To learn more about the first cycle of Program Review surveys, click here.

To view historical data from the first cycle of Program Reviews, click here.

To see a Program Review report from the first cycle of Program Review, click here.

For more information about the first phase of Program Review (1996-2001):

History
Purpose
Process
Departmental profile
Historical data
Survey report of results
Self-assessment report
Academic plan
External and internal visiting committees
Program review committee
Schedule for first reviews, 1996-2001

History

The first reviews were conducted in the 1996-97 academic year and the first cycle of reviews continued for another four years, ending in 2000-2001. In all, 75 academic programs in the College of Arts and Sciences, the McIntire School of Commerce, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the Nursing School, the Curry School of Education, and the School of Architecture were reviewed. To see the 5-year schedule and a list of the individual programs for the first cycle of Program Review, click here. At the end of the 2000-2001 cycle, a review of Program Review was conducted to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the process and to make suggestions for improvement. The results of this review were carefully considered in drafting a plan to begin a second cycle of Program Review, to be piloted in 2004 and to include all academic programs (the first cycle did not include Law, Darden or the Medical School). To learn more about the current Program Review process, click here.

Purpose

Program Review for academic schools, departments, and programs is a comprehensive process of planning and assessment conducted by the office of the Vice President and Provost for the academic area. Program Review in each school provides a means for each school, department, or program to ask whether it is moving towards its stated goals and to reaffirm the appropriateness of those goals. Program Review also provides opportunities to identify needed improvements and develop strategies to effect those improvements. In short, the program review process is intended to improve the quality of teaching, research, and service, by enabling faculty and administrators to give systematic, thoughtful consideration to their educational practices and to make changes when needed.

Process

Program Review is a two-year process beginning in the fall of the first year and includes the activities listed below. The reviews encompass all activities of a school, department or program, both undergraduate and graduate, and include teaching, research, service, and all other activities in which the department or program may be engaged. There are four distinct phases to this process, outlined below.

1. Preparation of Departmental Profile. In the first year of the program review process, beginning in the fall, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Studies prepares a school or departmental profile. The department or program data profile is composed of two parts. The first is historical data from the University's various databases, compiled and organized to allow comparisons over a five-year period. Some comparative data from other peer institutions is provided as well. The second part of the departmental profile is the survey results from five surveys conducted by IAS of faculty, students and alumni in the year before a department or program writes its academic plan. After five years, when the surveys are again administered, a given department or program will have two sets of results to compare. Some of the survey results are numeric and others are text answers to open-ended questions. These two sets of data, historical and survey, are reviewed by IAS and a summary is provided. The Departmental Profile is used to help the department or program write its academic plan.

B. Historical Data. This data gives departments information on a full range of activities. The data is gathered from the University's mainframe computers, including the Integrated Student Information System, Faculty and Staff Human Resource Information, and Financial Accounting Data. Reported for the previous five years, this data includes comparisons with other departments undergoing program review at the same time, other schools within the University, and, in some instances, with peer institutions. IAS provides each department with a draft of the historic data during the early spring of the year preceding Program Review so that departments can review it for accuracy and clarity. Departments receive final drafts of the historical data as part of its departmental profile in late summer. The historical data is organized according to the Inputs-Environment-Outcomes model developed by Alexander Astin, Director of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Click here to learn more about historical data and to view historical data from past reviews.

C. Survey Data Report of Results. All data from the faculty, student, and alumni surveys are tabulated and organized into tables in a Report of Results, which is sent to department chairs and members of the Program Review Committees at the beginning of the Program Review year. Open-ended comments, survey methodology, and the questionnaire itself are included in the report. The Report compares a particular department's responses to a larger group of similar departments. For example, in 1999 all language programs in the College of Arts and Sciences were surveyed. The Department of French Language and Literature received a Report of Results which compared its responses to those of all other language programs combined. Click here to learn more about Program Review surveys and to view survey results from past program review surveys.

2. Preparation of Self-Assessment Report and Academic Plan. Upon receipt of the profile in late August or early September, the school or department uses the data and information provided to (1) conduct and prepare a report on a self-assessment of its activities, and (2) prepare a 5-year academic plan. The self-assessment report and the academic plan (intended to be two parts of the same document) are due to the Office of the Provost by the end of the fall semester.

A. The Self-Assessment Report. In the self-assessment report, schools or departments should analyze and address their strengths and weaknesses identified by the data provided in the profile, or from other information it may have. Especially, departments should address the results of their efforts (What is the department accomplishing? Is that what the department wishes to accomplish?) in comparison to the department's goals. This assessment of results should apply to student learning results, or outcomes, as well as to all other endeavors. Schools and departments should decide for themselves how they wish to organize to conduct this self- assessment and prepare the report. There is no established length or size for this portion of the report.

B. The Academic Plan. The academic plan should present the school or department's goals for its accomplishments over the next 5 years and strategies for how the department plans to achieve these goals. The plan should be specific in addressing weaknesses the school or department identifies either from the data in the profile or from other sources. The plan also should be as specific as possible about results the school or department plans to achieve in all areas of its operations- student learning, research, service, and others. The plan also should address resources the school or department would need to achieve its desired results. There also is no established length or size for this portion of the report. To view an example of an academic plan, click here.

3. Review by an External or Internal Review Committee. During the spring semester, the school or department or program will be reviewed either by an external visiting committee sponsored by the Shannon Center for Advanced Studies or by an internal review committee constituted by the Director of the Shannon Center after consultation with the department chair. The intention is that each school or department will have a visiting committee and an internal review committee on an alternating schedule. The purpose of these committees is to provide critical reviews of the self- assessments and the proposed academic plan. Members of the committee will meet with appropriate school or departmental or program members, students, and others as appropriate, in order to provide a written report of their findings and advice. Copies of the profile and the self- assessment report and academic plan will be provided to members of the review committees prior to their arrival on Grounds.

4. Review by the Program Review Committee. Following receipt of the review committee's written report and recommendation, the Program Review Committee will meet with the school dean and/or department chair to review the report and to review and approve the academic plan.

Schedule for the first round of reviews