MNU PROGRAM REVIEW PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the MidAmerica Nazarene University academic program review process is to promote academic excellence through providing regular, systematic analysis of academic units and the courses of study (programs) which they offer. This process will assist each undergraduate division and graduate program in evaluating the strengths and weakness of its departments with relationship to program relevancy and provide a basis for assessing current issues/needs and making recommendations for future directions.
OBJECTIVES AND TIMELINES
I. Objectives of Academic Program Review
A. The systematic procedures of the review process identify strengths and weaknesses of academic programs. This review will result in recommendations for program development and, where appropriate, modification. The goal of this process is to promote and maintain quality, and efficiently administered academic programs.
B. The program review will serve as a strategic planning document for the unit under review. The Division (Graduate program) and the University will use the results of program review as a guide for decisions concerning resource allocations, faculty staffing, admissions standards, curriculum content, and other related matters. Recommendations based on this review will be considered in relationship to availability of resources, institutional mission, and master planning goals.
C. For those disciplines having national or state accreditation (hereafter referred to as special accreditation), with regular processes for program review established by the special accreditation body, the division/program review may be scheduled to coincide with the special accreditation review. For these units, documents and reports presented to and received from the special accreditation body may also be submitted to the Internal Review Committee.
II. Academic Program Review Schedule
A. April 15th of the year preceding the review
1. The Associate Academic Dean for Accreditation, Program Review and Assessment (Mark Ford) will remind division/program Chairs that their program review is scheduled for the following academic year and meet with them to distribute copies of the guidelines and go over the process.
2. The Office of Institutional Research will assist divisions in the collection and statistical analysis of data acquired through survey processes.
B. Year of Academic Program Review
1. Summer/Fall - The academic unit will conduct its self-study.
2. By September 15th, the President of the University will appoint Internal Review Committees and committee chairs. The review committee will be comprised of five (5) teaching faculty from separate academic units. At the discretion of the division/program, and with the approval of the President, outside evaluators may be included as a part of the review process. Since it is desirable to have wide involvement, faculty will serve on review committees on a rotational basis. Mark Ford will meet with the committee chairs to distribute copies of the program review guidelines, go over the evaluation process, and to provide a brief orientation session.
3. By November 1st, the self-study will be reviewed by each full-time faculty member in the office and by the Division Chair/Program Director. Upon approval by faculty, four (4) hard copies and one electronic copy of the Unit Self-Study Report should be submitted to Mark Ford.
4. By March 15th, the Internal Review Committee will complete a review of the unit’s Self-Study Report and submit a written report of their findings to Mark Ford, who will forward a copy to the Division/Program. Division/Program faculty will review this report for factual accuracy and, within seven (7) days, may make a written reply related only to factual errors of the Internal Review Committee.
5. By March 31st, the Internal Review Committee will submit five hard copies and one electronic copy of its final report to Mark Ford, who will forward a copy of the report to the academic unit.
6. By May 15th, the Associate Dean will conduct a meeting with the Division Chair (Program Director) and the Internal Review Committee Chair. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the Self-Study and Internal Review Committee Reports and to arrive at action items for improvement of the academic area. It should be noted that not everything that is listed as an opportunity for improvement by the IRC rises to the level of an action item.
C. Recommendations to the President of the University and Board of Trustees
Included in the annual report of the Vice President for Academic Affairs to the President of the University and Board of Trustees will be a summary of each of the program reviews undertaken that year and recommendations for follow-up. Also included in this report will be a description of progress toward specific goals and objectives identified in previous program reviews completed by the academic units under examination.
SELF STUDY PROCESS
I. Self-Study Team
A. Faculty of the Division/Program being reviewed will comprise the Self-Study team. It is recommended that the Division/Program invite one student from each major/degree the Division/Program offers. Since confidentiality is of primary concern, the level of student involvement will be at the discretion of the Division/Program.
II. Unit Self-Study Report
A. Instructions:
The program review process is based upon the Higher Learning Commission’s “Criteria for Accreditation” and all self-study and internal review committee reports should be organized according to the five major criteria for accreditation listed below. Each criterion has three elements: Criterion Statement, Core Components, and Examples of Evidence. These elements are defined as follows.
Criteria Statements: These statements define necessary attributes of a division/program. A division/program must be judged to have met each of the Criteria to clear the program review process. Corrective measures may be applied by the Vice President for Academic Affairs if a division/program is in jeopardy of not meeting one or more of the Criteria.
Core Components: A division/program addresses each Core Component as it presents reasonable and representative evidence of meeting a criterion. The review of each Core Component is necessary for a thorough evaluation of how a division/program meets a criterion.
Examples of Evidence: These are examples of the specific types of evidence that a division/program should present in addressing a Core Component. Divisions/programs may provide other evidence they find relevant. Some types of evidence suggested may not be appropriate for all units; therefore, the absence of a specific type of evidence does not necessarily mean that the office has failed to meet a criterion. Rather, the Internal Review Committee will consider the totality of the material presented with regard to a particular criterion.
B. The academic unit’s self study report shall be limited to no more than 50 double-spaced pages. This limitation is exclusive of appendices.
C. The following questions and structure should be used by the academic unit:
1. Criterion One: Mission and Integrity
Criterion Statement:
The division/program operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students.
Core Component – 1A. The division/program’s mission is clear and articulates publicly the division/program’s commitments.
Examples of Evidence (See Catalog for Division/program Objectives):
o Has the division/program adopted statements of mission, vision, values, goals, and division/program priorities that together clearly and broadly define the division/program’s mission?
o Do the division/program’s mission, vision, values and goals statements define the varied internal and external constituencies the organization intends to serve?
o Do the division/program’s mission statements include a strong commitment to high academic standards that sustain and advance excellence in higher learning?
o Do the division/program’s mission statements state goals for the learning to be achieved by its students?
o Does the division/program regularly evaluate and, when appropriate, revise its mission statements.
o Does the division/program make its mission statements available to the public, particularly to prospective and enrolled students.
Core Component – 1B. In its mission statements, the division/program recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater society it serves.
Examples of Evidence:
o Do the division/program’s mission statements address diversity within the community values and common purposes it considers fundamental to its mission?
o Do the division/program’s mission statements present the division/program’s function in a multicultural society?
o Do the division/program’s mission statements affirm the organization’s commitment to honor the dignity and worth of individuals?
o Are the division/program’s required codes of belief or expected behavior congruent with its mission?
o Do the division/program’s mission statements provide a basis for the division/program’s basic strategies to address diversity?
Core Component – 1C. Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the division/program.
Examples of Evidence:
o Do the division/program’s faculty, staff, and students understand and support MNU’s mission?
o Are your division/program’s strategic decisions/goals congruent with the MNU’s mission?
o Do your division/program’s planning and budgeting priorities flow from and support MNU’s mission?
o Does your division/program articulate the mission in a consistent manner with the University?
Core Component – 1D. The division/program’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the division/program to fulfill its mission.
Examples of Evidence:
o Do division/program policies and practices document the division/program’s focus on the organization’s mission?
o How does the division/program distribute responsibilities and implement work through delegated authority?
o Are your division/program’s administrators committed to the mission and appropriately qualified to carry out their defined responsibilities?
o Do your faculty and other academic leaders share responsibility for the coherence of the curriculum and the integrity of academic processes?
o How does effective communication facilitate governance processes and activities within your division/program?
o How does your division/program evaluate its structures and processes regularly and strengthen them as needed?
Core Component – 1E. The division/program upholds and protects its integrity.
Examples of Evidence:
o How are the activities of the division/program congruent with its mission?
o Give examples of how the division/program understands and abides by local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to it (or by laws and regulations established by federally-recognized sovereign entities).
o Does the division/program consistently implement clear and fair policies regarding the rights and responsibilities of each of its internal constituencies?
o How do the division/program’s structures and processes allow it to ensure the integrity of its co-curricular and auxiliary activities?
o How does the division/program deal fairly with its external constituents?
o Provide evidence that the organization presents itself accurately and honestly to the public.
o How do you know that the division/program documents timely responses to complaints and grievances, particularly those of students?
2. Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future
Criterion Statement:
The division/program’s allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.
Core Component – 2A. The division/program realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends.
Examples of Evidence:
o How do the division/program’s planning documents reflect a sound understanding of the division/program’s current capacity?
o How do the division/program’s planning documents demonstrate that attention is being paid to emerging factors such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization?
o How do the division/program’s planning documents show careful attention to the division/program’s function in a multicultural society?
o Provide an example of how the division/program’s planning processes include effective environmental scanning.
o Is the division/program environment supportive of innovation and change?
o How does the division/program incorporate in its planning those aspects of its history and heritage that it wishes to preserve and continue?
Core Component – 2B. The division/program’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.
Examples of Evidence:
o Are the division/program’s resources are adequate for achievement of the educational quality it claims to provide?
o What division/program plans exist, if any, for resource development and allocation? Do these plans document the division/program’s commitment to supporting and strengthening the quality of the education it provides?
o Provide evidence that the division/program uses its human resources effectively.
o How does your division/program intentionally develop its human resources to meet future changes?
o Does the division/program’s history of financial resource development and investment document a forward-looking concern for ensuring educational quality (e.g., investments in faculty development, technology, learning support services, new or renovated facilities)?
o How are your division/program’s planning processes flexible enough to respond to unanticipated needs for program reallocation, downsizing, or growth?
o How would you show that your division/program has a history of achieving its planning goals?
Core Component – 2C. The division/program’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of academic unit effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement.
Examples of Evidence:
o How does the division/program demonstrate that its evaluation processes provide evidence that its performance meets its stated expectations for division/program effectiveness?
o Provide proof that the division/program maintains effective systems for collecting, analyzing, and using division/program information.
o Provide proof that appropriate data and feedback loops available and used throughout the division/program to support continuous improvement. (e.g. Division/program minutes).
o Does the division/program have adequate support for its evaluation and assessment processes?
Core Component – 2D. All levels of planning align with the academic unit’s mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.
Examples of Evidence:
o Coordinated planning processes center on the mission documents that define vision, values, goals and strategic priorities for the academic unit.
o Planning processes link with budgeting processes.
o Implementation of the academic unit’s planning is evident in its operations.
o Long-range strategic planning processes allow for reprioritization of goals when necessary because of changing environments.
o Planning documents give evidence of the unit’s awareness of the relationships among educational quality, student learning, and the diverse, complex, global, and technological world in which the organization and its students exist.
o Planning processes involve internal constituents and, where appropriate, external constituents.
3. Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching
Criterion Statement:
The Division/program provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission.
Core Component – 3A. The division/program’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible.
