Academic Program Review Procedure (Draft)

Purpose:

This procedure describes the schedule, timeline, components, and responsibilities involved in the academic program review process at Winona State University (WSU).

Rationale for Revision and Major Changes:

(This is for stakeholder review, not for publishing)

This procedure draft is a proposed update for

• WSU 3-26A Program Review Procedure

This updated procedure combines the previous sections A and B (“Program Review Schedule” and “Program Review Timeline”) into one. It clarifies the timelines in section A, setting clear dates (rather than, e.g., “within 30 days of receipt”) and clarifying expectations for the last steps of the process. (Note that none of the previous specified dates have changed.) The suggested components of the self-study report are expanded in a separate document and removed from this one.

Suggested Stakeholder feedback deadline:

Feedback should be provided using this WSU form by ??/??/202?.

Procedure:

A. Program Review Schedule and Timeline

The Office of Academic Affairs develops a five-year review schedule for all undergraduate and graduate academic programs. The schedule is reviewed annually in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders and distributed to all academic programs and the Faculty Senate by December 1.

The program review is conducted according to the following 3-year timeline. This timeline may be modified by prior written agreement between the dean and the program. Any failure by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs (P/VPAA) or designee to conform to the below timetable will result in the five-year review cycle not starting until the next year’s cycle.

Academic Year 1 (Planning)

By December 1: The program review schedule is distributed to all academic programs and the faculty senate.

By February 15: The program faculty contact IPAR to discuss data needs for program review.

By March 30: The dean meets with the program to discuss process, including any changes to the timeline.

Academic Year 2 (Implementation)

By October 1: The program submits to the dean (1) the first draft of the self-study report accompanied by an evidence portfolio; and (2) a list of possible external reviewers accompanied by their current curriculum vitae.

By October 15: The external reviewer is identified, and external review is scheduled. The dean provides feedback for the program review on the first draft of the evidence portfolio and self-study.

By November 1: The program submits the final self-study report to the dean and the external reviewer.

By February 15: The external reviewer conducts a site visit.

By March 1: The external reviewer submits the report jointly to the dean and the program.

By April 1: The program submits to the dean a written response to the external reviewer’s report and, if appropriate, a revised program strategic plan. If the program does not submit a written response by the deadline, the external reviewer’s report will be accepted, uncontested, and the next step in this procedure can occur.

By May 1: The dean meets the program faculty to discuss the external review. The dean and program faculty map the results of program level SLO assessment to university wide SLOs to provide feedback to the P/VPAA to inform the university of how well they are meeting their goals and to guide professional development efforts pertaining to campus assessment.

By June 1: The dean submits a written recommendation to the Provost/VPAA, along with the program self-study report, the external review report, the program faculty’s response, and a summary of the discussion with the program and any response from the program.

Academic Year 3 (Improvement or Integration)

By October 1: The P/VPAA or designee meets with the dean and the program to discuss the overall outcome of the internal and external program review. After this meeting, the P/VPAA provides a written response to the program detailing how they plan to support the needs of the program. If the response from the P/VPAA is later than October 1, an extra year is added for the five-year program review cycle and documented in the Higher Learning Commission report

B. Accommodation of Accredited Programs

For accredited programs, the program review is conducted concurrently with accreditation reviews. The dean meets with accredited programs to specify how the accreditation process will be coordinated with internal program review requirements to ensure that the objectives of both are met. The self-study and external review processes and timelines are typically defined by the accreditation body.

The purpose of the internal review is not limited to obtaining accreditation. The internal review also provides the program and administration with information pertaining to the future of the program. For that reason, the program review includes steps that guide the response of the program and administration to the information generated by the internal review.

C. Program Review Components

1. Evidence Portfolio. The evidence portfolio includes program/department-level data defined by the program faculty and other data relevant to understanding the past and projected performance of the program.

2. Self-Study Report. The program self-study report is a structured, evidence-based, comprehensive analysis of a program accompanied by a strategic plan. The accompanying procedure document provides guidance on its contents and potential sources of data.

3. External Review. The external review is conducted by an independent reviewer, external to the university, which provides an independent perspective on the quality of the program.

4. Program Response to the External Review. The program response consists of the program faculty’s written response to the external program review. This may include a revised strategic plan.

5. P/VPAA Response. The P/VPAA’s (or designee’s) response provides meaningful feedback to critical information on program success and details current decisions and future plans to support the success of the program.

D. External Review

The following procedure applies to non-accredited programs. Programs with accreditation may substitute the external review process specified by accreditation agencies in consultation with the dean.

1. Selection of an External Reviewer.

The external reviewer has sufficient professional experience or background to review the program. Programs consult the list of reviewers provided by professional organizations and societies when available. The chosen reviewer does not have any conflict of interests either with the program or the faculty being reviewed.

The program faculty compiles a list of three potential reviewers and forwards those names in recommended ranked preference to the appropriate dean along with current curriculum vitae for each potential reviewer. The list identifies any relationships to the program or to the program faculty. The dean ranks the reviewers in order of preference and forwards the recommendation to the P/VPAA. The P/VPAA determines the external reviewer. In the event the forwarded reviewers are either unacceptable or unavailable, the program faculty and the dean submit the names of two to three additional potential reviewers.

The dean and chair/program coordinator arrange the hiring and scheduling of the external reviewer.

2. The External Review Report

The external reviewer conducts interviews with the following individuals or groups

• Department chair/program director

• Faculty members of the program

• Current and former students of the program (if appropriate}

• Dean of the college

• Members of the program’s advisory board (if appropriate) and representatives of community organizations that interact with the program (if appropriate)

• Program staff

• Others from the WSU community who interact with the program

• P/VPAA

The reviewer provides written feedback and recommendations to improve the quality of the program, being mindful of the self-study components and/or the requirements of accrediting agencies. Items to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Current state of program

• Program effectiveness

• The program’s process for assessment of program level SLOs

• Areas that meet the expectations of the program, areas of excellence, and areas that need improvement

• Quality and adequacy of the resources of available to the program

• Recommendations for program enhancement

The reviewer submits their final report to the dean and the program.

Related documents:

• Minnesota State Policy 3.36, Part 7, Academic Review

Related definitions:

[3-26] Academic Program:

A course of study leading to an undergraduate or graduate degree, major, minor, or certificate.

Authorizing Policy:

• 3-26 Academic Program Review Policy (Draft)

History:

Adoption date:
Implementation date: