Program Review Task Force Final Report
April 2015
Background:
Academic programs at UW-La Crosse undergo an Academic Program Review (APR) on a
regular cycle. Coordinated by the Faculty Senate's Academic Program Review Committee, the
review process provides an opportunity for program faculty to reflect on curriculum, assessment,
new initiatives, personnel, and support for achieving the goals of the program.
Currently programs that have external accreditation participate in UW-L's APR the year
following their accreditation review. Programs without external accreditation participate in the
process, which includes an external review, every seven years. Some graduate programs at
UW-L currently write an independent self-study and thus are reviewed independently; however,
other graduate program reviews are incorporated into a comprehensive, departmental selfstudy.
The Program Review Task Force was created by Faculty Senate and the Provost Office to
review UW-L’s program review process for both accredited and graduate programs. The task
force was charged to make recommendations for changes, if necessary, to achieve a balance of
efficiency and completeness in the review process.
Members:
Bonnie Bratina - Microbiology Faculty, current member of APR
Glenn Knowles - Associate Dean CBA, past member of APR
Jodie Rindt - Chair of Student Affairs Administration (grad/accredited)
Sandy Sieck - Director of Physician Assistant Program (grad/accredited)
Steve Simpson - Graduate Studies Director, chair of Rec Management/Ther Rec
(grad/accredited)
Gubbi Sudhakaran - Physics Chair, past member of APR
Sandy Grunwald (chair) - Quality Assurance Coordinator, consultant to APR Committee
Task Force Charges:
1. Review academic review processes in our sister institutions as well as our peer and
aspirant institutions.
2. Considering the specific needs of UWL, explore whether a ‘one size fits all’ approach
continues to be appropriate, or whether there should be a separate process for
externally accredited programs. In doing so, aim to achieve a balance between
efficiency and completeness in the APR process.
3. Explore whether Graduate programs should be assessed separately from a
department’s undergraduate programs, and if so, how.
4. Recommend a number of options in preference order for implementation from 2015-16
onwards.
5. Prepare your report by May 2015 and make a formal recommendation to the APR
committee regarding processes for accredited programs.
1
Task 1 - The Task Force started meeting weekly beginning in early January. We first
established the following guiding principles regarding our work in examining the program review
for graduate and accredited programs.
Guiding Principles for Program Review Task Force
1.
2.
3.
4.
Review structure needs to align with UW-System program review requirements
Review structure needs to align with HLC program review requirements
Review structure does not have to fit into our current box.
Don’t reinvent the wheel - examine strengths of other institutions that we could build on,
also build on our current review process strengths (i.e. consultant review).
5. This process needs to help with campus wide quality assurance of graduate programs
6. Review structure needs to be complete but efficient
7. Process needs to be cognizant of dept workloads, dept chairs/directors
8. There needs to be good justification behind what is proposed
9. Process needs to be mutually useful
10. Review structure needs to recognize the differences in programs’ accreditation - flexible
enough knowing that program accreditation comes in different shapes and sizes.
11. Review structure needs to acknowledge that graduate programs are not an afterthought.
Task 2 - The task force compiled a list of graduate and accredited programs currently at UW-L,
noting when their next review date will occur (see Appendix A). It was determined that over half
of the graduate programs currently submit an independent program self study as part of the
review process. Only graduate programs within the departments of Biology, Computer Science,
HEHP, Psychology, and RMTR are reviewed as part of a full departmental review that also
includes undergraduate program review.
Task 3 - The task force examined program review structures at several peer and aspirant
institutions including UW-Eau Claire, UW-Oshkosh, UW-Whitewater, UW-Stout, Truman State,
Northern Iowa and James Madison and highlighted best practices regarding graduate and
accredited program review, along with other general items that may be of interest to the APR
Committee (see Appendix B). Using these examples and examining our current program review
structure of graduate and accredited programs, the task force created the following
recommendations.
2
Accredited program review - Through examining review practices at other institutions, and
acknowledging that the current review process at UW-L for programs that are externally
accredited is redundant and cumbersome, the task force worked on applying the James
Madison accreditation review model to UW-L.
Task Force Recommendation for Externally-Accredited Review Structure
1. After a program undergoes their external accreditation process, they complete the APR
Checklist for Accredited Programs, in which they indicate in what section/page of their
external accreditation report particular self-study items can be found. There will be two
different APR Checklists (see Appendix C) - one for UG programs that follow the current
self study guidelines and one for Grad programs that follow the proposed new self study
guidelines for Grad programs (see below under grad program review recommendations).
2. If the external accreditation report does not contain particular required self-study items,
the program would submit supplemental materials that address these items.
3. The APR sub-committee reviews all materials and writes a report based on these
materials. (See Appendix D for proposed new committee APR report format)
3
Graduate program review - Through examining the process of graduate program review at
other institutions, reviewing our guiding principles, and serious discussion within the task force,
a document was created (see Appendix E) with concerns regarding the current graduate
program review process at UW-L and a list of the following options for changes to the graduate
program review process to address these concerns.
Possible Options
1. APR Committee remains the main reviewer of self-study, but membership makeup of the APR
Committee includes a minimum number of faculty directly involved in a graduate program.
The review subcommittee of any department that contains a graduate program must include
reviewers from departments with a graduate program.
2. At the time of Dean review, the self-study also is reviewed by the UW-L Director of Graduate
Studies and a letter from Grad Director is required. Option 2 probably is not a stand-alone
change, but could be included with any of the other options.
3. A subcommittee of Grad Council (2 members) along with the APR subcommittee (2
members) together reviews the self-study of any department with a graduate program. This
subcommittee drafts the APR Committee report, and the full APR Committee (as before)
approves report.
4. The self-study of graduate programs is reviewed by Grad Council instead of the APR
Committee. This would require separate APR self-studies of undergraduate and graduate
programs. It also would require a revision of APR self-study guidelines to streamline completion
of parallel reports (i.e., Option 6).
5. The self-study of graduate programs is reviewed by a newly created Graduate APR
Committee. As with Option 4, this would require separate APR reports of undergraduate and
graduate programs. As with Option 4, it also would require a revision of APR self-study
guidelines to streamline completion of parallel reports (i.e., Option 6).
6. Revise the self-study format to highlight grad program elements better. Option 6 could be a
stand-alone option or be incorporated with any of the Options 1-5.
These options were discussed at a Graduate Council meeting. The consensus from that
meeting was that graduate programs should go through a separate review and be reviewed by a
new Grad APR committee (Option 5). Option 3 (2 Grad Council folks involved in the review)
was also considered acceptable. For all that spoke up, they favored anything that gave
grad education greater attention and visibility. No one balked at the additional work
involved.
The document was then circulated to department chairs and program directors of graduate
programs for review. The task force met with these individuals to discuss their views on the
options. The group’s overall message was that the review process should serve as a way to
better highlight graduate programs at UW-L. Option 2, including the graduate director in the
process, was viewed as a positive, though acknowledged that this would increase the workload
of the director. Most were in support of Option 5, creating a separate Graduate APR committee
that would review graduate self-studies. An idea surfaced that departments could be offered 2
different pathways for review of their graduate program.
Pathway 1: Program writes a stand-alone self-study for their graduate program that would
be reviewed by a new Grad APR Committee.
4
Pathway 2: Program writes one self-study that incorporates their UG and Grad programs.
This self-study would be reviewed by a subcommittee of the Grad APR Committee and a
subcommittee of the UG APR Committee.
After much discussion of this idea, the task force decided not to recommend two different
pathways for grad program review, and supports just Pathway 1. The task force believes that
having just one pathway would be more efficient and less complicated. Meshing both UG and
Grad program review into one self-study would again minimize the Grad part of the review.
Combining the two would be an added complication for the proposed, new Grad APR
Committee.
Task Force Recommendation for Graduate Program Review Structure (incorporating
Options 2 and 5 above)
1. Program writes a stand-alone self-study for their graduate program that would be
reviewed based off of new self-study guidelines, which are similar to the current selfstudy guidelines, but include particular items unique to graduate programs. (see
Appendix F for graduate program self-study guidelines)
2. Graduate program self-study is reviewed by an external consultant with graduate
program knowledge.
3. Departments would be given the option to stagger their grad and ug review cycles or
have them happen in same timeframe.
4. The self-study, external consultant report and dept response to external consultant
report would be reviewed by Dean and also the UW-L Director of Graduate Programs.
Each would write a letter.
5. The complete package (self-study, external consultant report, dept response to external
consultant report, Dean’s letter, Director of Grad Programs letter) would all be reviewed
by a newly developed Faculty Senate Graduate Academic Program Review Committee.
6. If graduate program is accredited then that program would follow the self-study format,
as described above, for accredited programs. The self-study would be reviewed by the
Graduate Academic Program Review Committee.
Note: The Task Force strongly recommends that the proposed Faculty Senate Graduate
Academic Program Review Committee have faculty representation that mirrors the membership
of GCC or Graduate Council in which “the committee shall consist of nine graduate faculty”.
This APR Process, with two separate committees (UG APR and Grad APR), would be similar to
UWL’s format for curriculum review and approval (UCC and GCC). The Faculty Senate would
be the “gate-keeper” for any changes to the APR Process and ensure that there would be
common elements to each committee’s process (similar guideline format, similar APR report
format, review calendar, etc…). The Quality Assurance Coordinator should be a consultant on
both of the committees.
5
Appendix A: UW-L Graduate or Accredited Programs
(year of next scheduled review)
Graduate Program
Accredited Program
ESS: Physical Education (2014)
DPI programs (2014)*
School Health Edu (2014)
Community Health Edu - ug (2014)
Community Health Edu (2014)
Public Health (2014)
Public Health in Comm Health Ed (2014)
Medical Dosimetry (2014)
Medical Dosimetry (2014)
Athletic Training (2016)
Biology (2015)
Rec Management - ug (2016)
Masters Edu - Professional Dev (2015)
Therapeutic Rec - ug (2016)
Clinical Exer Physiology (2015)
Chemistry (2016)
ESS: Human Performance (2015)
Occupational Ther (2016)
Student Affairs Administration (2016)
Physical Therapy (2018)
Rec Management (2016)
Radiation Therapy (2018)
Therapeutic Rec (2016)
Physician Assistant (2018)
Occupational Ther (2016)
School Psych (2018)
MBA (2018)
College of Business Administration (2018)**
Physical Therapy (2018)
Music (2019)
Physician Assistant (2018)
School Psych (2018)
Software Engineering (2020)
* includes the following program reviews - Educational Studies, PETE (ug), School Health Education,
School Psych
** includes the following program reviews - Finance, Info Systems, Marketing, Management, Economics,
MBA, Accountancy, Intl Business
indicates an independent program self-study
6
Appendix B: Best Practices/Ideas from Other Institutional Program
Review Structures
Graduate Review
Accredited Program review
General
different self study format
for Grad vs UG - Osh
Whitewater - summary of accreditation’s
report - not sure what that entails appendix B
page limit for self-study - Osh,
JM
Whitewater - self study
format for Grad and UG
listed separate, a few
differences, but mostly
the same.
JM - For externally accredited programs have an APR Checklist - list of items the
accreditation report needed to include, list
page, and if not checked then need to
submit a supplement document
Office of Institutional Rsh course schedule - explain why
courses not offered in last 3
years - Osh
Grad Council involvement NI - accredited programs also need to go
Whitewater - program had to
in review of grad
through internal review - if want exemption address the demand for
programs - Osh
program needs to prove their accreditation graduates
meets all internal program review - not clear
how often need to apply for exemption
Osh - different external
consultants for UG and
Grad programs within a
dept
Whitewater their apr
committee report format is
very different - rubric with
comments
Whitewater - assessment
of student learning in grad
programs emphasized
Whitewater & JM instructions/format of self
study and website is easy to
follow
Whitewater - good
statement on separate
required self studies for
UG and Grad
NI - definition of program
review vs dept review - quite a
process
JM - seemed like UG and
Grad self study together
(??) but guidelines
emphasize both grad and
UG
NI - face to face meetings of
program with higher
administration
NI - Grad and UG self
studies must be different
NI - Grad review
involvement
7
Appendix C:
External Accreditation Program Review Checklist for
Undergraduate Programs
Program Being Reviewed:
Required Self-Study Components
(please see complete self-study guidelines
for more complete description of
components)
Date of Submission:
Included in External APR
(yes/no)
(Enter the reference)
Supplement Needed
(Submit with final
documentation)
A. Purposes
Mission Statement/Goals & Objectives
Found in section/page
Description of Program
Found in section/page
B. Curriculum
Description of academic program(s) typical and distinctive characteristics
Found in section/page
Description of how curriculum and
instruction reflects the contemporary
emphases and trends of your
discipline(s).
Found in section/page
Profile of course delivery mode
Found in section/page
Minimum total number of credits required
to earn the degree(s) in your academic
program(s) including justification if the
minimum total exceeds 120 credits.
Found in section/page
C. Assessment of Student Learning &
Degree of Program Success
Program student learning outcomes
Found in section/page
Assessment data showing student
achievement of outcomes
Found in section/page
8
Program changes in response to
assessment data
Found in section/page
(if applicable) Learning outcomes for all
Found in section/page
General Education courses, assessment
of these outcomes, and any important
changes made to the courses due to
assessment data
The use and effectiveness of program
courses that contain greater than 50%
online delivery
Found in section/page
(if applicable) Assessment of Writing in
the Major Program (WIMP)
Found in section/page
Student advising
Found in section/page
Other indices of program success
(optional)
Found in section/page
Significant program strength
Found in section/page
Area in need of improvement
Found in section/page
D. Previous Academic Program Review
and New Program Initiatives
Actions taken in response to the
recommendations of the most recent
previous APR
Found in section/page
Continuing or new concerns related to
your program's ability to achieve its
goals
Found in section/page
Plans for new program initiatives
Found in section/page
Trends in the Unit Data Sheets
noteworthy to changes in the program
Found in section/page
E. Personnel
Professional development opportunities
Found in section/page
9
and expectations for faculty members
Relative emphases that your program
places on teaching, scholarly
achievements and service when making
recommendations regarding retention
and promotion
Found in section/page
Program staffing plan, including estimate
of the number of faculty to be hired in
the next five years
Found in section/page
F. Support for Achieving Academic
Program Goals
Impact each of the following on ability to
achieve program goals.
Found in section/page
A. physical facilities;
B. supplies and equipment;
C. personnel; and
D. external funding.
Our next external accreditation will be in _________(academic year).
Academic Program Director
Date
Department Chair
Date
Dean
Date
10
External Accreditation Program Review Checklist for
Graduate Programs
Program Being Reviewed:
Date of Submission:
Required Self-Study Components
(please see complete grad program self-study
guidelines for more complete description of
components)
Included in External
APR (yes/no)
(Enter the reference)
Supplement Needed
(Submit with final
documentation)
A. Purposes
Mission Statement/Goals & Objectives
Found in section/page
Description of Program
Found in section/page
(If applicable) Relationship of UG and Grad programs
within department
Found in section/page
B. Admission
Recruiting efforts
Found in section/page
Admission standards beyond university standards
Found in section/page
Personnel involved and process
Found in section/page
C. Advising
Efforts to orient new students
Found in section/page
Academic advising of students
Found in section/page
Retention standards beyond University Policies
Found in section/page
Reentry policy
Found in section/page
D. Curriculum
Description of academic program(s) - typical and
distinctive characteristics
Found in section/page
Profile of course delivery mode
Found in section/page
11
Slash courses at graduate level
Found in section/page
Capstone experience
Found in section/page
Time to completion
Found in section/page
E. Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of
Program Success
Program student learning outcomes
Found in section/page
Assessment data showing student achievement of
outcomes
Found in section/page
Program changes in response to assessment data
Found in section/page
Other indices of program success (optional)
Found in section/page
Significant program strength
Found in section/page
Area in need of improvement
Found in section/page
F. Online Programming (if applicable)
Unique characteristics of online/hybrid courses &
differences from on-campus offerings
Found in section/page
Unique characteristics of online/hybrid program &
differences from on-campus program
Found in section/page
G. Graduate Assistants (if applicable)
Process for students hired as GAs or TAs
Found in section/page
Duties of GAs or TAs
Found in section/page
Evaluation of GAs or TAs
Found in section/page
Mandatory policy for TAs
Found in section/page
H. Previous Academic Program Review and New
Program Initiatives
Actions taken in response to the recommendations of
Found in section/page
12
the most recent previous APR
Continuing or new concerns related to your program's
ability to achieve its goals
Found in section/page
Plans for new program initiatives
Found in section/page
Trends in the Unit Data Sheets noteworthy to changes
in the program
Found in section/page
I. Personnel
If dept has UG and Grad programs, criteria and
expectations for faculty in the grad program
Found in section/page
When hiring new faculty, expectation of new hire
involvement in grad program
Found in section/page
Unique responsibilities of grad program faculty, how
duties weigh in workload
Found in section/page
Program staffing plan, including estimate of the number
of faculty to be hired in the next five years
Found in section/page
J. Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals
Impact of the following to achieve program goals.
Found in section/page
A. physical facilities;
B. supplies and equipment;
C. personnel; and
D. external funding.
Our next external accreditation will be in _________(academic year).
Academic Program Director
Date
Department Chair
Date
Dean
Date
13
Appendix D: Proposed New Format for APR Committee Reports
Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review:______________________
Date self-study received in Dean’s office:
Date of external consultant’s review:
Date APR received report:
APR’S summary of self-study (first two boxes must be completed)
APR’s summary of how the academic program attempts to reach its goals and objectives and the extent to
which those goals and objectives have been achieved.
APR’s comments including:
Notable Strengths
Notable Weaknesses/Challenges
APR evaluation/comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
Evaluation
Criterion
Clearly
expressed
Sufficient
Insufficient
or missing
Mission Statement or overall goals/objectives provided
Description of academic programs housed in department and interdisciplinary
programs to which department/program is major contributor
Comments:
14
Self Study: Curriculum
Evaluation
Criterion
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
Summary of curriculum, including course delivery mode, and
how it reflects current disciplinary trends and emphases
Statement of minimum total credits to degree (justify if exceeds
120 cr) and explain any significant difference between this and
credits at time of graduate reported in Table 1 of Unit Data
Sheet
Comments:
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
Evaluation
Criterion
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
N/A
Has appropriate assessment plan for measuring the stated
student learning outcomes for department (may be
separate for each program in department, including
graduate)
Provided assessment data collected during review period,
and discussed important changes made as a result of this
data (linked changes to data) plus potential future
curriculum revisions due to assessment results
Provided Writing in the Major Program (WIMP)
assessment results, changes
Well-defined process of advising students and description
of any changes made since last APR review
Identified and described single most significant strength
Identified and described single area most in need of
improvement and discuss plans for accomplishing this
Comments:
15
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
Evaluation
Criterion
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
N/A
Actions taken in response to recommendations of most
recent previous APR and results of those actions
Continuing or new concerns related to your program/
department’s ability to achieve its goals were elucidated
Plans for new program initiatives were provided
Comments on any trends in the Unit Data Sheets
noteworthy to changes in the program/department
Comments:
Self Study: Personnel
Evaluation
Criterion
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
Professional development opportunities and expectations are
clearly described
Relative emphases placed on teaching, scholarly achievements
and service when making recommendations regarding retention
and promotion are clearly described
Clear description of staffing plan, with estimate for next 5 years
Comments: (include APR comments concerning Unit Data Sheet data on faculty, IAS and workload)
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
16
Evaluation
Criterion
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
Clear description of impact that physical facilities, supplies and
equipment, personnel and external funding have had on the
ability to achieve goals
Comments:
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on report from External Reviewer or Accreditation Agency (if applicable)
Evaluation
Criterion
Agree
with all
comments
Agree
with most
comments
Disagree
with most
comments
Disagree
with all
comments
Areas addressed and comments made by external reviewer or
accreditation agency
Comments:
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
Evaluation
Criterion
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
Department’s response addressed all areas raised by external
reviewer
Comments:
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
17
Evaluation
Criterion
Agree
with all
comments
Agree
with most
comments
Disagree
with most
comments
Disagree
with all
comments
Areas addressed and comments made by Dean
Comments:
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
□ No serious areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
□ Some areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
□ Some areas to address – department should submit short report on progress to Faculty
Senate/Provost’s Office in 3 years
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.
18
Appendix E: APR Task Force Options for Graduate Education
(draft 2/16/15)
After review of several other ‘peer’ universities and serious discussion, the APR Task Force is circulating
the following six options for revision of the program review process for graduate education at UW-L. As
should be obvious, the final option could be one or a combination of more than one of the six options.
The Task Force asks for your feedback.
Concerns that Led to the Options
● Due to the current review process, departments with both undergraduate and graduate programs
do not always give adequate attention to the graduate portion of their department
●
The current APR process sometimes means that grad programs are reviewed by faculty without
graduate education experience at UW-L (currently only 2 APR Committee members are from
departments with graduate programs)
●
Due to the current self-study guidelines main focus on undergraduate programs, many selfstudies fail to address some critical issues of importance that are unique to graduate programs
Possible Options
1. APR Committee remains the main reviewer of self-study, but membership makeup of the APR
Committee includes a minimum number of faculty directly involved in a graduate program.
The review subcommittee of any department that contains a graduate program must include
reviewers from departments with a graduate program.
2. At the time of Dean review, the self-study also is reviewed by the UW-L Director of Graduate
Studies and a letter from Grad Director is required. Option 2 probably is not a stand-alone
change, but could be included with any of the other options.
3. A subcommittee of Grad Council (2 members) along with the APR subcommittee (2
members) together reviews the self-study of any department with a graduate program. This
subcommittee drafts the APR Committee report, and the full APR Committee (as before)
approves report.
4. The self-study of graduate programs is reviewed by Grad Council instead of the APR
Committee. This would require separate APR self-studies of undergraduate and graduate
programs. It also would require a revision of APR self-study guidelines to streamline completion
of parallel reports (i.e., Option 6).
5. The self-study of graduate programs is reviewed by a newly created Graduate APR
Committee. As with Option 4, this would require separate APR reports of undergraduate and
graduate programs. As with Option 4, it also would require a revision of APR self-study
guidelines to streamline completion of parallel reports (i.e., Option 6).
19
6. Revise the self-study format to highlight grad program elements better. Option 6 could be a
stand-alone option or be incorporated with any of the Options 1-5.
20
APPENDIX F: FORMAT FOR APR GRADUATE PROGRAM SELF-STUDY
REPORT
Required components to be posted on the Academic Program Review D2L site:
1. This self-study with appendices.
2. Unit Data Sheet(s) (prepared and posted by the UWL Institutional Research
Office).
3. The external reviewer’s OR accreditation agency’s report.
4. The department’s response to the report.
5. The Dean’s letter regarding the self-study and the report.
6. The University Graduate Director’s letter regarding the self-study and report.
Self-Study Guidelines
Below are listed the standards for APR review of graduate programs at UW-La Crosse. Each
graduate program within a department requires a separate report, although many of the responses
to the various standards may be identical across programs.
I. Purpose
A. Provide the program/department's Mission Statement
B. List the goals and objectives for the Graduate Program (include measurable objectives,
person responsible, target dates, and result).
C. If your department has both undergraduate programs and graduate programs, summarize
the relationship between undergraduate and graduate programs.
II. Admissions
A. Describe recruiting efforts for new graduate students.
B. Describe any program admission standards beyond university standards.
C. Describe the process for admissions into the program. Include the personnel and the
process involved. The criteria described for the self-study may be more extensive than
what appears in other published materials. For example, what process is used to
determine entry when you have more minimally qualified applicants than you can accept?
III. Student Advising
21
A. Describe efforts to orient new students when they arrive on campus. This may include a
student handbook, mandatory or voluntary orientation, handouts, etc….
B. Explain academic advising for graduate students in your program. Who is involved, what
advice is typically offered in terms of curriculum? What, if any, other advising is
provided?
C. Retention standards beyond University Policies. Programs are allowed to have retention
standards that are more stringent than the University polices. List any unique retention
policies that your program has and provide rationale for the policy.
D. Re-entry policy. Each graduate program is required to have a written procedure for
hearing a dismissed student’s request for reentry. Provide the procedure and highlight
any revisions since the last APR.
IV. Curriculum
A. Describe whether the academic program is typical of your discipline, and if it is
distinctive in some ways.
B. Briefly summarize how the curriculum and instruction in the program(s) reflects the
contemporary emphases and trends of your discipline(s). Describe the profile of course
delivery mode within program. Report on % of courses that are classroom,
classroom/laboratory, laboratory, online, etc…
C. If your program has slash classes, how do you assure that the content is at a graduate
level?
D. Describe students’ options for a capstone experience (for example, thesis, graduate
project, or field experience). Explain whether certain options are encouraged over others
and the rationale for this prioritization.
E. What is the average time to completion for your program? Describe the issues (if any)
that prevent some students from graduating in a timely manner, and explain steps that
you are taking to address the problem.
V. Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
A. State the student learning outcomes for the program/department.
B. Provide assessment data collected during the review period used to determine the level of
success in the program for students’ achieving the desired outcomes. Please refer to
program biennial assessment reports and attach as appendices.
22
C. Discuss important changes made to the program during this review period that were a
result of assessment data (linking changes to the data) collected during the current or
previous review periods. (These changes might include revisions to the curriculum,
student learning performance objectives, course scheduling, departmental or advising
procedures, instructional methods, curriculum delivery methods, assessment data
collection procedures, etc.) Also discuss potential revisions to the curriculum that you
foresee over the next review period based on results of assessment of performance
objectives.
D. Discuss any other noteworthy indices of program success.
E. Identify and describe the single most significant strength in the academic program(s).
Also identify and describe the single area most in need of improvement in the academic
program(s). Discuss your plans for accomplishing this improvement.
VI. Online programming (If your program has no online offerings, skip Section VI.)
A. Online courses. If you have online or hybrid courses, describe unique characteristics of
these courses. If you have both an online and on-campus offering of the same course,
explain the differences between the two courses. .
B. Online degrees. If you have an online degree program, describe its unique
characteristics. If you have both an online and on-campus option for the same degree,
explain the differences between the two programs.
VII. Graduate Assistants (If students in your program do not serve as graduate assistants or
teaching assistants, skip Section VII.)
A. Describe the process for your students getting hired as graduate assistants and teaching
assistants.
B. State the typical duties of GAs and TAs.
C. Explain how GAs and TAs are evaluated. Include personnel responsible for the
evaluation.
D. If you have teaching assistants, attach the mandatory written policy concerning 1)
educational and cultural training, 2) English proficiency of non-native speakers, 3)
continuous progress toward a degree, and 4) standards for selecting TA’s.
23
Section 8. Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
A. Describe the actions that were taken in response to the recommendations of the most
recent previous Academic Program Review, and the results of those actions.
B. Note any continuing or new concerns related to your program/department's ability to
achieve its goals.
C. Describe any plans for new program initiatives.
D. Comment on any trends in the Unit Data Sheets noteworthy to changes in the program.
IX. Personnel
A. If your department has both undergraduate and graduate programs, discuss criteria and
expectations for faculty/staff involvement in the graduate program.
B. When hiring new faculty, what is the stated expectation that a new hire (both tenure track
and instructional academic staff) be involved in the graduate program?
C. Graduate education has unique faculty responsibilities (e.g., chairing thesis, serving on
thesis committee, teaching graduate courses). How are these duties weighed in terms of
faculty workload?
D. Describe the program/department staffing plan, including your estimate of the number of
faculty to be hired in the next five years.
The Office of Institutional Research organizes and provides the data on faculty, instructional
academic staff and workload. Additionally, please describe:
A. professional development opportunities and expectations for faculty members in your
program/department;
B. the relative emphases that your program/department places on teaching, scholarly
achievements and service when making recommendations regarding retention and
promotion;
C. the program/department staffing plan, including your estimate of the number of
faculty to be hired in the next five years. Describe the procedure the
program/department will use to link ongoing curriculum/program development to the
recruitment and hiring of new faculty.
X. Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals
24
Describe the impact each of the following has on your ability to achieve program goals. For
departments with both undergraduate and graduate programs, discuss whether resources are
fairly distributed between undergrad and grad.
A. physical facilities;
B. supplies and equipment;
C. personnel; and
D. external funding.
XI. Other
Please include any other pertinent information not covered in previous sections.
XII. Appendices
Include copies of:
A. the Unit Data Sheet(s) (provided by the UW-L Institutional Research Office, for use
by external reviewers who do not have access to UDS on D2L);
B. the budget data sheet (Dean’s Office provides upon request by the department)
C. the most recent previous Academic Program Review Committee report on the
program (provided by the current Academic Program Review Committee);
D. the Department's Annual Reports (not the individual faculty reports) from each of the
previous three years;
E. biennial assessment reports, plus instruments, surveys, plans, etc. (particularly those
cited in section III of this self study report); and
F. any other important departmental documents cited in earlier sections of this self-study
report.
25