...

In addition to the PACE process, all academic programs that do not undergo an external accreditation review are reviewed on a six-year cycle (adapted as-needed to specific program considerations). See Appendix 2 for more details on the review cycleprocess. See the Program Review Cycle for details on when each program is reviewed. This comprehensive review is conducted by a faculty task force, overseen by the provost council and includes consideration of:

1. Academic program design and success in achieving student learning outcomes
2. Program efficiency, as measured by performance indicators such as student-faculty ratio and program cost per student credit hour
3. Faculty
4. EnrollmentFaculty
5. Resources
6. Future potential, as determined by external forces such as market demand
7. Other key factors identified by the provost council or the review task force

The review process consists of the following steps:

1. Self-study (including a review and update of curriculum map, student learning outcomes, and assessment plans in consultation with the office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness)
2. Peer review by team of internal and external reviewers
3. Action plans and Response (including action plans, budget implications and timelines for new initiatives, and follow-up via annual PACE reports)

Possible outcomes of the review are:

...

Appendix 2 - Academic Program Review Process Details

...

Basic Structure:

1. Review cycle: review each program approximately every six years (program review cycle). The cycle is adapted to address specific program considerations as needed. This review is intended only for programs that don’t go through review by an external accrediting body.
2. Cost: $500 + reimbursement of expenses to two (or more, if a program cluster has several disparate programs that require experts from different discipline areas) external reviewers. 
3. Loading: The program director will receive 1+ load hour release to complete the self-study report, host the campus visit, and complete the response report. The internal consultant will be offered some measurable reduction in workload during the academic year when the review is conducted (such as release from a committee or release time).
4. Typical Review Schedule:
1. March of year preceding review: Deans notify program directors of upcoming review.
2. May of year preceding review: Programs up for review meet with their respective dean to outline tasks and timeline, review available data, determine the key questions for reviewers to address, and submit names of potential external reviewers. 
3. July: Deans select and contact consultants (typically two external and one internal per program cluster).
4. August-December: Program cluster self-study completed and sent to consultants. (Likely, much of the self-study could be compiled from PACE reports.)
5. February or March: Consultants visit campus and review programs. Review should include feedback solicited from current students and alumni; when appropriate, a focus group of practitioners of the field would be formed to provide additional feedback.
6. April: Consultants’ report due.
7. May: Program cluster reads and responds to consultants’ report; the response will likely include an action plan (including budget implications and timeline for any proposed new initiatives) that can be incorporated into the PACE process.
8. September of year following review: Program cluster meets with their dean to discuss the action plan and other follow-up items.

Evaluation Team: The evaluation team will typically consist of two external consultants within the discipline(s) of the program cluster to be reviewed, and one internal consultant. Ideally, one external reviewer will be from an institution that is comparable to EMU and a second reviewer will be from an “aspirational” institution. The internal consultant will typically be a tenured faculty member from a different program cluster; the internal consultant will be offered some measurable reduction in workload during the academic year when the review is conducted (such as release from a committee or a dean’s hour). The program cluster should contact nominees for the evaluation team prior to submitting names to determine interest and availability. The program cluster should submit the names of at least three potential external reviewers, along with vitae, to the dean, with additional comments or a ranking if desired.

Outline of Undergraduate Program Self-study Report

A.  Academic Program

1. Describe the program.
   1. List the majors and minors (if undergraduate) or programs and certificates (if graduate).
   2. Provide the program cluster’s mission statement.
   3. Describe how the program supports the mission of the university.
2. For undergraduate programs, describe how the majors support the liberal arts within the university.
   1. Note how courses in program cluster majors are interwoven with general education requirements.
   2. Discuss courses offered as “service courses” for the liberal arts curriculum, and note the typical enrollments in these courses. [IR will provide summarized data for recent years regarding service course enrollments.]
   3. Describe how the program interacts with other majors.
3. Describe any admission-to-program requirements for students.
4. Provide a list of required courses for the majors/programs and note any recommended electives. 
5. List the  student learning outcomes, along with the measures and criteria/benchmarks for each major or program and any minors or certificates that are not “miniature majors/programs.” 
6. Create or review and update the student learning outcomes, curriculum map, and assessment plan for the current curriculum. [IR can provide guidance on creating and revising SLO’s, curriculum maps, and assessment plans.] 
7. Assess the general philosophy of the program in comparison to current practices in the discipline. 
8. Reflection on the future potential of the program, as determined by external forces such as market demand.
9. Analyze the instructional and informal environment in the program cluster. 
   1. Assess the amount and quality of contact between students and faculty. [IR will provide the most recent results of the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and/or Adult Student Priorities Survey (ASPS) for the program cluster’s majors/programs, including data on satisfaction with advising.]
   2. Describe how support, collaboration, and cooperation among students is encouraged.
   3. Assess how active learning experiences are encouraged.

B.  Faculty 

1. Present a table listing academic credentials, areas of expertise, courses taught, advisee load, years of service, and academic rank of each faculty member of the program cluster. [IR will provide an Excel file with five years of history of faculty teaching in the program cluster, including rank, degrees, advisee load and years of service.]
2. List faculty research and performance activities in the last five years.
3. Discuss any perceived gaps in faculty expertise or limitations on the number of faculty members necessary to fulfill the program cluster’s goals and courses within the majors/programs.
4. Describe the use of adjunct faculty to teach courses in the major or program. [IR will provide a five year history of course offerings, including whether courses were taught by ongoing or part-time/adjunct faculty.]
5. Describe the primary faculty service involvements within the university.

C.  Students 

1. Present a table listing the current number of students within each major and minor in the program cluster. Comment on whether these numbers are increasing, decreasing, or holding steady over the past 10 years (or so). [IR will provide a 5-10 year history of majors and minors within the program cluster.]
2. Provide the number of degrees awarded in the past five years. [IR will provide a 5+ year history of the number of degrees awarded.]
3. Describe post-baccalaureate or post-program completion pursuits of graduates of the program cluster. [IR will provide overall survey results from the most recent alumni survey for the program cluster’s graduates.] 
4. Provide information on the cost of the program per student credit hour. [IR will provide data, including benchmarks when available.]

D.  Resources

1. Assess laboratory equipment and facilities, studio facilities, etc.
2. Evaluate external resources utilized by the program cluster: grants, contracts, service fees, other.
3. Evaluate technology available.

E. Summary and Questions

Provide any concluding statements that may be helpful for the review team, along with any specific questions that you would like the team to consider in their evaluation.