Home  »  Program Review Plan

Program Review Plan

Tags:  

 

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.

 

                Examples of Evidence:

o        How does your division/program clearly differentiate its learning goals for undergraduate, graduate, and post-baccalaureate programs by identifying the expected learning outcomes for each?

o        Provide proof of assessment of student learning at multiple levels:  course, program, and institutional.

o        How does your assessment of student learning include multiple direct and indirect measures of student learning?

o        Show that the results obtained through assessment of student learning are available to appropriate constituencies, including students themselves.

o        How does the division/program integrate into its assessment of student learning the data reported for purposes of external accountability (e.g., graduation rates, passage rates on licensing exams, placement rates, transfer rates)?

o        How does the division/program’s assessment of student learning extend to all educational offerings, including credit and non-credit certificate programs?

o        How does your division/program involve faculty in defining expected student learning outcomes and creating the strategies to determine whether those outcomes are achieved?

o        Provide evidence that faculty and administrators routinely review the effectiveness and uses of the division/program’s programs to assess student learning.

 

Core Component – 3B.  The division/program values and supports effective teaching.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        Prove that qualified faculty determine curricular content and strategies for instruction.

o        How does the division/program support professional development designed to facilitate teaching and suited to varied learning environments?

o        Provide documents which show that the division/program evaluates teaching and recognizes effective teaching.

o        How does the division/program provide services to support improved pedagogies?

o        How does the division/program demonstrate openness to innovative practices that enhance learning?

o        How does the division/program supports faculty in keeping abreast of the research on teaching and learning, and of technological advances that can positively affect student learning and the delivery of instruction?

o        What professional organizations do faculty participate in that are relevant to the disciplines they teach?

 

Core Component – 3C.  The division/program creates effective learning environments.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        How do assessment results inform improvements in curriculum, pedagogy, instructional resources, and student services?

o        How does the division/program provide an environment that supports all learners and respects the diversity they bring?

o        Provide evidence that your advising systems focus on student learning, including the mastery of skills required for academic success?

o        Give examples of how your division/program has employed, when appropriate, new technologies that enhance effective learning environments for students.

o        How do the division/program’s systems of quality assurance include regular review of whether its educational strategies, activities, processes, and technologies enhance student learning?

 

Core Component – 3D.  The division/program’s learning resources support student learning and effective teaching.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        How does the division/program ensure access to the resources (e.g., research laboratories, libraries, performance spaces, clinical practice sites) necessary to support learning and teaching?

o        How does the division/program evaluate the use of its learning resources to enhance student learning and effective teaching?

o        How does the division/program regularly assess the effectiveness of its learning resources to support learning and teaching?

o        How does the division/program support students, staff, and faculty in using technology effectively?

o        Does the division/program have effective staffing and support for its learning resources?

o        How do the division/program’s systems and structures enable partnerships and innovations that enhance student learning and strengthen teaching effectiveness?

o        Do budgeting priorities reflect that improvement in teaching and learning is a core value of the organization?

 

 

4.         Criterion Four:  Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge

 

Criterion Statement:

 

The division/program promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission.

 

                Core Component – 4A.  The division/program demonstrates, through the actions of its administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning.

 

                Examples of Evidence:

o        How do the division/program’s planning and pattern of financial allocation demonstrate that it values and promotes a life of learning for its students, faculty, and staff?

o        Provide evidence that the division/program supports professional development opportunities and makes them available to all of its administrators, faculty, and staff.

o        How does the division/program publicly acknowledge the achievements of students and faculty in acquiring, discovering, and applying knowledge?

o        How does the faculty and students, in keeping with the organization’s mission, produce scholarship and create knowledge through basic and applied research?

o        How does the division/program use scholarship and research to stimulate organizational and educational improvements?

 

Core Component – 4B.  The division/program demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        Show how the division/program integrates general education into all of its undergraduate degree programs through curricular and experiential offerings intentionally created to develop the attitudes and skills requisite for a life of learning in a diverse society?

o        How does the division/program regularly review the relationship between its mission and values and the effectiveness of its general education?

o        Provide evidence that you assess how effectively your graduate programs are in establishing a knowledge base on which students develop depth of expertise?

o        How does the division/program demonstrate the linkages between curricular and co-curricular activities that support inquiry, practice, creativity, and social responsibility?

o        Show how your division/program’s learning outcomes demonstrate that graduates have achieved breadth of knowledge and skills and the capacity to exercise intellectual inquiry.

o        How do the division/program’s learning outcomes demonstrate effective preparation for continued learning?

 

Core Component – 4C.  The division/program assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society.

 

                Examples of Evidence:

o        How do the division/program’s regular academic program reviews include attention to currency and relevance of courses and programs?

o        In keeping with its mission, how do the division/program’s learning goals and outcomes include skills and professional competence essential to a diverse workforce?

o        How do your learning outcomes document that graduates have gained the skills and knowledge they need to function in diverse local, national, and global societies?

o        Give examples of how curricular evaluation involves alumni, employers, and other external constituents who understand the relationships among the courses of study, the currency of the curriculum, and the utility of the knowledge and skills gained.

o        How does the division/program support creation and use of scholarship by students in keeping with its mission?

o        Show that Faculty expect students to master the knowledge and skills necessary for independent learning in programs of applied practice.

o        What curricular and co-curricular opportunities does the division/program provide that promote social responsibility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Core Component – 4D.  The division/program provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        What division/program academic and student support programs exist which contribute to the development of student skills and attitudes fundamental to responsible use of knowledge?

o        How does the division/program follow explicit policies and procedures to ensure ethical conduct in its research and instructional activities?

o        How does the division/program encourage curricular and co-curricular activities that relate responsible use of knowledge to practicing social responsibility?

o        How does the division/program provide effective oversight and support services to ensure the integrity of research and practice conducted by its faculty and students?

o        How does the division/program create, disseminate, and enforce clear policies on practices involving intellectual property rights?

 

 

 

5.         Criterion Five:  Engagement and Service

 

Criterion Statement:

 

As called for by its mission, the division/program identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.

 

                Core Component – 5A.  The division/program learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations.

               

                Examples of Evidence:

o        How are the division/program’s commitments shaped by its mission and its capacity to support those commitments?

o        Give examples of how the division/program practices periodic environmental scanning to understand the changing needs of its constituencies and their communities.

o        How does the division/program demonstrate attention to the diversity of the constituencies it serves?

o        How do the organization’s outreach programs respond to identified community needs?

o        How is the division/program well-served by its outreach programs such as continuing education, customized training, and extension services?

 

Core Component – 5B.  The division/program has the capacity and the commitment to engage with its identified constituencies and communities.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        How do the division/program’s structures and processes enable effective connections with its communities?

o        How do the division/program’s co-curricular activities engage students, staff, administrators, and faculty with external communities?

o        How do the division/program’s educational programs connect students with external communities?

o        Do the division/program’s resources-physical, financial and human-support effective programs of engagement and service?

o        How do the division/program’s planning processes project ongoing engagement and service?

 

Core Component – 5C.  The division/program demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        Describe any collaborative ventures that exist with other higher learning organizations and education sectors (e.g., K-12 partnerships, articulation arrangements, 2+2 programs).

o        How do the division/program’s transfer policies and practices create an environment supportive of the mobility of learners?

o        Give examples of community leaders who testify to the usefulness of the organization’s programs of engagement.

o        How do the division/program’s programs of engagement give evidence of building effective bridges among diverse communities?

o        How does the division/program participate in partnerships focused on shared educational, economic, and social goals?

o        Do the division/program’s partnerships and contractual arrangements uphold the division/program’s integrity?

 

Core Component – 5D.  Internal and external constituencies value the services the division/program provides.

 

Examples of Evidence:

o        How do the division/program’s evaluation of services involve the constituencies served?

o        Provide proof that service programs and student, faculty, and staff volunteer activities are well-received by the communities served.

o        Provide evidence that the division/program’s economic and workforce development activities are sought after and valued by civic and business leaders?

o        How do your external constituents participate in the division/program’s activities and co-curricular programs open to the public?

o        How are the division/program’s facilities available to and used by the community?

o        What programs does the division/program provide to meet the continuing education needs of licensed professionals in its community?

 

 

6.       Response to Previous Program Review Cycle Recommendations

 

A response should be made to each recommendation (action item) of the Internal Review Committee following the unit’s last program review.  This response should include an explanation of how the recommendations were addressed and a current status report.

 

 

7.         Appendices

 

a.    In the body of its report, the division/program will include substantiation that the Division/Program meets each of the five criteria for accreditation adopted by North Central Association of Colleges and Schools listed above.   If verification is too large to include in the body of the report, it should be included in the appendix.   Appendices should be labeled using tabbed dividers and located at the end of the academic unit’s report and should use he same organization sequence as the HLC core components.  (For example, when faculty vitas are place an appendix it should be labeled 3B because vitas correspond to Core Component 3B).

 

b.   In responding to the HLC questions, the academic unit should also be sure that it addresses the following topics:

 

1)      Academic success predictors of students who have declared a major in the division/program:

 

a)      Average ACT/SAT scores

b)      Average high school grade point average

c)      Average high school percentile rank among graduating seniors

d)     Average MidAmerica Nazarene University cumulative grade-point average of current majors

e)      Number of degrees awarded each year for the past five years for each major in the Division/program

f)       Graduation rate (within 150% of time to completion of juniors, seniors, or admitted to the major)

g)      Number of majors by level (Freshmen, Sophomores, etc.) for the past 10 years and number of double majors and minors in the Division/program

 

2)       Results of current student and alumni surveys conducted by the Division/program and Office of Institutional Research.

 

a)       Surveys of alumni

b)       Surveys of current majors

c)       Placement information for graduates in careers or graduate school

 

3)      A vita for each faculty member and short summary of their areas of specialization.

 

4)       Instruction

 

a)       Division/program workload for each of the past (5) five years

i)         Number of full-time faculty

ii)       Adjunct faculty (full-time equivalency)

b)       Credit hours offered

c)       Credit production (credit hours times number of students)

d)      Total faculty instructional contact hours per week (including classroom instruction, labs, private lessons, clinicals, practicums, internships, student teaching, directed studies, etc.)

 

5)       Professional Activities

 

a)       Activities engaged in by faculty to improve instructional quality (collectively) over the past (5) five years (e.g. workshops, faculty development, conferences, course work etc.)

b)       Professional activities over the past (5) five years (e.g. publications, conference presentations, research conducted, reviews, speaking engagements, performances etc.)

c)       Professional honors and achievements (list names of faculty members with specific honors and/or achievements, such as awards, grants, contracts, degrees, scholarships, etc.)

 

6)       Miscellaneous

 

a)       Division/program-sponsored clubs, organizations, honor societies, etc.

 

7)      Retention statistics by degree/major.

 

8)       Unit Resources:  Division/program budgets and expenditures

 

a)       Hourly staff support (other than faculty)

b)       General supplies

c)       Travel

d)      Equipment

 

 

INTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

 

The Internal Review Committee Report shall be limited to no more than 25 double-spaced pages.  This limitation is exclusive of appendices. 

 

The report must follow the five criteria for accreditation adopted by North Central Association of Colleges and Schools listed above.   The Internal Review Committee must come to a conclusion regarding whether the Division/Program satisfies each of the five criteria based upon the support offered by the Division/Program. (It is important to note that the Division/Program need not respond forcefully to every bullet point (example of evidence) above to convince the Internal Review Committee that the respective Criterion has been met.  Rather the IRC should consider the totality of the circumstance for each criterion).  Finally, each criterion related chapter of the report should conclude with a summary of the Division/program’s strengths, areas of concern and opportunities for improvement.  Usually, these summaries a placed into a table.


Post a comment

Your Name or E-mail ID (mandatory)

Note: Your comment will be published after approval of the owner.





 RSS of this page