Salt Lake Community College Instructional Program Review

Purpose

In accordance with the Utah State Board of Regents Policy R411 and Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities Standards all instructional programs will be reviewed periodically to improve educational quality. Program review recommendations will focus on the quality and effectiveness of the program, including degrees and certificate programs, and plans for the following 5-years.

 

Responsibility

With oversight and direction from the Dean, Associate Deans and qualified teaching faculty have primary responsibility for reviewing existing programs. The Office of the Provost coordinates the process and supports departments as needed. The SLCC Board of Trustees and USHE Board of Regents oversee the process.

 

Frequency

Programs are reviewed three years after initial approval and every five years after initial review. Programs that maintain specialized external accreditation may choose to submit letter(s) and report(s) from the accrediting organization in lieu of conducting and submitting a program review.

 

Review Phases

  1. Faculty and Associate Dean complete program self-study which included required USHE data elements
  2. External review committee reviews self-study, site visit, and report
  3. Faculty prepare a response to review committee report and develops a plan for the next five-years
  4. Faculty submits complete Instructional Program Review (Self-Study, data table, external review team report and response, and future plan) submits to the Associate Dean
  5. Associate Dean responds in writing submits review and response to Dean
  6. Dean responds in writing submits report and responses to the Provost Office (cc: Curriculum Office)
  7. Provost, Dean, and other prepare Program Prioritization Report
  8. Provost presents Instructional Program Review and Prioritization reports to SLCC Executive Cabinet Cabinet accepts, rejects, or return for additional information
  9. Approved reports presented to the SLCC Board of Trustees Cabinet accepts, rejects, or return for additional information
  10. Approved reports presented as consent items to USHE Board of Regents and recorded in the Office of Commissioner of Higher Education

 

Process Overview

1. Planning

The Dean and Associate Dean responsible for the program meet to define expected review outcomes and identify areas needing particular attention.

 

2. Program Self-Study

Qualified teaching faculty will complete a program self-study, which will consist of an in-depth self-appraisal of program activities including assessment, strategic planning, goal formulation and the decision-making process. In cases where deficiencies exist, the department will initiate a course of action to remedy deficiencies. If major departures from standard indicators of productivity exist, the department will justify these departures.

 

The USHE required data table will be completed and provided to faculty and Associate Dean to be used in the program self-study.

 

The self-study should include at least the following:

Department Profile

  • Mission and goals
  • Program descriptions
  • Degrees offered; undergraduate and graduate
  • Alignment of programs and degrees with department mission
  • Support function or interaction with programs
  • Outreach efforts

Faculty

  • Headcount and full-time equivalent faculty
  • Faculty profiles (include faculty CVs in an appendix)
  • Faculty teaching loads
  • Faculty research and scholarly productivity
  • Adjunct faculty and graduate assistants FTE
  • Faculty-student ratios
  • Faculty credentials, rank, and diversity information
  • Student credit hours produced per full-time equivalent faculty

Staff

Students

  • Admission standards
  • Student credit hours generated
  • Number of majors in program
  • Enrollment and attrition trends
  • Transfer data
  • Graduation and retention rates
  • Student placement rates and salary data if available

Program Cost

  • Instructional costs
  • Support costs

Program Support

  • Facilities and equipment
  • Professional development

Program Assessment

  • Examples of goals, measurements, and impact
  • Evidence of ongoing and systemic documentation of student learning in courses, programs and degrees
  • Evidence the assessment data are collected, analyzed and used for improvements
  • Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations

 

3. The Review Committee

The Review Committee shall consist of at least two external reviewers with expertise in the discipline and one internal reviewer not affiliated with the program. The faculty and Associate Dean will forward recommendations of review committee members to the Dean for approval. Review committee members will not have close personal or working ties to department faculty members.

 

Review Committee Responsibilities:

  1. Read and evaluate the department self-study.
  2. Spend one to two days at SLCC meeting with department faculty, students, staff, administration, the dean, and others deemed necessary to make a thorough assessment of the department.
  3. Make comparative judgments between SLCC and peer institutions relating to the department's curriculum, faculty, students, administration, and program resources,
  4. Submit a report to the department within two weeks of the campus.

 

Review Committee members will analyze the department self-study and additional data gathered and create a report with recommendations related to program improvement, to continue or discontinue.

 

4. The Instructional Program Review

 

The faculty and Associate Dean are responsible to formulate a plan of action to address the Review Committee’s assessment. This response includes necessary actions they intend to take prior to next 5-year review. The Instructional Program Review is complete with self-study, data table, external review team report and response, and future plan of action. When complete, it is submitted to the Associate Dean for a written response, then to the Dean for his/her formal response.

 

5. Program Prioritization

Following completion of his/her written response, the Dean submits the Instructional Program Review with responses to the Office of the Provost with a copy to the Curriculum Office. A Program Prioritization Report will be prepared by the Provost, Dean, and others. The Provost presents those reports to the SLCC Executive Cabinet and Board of Trustees. Once approved by those bodies, the program review is submitted to the USHE Board of Regents and recorded in the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education.

 

 

 

Timeline

September 1st

List of programs scheduled for review is submitted to USHE & SLCC Academic Administrators

March 1st

Specific Instructional Program Review materials, including complete data table, are sent to Associate Dean and Dean responsible for each program

March – July

Faculty and Associate Dean complete the program self-study, host the external review team, respond to review team’s report, and set a plan for the next 5-years

July 31st

Completed Instructional Program Review (self-study, data table, external review team report and response, and future plan) is submitted to the Associate Dean

August 15th

Associate Dean responds in writing and submits response with the Instructional Program Review to the Dean

August 31st

Dean responds in writing and submits complete report to the Provost (cc: Curriculum Office)

September – November

Provost, Dean, and others prepare Program Prioritization Report

 

Provost presents Instructional Program Review and Prioritization Reports to SLCC Executive Cabinet and SLCC Board of Trustees

 

Provost Office submits to USHE Board of Regents

 

Deans & Departments prepare informed budget requests