Program Review

Stage 1: Preparation and Planning

Cooperating Parties: Executive Vice Provost and Department Chair or Program Director

· Establish/ Initiate Review: Department/Program is notified of external review and provided the procedure and guidelines for the review process.

· External Reviewer Selection: The department chair selects external experts (e.g., faculty from peer institutions) to evaluate the program, along with external letter writers.

· Timeline: Establish external and internal reviewers, letter writers, and dates for the program review within 6-8 months of On-Site Visit.

Stage 2: Central Data

Cooperating Parties: Program Coordinator, Graduate School, AVPAA, Department Chair or Program Director

· Central Data: Departmental data provides evidence-based insights that allow external reviewers and department faculty and staff the ability to assess factors such as (but not limited to):

o Program performance, resource allocation, curriculum effectiveness.

o Student enrollment numbers, retention rates, job placement statistics.

o Program transparency and accountability.

· Who Provides Central Data: The Provost Office shares central data that is gathered from OIR, OUR, HRIS, and DFAC to include all critical information needed for the department/ program to create their self-study and provided to all reviewers in the program review process.

· Programs that include Graduate and/or Professional degrees will receive central data from the Graduate School and the Provost Office, which is then shared by the Provost Office.

o To access in detail the “Central Data” provided by the Provost Office and Graduate School, click here.

· Timeline: Central data is provided to the Department/ Program within 2-3 months prior to On-Site Visit

---

Cooperating Parties: Department Chair or Program Director, Stakeholders, Faculty

· Report Content: The unit chair will provide safe and confidential opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to the self-study during its preparation. The following materials constitute the self-study for the external review. The Executive Vice Provost’s Office will ensure that the reviewed unit receives key statistical components for the self-study, if possible, the semester before the self-study is to be submitted. Departments may also request additional specific data, with a minimum of one-months’ notice (the respective offices will do their best to accommodate).

o Collation of all materials, preparation of other components, and timely delivery of the full self-study is the responsibility of the department chair or unit head, who should recruit additional faculty as well as staff to assist in its preparation. All faculty in the department or program must also be consulted in the process of preparing the self-study.

 

· Timeline & Submission: The Self-study is due as a PDF to the Executive Vice Provost (or delegate) no less than 1 month before the review date.

---

Cooperating Parties: Program Coordinator, Executive Vice Provost, AVPAA, Department Chair or Program Director

· Materials for Review Team: Approximately two weeks prior to the site visit, the Review Team will be sent electronically a set of confidential materials furnished jointly by the Office of the Executive Vice Provost and the department under review.

§ To view in-depth explanation for materials provided to the review team, click here.

o Formal Charge

o Cover Letter from Department Chair/Program Director

o Self-Study Document

o Confidential External Letters (2)

o Detailed Site Visit Schedule

 

· Site-Visit: The Review Team will meet with groups of faculty (both tenure-track and non-tenure-track), undergraduate and graduate students, staff, and departmental administrators, as well as other faculty and administrators with important perspective on the unit’s role within the wider university.

o The associated Dean’s office can provide more specific guidance to the department on selection of the above. A set of meeting slots should also be reserved for confidential 1:1 meetings with unit stakeholders who request them.

· Feedback: External reviewers provide an outline/draft before they depart, summarizing their findings, including:

o Strengths of the program.

o Areas for improvement and development.

o Recommendations for changes or enhancements.

---

Cooperating Parties: Department Chair or Program Director, Executive Vice Provost, AVPAA, Unit Administration, ECGF, APC

· Timeline: The program reviewers deliver review report 1 month after program review

· Deliver External Report: External reviewer report is provided to all faculty members in the department/ program, summary of major themes in the external letters, and the graduate consensus report.

· Department Response: Faculty departmental/program response to the external reviewer report is due no later than 3 months after receipt of review report.

· Institutional Response to the External Review: The Executive Vice Provost (or delegate) will forward the Review Team’s report, along with the departmental response, to the Executive Committee of the Graduate Faculty (if the unit in question has graduate programs), and the Academic Programs Committee.

o These committees will prepare written resolutions on the review detailing their recommendations for subsequent departmental or institutional action (in the case of ECGF, focusing solely on issues related to graduate education), which the Provost will forward to the department or program in question, along with any additional context or commentary. Any committee charged with assessment of the review must ensure that it organizes its work to ensure a timely completion of the review process.

Cooperating Parties: Department Chair or Program Director, Executive Vice Provost, AVPAA

· Timeline: At roughly the mid-point of the review cycle, and within five years of the last external review, the Provost’s office will convene a check-in meeting of the department or program leadership, along with the Executive Vice Provost, the Dean of the relevant school, the Dean of The Graduate School (if the unit has graduate degree programs), and other leaders as appropriate.

· Reporting: The Provost’s office will ask for a brief memorandum in advance, outlining the state of efforts to implement the recommendations of the most recent

review, and may consult members of the Provost’s leadership team or other appropriate stakeholders for input before the mid-cycle check in.

o The Mid-Cyle Check-In will be a brief zoom-call to discuss the department/programs progress or action plan implemented from the external review report.

Cooperating Parties: Provost Office and Individual Departments or Programs

· Record Retention: The Executive Provost’s Office will maintain complete files on all program reviews, including self-study documents, the external report and the department/program’s response, the recommendations of the various faculty committees, and the Provost’s communication of recommendations to the reviewed unit.

· Individual units will also maintain copies of final versions of all materials that the unit submitted or received at least until the conclusion of a subsequent review.