Academic program review consists of ongoing, high quality peer reviews of all the University’s academic units and programs on a five-year cycle. The purpose of program review is to foster academic excellence, to determine how to raise the quality of every department, and to provide guidance for faculty and administrative decisions in support of continual future improvement.

Reviews are intended to provide a sharpened focus on program areas in which excellence can be achieved that will enhance national stature and assure the most efficient use of available resources. Final plans that are the outcome of program review will guide decisions to develop and allocate new resources.

Every department will prepare a self-study containing a comprehensive plan for improvement over the next six years, with special attention to graduate programs. Comprehensive plans will incorporate results from the department's assessment plan, including the assessment of student learning outcomes. The process is intended to assist an academic unit in understanding its current status so that it can establish clear priorities for achieving excellence or becoming eminent in its field.

A critique of each unit’s (the Provost will determine whether department or school level review is appropriate at time of initiating review, considering, among other factors, unit size) plans for achieving excellence and recommendations for constructive change will be provided by faculty peers from the best programs in the field at other leading universities.

Program reviews should have the following characteristics:

1. Reviews incorporate expert assessment provided by reviewers from other leading institutions.


2. Reviews are forward looking. While assessment of a program’s current status is important, priorities for continual future improvement are of greatest concern.


3. Reviews are evaluative, not just descriptive. Plans for improvement require academic judgments about the quality of the program, students, curriculum, learning outcomes, resources and future directions.


4. Review provides a concise, honest appraisal of an academic unit’s strengths and weaknesses in order to judge plans to improve.


5. Academic program reviews should incorporate recent results from an accreditation review and not duplicate those efforts.


6. Reviews will result in an action plan with an overarching strategic agenda, which will enable the program to increase its stature or achieve eminence.
7. Academic program reviews should report on the ways in which a program's assessment results, including the assessment of student learning outcomes, have been used to improve the program.
8. Action plans emphasize improvements that are possible through reallocation of the program’s existing resources. These plans should include a timeline, milestones and measurable outcomes to determine success.

Program review begins with the academic program undertaking a comprehensive self-study that serves as the basis for self-assessment and for identifying future directions and opportunities. The self-study process is intended to assist the department or school faculty in establishing developmental priorities and identifying strategies for achieving the goal of academic excellence or eminence in the field. The outcome of the self-study is an action plan for the next five years. The text of the self-study should not exceed 20 pages, and data and descriptive material should be placed in appendices.

Selection of programs/units for review
Programs/units selected for review are determined annually by the Provost who then notifies the appropriate Dean. The unit chairs are asked to provide the Dean a list of suggested external reviewers.

Formulation of review charge
As part of its discussions of the selection of departments for review, the Provost and Dean will identify some especially salient issues (some typical questions are listed in Review Issues for the Committee.) These issues will be communicated to the department and will be identified in the charge to the External Review Committee.

Self-study review
Selected unit conducts a self-study review, focusing on established guidelines (see Suggested Outline For Self-Study Review), the high-priority issues highlighted by the Provost, and any other special issues identified when the review is requested. Institutional Assessment and Studies has prepared a web accessible database to provide institutional data needed for the self-study. Program assessment data and results should be cited as well. The deadline for the self-study review is two months before the scheduled arrival of an external review committee.

External Review Committee
The Provost will solicit recommendations from the Dean and assemble an External Review Committee. A sample charge letter to the committee is included with this document. In general, the committee is directed to examine the unit's self-study review, its plans and respond to any specific issues identified by the Provost as noted above.

The Review Committee meets with the unit’s students, faculty, and staff, as well the Dean and Provost. A member of the UVA Faculty Senate, appointed by the Academic Affairs Committee, will serve on the Review Committee during their interviews. At the outset of the visit, the Review Committee has a brief interview with the Provost and Dean. Prior to their departure, the external members of the Committee prepare a draft report summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of the unit and its plans. (The Faculty Senate member does not contribute to the external members' draft report, but reports in person and/or in writing to the Senate Academic Affairs Committee.) The report of the External Committee members is delivered to the Dean and Provost in a closed meeting prior to their departure from campus.

Report Distribution and Responses
The unit chair (or dean in the case of a school) reviews this report for factual accuracy and responds to any inaccuracies within two weeks. The final report with factual corrections is then distributed to the unit for faculty, graduate and undergraduate student review and response; these responses, including a summary letter from the unit's head, are due back to the Dean in six weeks.

The final report and the responses from the unit under review are then distributed to the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee. Subsequently, but no later than four weeks, the Dean prepares a position paper for the Provost proposing any action to be taken. Deans' annual reports should describe progress on action items in the plan with regard to the timeline.

At its discretion, the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee may prepare a report to the Provost summarizing its views and recommendations.

The Unit Response
The Dean will then present the School’s plan, action items and timeline for each unit to a committee consisting of fellow Deans and members of the Shannon Center Board.

Timeline
September 1:
Provost announces programs selected for review. Draft document reviewed by Deans at September meeting, final version released ASAP after that meeting.
October 1:
Deans nominate external reviewers, Provost selects external review committee, external committee is charged, self study begins, visit is scheduled as early as possible in spring semester.
January:
Self studies are due from units two months prior to external committee visit. External committee visits occur, report delivered to Dean and Provost.
No later than two weeks following visit:
Unit Chair or Dean corrects any factual inaccuracies in report. Report is immediately made available to program faculty and students.
No later than two months following visit:
Unit’s written response due to Dean and Provost, including action plan with timeline.
No later than three months following visit:
Dean’s response, action plan and timeline are due to Provost. As soon as possible, Dean reports plan to a committee of fellow Dean’s and Shannon Center Board members. Deans' annual reports should describe progress on action items in the plan and the timeline.

(20 Pages Maximum)

1) Executive Summary of Comprehensive Plan for Improvement

2) Overview and Vision

a) Vision statement, less than one page
b) Distinguishing characteristics (what distinguishes this department from others in the field?)
c) Relationship to the University’s strategic objectives
d) Recommendations and actions from previous reviews

3) Assessment of quality

a) Current academic stature, including national rankings and metrics of excellence
b) Quality and diversity of students and placement of graduates
c) Quality and diversity of faculty, including recent achievements, research strengths, sponsored research support, patents, performances and service
d) Quality of teaching and learning, including the assessment of student learning outcomes.
e) An evaluation of educational programs, including productivity and viability according to SCHEV.
f) Comparative strengths, distinctiveness, and weaknesses

4) Comprehensive plan for the future

a) Integrated plan for improvement over the upcoming five- year period
b) Core objectives and priorities and the sequence of actions to be taken for each
c) Assessment of direction of the academic discipline in the next five years. Indicate how the department will position itself in the changing context.
d) Opportunities to extend existing strengths. Briefly discuss major obstacles and how to overcome them.
e) Internal improvements possible through reallocation of existing resources.
f) Improvements that can only be addressed though additional resources and your plan to obtain those resources.
g) Timeline, milestones and measurable outcomes to determine progress and measure success.

5) Summary of assessment activities and results (click here for more details)

a) Brief description of the program and learning outcomes that were assessed
b) Description of methods
c) Description of the assessment process
d) Important findings
e) Changes and improvements made in light of findings
f) Future assessment plans

Please review the Unit’s current strengths and weaknesses:

What is the Department’s scholarly focus? Is the balance between the various specialties appropriate? How is the Department viewed outside of UVA?

The Faculty and Provost require that the diversity of the faculty and student body with regard to underrepresented groups be assessed. Does the department have plans for recruitment/retention of these groups? Are their plans being assessed and modified as necessary? What are the limitations to success in these efforts?

Could the Department or School collaborate better with other departments on grounds to strengthen their undergraduate and graduate programs?

Is the undergraduate major coherent and well articulated? Do they assess learning and modify their program/teaching in response to their assessments? Are undergraduates well advised and mentored?

Are the requirements and curricula for graduate degrees well designed? Are the graduate students recruited, advised, and supported appropriately? Are they properly mentored in the research and teaching activities? Are they appropriately prepared for professional practice, whether in academia or otherwise?

Does the Department provide adequate mentoring and oversight of Postdoctoral Scholars?

Are the younger faculty given the opportunity to succeed in research and teaching activities? Does the level of scholarship show continual growth and improvement?

Please evaluate staff support, infrastructure, and space. Does this arrangement support the Department’s educational goals?

Please review the Unit’s plans for improvement. Is the timeline realistic and focused? Are the milestones appropriate? Are plans for reallocation of resources appropriate? Are plans for new resources well conceived?

Programs may request custom data from IAS or use the IAS Program Review query system to generate their own data. To request a custom report, or gain access to the Program Review query system, please fill out our Data Support form. An IAS staff person will contact you within one business day.

Note: This program review document has borrowed ideas and text from several other Universities, particularly the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Southern California, to whom we are grateful for permission to use ideas from their program review documents.