Academic Program Review
January 14, 2016
Presenters: Faculty Representatives from the
University Assessment Committee (UAC)
Program Review
Why Program Review?
 Ensures ongoing tracking and documentation of student
performance on learning outcomes and related metrics.
 Important as it relates to our mission, and current strategic plan
 Meets institutional accreditation requirements for
documentation of evidence of the improvement process
 Sustained assessment process
 Processes result in information useful to the program
 Improvement based on results
Program Review
This workshop will cover:





The multi-year schedule for program review
The timeline (including due dates) for the process
The role that Dept. Chairs play in the process
The role that Deans play in the process
The difference between:
 An annual update
 A full review
 How to navigate through, and complete the new form
Program Review
The multi-year schedule
 Each academic program will complete a full review every
3rd year.
 For the years in between, an annual update is completed.
 This year (2015-16) - begin use of the multi-year schedule
Program Review
Timeline/Due Dates for Reviews
 Annual Update:
 Form due in from Department Chair to Dean by Friday,
March 18th
 Form due in from Dean to Institutional Research by
Friday, April 15th
 Full Review:
 Form due in from Department Chair to Dean by Friday,
April 1st
 Form due in from Dean to Institutional Research by
Friday, May 6th
Program Review
Roles for the Process
 Department Chairs/Program Coordinators
 Coordinate participation in the program review.
This involves:
 Completion of the program review form
 Engaging faculty in the review process
 Sending completed review to Dean by the due date
 Academic Deans:
 Read over completed program review
 Set up a meeting to discuss/adjust
 Send completed review to Institutional Research by the
due date
Program Review
Special Tabs in Program Review Form
 Please take note of the following tabs within the form:




Schedule
Instructions
Terminology & Clarifications
Reference Codes
Program Review
Types of review: The Annual Update
 An Annual Update has 3 components:
 Documenting improvements made and/or planned for
outcomes that fell short of the benchmark in the most
recent full review; (Ref: 2014)
 Documenting any new or ongoing initiatives or activities
focused on improvement – not necessarily directly
linked to programmatic student learning outcomes; and
 Documenting strategies used to engage the program’s
faculty in the review process.
Program Review
Types of review: The Full Review
 A Full Review has 6 main components:
 Assessment of programmatic student learning outcomes
(undergraduate – form A1, or graduate – form A2)
 Retention/Graduation Rate/Time-to-Degree (form B)
 Placement (form C)
 Faculty Engagement in process (form D)
 Assessment of Writing Across the Curriculum – course
level learning outcomes (undergraduate programs only)
– (form E)
 Assessment of General Education – course level learning
outcomes (undergraduate disciplines in the arts &
sciences only) – (form F)
Program Review
Full Review: Assessment of Programmatic SLOs
 Appropriate form: FR-Form A1 (UG) or A2 (GR)
 Why different: Different Institutional Student Learning
Outcomes (ISLOs) to align with Programmatic Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
 Type in SLOs
 Identify which ISLOs and Strategic Plan Themes align with each
programmatic SLO
 Review results from a recent assessment of learning at the
program level related to stated outcome:
 What tool/project/paper/presentation, etc. was used to
demonstrate achievement of the outcome?
 Where was the tool/project/paper/presentation used?
Program Review
Full Review: Assessment of Programmatic SLOs
 Review results from a recent assessment of learning at the
program level related to stated outcome (continued):
 How often is this measurement taken?
 When was the last measurement?
 Identify the benchmark/threshold established by
program faculty to determine adequate demonstration
of learning for the outcome
 The benchmark defines acceptable performance
 E.g. 85% of students achieve a rating, on term paper
reviewed with rubric, of “meets expectations”
Program Review
Full Review: Assessment of Programmatic SLOs
 Review results from a recent assessment of learning at the
program level related to stated outcome (continued):
 Identify the actual results from the most recent
measurement

E.g. 45% achieved a rating of “meets expectations”
 Interpret the findings using the benchmark

E.g. Outcome not achieved
 What action(s) will be taken as a result of the finding?

E.g. Strengthen coverage of material in curriculum where
demonstrated learning was below expectations (determined by
rubric used to evaluate the term paper)
 Are any resources needed to take the proposed action?
Program Review
Full Review: Retention/Graduation Rate/Time-to-degree
 Appropriate form: FR-Form B
 For undergraduate programs – Complete B1
 Refer to retention & graduation rate statistics in data profile
from IR
 Identify any known issues that negatively impact retention or
graduation of students in your program.
 List actions needed for improving retention and/or
graduation rate, and identify what resources you believe
would be needed for the action to occur.
 For graduate programs – Complete B2 (lower on form)
 Identify known issues with time-to-degree for students in the
program, and propose actions & resources (as with the
undergraduate programs) to address issue(s).
Program Review
Full Review: Placement
 Appropriate form: FR-Form C
 This form intended for undergraduate programs, although graduate
programs may provide information if available.
 For recent graduates (within past 3 years), provide
statistics (percentage of graduates, if known) from each
graduating class who went on to graduate study, are
employed full-time, etc.
 List any known graduate schools attended by recent
graduates/alums.
 Provide additional context for how information was
collected/received and/or challenges program faces in
collecting placement information from graduates.
Program Review
Full Review: Faculty Engagement in Process
 Appropriate form: FR-Form D
 Consists of just 1 question:
 What tactics/strategies were used within the
department to engage faculty in the program review
process?
Program Review
Full Review: Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Assessment
 Appropriate form: FR-Form E, for UG programs only
 Consists of same prompts as for the Programmatic SLOs (Form A1),
although WAC assessment is for course-level outcomes.
 Many programs had submitted WAC proposals to the GEC several
years ago, outlining where program-specific writing ability is
developed within the curriculum.
 Although curriculum may have changed, the approved WAC
proposals may provide a foundation for reference.
 Benchmarks may differ for students at different stages in the
curriculum – lower for introductory writing-based courses, and
higher for courses in which discipline-specific writing ability should
be appropriate for any graduate of the program.
Program Review
Full Review: General Education SLO Assessment
 Appropriate form: FR-Form F, for UG programs in the arts &
sciences only
 General Education Assessment through this program review process
is course-based, and references the spring 2015-approved SLOs.
 Rationale: Ensures a distributed system of course-based
assessments of student learning related to General Education
learning outcomes
 Align each course level outcome referenced with:




ISLOs addressed by course outcome statement
Strategic Plan Themes addressed by course outcome statement
Gen Ed Skill Areas addressed by course outcome statement
Gen Ed Distribution Areas addressed by course outcome statement
 Respond to same prompts as for the Programmatic SLO and
WAC assessment
Program Review
Any Questions?