1 USD Guidelines for Academic Program Review Purpose The University of San Diego s academic program review provides a systematic and continuous means of assuring academic excellence in student learning. It is designed to encourage accountability and dialogue among members within the department under review as a selfreflective, continuous process within the broader institutional and discipline-based contexts. The process is meant to assist programs in understanding their distinctive and collaborative roles within the University community and with relevant external constituents. It is provides the foundation for assessing student learning and for making evidence-based plans and decisions to foster improvements at all levels of the institution. Program reviews are integral to planning, resource allocation, and other decision-making within the university. Overview of the four-stage process: 1. Department self-study 2. Program review team report 3. Recommendations of the Academic Review Committee 4. Construction of a multi-year action plan and administrative memorandum of understanding based on recommendations and discussion with the provost, dean, and program administrator. I. Stage 1: Self-Study A. Key Characteristics (refer to template in Appendix 1): 1. Articulation of program mission/goals, and alignment between these and the university s and college s/school s mission and goals. 2. Articulation of program learning outcomes, evidence of effectiveness through outcomes assessment, and alignment with the university s undergraduate goals and outcomes. 3. Description and analysis of data or evidence, including information about the curriculum, the learning environment, students, and faculty. 4. Articulation of the program s promotion of scholarly work, creative productivity, curricular and instructional innovations, and linkages among scholarship, teaching, student learning, and service. 5. Identification of and comparison with benchmark/aspiration programs. 6. Description of service in support of the program s academic mission. 7. Identification of support for student development. 8. Investment in faculty and staff. 9. Evaluation of facilities and equipment. 10. Five-year plan for improvement. B. Program Review Timeline C. Self-Study Preparation: 1. Initiation of process Program chair and dean meet to initiate process of program review. Program chair and department faculty meet to appoint self-study coordinator(s). 2. Resources Self-study coordinators and departmental representatives will be provided guidelines and a template with embedded key characteristics for assistance in formatting the report. Self-study teams will receive training to assist them in the process of program review. The department will receive a standard stipend for program review to be distributed to the self-study coordinator(s) as the department deems appropriate. Self-study teams will receive a set of program-based data tables from the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. Guidelines for APR 1
2 Guidelines for APR 2 D. Conducting Self-Study Inquiry: The template(in Appendix I) assists departments by providing a series of questions in an organized format to ensure fully addressing the key characteristics identified in point I.A. above. Excluding appendices, the self-study report should not exceed 20 pages. Pending permission, programs will receive samples of other program review selfstudies and can consult with program self-study teams that have completed the full cycle successfully. Programs will complete a final self-study report to be issued to program review team of reviewers external to the department, the dean, Academic Review Committee, and the provost. II. Stage 2: External Program Review A. Key Characteristics: 1. The external review provides honest and objective advice to the program, the dean and the provost, about the program s (a) strengths and areas of needed improvement (b) assessment activities, and (c) opportunities and plan for improvement. 2. The external review is completed by a Program Review Team (PRT), composed of two faculty members from external peer programs, and a USD faculty member from another USD program. 3. The external review is based on the program s self-study, a site visit, the dean s response to the self-study, and other materials requested by the PRT itself. B. Choosing Reviewers: 1. The USD faculty member is appointed by the dean s office in consultation with the program faculty. 2. The external reviewers are determined by the dean s office in consultation with the associate provost and program administrator(s). The program administrator(s) sends the vitae of external reviewers to the dean s office. The external reviewers should have the terminal degree, years of experience, and level of teaching appropriate to review the program. It is preferred that at least one of the PRT members has program review experience, knowledge of student learning outcomes assessment, and be familiar with the WASC reaccrediting process. 3. External reviewers are ineligible if they graduated from USD, worked at USD in the last five years, were a prospective candidate at USD, are related to a USD employee, or have other conflicts of interest. External reviewers must disclose their relationships with USD employees. A member of the Academic Review Committee (ARC) cannot serve on the PRT. C. Timeline: 1. Candidates for the PRT are reviewed approximately two-to-four months before the self-study is completed. Once selected, the external reviewers must sign the Letter of Agreement (refer to Appendix II) and fax or return it to the associate provost. 2. The dean s office will send the Self-Study to the PRT a month before the site visit. The dean s office will also send to the PRT in a timely manner: a. The USD Academic Program Review Guidelines and Appendices. b. Information on travel and lodging arrangements (Appendix V). c. The itinerary, local contact information, and the contact information of the external review team member(s) (Appendix III). d. The Letter of Agreement form (Appendix II). e. The PRT Evaluation guidelines (Appendix IV). f. Other relevant documentation. 3. The PRT report should be submitted to the Dean and program within 21 days of the site visit.
3 Guidelines for APR 3 D. Site Visit 1. The typical site visit lasts 1-1/2 to 2 days and 1-2 nights. 2. The external reviewers should arrive before the site visit and meet with the USD PRT team member. This meeting is an opportunity to get acquainted and deal with organizational issues. 3. The PRT should meet with the dean, associate dean, program administrator, and selfstudy coordinator on the first visit day. These meetings provide opportunities to welcome the PRT, give an overview of the program, and answer questions that the PRT may have. 4. Time should be allocated during the site visit for the PRT to meet by itself for discussion. 5. At the end of the site visit, there is an exit meeting with the dean and the associate provost. The external reviewers should end the site visit in consultation with each other regarding the PRT report E. External Review Report 1. The PRT Report should be based on/include the PRT Evaluation Guidelines (refer to Appendix IV). 2. The PRT will determine its members roles in writing the report. 3. The PRT Report is sent to the dean s office, program chair, and the associate provost. 4. The dean and program (including individual faculty) will respond to the PRT report that will be forwarded to the Academic Review Committee (see point III. below). 5. The dean s office ensures that the self-study, the PRT report, and responses to the PRT report are sent to the associate provost as chair of the Academic Review Committee.. F. Reimbursement and Honoraria Procedures (refer to Appendix V). 1. The external reviewers should mail their airline ticket receipts and receipts for other incidental expenses for travel reimbursement to the Associate Provost. 2. Upon receipt of the PRT report, a (honorarium) check is mailed to each of the external reviewers. III. Stage 3: Academic Review Committee Recommendations (from policy document): A. The dean s office will forward the dean s individual response, the self-study, the PRT report, and program administrator and/or faculty s responses (if provided) to the ARC. The dean may also distribute these materials to appropriate internal governing bodies, such as faculty planning committees. B. The ARC will review the self-study, the final PRT report, and any responses to the PRT report. The ARC will take into account current structures in the program under review, program-specific goals, and the educational mission of the academic unit to which the program is assigned. C. The ARC will prepare a report informed by the materials provided in which it comments on the program and makes recommendations by which to achieve program goals. ARC discussions center on identifying areas of agreement or disagreement as found in the self-study, the peer review team report, the dean's response, and the department's response. ARC recommendations then encourage either action in areas where there is agreement or further serious discussions in areas where there is disagreement. D. The ARC will make its recommendations to the Provost with copies to the dean(s) and program administrator(s). Deans may supplement ARC recommendations with their own recommendations to the Provost.
4 Guidelines for APR 4 IV. Stage 4: Administrative Response and Plan (from policy document): The value of academic program review rests on its process, its outcomes, and its usefulness. Because the process and outcomes are developed for purposes of improving educational opportunities, curriculum quality, and program relevance, it is essential that the university make appropriate use of the results. In this section, we will provide a foundation for evidence-based plans and decisions to promote effective change and improvements at all levels of the institution. A. Following the ARC s report, the provost, dean(s), and program administrator(s) will meet to discuss the self-study, PRT report, dean s response and the ARC recommendations. B. The program will review the recommendations from the PRT report, the dean s response, and the ARC review. Together with the dean s office, the program administrator and faculty will redraft a more complete 5-year plan based on those sets of recommendations. Departmental redraft of 5-year plan should include: a. Providing a plan for improvement over the next five years (student learning, curricular development, facilities, faculty recruitment and development, diversity goals, and so forth) based on compilation of feedback generated by the department faculty in the self-study, the external reviewers, the dean, and the ARC. b. Identifying and outlining suggested strategies for responding to each recommendation. c. Prioritizing the recommendations. d. Identifying and listing needed resources to respond to each recommendation, clearly differentiating between those that can be satisfied with existing resources and those needing new resources. e. Outlining a time-line for completion and implementation of each item C. Documenting all actions and providing written reports of progress as scheduled; departments will report on program review process as part of their annual assessment reports to the dean s office. The dean and provost will issue a memorandum of understanding, acknowledging program s action plan with commitments from the dean and provost to provide identified resources to the department during the stipulated timeline. The final goal of academic program review is an action plan that not only records program accomplishments but also acts as a guide for continuous department/program revision and improvement.
5 Guidelines for APR 5 APPENDIX I: SELF STUDY REPORT TEMPLATE I. Introduction and Context: This section describes central features of the program. Information in this section typically include answers to the following: A. Describe the program s mission, goals, and outcomes. Describe briefly how the program contributes to the discipline. B. How are these related to the mission and goals of the school/college and institution? C. In what school or college does the program reside? D. What degrees does it grant and what concentrations are available? E. In what year did the program start? F. What major changes have taken place since the start of the program? G. Identify any special issues or concerns the program will address in this selfstudy, perhaps as a response to a previous self-study or recognition of unique needs or concerns. H. Identify and briefly describe how the program responds to the needs of the communities of interest (these might include students of the school/college in general, students enrolled in the program, program non-university affiliates and sponsors, interested groups in San Diego County, and members of the discipline). II. Evidence of Excellence and Program Accountability: This section provides profiles of the central elements (curriculum, learning environment, students, and faculty), and evidence of student learning effectiveness. This section identifies what the program provides or contributes to the intellectual community. The program profile is based on program planning, curricular assessment using direct and indirect evidence, and data provided by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. A. Curriculum and Learning Environment: How current is the program curriculum? Does it offer sufficient breadth and depth of learning for this particular degree? How well does it align with learning outcomes? Are the courses sequenced and reliably available in sequence? Have external stakeholders, such as practitioners in the field, or compared with similar other programs reviewed the program? Identify benchmark and aspirational programs for comparison and contrast to this program in form and quality. Data for this category might include curricular maps or flow charts to show how curriculum addresses outcomes, a comparison of the program s curriculum with curricula at selected other institutions and with disciplinary/ professional standards, measures of teaching quality and effectiveness (e.g., peer observations and evaluations, faculty self-evaluations, students course evaluations, faculty scholarship on teaching and learning, and formative discussions of pedagogy among faculty and through faculty development), a description of other learning experiences that are relevant to the program goals (e.g., internships, research experiences, study abroad or other international experiences, community-service learning, etc.) as well as how many students participate in those experiences. B. Student Learning and Effectiveness: Are the students achieving the desired learning outcomes for the program? Are they achieving those outcomes at the expected levels of learning, and how is the expected level determined? Are they being retained and graduating in a timely fashion? Are they prepared for advanced study of the world of work? Data for this section might include annual results of direct and indirect assessments of student learning in the program (qualitative and/or quantitative), including the degree to which students achieve the program s desired standards, ongoing efforts by the department to close the loop in responding to assessment results, student retention and graduation rates (disaggregated by demographics), placement of grads in graduate or professional schools, job placements, graduating senior surveys, employer
6 Guidelines for APR 6 critiques of student performance or employer satisfaction surveys, and alumni achievements. C. Students: What is the profile of our students and how does it relate to or enhance the mission and goals of the program? Data might include students gender, ethnicity, average GPAs, standardized test scores (general and discipline-specific), membership in honors societies, retention and graduation rates, post-graduation placement of students. For graduate programs, descriptions could include the various means used to recruit students. D. Faculty: What are the qualifications and achievements of the faculty in the program in relation to program mission and goals? How do faculty members background, expertise, and professional work contribute to the academic excellence of the program? Data might include the proportion of faculty with terminal degrees, institutions from which faculty earned terminal degrees, list of faculty specialties within discipline (and how these align with the program curriculum), distribution of faculty across ranks (and years at institution), diversity of faculty, awards and recognition. During the initial review cycle, data might include a comprehensive record of scholarship and creative activity, external funding, record of professional practice, service to the department, university, and discipline. In subsequent reviews, the emphasis should highlight faculty accomplishments in the previous five-six years. III. Program Sustainability and Support: This section identifies student demand for the program and the degree to which resources are allocated appropriately and are sufficient in amount to maintain program quality. In the dialogue, this section identifies what the program needs to be sustained. A. Demand for the Program: What are the trends in numbers of student major declarations reflected over a 3 to 5 year period? What is happening within the profession, local community, or society generally that identifies an anticipated need for this program in the future? With whom does the program compete for students? What are the unique elements (from benchmarking) that make the program attractive to future students? Data in this section might emphasize how the unique elements identified in I. and II. Contribute to the program s effectiveness. B. Allocation of Resources: 1. Faculty: Are there sufficient numbers of faculty to maintain program quality? Do program faculty have the support they need to do their work? Data in this section might include number of full-time faculty (ratio of FT to PT faculty), studentfaculty ratio, faculty workload, faculty review and evaluation processes, mentoring processes/programs, professional development opportunities/resources (including travel funds), release time for course development, research, etc. 2. Student support: Are their sufficient mechanisms in place to assist students with achieving their academic goals? Data in this section might include listing academic programs and resources, tutoring and supplemental instruction, basic skills remediation, support for connecting general learning requirements to discipline requirements, orientation and transition programs, financial support, support for engagement across the community, support for non-cognitive variables of success (including emotional, psychological, and physical interventions if necessary). 3. Information and technology services: What IT resources are currently used by the program? Are there adequate IT resources for adequately sustaining the program? Data in this section might include library print and electronic holdings in the teaching and research areas of the program, information literacy outcomes for graduates, technology resources available to support pedagogy and research in the program, technology resources available to support students program needs.
7 Guidelines for APR 7 4. Facilities: What facilities and unique space or equipment (e.g., labs) are used by the program? Are the facilities adequate for sustaining the quality of the program? Data in this section might include classroom space, instructional laboratories, research laboratories, office space, student study spaces, access to classrooms suited for IT purposes, and access to classrooms designed for alternative learning styles/universal design. 5. Financial resources: What do the operational budget trends (revenues and expenditures) show over a 3 to 5 year period? Evidence in this category might include increasing or decreasing revenues in areas directly related to sustainability issues (e.g., no increases or replacements in tenure lines with rising numbers of students, or little funding available for necessary equipment to keep students current in the practice of their fields). IV. Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement: This section of the report is a general analysis or interpretation of the evidence for program excellence and effectiveness, and support for sustainability. Its purpose is to provide an overview of the program s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. Here are a few general examples of questions that might be addressed in this section: Are the curriculum, practices, processes, and resources properly aligned with the goals of the program? Are the department/ program goals aligned with the goals of the constituents that the program serves? Are program goals being achieved? Are student learning outcomes being achieved at the expected level? V. Program Plan for Improvement: In this section, we return to one of the listed purposes of program review providing a foundation for evidence-based plans and decisions to promote effective change and improvements at all levels of the institution. This section also provides the essential transition to the next review cycle. Answers to questions would include: What is the program s plan for improvement over the next five years (student learning, curricular development, facilities, faculty recruitment and development, diversity goals, etc.)? If the program has been reviewed under the current guidelines within the last 5 years, it should indicate how the current program plan is integrated with the department s existing action plan and review recommendations. What are the core objectives and priorities and what is the projected action to be taken for each item? What opportunities exist to extend and build on present strengths and what are the major obstacles that impede the department/program s progress? What improvements are possible through reallocating existing resources and what improvements will require additional resources? How will the department/program position itself given the changes likely to take place within the discipline over the next five to ten years? Departments should note that they will produce a redraft of the five-year plan as part of the process in Stage 4.
8 Guidelines for APR 8 APPENDIX II: LETTER OF AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO EXTERNAL REVIEW PARTICIPATION Thank you for serving on the Program Review Team (PRT) for the University of San Diego. For your participation you receive an honorarium (negotiated by the dean) and reimbursement for travel to and from USD. As a member of the PRT, your responsibilities would include reviewing the self-study and any additional relevant materials delivered to you a month prior to your site visit. You will also be invited to participate in a PRT briefing (dinner or breakfast) at the onset of the visit. On the site visit, you will meet with faculty, students, staff, and senior administrators. From the conclusion of the site visit, you have 21 days to produce your report. Every program review requires the utmost care in preserving confidentiality. The Peer Review Team will secure all documents and refrain from discussing issues with anyone other than the Peer Review Team or USD faculty and staff. We would also expect that any personal and/or professional ties you may have with the department faculty would not affect your ability to serve with complete candor. Occasionally, the PRT may hear allegations of misconduct (e.g., harassment, falsification) during the site visit. It is not the PRT s responsibility to handle these allegations. They should be reported to the USD PRT member, who will discuss them with the appropriate USD official. If you agree with these terms, please sign and date, then fax back to the Office of the Executive Vice-President and Provost, c/o Andrew Allen, Associate Provost at (619) Print Name/Signature Date Associate Provost Date
9 Guidelines for APR 9 APPENDIX III: Sample Visit Schedule and Contact Information The site visit begins with a team briefing dinner or breakfast for the PRT the night before or morning of the two-day visit. This meeting is an opportunity to get acquainted and review the itinerary. The PRT will meet with the dean, the dean s office coordinator (associate dean, etc.), and program administration on the first day of the visit. Meetings with various faculty groups are scheduled throughout the visit. Time is allotted for the PRT to meet by itself, particularly during the first evening and for several periods on the second day. At the end of the site visit, the PRT should have an exit meeting with the dean, program administration and program faculty. Arrangements need to be made for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the PRT for the duration of the visit. Below is a typical schedule: Dinner Day 1: Day 2: Breakfast Meet with the dean, dean s office coordinator, the program administrator, and various faculty groups, students, the entire department together (lunch includes one of these) Review departmental materials Dinner for external reviewers only Breakfast Meetings with various faculty groups, students (lunch includes one of these) Observational summaries and report preparation Exit meetings with department chair and dean; meeting with associate provost Final PRT meeting The PRT should also be given important contact numbers: Peer Review Team USD member: Peer Review Team external member: Peer Review Team external member: Program Chair or program review coordinator: Dean: Associate Provost: Andy Allen phone: (619) Hotel (if required): Hacienda Hotel: (619)
10 Guidelines for APR 10 APPENDIX IV: PRT EVALUATION REPORT GUIDELINES The external review provides honest and objective advice to the program, the dean and the provost, about the program s mission and relation to University and/or community with attention to (a) assessment of student learning and the curricular environment, (b) strengths and areas of needed improvement, and (c) opportunities and plan for improvement. As each of these areas is addressed in the report, the PRT is encouraged to note any convergence or discrepancies between the self-study and the site visit observations. It would also be important to review any issues or concerns raised by the dean or program administrator in their discussions with the PRT. When considering assessment of student learning and the curricular environment you might consider using the following illustrative questions as a guide: Do you recommend any changes in the program s student learning outcomes? In what ways could the program improve its assessment processes? In what ways could the program improve its discussions around observed student learning? Do you recommend any changes to improve student experiences and learning environment? How are assessment results used in the program s planning processes? When considering a program s strengths and areas of needed improvement, you might use the following questions as a guide: How well do the faculty areas of expertise support the program s curriculum? In what ways does the system for evaluating teaching practices facilitate continuous improvement? In what ways are the faculty supported and encouraged to pursue professional development to stay current in their disciplines? Are resources allocated to the program adequate? This might include financial resources like faculty lines or budgets and physical resources such as facilities, equipment and technology. Do you recommend any changes to strengthen the program s current administration, support, and resources (including possible reallocations of resources from current program operations to fund new budgetary needs)? When considering opportunities and plan for improvement you might consider using the following illustrative questions as a guide: What is your evaluation of the program s plan for improvement? How realistic are these plans? What improvements are possible with existing resources (through reallocation)? What improvements can only be addressed through additional resources? What suggestions do you have to improve program quality?
11 Guidelines for APR 11 APPENDIX V: EXPENSES Department Expenses Expenses such as copying, drinks and snacks, should be determined in consultation with the appropriate Dean. Peer Review Team Expenses Check requests, petty cash forms or expense reports should be sent to the Associate Provost for approval. Forms are available online from the Accounting Office's web site found at: Please follow all Account Payable policies (such as including original invoices and taping small receipts to sheets of paper). Travel The external reviewer should make his or her own plane reservations and be reimbursed (please remind them to submit original passenger receipt, baggage claim tickets or boarding passes, not just the e-ticket print out from the web site). The University will reimburse round-trip, coach airfare. Lodging The Hospitality Suite on campus is free of charge. It must be the first lodging choice for an external reviewer before departments/areas seek other lodging accommodations. Complete the Hospitality Suite Reservation form (found at: and to If there are two external reviewers who need lodging, or the Hospitality Suite is booked, the reviewers may make reservations at the Hacienda Hotel ( ) in Old Town (Corporate Acct. L244). Please identify the sponsoring USD department when calling to make reservations. The Hacienda offers a free breakfast and a dinner voucher Monday-Friday. Or reviewers may use the Holiday Inn Express in Old Town by calling ( , extension 402, and asking for USD Direct Bill reservations. An should be sent to the associate provost at with reviewers' names and reservation dates. Food and Other Expenses The Provost s Office will provide program faculty coordinators with an Advantage card for meals on campus, and will reimburse the external reviewers for meal and local travel expenses associated with the visit. Meal expenses should be held within the $64/day per diem rate for San Diego (or the current per diem rate is as published on the US General Services web site).
GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW POLICY Texas Southern University The Purposes of Graduate Program Review Graduate program review at Texas Southern University exists to ensure that programs are functioning at the
Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs Self-Study Guidelines Office of the Provost Fall 2009 Purpose This guide is designed to support academic unit efforts to evaluate undergraduate academic programs
Academic Program Review SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Program Overview... 3 A. Introduction and Historical Context... 3 B. Relationship to Mission and Strategic Plan... 3 C. Program Description...
Draft Policy on Graduate Education Preface/Introduction Over the past two decades, the number and types of graduate programs have increased dramatically. In particular, the development of clinical master
Template for Departmental Report for Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities Self Study (The most critical information is in Italic) Standard One: Mission and Goals, Planning and Effectiveness
Policy Abstract for the Handbook for Program Review: Cleveland State University s Self-Study Process for Growth and Change Spring 2005 Significant institutional resources are devoted to academic program
DOCTORAL PROGRAMS It is the policy of the university to allow development of new doctoral programs (either independent or programs developed in conjunction with other institutions). Joint doctoral programs
Appendix A Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards A new Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards has been approved by the CSWE Board of Directors in April 2008. Preamble Social work practice
Guidelines for External Reviews of Academic Departments and Programs This document contains information for departments and programs conducting external reviews, including: 1. Guidelines for external reviews
SELF-STUDY GUIDELINES Part I: Program History, Mission, and Administrative Structure I.1 Program History Briefly describe the historical development of the program and associated components. I.2 Mission
Graduate Program Review Process Summary Prepared By: Nathan Risling B.Comm, M.P.A. Coordinator, Graduate Program Review College of Graduate Studies & Research Ph: (306) 966-1606 email@example.com
Review of the B.A., B.S. in Criminal Justice Sciences 43.0104 Context and overview. The B.A., B.S. in Criminal Justice Sciences program is housed in the Department of Criminal Justice Sciences within the
2. Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards Preamble Social work practice promotes human well-being by strengthening opportunities, resources, and capacities of people in their environments and by
Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards Copyright 2001, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Sections renumbered December 2001, released April 2002, corrected May 2002, July
ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW HANDBOOK: EXPLAINING THE PROCESS Eighth Edition THIS DOCUMENT SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS PROGRAM REVIEW HANDBOOKS AND IS ONE OF TWO DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PROGRAM REVIEW Please direct
Council for Standards in Human Service Education National Standards MASTER S DEGREE IN HUMAN SERVICES http://www.cshse.org 2013 (2010, 2009) I. GENERALPROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS A. Institutional Requirements
AACSB Self Evaluation Report Documentation Supporting Materials and Timeline The Self Evaluation Report is a critical document in achieving initial accreditation. Ours is due May 15, 2012. To reach this
The National Communication Association s Standards for Undergraduate Communication Programs Updated April, 2011 A variety of disciplinary organizations have developed specialized accreditation standards
Introduction: The Clinical Faculty College of Education Clinical Faculty Appointment and Promotion Criteria Provost Approved 11/11/11 In accordance with University guidelines most professional programs
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE PROVOST UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15260 JULY, 2002 Guidelines for Conducting Evaluations of Academic Programs
Part 3 Ministry Of Education And Higher Education Directorate General of Higher Education Part III Self-Study Report Template LABE SELF-STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE http://www.labe.org.lb General Instructions Introduction
Sample Questions for External Reviewers Introduction The purpose of the academic program review is to assess: 1. the program s contribution to the vision, mission and values of the University; 2. the quality
Santa Clara University Guidelines for Academic Program Review April 7, 2014 SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW Table of Contents Sec. 1 Introduction 3 Sec. 2 Eight-Year Program
Current as of March 12, 2012 Weber State University Information Technology Program Review Handbook March 12, 2012 Table of Contents WSU and Information Technology Mission Statements...3 Purpose & Goals
A. Contributions to Teaching Department of Child & Family Development Promotion and Tenure Guidelines November 2004 The Standard Teaching communicates knowledge to students and develops in them the desire
2011 Outcomes Assessment Accreditation Handbook Associate Degree Programs Baccalaureate Degree Programs Master Degree Programs Accreditation Policies can be found in a separate document on the ATMAE website
CPME 120 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITING COLLEGES OF PODIATRIC MEDICINE COUNCIL ON PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION This document is concerned with ensuring the quality and improvement of colleges
JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY Academic Program Review Guidelines History of Academic Program Review at JMU Revised 02/22/10 Academic Program Review (APR) was first undertaken at James Madison University (JMU)
1 Dean of the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences Texas Southern University invites nominations and applications for the position of Dean of the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (COPHS). Reporting
North Dakota State University College of Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Sciences Strategic Plan 2013 2016 CRITICAL ISSUE I Secure sufficient financial, physical and human resources to maintain high quality
Nomination and Selection of External Consultants for Graduate Program Reviews Graduate Programs External Consultants are required for the review of all new programs (with the exception of new collaborative
GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW For self-studies due to the Office of the Provost on October 1, 2015 GRADUATE PROGRAMS OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM REVIEW At Illinois State University, primary responsibility
Getty College of Arts and Sciences Strategic Plan, 2011-16 Mission The Getty College of Arts and Sciences provides a broad-based education that fosters innovative problem-solving skills and teaches students
Appendix H External Program Review Guide Program Review Overview Every department or academic program at Texas A&M University-Texarkana undergoes the academic program review process at least once every
1 Regional Accreditation of Oakland University April 6-8, 2009 Oakland University is accredited by: The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools NCA accredits
Page 1 of 8 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES` IN-DEPTH PROGRAM REVIEWS The process of evaluation is an important ingredient of any successful academic program. Periodic evaluations provide
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Graduate Degree Program Review Revised Format for the Self-Study Report Instructions: Designed for the eight-year review of graduate degree programs,
COMING TOGETHER, ENVISIONING THE FUTURE: THE STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 MISSION & VISION 1 STRENGTHS, CONSTRAINTS, OPPORTUNITIES 2
Review of the M.A., M.S. in Psychology 42.0101 Overview of the program. The M.A., M.S. in Psychology program is housed in the Department of Psychology within the College of Arts and Sciences. Other programs
University of Delaware College of Health Sciences Department of Behavioral Health and Nutrition GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION, TENURE AND REVIEW I. INTRODUCTION The mission of the Department of Behavioral Health
NOVA SCOTIA COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN (NSCAD UNIVERSITY) QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS SELF-STUDY REPORT GUIDE EXTERNAL REVIEW GUIDE ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW TIMELINE
Page 1 of 12 UW-Madison Plan for the Assessment of Student Learning JANUARY 2015 Page 2 of 12 This document describes a strategic and systematic process of improving the quality of degree and co-curricular
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE COLLEGE OF NURSING AND HEALTH PROFESSIONS PEER REVIEW The College of Nursing and Health Professions Peer Review Process follows requirements stipulated in the AFUM contract
Academic Program Reviews Guidelines for Conducting a Self-Study [Revised January 2014; available at http://academicplanning.gwu.edu/academic-program-reviews] The self-study is the vital initial element
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES PLAN Undergraduate and Graduate Programs DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK Introduction Our Student Outcomes Plan begins with our department s mission which is linked to the university
Page 1 of 32 STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION OF POSTSECONDARY CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION DEGREE PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 3. CURRICULUM 4. FACULTY
RYERSON UNIVERSITY POLICY OF SENATE PERIODIC PROGRAM REVIEW OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS Policy Number 126 Previous Approvals: April 5, 2005; May 6, 2008; November 2, 2010; May 3, 2011, May 3,
University Policy Statement UPS 210.001 RECRUITMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF TENURE-TRACK FACULTY I. INTRODUCTION The goal for recruitments is to appoint a high quality and diverse faculty utilizing an effective,
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT NEW PALTZ Five-Year Strategic Plan Revised June 1, 2008 by Chih-Yang Tsai, Associate Dean This strategic plan for the School of Business is the result
Guidelines for Massachusetts Early Educator Preparation Programs Participating in the Early Childhood Educator Scholarships Program Background The Departments of Higher Education and Early Education and
PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT TEMPLATE Seventh Edition Note: The following pages constitute the template for all Program Review Reports. Do not change the order or the wording of any items and respond where indicated.
Accelerated Graduate Degree Programs Proposal Template Overview. This template was created to: 1) provide a general overview of the basic elements of accelerated graduate degree programs at the University
Education Code section 44270.5 allows an examination alternative to the Administrative Services preparation program as long as the examination is aligned with the current Administrative Services Program
Approved: 2/23/099 Department of History Policy 1.1 Faculty Evaluation Evaluation Procedures 1. The Department of History will evaluate all tenured and non-tenure faculty by March 1 of each academic year
C. HIRING PROCESS FOR FACULTY AND ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS This document details the process for hiring faculty and academic professionals. Under the process, deans have the discretion to delegate approval
Approved by Academic Affairs May 2010 DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION POLICY ON REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION (RTP) I. DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING RTP POLICY A. Preamble B.
Management Competencies and Sample Indicators for the Improvement of Adult Education Programs A Publication of Building Professional Development Partnerships for Adult Educators Project PRO-NET April 2001
INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION SELF STUDY GUIDE INTRODUCTION Degree granting institutions in New York State may designate the New York State Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education as their nationally
National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Standards for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions November 2009 Standards for Institutional Accreditation in
Strategic Planning View Plans OSU System Home System at a Glance System News Administration School of Applied Health and Educational Psychology This is the School of Applied Health and Educational Psychology
Procedures for Implementing New Graduate Programs 1 MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAMS 2 Introduction There are three possible ways to propose new master's degree programs: the standard process (involves two steps),
Master of Health Care Administration Program Strategic Plan 2008 2010 The faculty and staff of the MHA program met and developed the following document. Included are foundational statements that include:
Standards for Accreditation of Master s Programs in Library and Information Studies Adopted by approval of the Council of the American Library Association, February 2, 2015 Purpose of Accreditation Introduction
Staff Analysis Checklist Request to Offer a New Degree Program Board of Governors, State University System of Florida University Submitting Proposal Initial Review Date Proposed Implementation Term Last
10/23/03 DEPARTMENT PLAN The Department of Counseling, Educational, and Developmental Psychology College of Education and Human Development Eastern Washington University Cheney ω Spokane Washington Formally
SCHOOL OF NURSING FACULTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR RETENTION, PROMOTION, TENURE, AND PERIODIC REVIEW This document is to be used in conjunction with the UA Board of Regents policies, University
INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY Approval: Responsibility: Contact Office: University Senate; Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council) Provost and Vice President Academic
NDSU GUIDELINES FOR SELF STUDY PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT September 11, 2015 The purpose of preparing the self study report is to Meet the requirements of the State Board of Higher Education NDSU policy (SBHE
College of Medicine Promotion and Tenure Procedure FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY Approved by majority vote of College Faculty March 25, 2014 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Governance... 1 a. Membership...
MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Board of Regents Board Office Accreditation Report for Baccalaureate Program in Social Work, University of Northern Iowa Date: March 6, 2000 Recommended Action: Receive the
Johns Hopkins University (JHU) School of Nursing (SON) Master Evaluation Plan (MEP) The SON MEP focuses on congruence between SON and JHU goals, and between SON academic s and professional nursing standards;
Action Plan for the Graduate College Feb. 2012 Western Michigan University Introduction The working premises of this plan are that graduate education at WMU is integral to the identity and mission of the
1 St. John s University College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions Annual Objectives 2010-2011 Revised 7/22/10 Institutional Goal I: Develop our academic and institutional culture to be studentcentered
STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT REPORT SUBMITTED BY: C.KOPAC AND M. VENZKE DATE: JUNE 26, 2014 REVISED JANUARY 2015 TO MEET UAC RECOMMENDATIONS SEE BELOW- HEADING HIGHLIGHTED IN GREY BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHERE
Department of Nursing Criteria for Nursing Faculty Promotion The promotion of a faculty member is determined by merit. Teaching, creative scholarship and professional qualifications, and professional service
GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW For self-studies due to the Office of the Provost on October 1, 2016 RESEARCH AND SERVICE CENTERS OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM REVIEW Primary responsibility for maintaining
The School of Education & Human Services The University of Michigan Flint Standards and Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Introduction The primary mission of the University of Michigan Flint is to be the
June, 2015 Agenda Items I.1.a.(1) and I.1.a.(2) REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT A DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION DEGREE IN STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION AND LEADERSHIP AT UW-LA CROSSE PREAPARED BY UW-LA
Review of the B.A., B.S. in Political Science 45.1001 Context and overview. The B.A., B.S. in Political Science program is housed in the Department of Politics and Government within the College of Arts