PROCEDURE FOR PROGRAM REVIEWS
REFERENCE: Board of Regent’s Policy 10.06.01.A
Academic Program Review P10.06.01 dated December 8, 2005
In accordance with Regents’ Policy 10.04.02, it is the responsibility of the Board of Regents to review and cause the initiation, augmentation, reduction or discontinuance of programs according to the mission of the university and its constituent institutions. This includes a degree or certificate program approved by the Board of Regents.
Each MAU will conduct assessments of all instructional, research, and service programs with respect to quality, efficiency, and contribution to mission and goals. Assessments of instructional programs will include analysis of educational effectiveness as an essential part of the ongoing continuous improvement and accreditation processes. Assessments will be conducted at a minimum of every five years. Occupational endorsements and workforce credentials approved by the President will be subject to review at the MAU level.
Exceptional reviews may be conducted as needed, to respond to issues including but not limited to specific academic or budgetary concerns. An expedited review process tailored to the particular circumstances shall be used for exceptional reviews.
A comprehensive and periodic review process is necessary to evaluate policies, procedures, and programs and services of the institution. The purpose of the periodic review is to facilitate improvement of programs and services, and thereby, the overall strength and reputation of UAS. Program review serves the purpose of attainment of future goals, curricular changes, and meeting the needs of students, faculty, and the mission of the university. Review contributes to the academic strength of the University’s educational mission through quality self-assessment. It meets the changing needs of the institution and the students it serves.
Program review procedures include:
1. an annual audit conducted by the dean/director of the school in which the program is housed.
2. a cycle review conducted every five (5) years; and
3. special reviews initiated by the chancellor, provost, or academic dean based on empirical data such as the annual audit or other relevant information.
Program reviews assist the faculty, dean, and the university administration in:
1. evaluating the contribution of the program to the mission of the university;
2. evaluating the contribution of the program to the community;
3. evaluating the degree to which the program is achieving its educational goals;
4. identifying the relative strengths and weaknesses of the program;
5. developing plans and priorities for the future of the program;
6. providing appropriate recognition to the program;
7. determining need for change or program improvement; and
8. evaluating the value of the program to the State of Alaska.
Types of Reviews
Annual Audit - all programs shall be reviewed annually by the dean/director.
Program Review –provides for evaluation of degree or certificate program approved by the Board of Regents, a discipline, a minor, a distinct option, emphasis, or track within the academic program, or a sequence of specific academic requirements leading to another type of credential or certification.
Special Program Review - The Chancellor, the Provost, or the program’s Dean may call for a Special Program Review prior to the Annual Audit or the regular Program Review if events trigger the necessity. The same committee structure as that for the regular Program Review will be used.
Departmental Self-study - Like a program review, except all programs within a discipline undergo cyclic review simultaneously.
1. At the beginning of the review process, the School Dean will appoint a Lead Person to conduct the review. This person should be a faculty member familiar with the degree program(s) under review.
2. UAS Institutional Research (UASIR) will work with the Lead Person to generate a Program Review Packet containing the data called out in the various sections of the Review Format below and to generate other data to enhance the review process.
3. The department undergoing review will use the Format for Review section to prepare a packet of materials for each program being reviewed. This will be reviewed by the School Committee which will consist of the faculty and key staff members involved in the program(s) delivery, and at least one student well along in each program under review.
4. The Lead Person will submit a draft based on the School Committee’s input to the School Dean.
5. The Provost will appoint an Institutional Review Committee (IRC) including three reviewers from the program, two others from the university community and one reviewer external to UAS with expertise in the discipline.
6. The Institutional Review Committee will review the program(s) and write a report that addresses the program(s) strengths, weaknesses/deficiencies. The IRC will provide one of the following recommendations: continuation without change, continuation with change, or discontinuation. Any recommendations to discontinue a program must provide rationale consistent with BOR Policy and University Regulation 10.04.02C, including appropriate review and recommendation by the UAS Curriculum Committee or Graduate Committee.
7. The departmental faculty will review and respond to the IRC’s report.
8. The Dean will write a response to the report indicating what actions, if any, will be taken at the department level and any recommendations for university action.
9. All materials will then be forwarded to the Provost for final review. The Provost will respond, indicating any university actions that will be taken.
Program reviews for programs that hold professional accreditation will be conducted simultaneously with development of the accreditation self-study whenever possible.
At the discretion of the departmental faculty, any degree program that holds professional accreditation may be reviewed by an alternate process if a substantive accreditation evaluation has been conducted since the last comprehensive review. In this case the departmental faculty may elect to use the report of the accreditation evaluators instead of a report issued by the review committee.
The deadline dates will be established by the provost as reviews are commissioned and review committees are appointed. This calendar shows the months in which various review actions are to take place.
May Department appoints Program Review Lead Person
July UASIR provides data to Departmental Lead Person
September Department begins reviewing draft
January Program Review submitted to School Dean
January Provost appoints Institutional Review Committee
February Institutional Review Committee reviews
March Program Review returns to Department for review
April Dean submits Program Review to Provost
May Provost responds and takes appropriate action
Format for Review
The data used in the review shall consist of the materials from UASIR, and:
- dean’s annual audit reports (if any written reports were done)
- outcomes assessment plan and results
- significant changes since the last comprehensive review
The following outline should be followed where it contributes to the clarity of the review. It should be considered a guideline subject to modification where necessary to communicate the review findings. Review should be short and effective.
1.0 Program Profile
1.1. Degrees, diplomas, certificates, and/or minors and the mission and goals of each. Source: UAS Catalog.
1.2. Brief history of program. Sources: UAS Catalogs, Program internal documents.
1.3. Summary of strengths and deficiencies, and recommendations of previous reviews. Source: Previous reviews.
1.4. Program consistency with institutional mission and goals. Sources: UAS Strategic Plan and School/Program Plans
1.5. Interactions and/or duplication with other programs on campus (support for other majors, general education, etc.). Sources: UASIR, program internal documents.
1.6. Transferability to and from similar programs at other University of Alaska institutions.
1.7. Statewide implications or mission. Source: UA Board of Regents Strategic Plan
1.8. Other appropriate data from department records.
2.0 Faculty Profile
2.1. Headcount and instructional full-time equivalent (FTE) for full and adjunct faculty for each of the past five years. Source: UASIR.
2.2. A profile of unit faculty with degrees, areas of specialization, rank and tenure status, years of experience, gender and minority composition. Sources: UASIR and program internal documents.
2.3. A program profile of the productivity of the faculty, including teaching, service, research and creative activities, and administrative responsibilities for each of the past five years. Sources: UASIR and program internal documents.
2.4. Average student credit hours (SCH) per full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty per academic year for each of the past five years. Source: UASIR.
2.5. Comparison of student credit hours (SCH) per full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty for the program with similar programs at peer institutions, as comparative data become available. Similar programs and peer institutions may be suggested by the faculty of the program under review, the dean of the college, and/or the Provost. Source: UASIR.
2.6. Average class size by full-time and adjunct faculty. Source: UASIR
2.7. Student/faculty ratio. Source: UASIR.
3.0 Student Profile
3.1. Student credit hours (SCH) generated for each of the past five years. Source: UASIR.
3.2. Special admission standards or other measures of selecting students, if applicable. Source: Program internal documents.
3.3. Number of admitted students including premajors in programs, where applicable. Source: UASIR.
3.4. Annual number of graduates by completion level (certificate, diploma, degree) for each of the past five years. Source: UASIR.
3.5. Retention Profile for the past five years. Source: UASIR.
3.6. Completion Profile for the past five years. Source: UASIR.
3.7. Analysis and commentary on enrollment trends and attrition or retention rates. Source: Program internal documents
3.8. Quality of graduates (criteria used by the program in their self-study and/or by reviewers should be clearly defined). Source: Program assessment plan documents.
3.9. Employment demand for and placement rate of graduates for each of the past five years (This may be informal data gathered by the programs). Source: UAS Alumni Association and Department of Labor statistics with assistance from UASIR.
4.0 Program Costs
4.1. Direct instructional costs per student credit hour (SCH) for each of the past five years.
4.2. Comparison of cost per student credit hour (SCH) to other programs (if information is available).
5.0 Program Support
5.1. Adequacy of library holdings. Source: Egan Library Reports.
5.2. Adequacy of facilities, technology, laboratory and other equipment, including plans for equipment maintenance and replacement. Sources: Program internal documents and peer data when available.
5.3. Adequacy of professional development funds. Sources: Program internal documents and peer data when available.
5.4. Adequacy of staff/student support. Sources: Program internal documents and peer data when available.
5.5. Adequacy of budget. Sources: Program internal documents and peer data when available.
6.0 Qualitative Information
6.1. Special departmental characteristics, including, for example, unique features, benchmarking with other programs and program simulations. Sources: Program internal documents and materials from other higher education reports.
6.2. Programs with advisory committees should provide a list of members of the advisory committee, the business/industry each member represents, and results of committee activities concerning curriculum, equipment, and faculty. Sources: Program internal documents.
6.3. Innovations in pedagogy, professional development, application of technology, etc. Sources: Program internal documents.
6.4. Comment from program advisory committees for those programs that have them. Sources: Program internal documents.
7.0 Review committee recommendations and comments
7.1. Program strengths
7.2. Program weaknesses/deficiencies
7.3. Recommendations for change
7.4. Recommendation for continuance/discontinuance
8.0 Departmental responses to the recommendations of the review committee.
9.0 Dean/director’s responses to the recommendations of prior reviews
10.0 Provost’s response to dean/director and prior review.