4.4 Academic Program Review

Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 3.6.3.

The Institute shall conduct academic program reviews on a periodic basis, as required and described by USG Board of Regents Policy 3.6.3 Comprehensive Academic Program Review and USG Academic and Student Affairs Handbook Section 2.3.6 Comprehensive Program Review.  Consistent with efforts in institutional effectiveness and strategic planning, the Institute shall develop procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of its academic programs to address the quality, viability, and productivity of efforts in teaching and learning, scholarship, general education (for undergraduate programs), and community and public service as appropriate to the Institute’s educational mission.  Each degree program at all levels (bachelors, masters, and doctoral) must have published its intended student learning outcomes, measurements must be made, and records must be kept to show whether students actually achieve these outcomes.  The review of academic programs shall involve analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, and the Institute must demonstrate that it makes judgments about the future of academic programs within a culture of evidence concerning outcomes.  Academic program reviews shall include recommendations for the programs. 

The cycle of review for each undergraduate academic program shall be no longer than seven years and for each graduate program no longer than ten years.  Programs accredited by external entities may not substitute such reviews under external processes for the Institute’s program review; however, material submitted as part of an external accreditation process may be used in the review.  If an external accreditation entity’s review cycle for undergraduate programs is ten years, the ten-year review cycle may be used for that program only.  No program review cycle at any level shall exceed ten years. 

Planning and conduct of academic program reviews shall be used for the progressive improvement and adjustment of programs in the context of the Institute’s strategic plan and in response to findings and recommendations of the reviews.  Adjustments may include program enhancement, maintenance at the current level, reduction in scope, or, if fully justified, consolidation or termination.  Actions taken as the result of reviews shall be documented. 

The Provost’s office is responsible at the Institute level to manage the review processes and the resulting reviews.  In addition, the Provost’s office shall maintain a site, accessible to all faculty, outlining institutional comprehensive program review procedures and shall post program review results, including the institutional review cycle for all programs, summaries of all current institutional reviews, and any and all actions taken as a result of the reviews.   

The USG Office of Academic Affairs will perform spot audits on the posted institutional comprehensive program reviews to ensure that reviews are being used to inform institutional decision-making on the issues of program quality, productivity, and viability.  

Role of the Faculty

As the Faculty is granted the right and responsibility of the governance of Students and the maintenance of high educational standards, the Faculty Executive Board and Academic Senate shall make recommendations and take actions as they deem appropriate after receipt of the conclusions and plans resulting from the academic program reviews.  The Faculty Executive Board and the Academic Senate shall request that the Provost, or their designee, present, at least once per academic year, the results of all academic program reviews conducted in the previous 12 months to the Faculty Executive Board and the Academic Senate, as well as any and all actions taken as a result of the academic program reviews.