1 PROCEDURES Doctoral Academic Program Review California State University, Stanislaus Self Study Elements for Academic Program Review for Doctoral Programs Program Improvement from Last Academic Program Review 1. Summarize major changes from the previous academic program review, particularly related to currency of the curriculum and its responsiveness to disciplinary trends nationally. 2. Describe and evaluate the impact of actions taken in response to recommendations made in the previous APR. Student Profile 3. Describe and evaluate headcount number of student majors currently in program. Institutional Research (IR) Table 2.5: CSU Degree Program Headcount Enrollment by Demographic Characteristics 4. Describe and evaluate demographic characteristics (including types of current and advancement in positions/employment). IR Table 2.5: CSU Degree Program Headcount Enrollment by Demographic Characteristics 5. Describe and evaluate FTES generated. IR Table 7.1: Academic Discipline Profile by Discipline and Course Level 6. Describe and evaluate the student/faculty ratio. IR Table 7.1: Academic Discipline Profile by Discipline and Course Level 7. Evaluate the programʹs success and challenges for recruiting and graduating high quality doctoral students, including those who represent diverse backgrounds. IR Table 2.5: CSU Degree Program Headcount Enrollment by Demographic Characteristics IR Report to be generated: Program GRE scores IR Report to be generated: iskills/icritical Thinking Assessment scores Program Report: Doctoral Executive Council Report on Written Qualifying Examination Enrollment Trends 8. Describe and evaluate the number of graduates annually since last program review. IR Table 4.5 Degrees Conferred by CSU Degree Program and Demographic Characteristics 9. Describe and evaluate the annual retention rates overall and by demographics. IR Report to be generated: Annual Retention Rates for Doctoral Students 10. Describe and evaluate the graduation rate. IR Report to be generated: Annual Graduation Rates for Doctoral Students 11. Describe and evaluate the average time to degree. IR Report to be generated: Average Time to Degree for Doctoral Students Faculty Profile 12. Summarize and evaluate the number and FTEF total currently and trend over the past 5 years; display by category of tenured/tenure track/lecturer, ethnicity, gender, years of service. Evaluate faculty expertise for covering the breadth of the curriculum. IR Table 7.1: Academic Discipline Profile by Discipline and Course Level IR Table 8.1: Full Time Faculty and Staff Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Primary Occupational Activity, and Department
2 IR Table 8.2: Part Time Faculty and Staff by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Primary Occupational Activity, and Department IR Table 8.3: Full Time Faculty by Faculty Status, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Academic Rank, and Department IR Report to be generated: The National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (Delaware Study) 13. Evaluate faculty workload and deployment for program delivery. IR Report generated: : Number of courses taught, headcount, FTES, and positions generated per faculty per semester; average workload for doctoral faculty Program Report: Faculty assigned time for research and related doctoral responsibilities; amount derived from program funding (state/self support) and from extramural funding 14. Describe and evaluate faculty scholarship. Program Report: Curriculum vitae for each faculty, including list of peer reviewed/invited RSCA, works in press, type and amount of grants in support of RSCA, and other scholarly endeavors, fellowships, new courses in past five years, professional awards and honors, consulting work, retraining in other specializations or disciplines, participation in national/regional/local professional activities, community service related to academic field. (OR Annual Reports are submitted by each doctoral faculty as part of responsibilities identified in by laws and included in the Research Compendium, using template so can document annual progress disaggregated and aggregated.) 15. Describe and evaluate faculty scholarship of practice, if applicable. 16. Address how faculty practice contributes to the teaching/learning process and enhances the program, if applicable. 17. Describe and evaluate the types of faculty practice and the varied practice roles faculty assume, if applicable. 18. Evaluate program support for and faculty involvement in professional development activities. Program Quality 19. Mission and Vision Evaluate how the program s mission and vision reflects disciplinary trends and regional needs. IR Report to generated: Findings from California Academic Performance Index IR Report: Employer Survey Results 20. Program Distinction Describe the distinctiveness or strengths of the program in comparison to programs at other comparable universities in California or nation, as appropriate. The National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (Delaware Study) 21. Curricular Rigor Evaluate the level of academic rigor evidenced in the doctoral programʹs curricular design, course delivery, and expectations for superior student performance. Program Report: Current doctoral course syllabus from each faculty teaching doctoral courses. 22. Program Delivery Evaluate the effectiveness of the methods used for delivering the program. 23. Quality of Instruction Evaluate the quality of faculty engagement in an ongoing inquiry into their teaching proficiency and the processes of teaching and learning to promote high academic rigor. What is the relationship between current teaching practices and learning effectiveness? Evaluate how well the program encourages, evaluates, and rewards high quality teaching. IR Report: Aggregate IDEA results or other appropriate assessment information 24. Doctoral Research Culture Describe and evaluate the learning environment so as to help diverse students meet the academic standards and goals of the program, especially focused on the quantity and quality of student independent and student/faculty collaborative scholarship, publications, presentations, and involvement/contributions to professional organizations.
3 Program Report: Evidentiary set of exhibits that demonstrates the program facultyʹs creation and evaluation of a strong doctoral culture, and faculty and student scholarship as a core element of doctoral education. 25. Dissertation Evaluate quality of dissertations. Program Report: Evidentiary exhibit that demonstrates use of specific criteria in the evaluation and determination of the quality of dissertation research. 26. Student Perceptions of Program Quality Evaluate the results of institutional research related to student perceptions of program quality. IR Report: Graduate Alumni and Graduate Exit Surveys Program Report: Student Focus Group Summary of Findings Promoting/Monitoring/Evaluating Student Learning 27. Summarize the methods, results, and use of the assessment of student learning for improvement of program. Program Report: Assessment plan, curriculum map, and annual assessment reports that address how well students are learning. 28. Evaluate the effectiveness of the program in ensuring students achieve the program goals and learning objectives for doctoral education. Budgeting and Resources 29. Evaluate the quality and adequacy of library resources (holdings; electronic, acquisitions, expenditures). University Library Report: University Library holdings/ expenditures 30. Evaluate the extent to which the current fiscal support is adequate to support the doctoral program (faculty, students, professional development/travel, research, staffing, and equipment). 31. Identify any realistic actions that might be taken at the University level to strengthen or improve programʹs effectiveness. 32. Describe additional external financial support received in the last five years. Describe/evaluate current efforts to obtain such support. Program Infrastructure 33. Evaluate the effectiveness of the program s infrastructure, program leadership, and quality assurance processes for ensuring integrity of operations, collaborative decision making, significant faculty involvement, effective internal communications, and high accountability for improvement of program quality. Doctoral Policy and Procedures 34. Provide verification that the program establishes and implements program policy and procedures that adhere to university policy for doctoral programs. Identify any challenges or issues for possible policy modification for increased program effectiveness. Implementation Plan for Doctoral Program Develop your program s implementation plan for program enhancement over the next 7 years. Base this plan on assessment findings from the self study and external reviewers from the following elements: Student Profile Enrollment Trends Faculty Profile
4 Program Quality Promoting/Monitoring/Evaluating Student Learning Budgeting and Resources Program Infrastructure Doctoral Policy and Procedures Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Doctoral Academic Program Review Process As part of the Provost s Academic Program Review meeting and/or with the final implementation plan, the doctoral faculty, program director, college dean, the Graduate School, and others involved in the doctoral program provides feedback about the effectiveness of the doctoral APR process. Elements to consider include the review criteria, external review components, assessment of student learning, institutional research data, timeline, college and university review process, student participation, and faculty participation. DD:rle 2/12/10 Graduate Council Approved 2/18/10
5 Appendices 1. Institutional Research Data Portfolio 2. Approval/Signature Page 3. Steps and Chronology for Academic Program Review 4. External Reviewers 5. Accreditation Supplement Request 6. Program Units Audit Template 7. Graduate Council Process for Review of Doctoral Academic Program Reviews 8. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Doctoral Academic Program Review Process
6 Appendix 1 Institutional Research Data Portfolio The Office of Institutional Research collects, analyzes, and summarizes program data since the last Academic Program Review. For each doctoral program undergoing review, data are provided that allow for comparison to data from the previous academic program review. For selected variables, university and college data are also provided. Additional data are derived from the programʹs assessment of student learning. STUDENT ENROLLMENT Table 2.5 CSU Degree Program Headcount Enrollment by Demographic Characteristics and Degree Level Fall Terms ENTERING STUDENTS IR Report to be Generated: Program GRE Scores IR Report to be Generated: iskills/icritical Thinking Assessment Scores STUDENT DEGREES AWARDED Table 4.5 Degrees Conferred by CSU Degree Program (HEGIS), Demographic Characteristics, and Degree Level RETENTION AND GRADUATION RATES IR Report to be Generated: Annual Retention Rates for Doctoral Students IR Report to be Generated: Annual Graduation Rates for Doctoral Students IR Report to be Generated: Average Time to Degree for Doctoral Students COURSE ENROLLMENT HISTORY Table 7.1 Academic Discipline Profile by Discipline and Course Level CSU Academic Discipline Reports Overview FACULTY AND STAFF Table 8.1 Full Time Faculty and Staff by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Primary Occupational Activity, and Department Table 8.2 Part Time Faculty and Staff by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Primary Occupational Activity, and Department Table 8.3 Full Time Faculty by Faculty Status, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Academic Rank, and Department IR Report to be Generated: The National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (Delaware Study) IR Report to be Generated: Number of Courses Taught, Headcount, FTES, and Positions Generated per Faculty per Semester; Average Workload for Doctoral Faculty GRADUATING SURVEY IR Report to be Generated: Graduate Alumni and Graduate Exit Surveys
7 Page 2 OTHER IR Report to be Generated: Findings from California Academic Performance Index IR Report to be Generated: Employer Survey Results IR Report to be Generated: Aggregate IDEA Results OTHER (as requested) Data unique to each doctoral program and its student learning goals may be requested by the college dean. Please Dr. Angel Sanchez Director for Institutional Research, with your data request. :rle DRAFT 2/01/10
8 Appendix 2 Doctoral Academic Program Review California State University, Stanislaus Signature Page Title of Doctoral Program Signatures: Doctoral Program Director (Print) Signature Title Date College Curriculum Committee Chair (Print) Signature Title Date College Dean (Print) Signature Title Date Graduate Council (Print) Signature Title Date
9 Appendix 3 Academic Program Review Chronology for Doctoral Programs TARGET DATE ACTIVITY By February 1 Vice provost notifies college deans and department chairs/program directors the programs to be reviewed two years prior to the completion date of the self study, recommendations, and implementation plan. By February 15 Accredited programs Department chair/program director requests of the college dean to submit the accreditation document to serve as a primary, but not sole, component of the self study. By March 1 Accredited programs College dean determines whether the accreditation review process fulfills a portion of the academic program review in accordance with any CSU, CSU Stanislaus, or WASC mandated requirements and communicates decision to the department chair/program administrator. Department chair/program director request of the college dean that the program be subject to an external evaluation. An external reviewer is invited to assist in the self study phase of the academic program review process. By March 15 Vice provost, college dean, and Institutional Research conduct a program review workshop(s) with department chairs/program directors and program faculty to discuss the academic program review process and disseminate data provided by institutional research, as required for the academic program review. March 16 May 29 College dean identify process and timeline for milestones for completion and identify/arrange for external reviewers (as required). March 16 May 29 Program faculty and program director/department chair begin draft review of data and begin draft of self study. March 16 February 1 Program faculty and program director conduct the self study and complete the self study document, including recommendations and a preliminary implementation plan. By February 1 Program director submits the self study and supporting materials to the college dean. February 1 February 27 College dean submits self study to external reviewers (mandatory for doctoral programs). February 15 April 30 By April 30 By April 30 April 30 May 29 College governance committee(s) reviews the self study, requests additional materials as needed, summarizes findings, makes recommendation for program continuance, and forwards the self study to the department chair/program director and college dean. College dean forwards the self study to the Office of Academic Programs. Office of Academic Programs forwards the self study to the Graduate Council. Graduate Council reviews the self study, summarizes the findings, makes recommendation for program continuance, and forwards the document and findings to the program director and college dean.
10 TARGET DATE ACTIVITY May 29 June 30 College dean finalizes self study to include recommendations from external reviewer(s); responses from the department/program (if any); recommendations from the college governance committee(s), Graduate Council; and dean s recommendation for program continuance, continuance with conditions, or program discontinuance. By June 30 College dean submits to the vice provost the self study; recommendations from external reviewer(s); responses from the department (if any); recommendations from the college governance committee(s), Graduate Council; and dean s recommendation for program continuance, continuance with conditions, or program discontinuance. September October College dean schedules a meeting to include the program representative(s), the department chair/program director, the college dean, the vice provost, and the provost to discuss the results of the academic program review and the preliminary implementation plan. October November By December 1 By December 15 By January 15 ONGOING Department chair/program director submits to the college dean a final implementation plan that identifies resource needs consistent with the recommendations of reviewing committees and consistent with the college mission and strategic plan. Within three weeks, the college dean submits the final implementation plan to the vice provost. Provost issues a letter indicating final determination of program continuance and additionally may require progress reports and a timeline related to specific elements of the final implementation plan. Office of Academic Programs archives the academic program review documents and posts on the web (program faculty s final implementation plan and provost s recommendation for program continuance/discontinuance). Vice provost provides a summary of academic program reviews to the Board of Trustees. College dean incorporates the results of the academic program review into the college s strategic and budget planning processes and forwards to the provost as part of the regular planning and budgetary processes within academic affairs and within the university s strategic planning processes. :rle 2/2/10
11 Appendix 4 External Reviewer for Academic Program Review for Doctoral Programs Description of Process for Hiring and Conduct of Work Overview In accordance with doctoral academic program review policy and procedures, external program review for doctoral programs occur during the self study phase. The purpose for the external review is to assist faculty in improving program quality by providing a new comparative and broader perspective on the program and student learning. The external evaluators will be individuals of significant professional reputation in the field. During Self Study Phase: For doctoral programs, the use of an external program review as part of the selfstudy is required. External reviewers are to review the self study, conduct interviews, and employ other strategies to evaluate program effectiveness. The external reviewers summary of findings and recommendations becomes part of the materials submitted to each level of review. To accomplish this purpose, an external reviewer is provided a copy of the self study and other relevant documents. The external reviewer then visits the campus for 1 2 days to meet with faculty, students, staff, community members, and administrators. The external reviewer conducts an exit interview and submits a written report within three weeks of the campus visit to the department chair and the college dean. The external evaluators report becomes part of the permanent academic program review file. Qualifications External reviewersʹ qualifications normally include the following or their equivalency: 1. The highest degree in a relevant discipline (normally Ph.D. or Ed.D.) 2. Rank of Professor (Associate Professor acceptable if currently teaching in a doctoral program) 3. Distinguished record in related teaching, research, and scholarly activity 4. Notable background in the effective employment of program level student learning assessment methods 5. No conflict of interest 6. Ability to complete a site visit and submission of report within the prescribed timeline 7. Other qualification as related to the discipline (e.g., expert in program level assessment employed at a university involved in the Carnegie Initiative on Educational Doctorates.) Responsibilities The external reviewers primary responsibility is to provide an honest, unbiased professional judgment of when assessing student work. The external reviewers perform the following responsibilities over a twoday on site campus visit: 1. Reviews the draft self study document. 2. Conduct interviews and conduct an exit meeting with the following individuals/groups: Program faculty, Program Director, current students, alumni, Doctoral Executive Committee, Community Advisory Board, Dean, Vice Provost, and Provost. 3. Employs other strategies appropriate to the discipline. 4. Submit a written summary of findings within three weeks of the campus visit. Elements for review by the external reviewers will include the assessment plan/processes of the respective assessment roles of faculty, administration, students, and external community; assessment of
12 Page 2 Program Goals and Student Learning Outcomes, especially direct assessment methods/measures; and effective use of assessment data for program improvement. Assessment of student learning will include a meta review of dissertation research, oral defense, and embedded assessment artifacts. Each provides a direct measure of the quality of student work, and a rubric for each of these meta reviews will be developed and guide the assessment. As a result of the external reviewers report and the self study document, the Dean of the College of Education and the Program Director will develop an implementation plan that will include the actions for change, timeline, key person responsible for leading the actions, and fiscal costs. Nominations for External Reviewers The college dean is responsible for the overall coordination of the external review. Nominations for evaluators are solicited from the doctoral program director and from other institutions, higher education associations, and professional organizations. The nominees are reviewed by the program faculty, who may reject any of the nominees for cause. The evaluators are selected from the remaining nominees by the college dean. Materials Provided to the External Reviewer The program director coordinates the review schedule. Prior to the campus visit, the program director provides to the external reviewer a copy of the visitation schedule, self study, and supporting documentation. Additional materials (e.g., course syllabi) should be available for review during the campus visit. It is essential that examples of student work are available for review as consistent with accreditation standards for direct assessment of student work and are completed in accordance with the universityʹs Principles for the Assessment of Student Learning. Honorarium and Expenses The program director works with the college dean to select the external reviewers. The program director coordinates the travel arrangements with the external reviewers, in accordance with university travel policy. A consultant contract is issued (normally $250 per day), plus transportation and one night lodging, as required. The honorarium and refunds are processed upon receipt of the written report from the external reviewer and documented accommodation and travel costs, as previously approved. Funds are provided by the college dean and supported, when possible, from the university wide assessment account. :rle DRAFT 2/12/10
13 Appendix 5 Process Substitution of Accreditation Self Study for the Doctoral Academic Program Review Self Study For doctoral programs subject to professional, disciplinary, or specialized accreditation, academic program review is coordinated with the accreditation or re accreditation review cycle. The self study developed for professional or specialized accreditation reviews provides many of the essential requirements of the doctoral academic program review and may, therefore, be used as the primary, but not sole, component of the self study with approval by the college dean. The doctoral program director requests of the college dean a substitution of the accreditation reports for the academic program review document. The following materials accompany the request: the accreditation standards and procedures, the accreditation self study report, the team s findings, and the accrediting agency s final report of the accreditation decision. A request for the accreditation document to serve as the primary, but not sole component of the selfstudy document, is acceptable if each of the following criteria is met: 1) the program has undergone a comprehensive assessment as part of a state or national accreditation review; 2) the procedures and standards of the accrediting agency are judged to be comparable to those of the academic program review; 3) the accreditation or re accreditation is achieved; and 4) each program provides a summary of student learning goals, a description of its assessment process and procedures, and examples of how assessment results were used to enhance the program. The college dean determines whether standards submitted by the program s accreditation, taken as a whole, provide a level of quality comparable to the program review criteria. The college dean may take one of the following actions in response to the petition: a) The substitution is approved. The accreditation self study report, the team findings, the accrediting agency s final report, and materials required for a complete academic program review (e.g., assessment of student learning goals, implementation plan) are submitted according to the academic program review procedures and follows the same process for review and commentary. b) The substitution is not approved. The program is reviewed in accordance with the academic program review procedures. :rle DRAFT 2/02/10
14 Appendix 6 Doctoral Degree Audit Information Department/College Degree Line Program (# of units) Description 1 Core requirements 2 Specialization requirements 3 Electives 4 Dissertation requirements (minimum of 12 units required for dissertation) 5 60 TOTAL minimum units required (add lines 1 through 3) (42 units must be completed in residence at CSU Stanislaus) Preparer/Date Approved/Date :rle 2/02/10
15 Appendix 7 Guidelines for the Graduate Council s Evaluation of Doctoral Academic Program Reviews This document was designed by the Graduate Council to guide its evaluation of the quality of doctoral degree programs at CSU Stanislaus as reflected in the Academic Program Review process. Salient issues important to doctoral education provide a structure to ensure a comprehensive and consistent evaluation of program quality among doctoral programs. The review is conducted in accordance with Principles for Assessment of Student Learning for the purpose of program improvement. After having read the academic program review documents and after a brief presentation by the doctoral program director/coordinator, the Graduate Council discusses the doctoral academic program review. The Graduate Councilʹs review concludes with a report that provides a summary of its evaluation of program quality; commendations; recommendations for program improvement beyond those identified by the program, if any; and an overall recommendation for either program continuance, continuance with specified conditions, or discontinuance. The chair of the Graduate Council forwards the report to the doctoral program director, department chair, and college dean for response (if any) and then forwards its recommendation to the provost for consideration. Quality of the Academic Program Review Self Study Quality Overall, to what extent is the APR self study for the doctoral program comprehensive? Analytical? Focused on improvement of student learning? Future oriented? Program Improvement from Last Academic Program Review 1. Program Improvement Is there evidence of faculty making program changes to enhance the program s currency and quality from the last academic program review? 2. Implementation Plan Have faculty accomplished each of the actions identified in the previous review and done so at a high level of achievement? If actions/goals were not reached, have the faculty described the constraints and articulated future plans for these or other goals? Student Profile 3 7. Student Characteristics/Profile To what extent has faculty reflected upon the appropriateness of its student characteristics and taken appropriate actions to ensure student success across each sub population of students? Include numbers (headcount and FTES); diversity (gender; ethnicity; full time/part time, other); student/faculty ratio; student scores on admission and assessment tests (GRE scores, iskills/icritical Thinking scores, and Written Qualifying Examination scores). Enrollment Trends Retention and Graduation Based on institutional research data, do faculty evidence success in meeting enrollment targets, offering a program at a sustainable level, and drawing conclusions for future enrollments? Are faculty successful in serving students as evidenced by retention and graduation rates and time to degree? Do faculty provide a thoughtful analysis of and recommendations for improving student success?
16 Page 2 Faculty Profile Faculty Characteristics, Expertise, and Deployment Are the numbers and qualifications of faculty adequate and appropriate for delivering the doctoral program? What is the adequacy of the proportion of tenured/tenure track, full time lecturers, and part time faculty? Is there an adequacy of support for the program director/coordinator? Include numbers (faculty headcount/ftes) for doctoral program; number and FTEF total currently and 5 year trend, number of tenured, tenure track, lecturer, and part time; demographic characteristics (gender; ethnicity, years of service); average workload for doctoral faculty Faculty Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity Overall, to what extent do faculty evidence currency, continuing productivity, and quality of scholarly work commensurate with doctoral education (as defined by program elaborations)? 18. Faculty Development How effective are faculty development opportunities for supporting faculty in the achievement of their professional goals: Orienting and mentoring new and non tenured faculty to the culture of the doctoral program? Ensuring faculty advancement through the ranks? Continuing improvement of teaching effectiveness and scholarship? Program Quality 19. Mission and Vision To what extent does the program s mission and vision reflect disciplinary and regional needs? 20. Program Distinction Does the evidence demonstrate the distinctiveness or strengths of the program in comparison to programs at other comparable universities in the state and/or nation? 21. Curricular Rigor Do the curricular design, course delivery, and expectations for student performance display a high level of academic rigor? 22. Program Delivery Is the instructional program scheduled and delivered effectively so that students may graduate within a planned timeframe and achieve the program s learning outcomes? 23. Quality of Instruction Does the evidence indicate that faculty encourage, use, evaluate, and reward effective teaching methods that promote student learning? Is there evidence that these methods result in enhanced teaching proficiency? 24. Doctoral Research Culture To what extent have faculty successfully sustained a doctoral research culture for diverse students? Do they have specific plans to continue its enhancement? What is the extent and quality of students independent and student/faculty collaborative scholarship, publications, presentations, and involvement/contributions to professional organizations? 25. Dissertation Does the evidence indicate that students have met and/or exceeded the criteria established for dissertation research?
17 Page Student Perceptions of Program Quality Does the evidence suggest student satisfaction with program quality (based on findings from alumni surveys, exit surveys, and student focus groups)? Promoting/Monitoring/Evaluating Student Learning 27. Assessment Plan and Implementation Do the program s goals and student learning objectives reflect high expectations for program quality commensurate with doctoral education? Is there evidence that students are achieving these student learning outcomes at a high level of academic rigor? Does the curriculum map illustrate the alignment between student learning objectives, required courses, instructional emphasis, and primary assessment methods? Is the assessment plan for assessing student learning effective and comprehensive, including direct and indirect methods for collecting and using data that are meaningful, measurable, and manageable? 28. Use of Assessment Results Have faculty used results effectively from their assessment efforts to both affirm and improve program quality, student learning, instruction, and other program elements? Budgeting and Resources 29. Library and Technology What is the adequacy of the library and technological resources for instructional quality? Fiscal support To what extent is the fiscal support from internal and external sources adequate to support the doctoral program (faculty, students, professional development/travel, research, staffing, and equipment)? Have faculty identified program and University level actions for strengthening program quality? Are there other actions that should be considered? Program Infrastructure 33. Program Infrastructure Does the evidence display an effective program infrastructure (with consideration of program leadership, quality assurance processes, collaborative decision making, significant faculty involvement, effective internal communications, and high accountability for improvement)? Doctoral Policy and Procedure 34. Program Policy and Procedure Has the program established and implemented program policy and procedures that adhere to university policy for doctoral programs? Have faculty identified any possible policy modifications to improve effectiveness? Are there others that should be considered? Implementation Plan for Doctoral Program External Review/Accreditation (if applicable) What do the findings of an external reviewers/accreditation team suggest for the quality of the current program? Are external reviewers recommendations for program improvement in the implementation plan, where appropriate? Recommendations Have the faculty identified important recommendations for improving program quality? Do they show the use of evidence in reaching these conclusions/recommendations? Are there others that should be considered?
18 Page 4 Implementation Plan Have faculty described appropriate and achievable action steps in response to their key recommendations? Have the faculty included appropriate human, physical, and fiscal resources needed to implement its plan and possible methods for securing these resources? Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Doctoral Academic Program Review Process Suggestions for Improvement What recommendations do program faculty have for improving the Academic Program Review process as related to doctoral programs? DD:epl/rle 02/02/10
19 Appendix 8 Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Doctoral Academic Program Review Process The Graduate Council reviews the effectiveness of the doctoral APR policy and procedures every 5 years or sooner if programs recommend changes for greater APR effectiveness. The Graduate Council requests the doctoral faculty, program director, college dean, the Graduate School, and others involved in the doctoral program to provide feedback about the effectiveness of the doctoral APR process. Questions to guide this summary include the following: 1. Outside of the self study review, what takes the most time and effort in the review process? 2. What elements of the review process are especially helpful? Not helpful? 3. What changes would make the review process more effective? 4. Other :rle 2/02/10
California State University, Stanislaus Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), Educational Leadership Assessment Plan (excerpt of the WASC Substantive Change Proposal submitted to WASC August 25, 2007) A. Annual
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...
INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY Approval: Responsibility: Contact Office: University Senate; Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council) Provost and Vice President Academic
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.
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
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
California State University, Stanislaus GENERAL EDUCATION: ASSESSMENT CHRONOLOGY The General Education Program has taken the following steps toward assessment of the quality of General Education. 1997/1998
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
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,
DHS Policy & Procedure for I. Introduction A. These standards and evaluation criteria are used to operationally define the qualifications expected for appointment or promotion of clinical faculty in the
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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,
SCHOOL OF URBAN AFFAIRS & PUBLIC POLICY CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE The School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy is an interdisciplinary graduate and professional school, designated
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
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY Professional Education Unit ASSESSMENT SYSTEM HANDBOOK 2011/2012 PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM HANDBOOK Table of Contents The Unit Assessment System Overview...
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
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
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
Program Review Guidelines Undergraduate Programs Purpose Program review is an opportunity for programs without discipline specific accreditation or approval to engage in: Synthesis and evaluation of the
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
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,
Texas A&M University-Kingsville College of Graduate Studies Graduate Council Doctoral Program External Review Self-Study Instrument AY 2008 (revised fall 2007) Texas A&M University-Kingsville College of
02 02 10 DRAFT 1 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Promotion and Tenure Guidelines For all general information on Promotion and Tenure, refer to the School of Medicine s Office of Faculty
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
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
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
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS WITH INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS These procedures are based on documents developed by the CSU and California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
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
Program Review Guidelines Graduate Programs Purpose Graduate program review is an opportunity for programs without discipline specific accreditation or approval to engage in: Synthesis and evaluation of
WHEELOCK COLLEGE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM REVISED SPRING 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Development And Evaluation Process: Tenure Track Faculty... 4 Overview Of Mentoring And Evaluation Process
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
Academic Program Review UCSF Graduate Council and Graduate Division May 2014 Table of Contents ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS... 2 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW: PREPARING THE SELF- STUDY...
University Of Alaska Anchorage College Of Health Department Of Human Services Criteria and Guidelines For Faculty Evaluation This document is to be used in conjunction with the UNAC and UAFT Collective
0. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION DATA SUPPLIED BY PROGRAM Official U of S Program URL: Provide the URL for the graduate program, or department website that introduces the graduate degree, and provides information
COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES School of Nursing Guidelines for Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment (Effective May, 2007) Attached are the documents related to the role and responsibilities of the
QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK Policies, procedures and resources to guide undergraduate and graduate program development and improvement at UOIT UOIT Academic Council June 15, 2010, revised June 9, 2011 QUALITY
Graduate Studies Policies Manual Policy Number GP-03 02-Mar-2014 Responsible Office: DVC Research & Grad. Studies Page of this Policy 1 of 1 3. Overview Outlines the framework that governs students pathway
Peralta Community College District Berkeley City College College of Alameda Laney College Merritt College Counseling Program Review Handbook Fall 2015 Version 3. i ii Table of Contents Purpose and Goals
TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES GRADUATE COUNCIL Purpose: To consider all matters relating to graduate programs at Tarleton State University and to recommend practices and procedures
Graduate School Policies and Procedures Mission Statement: The mission of the Graduate School is to promote excellence in graduate education and to facilitate educational opportunities for graduate students.
CONSTITUTION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA This Constitution is intended to be consistent with Florida law, the University Constitution and the regulations of the University of Florida Board
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
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
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
Instructions for Preparing the Self-Study Report, Doctoral Programs The minimum required elements of the self-study report are listed below. The overall purpose of the report is to allow the program to
BYLAWS OF COUNSELING AND CONSULTATION SERVICES (CCS) 1.0 COUNSELING AND CONSULTATION SERVICES MEMBERSHIP 1.1 Voting membership shall consist of all AAUP bargaining unit members with appointments in CCS.
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.
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
Guidelines for Preparing New Graduate Program Proposals The New Programs and Program Review Committee of the Graduate Council recommends that the originators of proposals for new graduate programs follow
Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Criteria and Procedures College of Nursing The Ohio State University Approved by the College of Nursing Faculty, June 2, 2005 Approved by the Office of Academic Affairs,
1 Iona College Comprehensive Academic Program Review I. Introduction The Comprehensive Academic Program Review Project Team was charged to: Finalize the five-year program review policy; establish the cycle
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...
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
School of Architecture Interior Design Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure College of Design, Architecture, Art, Planning School of Architecture Interior Design Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion,
1 University of Missouri-Columbia MU Sinclair School of Nursing GUIDELINES for APPOINTMENT, REAPPOINTMENT, and PROMOTION of NON-REGULAR FACULTY The MU Sinclair School of Nursing (SSON) faculty established
McNeese State University Academic Program Review Standards for Graduate and Undergraduate Programs Rev. and updated 2012 Approved Academic Advisory Council, Dec 17, 2012 1 Contents Overview... 3 Candidates
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
School of Accounting Florida International University Strategic Plan 2012-2017 As Florida International University implements its Worlds Ahead strategic plan, the School of Accounting (SOA) will pursue
PERSONNEL DOCUMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING University of Arkansas Passed by faculty vote: September 13, 2011 PERSONNEL DOCUMENT Evaluative Criteria, Procedures, and General
Template for Academic Committee Review The numbered titles in this document that appear in boldface print represent the standards being evaluated as met, not met, or partially met on the Program Report
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
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
Texas A&M University-Kingsville College of Graduate Studies Graduate Council Doctoral Program Review Instrument Texas A&M University-Kingsville College of Graduate Studies Doctoral Program Review Instrument
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
The Graduate School STRATEGIC PLAN 2007-2016 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction 4 2. The Graduate School s Mission, Vision and Core Values.. 5 3. Strategic Advantages. 6 4. Strategic Challenges.. 7
College of Engineering Faculty Appraisal System For 2011/2012 Revised September 2011 1. Introduction We believe in the premise that people are more productive when they agree on what is expected of them
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
Institutional Quality Assurance Process University of Ottawa June 27, 2011 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...1 1.1 Authorities...1 1.2 Contact person...1 1.3 Definitions...1 1.4 Evaluation of programs...2
LLED Doctoral Program Requirements Students are responsible for information on the Graduate School website. See, especially the Graduate Bulletin and the Graduate School s Academic Regulations & Procedures
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
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
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
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
Department of Economics College of Arts and Sciences Texas Tech University Strategic Plan 2012 2020 Mission The Department of Economics is dedicated to excellence in teaching, research, and service. The
Doctor of Education Higher Education with Concentration in Community College Administration Program Handbook College of Education Graduate Education and Research Texas Tech University Box 41071 Lubbock,
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
THE ASSESSMENT OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN ART AND DESIGN National Association of Schools of Art and Design Copyright 2009, 1992, 1990 by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design Reston, Virginia
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
Appointment, Evaluation, and Promotion of Instructors AddRan College of Liberal Arts This document defines the general duties, rights, privileges of Instructors in the AddRan College of Liberal Arts and
Kean University ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW GUIDELINES Overview Program review is an ongoing process involving the faculty and others concerned with the particular academic program. The guidelines established
MPH Program Policies and Procedures Manual Curriculum and Advising Academic Advising Academic advisors are appointed by the chairs, in consultation with the MPH Director Curriculum Decisions All changes
Office of the Provost Approved 8/23/2006 Pratt Institute Academic Initiative Proposal Guidelines Office of the Provost Approved 8/23/2006 Introduction This document describes the procedures for submission
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),
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY EAST BAY COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING AND REVIEW Designation Code: 06-07 CAPR 12 Date Submitted: May 10, 2007 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PURPOSE: ACTION REQUESTED: Academic Senate
NEW PROGRAM PROPOSAL College: [ Eisner College of Education ] New Program Proposal Page 1/13 Department: [ Educational Leadership and Policy Studies ] 1. Title of Proposed Program: (e.g. B.S. in, Option
Tenure and Promotion Criteria and Procedures Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 UCTP Approval: February 20, 2002 Recommendations of the tenured
Faculty Evaluation and Performance Compensation System Version 3 Revised December 2004 2 SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES FROM EVALUATION SYSTEM, VERSION 1, 2003-2004, TO EVALUATION SYSTEM, VERSION 2, 2004-2005
1 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY Education Specialist in Education Administration Policies & Procedures Handbook Revised & Approved: February 2015 2 Table of Contents PAGE Introduction 3 About