1. Academic Program and Unit Review at UIS Office of the Provost Fall 2014

2. Why UIS Conducts Program and Unit Reviews  To identify and analyze program strengths and areas of concern  To identify ways to improve the quality and productivity of programs  To comply with Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) requirements

3. IBHE Requirements for Program Review  Program goals and learning outcomes  Program and course-by-course assessment  Multiple performance measures (retention, graduation, institutional metrics, learning measures, etc.)  Feedback from key stakeholders  Formal feedback/improvement mechanism for improving curriculum, instruction and learning  Demonstrated capacity to efficiently and effectively deliver programs using technology and data systems  Findings and recommendations

4. Best Practices in Program and Unit Review  More than 80% of American colleges & universities surveyed have some form of program/unit review  UIS process is consistent with best practices in program/unit evaluation – Comprehensive coverage of program components – Grounded in faculty ownership – Review process is broadly participatory – Enhanced feedback

5. Resources on Box  Data, prepared by the Office of Institutional Research  Previous self-study, college memo, dean’s memo, Council memo(s), IBHE Reports and MOUs (if available).  PowerPoint and materials from Program Review Workshop.  Program and Unit Review Guidelines, also available on Institutional Effectiveness web page: http://www.uis.edu/academicaffairs/planning/institutionaleffecti veness/. http://www.uis.edu/academicaffairs/planning/institutionaleffecti veness/  Alumni Survey data, prepared by Office of Survey Research, available in November.  Tips, Rubrics, and Process Documents, prepared by Grad Council.

6. Routing Sheet  Routing Sheet – Documents each level of approval, with dates and signatures – Must accompany Program/Unit Review at each level of approval (can be electronically conveyed)  Instructions for Routing and Approval Process  Routing Sheet and Instructions are posted on Box.

7. What To Expect  Overview of Process – Year One – Year Two  Timeline – Year One: Academic Year 2014-15 – Year Two: Fall 2015 – Year Two: Spring 2016

8. Year One Overview 1.Program or unit identifies self-study committee, lead writer, and departmental or unit coordinator. This person oversees the process and is chief contact for the Provost’s Office. Coordinator should be identified immediately following the Program Review Workshop. 2.Program or unit completes self-study by gathering and analyzing data. Consult with Office of Institutional Research and Provost Office staff as needed. 3.Program faculty or unit staff draft report sections. Program or unit’s lead writer edits and compiles sections into Program Review report. 4.Program or unit approves report. 5.Copies of report are submitted to College Curriculum Committee AND Dean (OR to Unit Director’s Supervisor).

9. Year One Overview continued... 6.College Curriculum Committee asks questions, provides feedback to Program. 7.Program or Unit revises report based on college or administrator feedback and submits revised report to College Committee and Dean (note that Dean should not wait for College Committee memo to review the report). 8.College Curriculum Committee prepares brief approval memo and forwards it with the report to the Dean (a copy of the approval memo should be sent to the Program). 9.Dean or Unit Director’s Supervisor prepares a memo outlining recommendations and forwards all materials to the Provost’s Office (a copy of the administrative memo should be sent to the Program). 10.The Provost’s Office distributes copies of the Program Review report and memos to the Councils.

10. Year Two Overview  Councils review materials and usually invite program or unit representatives and dean to a meeting to answer questions and clarify areas of the report.  Councils prepare written comments/recommendations in memos and forward the memos to Campus Senate & Provost.  Senate hears reports from the Council and votes to approve the report.  Provost’s Office develops a Memorandum of Understanding based on recommendations from Program, Dean, Councils and makes an official report to the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE).

11. Program Review Timelines Some target dates for the next 24 months...

12. Timeline: Academic Year 2014- 15 Program or Unit attends Workshop, appoints Coordinator, Committee, and Lead Writer, and receives materials (Oct-Nov 2014) Program or Unit drafts self-study and approves it at program level (by March 2015 if possible) Program or Unit forwards self-study to College Curriculum & Dean (by May 2015)

13. Timeline: Fall 2015 Review by College Curriculum Committee or Unit Director’s Supervisor; revisions made if necessary (early fall 2015) College Committee issues memo and forwards to Dean and Program (mid fall 2015) Dean or Administrator issues memo and forwards all materials to Provost’s Office, with copy of memo to Program or Unit (by late fall 2015)

14. Timeline: Spring 2016 Council receives materials from Provost’s Office and reviews; program or unit representative answers questions (early Spring 2016) Council prepares memo and forwards all materials to Campus Senate (by March 1, 2016) Campus Senate hears Council Report and votes to approve; Provost’s Office prepares MOU and IBHE Report (Summer 2016)

15. Academic Program Review Guidelines  Program Objectives & Structure  Assessment of Learning Outcomes & Curricular Revisions  Student Characteristics & Academic Support  Faculty  Learning Environment & Support Services  Student Demand & Program Productivity  Centrality to Campus Mission  Costs  Summary & Recommendations

16. Reviews of Minors & Certificates  Program Description & Objectives  Curriculum  Students  Faculty  Student Demand  Costs  Quality & Productivity  Recommendations

17. Unit Review Guidelines  Background  Potential Faculty/Staff Quality  Centrality  Facilities and Equipment  Locational Advantages  Comparative Advantages  Cost/Revenue Relationship  Quality of Service or Research  Additional Productivity Considerations  Recommendations  Statistical Data

18. Three-Year Review (New Programs)  Brief general description of program, including learning outcomes and any developments in curriculum.  Discussion of positive developments and challenges in implementation (may involve student demand, changes in faculty, etc.).  Plans for or developments in assessment of student learning.  Analysis of performance measures including, if available: student enrollment in the program, enrollment in the courses associated with the program, pattern of course availability, number of credit hours generated by the program, and number of students completed.

19. CASL Mid-Cycle Assessment Reports  A new process, approved by Campus Senate  Departments now submit an Assessment Progress Report to CASL in Year Three of the regular program review cycle.  The Report will be due no later than May 15th of that academic year.

20. CASL Mid-Cycle Assessment Reports Cont.  In Year Four of the academic program review cycle, CASL will review the report and provide formative written feedback and assistance to the program.  Departments will be required to include CASL's feedback in their academic program review documentation.

21. For More Information on Assessment  See the CASL website: http://www.uis.edu/assessment/ http://www.uis.edu/assessment/  The CASL website can help you – Understand the assessment process – Prepare for the mid-cycle assessment reports – Find resources on best practices in assessment

22. Suggestions  Get started as soon as possible and anticipate target dates over the next 18 months  Use the self-study process and external feedback to reflect and think about how the program could be improved  Involve all program faculty in the evaluation & writing process  Respond to the issues raised in the program’s last review cycle

23. Suggestions continued…  Demonstrate how evidence of student learning has been used to make curricular change  Analyze the data, including enrollments, and think about the possible implications of trends  Address problems directly in the report  Integrate the review with other planning or accreditation processes