Admin South 311 UALR
2801 S. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72204
Instructions for Departmental Program Reviews
- Is your program accredited, certified or licensed by an external professional review body? If the answer is yes, the department chair will report to the Provost's Office the date the self-study will be submitted and when the visitation by external reviewers will occur.
- The department chair will submit the self-study and evaluation required by the discipline's accreditation body when it is completed to the Provost's Office (5 copies on CDs).
- All academic programs within your department will be reviewed at the same time (e.g., certificate, undergraduate, graduate) by the Undergraduate and/or Graduate Councils.
- If your department offers both accredited and non-accredited programs, you will need to use the Guidelines for Programs Not Externally Accredited for the non-accredited programs. Those self-studies are due to the Provost's Office by November 1 of the year the program is under review (5 copies on CDs).
- A Program Review Panel (PRP) composed of members from UALR's Undergraduate Council and/or Graduate Council will review your program's self-study documents, site-visit findings and the accreditation final report. Students and faculty may be interviewed if desired by the PRP.
- If your department offers both undergraduate and graduate programs, the Undergraduate Council and the Graduate Council will each appoint two of its members to be on the PRP.
- The PRP will prepare and present a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils. Copies of the written report will be given to the Department Chair, College Dean, Graduate Dean (if appropriate) and the Provost.
- If your program is not accredited, certified or licensed by an external professional review body, you will need to use the Guidelines for Programs Not Externally Accredited for conducting a departmental self-study and evaluation.
- Your department's self-study is due to the Provost's Office by November 1 of the year the program is under review (5 copies on CDs).
- All academic programs within your department will be reviewed at the same time (e.g., certificate, undergraduate, graduate).
- If your department offers both accredited and non-accredited programs, you will need to use the Guidelines for Programs Not Externally Accredited for the non-accredited programs.
- A Program Review Panel (PRP) composed of members from UALR's Undergraduate Council and/or Graduate Council will review your program's self-study documents and conduct interviews with faculty and students.
- If your department offers both undergraduate and graduate programs, the Undergraduate Council and the Graduate Coucil will each appoint two of its members to be on the PRP.
- The PRP will prepare and present a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils. Copies of the written report will be given to the Department Chair, College Dean, Graduate Dean (if appropriate), and the Provost.
Guidelines for Programs Not Externally Accredited
Departmental Self-Study and Evaluation
- Program Mission and Goals
- Identify the department and list all academic programs that are under review.
- EXAMPLE A
||Bachelor of Science
||Master of Science
||Bachelor of Arts
||Master of Arts
- State the program mission(s) and goals of the program(s) listed above. Be brief.
- EXAMPLE B
The master of arts and master of science programs in chemistry provide advanced preparation for careers in government or industrial research or for doctoral study. The programs' curricula are a blend of traditional and nontraditional, innovative courses that reflect the needs of modern chemistry (UALR Graduate Catalog, page 54).
- Describe how the department is organized to manage and govern the programs under review. Please list only the relevant departmental committees.
- EXAMPLE C
A director of freshman programs coordinates the three tracks that are offered at the introductory level, each designed to meet the readiness and the career goals of the student. The graduate coordinator recruits graduate students and manages the affairs of the two graduate master programs. In addition, this person is the liaison on the department of applied science's doctoral committee. The chemistry department, in partnership with the applied science department, supports a doctoral track in the applied science doctoral program.
- Identify unique characteristics in the academic programs being reviewed.
- Describe significant changes in the programs under review that occurred in the last five years.
- EXAMPLE E
This is where the partnership, established in 1999, that developed between the departments of chemistry and applied sciences would be mentioned and the description presented in response number 4 above referenced. Also, the department's inclusion in the program to prepare secondary education science teachers at the undergraduate level, established in 1999, would be presented here.
- For each program under review, provide the frequency of course offering (number of semesters) in the last three years. List any course that has not been offered within the last five years.
- EXAMPLE F
||Three-Year Frequency of Offering
||Courses Not Taught in Five Years
||9 (3 sem/yr X 3 yrs)
- Describe the curriculum of the academic programs under review. Include other academic programs that provide ancillary courses in support of the program under review, and special experiences (such as capstone projects,internships, etc.) that help students integrate the components of the program. Include entrance and exit requirements for each program.
- Describe the academic advising and mentoring practices, formal as well as informal, for students studying in each of the academic programs under review.
- Discuss the department's criteria used to admit "at-risk" students and the support system for them.
- Discuss the evaluation of the success of the "at-risk" students.
- Address how the programs are tracking the needs and successes of service students, i.e. those who are taking a substantial number of courses in the department but are not majors in one of the department's programs. Include descriptions of:
- Channels of communication with the students' major program advisors
- Methods to coordinate scheduling of classes
- Modifications in the program to address concerns from other program advisors.
- Discuss how the programs under review are adapting to changes in diversity that the university and the discipline are experiencing. Comment on deliberate actions that the programs have taken to affect change in the diversity of its students and responses the programs have initiated in reaction to the change in diversity of its students.
- Discuss the currency of curriculum of each of the programs under review. Describe how the programs attempt to keep current with national/international trends in society and in the discipline.
- EXAMPLE I
A programs could document a number of ways it is keeping abreast of current best practices in the field. Evidence could include members of the faculty participating in national conferences, offering peer reviewed papers for publication, securing external support for initiatives, and seeking and acting upon the advice of knowledgeable stakeholders in their fields.
- For each program, list all full-time university faculty by name, rank, terminal earned degree and whether a member of the graduate faculty. Include instructors, clinical faculty and other support personnel when applicable.
- EXAMPLE J
- Provide data on and analyze the mix of part-time lecturers and full-time faculty in the programs under review during the last three years.
- What is the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for each program? (divide number of courses taught by part-time faculty by the established teaching load for your college).
- Describe how part-time faculty are oriented, trained, and their work assessed.
- Comment on specific examples where the part-time lecturers enrich and help the programs meet their goals. Be brief but specific.
- EXAMPLE K
The program wants to establish a sense of proportion in this response. The information could be presented in a number of ways. The program could present the number of SSCH generated by full-time faculty and compare to that generated by part-time faculty, the number of sections offered by each group, the number of students affected by each group, or the number of faculty in each category. A summary of the orientation and training material created by the program would be appropriate. Comment on how information is gathered to evaluate the effectiveness of part-time faculty.
- List all part-time and full-time faculty members who have held graduate faculty status in the last five years and recommend an action to continue or rescind that status.
- EXAMPLE L
|Ima P. Jones
||Relocated to Tokyo
||Active in the program
- Provide the number of student majors for each program.
- Summarize the information on the placement of graduates in the last three years of each program under review (include the number of students seeking advanced degrees as well).
- EXAMPLE M
||Number of Placements
- Summarize the information gleaned from student and employer satisfaction surveys.
- Discuss what happens once this information is gathered, including any changes that have been affected.
- Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
- Briefly summarize the plan to assess the learning outcomes of students studying in each of the programs under review (include link to the relevant section of the college's assessment webpage).
- Describe how the programs are using assessment information.
- Briefly, give examples of situations that needed attention, and the process that was used to craft a resolution.
- Assess the adequacy of access to information that supports the programs under review.
- Consider both financial and non-financial resources such as classroom space, laboratory space, instructional technology, equipment, externally funded grants and contracts, internal maintenance funds, and internal grants.
- Identify three areas of programmatic strength.
- Identify three areas that need to be strengthened. Comment on what is suffering as a consequence and which programs are affected.
- What opportunities for program improvement have been identified since the last review?
- What are the program's plan and timeline for implementing those improvements?
- What has the program learned from this review?
Undergraduate / Graduate Council
Program Review Panel (PRP) Summary Sheet
- List academic program(s) and degree(s) reviewed.
- Synopses of significant findings (use bullet points only; no prose please):
- Areas of strength
- Areas of concern
- Provide the following information:
- Number of student majors for each program
- Student placements (number placed in their field and number pursuing advanced degrees for each program)
- Number of full-time faculty for each program
- Number of part-time FTE faculty for each program (Divide the number of courses taught by part-time faculty by the department's teaching load.)
- Plan for addressing areas of concern and the timeline for implementation:
- Programís plan and timeline
- Review committee recommendations
- Attach a letter on the status of program reviewed by an accrediting, certifying or licensing agency or organization. †
- The PRP's report will contain one of three possible recommendations to the Council(s):
- Unconditional continuation.
- Conditional continuation, with specified corrective actions, and a progress report due to the Council(s) and the Provost's Office within a specified period not to exceed 12 months.
- Discontinuation of the program.
- List the names and position titles of UGC/GC Program Review Panel (PRP). †