Academic Program Review

Introduction

This section provides a brief overview of the program(s) under review.  It provides a clear and concise description of the program’s strengths and challenges.  It includes the program's mission and vision, describes all major and minor degrees, and describes the organizational structure within the department that supports the program(s).  The introduction must make explicit reference to the relationship between the program and the College mission and should highlight the strategic goals of the College’s Strategic Plan that are specifically supported by the program.  Below are topics to address in the Introduction.

• Mission and vision of the department that houses the program under review; relationship to the College mission and vision
• Educational goals of the program (general overview; specific learning outcomes are addressed in the next section of the report)
• Structure of the department that houses the program (faculty and staff)
• List and brief description of all majors, minors, concentrations, certifications, etc.
• Relationships with other programs at Hood, specifically identifying how this program serves other majors, minors, honors, and/or core requirements 
• Unique and distinctive features of the program compared to regional peer institutions
• A general overview of distinctive high-impact learning experiences in the program, including co-curricular learning
• Any significant changes in the program(s) during the last five years (changes in mission, goals, curriculum, etc.), particularly changes prompted by the last program review and/or informed by assessment data

Program Goals and Outcomes

This section articulates the program goals pursued over the past 5 years as proposed in the previous program review cycle.  As appropriate, each goal should connect to a specific strategic goal outlined in the College’s Strategic Plan.  Goals should also include those expressed in the most recent program review cycle.  Below are topics that should be addressed in the Goals and Outcomes section.

• Specific program goals that were pursued over the past five years (highlighting data and information from departmental annual reports)
• Description of how each goal supported a strategic institutional goal (a copy of the College’s strategic plan implementation matrix is available on the College’s website and/or from OIRA)
• Detailed account of and data supporting how each goal was achieved (or modified) over the past five years (metrics can be both quantitative and qualitative)

Curriculum and Student Learning Outcomes

This section is one of the most critical to the program review.  It provides an overview of the courses that define the academic program under review and confirms successful achievement of program-level student learning outcomes.  It discusses how the breadth, depth, and currency of the curriculum appropriately represents the discipline. 

This section clearly states the program’s student learning outcomes and contextualizes these goals with reference to those of peer or aspirant programs and/or standards from relevant disciplinary organizations.  It provides evidence to support student success in meeting the desired learning outcomes and describes actions taken to improve student learning in the program.  The collective efforts of the department and/or academic program during the previous five years to assess student learning in the program and how the program has been improved as a result of these assessment efforts should be thoroughly discussed.

For undergraduate programs, this section is also inclusive of general education requirements to the extent that specific competencies and skills developed in general education courses are scaffolded within the program’s curriculum.  For graduate programs, this section is inclusive of the professional competencies approved by the Graduate Council and how these competencies are achieved within the program. Thus, assessment data for both program and Graduate School Outcomes (GSOs) must be included in this section.

If national standardized exams are administered to students in the program (e.g. ETS Major Field Test, NCLEX, or other discipline-specific exam), these data, along with national benchmark comparison data, should be provided and summarized.

The most recent syllabi for all courses that constitute the program should be included in the program review in an appendix or linked directly from the document; all syllabi should also contain clearly articulated student learning outcomes that support the learning goals of the program.  Coincident with the program review, the current College Catalog should be reviewed to ensure that program requirements and course descriptions are updated as needed. 

Topics to address in this section include:

• Discussion of the program-level student learning outcomes, including where and how these outcomes are assessed throughout the program
• A curriculum map or equivalent demonstrating where and how specific outcomes are achieved, as well as where and how college competencies are developed and/or enhanced
• A description of how the program’s curriculum is constructed from introductory to advanced levels.  This should include a discussion of the scope and significance of the introductory courses in the major and how such courses lay the groundwork for upper-level courses in the program 
• A discussion of grade distribution reports and how those data are used by the program or department to impact the program’s curriculum
• Description of the program’s internal review process to assess if major/program courses are successfully meeting the intended goals and program-level student learning outcomes
• A description of how the curriculum has changed over the past five years in response to assessment data
• An assessment of course numbers to ensure alignment with the Curriculum Committee and Graduate Council guidelines on 100-600 level courses
• A thorough review of the capstone or other culminating academic experience in the program that highlights the student’s application of knowledge and preparation for careers and/or advanced study in this and/or related fields
• A description of all high-impact practices (HIPs) that are embedded within the curriculum, consistent with guidelines that define the criteria for HIPs
• Competitive advantages and disadvantages of this program’s curriculum compared to regional peer institutions
• A reflection of interdisciplinary study opportunities available in the program

Enrollment, Retention and Post-Graduation Success

This section reviews enrollment and graduation trends in the program over the past five years.  Additionally, this section summarizes the effectiveness of efforts taken by faculty and staff to recruit and retain students in the program.  Topics to address may include:

• Undergraduate and graduate student enrollment, as well as graduation trends (OIRA will provide this information in the departmental data set; also available in the Fact Book)
• The program’s initiatives to promote student recruitment, success, and persistence 
• Enrollment trends in the program’s classes, and in what capacities (general education, major courses, or classes serving both aims)
• Assessment of current student and alumni satisfaction with the program (both undergraduate and graduate)
• Post-graduation outcomes with regard to employment, graduate school, and other outcomes consistent with the program’s mission
• Analysis of past and future enrollment trends for the program and the reasons – internal and external – for those trends
• Description of current employer demand and post-graduation study opportunities for graduates of your program. And a description of how the department has adapted to any changes in program demand.  For this question you may find helpful your relevant disciplinary organizations, as well as federal and state information on demographics and employment trends (National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/); US Occupational Outlook Handbook (http://www.bls.gov/oco); Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR http://www.dllr.state.md.us/ ); Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov).  If available, the program(s) advisory board may be a good resource for employer demand and marketplace employment trends, as well.

Faculty

This section provides an overview of all AC faculty in the department.  A current CV for all AC faculty should be included in the self-study report’s appendix. The Faculty section should address:

• Levels and diversity of rank within the department, including departmental reliance on adjunct faculty.
• If relevant, summarize the effectiveness of efforts to recruit and retain faculty over the five-year period.
• Significant scholarship and professional activity over the past five years (publications, creative and professional works).  If possible, create a table indicating the types of activities and the number of occurrences that faculty have participated in.
• External funding sought and received by faculty (through grants or other outlets)
• Approaches to teaching and contribution to innovative, collaborative, or high-impact experiential teaching and learning (e.g., service learning, internships, study abroad courses, etc.).
• Mentoring and evaluation of junior faculty in the department and any developmental strategies implemented. Include a table indicating the types of activities (i.e., sabbaticals, workshops or other training attended on‐ or off‐campus, etc.). 
• The status of academic advising in your program and the steps taken to assess and improve it.
• Faculty contributions to the quality, promotion, and effective delivery of the program (e.g., curriculum planning and scheduling, admission events and other service).
• Contributions to faculty governance and College administrative functioning (e.g., committee participation, strategic planning, curricular reviews).
• Data showing full-time faculty teaching trends all course levels, including graduate courses.

Resource Management

This section provides an analysis of the program’s financial indicators, including the number of student credit hours taken, teaching credits taught, and number of majors.  Additionally, this section describes any efforts taken to achieve efficiencies within the academic program. This might include efforts to reduce the amount of overload teaching by full‐time members of the faculty, reduced reliance on adjunct faculty and efficient course scheduling (including core/general education offerings). In this section, an evaluation of the following areas should be included: 

• Staff support (not faculty support) devoted to meeting the instructional requirements of your program (e.g. lab coordinators, studio staff, graduate assistants, etc.)
• Facilities, equipment and supplies devoted to meeting the instructional needs of the program. Describe the lab/studio facilities and equipment, if applicable.
• Library resources and information technology available to support the program
• External financial support (grants, endowments, etc.) received by the program

Conclusion 

In both narrative and bullet format, this section highlights the strengths of the academic program as supported by the data in the program review.  Points of distinction that set the program apart from institutional peers should be noted.  Challenges and/or ongoing weaknesses within the program should also be addressed, as supported by the data provided in the self-study.  These challenges must be addressed in the action plan (described below).

Action Plan

This section is a critical and culminating piece of the program review.  It describes in detail the specific actions the program will take over the next five years to address specific issues and challenges identified by the program review. A template for organizing the action plan is available in Appendix B. It is first drafted by program faculty as part of the self-study report and based upon internal data. It is later modified to include input from external reviewer(s).  The final action plan is developed as a collaborative effort between program faculty, the department chair, graduate program director (if applicable), the associate provost, and the College’s senior administrative team.  The action plan will identify:

•   Specific goals to be achieved over the next five years (in advance of the next review)
•   Strategies for achieving each goal
•   Resources needed to support this work
•   Timeline for achieving each goal
•   Who will be accountable for achieving each goal; who is responsible?
•   How progress and outcomes will be monitored, and who will be monitoring 

Goals of the action plan can include changes to curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, capital, scholarship and grant opportunities, staffing, marketing, external and internal constituent relationships, and other activities.  It should also clearly align program needs with the College’s mission and strategic priorities.  The final action plan must be approved by the President and senior team. Once approved, elements of the action plan will become part of the program’s annual reporting process. 

External reviewers are an essential part of the Academic Program Review process.  Reviewers are recognized experts in the discipline or professional field under review and they provide critical judgment regarding the program’s strengths and distinctive elements, as well as the program’s perceived challenges and opportunities for improvement.  They determine how the program compares to other programs regionally and nationally and, therefore, must bring an informed and unbiased view to the assessment of the program. To minimize bias in the review, every attempt should be made to select reviewers without prior connection to any current or former students, faculty or staff in the department, who are from non-competing peer programs or peer institutions. In addition, preference will be given to reviewers with some level of administrative or leadership experience (e.g., dept. chairs, program directors, deans—past or present) in the discipline under review

A pool of potential external reviewers is provided to the Associate Provost by the Program Review Coordinator. Each reviewer’s CV or professional bio should be provided, as well as any disclosure regarding past or current professional relationships program faculty may have with each potential reviewer.  While departmental input on this selection is important, the associate provost makes the final determination regarding external reviewer(s) in collaboration with the provost.   

The external reviewer(s) will:

1. collaborate and communicate with the Program Review Coordinator;
2. read all self-study documents and note any questions or concerns to be addressed during the campus visit or subsequent conversations with representatives from campus;
3. schedule an on campus visit in collaboration with the program under review;
4. meet with departmental faculty and students (both undergraduate and graduate as appropriate) to discuss the self-study;
5. meet with members of the College community such as representatives from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, Enrollment Management, the Graduate School, Academic Services, Career Development Center, Registrar, Student Affairs personnel and others as necessary;
6. meet with the President and members of the senior team (as appropriate)
7. meet with the Dean of the Graduate School (as appropriate)
8. have an exit meeting with the Associate Provost and the Program Review Coordinator to discuss preliminary thoughts at the end of the site visit; and
9. submit a written confidential report to the Associate Provost within 30 days of the campus visit.

External Review Report will address:

1. Program mission, goals, and intended outcomes
   1. Relationship of the departmental/programmatic goals to the College mission and strategic goals
   2. Curricular Structure
      1. Relationship to the program mission, goals, and intended outcomes
      2. Strengths and weaknesses with regard to student learning
   3. Currency of the program
      1. Comparison with similar programs at peer institutions
      2. Comparison with national standards/trends
   4. Relationship to other programs at Hood
      1. Dependence, independence
      2. Program duplication; possibilities for cooperative arrangements with other units
   5. Thoughts on future directions
2. Assessment of Student Outcomes
   1. Appropriateness of department assessment plans relative to the program goals and intended outcomes
   2. The extent to which intended outcomes are achieved
   3. Overall effect on student learning
3. Program Quality
   1. Status of accreditation, if appropriate
   2. Nature and quality of the faculty
   3. Nature and quality of the students
   4. Quality of the programs as reflected by student evaluations, alumnae/i evaluations, student/alumnae/i achievement, and assessment of student outcomes
4. Program Support
   1. Institutional and external financial support
   2. Support personnel
   3. Laboratory/studio facilities, equipment
   4. Library resources
   5. Computer resources
   6. Space and facility maintenance
5. Program Administration
   1. Organization, management, and direction
   2. Faculty/staff contribution
6. Overall recommendations/ action plan
   1. Narrative of the strengths and challenges existing within the program under review
   2. Recommendations that would advance/improve the program under review
   3. A projection on the long-term viability of the program, supported by internal and/or external data.

Follow-Up Procedures

Academic program review's effectiveness depends on timely and meaningful follow-up procedures. A copy of the report will be shared with the Dean of the Graduate School (by the Office of the Provost) when graduate programs have been a part of the programs under review. The Associate Provost will share a summary of recommendations with the President, senior team, and other units as appropriate. Follow-up meetings with program members under review will be scheduled by the Office of the Provost. The initial follow-up meeting will occur as soon as possible, but no later than May 31 following the March trustee meeting. In rare cases, when a review is decisioned by the trustees outside of the normal March meeting, actions will be shared by the Associate Provost with the program(s) under review within 60 days following trustee decision.

Using the self-study and external reviewer’s report as a guide, an Executive Summary of the Academic Program Review will be prepared by the associate provost in collaboration with department/program leadership and other administrative offices (e.g. the graduate school). This summary will provide an overview of each program, its mission and goals, specific student learning outcomes and degree requirements.  The executive summary will also highlight enrollment and graduation trends in the program during the review period and perceived strengths and challenges revealed through it.  A list of recommendations will be articulated addressing issues noted by the program and the external reviewer.  Administrative recommendations may also be noted. 

This Executive Summary will be shared with:

• Program leadership (department chair, program director, etc.)
• Curriculum Committee (for undergrad programs) or Graduate Council (for grad programs)
• Planning, Budgeting and Assessment Committee
• Restructuring Committee (for programs recommended for discontinuation)
• Senior Team

Though not required, any written feedback from these constituents will be added as an addendum to the Executive Summary, which will be shared with the Academic Matters Subcommittee of the Board of Trustees for final action. The Board of Trustees could take the following actions on the College’s final program review and associated recommendations (generally submitted for review at their annual March meeting):

• Accept the College’s review and recommendations without BOT edits or modifications.
• Accept the College’s review and recommendations with BOT edits or modifications.
• Table the review and request further data or background not included in the review.

If the trustees accept the program review in any form (i.e., options 1 and 2 above), then the final action plan will be informed by input from these groups to ensure prioritization and timing of each action proposed following the program review and approval by the Board of Trustees:

• Program leadership (department chair, program director, etc.)
• Planning, Budgeting and Assessment Committee
• Restructuring Committee (for programs recommended for discontinuation)
• Associate Provost  
• Senior Team

If, however, the trustees vote to table the program review until further data or background can be assembled (i.e., option 3 above under trustee actions), the review process reverts to the top of the guidelines and steps in this section “Final Steps of the Academic Program Review.” 

*Includes one or more accredited majors/programs that may be reviewed on a different cycle.

Find the downloadable version HERE.