Planning
Assessment
Calendar
University Resources
Accreditation-SACS
Discussion Board
Additional Resources
Search |
 | Assessment > Program Review
The Purpose of Program Review
The Process of Program Review
Members of the Program Review Council
Program Review Schedule
I. Summary of Review Schedule
II. 1996-2007 Review Schedule
List of Peer/Benchmark Institutions
The Purpose of Program Review
The purpose of internal program review is to improve programs through a systematic, cyclical review process. The results of such reviews, measured in terms of faculty, students, library resources, curriculum, facilities, and reputation, should answer the questions:
- Do faculty teaching, research, and service activities adequately sustain a vital, effective program?
- Does the program have a curriculum that is intellectually and creatively challenging and that offers an opportunity for students to realize a high quality education?
- Are university resources sufficient to support continued delivery of the program?
- What means and measures are used by faculty and staff to assess the program's effectiveness?
The Process of Program Review
Program review should be a meaningful process that contributes to the overall welfare of the department and the university. Thus, the review process must be evaluative as well as descriptive, directed toward improvement, resulting in action, and based on primarily academic criteria. It will consist of an internal, objective process, which will be coordinated, whenever possible, with other reviews.
While it is not the purview of the various curriculum review committees, the curriculum review process should be used in strategic planning, programmatic planning, and the institutional budgeting process. The information gathered will provide critical internal data about size and stability of program, current and future resource needs, market demand, equipment and space needs, strengths and weaknesses, and how the program contributes to the mission of the institution and the Louisiana Board of Regents' Master Plan. From an external perspective, the assessment results will provide a mechanism for demonstrating accountability and assist in efforts to garner financial, philosophical, and political support.
The value of the 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. Among the individuals or groups that should be involved in the process are the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and/or other appropriate vice-chancellors, the appropriate dean, the unit chair and faculty, the review committee, the students in the program, and other key constituents (business, industry, governmental or other representatives). The results will be reported to the Chancellor, the appropriate vice chancellors and deans, and the unit and will be made available to the university bodies involved in the planning, assessment, and budgeting processes.
The Makeup of the Program Review Council and Review Panels
The Program Review Council, consisting of 17 senior faculty members and appointed by the Provost, will assist the Office of Academic Affairs with the oversight and coordination of the program review process and advise the Provost on all aspects of the review process. It will be responsible for the design of the review process and format and for the selection of the review panels for each program review. Any revisions in the review process or format that the Provost deems to be major will be submitted to the Faculty Senate and the Graduate Faculty for review and approval.
The members of the Council will be appointed by the Provost. A majority of the members of the Council will be selected from a slate of nominees (at least two for each vacancy) submitted by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee with input from the Graduate Council and other appropriate faculty bodies. Other nominees will be provided by deans, department chairs, or faculty. There should be at least three representatives from each of the broad disciplinary areas of physical sciences and engineering, life sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. Council members will serve staggered, five-year terms.
The chair of the council will initially be designated by the Provost to serve for a two-year term. Subsequent chairs will be elected by Council from the members who have served at least two years on the Council to serve a one-year term.
The Associate Vice Chancellor For Undergraduate Programs and Services and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Graduate School will serve in a nonvoting ex officio capacity to assist with the administrative needs of the Council.
A faculty Program Review Panel will be selected for each program review. The panel will act as a subcommittee of the Program Review Council. Members of the panel will be appointed by the Council with the concurrence of the Provost or the Provost's representative. The panels will be responsible for carrying out the program review and for making recommendations to the Provost. Each panel will be led by an experienced senior faculty member from the Program Review Council who is not in the same unit as the program to be reviewed. Membership of the panel will always include a representative from the Graduate Council when graduate programs are reviewed, a representative in another department from the college or school in which the program is located, at least two other representatives from the faculty that are not in the college or school in which the program is located, and two external reviewers. A third external reviewer is added to the panel for the review of enhanced units. If only graduate programs are involved, then the committee should be composed of full members of the graduate faculty. If both undergraduate and graduate programs are involved, then special attention must be paid to graduate faculty status when members are appointed. If graduate programs are to be reviewed, then the panel should be chaired by a full member of the graduate faculty and only full members of the graduate faculty may vote on ratings/recommendations concerning the graduate programs.
Input from external reviewers is a desirable aspect of program review in that it provides a evaluative opinion from recognized experts in the field, ensures objectivity, helps provide perspectives concerning the program's relationship to the discipline, and lends credence to the process. It also costs more, and for this reason, whenever possible, the opinions of external reviewers will be used in conjunction with simultaneous or other timely reviews such as those conducted by the Louisiana Board of Regents or by accrediting agencies. Units will be responsible for notifying the panel of such reviews and providing information to the Program Review Council for determination as to whether the process can be coordinated.
1 If the unit has no departments, the member will be drawn from a closely-related discipline.
Program Review Schedule
Program reviews will be cyclical with an announced timetable. To minimize duplication, units are encouraged to schedule reviews at a time that coincides with other reviews (e.g., professional accreditation or board reviews). To ensure usefulness but maintain manageability, programs will be reviewed at least once within a ten-year period. Programs offered by enhanced units will be reviewed every five years. Reviews will take 12-18 months for completion of the self-study, committee review, and preparation of final report. A number of considerations will be made in scheduling program reviews: length of time since last review, financial problems, upcoming accreditation or other reviews, major curriculum changes, and time schedule for review.
Results of Program Review
Reviews will culminate in findings that programs were rated at one of two levels: not satisfactory or satisfactory (needs improvement, promising, or superior). The emphasis will be on requiring plans for action in response to the reviews: the review committee might, in the absence of satisfactory findings and adequate plans for remedying deficiencies, recommend sanctions such as the phasing down or reduction of programs.
PROGRAM REVIEW STEPS
1. Notification of the review by the Office of Academic Affairs (one year in advance). Units can request a specific review schedule to precede or coincide with other reviews.
2. Unit orientation for self study. The Program Review Council will arrange for the unit a self-study orientation to provide an overview of the process, materials, and expected outcomes.
3. Appointment of self-study committee. Once the review is scheduled, units should select a self- study committee and coordinate the self-study schedule with the program review panel's schedule.
4. Preparation and submission of the self-study. Units will have approximately 12 months to complete the self-study outline provided by the Program Review Council.
5. College Review. Appropriate deans of the colleges/schools (including the Graduate Dean in the case of graduate programs) will have an opportunity to review the self study and prepare formal comments. These comments will be shared with the unit prior to submission of the final version of the self study to the panel and the deans.
6. Site visit and external reviewers' reports. The program review panel chair, with the assistance of the Office of Academic Affairs and the unit, will arrange for site visits. The external reviewers' written reports of the site visit will be included in the review documents.
7. Wrap-up meeting and written report. The program review panel will summarize its findings and recommendations in a written report. Copies will be provided to the unit to review for accuracy and to prepare written comments.
8. Unit response (written, including individual faculty opportunity for comment). Unit responses to recommendations should be prepared and submitted to the panel. Individual faculty comments should be invited and included in the unit response.
9. Final report with recommendations to the Provost. The program review panel will submit the final report and recommendations as a package to the Provost. This will include (1) the written report, (2) the unit's and any individual faculty's responses, (3) the deans' comments, and (4) the review panel's written evaluation of the unit's and any faculty's responses and the deans' comments.
10. Agreements for future unit development in response to recommendations. After reviewing the report and comments, the Provost will meet with unit representatives and the deans to determine future action in response to the recommendations.
11. Follow-up (18 months) to recommendations, if required, and invited comments from the unit about the review process. If agreements require action that is extended or ongoing, a follow-up session will be arranged within 18 months. At the point of completion of the review process, comments from the unit on all or any part are invited.
12. Permanent record. The Office of Academic Affairs will keep a permanent record of the program review report and agreements.
13. Use of program review. These results will be reported to the Chancellor, the Provost, the appropriate vice chancellors and deans, and the unit and will be made available to the university bodies involved in the planning, assessment, and budgeting processes. |
|