Program Review is a collaborative process designed to provide an in-depth, comprehensive study of existing undergraduate and graduate academic degree programs and academic support unit at Minnesota State University. This process involves faculty, staff, students, administrators, professional community members, and external consultants in:
Program Review serves the primary internal purposes of providing opportunity for focused reflections, study and gathering of information which supports on-going program development and improvement. It provides a consistent means of answering faculty and administrative questions about the nature of MSUs academic programs and how well they are achieving goals of program effectiveness and fulfilling University mission and goals. Such mission-aligned review also serves external purposes of satisfying Minnesota State College and University (MnSCU) Board, North Central Association and national accreditation associations performance standards and educational policies.
For academic programs not accredited by external accrediting agencies, the University has established a five-year cycle of program review (Appendix A, p. 3). For externally accredited programs on five-year or six-year accreditation cycles, the accreditation self-study and the external consultants report will satisfy program review requirements. ABET accredited programs are on a six-year review cycle, with mid-point review determined by the accrediting board. Other externally accredited programs on a cycle longer than five or six years are scheduled for mid-point focused review in relation to the cycle of their accreditation processes (Appendix B, p. 4). This focused review will be based on:
1. Accreditation
team recommendations for program improvement, and
2. Selected
areas with the Minnesota State University program review process
not addressed in accreditation processes. The
dates listed in the program review calendars of Appendix B indicate
the year in which the accreditation review will occur.
Each department will establish a program review committee comprised of program faculty, student and, when appropriate, professional community representatives. This committee will lead the department in a program self-study according to the program review guidelines established by Minnesota State University (see Appendix C, p. 5, for Academic Program Review Self-Study Categories and Questions, and Appendix D, p. 8, for Academic Support Services Program Review Self-Study Categories and Questions). Each program offered by the department should be addressed with the self-study: undergraduate and graduate; bachelor of arts, bachelor of science, etc.; master of arts, master of science, etc. The self-study should initiated at least twelve months prior to the evaluation visit by external reviewers. Since review visits are scheduled for spring semester of the calendar year listed in appendices A and B, the self-study will begin spring semester of the preceding year. The completed self-study document will be forwarded to the Dean two months prior to the site visit. The Dean will review the document with the department chair to assure its readiness for formal review. At least one month before the site visit, the Dean will forward the self-study document to the external reviewers. An attached cover letter may identify specific areas for reviewers focus.
Paid by the Academic Affairs Office, two* external consultants will be selected to conduct the next phase of the program review. These external reviewers will be expected to examine critically the departments self-study report prior to conducting their formal on-site visit; to utilize the on-site visit to gather additional evaluative information; and to prepare a written report assessing each program offered by the department for strengths, limitations, and potential for making improvements. Twelve months prior to the anticipated site visit, the program coordinator/department chair will visit with the Dean to recommend and discuss a list of at least five potential reviewers. No less than eight months prior to the visit, the reviewers will be selected by the Dean and invited to participate in the program review. During the site visit, the reviewers will meet with program faculty, staff, students, the college Dean, the Dean of Graduate Studies (if appropriate), the Senior Vice President, and professional community representatives (if appropriate). Within one month following the site visit, the reviewers will submit to the Dean a written report assessing perceived program strengths, limitations and potential for making improvements. The Dean will forward this report to the Department and the Senior Vice President.
*The mid-point focused review process for externally accredited programs will utilize one external consultant.
Within one month following receipt of the reviewers written report and recommendations, the department/program faculty will provide a response to the reviewers report and recommendations, and prepare a final set of recommendations for program improvement. The program coordinator/department chair will then meet with the College Dean and, when graduate programs are involved in the review, the Dean of Graduate Studies to examine to findings of the program review and discuss the recommendations for the program. After these meetings the Dean will forward the following items to the Senior Vice President and Vice President for Academic Affairs: the departments self-study, the external reviewers report, the department response and recommendations (including a tentative action plan) regarding the external reviewers report, and the recommendations of the Dean and Graduate Dean (for graduate programs). When these recommendations have been approved by the Senior Vice President, the Dean and department/unit will together plan implementation strategies. In its annual settings of goals each fall and its annual report of accomplishments in the spring, the department/unit will demonstrate progress in any areas specified for improvement. For academic support service units, Academic Affairs will act in the role of the Dean in establishing and implementing program review recommendations.
