Academic Program Review

For undergraduate majors and graduate programs with special accrediting bodies (e.g., business, computer science, counseling, cybersecurity, nursing, nutrition, social work), the re-accreditation self-study will meet the requirements in this document. Although a separate self-study will not be needed for such accredited programs, they will be required to submit a modified version of the Executive Summary Template for review by the Board of Trustees on a seven-year cycle. This report should incorporate relevant information from the most recent self-study, along with enrollment and assessment data from the most recent seven years. This reporting cycle will align with re-accreditation cycles for such programs as much as possible but will require the Year Four Check if the accreditation cycle does not require a midpoint review between re-accreditation visits. For accredited programs that have tracks or other offerings outside of the scope of the accrediting body, those programs may be included in the modified Executive Summary Template if the number of non-accredited programs is less than the number of accredited programs. In such cases where non-accredited programs equal or exceed accredited programs in a given department, the non-accredited programs must follow the College’s full Academic Program Review process described herein.

In year four after the last successful review (not applicable to discontinued or conditional programs), a “Year Four Check” will commence using a standard template, which is due on March 1 after notification. This 4-year check is meant to be a quick examination of high-level data to determine if a more comprehensive fifth-year review is necessary or alternatively if the program can be reviewed on the 7-year cycle scheduled. The template includes data from the preceding four years on enrollment, degree completion, faculty transitions, and the state of the industry/discipline. Based on the outcome of the Year Four Check, College leadership will either request a review in the coming academic year or allow the original 7-year review to stand. To make this determination, the program data submitted in the report will be reviewed. Any one major, graduate degree or certificate, with an average of 10% or more losses in the past 4 years in 2 of 3 data tables, will be required to complete a comprehensive APR in the next academic year (i.e., in year 5 since the last APR). 

The Office of the Provost and Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) develop a timetable for program reviews such that all programs are reviewed approximately every seven years (see appendix A - Timetable). The timetable herein has been aligned with accreditation and Core Curriculum assessment cycles in all affected programs.  The review schedule will be updated annually and posted on this site (under Appendix A).

The academic program review process is a critical component to the success and relevancy of majors, minors and graduate offerings at Hood College, which is a requirement of our Middle States accreditation. As such, the process is jointly funded by the provost and departmental or program budgets. The provost’s office will fund the stipend, airfare, and accommodation for the reviewer, while the department is responsible for all on- and off-campus meals during the reviewer’s site visit and for incentivizing students to attend meetings with the reviewer.

Program Review Roles

The provost supports and funds the program review process and may delegate authority for leading academic program reviews to the associate provost.  The provost’s office will notify the department when the review begins.  All undergraduate and graduate programs within the same department will undergo program review during the same period unless otherwise indicated. 

The Department Chair or other appointed Program Review Coordinator (PRC) is responsible for the following. The Department Chair should lead the program review process. However, if the Chair is unable to lead and assemble the self-study, the chair, in consultation with the provost or associate provost, may designate another member of the department to serve as the program review coordinator. The Department Chair or other appointed Program Review Coordinator (PRC) is responsible for the following.

1. Identify one or more external reviewers in consultation with the Office of the Provost. 
2. Compile the self-study report to be submitted to the reviewer(s) in collaboration with the department or program under review. 
3. Develop and execute the itinerary for the external reviewer(s) in collaboration with the Office of the Provost, which includes ensuring that all materials are available to the reviewers in a timely manner. 
4. Serve as the institutional point-of-contact for external reviewers. 
5. Ensure that dean, faculty, current students, and alumni constituents are appropriately engaged and included throughout the review process.

The role of Program Review Coordinator should be noted in individual annual reports, dossiers, etc. to acknowledge the additional work this individual assumes. 

The goal of the self-study report is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the status, strengths, opportunities, and challenges of the academic program(s) under review. Additionally, the study is more than a presentation of data.  The self-study report should provide careful and deliberate interpretations of the data such that current and future initiatives are clearly defined and fully supported.  The self-study should also be tied to data and goals presented in departmental annual reports and the College strategic plan.

All reviews will include several standard data sets provided by OIRA – see Appendix B), in addition to any unique data sets available departmentally and identified by the Program Review Coordinator, in consultation with the department chair (and the Graduate School for graduate programs). As much as possible, the self-study content should be drawn from the department’s Annual Reports to ensure that the self-study process is as efficient as possible and is in alignment with the ongoing communication between the department and the provost about the state of the program. However, all reviews should include the most current data available, along with relevant analysis. As noted in Appendix A and B, current data are provided the late summer/early fall before the review is due.

For most academic programs, the main content of the Self-Study should not exceed 60 pages, with supplemental and supporting materials included in the appendix. Individuals compiling the report should use the recommended section topics, listed below, as a guide/template. Sample reports and table templates will be provided by the provost’s office. The specific sections of the Self-Study are described in detail below, and include:

• Introduction
• Program Goals and Outcomes
• Curriculum and Student Learning
• Enrollment Management, Retention and Post-Graduation Success
• Faculty
• Resource Management
• Conclusion
• Proposed Action Plan

Introduction

This section provides a brief overview of the program(s) under review.  It provides a clear and concise description of the program’s strengths and challenges.  It includes the program's mission and vision, describes all graduate and undergraduate (major and minor) programs, and describes the organizational structure within the department that supports the program(s).  The introduction must make explicit reference to the relationship between the program and the College mission and should highlight the strategic goals of the College’s Strategic Plan that are specifically supported by the program. Topics to address in this section include:

1. Mission and vision of the department that houses the program under review; relationship to the College mission and vision
2. Educational goals of the program (general overview; specific learning outcomes are addressed in the next section of the report)
3. Structure of the department that houses the program (academic dean, if applicable, faculty, and staff)
4. List and brief description of all majors, minors, concentrations, certifications, etc.
5. Relationships with other programs at Hood, specifically identifying how this program serves other majors, minors, honors, and/or core requirements 
6. Unique and distinctive features of the program compared to regional peer institutions
7. A general overview of distinctive high-impact learning experiences in the program, including co-curricular learning
8. Any significant changes in the program(s) during the last seven years (changes in mission, goals, curriculum, etc.), particularly changes prompted by the last program review and/or informed by assessment data

Program Goals and Outcomes

This section articulates the program goals pursued over the past seven years as proposed in the previous program review report.  As appropriate, each goal should connect to a specific strategic goal outlined in the College’s Strategic Plan.  Goals should also include those expressed in the most recent program review cycle.  Topics to address in this section include:

1. Specific program goals that were pursued over the past seven years (highlighting data and information from departmental annual reports).
2. Description of how program goals support strategic institutional goals and/or the mission of the College. The dept/program should focus on the strategic plan that has the most overlap over the 7-yr review period.
3. Detailed account and data supporting how each goal was achieved (or modified) over the past seven years. Metrics can be both quantitative and qualitative.

Curriculum and Student Learning Outcomes

This section is one of the most critical to the program review.  It provides an overview of the courses that define the academic program under review and confirms successful achievement of program-level student learning outcomes.  It discusses how the breadth, depth, and currency of the curriculum appropriately represent the discipline. 

This section clearly states the program’s student learning outcomes and contextualizes these goals with reference to those of peer or aspirant programs and/or standards from relevant disciplinary organizations.  It provides evidence to support student success in meeting the desired learning outcomes and describes actions taken to improve student learning in the program.  The collective efforts of the department and/or academic program during the previous seven years to assess student learning in the program and how the program has been improved due to these assessment efforts should be thoroughly discussed.

For undergraduate programs, this section is inclusive of general education (Core Curriculum) requirements to the extent that specific competencies and skills developed in general education courses are scaffolded within the program’s curriculum.  For graduate programs, this section is inclusive of the professional competencies approved by the Graduate Council and how these competencies are achieved within the program. Thus, assessment data for both program and Graduate School Outcomes (GSOs) must be included in this section.

If national standardized exams are administered to students in the program (e.g. ETS Major Field Test, NCLEX, or other discipline-specific exam), these data, along with national benchmark comparison data, should be provided and summarized.

The most recent syllabi for all courses that constitute the program should be included in an appendix or linked directly from the document. All syllabi should also contain clearly articulated student learning outcomes that support the learning goals of the program.  Coincident with the program review, the current College Catalog should be reviewed to ensure that program requirements and course descriptions are updated as needed.

Topics to address in this section include:

1. Discussion of the program-level student learning outcomes, including where and how these outcomes are assessed throughout the program
2. A curriculum map or equivalent demonstrating where and how specific outcomes are achieved, as well as where and how Essential Learning Outcomes (undergraduate) and/or Graduate Student Outcomes are developed and/or enhanced
3. A description of how the program’s curriculum is constructed from introductory to advanced levels.  This should include a discussion of the scope and significance of the introductory courses in the major and how such courses lay the groundwork for upper-level courses in the program 
4. A discussion of grade distribution reports and how those data are used by the program or department to impact the program’s curriculum.
5. A description of how the curriculum has changed over the past seven years, to include changes made in response to assessment data
6. A thorough review of the capstone or other culminating academic experience in the program that highlights the student’s application of knowledge and preparation for careers and/or advanced study in this and/or related fields
7. Competitive advantages and disadvantages of this program’s curriculum compared to regional peer institutions
8. A reflection of interdisciplinary study opportunities available in the program
9. For undergraduate reviews, address the program’s contributions to the Core Curriculum.

Enrollment, Retention and Post-Graduation Success

This section reviews enrollment and degree completion trends in the program over the past seven years.  Additionally, this section summarizes the effectiveness of efforts taken by faculty and staff to recruit and retain students in the program. 

Topics to address in this section may include:

1. Undergraduate and graduate student enrollment, as well as degree completion trends (OIRA will provide this information in the departmental data set; also available in the Fact Book)
2. The program’s initiatives to promote student recruitment, success, and persistence 
3. Enrollment trends in the program’s classes, and in what capacities (general education, major courses, or classes serving both aims)
4. Using standardized data provided (Appendix B), assessment of current student and alumni satisfaction with the program (both undergraduate and graduate)
5. Post-graduation outcomes regarding employment, graduate school, and other outcomes consistent with the program’s mission
6. Analysis of past and future enrollment trends for the program and the reasons – internal and external – for those trends
7. Description of current employer demand and post-graduation study opportunities for graduates of your program. And a description of how the department has adapted to any changes in program demand.  For this question you may find helpful your relevant disciplinary organizations, as well as federal and state information on demographics and employment trends (National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/); US Occupational Outlook Handbook (http://www.bls.gov/oco); Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR http://www.dllr.state.md.us/ ); Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov).  If available, the program(s) advisory board may be a good resource for employer demand and marketplace employment trends, as well.

Faculty

This section provides an overview of all FTE faculty in the department.  A current CV for all FTE faculty should be included in the self-study report’s appendix. 

Topics to address in this section include:

1. Levels and diversity of rank within the department, including departmental reliance on adjunct faculty.
2. If relevant, summarize the effectiveness of efforts to recruit and retain faculty over the seven-year period.
3. Approaches to teaching and contribution to innovative, collaborative, or high-impact experiential teaching and learning (e.g., service-learning, internships, study abroad courses, etc.).
4. Highlights of faculty research and scholarship, especially how it encourages student engagement.
5. Mentoring and evaluation of junior faculty in the department and any developmental strategies implemented. 
6. Description of how advising loads are assigned in departments and a seven-year mean including distribution of first-year students, majors, and minors, when applicable, for undergraduate students and graduate students for program directors.
7. Data showing individual full-time faculty teaching workload trends for all course levels, including graduate courses.

Resource Management

This section provides an analysis of the program’s financial indicators, including the number of student credit hours taken, teaching credits taught, number of majors, and yearly graduates. Programmatic fees (and tuition cost based on graduate cluster if applicable) should be reported and analyzed as well. Additionally, this section describes any efforts taken to achieve efficiencies within the academic program. This might include efforts to reduce the amount of overload teaching by full‐time members of the faculty, reduced reliance on adjunct faculty, and efficient course scheduling (including general education offerings). When applicable, contributions outside of the program should be dually noted as contributing to the undergraduate Core Curriculum or broader initiatives at the College as well. 

Topics to address in this section include:

1. Staff support (not faculty support) devoted to meeting the instructional requirements of the program (e.g. lab coordinators, studio staff, graduate assistants, etc.)
2. Facilities, equipment, and supplies devoted to meeting the instructional needs of the program. Describe the lab/studio facilities and equipment, if applicable.
3. Library resources and information technology available to support the program
4. External financial support (grants, endowments, etc.) received by the program

Conclusion 

In both narrative and bullet format, this section highlights the strengths of the academic program as supported by the data in the program review.  Points of distinction that set the program apart from institutional peers should be noted.  Challenges and/or ongoing weaknesses within the program should also be addressed, as supported by the data provided in the self-study.  These challenges must be addressed in the proposed action plan (described below)

Proposed Action Plan 

This section is a critical and culminating piece of the program review.  It describes in detail the specific actions the program will take over the next seven years to address specific issues and challenges identified by the program review. An optional template for organizing the action plan is available. Goals of the action plan can include changes to curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, capital investments needed, scholarship and grant opportunities, staffing, marketing, external and internal constituent relationships, and other activities.  It should also clearly align program needs with the College’s mission and strategic priorities. 

After receiving the external reviewer’s report, these goals will be developed into a final action plan as part of the Executive Summary (See “Final Steps of the Program Review” below). The Executive Summary is a collaborative effort between the department chair (or their appointee), graduate program director (if applicable), the academic dean (if applicable), the provost or associate provost, and the College’s senior leadership team. While the program faculty play an essential role in the development of this narrative, the College’s leadership has the final approval on what is presented to the trustees. Once approved by trustees, elements of the action plan will become part of the program’s annual reporting process. 

External reviewers are an essential part of the Academic Program Review process.  Reviewers are recognized experts in the discipline or professional field under review, and they provide critical judgment regarding the program’s strengths and distinctive elements, as well as the program’s perceived challenges and opportunities for improvement.  They determine how the program compares to other programs regionally and nationally and, therefore, must bring an informed and unbiased view to the assessment of the program. 

A pool of potential external reviewers is provided to the Office of the Provost by the Department Chair or the Program Review Coordinator. Recommended external reviewers should hold a senior rank and have administrative experience in the discipline under review (i.e., current or former chair, director, dean or higher role). Every attempt should be made to select reviewers without prior connection to any current or former students, faculty or staff in the department, and who are from non-competing peer programs or peer institutions. Each reviewer’s CV or professional bio should be provided, as well as any disclosure regarding past or current professional relationships program faculty may have with each potential reviewer. While departmental input on this selection is important, the Office of the Provost makes the final determination regarding external reviewer(s) in collaboration with the provost. The Program Coordinator will be notified of the reviewer selected once they have signed the contract. 

The external reviewer(s) will:

1. collaborate and communicate with the Department Chair (or their appointee, the Program Review Coordinator) ahead of the campus visit;
2. read all self-study documents and note any questions or concerns to be addressed during the campus visit or subsequent conversations with representatives from campus;
3. schedule an on campus visit in collaboration with the program under review;
4. meet with departmental faculty, students (both undergraduate and graduate as appropriate) and alumni to discuss the self-study and the strengths and challenges of the program;
5. meet with members of the College community such as representatives from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, Enrollment Management, the Graduate School, Academic Services, Career Development Center, Registrar, Student Affairs personnel and others as necessary;
6. meet with the President and members of the senior team (as appropriate)
7. meet with the Dean of the Graduate School (as appropriate)
8. have an exit meeting with the provost team to discuss preliminary thoughts at the end of the site visit; and
9. submit a written confidential report to the provost team and the program review coordinator within 30 days of the campus visit. Once the reviewer and provost agree on the factual accuracy of the report, the provost will forward the report to the faculty.

Content of the External Reviewer’s Report 

A sample report template can be requested from the Office of the Provost. Although each review will, of necessity, vary based on the strengths and challenges of each program, the reviewer’s report (page range based upon number of programs under review) is likely to reflect on the following:

1. Program Characteristics
   1. Program mission, goals, and intended outcomes
      1. Relationship of the departmental/programmatic goals to the College mission and strategic goals
      2. Curricular Structure
         1. Relationship to the program mission, goals, and intended outcomes
         2. Strengths and weaknesses regarding student learning
      3. Currency of the program
         1. Comparison with similar programs at peer institutions
         2. Comparison with national standards/trends
      4. Relationship to other programs at Hood
         1. Dependence, independence
         2. Program duplication; possibilities for cooperative arrangements with other units
      5. Thoughts on future directions
   2. Assessment of Student Outcomes
      1. Appropriateness of department assessment plans relative to the program goals and intended outcomes
      2. The extent to which intended outcomes are achieved
      3. Overall effect on student learning
   3. Program Quality
      1. Status of accreditation, if appropriate
      2. Nature and quality of the faculty
      3. Nature and quality of the students
      4. Quality of the programs as reflected by student evaluations, alumnae/i evaluations, student/alumnae/i achievement, and assessment of student outcomes
   4. Program Support
      1. Institutional and external financial support
      2. Support personnel
      3. Laboratory/studio facilities, equipment
      4. Library resources
      5. Computer resources
      6. Space and facility maintenance
   5. Program Administration
      1. Organization, management, and direction
      2. Faculty/staff contribution
   6. Overall recommendations/ action plan
      1. Narrative of the strengths and challenges existing within the program under review
      2. Recommendations that would advance/improve the program under review
      3. A projection on the long-term viability of the program, supported by internal and/or external data.

Preparing the Executive Summary

Using the self-study and external reviewer’s report as a guide, an Executive Summary of the Academic Program Review will be drafted by the PRC using a template, which includes the Final Action Plan. The summary is a collaborative effort with the provost’s office, department/program leadership and other administrative offices (e.g. the graduate school). The summary will provide an overview of each program, its mission and goals, specific student learning outcomes and degree requirements.  The executive summary will highlight enrollment and degree completion trends in the program during the review period and perceived strengths and challenges revealed through it. The summary will recommend the future status of the program(s) under review as: continue, conditional or discontinue, along with an associated list of recommendations, which will be informed by the program’s self-study, the external reviewer’s report and College leadership. If any recommendations are included in the final summary that are not drawn from the self-study or external reviewer’s report, College leadership will share the rationale and supporting data when appropriate. 

Review by Campus Constituents

The Self-Study and Executive Summary will be shared with:

1. Program leadership (academic dean, when applicable, department chair, program director)
2. Curriculum Committee (for undergrad programs) or Graduate Council (for grad programs)
3. Planning, Budgeting and Assessment Committee
4. Restructuring Committee (for programs recommended for discontinuation)
5. Senior Team

Though not required, any written feedback from these constituents will be added as an addendum to the Executive Summary. Such addenda may either be incorporated in the list of recommendations or will be listed at the end of the document, depending on whether the addenda feedback aligns with current institutional priorities as determined by the College’s leadership. 

Review by the Board of Trustees

The final Executive Summary with addenda, if applicable, will then be shared with the Academic Matters Committee of the Board of Trustees for final action. The Board of Trustees could take the following actions on the College’s final program review and associated recommendations (generally submitted for review at their annual March meeting):

1. Accept the College’s review and recommendations without BOT edits or modifications.
2. Accept the College’s review and recommendations with BOT edits or modifications.
3. Table the review and request further data or background not included in the review.

If the trustees accept the program review (i.e., options 1 and 2 above), then the final action plan will be implemented as described below in “Post-Decision Procedures.” 

If, however, the trustees vote to table the program review until further data or background can be assembled (i.e., option 3 above under trustee actions), the review process reverts to the guidelines and steps under “Final Steps of the Academic Program Review.”

Post-Decision Procedures 

Academic program review's effectiveness depends on timely and meaningful follow-up procedures. Follow-up meetings with the Program Coordinator will be scheduled by the provost’s office. The initial follow-up meeting will occur as soon as possible, but no later than May 31 following the March trustee meeting. In rare cases, when a review is decisioned by the trustees outside of the normal March meeting, actions will be shared by the provost’s office with the program(s) under review within 60 days following trustee decision. The final action plan will be implemented and monitored by: 

1. Program leadership (academic dean, if applicable, department chair, program director, etc.)
2. Planning, Budgeting, and Assessment Committee
3. Restructuring Committee (only for programs recommended for discontinuation)
4. Office of the Provost 
5. Senior Team

Programs Designated for Growth (or Conditional Status)

If a program is approved for growth (or conditional status), the department chair and/or program director will work closely with the provost’s office to develop an action plan that addresses the recommendation approved by the BOT. The chair/director and provost team will meet quarterly to gauge progress and plan for any additional actions or resources, as needed. Unless other circumstances dictate a different schedule for such status, the following timeline will be used for such conditional designations:

1. undergraduate programs have five academic years
2. graduate programs with 30 or more credits have five academic years
3. graduate programs with 29 or fewer credits have three academic years

Once the designated conditional period has passed, the program will follow the comprehensive steps and submit an off-cycle update to the Board of Trustees via a modified version of the Executive Summary Template.

Programs Designated for Discontinuation

Based on Maryland Higher Education Law and MHEC regulations, here is a summary of the steps the College must take to close a major/minor/program:

1. The provost team will notify MHEC of the College’s decision to close the program.
2. The department/program lead will work with the provost and registrar teams to develop a “teach-out plan” that supports all currently enrolled students in the program. 
3. The department/program lead will monitor progress of the teach-out plan in collaboration with the provost and registrar teams.
4. Institutional Advancement will be consulted (when applicable) on any program-specific scholarships or other donations.

*In the event of a delay at any one stage, the above timeline may be modified by the provost’s office in extenuating circumstances. Otherwise, the goal of submitting the final review for trustee decision every March remains.

*Includes one or more accredited majors/programs that may be reviewed on a different cycle.

Find the downloadable version HERE.