• Learning Assessment
  • Assessment Plan Guidelines
  • Learning and Assessment Institute
  • Resources for Assessment in Higher Education
  • Six Steps to Continuous Improvement
  • WEAVEonline Assessment Reporting System
• Advisory Council on Academic Assessment
  • Goals and Objectives
  • Membership
  • Minutes
  • Operating Procedures
• AQIP
  • Academic Quality Improvement Program
  • Annual Report
  • AQIP Action Projects
  • AQIP & KSU Correspondence & Documents
  • AQIP Process
  • HLC - The Higher Learning Commission NCA
  • Systems Portfolio
  • WEAVEonline Login Page
• Professional Development
  • External Conferences
  • FPDC
  • Learning Assessment Institute
  • Resources for Assessment in Higher Education
• Department Reviews
  • Department Review Appendix
  • Format and Guidelines
  • Schedule
  • Background Material
• Surveys
• • FSSE
  • Graduate Student Survey
  • NSSE
  • Student Success
• • College Portrait
  • VSA

Title Page

1.      Name of Academic Unit

2.      Degree program (s) under review

3.      Date report submitted to dean(s)

4.      Name and signatures of Self-Study Committee

(See sample sheet included)

Self-Study Narrative

The self-study narrative should be arranged according to the following outline.  The narrative, excluding appendices, should be no longer than 12 single-spaced pages. Appendices may contain the supporting documentation.

Topics and Questions to Guide the Self-Study

1.  Program goals and objectives are linked to the university and college mission and strategic priorities, and to their strategy for improving their position within the discipline. (1 page maximum)

(Check appendices listing for data that needs to be included)

1.  What is the program’s mission and is it clearly aligned with the university and college mission and direction?

2.  How does the program’s mission relate to curriculum; enrollments; faculty teaching; research/professional/creative activity and outreach?  Is it aligned with the college’s strategic priorities?

3.  How does the program contribute to university-wide curricular needs through general education and service instruction?

4.  How does the program promote diversity?

5.  What is the program’s current standing within the discipline?  What goals does the program have in terms of its standing within the University, region, state or nation?  (To establish benchmarks, you may wish to use information from the discipline’s professional organizations, national rankings, accreditation standards, other comparable programs, etc.)

6.  How is the program perceived by other faculty and staff at the campus(es)?

2. Curriculum is relevant, rigorous, current and coherent. (4 pages maximum)

(Check appendices listing for data that needs to be included)

1.  How does the program determine curricular content? How does the curriculum relate to current existing standards, if any, of the discipline? 

2.  What internal or external measures of review are employed to ensure that the curriculum is relevant and up-to-date?  When were these measures last employed for this curriculum?

3.  Are the curricular offerings structured in a logical, sequential and coherent manner?  Is there an appropriate balance between depth and breadth?  Does the sequence build from simple to complex?  Are basic threads woven throughout?

4.  If consistent with the program mission, does the curriculum adequately prepare students for further study or employment?

5.  What do graduates of the program say about their preparation?

6.  What do employers of program graduates say about their preparation?

7.  What are the educational, professional, career, and/or life goals of the students who choose to major in this program?

8.  In what ways does the program contribute to the education of students in terms of general knowledge, critical thinking capacity and other essential cognitive skills?

3.   Faculty quality and productivity.(1 page maximum)

(Check appendices listing for data that needs to be included)

1.  Do faculty possess the appropriate background experience and credentials?

2.  Are faculty current in relation to the knowledge base and content of the discipline and curricular offerings?  What professional development activities have faculty participated in over the past three years?

3.  Are the program expectations for faculty involvement in the scholarships of discovery, application, integration and teaching, and public service/academic outreach activities appropriate; and how are these expectations met?  Are these expectations consistent with university and department policies regarding teaching assignments, faculty excellence allocations, and other aspects of faculty roles and rewards?  (See appendix for vita instructions)

4.  In what way is faculty professional development and growth fostered?

5.  In what ways do the program faculty lend their professional expertise to off-campus constituencies?

4. Administrative quality and support (1 page maximum).

(Check appendices listing for data that needs to be included)

1.  What is the effectiveness of program leadership? (department chair, director, coordinator, lead faculty, etc.)

2.  Is the current leadership model appropriate for the type of program?

3.  How effective is administrative leadership (chair, dean, assistant/associate dean) in supporting the program?

4.  Does the administrative leadership provide for and participate in goal setting, decision-making and resource allotment to build and sustain the program?

5.  Teaching/learning environments that facilitate student success.(4 pages maximum)

(Check appendices listing for data that needs to be included)

1.  What is the program looking for in its students? What kind of students is the program well suited to serve? How does the program define “quality” in terms of admission to the program (when relevant)?

2.  To what extent does the program have articulated learning outcomes (content and skills) for students?  By what means are these outcomes measured? (Assessment activities may include surveys, reports from internship or cooperative education supervisors, student evaluations of instruction or other aspects of the program, focus groups, the review of capstone courses or portfolios of student work, results on standardized tests, licensure and certification examination pass rates, accreditation results, etc.)  Do most students achieve them?

3.  How are program expectations communicated to students?  Are students kept informed of their progress in meeting intended program outcomes?

4.  How is assessment of student learning outcomes used in reviewing and modifying program curriculum, advising, and other program elements, and in evaluating faculty?

5.  In what ways does the program evaluate student success following graduation and the program’s contribution to that success?

6. Resources. (1 page maximum)

(Check appendices listing for data that needs included)

1.  In what way does the program maximize the use of its personnel (faculty and staff) resources?

2.  In what ways does the program maximize the use of material resources such as space, equipment, operating funds, etc?  What information technology and library support is needed for this program?

3.  What strategies does the program employ to develop alternate sources of revenue and to share costs with other programs?

4.  What additional resources must the department acquire in order to do its job well?  What evidence, sufficient to convince deans and provosts, has this program review assembled?

5.  How do the resources available to the department compare to those available at other institutions in the state and nationally?

7. Program demand (1 page maximum).

(Check appendices listing for data that needs to be included)

The program should indicate that it is responding to interests from its stakeholders.  The review should answer the following questions:

1.  What is the method for projecting student need for the program under review?  What is the prediction for student need for the program for both the short-term and the long-term?  What is the optimal number of majors for this program.  How was that number determined?

2.  What is the method for projecting employer demand for graduates of this program? What is the expectation for employer demand for the program for both the short-term and long-term?  (You may wish to check the Occupational Outlook Quarterly.)

3.  Who are the program’s major competitors?  How is the program under review unique?  What community need(s) is it meeting?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Action Plan (3-5 pages)

Summarize in 2-pages or less the strengths and weaknesses of your program in comparison to the benchmark programs.  Discuss in 3 pages or less what steps the department plant o take to move your programs toward the stature enjoyed by the program(s) you hope to emulate.  You will be asked for an interim report in 18 months after the conclusion of this review.

A.     Program Strengths

B.     Program Areas Needing Improvement

C.     Planned Program Changes or Developments with Timeline and Budget.