Six Stages of Academic Program Review
Embedded Files
Stage 1. Program Self-Study
Stage 1. Program Self-Study
The Program Self-Study is a comprehensive report addressing every aspect of the academic program. The report should include discussion of findings and recommendations of recent Annual Departmental Reports. It should address the program’s vision, mission, and goals, and make recommendations for development based upon an overall analysis of the program. The purpose of the self-study is to allow faculty, students, and administration to consider not only a department’s recent accomplishments and challenges but also to engage in a forward-looking planning process. Thus, the self-study enables the program to tell its own story to the external review team and the university administration.
A thorough and thoughtful self-study will be factual and explicit in assessing a program’s past efforts and status. It will also outline a realistic course of action for future development. The self-study provides the basis for the entire review process, and it is crucial that the report cover all aspects of the program. The most useful self-study is a thorough but succinct, honest assessment of the department/program. An incomplete self-study may lead to reviewers feeling confused about the program or lead to an unproductive site visit.
The self-study must be a product of a designated committee of the program faculty. Program faculty are in the best position to raise and respond to any significant strategic and operational issues being faced by the program and they are also in the best position to use the results of the review to improve the program. Department chairs and program directors should ensure that there is full faculty participation in the preparation of the self-study. All full-time faculty members in the program should participate in the composition of the self-study. At a minimum they must attest that they have read the final self-study report.
In the Fall Quarter of the year the program writes the self-study, the Office of Institutional Research will provide a data report, aligned with the Academic Review Template (Appendix A), summarizing all available data since the previous Academic Program Review. The self-study report (excluding appendices) should not exceed 20 pages. The self-study report is to be approved by majority vote of the faculty, provided to the Provost and then sent to OAA by the end of the Fall quarter.
Back to Top
Stage 2. External Review
Stage 2. External Review
The external review team provides an objective outsider’s perspective on the quality of the program. After reviewing the self-study and making a campus visit, the external review team will compile a report that provides an evaluation of the program.
The role of the external reviewers is critical to the success of the program review process. Each program review includes a visit by at least two external reviewers. The external reviewers promote comparison with similar programs at other institutions, provide faculty and administrators a wider perspective, and ensure that the academic program under review is current and not isolated from the larger academic community. External review candidates are selected by the end of the Winter Quarter.
Each program under review will be asked to nominate at least 6 candidates for the external review team. The VPAA/Provost will make the final selection of 2 candidates and will negotiate all arrangements for the candidates’ participation in the External Review. The nominees can have no conflicts of interest regarding the program under review (e.g., not a former employee, co-author, alumni, dissertation advisor, relative or close friend of current faculty member, etc.). In general, the external reviewers should:
hold the terminal degree appropriate to the department/program under review, or in the case of professional programs, have a record of accomplishment in the field.
have a record of distinguished scholarship and/or professional experience appropriate to the program under review.
be recognized as an active member of scholarly and/or professional societies appropriate to the program under review.
be employed at a recognized university or college at or above the rank of Associate Professor.
At least one reviewer should:
have current or prior experience at the level of department chair or higher.
have prior experience relevant to accreditation, assessment, and/or program review process.
hold an appointment in a prestigious and nationally recognized program or a program that the department/program wishes to emulate.
A PAU faculty member, external to the program under review (but within the same academic unit), serves as a liaison between the program and external reviewers. The liaison situates the program within the department by providing a historical context during a dinner meeting on the eve of the site visit. The PAU liaison does not participate in the evaluation of the program.
By the beginning of the Spring Quarter, the external review team will be on campus to assess the program. A successful external review team visit requires careful organization and management of time to ensure that the objectives of the review are met. In general, the external reviewers will be informed of the role academic program review performs at PAU and the expectations we have of them as reviewers. Reviewers have a right to expect:
the most current data.
timely access to a self-study that contains a comprehensive description of the program.
evidence that learning outcomes are being met.
a campus visit that gives them free access to all information necessary to writing an informed and useful report.
The campus visit will likely last 2 days. During their time on campus, the external reviewers will meet with all department faculty, some students and administrators, campus support services with direct relationships to the program including the library, inspect facilities and examine procedures, read on-campus documents and websites, and, if they wish, observe classes. External review teams can and do request meetings not originally scheduled and arranged. The program is expected to provide a department liaison/host for the duration of the site visit so that visitors know where to go and when.
Back to Top
Stage 3. Internal Review – The Assessment Committee Recommendations
Stage 3. Internal Review – The Assessment Committee Recommendations
The Assessment Committee meets after the program administrators have submitted their responses to the external review report. The Assessment Committee reviews the self-study, external reviewers’ report, and the program’s responses.
When making its recommendations, the Assessment Committee considers current structures in the program under review, program specific goals and learning outcomes, the educational mission of the academic unit to which the program is assigned, and relevant resources to support the program. The Assessment Committee will prepare a written commentary informed by the materials reviewed for the review process. When appropriate, the Assessment Committee may note opportunities for further development of the program, including University-wide opportunities for program enhancement and interdisciplinary and collaborative educational efforts. No Assessment Committee member who is a member of the faculty of the program being evaluated will be present at the discussion of that program; however, the Assessment Committee may solicit information or advice from the Department Chair who oversees the program being evaluated or from anyone else the Assessment Committee believes can provide useful information.
The Assessment Committee will make its written recommendations to the Provost, with copies to program administrator(s). Any of those recipients may supplement Assessment Committee recommendations with their own recommendations to the Provost, with copies to all others.
Back to Top
Stage 4 & 5. Action Plan & MOU
Stage 4 & 5. Action Plan & MOU
The value of academic program review rest 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. The final stages of program review are the blueprint for evidence-based decision-making that affects academic planning at all levels of the institution. It culminates in an action plan and a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
Action Plan: A draft of the action plan is produced by the program faculty after the Assessment Committee report is received and at least two weeks prior to the meeting at which the Academic Program Review documents are discussed with the Provost, in preparation for the development of a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The Action Plan will set forth the academic and administrative improvements to be sought, the method by which they will be achieved, a timetable for the achievement of the plan, the resources needed to achieve each plan, and the anticipated source(s) of those resources.
Meeting: Within 45 days of receipt of the Assessment Committee’s recommendations, the provost and program administrator(s) meet to discuss all the documents produced, strategies for program improvement, and approaches for achieving agreed-upon goals. The Director of Academic and Strategic Effectiveness attends this meeting to create a written record of decisions arising from the discussions. Decisions made at that meeting are incorporated into a MOU that is signed by all parties of the meeting and transmitted to the program faculty and the members of the Assessment Committee.
MOU: the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the program review process is an agreed-upon set of priorities and goals among the provost and program administrator(s) based on the program’s Action Plan. It should include a time frame and estimated costs for each plan, where applicable, as well as an indication of whether the plan requires new resources and, if so, the likely source of those resources. The MOU should be considered in the budget process. The parties to the MOU may modify it by mutual agreement.
Faculty Stipend: After the signing of the MOU, the program will receive a standard stipend for program review to be distributed to faculty as the program deems appropriate. OAA will contact the program administrator and request a list of program faculty members who are to receive stipends and the corresponding stipend amount for each person. The standard stipends for program reviews is to be distributed to faculty only (not staff or administrators) and the total is $4000 for the program under review.
Back to Top
Stage 6. Annual Report
Stage 6. Annual Report
OAA will enter the contents of the MOU into PAU’s assessment management system for annual follow-up. By the end of each academic year, the program administrator(s) and department chairs will report to OAA on progress in implementing the MOUs in that program/department during that year. After receiving these reports, OAA will compile the reports from individual programs into a single comprehensive report that shows the progress to the members of the Assessment Committee, the Senate, the Provost, the President, and the Board of Trustees. (Max 5 pages)
Back to Top or APR Homepage
Page updated
Report abuse