V.4 L&S ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW GUIDELINES, 2001-2002

These guidelines have been superceded by the 
Current Guidelines for Program Review (Sept 2003).  
Program reviews initiated after May 2002 will be conducted under the new guidelines.

In 1999-2000 the L&S Academic Planning Council engaged in a discussion of the program review process and, particularly, of the questions asked of those programs and departments undertaking reviews.  The purpose of this discussion was two-fold:  first, to ensure that the questions asked of departments provoke the sort of introspection necessary for careful program review; and second, to ensure that the reviews themselves are conducted in an efficient, timely and useful manner.  The guidelines below represent the results of that discussion.

1. Purpose of the Review. An academic program review affords a department or program the opportunity to do meaningful planning for the purpose of improving quality. It provides a background for setting goals both in terms of identifying available resources and directions for change. The review process can generate documents for evaluating alternative courses of action since resources are always limited and program needs often change. It also provides a mechanism for assessing the feasibility of planned growth of a program. Finally, reviews satisfy Regent rules for the periodic evaluation of individual programs that are administered by L&S.
   
2. Criteria for Selecting Programs to be Reviewed. The selection of programs to be reviewed will be made by the Dean, upon consultation with the L&S Academic Planning Council and Associate Deans. The following factors (not in priority order) are  considered in scheduling programs for review: elapsed time since last review, relationship of the program to other programs under review, accreditation cycles, planned changes in the program, marked changes in the program profile (e.g., numbers of faculty, student credit hours, majors), indications of difficulties in addressing problems concerning the mission and goals of the program.
   
3. The Review Process. The review consists of a systematic appraisal of the performance and direction of the program. The task of the review is to evaluate the quality of the program in four principal areas: Faculty, Undergraduate and Graduate Education, and Departmental Structure and Resources. The review process has four major stages: self-study, internal review, external review (optional), and Academic Planning Council Review.
   
4. The Self Study. The point of departure for the review is programmatic self-study, resulting in (A) a narrative document and (B) a factual appendix that provides information in support of the narrative.
   

1. Self-Study Narrative. This brief narrative (not exceeding 25 double-spaced pages) is prepared by the program and should reflect the consensus of the program's members. Questions for self-study and review that are relevant to the general quality of programs are appended to these guidelines as Attachment 1. These questions should be considered in the course of preparing the self-study narrative; however, self-studies should reflect the mission and character of individual programs. Care should be taken to communicate the program's vision, while assuring that questions pertaining its current and future quality are also addressed. Finally, at the start of the review process, the Dean may ask that other, more specific questions be addressed in the self-study, just as a program may choose to ask and answer questions of its own. Departments and programs should feel free to seek the guidance of their Associate Dean in any matters related to the self-study process.
   
2. Appendix to the Self-Study. The appendix to the self-study should include factual information supporting any contentions, arguments or requests made in the self-study. Such information may include, but is not limited to, information from the L&S profile, data drawn from assessment efforts, comparisons to peer programs, etc.
   

5. The Internal Review. A response to the self-study is prepared by an internal review committee.
   

1. A four- to five- member internal review committee is appointed from the faculty and academic staff of the University. The Dean appoints an internal review committee and its chair in consultation with the program, the Associate Deans, the Academic Planning Council, and the Dean of the Graduate School.
   
2. The internal review committee interviews faculty and members of the programmatic staff, as well as undergraduate and graduate students. It prepares a series of written questions for discussion with these individuals, to be shared with them in advance. In consultation with the review committee chair and the program, the Dean may ask that the review be performed as a brief (two-day) "site visit," during which time all necessary interviews will be conducted.
   
3. The program should be prepared to provide additional materials upon request to the review committee. A list of materials typically requested is attached to these guidelines as Attachment 2.
   
4. The review committee's deliberations should result in a report to the Dean formulating its answers to the questions it has posed as well as an assessment of the program's strengths and weaknesses. It may choose to make recommendations for actions based on this assessment.
   

6. Report of the Internal Review Committee. The Dean, after receiving the internal review committee's report, solicits a written response, including the correction of any factual errors, from the program. Each member of the program's faculty is invited to submit a written response as well. The Dean then discusses the reports and responses with the Associate Deans, the Academic Planning Council, and the Dean of the Graduate School before preparing a written response.
   
7. The External Review. After discussing the internal review committee's report with those listed above, the Dean under exceptional circumstances may appoint an external review committee, soliciting nominations from the program and other appropriate sources. This two- or three-member external review committee will spend two or three days on campus consulting with the internal review committee, interviewing faculty, staff, students and administrators. It will be asked to report to the Dean its answers to the questions posed and other questions it may wish to raise. In addition, it should provide an overall assessment of the program's strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations as it sees fit. For programs undergoing a brief internal "site visit," external members of the review team may be added at this point as an alternative.
   
8. The Dean reports the results of program reviews to the Provost for inclusion in the university's annual report to the Board of Regents on program review.
   

1. What is the mission of the department or program?
2. What response, if any, was made to the last review?
3. Faculty Recruitment and Retention:
   1. Does the program recruit and retain strong faculty? Do these faculty members become leaders in their disciplines? How does the faculty compare in strength to peer programs at other universities?
   2. What are the priorities and goals of the program for hiring faculty during the next decade? Does the program foresee any shift of emphasis in the fields represented in the program? Are there important areas that should be covered by a program of this size but are not? Are there some areas that now have too much emphasis?
   3. What problems has the program encountered in the hiring of new faculty? What advantages does the program have in the competition for new faculty? What are the disadvantages? What are the plans for dealing with quality replacements, given the age structure of the program?
   4. Are there changes to recommend to the program on the use of resources in making new staffing decisions? Are there changes to recommend on allocation of merit raises, and on strategies for responding to or preempting outside offers to more mobile junior faculty?
   5. What is the appropriate teaching load for members of the program, and what is the rationale for this policy?
   6. What are the program's procedures for evaluating the performance of faculty (both tenured and non-tenured) and staff?
4. Undergraduate Education

1. Does the program attract and produce good students, both majors and non-majors?
2. Does the program provide adequate coverage of its major subject areas, both as they are now defined and as they are likely to develop in the future?
3. What plans does the program have for the improvement of instruction or curricular requirements in its various levels of courses?
4. Does the program offer courses that appear to parallel or duplicate courses in other programs?
5. Does the program schedule courses so as to minimize the likelihood of under-enrollment? Does it use instructional staff efficiently? Does it assure access to needed courses to students at all levels within a reasonable period of time?
6. Has the program recently developed any innovative teaching activities or programs? In what ways does the program recognize and promote excellence in teaching?
7. What role do interdisciplinary activities play in the program?
8. How does the department contribute to the general education goals of L&S?
9. What progress has been made in implementing the program's assessment plan as it affects undergraduate education?

5. Graduate Education

1. How is the research of the program regarded nationally?
2. Does the program attract and retain outstanding graduate students? What is the attrition rate for graduate students? How successful are Ph.D. graduates? Is the size of the graduate program appropriate given the size of the faculty, the support available for graduate students, and future opportunities for an individual obtaining the Ph.D.?
3. Is there a problem with the length of time to completion of the Ph.D. in the program? If so, what can be done to shorten it?
4. Are there actions to be taken to promote the level of excellence in the program, as evidenced by scholarly productivity or by national reputation ranking?
5. Is there a tension between the needs for breadth and depth in the research program?
6. What roles do interdisciplinary activities play within the program?
7. Does the program have an agreed-upon sense of future direction?
8. What progress has been made in implementing the program's assessment plan as it affects graduate education?

6. Structure and Resources

1. Are the program's internal policies and procedures effective and supportive of quality?
2. Do present governance structures adequately promote interdisciplinary activities in the program? What effect does actual or perceived lack of rewards have on interdisciplinary activities?
3. Do faculty members contribute to shared governance outside the program?
4. What might the program do to enhance its outreach activities?
5. Does the program have any organizational arrangements or practices that are worth recommending as a model to similar programs in the College?
6. How adequate are the program's physical and technical facilities?
7. What are the program's major problems that are not related to the level of resources available to it?
8. If new resources were available to serve the program's mission and goals, where or how could they be most effectively applied?

The following materials should be gathered and made available to the review committees upon request. Some items (such as curriculum vitae) may require enough copies for distribution to the entire review committee; programs are encouraged to work with the review committee chair to respond to requests for information. Note: some of these materials may be included in the Appendix to the Self-Study, at the program's discretion.

1. A description of the program's organization, committee, and governance structure.
2. Undergraduate Program materials, such as:

1. curriculum and requirements for undergraduate majors;
2. service courses and their relation to the undergraduate major;
3. enrollment trends;
4. number and quality of majors;
5. undergraduate advising program;
6. student placement upon graduation.

3. Graduate Program materials, such as:

1. curriculum and requirements for graduate majors and minors;
2. enrollment trends;
3. number and GRE scores of those matriculated;
4. number of women, minority, and foreign graduate students matriculated;
5. distribution of majors and dissertators among subfields and major professors;
6. graduate advising program;
7. support levels including type of support (fellowships, TA ships, RA ships, etc.);
8. number of years required to complete the program;
9. placement of graduates.

4. Outreach Program

1. target audiences for outreach programs;
2. types of outreach activities;
3. number of outreach evens per year;
4. outreach publications;
5. estimate of number of persons reached by outreach programs.

5. Faculty

1. incoming and outgoing faculty for the past ten years on a year-by-year basis;
2. faculty profile including age, tenure status, number of women and minority faculty and their percentage representation in the program;
3. current areas of research interests of faculty members;
4. vitae of the program's faculty members;
5. summaries of extramural and Graduate School research support over the past five years.

6. Other Staff (FTEs and source of salary support for each subcategory)

1. non-student instructional staff such as adjunct and clinical professors, visiting professors, lecturers;
2. graduate student personnel such as teaching assistants, research assistants, lecturers;
3. student hourly help;
4. administrative, secretarial and technical support personnel.

Revised 7/6/00 by emk.