss. However, the general timeframe should fall within these guidelines.

Academic Year Before the Scheduled Review or Earlier

September 1:

The department or program, the dean, and, as appropriate, the Graduate Dean begin consultation regarding dimensions of the review and specific issues for the review to address.

March 1:

● The college dean notifies the Office of Academic Affairs of the information regarding the scope and time of the scheduled review.

● The department or program begins preparations for the review.

Academic Year of the Scheduled Review (Specific dates to be determined by the accreditor)

The department or program completes the draft self-study report for consultation and review by the dean, the Office of Academic Affairs, and, as appropriate, the graduate dean.

The dean, the Office of Academic Affairs, and, as appropriate, the graduate dean, may suggest clarifications to or revisions of the the self-study report resulting from consultation with the department or program.

The department or program submits final self-study report based to the accreditng body.

The accreditation team visits the campus.

The accreditation team submits its report and recommendations.

The department or program responds to the team’s report and recommendations.

The accreditating body makes its decision regarding accreditation.

Academic Year Following the Scheduled Review

September 15:

The department or program submits a written response to the reviewers’ report to the dean. The response should address the findings and recommendations appearing in the review.

October 1:

October 15:

The dean prepares and submits to the department or program a written response within approximately three weeks after that meeting.

November 1:

The department or program provides to the Office of Academic Affairs and, as appropriate, the graduate dean a two-page executive summary of the self-study, reviewers' report or comments, department or program response (if applicable), and the written comments of the college’s dean.

Self-Study – Guidelines for University Review

This section pertains to self-studies by departments and programs that are subject to university program review. Each department or academic program scheduled for a university review must undertake a self-study and produce a report based on the findings. Departments and programs conducting self-studies for accreditation review will follow the requriements and guidelines of the respective accrediting bodies. Administrative units will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of Academic Affairs.

A self-study is an opportunity for a department or program to reflect upon its mission and aspirations, evaluate its circumstances and performance, and present its short and long-term goals. The guidelines appearing below provide a framework for organizing the content of the self-study. A program or department must address the broad topics, but it has flexibility to skip, add, or modify individual items when appropriate. For example, a department that does not offer instruction off-campus does not have to address that subject. The study should include quantitative data as well as non-quantitative information to support observations, findings, and conclusions.

Self-studies encompassing both undergraduate and graduate programs should pay separate attention to each.

Overview of Department or Program

● Overview of the department or program including:

- the program or programs of study (list of courses, credits, course descriptions; interdisciplinary programs; programs offered off-campus or on-line)

-mission of the department or program

● Which recommendations from the most recent review have been achieved? Which have not, and why?

Student Learning Outcomes, Assessment, and Curriculum Development

● What are the student learning outcomes in the program or programs under review?

● Where applicable, how do these outcomes align with standards established by professional societies in the discipline?

● Where applicable, how do these outcomes align with standards established by licensing authorities and expectations of prospective employers of the program’s graduates?

● How does the department or program provide advising for students? [Please include a copy of the departmental advising plan.]

● What opportunities for student development in the discipline or professional area does the department or program provide?

-student organization

-student leadership

-student-faculty research projects

-internships

-joint sponsorship of workshops/seminars

-other opportunities

● How does the department or program assess student learning outcomes [Please include a copy of the department or program assessment plan and copies of annual assessment reports completed since the most recent department or program review.]

● What key findings have emerged from the assessment reports?

● Are findings for off-campus and on-line programs comparable to on-campus programs?

● How has the department or program used assessment data to sustain or improve quality?

● Has the department or program reviewed its assessment practices for validation or improvement?

● What other information has guided decsions regarding program development?

● How has the department or program evolved since the most recent program review?

-new programs, emphases, or courses

-discontinued programs, emphases, or courses

● What is the contribution of the department or program to interdisciplinary programs offered by other units?

Program Need

● How many full-year equivalent enrollments – lower division, upper division, graduate, and total – has the the department or progam generated each year since the last review?

● How many graduates has the department or program program had annually since the last review? [For reviews covering more than one degree program, please report on graduates by program and emphasis or option as well as the total.]

● How many intended and admitted majors and minors does the department or program have?

● Does the department or program have an enrollment management plan? [If so, please include it.]

● What does the department or program do to recruit and prepare future majors?

● What efforts has the department or program undertaken to recruit students from diverse backgrounds?

● How successful has the department or program been in sustaining or increasing the diversity of its students?

● What does graduate follow-up data since the last review reveal about graduates? [Please include graduate follow-up data from Career Services as well as data produced by the department or program.]

-employment related to the discipline or field

-continuation of education

-trends in career paths

● How does the department or program provide the skills that its graduates are likely to need?

● How does the program respond to local, regional, state and/or national needs?

● Does the department or program have an external advisor committee? [If so, please describe its membership, meeting schedule and minutes, and activities.]

● Does the department have interdisciplinary degree programs offered other departments?

● What opportunities exist for starting or expanding off-campus or on-line programs?

● What are the projections – regional, state, national – of the number of jobs that the department’s or program’s graduates are likely to pursue?

● What are economic, technological, cultural, or social factors have affected and are likely to affect the department or program?

● How is the program or programs distinctive or unique?

● Are similar programs offered elsewhere in the state? If so, how do they compare with this one?

Contributions and Outreach

● How does the faculty in the department or program contribute to the institution?

-participating in university-wide committees, task forces, and advisory groups

-participating in MnSCU committees, task forces, and advisory groups

-providing non-credit instruction or customized training

-sponsoring activities on campus

-other

● How does the department or program contribute to the community?

-creating service learning opportunities

-sharing expertise with local community groups

-sponsoring on-campus activities that are open to the community

-sponsoring off-campus activities

-operating a center that serves as a conduit for the above

● Does the department or program work with business, industry, and government?

-St. Cloud area

-Central Minnesota

-statewide

-national and international

● In what ways has the department or program built bridges with other units within the university, interdisciplinary degree programs; jointly sponsored activities

● In what ways has the department or program built bridges with other institutions, particularly within the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System?

-articulation agreements

-other

● Does the department or program sponsor reaearch projects?

-projects completed since the last review

-projects in progress

-projects proposed

● Does the department or program provide resources to support research by individual faculty members?

Faculty Development

● How do the professional training and experience of the department’s or program’s faculty and staff relate to current activities? [Please include a current vita for each faculty and staff.]

-academic programs

-research and other scholarly activity

-community service

● What resources does the department or program provide for faculty development?

● Does the department provide mentoring for new faculty?

● Does the department or program have a plan for faculty development? [If so, please include a copy.]

● How have findings from assessment of learning outcomes informed decisions and plans for faculty development?

● Do plans for faculty development, individually and collectively, align with the department’s or program’s priorities and goals?

-program development

-enrollment growth

-research and other scholarly activity

-community service

-recent and anticipated retirements by faculty members

Costs, Resources, and Decision-making

● How effective is the department’s or program’s decision-making process with regard to elements under its control? [Please provide a description of the process.]

-curriculum

-class scheduling

-resource allocation

-establishment of priorities

● What is the status of the department’s or program’s material resources?

-facilities

-equipment

-technology and techincial support

-library holdings [Include a summary and evaluation of library holdings.]

● How do financial resources (budget) and material resources align with the department’s or program’s current needs and goals?

-student demand

-faculty development

-research and scholarship

-community service

● How have findings from assessment of learning outcomes informed decisions and plans regarding material resources?

● Should programs or activities be suspended or discontinued without changes in current funding or material resources?

● What opportunities exist for obtaining private funding for the department or program?

Planning

● What trends is the department or program experiencing? [Use data for the past five years as compiled by the Office of Institutional Research].

-increasing, decreasing, or stable enrollments

-increasing, decreasing, or stable number of graduates

-comparison with trends in the college and university

-recent and anticipated retirements of faculty members

-other pertinent trends

● What are the changing dimensions of the discipline?

-needs of graduates

-needs of employers

-direction of programs at peer institutions

● What is the department or program doing to stay abreast of disciplinary changes?

● What are the department’s or program's strengths and weaknessess?

-student learning [assessment findings]

-program development

-faculty development

-research and scholarship

-community service

● What are the department’s or program’s to sustain or improve its strengths and to overcome its weaknesses?

● What opprtunities exist to develop interdisciplinary programs?

● What is the department’s strategic plan for the next five and ten years?

-where the department or program sees itself

-how the department or program plans to get there

● How do the department’s or program’s mission, goals, and plans align with and contribute to the college’s mission, goals, and strategic plan?

● How do the department’s or program’s mission and goals align with and contribute to the university’s mission and goals?

Appendix A

SAMPLE ITINERARY/AGENDA FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW VISIT

DAY #1 TIME ACTIVITY

6:00 p.m. Informal reception and meeting for consultants, department

faculty, and invited guests.

DAY #2 TIME ACTIVITY

8:00 a.m. Entrance Interview: Consultants, dean, and associate dean

(and graduate dean for units offering graduate programs).

9:30 a.m. Consultants meet with individual faculty members.

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. Consultants tour department facilities.

2:00 p.m. Consultants meet with undergraduate majors/minors

and/or graduate students.

3:00 p.m. Consultants meet with department.

4:00 p.m. Consultants meet with alumni, employers, community advisory committee, or other appropriate individuals from outside the university.

DAY #3 TIME ACTIVITY

8:30 a.m. Consultants tour Learning Resources Center.

9:00 a.m. Consultants meet with faculty outside of department.

11:00 a.m. Consultants meet together to discuss findings, recommendations.

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. Consultants meet with Department Chair and College Dean.

2:00 p.m. Exit Interview: Consultants meet with Dean, Associate Dean, and,

if appropriate,Graduate Dean.

3:30 p.m. Consultants depart.

Appendix B

SAMPLE LETTER FROM DEAN TO EXTERNAL REVIEWERS IN PREPARATION FOR CAMPUS VISIT

[To external reviewer: name and address]

Thank you for your willingness to serve as a reviewer for the Department of _____. You will provide us with a national perspective and we will learn from your expertise in the field.

To insure that your visit will be beneficial to all parties, the following procedures have been established:

1. In advance of your visit, examine all materials which will have been forwarded to you. Your familiarity with the university, the department and the college will facilitate an improved assessment. For your information I am enclosing a copy of the university’s Academic Program Review: Polcies and Procedures. Documents to be provided from the department will include the university catalog, relevant brochures, and the self study report. The University, College and Department web sites may be helpful: www.stcloudstate.edu; www.stscloudstate.edu/[college]; http://www.stcloudstate.edu/[department]/

2. A list/schedule of personnel we traditionally have reviewers interview will be provide with the self-study materials. These include a broad representative group of faculty, students, graduates administrators and community liaisons individuals. If there are additional key personnel with whom you desire an interview please contact Dr. _____ in advance of your arrival and we will make every effort to include them in your visit schedule.

3. Within a month after your visit, submit a written report which follows the format below:

a. Summary of visit

b. Major findings, to include discussions of

i. The degree of alignment between the department, college and University goals, objectives and mission [College and University Goals attached, departmental goal will be in self study

ii. Quality of the program, including appropriate library and computer facilities, equipment/instrumentation and materials required for the program; guidelines established by learned societies; effects of the program including performance, employment, and satisfaction of graduates.

iii. Scope to the program offerings. Are there sufficient faculty and staff to provide the necessary course offerings and experiences necessary to prepare students? Comment on current and optimal facilities to support programs.

iv. An assessment of the curriculum and faculty in terms of the changing dimensions of the discipline, changing needs of graduates and their employers, and directions of other programs in peer institutions in the nation.

v. An evaluation of the department’s use of assessment of student learning outcomes to improve the curriculum and student learning.

vi. The capability of the department to make timely and efficient decisions. Is there a recognized decision-making procedure?

vii. Departmental efforts to:

· Build bridges with other units in the university, with other colleges and universities, with community organizations, and with business, industry, and government.

· Integrate information technology into teaching and learning.

· Exploring appropriate outside grants and contracts.

· Work with alumni, students, and employers to promote student employability.

· Advance international perspectives and cultural diversity.

viii. Other issues of the program we would appreciate your addressing:

· Enrollment management strategies.

· Future faculty hiring relative to current or future directions in your discipline.

· The balance between preparing students for employment, scholarship, and research in the context of our student aspirations.

· Hiring trends in the field and positioning of the department to prepare students to meet future employment needs.

· Quality of the internship experience.

c. Discussion of findings

1. Strengths

2. Opportunities

3. Weaknesses

4. Threats

5. Other observations

d. Overall Recommendations

The review should address the possible continuation of existing resources for the program and current rates of funding per student.

An external evaluation is no small task. We ask you to consider who we are and what we represent to our students and how through your eyes and experiences we can be better. Our hope is you will enlighten us about creative initiatives occurring in your discipline and how these might be implemented at St. Cloud State University. Your participation in this review process will enable St. Cloud State University to continue to strengthen the educational opportunities it provides students.

If you have any questions about your charge, please contact me by phone (320/308-_____) or by email ([dean]@stcloudstate.edu). Thank you for sharing your expertise with St. Cloud State University.

Sincerely,

[Dean]

Dean, College of _____

Attachment: University and College Goals

C: _____, Chair [Department]

_____, Associate Dean, College of ______