Program Review Guidelines

Overview

All academic programs will be reviewed on a five year cycle beginning in fall 2008 (see web for program review calendar). Reviews will usually be based on five years of data and never less than three years for newer programs or programs that have undergone substantial change.

Beginning in 2020, academic program reviews will use the revised self-study template provided below. The program review is an opportunity to integrate and reflect on the interrelated elements that constitute a high-quality program. In developing a template consistent with HLC’s assurance argument model, we believe programs can more meaningfully address program quality holistically. The assurance argument model is distinguished by an evidence-based approach, so all claims in the self-study about a program’s strengths, weaknesses, and proposed improvements should be supported by relevant qualitative and/or quantitative evidence.

Together with faculty, the program administrator will prepare the program self-study using evidence from sources including, but not limited to:

• IU-wide and IU Kokomo strategic plans
• Departmental assessment plans and reports
• Departmental strategic plans and reports
• Institutional effectiveness and student success data (enrollment, retention, graduation rates, etc.)
• Budgetary and financial data
• FAR content (faculty CVs, teaching evaluations, etc.)
• Course information (syllabi, examples of student work, curricular flow charts or maps, etc.)
• KEY data
• Alumni and student satisfaction survey data
• Benchmark data from other institutions
• Labor market data (Occupational Outlook Handbook, Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Bureau of Labor Statistics, UIRR labor market reports)

In addition to the self-study, a program will employ an external evaluator who will both review the program’s self-study and participate in an on-site visit culminating in an external review report.

For programs participating in external accreditation, the information collected and the findings of an external consultant evaluator will be utilized and reframed to fit the program review format and criteria. If additional data are needed beyond that provided by the accreditation process and findings, the program will provide these data.

Academic Program Review Template

1. Assurance of Program Relevance
2. Assurance of alignment between program offered and institution’s mission
3. The program is aligned to the institution’s mission, vision, and values.
4. The program supports the institution’s strategic goals and priorities.
5. Assurance of program’s internal relevance
6. The unit has sufficient demand to support the program, including credit hours produced through program enrollment, general education courses, online collaborative programs, and service to other majors.
7. The unit participates in recruitment efforts to attract high school and transfer students to the program.
8. The unit participates in enrollment efforts to retain current students and attract exploratory students for the program.
9. Assurance of program’s external relevance
10. The skills and knowledge conveyed by the program responds to regional needs.
11. The unit monitors the context of the discipline, local community, and/or society generally to identify and anticipate future needs of the program.
12. Assurance of Program Quality
13. Assurance of relevant and rigorous curriculum
14. The program under review has a curriculum aligned to commonly accepted standards within the discipline or profession. If no such standards exist, peer institutions are reviewed to benchmark the curriculum.
15. The unit develops and implements experiential learning opportunities and high-impact practices to improve student learning in the program.
16. The unit offers opportunities that prepare students in the program for post-graduate success, including advanced study and career placement.
17. Assurance of faculty quality and development
18. Faculty members’ background, expertise, research, creative work, and other professional work contribute to the quality of the program.
19. The unit assumes appropriate responsibility for the promotion and tenure of faculty in the program.
20. The unit develops program faculty to improve quality of instruction, including pedagogy and instructional methods, to ensure faculty are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles.
21. The unit provides adequate support for research, creative work, and other professional work for faculty in the program.
22. The unit ensures faculty service meets program needs and contributes to the mission of the institution.
23. Assurance of program-specific operating resources
24. The unit has access to appropriate facilities, information, and technology resources to deliver a high-quality program.
25. The unit has access to appropriate staff and faculty, as well as resources to support them.
26. The unit has access to appropriate resources to support students and their learning.
27. Assurance of Student Learning and Promoting Student Success
28. Assurance of student learning assessment
29. The program has clearly stated outcomes for student learning.
30. The unit assesses and reports on student learning annually in accord with institutional guidelines and processes.
31. The methodology used in assessment aligns with disciplinary best practice.
32. The unit uses information gained from assessment to improve student learning in reviewed programs.
33. Assurance of promoting student success
34. The unit reviews the demographic characteristics of students in the program and provides support to be inclusive of all students.
35. The unit analyzes information on student success metrics (specifically DFW, student retention, and completion rates) to make program improvements as warranted by the data.
36. The unit evaluates the post-graduate success of students from the program, including career placement and admission to advanced degree programs.
37. Assurance of Planning and Continuous Improvement
38. Assurance of planning and continuous improvement
39. The unit has established program goals and priorities for the next five to ten years, with evidence-based rationale for proposed changes.
40. The unit addressed any weaknesses and implemented recommendations identified in the previous program self-study.
41. The unit identifies and builds upon existing strengths of, and resources for, the program.
42. The unit determines additional resources needed to implement proposed changes to the program, with evidence-based rationale for resources.

Academic Program Review Process

1. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will set up a meeting with the program administrator to introduce the program review process, which will include a walkthrough of the data provided by OIE. The program administrator will have the opportunity to request additional data as needed.
2. OIE will provide the following data to the program administrator:

Program demand and productivity data

• Student bio/demo data at-a-glance
• Enrollment by plan
• Credit hour production – majors
• Credit hour production – nonmajors
• Course enrollments and capacity fill rates by semester (all courses)
• Course enrollments and capacity fill rates by semester (online courses)
• Cancelled courses
• Number of new admits to program
• Number of exploratory students to program

Program outcomes data

• Fall-to-fall retention
• 4- and 6-year grad rates: in-program, other program, other campus
• DFW counts and rates (all courses)
• Number of degrees conferred by plan, subplan, and fiscal year
• Number of minors conferred by fiscal year
• Time to degree averages
• Alumni survey data

By request

• Additional data to answer specific questions you have about the program

3. Upon completion of the self-study, the program administrator should send a copy of the self-study to the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and schedule a meeting for initial review.
4. Once the program administrator has met with the EVCAA, an in-person visit with an external program reviewer may be scheduled. The program reviewer is a qualified, objective, and distinguished scholar/teacher/practitioner with experience and understanding in assessing student learning outcomes, student success efforts, and departmental performance. Typically, the program reviewer will have expertise in the department’s curricular strengths and will come from a campus similar to IU Kokomo in order to provide the most valuable feedback possible. The on-campus visit should include a meeting with the external reviewer and the EVCAA. 

The Office of Academic Affairs will provide a $1,500 stipend for the reviewer, as well as additional costs associated with the reviewer’s travel to campus. These expenses should be billed to the accreditation of campus account (2363015).

5. Upon completion of the external program review, final copies of the self-study and the external reviewer’s report should be sent to the Office of Academic Affairs (Marsha McKinley: mlmckin@iuk.edu).
6. For questions at any point in the process, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness can be reached at koir@iuk.edu.

7. A previous version of the academic program review.