Oregon State University Curriculum Council
These policies and procedures closely parallel and often
adopt the same language as found in
the "Policies and Procedures for the Review of Graduate Programs"
of the OSU Graduate Council.
Appendix I: Guidelines for Selection of External Reviewers
Appendix II: Guidelines for the Self-Study Report
Appendix III: Guidelines for Review Committee Report
Appendix IV: Sequence of Review Procedures
Appendix V: Sample Site Visit Agenda
The faculty of Oregon State University has responsibility for the quality of undergraduate instructional programs at Oregon State University. The Curriculum Council and the Office of Academic Affairs share oversight responsibilities in this area. Through the Curriculum Council, in-depth reviews of undergraduate programs following a standard format are conducted approximately once every ten years.
Undergraduate Academic Program Reviews provide a mechanism for constructive change. They provide the opportunity to review, evaluate, and plan in a deliberate and collegial setting. The objectives of these reviews are to evaluate the following areas for the ultimate purpose of improving the quality of undergraduate programs:
The Assistant Provost for Academic Programs initiates a schedule of reviews, notifying the chair and college dean of programs proposed for review well in advance of the review schedule. Reviews typically include all undergraduate programs within the unit being reviewed. Interdisciplinary baccalaureate programs fall within the purview of this policy; where these guidelines refer to "dean" or "department," or use other terms that do not fully apply to interdisciplinary programs, appropriate adjustments will be made by the Curriculum Council to assure a meaningful and efficient review.
The Assistant Provost for Academic Programs works with the department chair and college dean and the chair of the Curriculum Council to establish the composition of the Review Committee, the timing of the review, and the content appropriate for the self-study report. The department chair is responsible for preparing the departmental self-study and other materials appropriate for the review. Following review of the self-study, the Review Committee conducts a site visit. Based on the site visit and the materials presented in the self-study, the Review Committee submits its report(s) to the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs.
The report is then reviewed by the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs, the college dean, and the department chair. After factual information has been confirmed, the report is formally reviewed by the Review Committee, accepted by the Curriculum Council, and forwarded to the Provost. Subsequently, the Provost, the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs, chair of the Curriculum Council, chair of the Review Committee, the college dean, and the department chair meet to agree upon an appropriate plan of implementation. At an agreed upon date, the Curriculum Council will request a status report from the appropriate departmental, college, and institutional administrators.
Professionally Accredited Undergraduate Instructional Programs
The periodic in-depth review of academic programs subject to professional accreditation will be scheduled to coincide with the accredidation or reaccreditation review. The accreditation self-study will take the place of the self-study described in the following pages. The accreditation site visit and report will take the place of the external review component called for in this policy of the Curriculum Council. Self-studies will be made available to the Curriculum Council at the same time that they are submitted to the accrediting body. The Curriculum Council and the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs will receive summaries of those findings of the accreditation review body that bear upon the undergraduate instructional program. Other elements of the process of periodic in-depth review of undergraduate instructional programs do apply to professionally accredited undergraduate programs including those described below under the topics of implementation and follow-up.
Undergraduate academic program reviews must be scheduled carefully and well in advance. Advance notice is provided to the chair of the academic program and the responsible college dean that a review is being scheduled. Coordination among these individuals is essential to assure scheduling of all Review Committee members, especially the external members. Tentative time lines should be agreed upon, with consideration of the impact of summer activities on scheduling. It is the intention of the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs and the Curriculum Council, working with the Graduate Council, to maintain, at all times, a tentative five-year schedule for period in-depth review of the undergraduate programs; listings for the third to fifth year would provide units with an early alert and would be more tentative than would the listing of those programs identified for review in the current year or year after.
Coordination of Graduate and Undergraduate In-Depth Reviews
To the extent consistent with the objectives and policies of the Curriculum Council and the Graduate Council, the in-depth reviews of undergraduate and graduate programs will be coordinated. The Dean of the Graduate School and the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs will meet periodically to discuss opportunities for concurrent review of programs with undergraduate and graduate components. Such integration fosters recognition and analysis of interdependencies between the graduate and the undergraduate program(s) within an academic unit. When a concurrent review is agreed upon, units should prepare a single, integrated self-study, which fully responds to the questions, informational requests, and critical analyses specified in this document and in the "Policies and Procedures for the Review of Graduate Programs."
The complexities and the degree of integration of the undergraduate and the graduate programs in a concurrent review will determine whether the external review should be conducted by a single committee, a joint committee acting at times together and at times separately, or by separate review committees. The Dean of the Graduate School and the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs will make this determination in consultation with their respective councils and the leadership of the program unit involved. Should a single committee prove advisable, membership will still meet the requirements specified in the policies of the two councils; the Dean of the Graduate School and the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs will jointly appoint the chair and will specify the format for a joint report meeting the requirements of both the Graduate Council and the Curriculum Council.
The Undergraduate Review Committee
At the minimum, the Review Committee is to be comprised of one member of the Curriculum Council (who will serve as the Review Committee chair), two additional members of the Faculty (who may or may not be members of the Curriculum Council), and a minimum of two, and preferably three, disciplinary peers external to OSU. Additional participants may be desirable, especially external members where professional programs are involved. The inclusion of a representative of the employing profession may be particularly helpful. The Assistant Provost for Academic Programs accompanies the Review Committee during the site visit, but is not an official member of the Committee.
Assignment of one Curriculum Council member to the Review Committee is the responsibility of the chair of the Curriculum Council. The Assistant Provost for Academic Programs, having received recommendations from the department chair and the college dean, appoints the other members of the Committee. On-campus members of the Committee should be from a college other than that of the program under review and may be chosen from a department with strong undergraduate instruction connections to the program under review: e.g., from a unit that requires course work in the unit under review. The external reviewers should be a highly knowledgeable and reputable leader in the field under review (see Appendix I). While Committee members may vary in their familiarity with the subject matter of the program, all should be well versed in undergraduate education.
Travel arrangements and expenses for the external reviewers, including travel, lodging, meals, and any honorarium, are the responsibility of the college dean or deans whose program is being reviewed.
The primary benefit of the program review process lies in the opportunity for self-analysis and the use of this analysis (along with the feedback provided by the Review Committee) in subsequent program improvement. In order to derive maximum benefits from the external review effort, it is crucial that the self-study be approached as a process of communication and planning rather than as an exercise in generating paper. The self-study should be prepared collectively by the faculty and administration of the program unit, and should be an opportunity for colleagues to review departmental accomplishments, to share concerns and aspirations, and to develop long-term vision and strategies. The self-study report simply documents the matters considered during the self-study and describes the conclusions emerging from that process.
Appendix II provides a suggested outline for the self-study report and additional detail on the type of data to include. The report should begin by presenting the review context and go on to describe the mission statement of the unit and its relationship to the mission of the college and the University. The methods and extent to which the unit collects evidence of student learning should be discussed. The major short- and long-term goals of the unit and the program should be presented. Issues, challenges, and opportunities confronting the unit/program should also be described.
All undergraduate programs should regularly collect and monitor the data needed in the self-study. In addition, the Office of Academic Programs and the Institutional Research Office can assist in providing statistical information to units. The self-study report should present assessment data, along with narrative interpretation, in the following areas:
Questionnaires are often useful in soliciting impressions of program strengths and weaknesses. If used, questionnaires should be anonymous, and designed and administered with care.
Departments may offer multiple baccalaureate majors, minors, and options and may contribute to interdisciplinary majors and minors, the Honors College, general education (Bac Core), and provide service courses for other majors. The Assistant Provost for Academic Programs, obtaining guidance from the Curriculum Council, will work with the program leader to clearly define the scope of undergraduate instruction to be considered in the review. In general, the review should be designed to be comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of a department's undergraduate educational contributions.
Nine (9) copies of the self-study are to be submitted to the Office of Academic Programs at least two weeks in advance of the scheduled site visit.
Prior to the site visit, the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs will meet with the on-campus members of the Review Committee. The self-study document will be reviewed, and the Assistant Provost will advise the Committee on procedures and significant issues to be examined during the site visit. During this orientation, individual Committee members may be assigned responsibility for specific topics of inquiry and the agenda of the on-site visit will be reviewed. If the college dean has requested that attention be given to specific aspects of the program, these issues will be presented for incorporation.
Following review of the self-study report, the Review Committee conducts a site visit in the department. The site visit is typically one and a half days in length, but may be extended if deemed desirable by the Committee. Responsibility for the schedule and agenda of the site visit should be assumed jointly by the chair of the program being reviewed and the chair of the Review Committee. The Office of Academic Programs can assist in scheduling the site visit.
The visit allocates time to interview the college dean(s), the department chair, faculty, staff, and students. Confidentiality must be assured in these discussions. Additional materials may be requested and reviewed at this time if appropriate. Time should also be arranged for any faculty or staff member or undergraduate student who wishes to have a private meeting with the Review Committee. The Committee also examines the instructional facilities used by the program. The opportunity should be extended for additional feedback to the Committee after the site visit, to allow input from faculty and students who may not be present at the site visit, or who may have follow-up comments. At the conclusion of the site visit, the Committee, in executive session, should allocate time to review its findings and discuss its sense of the review. This is a particularly important opportunity to share the observations of the external reviewers. Following this discussion, the Committee should agree upon format, content, and assignments for various components of its review report.
At the conclusion of the site visit, the college dean and/or the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs may wish to confer with the external reviewers prior to their departure.
A sample site visit agenda is provided in Appendix V.
When the Review Committee has completed their review, they prepare a report of their findings (see Appendix III). This report provides evaluations and recommendations. The contributions of the external reviewers and other committee members will be integrated into a single report. No format is specified for this report, but it should address the quality, vitality, and direction of the academic program being reviewed. It should also comment on the quality of the students in the program, the productivity of the faculty, the leadership of the program, and the continued relevance of the program. It is essential that all Committee members agree upon the structure and nature of the report, and the responsibility for preparation of its various sections. Unless the Review Committee agrees otherwise, the creation of the draft and final version of the report are the responsibility of the Review Committee chair.
The report should include recommendations concerning the future of the department's programs, structure, and activities. These could range from a recommendation to discontinue a program to a recommendation to greatly expand the scope of the department and its programs. A recommendation might be to change the direction, structure, or activities of the department's undergraduate program in order to improve its quality, increase its effectiveness, or to utilize the University's resources more efficiently.
A draft of the Review Committee's report(s) should be completed within 30 days of the site visit and circulated to Committee members for their input. Following this, a final draft is to be submitted to the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs no more than two months after the site visit. The Assistant Provost will then provide copies to the department chair and the college dean. After factual information has been confirmed, the report will be formally reviewed by the Review Committee. A final report is submitted to the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs and the chair of the Curriculum Council.
The chair of the Curriculum Council will arrange for the report to be presented at a regular meeting of the Curriculum Council. The program chair and college dean may be invited to that meeting to review factual issues in the report. The Curriculum Council, after considering the report and any responses, will make recommendations to the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs, the Faculty Senate, Executive Committee or other appropriate individuals or groups. After the Curriculum Council has accepted the report, a copy is forwarded to the Provost.
Completion of the review should lead to positive actions to enhance program quality. Accordingly, there must be action to implement each of the Review Committee's recommendations. Following a careful review of the self-study report and the review report, the Provost will convene a meeting including the Assistant Provost for Academic Programs, chair of Curriculum Council, the college dean, and the department chair to discuss the recommendations and findings of the program review. This should result in a memorandum of understanding by these participants as to what specific actions are to be taken, by whom, and in what time frame. This memorandum must be agreed upon by the Provost, the college dean, the Chair of the Curriculum Council, and the departmental administrator. It becomes a part of the review record and is used by the Curriculum Council to guide follow-up activities.
The Curriculum Council will reexamine recent program reviews and resulting memoranda of understanding on an annual basis and will determine from the responsible parties if the expected actions have been completed as agreed.
The sequence of events
discussed above is summarized in Appendix IV.
| Back to Table of Contents |
Appendix I: Guidelines for Selection of External Reviewers
Appendix II: Guidelines for the Self-Study Report
Sample Outline for Undergraduate Academic Program Reviews:
I. Introduction and
Context (include process by which self-study was written)
II. Mission Statement and Goals
III. Input assessment
IV. Program performance
V. Outcomes assessment
VI. Trends and Forecasts
VII. Summary
This outline represents the content that is viewed to be essential to a self-study. Additional information can be included if it will enhance the effectiveness of the presentation. Materials that do not relate to the objectives of the program review process should not be included.
Suggested Metrics for Undergraduate Academic Program Reviews:
Input assessment
- Student admission information-incoming high school GPA of admitted student & of matriculated students; SAT scores, TOEFL (where applicable), comparison to national pool; enrollment changes and trends in last 10 years
- Selectivity-applicant/admit ratio; applicant/matriculation ratio; departmental admission criteria, demand (application, acceptance, and yield)
- Enrollment & demographics-number of students by degree sought, age, gender, ethnicity, residency, other relevant demographics
- Faculty characteristics (head count, FTE, gender, ethnicity, academic rank/tenure status)
- Student/faculty ratio; advisor/student ratio
- Facilities-utilization of space (including lecture rooms, workshops, labs, studio, offices, etc), e.g. capacity, responsibility for maintenance, etc.; computing and technology (accessibility of technology), etc.; accessibility of technology and physical facilities
- Budget-expenditures (teaching, research, salaries vs. supplies, etc), revenue (federal/state/private, grants); indicate by actual and percent how budget has changed over past 10 years
- Quality of curriculum-list course offerings, core curriculum requirements per major, opportunity for non-traditional instruction (e.g. distance education); Honors course offerings; opportunity for student mentoring; participation in the Baccalaureate Core
- Restrictions on enrollment and current capacity
- Organization chart (for department/program and its relation to college and institution); other infrastructure issues
Program performance
- Program recruitment and retention of students-demographic changes (success at attracting underrepresented groups); first-to-second year freshman persistence (including six-year trend)
- Student performance metrics-pass rates, GPA, failure/academic suspension rate
- Other evidence of student learning (capstone courses, senior thesis/poster/presentation; internship performance; student self-assessment)
- Student involvement in research & internships; awards and honors
- Student credit hour analysis; enrollment of students outside of major (service courses)
- Faculty performance metrics (citation indexing, awards and honors)
- Student evaluation of teaching (aggregate)
- Operational effectiveness (service and supply expenditures; FTE in administration)
- Capacity and access to classes
Outcomes
- Number of graduates for last six years (graduation rates by ethnicity)
- Professional viability of graduates-% employed within one year of graduation, % employed in position directly related to degree, type of positions held by graduates
- Student and alumni satisfaction level
- Employer assessment of quality of graduates
- National program rankings
- Student performance on licensure/certificate/professional exams, where applicable (compared to national data)
- Program improvements as a result of assessment activities
Appendix III: Guidelines for Review Committee Report
1. Summary of
Findings and Recommendations
This section serves as an executive summary of the report. A narrative
style is common, but a numerical listing of key issues and findings may
be useful. It also includes and summarizes all the recommendations found
in the body of the main report. They should be organized by major category,
preferably following the same organization as the main report.
2. Detailed Findings
This is the main body of the report. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses
of the program. It provides the details of the review findings and provides
the basis for the recommendations. Specific recommendations are often
interspersed throughout the narrative of the report, but should be highlighted
in some manner so they can easily be identified. The subsections of the
report will vary depending upon the unit being reviewed. There is no set
format for this report, but a typical report might include:
Introduction.
Specify the objectives of the review, the participants, the order of events, and the organization of the report.Undergraduate Teaching and Advising.
Review course offerings, teaching loads, curriculum, advising loads, the characteristics of the undergraduate program, methods and outcomes of assessment of student learning, and stature.Faculty.
Review size, diversity, and productivity of faculty and their involvement in undergraduate education programs of the university. Assess the use of graduates in the undergraduate instructional programs.
Students.
Review the quality and quantity of students, recruitment and retention procedures, and post-graduate placement.Facilities.
Review the amount and quality of space and facilities that pertain to undergraduate education, including accessibility.Administration.
Review the internal governance of the unit, including committee structure, interactions between the administrator(s) and faculty and students, student involvement in governance, and support staff functions.Other.
Appendix IV: Sequence of Review Procedures
Appendix V: Sample Site Visit Agenda
Word Document of Sample Site Visit Agenda
Office of Academic Programs, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 · 541-737-8084
Contact
us with your comments, questions and feedback
Copyright © 2004
Oregon State University | Disclaimer