Academic Program Review Manual

Contacts 3

Introduction 4

Academic Program Review Schedule 5

Process 5

Timeline 6

Primary Roles 7

Criteria and Process for Selection of External Reviewers 7

APPENDIX A: Self-Study Template 9

APPENDIX B: Self-Study Self-Check 20

APPENDIX C: External Reviewer Questions 23

Contacts

Alana Malik
Assistant Vice Provost for Accreditation and Assessment
University Hall 2160
419.530.2026
Alana.Malik@utoledo.edu

Scott Molitor
Senior Vice Provost for Academic and Graduate Affairs
University Hall 3350C
419.530.4171
scott.molitor@utoledo.edu

Introduction

Academic program review supports the mission of the institution by ensuring each academic department conducts a detailed, organized, and thorough examination of the curriculum and related resources, to ensure quality in teaching practices and student success. Each individual curriculum review results in a detailed action plan based on targeted recommendations, developed to assist the academic department in their efforts to continuously improve their curricular offerings.

The review focuses on curriculum quality, efficiency, and sustainability, incorporating elements from the Higher Learning Commission and the Ohio Department of Higher Education. Academic program review is meant to ensure the University of Toledo is providing distinctive, high-quality educational offerings through serious self-reflection on curriculum strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

Academic program review at The University of Toledo for accredited programs is structured as follows:

will substitute for the internal academic program review process; and
will align with maintaining their accreditation.
may request an internal academic program review prior to their accreditation review.

Academic program review at The University of Toledo for non-accredited programs is structured as follows:

Departments and their corresponding major programs, certificates, and service courses (as applicable) are reviewed every six to eight years.
The review process for externally accredited degree programs will align with maintaining their accreditation.
Faculty leaders prepare and complete a departmental self-study report.
Additionally, programs that are 100% online may engage in the Quality Matters review process.

The scope of academic program review includes the following:

Data Verification
Identity
Learning Outcomes and Pedagogy
Program Effectiveness
Program Planning
Faculty Workload
Resources
Institutional Strategic Goals
Findings

Academic program review differs from that of the program prioritization process in that program review focuses on continuous improvement of academic programs that have been identified for continued operation and/or investment. In contrast, the program prioritization process comprehensively examines all academic offerings of the institution to ensure alignment with the institutional mission and strategic priorities; to provide a framework for resource allocation across the entire academic enterprise; and to assist academic leadership in making informed decisions about which programs to support, expand, combine, or potentially phase out.

Academic Program Review Schedule

The schedule is developed in consultation with the dean of each college. The academic program review for accredited programs will reflect their accreditation cycle rather than the six to eight-year default cycle. Under exceptional circumstances, and with the approval of the dean and the provost, a review may be extended or postponed

Process

The academic program review process includes the major steps outlined below. These steps are:

Self-Study – Internal Review

The department will assemble a team, typically led by a department chair or program director, to complete a self-study. Members shall minimally include program faculty and must include input from students; team members for graduate programs must include graduate faculty and include input from graduate students. A self-study template is provided for programs to follow. Externally accredited programs are encouraged to incorporate their accreditation documents as part of the self-study.

Site Visit – External Review

With program input, the Office of the Provost will recruit a review team consisting of up to three members. External review team members should be considered experts in the field whose opinions will carry weight with the entire unit under review. Each site visit takes approximately one day, either in-person or virtual. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness and the individual department will work together to set up the itinerary for the review team, and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness staff will make travel arrangements or set up virtual formats as applicable.

Site visits typically include the following:

Opening orientation session with Provost Office
Exit session with program leadership and Provost Office
Tour of facilities or overview of applicable spaces
Meetings with:

Provost or designee

Dean(s)

Department Chair/program director/applicable program leadership

Faculty

Students/alumni

Advisors, staff, or others as applicable

External Review Team Report

After the site visit, the external review team will issue a report based on the documents reviewed and the site visit. The report will include an overview of a department’s curriculum - strengths, opportunities for improvement, and recommendations for the future. The report should be submitted to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness for distribution to the dean and departmental leadership.

Departmental Response

The department chair or designee, with input from the applicable college dean, will prepare a response to the external review team’s report. Each response will include an action plan with specific steps and a timetable for implementation. The response must be submitted to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness by a deadline specified after the team’s final report is received.

Action Plan Implementation and Follow Up

The University Assessment and Program Review Committee (UAPRC) is a faculty-led committee established by the Office of the Provost to lead the program review and assessment of student learning processes. Membership of the UAPRC includes liaisons from each college and co-curricular service unit, as well as ex officio members from the Office of the Provost. The UAPRC provides the provost with a summary of the external report and departmental response/action plan/dean’s response. The provost and chair of the UAPRC meet with the dean and departmental leadership to review this summary and agree on action items. A final, signed memo confirms the action items, responsible parties, and timeline for implementation. The UAPRC periodically follows up with the department and provides feedback as applicable.

Timeline

Prior to scheduled review:

Program review orientation
Department provides suggestions for external reviewers and potential dates for the site visit
Office of the Provost provides departmental data

Two months prior to scheduled external curriculum review team site visit:

Department verifies course and program curriculum information in CIM
Department reviews alignment between data in CIM and individual program assessment plans
Department verifies ODHE transfer assurance materials are in compliance with State law (Undergraduate only, if applicable)

Two to three weeks prior to scheduled program review team site visit:

Department submits self-study report

Approximately one month after site visit:

External program review site team issues final report

Deadline TBD after team’s final report is received:

Department submits a response to the final report, which includes a proposed action plan and timetable for implementation

After department response is received:

UAPRC summarizes external report and departmental response, in initial memo with draft action items
Provost, Dean, appropriate departmental leadership, and UAPRC leadership meet to discuss final outcomes and action items
Final memo with action items with responsible parties is issued to the department, college, and Provost

Primary Roles

Office of the Provost/Institutional Effectiveness:

Maintain long-term schedule of academic program review by academic year
Provide orientation and logistical support to college and department; coordinate scheduling of visits
Provide data for use in the self-study report, if needed
Select and contact members of external review team
Provide funding for external reviewer honorarium and reasonable site visit expenses
Review external report and the department’s response, forwarding documents as applicable
Academic program review policy oversight

College/Dean and Department/Programs:

Provide input in selection of external review team members
Participate in preparation of the self-study and corresponding documents and submit them to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at least two weeks prior to scheduled site visit
Assist in creation of itinerary for team visit
Prepare department’s response to the review team’s report
Leadership participates in post-visit follow up, including the departmental response and implementation of planned curriculum improvements
Provide additional data as required

University Assessment and Program Review Committee (UAPRC):

Provide summary of external report, departmental response/action plan to provost
Review departmental follow-up documents at agreed-upon intervals and provide feedback as applicable

Criteria and Process for Selection of External Reviewers

External reviewers play a vital role in the program review process. Each review includes a site visit by at least two reviewers, whose expertise provides valuable comparison with peer programs at other institutions. Their involvement broadens faculty and administrative perspectives, ensures that the program remains aligned with disciplinary standards, and fosters engagement with the broader academic community. Reviewers also help identify challenges and opportunities, prompting thoughtful responses from both the program and the university.

As recognized experts in their fields, external reviewers ensure the objectivity of the process and offer critical, informed evaluations of how a program compares regionally and nationally. They are expected to bring an unbiased perspective, assessing whether departmental plans are appropriate in light of program quality, disciplinary trends, faculty strengths, student characteristics, and community needs. Reviewers will receive a set of guiding questions but may also address additional issues as they arise.

Selection Process

The Office of the Provost, in consultation with the academic department, selects the reviewers. Academic departments may recommend five to ten individuals, providing website biographies or CVs when available. The Provost’s Office may also select reviewers who have not been nominated by the department.

When nominating external reviewers, academic departments are encouraged to:

Recommend individuals from reputable institutions who are active, respected members of the discipline.
Prioritize candidates with expertise in areas closely aligned with the department’s programs.
Suggest reviewers who can appreciate the specific context of the University of Toledo, and the department’s unique circumstances.
Ensure representation across programs (e.g., undergraduate and graduate), maintaining balance across subfields as appropriate.
Indicate priorities or preferences regarding the composition of the review team.

Conflict of Interest

Academic departments must disclose in writing any potential conflicts of interest, including:

Reviewers who are current or former mentors, colleagues, or close friends of faculty members.
Individuals currently or previously employed by the University of Toledo, or those who have applied (or are likely to apply) for positions at the institution.
Faculty or administrators from programs or institutions in direct competition with the University of Toledo or the department under review.

Departments should not contact potential reviewers directly or request CVs until the Provost’s Office confirms the selection. Premature contact may create awkward situations for the institution and candidates not ultimately invited to serve.

Selection Criteria

In general, the Provost’s Office applies the following criteria, with flexibility for special circumstances (e.g., reviewers from industry or specialized programs):

Outstanding record of current scholarship and disciplinary expertise.
Geographic proximity to campus (e.g., Ohio, Michigan, Great Lakes region) whenever possible, to minimize expenses, while recognizing that some circumstances may warrant exceptions.
Free of conflicts of interest that may prevent a reviewer from performing a candid and thorough evaluation.

APPENDIX A: Self-Study Template

Academic Program Review – Self-Study Template

Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Degree Name(s):

Department/School:

College:

Department Chair:

Additional Self-Study Faculty Leaders:

Program Website:

Reviewer Names and Affiliations:

1. Data Verification

Please verify the following:

Course and program data in CIM.
1. Ensure complete entries for all major, minor, and certificate programs, including curriculum mapping
2. Ensure complete entries for all courses offered by the department
3. Ensure alignment between data in CIM and individual program assessment plans for major and certificate programs
Faculty 180 data is current.
ODHE transfer assurance materials are in compliance with State law. (Undergraduate only, if applicable)

2. Self-Study Questions

Note: The format and prompts within this template are provided to stimulate a thorough reflection and analysis of UToledo degree programs. It is not intended that a department must respond to each and every question; rather, this template is offered as a helpful guide, which is based on past experience with the review process. Please use your professional judgment and disciplinary experience in determining the most effective order, structure, and content for presenting your program(s) to the institution and your review team. Please answer questions succinctly and include supporting evidence. The Higher Learning Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation are referenced to specific questions when applicable. . Red text indicates link to individualized departmental data. This note should be removed from the final version of the report

Identity
History and Context: Provide a brief history of each degree/certificate program, including the year it was first implemented. List all degree programs including minors, concentrations, and specializations offered.
Mission and Goals: State the mission and vision of the department. Describe the department and program(s), including its overarching purpose/goals and its preparation of students for future activities, for example, graduate/professional schools or workforce.
Progress Since Last Review: Summarize both the findings and recommendations of the most recent program review self-study, external review or specialized accreditation review. Explain the progress made by the department since that time in reference to the program’s last action plan.

Learning Outcomes and Pedagogy

Program Learning Outcomes: State the program learning outcomes (PLOs) for each degree program offered by the department as they are currently published in the UToledo University Catalog. Describe any changes that have been made to the PLOs since the last program review. Do the PLOs provide a reasonable, appropriate, and comprehensive summary of the knowledge, skills and values expected of program graduates? Are they specific enough to distinguish the program(s) from all others at UToledo? Do they reflect national disciplinary standards? Using the Program Learning Outcomes Rubric, are there dimensions of the PLOs that need to be improved and if so how?
Institutional Student Learning Outcomes: Looking at all aspects of the degree programs in the department, reflect on students’ ability to achieve the UToledo Institutional Student Learning Outcomes. Review the alignment of program learning outcomes and institutional student learning outcomes in each major program’s curriculum map. Explain any patterns, imbalances, and gaps.
Core Curriculum Learning Outcomes (Undergraduate Only): Describe any courses that the department offers in the core curriculum, including the learning outcomes and the assessment of those outcomes.

Curriculum and Co-Curriculum:

Describe the program curriculum as published in the UToledo University Catalog, considering the relationship between the major, service to other majors, and core curriculum courses (if applicable, undergraduate programs only). Append a copy of the current plan-of-study and curriculum map for each major. How has the curriculum changed since the last program review? How does the curriculum compare with those of other peer and aspirational programs?
Provide evidence that program courses and offerings are current and require levels of performance by students appropriate to the degree or certificate awarded. (HLC 3.A. Educational Programs) How do you distinguish learning outcomes and expectations for assignments between levels for co-listed courses, if applicable?
Review the curriculum maps for each major degree program. Discuss any patterns, imbalances, or gaps. How do the skills developed in these courses build on each other in an intentional, progressive manner to form a scaffold toward the degree?
Describe any significant co-curricular opportunities that the department provides for students in the major(s). How do these experiences help students to achieve the program learning outcomes? Co-curricular programs are intentionally designed learning opportunities sponsored by the University of Toledo that fall outside of the scope of a credit-bearing course. They are purposefully aligned to, and support student development in, one or more of the institutional student learning outcomes (ISLO). (HLC 1.C. Mission and Diversity of Society and 2.B. Transparency)
Undergraduate programs only: Please provide the program’s path to degree that meets state transfer and assurance guidelines. If this does not exist, please explain planned actions to come into compliance and a timeline for implementation.

Pedagogy: Describe the pedagogy used within the curriculum and co-curriculum, including High Impact Practices and any other instructional methods that are unique or distinctive to the department or discipline.

Describe how students engage in the following:
Collect, analyze, and communicate information
Master modes of inquiry or creative work
Develop skills adaptable to changing environments
Recognize the human and cultural diversity where they live and work
(HLC 3.B. Exercise of Intellectual Inquiry)
How many of required courses are available online? Can students complete 50% or more of any program online? If so, please specify.

Service Courses: Describe any courses that the department offers in service to other departments. Discuss how your department ensures that the course outcomes align with and meet the needs of those degree programs. How often do you discuss those courses with the other department(s)? What changes have you made to the course(s) since the last review to better serve the other department’s needs? How does the department account for the needs of these students in scheduling service courses? How does the department assess their educational effectiveness?

Program Effectiveness

Student Learning:

Provide an overview of program-level assessment efforts during the period under review. Append the individual program assessment plans and annual reports. If the program does not have an assessment plan, one should be created during the final phase of the program review. Following the program review process, annual assessment reports are to be completed in the online assessment tracking tool. Contact the Office of Institutional Effectiveness for guidance.
How comprehensive were the department’s direct/indirect assessment efforts? Which PLOs did they address? Do they show equivalency in face-to-face, hybrid, and online delivery? What were the results? How do you ensure that student outcomes from courses taught in different locations are equitable, including CCP courses, if applicable?
How successful was the department in using these results to “close the loop” and improve the program? (HLC 3.A. Educational Programs)
Describe student engagement in research, internships, community-based experiences, and other co-curricular activities. How are these initiatives assessed? Discuss the assessment results.
Did the department undertake any other assessment-related initiatives (e.g. curriculum mapping, faculty development)? What were the results? How did they contribute to the effectiveness of the program? (HLC 3.E Assessment of Student Learning)

Student Success: Using the data from the Office of Institutional Research, consider the department’s grade distributions by course for the past 5 academic years. Do any of the department’s courses have high rates of students earning a D, F, W, or Incomplete grade? This may be defined as a course in which these categories represent 15% or more of the grades. Are some groups of students more likely to encounter difficulty than others? If high DFW rates are a problem, how are they being addressed? Are there trends by modality, location or type of instructor?

Course Enrollments & DFW Rates

Review the Persistence Differential dashboard. A large circle in the upper right quadrant indicates a barrier to student persistence. Identify the 3-5 courses with the highest persistence differential. Determine if any courses are causing a barrier to students’ remaining enrolled in your program.

Course Persistence Differential

Review the degrees awarded by the department using the data provided by the Office of Institutional Research. Discuss trends overall, and by student demographics. Are there majors in which the overall count of degrees is decreasing? If yes, why are they decreasing? Are graduates representative of the entering cohort? If not, why?

Program Admits Enrollment Completions Retention & Graduation

Graduates

How do the program's overall persistence and graduation rates compare to those of the college and university? What has the department done to improve these rates for all students?
Program Admits Enrollment Completions Retention & Graduation
Examine and evaluate the time to degree completion for the program. Discuss how timely degree completion is supported.

Note: The student numbers in a smaller program will show a high degree of variability, making it difficult to read trends. In this case, averaging the numbers over six years may provide a better basis for comparison.

Student Engagement: Describe any methods (e.g., surveys and focus groups) that the department has used during the period under review to obtain feedback on the program(s) from currently enrolled students. Results from the National Survey of Student Engagement are available through the Office of Institutional Research (undergraduate only). Summarize the results and upload any reports. What do the results suggest about student satisfaction with the degree program?

NSSE

Describe the department’s methods for involving students in the governance of the department and program. What has been their contribution to the program review process?

Ethical and Professional Practice: The university has established policies with respect to academic honesty and integrity. Does the department have any other relevant policies that it follows? (HLC 2.E Knowledge Acquisition, Discovery and Application) If possible, provide examples where university or department-specific policies (e.g., student conduct, grade appeal) were used to guide program decisions and actions. Examples should be redacted to maintain anonymity. (HLC 2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct) What guidance and mentoring does the department offer to ensure the integrity of research and scholarly practice conducted by the program’s students? What guidance does the department offer in both the ethical and effective use of information resources? (HLC 2.E. Knowledge Acquisition, Discovery and Application)

External Performance Measures:

Is external accreditation available for programs? If so, is such accreditation maintained? If applicable, provide the name of the accreditation body, date of most recent review, status of review, and date of the next scheduled review. (HLC 3.F. Program Review)
List any other regulatory/oversight/approval bodies for program(s), i.e., state boards or national standards organizations, and current standing with each.

Faculty Advising:

Describe how faculty members are involved in the academic advising of current students. What does mentorship of students look like in your program(s). Does it focus on research initiatives? Career guidance? How does your program identify and support students who are at risk for academic failure? (HLC 3.D. Support for Student Learning and Resources for Teaching)
For undergraduates, how does your department coordinate with centralized advising?

Success after Graduation:

Review data from the following sources, and any other departmental survey or tracking of graduates: the First Destination Survey, Lightcast Alumni Employment report and Census Employment Outcomes salary report.
- First Destination Survey
- Alumni Outcomes
- Alumni Outcomes
- Alumni Outcomes
- Census Employment Outcomes
Describe any other measures of success after graduation used by the department (e.g., pass rates on professional exams, certification/licensing/registration rates, number of graduate degrees awarded, etc.) and upload the results.
What do the results suggest about the effectiveness of the program in preparing students for their lives after UToledo? (HLC 3.F. Program Review)

Employer Demand for Graduates:

Describe the job opportunities available to students after they complete the degree program. How well is the program meeting the needs of employers? Does the demand for graduates justify the current size and focus of the program? What does the demand suggest about its future size and focus?
- Alumni Outcomes
- Program Demand
- Labor Market Demand
Describe any measures used to obtain feedback from recent graduates, alumni, and employers (e.g., surveys, focus groups, social media, visiting professionals, etc.) and summarize the results (upload full copies). What do the results suggest about the effectiveness of the program?
Do graduates obtain licensure, certification and/or need to pass a qualifying exam upon graduation? If so, please identify the licensure, certificate or qualifying exam and explain. If required, provide passage rates (include first-time pass rate, total pass rate, national average benchmark pass rate) for the past three years.

Program Planning

Student Demand:

Analyze trends in admitted students, overall enrollment, and completion data for the period under review.
Program Admits Enrollment Completions Retention & Graduation
Examine and evaluate enrollment trends in the department – discuss how the department improved coordination of recruitment efforts with your college, the College of Graduate Studies (if applicable), and Enrollment Management. Include any plans the program has for increasing enrollment.
Program Admits Enrollment Completions Retention & Graduation
Is program enrollment capped by accreditation or any other factor(s)? If so, provide the enrollment cap number, identify and explain the factor(s) determining the cap.
Is the program a net importer or exporter of students? Is this a problem? If it is, how has the problem been addressed? In general, how is the movement of students into or out of the major degree program factored into enrollment planning?

Graduates

Persistence Flow

Review the induced credit hour matrix. How does your department contribute to other degree programs?

Induced Credit Hours

Scheduling of Courses: Describe the planning practices used by the department to ensure that major courses are scheduled (i.e., in terms of seats and sections) to meet student demand. In general, can students enroll in the major courses that they need to graduate in a timely fashion? Are there any recognized bottlenecks? If so, what has been done to address them?

Faculty Workload

Teaching: Describe the faculty distribution of teaching effort within the department and upload a schedule of teaching by individual faculty. Is the distribution serving the mission of the department adequately or do changes need to be made? Analyze how the teaching load at each course level is distributed among tenured-tenure track faculty, lecturers or part-time instructors, teaching assistants, or others. What factors determine this distribution? Has this distribution changed over time? How are you ensuring that faculty have adequate time to teach their courses effectively?

Scholarship: Describe how faculty are contributing to the evolution of their discipline(s) and to the research mission of UToledo. Review your departmental Faculty 180 data and discuss the ways in which the department promotes student research and/or artistry, faculty scholarship that promotes student learning, or student involvement in faculty scholarship. How successful has the department been in leveraging the uniqueness of UToledo’s R1 status in fostering student engagement in faculty scholarly activity and including faculty scholarship in teaching? (HLC 3.B. Exercise of Intellectual Inquiry)

Engagement and Extension
Describe the efforts and impact of the department’s engagement and extension across the State/region to exchange, develop and apply knowledge. How does the department help to empower individuals and communities to thrive (K-12 outreach, research centers, extension, etc.)? How do engagement and extension serve to help align the department to its strengths? Is the department able to articulate a strong value proposition for partners, investors, grant-makers, and other funders? Does the department offer courses and/or programs in locations other than main and/or the health science campus? If so, provide the name and address of each location and when it was approved. (HLC 1.C. Mission and Diversity of Society and 2.B. Transparency)

Resources
Provide examples to show how the department uses its resources (e.g., faculty, staff, space, budget) efficiently and strategically. (HLC 3.D. Support for Student Learning and Resources for Teaching and 5.B. Resource Base and Sustainability)

Faculty:

What are the departmental processes and resources for assuring that instructors are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles? How is their professional development supported? (HLC 3.C. Sufficiency of Faculty and Staff) How does the department ensure that all staff are appropriately qualified, trained and supported in their professional development? (HLC 3.C. Sufficiency of Faculty and Staff)
How does the department ensure that its instructors are accessible to students? (HLC 3.C. Sufficiency of Faculty and Staff)
Summarize the experience and expertise of all the department’s faculty members. How well do they meet the needs of the department and degree program(s) currently and as the discipline continues to develop into the future?
Analyze the department’s faculty composition. How does your current faculty (number and composition) reflect and support your department’s mission? How do the number and types of faculty support your department’s mission and goals for instruction, scholarship and service?

Faculty Trends

Describe the department’s history of faculty recruitment and retention during the period under review. Has the department faced challenges in this area? How well has the faculty met the expectations of the department and college, as expressed in policies on retention, promotion, and tenure?
Describe the department’s projected hiring needs over the next six to eight years. What methods does the department use to substantiate these needs?

Administration: Describe the administration of the department, both in terms of faculty (e.g., the department chair and any other members released to perform administrative functions) and support staff. How well do these positions meet the needs of the program?

Facilities, Equipment, and Information Resources
Describe the facilities, equipment, and information resources (e.g., book, journals, and databases) that are used by the department. How well do these resources meet the needs of the degree program(s)? What plans exist for the maintenance, repair and replacement of existing resources, as well as the acquisition of new ones?

Revenues and Expenditures
Provide a summary of the department’s total expenditures for the period under review. Explain any significant increases or decreases. Provide a summary of the department’s non-base budgeted funds (i.e., endowments, grants, overhead accounts, etc.). How do you use these funds to support the department’s mission and goals? How successful has the department been in securing external funds?

Institutional Strategic Goals

How does the department demonstrate alignment with current institutional strategic goals?
Ensure student success from recruitment through graduation
Deliver relevant and innovative academic programs
Set the standard for health education and patient care
Distinguish UToledo regionally, nationally and internationally
Foster a people-centered culture
Position UToledo for future success through financial and operational effectiveness

Findings

Based on the insights gained during the preparation of this self-study, what are the strengths of the program(s) and what aspects should be improved? How might these findings influence the program’s strategic action plan? Where would the department like the degree program(s) to be at the end of the next cycle of review? How might this forward-looking view of the program(s), its resources, and its effectiveness inform the department’s strategic goals?
Based on the completion of this review, identify specific goals for the next review cycle. Include the metrics that will be used to assess progress toward, or completion of, the stated goals and any alignments with broader strategic plans, if applicable.

Strategic Goals

Goal 1

Metric used to measure success/progress:
(enter metric here)
Timetable for implementation/completion:
(enter timeline here)
Alignment with broader strategic plan(s):
(enter alignment here)

Goal 2

Metric used to measure success/progress:
(enter metric here)
Timetable for implementation/completion:
(enter timeline here)
Alignment with broader strategic plan(s):
(enter alignment here)

Goal 3

Metric used to measure success/progress:
(enter metric here)
Timetable for implementation/completion:
(enter timeline here)
Alignment with broader strategic plan(s):
(enter alignment here)

Note: This final section can be considered an executive summary of the current status of the program and a suggestion of its priorities for the next six-to-eight years.

Required Attatchments

Program/Department Strategic Plan and Mission Statement
- Attach the program’s strategic plan and mission statement, which should include a description of how each aligns with the College and University strategic plan and mission statement. If the program does not have a formal strategic plan or mission statement, please attach an overview/description of the program’s goal.
Plans of Study
- Attach the plans of study (POS) for all programs included in this review. The POS should explain any differences that may exist between full- and part-time students, when the POS is developed and submitted, and how students are guided in the POS process and any revisions.
Curriculum map
- Attach current curriculum map(s).
Assessment Plan
- Attach current assessment plan(s), which states learning outcomes and metrics.
Assessment Report
- Attach program assessment reports for the past three years; include questions for additional location(s) and alternative modalities if appropriate. (HLC 3.A. Educational Programs and 3.E. Assessment of Student Learning)
Program Data
- Attach program data provided by Institutional Research. If the program has alternative data that contradicts the IR data, provide the alternative data and include an explanation of the program’s source of alternative data and method of collection.
Faculty Curriculum Vitae
- Provide a CV (summary form is acceptable) of all faculty in the department. (HLC 3.B. Exercise of Intellectual Inquiry and 3.C. Sufficiency of Faculty and Staff)

Appendix B: Self-Study Self-Check

Academic Program Review Rubric

Each category below includes:

Criteria
Exemplary (4)
Proficient (3)
Developing (2)
Needs Improvement (1) / Not Applicable (no score)

I. Data Verification

Criteria: Accuracy and completeness of CIM, Faculty180, ODHE compliance data

Exemplary (4):
All data sources are verified, fully updated, and clearly documented; alignment among systems demonstrated.
Proficient (3):
Most data sources verified and updated; minor inconsistencies noted.
Developing (2):
Partial verification with several missing or outdated elements.
Needs Improvement (1):
Data incomplete or unverified; major misalignments present.

II.A Identity

Criteria: Program history, mission, and progress since last review

Exemplary (4):
Clear, concise, and evidence-based history; mission aligns with college/university; strong reflection on past progress.
Proficient (3):
Clear mission and progress noted with some evidence; history summarized.
Developing (2):
Mission and goals stated but lack alignment or supporting detail.
Needs Improvement (1):
Limited or missing information; no reflection on progress.

II.B Learning Outcomes & Pedagogy

Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

Exemplary (4):
PLOs measurable, current, discipline-aligned, and distinct; assessment evidence used.
Proficient (3):
PLOs mostly measurable and aligned with institutional outcomes.
Developing (2):
PLOs stated but vague or not measurable.
Needs Improvement (1):
PLOs missing, outdated, or lack indicators.

Institutional Student Learning Outcomes

Exemplary (4):
Comprehensive alignment analysis with clear evidence.
Proficient (3):
Partial alignment demonstrated.
Developing (2):
Minimal discussion; lacks data.
Needs Improvement (1):
No discussion of alignment.

Core Curriculum Learning Outcomes (Undergraduate Only, If Applicable)

Exemplary (4):
Full description of core courses and alignment with outcomes; assessment reflects evidence-based improvement.
Proficient (3):
Full description provided; assessment use evident.
Developing (2):
Minimal discussion; limited data.
Needs Improvement (1):
No discussion of core curriculum.

Curriculum and Co-Curriculum

Exemplary (4):
Curriculum map complete and current; co-curricular experiences integrated and assessed.
Undergraduate only: Full description of State transfer efforts with timelines.
Proficient (3):
Curriculum map complete; co-curricular discussion included.
Undergraduate only: Transfer strategies described.
Developing (2):
Summary provided but lacks mapping or analysis.
Needs Improvement (1):
Curriculum incomplete or outdated; transfer efforts not addressed.

Pedagogy and Instructional Methods

Exemplary (4):
Varied, evidence-based, high-impact practices linked to outcomes.
Proficient (3):
Instructional methods described and aligned.
Developing (2):
Limited discussion; few examples.
Needs Improvement (1):
No discussion of pedagogy.

Service Courses

Exemplary (4):
Comprehensive analysis of service courses and how they support degree programs.
Proficient (3):
Analysis provided with some narrative.
Developing (2):
Limited discussion.
Needs Improvement (1):
Not addressed.

II.C Program Effectiveness

Assessment of Student Learning

Exemplary (4):
Systematic assessment with clear “closing the loop.”
Proficient (3):
Results reported and used for improvement.
Developing (2):
Assessment incomplete or inconsistent.
Needs Improvement (1):
No recent assessment activity.

Student Success & Retention

Exemplary (4):
Uses DFW, persistence, and graduation data with documented actions.
Proficient (3):
Data reviewed with planned actions.
Developing (2):
Minimal analysis; unclear link to actions.
Needs Improvement (1):
No data presented.

Student Engagement

Exemplary (4):
Multiple feedback sources used.
Proficient (3):
Some evidence of feedback.
Developing (2):
Limited discussion.
Needs Improvement (1):
Absent or anecdotal.

Ethical and Professional Practice

Exemplary (4):
Clear examples of professional guidance.
Proficient (3):
Some evidence provided.
Developing (2):
Limited discussion.
Needs Improvement (1):
Not addressed.

External Performance Measures & Accreditation

Exemplary (4):
Accreditation fully described with current status.
Proficient (3):
Accreditation mentioned.
Developing (2):
Partial information.
Needs Improvement (1):
Not addressed.

II.D Faculty Advising & Success After Graduation

Exemplary (4):
Advising model explained; outcomes analyzed with employer feedback.
Proficient (3):
Advising practices described.
Developing (2):
Minimal description.
Needs Improvement (1):
No information provided.

II.E Program Planning

Enrollment, Demand, and Scheduling

Exemplary (4):
Data analyzed to inform recruitment, retention, and scheduling.
Proficient (3):
Data reviewed with planning implications.
Developing (2):
Limited interpretation.
Needs Improvement (1):
Missing or superficial analysis.

II.F Faculty Workload & Scholarship

Exemplary (4):
Balanced workload with integration of research and teaching.
Proficient (3):
Workload described.
Developing (2):
Uneven workload or limited scholarship discussion.
Needs Improvement (1):
No information provided.

II.G Engagement, Extension & Resources

Exemplary (4):
Strong outreach; efficient and strategic use of resources.
Proficient (3):
Engagement described; locations listed.
Developing (2):
Limited examples.
Needs Improvement (1):
No discussion.

II.H Institutional Alignment & Strategic Planning

Exemplary (4):
Clear alignment with institutional goals; measurable outcomes.
Proficient (3):
Alignment with most goals.
Developing (2):
General alignment; limited metrics.
Needs Improvement (1):
No alignment identified.

Findings & Future Goals

Exemplary (4):
Thorough synthesis with SMART goals, timelines, and alignment.
Proficient (3):
Clear findings and defined goals.
Developing (2):
General or vague goals.
Needs Improvement (1):
No clear findings or goals.

III. Required Attachments

Completeness and Relevance

Exemplary (4):
All attachments included, current, and referenced.
Proficient (3):
Most attachments included.
Developing (2):
Some missing or outdated.
Needs Improvement (1):
Few or none provided.

Scoring Guide

Exemplary (4)

Description:
Fully meets and exceeds expectations; serves as a model for other programs.

Proficient (3)

Description:
Meets expectations; minor areas identified for enhancement.

Developing (2)

Description:
Partially meets expectations; improvement needed in several areas.

Needs Improvement (1) / Not Applicable (N/A)

Description:
Fails to meet expectations; major revisions required, or not applicable.

APPENDIX C: External Reviewer Questions

Academic Program Review 2025-2026 Questions for External Reviewers

As external reviewers, we expect that your expertise and knowledge of the discipline will frame your final thoughts. Using the questions below, please prepare a final report to summarize your feedback, based on the documents provided and takeaways from the site visit. If multiple programs were reviewed, please identify where feedback is relevant to a specific program. Your final report will be shared with program and college leadership, who will then be asked to develop a response and action plan toward quality improvement. The Higher Learning Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation are referenced to specific questions when applicable.

Identity

To what extent does the program’s mission align with the university’s overall mission and strategic goals? (HLC 1.A.)
How effectively does the program contribute to the public good and to the broader community? (HLC 1.B.)

Learning Outcomes and Pedagogy

Assess the overall program in terms of curriculum, content, course sequencing, relevance/appropriateness of offerings, community engagement, research. Please identify strengths as well as areas for improvement. (HLC 3.A.)
Comment on the student learning outcomes. Are they appropriate and relevant for the discipline, and for the level of student in this area of study? Please refer to program assessment plans provided in the appendix. (HLC 3.A. and 3.E)
How well do the program's curriculum and methods align with clearly articulated student learning outcomes? (HLC 3.A.)
What evidence exists to demonstrate that students are achieving these outcomes? Please refer to program assessment plans and reports provided in the appendix. (HLC 3.E.)
How effectively has the program used assessment results to improve curriculum, student learning, or operations? Does the program demonstrate a culture of assessment and data-driven decision making? (HLC 3.E.)
How does the curriculum reflect current disciplinary standards and trends? Are the outcomes for graduates of this program appropriate for the discipline? Please explain. (HLC 3.A.)
Benchmarking: How does the curriculum compare to those at similar institutions? (HLC 3.G.)
Service Courses (if applicable): Comment on the effectiveness of the service courses offered by the department. How effectively do the service courses offered prepare students for other majors? (HLC 3.D.)

Program Effectiveness

Are admissions standards appropriate for each program’s level and goals? (refer to program requirements -Catalog Information) (HLC 3.A.)
Describe the appropriateness of the modes of delivery and instructional modalities (e.g., lab, online, face-to-face), relative to the discipline. (HLC 3.)
Comment on the faculty advising process, and note any strengths or concerns. (HLC 3.D.)
Comment on program trends in retention, persistence, completion and efforts being made to maintain or improve in these areas. (HLC 3.G.)
What evidence is there of student engagement in research, internships, or community-based experiences? Does evidence of student scholarship and creative work provided by the program seem adequate and appropriate? If not, please explain. (HLC 3.B.)
What evidence is there of alumni success and engagement with the program? How well are students prepared for graduate study, professional advancement, or careers after graduation? (HLC 3.G.)
What are the program’s distinctive strengths, and where does it lag behind peers? (HLC 3.G.)

Faculty Development

Does the program have an appropriate number and mix of faculty to support its mission and curriculum? (HLC 3.C.)
How would you assess the quality of faculty teaching, scholarship, and professional engagement? (HLC 3.C.)
Discuss the adequacy of opportunities for faculty development and mentorship. (HLC 3.D)

Resources and Infrastructure

Considering enrollment trends, are resources (staffing, facilities, technology, library, labs) adequate to support high-quality teaching and research? (HLC 3.D.)
How does the program make effective use of resources, and where are the most pressing gaps? (HLC 3.D.)
What are the plans for resource sustainability, and how are resource allocations informed by evidence? (HLC 3.D.)

Conclusion

How should the program position itself to address disciplinary, professional, or societal changes in the next 5–10 years? Where should the program focus its energy and resources? What strategic opportunities or challenges should the program consider moving forward?
Please provide any additional comments, strengths, or areas of concern that were not specifically addressed above.

Institutional Effectiveness