INTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE GUIDELINES
Report Structure
1. Structure your report around the Criteria for Accreditation. In other words use the general criterion statement and the core components as report headings.
2. For each core component provide as much analysis as necessary to demonstrate that the division/program either meets or does not meet the criterion.
3. For each criterion, the Internal Review Committee must come to a conclusion regarding whether the Division/Program meets the criterion based upon the support offered by the Division/Program. Use the following subheadings: conclusion, strengths, and opportunities for improvement.
4. Finally, at the end of the report, the Internal Review Committee should provide a general summary of the Division/program’s strengths and opportunities for improvement.
Analysis – How meticulous should the internal review committee be?
1. It is important to note that the Division/Program need not respond forcefully to every question (example of evidence) to convince the committee that the related Criterion has been met. Rather the committee should consider the totality of the circumstances for each criterion.
2. The Higher Learning Commission expects:
§ Production of substantive evidence that is cogent and evaluative. (i.e. one which connects and interprets data and makes judgments about fulfillment of the Core Components.)
§ Use of information and data to create evidence to support the organization’s self-evaluation.
§ Thoughtful analysis of evidence,
§ Easily identified and succinctly stated institutional priorities for improvement, and
§ Honest evaluation, not public relations, characterizes the tone and content of the report.
2. Suggestions to inspire analysis (not required):
§ Look for smoking guns such as: the division using too many adjuncts, too many classes with low enrollment, activities or programs that may cost the university too much, and structural problems (e.g. pay for adjuncts not being raised for a long time).
§ How does the department stack up against its peers?
§ Are the faculty members productive and visible in the profession?
§ Is student learning effective?
§ What about advising?
§ Where does the unit draw its students from?
§ Do they finish their degrees?
§ Where do they go once they graduate?
§ Which programs in the department are strong?
§ Which are weak?
§ What is the department’s ethos? Does it have energy and a future or has it gone flat?
§ Is the face that the department shows to the institution the same face that it shows the public?
§ The Vice President for Academic Affairs may have specific issues that need to be studied for each office.
3. The committee may (but is not required to) prepare a “request for additional information” addressed to the Division Chair asking for a response. This is particularly appropriate if the division appears to have a weakness that is not acknowledged or addressed adequately in their report.
