INTRODUCTION A. Rationale for Program Review B. Departments and Programs Scheduled for Academic Program Review

Program Review and Assessment Committee Southern Connecticut State University ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW Revised Spring 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION A. Rationale for Program Review B. Departments and Programs Scheduled for Academic Program Review CONTENTS OF REPORT A. Departments with External Accreditation B. Departments without External Accreditation PROCEDURES A. Role of the Department/Program B. Roles of PRAC and UCF in the Program Review Process a. Composition of the Committee b. Schedule and outcomes C. Role of the Office of the Provost/Vice President of Academic Affairs in the Program Review Process D. Role of the Office of Assessment and Planning E. Role of the Office of Institutional Research AMENDMENTS APPENDICES A. Extended review schedule B. Expedited review questions C. PRAC process sample schedule D. Continued quality improvement template E. Information regarding external review 1

INTRODUCTION A. Rationale: In order to promote academic excellence and the continuous improvement of academic program quality, Southern Connecticut State University reviews all undergraduate academic programs on a 7- year cycle. The centerpiece of program review is a self-study completed by the department responsible for an academic program. The foci of program review are an overview of the program s mission and activities, an assessment of student learning outcomes and other indicators of quality and productivity, and changes in program that result from this assessment. During the self-study, the department engages in a thoughtful and in-depth self-evaluation of its programs on a common set of questions discussed later in this document. The self-study report is forwarded to the Dean, the Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF), and the Provost. The program review process also meets expectations of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), our regional accreditation body, the Board of Regents of the Connecticut State Colleges & Universities System, and the Connecticut General Assembly. To that end, a necessary component of the self-study should be identifying learning outcomes and using data about student performance to make improvements to the program and to guide decision-making. Assessment is also for the benefit of the department, to help identify strengths and weaknesses, improve pedagogy to enhance student learning, petition for necessary support, and develop a plan for ongoing evaluation. The university has departments and programs of all kinds fine arts, applied sciences, social sciences, humanities, interdisciplinary minors, programs that emphasize clinics and field work. The self-study is adaptable for each program; in addition to data supplied by the university, departments might gather data unique to their needs and include these in their self-study. As part of the process, examiners external to the university review the self-study document and complete a site visit (See Appendix E for procedures regarding external reviewers). For programs with external accrediting bodies, the report of the accrediting agency fulfills this requirement. For programs without external accreditation, an external reviewer is required. (See Appendix B for the expedited review form for programs with external accrediting bodies). For programs without external accreditation, PRAC reviews each program based upon the self-study report and the external review submitted, and makes a recommendation to the UCF regarding the status of the program. For programs with external accreditation, PRAC reviews each program based upon the expedited review sheet and the report from the external accrediting body. UCF communicates its decision to the department, the Dean, and the Provost. PRAC does not judge program viability. PRAC evaluates whether programs have established an assessment program and have engaged in meaningful and candid self-reflection. A plan to address recommendations from the review will be developed collaboratively by the department and the Dean. Specific procedures for the review process are described later in this document. 2

Procedures and standards for the program review of undergraduate academic programs are implemented and monitored by the Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF), with the approval of the full UCF. B. Departments and Programs Scheduled for Academic Program Review: The following academic programs are subject to program review: Undergraduate academic programs based in academic departments for which degrees or certificates are granted; Minors housed in academic departments*; General Education requirement components; Honors College program; Cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary programs, including minors not housed in academic departments.* * During the first cycle of program reviews, for departments that house both majors and minors, the focus will be on the major program(s). Departments will be expected to address all programs in subsequent cycles. The 2009-2019 schedule for program review may be found in Appendix A. 3

CONTENTS OF REPORT All reports and accompanying documents must be submitted electronically. Please paginate the document. A. Departments with External Accreditation The most recent accreditation site visit will serve as the external review for the SCSU program review. PRAC does not require accredited departments to gather data beyond that expected or required for their external accrediting agency. The self-study report shall include: 1. Expedited review sheet (Appendix B) 2. Self-study sent to the external accrediting agency and accreditation report B. Departments without External Accreditation The self-study shall include: 1. Identification page Name of department, school, chairperson; programs 2. Brief summary of how the self-study was conducted, who was responsible, etc. 3. Report discussing the following questions: a. Who are you and what do you do? b. What are your goals and how do you know you are achieving them? c. How do you use data to improve student performance and guide decision-making? 4. Appendices 5. Report from the external reviewer. Departments that do not have external accreditation must supply the Office of Assessment & Planning with the names of three potential external reviewers. (See Appendix E for more information) The questions are intended to be guidelines, flexible and adaptable to the needs of each department/program. You are not required to include every suggestion. Question 1: Who are you and what do you do? (5 pages maximum, excluding appendices) Use this category to describe the big picture: your program s mission, vision or plans for the future, strengths and weaknesses (e.g., goals for faculty development, goals for student retention, etc.), who your faculty and students are, any special initiatives or achievements you would like to highlight (Is the percentage of your students who are accepted to graduate programs exceptional? Is the employment rate of your students after graduation very high? Are you particularly pleased with graduating life-long learners?), extra-curricular facets of the program. What makes you unique? (Specifics of curriculum and learning outcomes are discussed in the next section, so if you need to discuss curriculum-related issues here, address the macro-level issues and save the micro-level examples for question 2.) 4

Some things to include, if they are appropriate for your program, might be: Who are you? What do you do? o Mission Provide a statement of the department/program s mission Does your department house more than one program? Here is the place to explain what they are and how they do, or don t, complement each other. What are the program s goals o Demographics List the names and tenure status of the full-time and adjunct faculty in the department/program. Mention special responsibilities undertaken by faculty such as coordinator or director Discuss student demographics for the past five years. (Data provided by the Office of Institutional Research should go in the appendix but can be discussed here) Discuss how the faculty / student ratio impacts student advising and/or class size. Provide a rationale for the optimal number of faculty. o Creative Activity, Community Service, and Outreach Provide examples of how department / program supports student involvement in creative activity, community service, and outreach appropriate to the mission of the department / program. Suggestions include, but are not limited to: Describe ways in which students are involved in research, scholarly and creative projects (e.g. clubs, organizations, etc.). Describe faculty activities, which foster an intellectual environment involving students (e.g. brown bag lunches, speakers, etc.). Provide examples of students theses or special projects. Provide examples of types of student projects completed, particularly indicating those that were published and those that were collaborative efforts of students and faculty (e.g. joint presentations, publications, exhibits, conference attendance / presentations, etc.). Describe alliances, partnerships, collaborations with community (could include information about service learning projects, internships, etc.). Question 2: What are your goals for student learning and how do you know you are achieving them? (10 pages maximum, excluding appendices) Use this category to describe and discuss details of curriculum. Consider questions like: What are your learning outcomes (that is, what skills, knowledge, and attitudes do you want students to acquire as a result of having gone through your program), how do the courses in your program link together, are there gaps in coverage of learning outcomes, what methods are you using, or planning to use, to determine whether students are making satisfactory progress (see below for examples of direct and indirect methods)? 5

Some things to include, if they are appropriate for your program, might be: What are your goals for student learning? Provide a curriculum map or matrix demonstrating how the curriculum introduces and reinforces the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that students are expected to master. Discuss innovations, changes, improvements in your curriculum or curriculum mapping of skills, knowledge, and/or attitudes. Provide an overview of course syllabi. Describe how the program supports the Liberal Education Program (LEP). Discuss your strategies and methods for assessing student learning and/or performance. How do you know your goals for student learning are achieved? What direct and indirect methods do you use? Examples of direct evidence of student learning include: o Locally developed tests administered by program or by the university o Standardized tests o Pre- and post-tests o Essay tests scored across courses o Internally or externally juried review of student projects, internships o Performance on national licensure examinations o Collections of student work (e.g., portfolios) o Course-embedded assessment Examples of indirect evidence of student learning include: o Alumni and employer surveys o Student surveys, focus groups o Exit interviews with graduates o Participation rates in internships, study abroad, other enrichment programs o Graduate follow-up studies o Percentage of students who go on to graduate school o Admission rates to selective programs at the higher degree o Student performance in disciplinary and professional competitions o Retention and transfer studies; job placement statistics Note: Some programs might be undergoing extensive curricular innovations and thus, a majority of evidence for student learning might fall under indirect evidence. In this case, along with indirect evidence, PRAC would require a detailed plan for collecting direct evidence in the next assessment cycle. Question 3. How are you using data to improve student performance and guide decision-making? (5 pages maximum, excluding appendices) The Office of Assessment & Planning and the Office of Institutional Research will supply some data to the department. However, departments might want to collect data of their own or ask OA&P to conduct surveys for them. All data discussed here should go in the appendix. 6

Discuss how your department has used the data collected to benefit your program. Discussions must include the following: Reflecting back on the data discussed in Question 2, describe how student learning data are used to improve student performance and how data are used to inform departmental discussions and/or initiate changes to your program. For example, identify opportunities and barriers to program goals, objectives and student outcomes. Given the nature of your program, do you have a reasonable number of majors? Are students able to complete the program in timely fashion? What steps are or could be taken by the department to improve the number of students who complete the program? Reflecting back on Question 1, what is your vision for program improvement? Topics that you may wish to address include: a description of the adequacy and condition of space, technology (e.g. computers, access to high tech classrooms) and unique program components (e.g. practica/internships). What additional resources are crucial to achieving long and short-term goals? What support do you need to fulfill your vision for your program? 7

PROCEDURES A. The Department s/program s role in the review process: Establish an assessment committee that includes at least one tenured faculty member (except in cases where the department has no tenured faculty). Meet with the Office of Assessment & Planning at least 4 semesters prior to submitting the selfstudy to establish or update direct measures and learning outcomes. The O&AP can also collect other data if given adequate time in which to do so. Create/update a curriculum map. Receive and analyze data from the Office of Assessment & Planning and the Office of Institutional Research. Submit names of potential external reviewers to the Provost s office 2 semesters before the selfstudy is due. Host the external reviewer s visit and receive the reviewer s report. Write & submit the report. Meet with the Dean and Provost to establish a plan to address support for the program s vision B. Roles of PRAC and UCF in the Program Review Process a. Composition of the committee: The Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the UCF is the appropriate body charged with implementing undergraduate program review. The membership of PRAC should consist of 10-15 members, with representation from each academic school. Efforts should be made to ensure continuity on the committee and to select UCF members with interest and preferably experience with assessment, program evaluation, and/or accreditation. As with any standing committee of the UCF, the Chair of UCF retains the right to assign or dismiss PRAC members. Because of the responsibilities of the PRAC chairperson, as found in the PRAC by-laws, there shall be reassigned time available for this office. b. Schedule and outcomes (see Appendices A & C): Self-studies will be submitted to PRAC in electronic format according to the 7-year schedule (see Appendix A). PRAC will review each program based upon the submitted self-study report and report of the external reviewer(s). The department submitting the report will have an opportunity to meet with PRAC, generally one week after it has forwarded its report to the Committee. The minutes of the meeting will serve as a narrative response and summary to the department, indicating which standards/indicators have been judged as met or not met along with any additional recommendations PRAC deems important to convey. 8

If a revised report is requested by PRAC, the department will submit the revised report within one week. If, in the opinion of the Committee, those concerns have not been addressed satisfactorily, the Committee may, at its discretion, recommend that the department be given conditional approval. In general, recommendation from PRAC regarding the department/program being reviewed shall be on the UCF agenda at the second full UCF meeting following the review (or at least three weeks following the PRAC review). Following the review, PRAC will make one of the following recommendations to the full UCF: (1) Continuing approval of the program; or (2) Conditional approval of the program. By a majority vote, the UCF will accept, reject, or table the recommendation from PRAC. The factors leading to continuing approval, or the conditions leading to conditional approval, and the action of the UCF shall be communicated by PRAC to the respective department chairperson, program coordinator(s)/director(s), appropriate academic Dean and Provost/Academic Vice President. The minutes of the UCF meeting shall serve as a written record of the vote. Continuing approval: The program whose report receives continuing approval from the UCF will next be reviewed by PRAC seven years from the date that it submitted its initial report. Conditional approval: Any program granted conditional approval will have up to eleven months from the published date in the Program Review Schedule to address the conditions cited and provide PRAC with a written interim report. During this period, technical assistance will continue to be available from the Office of Assessment and Planning, and the department may consult with PRAC. The interim report addressing the cited conditions will be reviewed by PRAC. The department submitting the report will have an opportunity to meet with PRAC one week subsequent to the submission of the report before the review is completed. No later than one calendar year after previous action by the UCF, PRAC will make one of the following recommendations to the UCF: (1) Continuing approval of the program; or (2) Because of continuing serious deficiencies in meeting the standards/indicators, PRAC cannot recommend continuing approval. In this eventuality, a representative of the affected department will be present at the meeting to present an alternative perspective on the recommendation. Continuing approval recommended: The program whose report receives continuing approval from the UCF will next be reviewed by PRAC seven years from the date that it submitted its initial report. 9

Continuing approval not recommended: If continuing approval of a program is denied by a majority vote of the UCF, the UCF will forward to the Dean of the academic school and to the Provost/Academic Vice President the action of the UCF to deny continuing approval of that program with a description of the deficiencies found and recommendations for corrective action. The Dean and the Provost/Academic Vice President will be requested to report their actions regarding the affected department to the full UCF within four academic weeks. Failure to submit a self-study: If a department does not submit the appropriate written report--whether the initial self-study, revision, or interim report--according to the timeline, PRAC will so advise the UCF, which will then grant conditional approval of the program. The Chairperson of PRAC will provide written notification to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of the appropriate academic school, chairperson of the department, and coordinator(s)/director(s) of the program(s) to request a meeting to outline a schedule for and aid in the successful completion of the review process. Following that meeting, the Dean and the Provost/Academic Vice President will be requested to report their actions regarding the affected department to the full UCF within four academic weeks. C. Role of the Office of the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs in the Program Review Process In the self-assessment process, programs identify strengths and weaknesses, resource needs, and a vision for the future of the program. PRAC makes recommendations for approval to UCF, but neither body controls resources for program improvement. The Office of the Provost/Vice President of Academic Affairs, however, is in the position to help programs resolve self-identified issues and plans for improvement. The Provost/VP is also in a unique position to gain broader overview across departments and schools, and to identify common areas of concern. Thus, the university administration will provide timely and substantive written response to programs that have completed program reviews. These responses should advance action plans for the program, and be reflected in the university strategic plan. PRAC recommends that the written response be sent to the department chair/program coordinator. See Appendix E for the administrative follow-up template. Southern Connecticut State University is committed to academic excellence and student success. Academic program review is an important means of assessing the quality and continuous improvement of programs. The university recognizes that resources are necessary for the completion of meaningful program reviews. These resources include 1. Reassigned time for the person who coordinates the departmental self- study 2. Reassigned time for PRAC chair 3. Funding for external reviewer(s) 10

D. Role of the Office of Assessment and Planning The Office of Assessment & Planning provides assistance in the identification and measurement (direct and indirect) of student outcomes; student, faculty, and alumni surveys; and other data that the department may wish to include in the appendices and refer to in the narrative. E. Role of the Office of Institutional Research The Office of Institutional Research provides access to important documents and institutional data (e.g., university mission/ vision/ strategic plan; data re: department demographics such as number of majors, number of degrees awarded, course enrollments). AMENDMENTS Any changes to this document will be made following the policies and procedures of the UCF. 11

APPENDICES Appendix A: Extended Program Review Schedule 2009-2018 2009-2010 Review Schedule October November December February March April May Art Management/MIS Econ/Finance Computer Science, Marketing Music, English ** Begins the switch from 5-year to 7-year program review schedule 2010-2011 Review Schedule September October November December February March April May 2011-2012 Review Schedule September October November December February March April May 2012-2013 Review Schedule September October November December February March April May Open meeting with departments coming up for review Accounting and Old Business: Political Science, Music & English Theatre Geography Education and Old Business: Economics and Finance Foreign Languages and Old Business: Marketing Public Health Open meeting with departments and internal review Open meeting with departments coming up for review Old Business History Information and Library Science Anthropology Earth Science Mathematics Open meeting with departments and internal review Open meeting with departments Old Business Liberal Studies Exercise Science Social Work Special Education Communication Open meeting with department and internal review 12

*PRAC activity suspended for 2013/14 academic year. 2014-2015 Review Schedule September October November December February March April 2015-2016 Review Schedule September October November December February March April 2016-2017 Review Schedule September October November December February March April 2017-2018 Review Schedule September October November December February March April 2018-2019 Review Schedule September October November December February March April Open meeting with departments Old Business Open meeting Chemistry Recreation and Leisure Sociology Physics Open meeting with departments Open meeting Philosophy Honors College Journalism (begins second cycle) Communication Disorders Biology Interdisciplinary Studies Nursing Psychology Media Studies Political Science Art Accounting Management Marketing Economics/Finance Computer Science Music English Theatre Open meeting Old business Geography Education World Languages & Literature Public Health History 13

Appendix B: Expedited review sheet Program Review and Assessment Committee Cover Sheet: Undergraduate Program Review following National Accreditation Name of Department: Professional Accreditation Agency: Date of Accreditation: Standards Comments Page # Where in the document do you describe your program? Where in the document do you discuss learning outcomes, measurements, and how you know you students are achieving the outcomes? Where in the document do you discuss how you use data to improve student learning and guide decision-making? Please attach self-study and accreditation report to this cover sheet. 14

Appendix C: Sample PRAC schedule: Sun Monday T Wednesday Thursday F Sat Self-study due to PRAC, Dean, Provost* UCF meeting Minutes/report to department/program rep, UCF Notice of UCF outcome, PRAC minutes/report, revised selfstudy (if any) sent to department/program representative, chair, Dean, Provost Revision, if requested, due to PRAC PRAC meeting to discuss report, standards met or not met, meet with department/program representative UCF meeting PRAC meeting to vote on recommendation UCF meeting, recommendation made** * If a department does not submit the appropriate written report according to the timeline, PRAC will so advise the UCF, which will then grant conditional approval of the program. The Chairperson of PRAC will provide written notification to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of the appropriate academic school, chairperson of the department, and coordinator(s)/director(s) of the program(s) to request a meeting to outline a schedule for and aid in the successful completion of the review process. **If the recommendation is for: Continuing approval: The department/program reports again in 7 years Conditional approval: The department/program has up to 11 months to submit a revised report 15

Appendix D: Continued Quality Improvement This document will be utilized for the meeting between the Provost, Dean, and Chair once UCF (PRAC) or the Graduate Council has completed a program review. Based on the finding, the areas for improvement will be listed below. An annual update of this should be included in the Department s Annual Report. Program Name: Action Item: 1. Current Resources (what can be accomplished with current resources) Additional Resources needed: Timeline - approx. date Communication Plan who is involved; how often Follow up Place on Hold -reason Responsibilities who will do it? Action Item: 2. Current Resources (what can be accomplished with current resources) Additional Resources needed: Timeline - approx. date Communication Plan who is involved; how often Follow up Place on Hold -reason Responsibilities who will do it? 16

Action Item: 3. Current Resources (what can be accomplished with current resources) Additional Resources needed: Timeline - approx. date Communication Plan who is involved; how often Follow up Place on Hold -reason Responsibilities who will do it? Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Date Dean Date Chairperson of Department Date 17

Appendix E: Selecting an external reviewer. The department/program will submit the names of at least 3 potential external reviewers to the Dean. Any relationship between a potential reviewer and a department member must be clearly stated. The Office of the Dean will contact nominees to negotiate contract terms, including an honorarium and expenses, determine availability, and will make the ultimate selection from the approved list. Examiners will conduct a site visit, tour all relevant facilities, and meet with constituencies associated with the program. A site visit will also include: Meeting with PRAC Exit meeting with administrative personnel (including Dean). Members of the department, the relevant Dean, and representatives from Academic Affairs, PRAC, and the Office of Assessment and Planning are invited to attend the exit meeting. A subsequent written report will document all findings. Departments are responsible for collecting and communicating any additional data requested by the external examiner prior to the submission of the final report. Sources of external perspectives include feedback from a variety of constituencies, which include, but are not restricted to: Members of other departments within the institution Qualified representatives of other universities Members of accrediting agencies and other professional associations Advisory boards Relevant government agencies Benchmarking data on regional or national performance in applicable areas Survey data from alumni, employers, and other external constituencies 18