ACADEMIC DEGREE PROGRAM REVIEW
ENSURING QUALITY
Section 1: College
Responsibility & Guidelines
for Academic Degree Program Review
Processes in Higher Education
Columbus State Community College
DRAFT4/4/2016
Columbus State Community College maintains a practice of
regular program reviews to ensure academic program quality to
meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders.
www.cscc.edu/asssessment
4/4/2016 ALM/ANM
1
Table of Contents
Purpose……..……………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
Guidelines…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Higher Learning Commission….………………………………………………………………………….4
Ohio Department of Higher Education..………………………………………………………………8
Requirements……….…………………………………………………………………………………………….9
Process……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
Handbook……………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
Calendar……………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
Forms…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
Submission……………………………………………………………………………………………………11
Resources………………..………………………………………………………………………………………..12
2
Purpose
The purpose of Academic Degree Program Review is to ensure students are
participating in quality, relevant academic programs.
The review process at Columbus State Community College is designed to demonstrate
alignment with quality educational standards for higher education, the Higher Learning
Commission, the Ohio Department of Higher Education, and numerous other accreditation
and approval agencies. Ongoing review focuses on the development and revision of programs
for currency and quality. The review process determines the viability of courses and programs
in meeting the needs of the institution’s stakeholders.
3
Guidelines
The Academic Degree Program Review process at Columbus State
Community College integrates principles and requirements for review from
the Higher Learning Commission and the Ohio Department of Higher
Education.
Higher Learning Commission
Columbus State Community College is participating in the Higher Learning Commission (2015)
Academic Quality Improvement Process (AQIP) pathway systems portfolio to validate
compliance for college-wide accreditation. The College uses the Systems Portfolio structure to
develop the document and provide information to the Higher Learning Commission.
There are specific categories, subcategories, and core components of the Systems Portfolio
that relate specifically to Academic Program Review. Category One-Helping Students Learn
has three Subcategories specifically related to Academic Program Review. Subcategory TwoProgram Learning Outcomes, Subcategory Three-Academic Program Design, and
Subcategory Four-Academic Program Quality directly relate to Academic Program Review.
The Higher Learning Commission (2015) procedure for the Systems Portfolio structure includes
the following categories, subcategories, and core components related to Academic Program
Review:
Category One: Helping Students Learn
Subcategory Two: Program Learning Outcomes
1P2 Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills, and abilities
graduates from particular programs are expected to possess. Describe the
processes for determining, communicating, and ensuring the stated program
learning outcomes and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is
not limited to, descriptions of key processes for:




Aligning program learning outcomes to the mission, educational
offerings, and degree levels of the institution (3.E.2)
Determining program outcomes (4.B.4)
Articulating the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the
outcomes (4.B.1)
Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student,
workplace, and societal needs (3.B.4)
4


Designing, aligning, and delivering co-curricular activities to support
learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)
Assessing program learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)
1R2 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge,
skills, and abilities that are expected in programs?





Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized
Overall levels of deployment of assessment processes within the
institution
Summary results of assessment (include tables and figures when
possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of assessment results and insights gained
1I2 Based on 1R2, what improvements have been implemented or will be
implemented in the next one to three years?
Subcategory Three: Academic Program Design
1P3 Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to
meet stakeholders’ needs. Describe the processes for ensuring new and current
programs meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. This
includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for:





Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their
educational needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs
(1.C.1, 1.C.2)
Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all
stakeholders’ needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to assess the currency
and effectiveness of academic programs
Reviewing the viability of courses and programs and changing or
discontinuing when necessary (4.A.1)
1R3 What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the
needs of the institution’s diverse stakeholders?



Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized
Summary results of assessments (include table and figures when
possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
5

Interpretation of results and insights gained
1I3 Based on 1R3, what improvements have been implemented or will be
implemented in the next one to three years?
Address Core Components 1.C. and 4.A. under Academic Program Design
1.C. The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the
diversity of society.
1. The institution addresses its role in a multicultural society.
2. The institution’s processes and activities reflect attention to human
diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it
serves.
4.A. The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational
programs.
1. The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews.
Subcategory Four: Academic Program Quality
1P4 Academic Program quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs,
modalities, and locations. Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic
programming. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes
for:






Determining and communicating the preparation required of students
for the specific curricula, programs, courses, and learning they will
pursue (4.A.4)
Evaluating and ensuring program rigor for all modalities, locations,
consortia, and when offering dual-credit programs (3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4)
Award prior learning and transfer credits (4.A.2, 4.A.3)
Selecting, implementing, and maintaining specialized accreditation(s)
(4.A.5)
Assessing the level of outcomes attainment by graduates at all levels
(3.A.2, 4.A.6)
Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to assess program rigor
across all modalities
1R4 What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs?

Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized
6

Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when
possible)
 Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
 Interpretation of results and insights gained
1I4 Based on 1R4, what improvements have been implemented or will be
implemented in the next one to three years?
Address Core Components 3.A and 4.A under Academic Program Quality
3.A The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education.
1. Courses and programs are current and require levels of performance
by students appropriate to the degree or certificate awarded.
2. The institution articulates and differentiates learning goals for its
undergraduate, graduate, postbaccalaureate, post-graduate, and
certificate programs.
3. The institution’s program quality and learning goals are consistent
across all modes of delivery and all locations (on the main campus, at
additional locations, by distance delivery, as dual credit, through
contractual or consortial arrangements, or any other modality).
4.A. The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its education
programs.
2. The institution evaluates all the credit that it transcripts, including
what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning.
3. The institution has policies that assure the quality of the credit it
accepts in transfer.
4. The institution maintains and exercises authority over the
prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student
learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its
programs, including dual credit programs. It assures that its dual credit
courses or programs for high school students are equivalent in learning
outcomes and levels of achievement to its higher education curriculum.
5. The institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as
appropriate to its educational purposes.
6. The institution evaluates the success of its graduates. The institution
assures that the degree or certificate programs it represents as
preparation for advanced study or employment accomplish these
purposes. For all programs, the institution looks to indicators it deems
appropriate to its mission, such as employment rates, admission rates to
advanced degree programs, and participation rates in fellowships,
internships, and special programs (e.g., Peace Corps and AmeriCorps)
(pp. 1-4).
7
Ohio Department of Higher Education
The College must meet the academic standards identified in the Ohio Department of
Higher Education (Ohio Board of Regents, 2015) Guidelines & Procedures for Academic
Program Review.
The guidelines are designed to ensure students are learning in quality academic programs.
Documentation of review offers the institution the opportunity to demonstrate alignment with
standards of academia in general and specifically to each program. Academic Program Review
is considered complementary to institutional review and various accreditation or approval
reviews.
The general standards identified by the Ohio Department of Higher Education (Ohio Board of
Regents, 2015) relate to the following areas:
















Accreditation
Mission and Governance
Resources and Facilities
Academic Policies
Student Support Services
General Education
Program Operations
Faculty Credentials
Faculty Capacity
Program Curriculum
Assessment
Online Learning
Evidence of Workforce Relevance, Need, and Student Interest
Program Budget, Resources, and Facilities
Dual Enrollment
Ohio’s Articulation and Transfer Policy (pp. 4-15).
8
Requirements
All Academic Degree Programs participate in review at the College.
Reviews are performed, documented, and submitted according to the schedule posted on the
review calendar for the division. Completed reviews are presented in Assessment Committees
at the Department, Division, and College level. Summaries of reviews are presented to the
Board of Trustees of the College.
9
Process
Academic Degree Program Review is designed by faculty and led by the
Office of Academic Affairs Assessment Committee, College Assessment
Fellows, and three Division Assessment Committees.
Faculty consult a wide variety of college staff, students, and other stakeholders in the
development and ongoing revision of a review process to ensure the quality of all academic
programs.
Information for Academic Degree Program Review is available on the assessment homepage
of the college webpage at www.cscc.edu/assessment. Information and assistance may also be
obtained by contacting the College Assessment Fellows: April Magoteaux at
amagotea@cscc.edu or Adam Moskowitz at amoskowi@cscc.edu.
Academic Program Review at the College is organized into four areas that are available on the
assessment homepage:




Handbook
Calendar
Forms
Submission
Handbook
There are three sections in the Academic Degree Program Review Handbook:



Section One – College
Section Two – Arts and Sciences Division
Section Three – Business and Engineering Technologies, and Health and Human
Services Divisions
Section One of the Handbook provides an overview of Academic Degree Program Review and
the process at Columbus State Community College.
Section Two provides details, instructions, and forms for implementing Academic Degree
Program Review in the programs of the Arts and Sciences Division.
10
Section Three provides details, instructions, and forms for implementing Academic Degree
Program Review in the programs of the Business and Engineering Technologies, and Health
and Human Services Divisions.
Calendar
There are three calendars for Academic Degree Program Review:



Arts and Sciences Division Academic Degree Program Review Calendar
Business and Engineering Technologies Academic Degree Program Review Calendar
Health and Human Services Division Academic Degree Program Review Calendar
The calendars list the due dates for submission of documentation of each Academic Program’s
Review. The intent of scheduling reviews is to: Promote regular review in accordance with the
Higher Learning Commission’s guidelines of one to three years; promote regular review to
ensure quality and validity of the program; and coordinate the process of review in a large
college with many programs.
While it is a requirement for each Program to abide by the calendar, the calendar may change
based on program, college, student, or other stakeholder needs. The schedule on the calendar
is made with consideration of various accreditation and approval processes.
Forms
Each Academic Degree Program presents its review using one form.
The College has two forms for documenting Academic Degree Program Review:


Arts and Sciences Division Academic Degree Program Review Form
Business and Engineering Technologies Division, and Health and Human Services
Division Academic Degree Program Review Form
Submission
There are three sites for submission of completed Academic Degree Program Review Forms:



Arts and Sciences Division SharePoint at ….
Business and Engineering Technologies Division SharePoint at ….
Health and Human Services Division SharePoint at ….
11
Resources
Higher Learning Commission. (2015). Systems portfolio structure. Official HLC Procedure.
Retrieved from aqip@hlcommission.org
Ohio Board of Regents. (2015). Guidelines & procedures for academic program review. Retrieved
from https://www.ohiohighered.org/programshare
12