APR Committee Report
Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review:______________________
Date self-study received in Dean’s office: Click here to enter a date.
Date of external consultant’s review: Click here to enter a date.
Date APR received report: Click here to enter a date.
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 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)
1
Self Study: Purposes
Evaluation
Criterion
Clearly
expressed
☐
Mission Statement or overall goals/objectives provided
Description of academic programs housed in department and interdisciplinary programs
to which department/program is major contributor
☐
Insufficient
or missing
☐
☐
☐
Sufficient
☐
Comments:
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
Criterion
Evaluation
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:
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
2
Criterion
Evaluation
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
Criterion
Evaluation
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)
Criterion
Clear description of impact that physical facilities, supplies and equipment,
personnel and external funding have had on the ability to achieve goals
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
☐
☐
☐
☐
Comments:
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on report from External Reviewer or Accreditation Agency (if applicable)
Evaluation
Criterion
Areas addressed and comments made by external reviewer or accreditation
agency
Agree
with all
comments
Agree
with most
comments
Disagree
with most
comments
Disagree
with all
comments
☐
☐
☐
☐
Comments:
3
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
Criterion
Department’s response addressed all areas raised by external reviewer
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
☐
☐
☐
☐
Comments:
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (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 Dean
Comments:
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.
4