GUIDE FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW

IN THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES

(Revised November, 2011)

INTRODUCTION

In the academic sector, regular program review is mandated by the states and the regional accrediting agencies. On campus, administrators or a combination of administrators and faculty committees typically devise and oversee a system of periodic review that includes external perspectives. At Fairfield University, this process is school-based. In the College of Arts & Sciences the responsibility is shared by the Office of the Dean, the Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee, and the various department and program faculties.

All academic programs[1] in the College of Arts & Sciences should engage in systematic self-examination in order to sustain or improve their educational effectiveness. Academic program reviews, approached strategically and creatively, can prove intellectually stimulating to the program's members, improve the curriculum, build morale, solve difficult problems, and help the program gain new resources and broader recognition (both on and off campus).

Core principles that guide effective program reviews:

1. Academic program review is intended to foster academic excellence in the context of Fairfield University’s mission as a Catholic and Jesuit university “whose primary objectives are to develop the creative intellectual potential of its students and to foster in them ethical and religious values and a sense of social responsibility.” (Mission Statement)

2. Program review is aimed at self-improvement. Its emphasis is on how programs can better realize their own aspirations for teaching, learning, scholarship, and contributions to internal and external communities. Careful analysis and candid reporting of program strengths and weaknesses are essential for self-improvement. All participants, including the Dean and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, act with the understanding that program review aims to stimulate improvement by the program itself within the broad framework of goals set by the program, the College, and the University. The self-study is consciously designed to provide insights the program can use for self-improvement within resources available to it.

3. While calling for serious attention to all aspects of an academic program, including scholarship, program review places a special emphasis on student learning. If program review is to improve educational effectiveness, it must give particular attention to what students are actually learning. The self-study thus relies upon pertinent quantitative and qualitative evidence, with particular attention to evidence about student learning.

4. In keeping with the academy’s value for peer review, a vital component of academic program review is the external perspective gained by learning about best practices in similar and aspirant programs and inviting feedback from peers at other institutions. Resources will be provided, as deemed appropriate by the Dean, to ensure this external perspective is included.

5. Academic program review provides a snapshot of what should be an ongoing process of reviewing the program’s activities, outcomes, challenges, and improvements related to its goals. The process begins before a formal periodic program review is initiated and continues after it is completed. The program responds to the reviewers’ report with actions designed to improve its demonstrated effectiveness, which may be the focus of a subsequent review.

6. Academic program reviews are the collective responsibility of program faculties. While chairs, program directors, and/or faculty committees might spearhead elements of program review or divide up the various components of a program review, all members of a department or program should participate. The resulting self-study should reflect this broad participation in the ways it defines issues, analyzes evidence, formulates plans, engages with the visiting external reviewers, and responds to recommendations.

Purpose of the Guide

Modeled on guides produced at other institutions and used in virtually every academic field, this Guide for Academic Program Review in the College provides department chairs, program directors, deans, and external reviewers a set of strategic questions and suggested steps for conducting comprehensive academic program reviews. This document was designed to guide scheduled, periodic, comprehensive reviews of individual programs, but also may be a resource for abridged program reviews as part of institutional self-studies for NEASC reaccreditation or for ad hoc reviews related to unforeseen circumstances in the program or at the University.

This guide does not articulate what an excellent program should look like. That depends in large part on the discipline, the program’s identity and role at the university, and on how energetically and imaginatively the program takes advantage of its specific constituents and resources. Because of the considerable variety among academic programs in the College, no guide can speak to all aspects of programs or all contingencies. What this guide attempts to do, therefore, is to raise questions and offer suggestions that programs can adapt to their own situations. As well, programs should utilize specific recommendations from relevant disciplinary associations, and take into account the current social and political climate as related to trends in the field, and the issues faced by the surrounding community to which the program might positively contribute.

This Guide for Academic Program Review in the College is a work in progress, and shall be revised under the auspices of the Dean of the College and the ASCC, in consultation with other relevant committees, the departments and programs, and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs.[2] Each program review should follow the guidelines provided in this document unless alternatives have been approved in advance by the Dean.

ABOUT THE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS

Academic program review offers an excellent opportunity for faculty to assess present strengths and weaknesses and to develop concrete strategies for preserving strengths and overcoming weaknesses. While ideally faculty members are engaged in regular conversations with each other about the program's goals and strategies for achieving them, a formal program review provides the occasion to focus intentionally on such conversation.

There are stakes involved in formal reviews. Administrators and others focus on the quality of the program and on its role at the institution. External reviewers gain a privileged look inside the program. Their assessments of the program may, among other things, affect the reputation of the program nationally. Program ability to maintain and attract new resources is at stake, as well. Thus, it is advisable to engage in a rigorous, well-structured process, one that allows the program itself the most control over how the self-study is framed.

The steps in a typical academic program review are clear, although their implementation is often complex. The steps, discussed in turn below, are as follows:

1. Timing of the review

2. Preparation for the review

3. Writing the self-study

4. External review

5. Administrative response

6. Development of Revised Action Plan

1. The timing of the review

With a set calendar and queue for periodic program reviews, each program can anticipate its scheduled review and develop an internal system of orderly preparations (also see Appendices 1 and 2). Aside from this schedule, a review might be triggered by the program itself due to a critical situation (e.g., significant faculty turnover), or by the Dean for purposes of targeted improvement, if the program is imperiled for some reason, or in other unusual situations.

To ensure an effective review, the faculty should reach some internal agreement on their goals for the review, and then come to agreement with the Dean on this focus. Matters to discuss with the Dean (and perhaps for consultation with other College leadership) include topics of special focus, identification of appropriate external reviewers, how materials will be provided to the reviewers (e.g., which in hard copy, which in electronic form), specific logistics of the external review process, who should be included beyond the full-time faculty, etc.

In the case where there are multiple programs under the rubric of one department, a decision should be made as to whether it is prudent to review all the programs together, perhaps using a committee structure for the comprehensive review, or rather to have different cycles of review for the various programs.

Funding is available from the Dean and other appropriate sources to support the activities involved in the self-study and to prepare for the visit by external reviewers. In particular, 1-2 weeks of intensive conversations, data analysis, and writing over the summer should be considered. All continuing, full-time faculty in the program should plan accordingly; a role for others should be determined and planned for well in advance.

2. Preparation for the Review

The chair or director of the program should schedule one or more meetings of the program faculty to discuss an upcoming review. This is an opportunity to emphasize the program's stake in the review, to go over the guidelines and outline the process (remembering that not all members of the program will have participated in previous reviews), and to preview the documentation that must be produced and/or assembled for the self-study.

The best preparation for academic program review is embedded in the quotidian life of the program's members (faculty, students, and staff) and in the "culture" of the program. Program review flows naturally when faculty converse regularly about the goals and strategies of the program, when they talk regularly about their reading, research, creative work, teaching, service, and other professional activities; when staff and students have regular opportunities to discuss program aspirations and problems; and where there is frequent and systematic consideration of how the curriculum and other aspects of the program might be improved. If such discussions begin only a month before a self-study or only three months before external reviewers descend, highly beneficial reviews are unlikely to result.

As well, a healthy program maintains bridges to faculty in other programs with overlapping interests, chairs of related departments, key administrators, program alumni, community leaders, scholars on other campuses, and professional organizations. A program that is isolated from or cultivates disdain for other departments, programs, faculty, centers of support, or administrators on its campus will likely struggle through a review.

Although program faculty and staff take responsibility for much of the formal work, it is wise to involve affiliated and part-time faculty and students in at least some of the discussions. Out of these discussions may conceivably come disagreement over present goals and strategies of the program or over desirable plans for the program's future; nevertheless, allowing sufficient time for a frank discussion of disagreements makes possible consensus on at least some goals.

3. Writing the Self-Study

A thoughtful, well-written self-study narrative is critical to the success of the academic program review. It is the primary occasion for the program's central members to demonstrate understanding of the goals and dynamics of the program as contextualized by its campus history. It is also a time to demonstrate capacity to evaluate strengths and weaknesses, and to make a persuasive case for specific actions to preserve and enhance program quality and effectiveness.

Although the core faculty should take chief responsibility for drafting this narrative, those faculty will find it substantively and strategically useful to circulate the narrative for comments to all faculty affiliated with the program, as well as to program staff and students. Comments from such individuals can identify misstatements, enrich the narrative's perspectives, and help sharpen its rhetoric. Such involvement will also better prepare affiliated faculty, staff, and students to participate constructively in meetings and interviews undertaken in conjunction with the external review, and to share the work of implementing any recommendations arising from it.

The matters to be included in the self-study are delineated in Appendix 3. Some sensible advice for an approach to the narrative itself is provided here:

Be brief. Avoid the distraction of an elaborate discussion of every minor issue and problem. Instead, focus on the most pressing issues and the items identified for focus in this review. The self-study should be efficiently organized and easy to follow. Each section should be as short as possible but long enough to present evidence and make effective arguments. External reviewers will find tedious narratives that fail to distinguish major issues from minor ones. The drafters of the narrative should aim for a document (excluding appendices) of no more than 25 single-spaced pages, and exceed that only if there are the most compelling reasons for doing so.

Be judicious. The narrative should certainly highlight the program's strengths and distinctive qualities, including the nature and value of the contributions it makes to the campus and, where relevant, to the larger community. It also should highlight problems candidly. It is prudent for program members to acknowledge perceived problems, on program terms, rather than allow administrators or external reviewers to define them. Accompanying discussion or problems should be a discussion of steps the program is taking, or plans to take, or wishes to take (contingent on additional resources) to mitigate or remedy them. The self-study should invite the external reviewers to offer constructive recommendations for solving the problems.

The narrative should provide supporting evidence for the arguments, drawing on and efficiently referring to the data contained in the self-study and appendices. However, the narrative should not be too encumbered with data, which cannot substitute for astute analysis, careful decision-making, and cogent argument. Narrative portions should focus on the implications of data for the review. Except for context and clarity, the narrative should not repeat the descriptive and statistical material in the appendices. Rather, it should reference and interpret that material.

Ideally, the narrative reflects faculty and student accord surrounding program goals and strategies. However, if significant disagreements remain among participants when the narrative is being written, those disagreements should be stated explicitly, including a sense of what is at stake in such disagreements, and a plan outlined that can enable the program to deal constructively with those disagreements. Unresolved arguments have the potential, if approached in a cooperative and creative spirit, to yield new and useful directions and to demonstrate a diverse faculty's ability to work respectfully with each other on behalf of important goals.

4. The External Review

By external, it is meant that academic program review is undertaken by faculty or administrators not affiliated with the program and/or by scholars from other institutions. Sometimes the external review committee will mix on-campus and off-campus members; there are benefits to having at least one senior member of the College faculty from outside of the program, usually appointed by the Dean, serve on the external review committee. The primary function of external reviewers is to advise program members, administrators, and other campus constituencies on matters of program status, potential, and resources (see Appendix 4 for guidelines for external reviewers).

Selecting External Reviewers

Appropriate external reviewers are critical to the review's value. The program typically will be (and should be) invited to suggest possible external reviewers, generally in the form of a list from which the Dean will select one or more. It is advisable to consult with relevant professional organizations to help identify appropriate and experienced reviewers. While program faculty may have in mind scholars from other schools whom they believe would be effective and supportive reviewers, they should also contact the heads of similar programs at comparable or aspirant institutions to discover whether those programs have recently undergone a review and whether any particular external scholars in those reviews were especially helpful. Reviewers should not be friends or close colleagues of program faculty; rather, they should be selected so that they bring an objective perspective and forward-looking vision to the review process.

Reviewers should have some or most of the following qualities: Reviewers should be individuals that faculty will respect and see as highly qualified, and who will be seen as credible by all involved in the review, including eventually by NEASC. Reputable scholars who have been actively involved in the field and deeply understand current intellectual trends, teaching agendas, and other issues make excellent reviewers. Reviewers should be faculty at programs in the same field, and/or have appropriate value for and experience in relevant interdisciplinary arenas. At least one of the external reviewers should have significant experience as a chair or director of a successful or similar program, and/or a reputation for political savvy, diplomatic skill, and expertise in campus protocols and administrative processes. The reviewers’ report likely will have more influence if it reflects understanding of the problems program leadership and College administration may face in trying to implement recommendations.

Facilitating a Productive Campus Visit

Meetings and interviews organized as part of the external review vary significantly by program. For example, review committee members may interview core and affiliated faculty singly or in groups. Reviewers will want to talk to undergraduate majors and minors, graduate students, and with staff; many reviews arrange for separate meetings with these relevant constituencies. Among the most important meetings will be those with program faculty and key administrators.

Program leadership should brief constituencies on the review. Briefings orient participants on the purpose and stakes of the review, give them a sense of the reviewers' backgrounds and interests, suggest the kinds of questions the reviewers will be interested in pursuing, and empower constituencies as stakeholders. All participants should be made aware that, while they are the best ambassadors of the program, an effective review requires honest self-reflection.

Most external reviewers, if experienced and provided with a strong and candid self-study report, will be predisposed to focus on being helpful to the program. They will not avoid identifying weaknesses or problems, but they will more quickly spot problems and challenges. Full and frank discussion of problems increases the likelihood that external reviewers will generate diplomatically presented recommendations that will be effective in producing positive outcomes.

Provide time for the external reviewers to confer with each other every day while on campus. Give reviewers a chance to talk to each other about their initial impressions of the program before their meetings with administrators, faculty, and others begin. Then provide opportunities for reviewers to check in with each other about what they have observed and heard in their interviews and meetings. In a typical campus visit, reviewers need several hours by themselves at the end of the first day and another block of time to themselves before any exit interviews.

Following Up on the External Review

It models good manners and demonstrates ongoing diplomacy when program leadership sends brief individual notes to both on-campus and off-campus members of the review committee. Thank them for their efforts and volunteer to send them any further information that will aid them in completing their report (or, in some cases, individual reports). Such notes should not be used to revisit an argument or to advocate for the program.

Before their report is received but shortly after the external review, the faculty (and staff and students as appropriate) should get together to trade impressions of the review. Likely recommendations can be anticipated and it is not too soon to begin considering the response to those recommendations and to other issues that may have emerged in the review process. While program reviews can be labor-intensive, there usually is a good deal of momentum immediately following the external reviewers’ campus visit. Seize this opportunity to begin organizing work on anticipated changes program members deem desirable, or which are expected to be required.

The external reviewers' report typically is received within a month after the campus visit. The program will have a chance to offer a written response to the report, but can begin a response before the report is received. In this way, the response will take advantage of fresh memories of the campus visit and the immediate post-visit conversations among program members. Write an additional thank-you note to the reviewers after they submit their report to the campus. This is important regardless of the reports’ content.

Like the narrative portion of the self-study, the response to the external reviewers' report is an important tactical document. The response ought to indicate clearly those issues on which the members of the program agree with the report, as well as highlight points of disagreement. Use the response to state what changes faculty intend to make because of the review, including changes that may differ from or be in addition to those recommended. Outline strategies and timetables, and indicate the resource implications changes (e.g., need for more faculty or staff or facilities or space, plans to make more efficient use of existing or diminished resources, etc.).

The response should strive for an upbeat tone, describing in plausible terms (as in the self-study) its vision of an even better future. Display of self-confidence, even if somewhat on the optimistic side, generally makes good sense. The program’s response is likely to be most effective when, like the self-study, it is persuasive about why supporting the program will benefit the institution.

5. Administrative Response

After thorough consideration of the external reviewers’ report, the program’s response to the external reviewers, and consultation with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Dean should meet with the chair or program director to discuss development of the Revised Action Plan. A meeting between the Dean and the full program faculty is also desirable. The Dean should provide appropriate feedback, guidance, and enthusiasm for the results of the program review.

Keep in mind, the Dean’s response to the review and its recommendations, even at its most favorable, may not result in the program’s getting everything it needs or wants. Modest gains in status or resources are cause for celebration and optimism, especially in very tight budgetary times. Valuable learning and community-building should have resulted from the self-study process, and programs should be in a better position to move forward with plans and improve program effectiveness.

6. Development of Revised Action Plan

The Revised Action Plan is the program’s response to the internal and external feedback received during the entire academic program review process, including the administrative response. The program faculty should prepare a written comment on the feedback, update its original Action Plan (Section VII of the Self-Study Report), identify next steps for promoting program improvement, provide a reasonable timetable, and identify issues that require further discussion within the program or between the program and the Dean. To ensure broad participation and support, all full-time faculty members on continuing appointment should review and discuss this document; opportunities for comment by other constituencies can be provided as appropriate to the culture of the program. This Revised Action Plan should be no more than 5 pages in length.

The Dean, the Sr. Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the ASCC should receive the Revised Action Plan and may be asked to provide feedback or advice. The program should plan to consult with all appropriate faculty committees and administrators if its plans will require formal deliberations or approvals for substantive revisions (e.g., changes to requirements), or if proposed program changes will have anticipated impact on curricula or students in other programs (e.g., courses that are cross-listed with interdisciplinary programs or courses required for students in other schools or programs). See Appendix 5 for relevant governance passages.

APPENDIX 1

THE PROGRAM REVIEW CYCLE – Revised Fall 2011

Every academic program engages in a formal program review every seven or eight years (skipping years when there is an institutional reaccreditation self-study underway). It can be beneficial if programs participate in cohorts of related disciplines. Program reviews unfold over an 18-24 month period. They are scheduled to begin as follows:

REVIEW PROCESS BEGINS	PARTICIPATING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
Fall 2009	3 departments (PH, SO, MA (undergrad)) (PLUS: New Media 5-year new program review)
Fall 2010	2 interdisciplinary programs (LACS, WS)
Fall 2011	2 departments (CO (undergrad), RS) 3 interdisciplinary programs (AS (undergrad & grad), RES) (PLUS: Catholic Studies 5-year new program review)
Spring-Fall 2012	NEASC 5-year report being prepared and submitted
Fall 2012	4 departments &1 graduate program (PY, EC, PO, HI, MA (grad)) 2 interdisciplinary programs (BL, JS) (PLUS: MFA in Creative Writing 5-year new program review)
Fall 2013	3 departments (BI, CH/BC, PS) 3 interdisciplinary programs (CL, IR, IT) (PLUS: MA in Communication 5-year new program review)
Fall 2014	1 department (VPA) 3 interdisciplinary programs (EV, IL, PJ)
Fall 2015	2 departments (EN, MLL) 1 interdisciplinary program (AN)
Spring 2016 – Summer 2017	University Self-Study for NEASC Reaccreditation No CAS program reviews will begin
Fall 2017	Begin cycle again, with modifications as necessary (Only new interdisciplinary programs will be included I the next round, or those with unfinished business; departments will be queued according to need)

APPENDIX 2

TWO-YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW SCHEDULE

The two-year program review process begins in fall of the first year and typically ends no later than spring of the second year. Specific dates in the process are set by the Dean in consultation with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and the programs involved.

Typically, program reviews include the following steps, which are completed sequentially:

YEAR 1:

FALL

1. The Dean holds a Program Review Orientation meeting or workshop for faculty and staff in all programs scheduled to begin a review. Members of the ASCC, the Director of Assessment, the Office of Institutional Research, and experienced faculty may assist.

2. The program and the Dean address any questions about the scope and content of the process as early as possible (in consultation with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and any committees, if necessary).

3. The program consults this Guide, along with its own disciplinary guides for program review, and designs its self-study process (e.g., creating working groups, document archive system, specific timetable, etc.).

SPRING

1. The program begins gathering the information (data, documents) for its self-study. The Office of Institutional Research will provide typical reports.

2. Committees or working groups of faculty begin organizing and analyzing the data and forming initial recommendations for how to reflect this information in the self-study.

SUMMER (funding available)

1. The program engages in intensive exploration of its findings and drafts the self-study narrative; any additional data needed is gathered.

2. The program chair or director identifies a list of appropriate experts who can serve as external reviewers who will read the self-study, visit the campus, and make appropriate recommendations.

3. The program and the Dean agree on and invite suitable external reviewers. Based on program needs and goals, the Dean may identify one member of the faculty to participate on the external review committee.

YEAR 2:

FALL

1. The Dean reviews a draft of the self-study report and has the opportunity to make suggestions for revision prior to its submission to the external reviewers.

2. The external reviewers’ campus visit takes place and should be completed by the Thanksgiving break. This is designed to avoid the primary timeframe for faculty recruitment.

SPRING

1. The program receives and discusses the Visiting Team Report. The program chair or director sends a formal response to the reviewers.

2. The program chair or director (and/or full program faculty) meets with the Dean to discuss the review and report.

3. The program submits a Revised Action Plan to the Dean and ASCC (including any other relevant committees).

4. The program begins implementing the next steps in program improvement with assistance, as appropriate, from the Dean and the College and University committees as appropriate.

SUMMER

1. Departments may want to engage in more intensive work related to designing program improvements arising from the self-study (additional funding may be available).

APPENDIX 3

GUIDELINES FOR SELF-STUDY REPORT

The Self-Study Report is the centerpiece of program review. This document should be no longer than 25 pages (plus required attachments and supporting documents as needed) and is to be submitted to the Dean with copies to the ASCC and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. To ensure broad participation and support, all full-time faculty members on continuing appointment are expected to participate in the creation, review, and discussion of this document; avenues for the participation of part-time and affiliate faculty, as well as students should be included, with the scope of such participation dependent on their role in the program.

The specific topics, and their specific ordering, will depend on the concerns and situation of the local program. The Self-Study Report generally includes the following sections; ideas for what to address in each section are suggested along with a recommended outline:

I. INTRODUCTION

In no more than two paragraphs, present a succinct overview of your program and describe the self-study process the program has conducted in preparation of this report.

II. MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

This section explores the relationship among program goals, objectives for student learning, and mission. In general, our outcomes are derived from our goals; our goals arise from mission (approximately 1 paragraph for each).

A. Mission Statement

Include the program’s current mission statement (indicate when this mission statement was adopted by the program and approved by the Dean).

B. Student Learning Goals and Objectives

Include the program’s current goals and objectives for student learning outcomes.

C. Other Program Goals and Objectives

Include any current goals and objectives related to curriculum, pedagogy, scholarship, service, diversity, market needs, or other aspects of the program

D. Contribution to Mission and Goals of the College and the University

Discuss the contribution the program makes to the mission and strategic priorities of the University and the College, ways the program contributes directly to the University Core Curriculum or advances core learning goals, and ways the program engages with the residential Living & Learning Communities, the Centers (e.g., CAE, Center for Faith and Public Life), and University-wide programs (e.g. Honors and Service Learning and Jesuit Universities Humanitarian Action Network (JUHAN)).

III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY FOR QUALITY

This section focuses on the underlying capacity of the program to achieve and sustain educational effectiveness (approximately 1 paragraph for each).

A. Program History, Structure, and Management

Briefly describe the history of the program, focusing on situating the current context and review in that background. Include a discussion of any pertinent structural features of the program, including the governance procedures and commentary on program leadership and shared management, and on the relationship to the College administration and to other programs in the College. Program governance documents are appended to the self-study.

The goal of this section is not to give readers a detailed institutional analysis, but a general overview of the campus setting and major trends that have affected the program as an overall context for understanding subsequent sections of the narrative.

B. Faculty Profile

Briefly summarize the demographics, credentials, areas of expertise, and teaching loads of full-time and part-time faculty. Summarize and discuss the scholarship or creative work of full-time faculty; any areas of special research emphasis at the program level; the record of the program in obtaining external grants; effectiveness of the program in fostering individual and collaborative scholarship; involvement of students in research or creative projects; and the extent to which the program reflects a “community of scholars.” Mention only particularly noteworthy achievements. Current CV’s of all full-time faculty members are appended to the self-study.

C. Faculty Development and Evaluation

Explain the various faculty development opportunities and evaluation mechanisms and the degree to which program faculty participate. Include pedagogical development and evaluation, efforts to create scholarly and creative community, mentoring practices, etc.

D. Professional Service and Community Engagement

Summarize and discuss any notable contributions the program and its faculty make to the discipline or profession. Also summarize notable contributions to the University through leadership and service. Include contributions of faculty to community life, the public sector, or non-profit organizations via service-learning courses and community-engaged scholarship.

E. Student Profile

Briefly summarize and discuss the demographics, preparation, and general performance of majors, minors, and other students served by the program. Describe any significant enrollment trends and noteworthy student achievements.

F. Course Profile

Briefly summarize and discuss the number of courses offered, class sizes, the percentage of classes taught by full-time and part-time faculty, and other relevant course data for the past three years. Indicate any significant changes or trends since the last self-study was completed.

G. Resource Profile

Briefly summarize and discuss the budget, facilities, equipment, and computing and library resources available to the program. Indicate any significant changes or trends since the last self-study was completed.

H. Specific features deemed significant for additional discussion (non-exhaustive):

· Does the program include unique interdisciplinary and multi-departmental aims?

Somewhere in the narrative, the program should describe the extent, nature, and quality of interdisciplinary relations, noting what the program has done and plans to do to preserve and strengthen these relations. Any difficulties with key programs or departments should be discussed either in the narrative or (if the issues are sensitive ones) with the reviewers during the campus visit. Reviewers often give constructive advice for dealing effectively with such problems.

· Is the program oriented toward any special students or other constituencies?

· How do program goals and features compare to major national trends in the field?

· Is the program a distinctive program on its own campus? Are there redundancies?

· Does the program make special contributions to community, region, or the profession?

IV. PROGRAM / EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

This section is the core of the self-study and focuses on actual performance in achieving educational effectiveness. Each item may not warrant the same depth of discussion, depending upon the focus and goals of the review.

A. Curriculum

Summarize and discuss the breadth and depth of the curriculum; its coherence and sequencing; its reflection of major areas and issues in the discipline; its contribution to University and College goals; and its alignment with the program’s own goals and objectives for student learning. Appendices should include a list of all courses offered in each of the past three years; syllabi for required courses in the major; syllabi for courses offered as part of the University Core Curriculum.

B. Describe and highlight the rationale for curricular requirements, showing how they reinforce the goals and self-definition of the program. Evaluate the effectiveness of these requirements, and point to evidence supporting this evaluation. Point to any changes planned in the degree requirements and to explain the rationale for those changes. Include remarks about the quality and effectiveness of particularly noteworthy courses or course sequences as it relates to the goals of the review. Questions about course popularity and enrollment trends of note can be addressed, as related to program goals, learning outcomes, and utilization of resources.

C. This section should include some discussion of the extent to which the curriculum is the product of participating faculty member's individual interests and expertise, as well as the extent to which the faculty have "disciplined" and integrated their individual interests in service of a coherent curriculum. A curriculum matrix, mapping program courses to the core, major, and other curricula such as JUHAN or strategic priorities such as Living and Learning and community engagement at the University should be appended.

D. Pedagogy

Summarize and discuss the kinds of pedagogy used within the program to foster expected learning outcomes; the teaching effectiveness of full-time and part-time faculty as reflected in course evaluations, annual performance reviews, and classroom peer-observations; grade trends and distributions compared with those of similar programs at the University (and/or benchmark data from a similarly-sized program at a commensurate institution); and the extent to which the program reflects a “community of reflective practice” in teaching.

E. Advising

Briefly describe the procedures used by the program to advise students (majors, minors, undeclared). Include a discussion of the quality of advising in the program, and reference to any evidence provided in the appendices. Indicate any noteworthy strengths and challenges to student advisement. In addition to discussion of program-focused advising (curricular planning, etc.), this section can usefully discuss the program's efforts at career advising.

F. Student Scholarship, and Creative Work

Briefly describe and discuss student scholarship and creative work beyond classroom assignments. Discuss efforts and outcomes of any special seminars or workshops, speakers or events, and other ways the program builds an intellectual community for students. Include particularly noteworthy student achievements.

G. Student Community Service and Engagement

Summarize and discuss the contributions the students make to the surrounding communities and/or internationally. Include notable contributions to the University through leadership and service.

H. Student Learning Outcomes

Summarize and discuss how the program displays intentionality about its learning outcomes, including ways in which it makes these program-level outcomes known to students and understood by them. Present evidence of actual student learning outcomes. A selection of appropriate university and program-specific outcomes for core courses, major courses, co-curricular learning opportunities, and program-as-a-whole should be included. This section should address as many of the stated outcomes as possible in an analytical and reflective manner. Emphasis of data reported and reflections on the data may vary depending on the program’s phase in its assessment plan. Append your current Assessment Plan as well as all reports of specific assessments the program has conducted in the past three years. Indicate any significant changes or trends since the last self-study was completed.

I. Professional Development, Post-Graduation, and Alumni Outcomes

Describe program efforts to prepare students for post-graduation employment and graduate study. Summarize and discuss any data available to the program about alumni satisfaction, graduate program admission and completion, and employment after graduation. The Higher Education Opportunity Authorization Act requires annual reporting of data on graduates. The Office of Institutional Research will develop a template survey to be supplemented and administered by programs.

J. Discussion of any additional information on program outcomes and educational effectiveness deemed relevant. Some kinds of data that might be considered for the above sections, or additional to them, include data about program, perhaps over a five- or ten-year period, such as enrollments by level (and perhaps by specific courses, if relevant); number of declared majors; number of degrees awarded; student/faculty ratio; etc. Such data is most useful if presented in tables in relation to relevant campus data or other comparative data.

The Office of Institutional Research will provide a standard package of trend data.

V. COMPARATIVE POSITION

Analyze the comparative position of your program in relation to programs at other institutions, identifying ways in which your program can either learn from others or serve as a model for others. This section should include:

A. Comparison with Direct Competitors

Describe the most important similarities and differences between your program and at least three programs at institutions with which the University competes or with which your program directly competes for students. The Office of Institutional Research will provide a list of the 20 closest University competitors at the undergraduate level in the year of review. Graduate programs have different sets of direct competitors, which vary by program; IR and graduate marketing personnel will consult on their identification.

B. Best Practices in Field

Identify at least three issues, problems, or challenges your program is facing for which it is possible to identify “best practices” in the discipline. Describe those “best practices” and how they can inform your own program improvement efforts. Best practices do not have to be drawn from any of the institutions listed above.

C. Unique Features

Describe any unique features of your program that strengthen its comparative position or represent best practice within the discipline.

D. Summary Discussion of Comparative Position

VI. SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Provide an overall evaluation of the program’s strengths and weaknesses and identify the two to four most critical issues facing the program.

VII. ACTION PLAN

Based on your evaluation of the program’s strengths and weaknesses, discuss where you want your program to go and what resources you need to get there. Throughout, it is important to keep in mind that the self-study has multiple audiences, both on- and off-campus. Its primary audience includes those who have power over its resources. Among that audience may well be faculty who sit on curricular, educational policy, or budget committees. As peers, they will certainly be sensitive to such questions as curricular quality, student quality, faculty quality, impact of the program on campus life, the program's standing in the field, and whether the program is an effective investment of resources. As well, the self-study must work self-consciously to give the Dean information that fulfills and advances her/his own goals for the College, and assurances that the program is cost-effective. This section includes:

A. Vision Statement

Articulate a vision for your program that is both aspirational and achievable. This vision should guide the program in its improvement efforts over the next several years. It should be no more than three or four sentences.

B. Improvements Using Current Resources

Describe specific actions the program will take to improve its quality by building on identified strengths and correcting identified weaknesses. These actions might entail the addition, elimination, or refocusing of program priorities or activities. Explain how the program will deploy its existing resources to carry out this plan.

C. Improvements Requiring New Resources

Describe improvements that are important to the program but that require additional resources. Explain how the program would obtain these resources and what help, if any, it would need from the College and/or the University.

VIII. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Clearly articulate several questions or concerns on which you would like guidance from the external visiting team and others responding to your self-study.

IX. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS

A. One-page overview of campus—size, character, organization, structural location of the program. This overview will help off-campus reviewers understand the institutional context of the program. Provided by the Office of Institutional Research.

B. Program governance documents

C. Entry for program in Undergraduate Catalog (and Graduate Catalog if applicable)

D. CV’s of full-time faculty

E. List of courses offered in each of the past three years. Show special designations such as service learning (SerL), JUHAN, or Living and Learning.

F. Syllabi for required courses in major

G. Syllabi for courses offered as part of the University Core Curriculum

H. Curriculum matrix (examples will be provided)

I. Assessment Plan

J. Reports on assessment of student learning outcomes (e.g., past three years)

K. Any other department documents that might be useful to the external reviewers

APPENDIX 4

GUIDELINES FOR VISITING TEAMS

SELECTION OF EXTERNAL REVIEWERS

The visiting team will consist of two external reviewers selected jointly by the program and the Dean. Reviewers may be faculty at other institutions or, where appropriate, practitioners in the field. Every visiting team should include at least one faculty member. A member of the College faculty from another program may be appointed by the Dean to serve on the External Review Committee if it would facilitate the goals of the program or the review.

In selecting members of visiting teams, programs and deans should look for persons of recognized accomplishment in the discipline or field who can provide honest, objective, and useful advice to the program. Reviewers should ideally have experience with assessment of student learning and with formal program review. Faculty members on visiting teams should ordinarily come from programs of equal or higher quality than the one they are asked to review; they also should have expectations about resources and faculty workload appropriate to the context and mission of Fairfield University.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM

In cooperation with the Dean’s office, the program under review is responsible for:

· Arranging the schedule for the visiting team at least four weeks prior to the visit, including making arrangements for transportation, lodging, and meals.

· Providing the visiting team with the following materials at least three weeks prior to the visit: logistical arrangements; schedule of visit; Self-Study Report; the Guidelines for Academic Program Review in the College of Arts & Sciences; and any other supporting material the program deems appropriate.

· Providing meeting space for the visiting team, including access to computers and a printer.

· Making a representative sample of student work available for review, if it was not included in the self-study’s appendices.

EXPECTATIONS OF VISITING TEAM

The visiting team is expected to:

· Review the Self-Study Report and all supporting materials carefully.

· Conduct a two-day site visit, which includes a tour of facilities and interviews with faculty, students, and administrators.

· Review examples of student work.

· Provide honest and objective advice to the program, the Dean, and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs about the quality of the Self-Study Report and self-study process, strengths and weaknesses of the program, adequacy of assessment activities, and opportunities for program improvement.

· Submit a final written report to the program, the Dean, and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs within a month of the campus visit.

CAMPUS VISIT SCHEDULE

The first meeting should be with the Dean (approximately 45 minutes) to orient the team, discuss the purpose and structure of the visit and the program review process in general, and respond to any needs the team has.

In most cases, the team should meet with tenured faculty individually; it may meet with other faculty either individually or in groups as appropriate.

A meeting with students should be scheduled at a time most convenient to students. Separate meetings should be scheduled for undergraduate and graduate students as appropriate to the program being reviewed.

Meetings with faculty or administrators from other programs or Centers at the University are recommended when relevant. This is particularly important in cases where the program has significant interdisciplinary involvement.

Meetings with staff are appropriate but are ordinarily a lower priority than meetings with faculty and students as described above. As well, other meetings may be arranged in cases where programs have significant links to one of the other schools, with graduate admissions, or with other administrative offices.

Facilities tours should be kept within a scale appropriate to the program so as not to displace time for meetings with faculty and students.

The visiting team should have sufficient time to discuss its observations and draft its report. For example, the team should dine alone for dinner on Day One and lunch on Day Two. The team should have three hours, including lunch, to begin drafting its findings and recommendations on the afternoon of Day Two before its last two scheduled meetings.

The next to last meeting on Day Two should be with the program chair or director and the tenured faculty of the program. The purpose of this meeting is for the visiting team to discuss its findings and recommendations with the faculty. The tenured faculty, at their discretion, may invite others to participate in this meeting.

The final meeting on Day Two should be with the Dean (approximately 1 hour) for the visiting team to share its major findings and recommendations. Only in very rare circumstances should the team raise issues that it has not already shared with the program chair and tenured faculty.

The visiting team submits a written report within three weeks of the campus visit. Copies are submitted simultaneously to the program chair or director and the Dean (who forwards a copy to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs).

APPENDIX 5

MANDATE FOR ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM REVIEW

The following are excerpts from the various documents and bodies that mandate and inform systematic and periodic academic program review.

Mandate from New England Association of Schools and Colleges

These excerpts from NEASC.org provide the broad framework guiding Fairfield University’s reaccreditation and within which periodic review of academic programs is undertaken:

The New England Association of Schools and Colleges is an advocate of educational quality and its improvement. Drawing upon its considerable experience, it serves as a public policy resource on issues related to the condition of New England education. It sustains and advances the principles of self-regulation and peer review.

The core principles that guide effective program reviews articulated earlier in this guide are consistent with NEASC mission and standards. In particular, Standard 2 “Planning and Evaluation” requires periodic program review:

2.4 The institution regularly and systematically evaluates the achievement of its mission and purposes, giving primary focus to the realization of its educational objectives. Its system of evaluation is designed to provide relevant and trustworthy information to support institutional improvement, with an emphasis on the academic program. The institution’s evaluation efforts are effective for addressing its unique circumstances. These efforts use both quantitative and qualitative methods.

2.5 The institution has a system of periodic review of academic and other programs that includes the use of external perspectives.

2.6   Evaluation enables the institution to demonstrate through verifiable means its attainment of purposes and objectives both inside and outside the classroom. The results of evaluation are used systematically for improvement and to inform institutional planning, especially as it relates to student achievement and resource allocation. 

Specific expectations for assessment of student learning and periodic program review in the College arose in the 2007 NEASC reaccreditation process. From the Self-Study:

The College of Arts and Sciences is now on track to develop a sustained assessment of student learning program. The College lacks a systematic academic program review procedure, and the search to fund future assessment efforts on a continual basis is still ongoing. The process will have to be guided and supported through an administrative structure that requires departmental participation. (p. 104)

The Visiting Team Report to Fairfield University noted:

Assessment efforts in the College of Arts and Sciences must become more consistent and multidimensional and also better integrated into the cycles of planning and continuous improvement at the University. There has been some progress toward these… However, department and program review, systematic outcomes assessment, and integrating student learning data into academic planning, program improvement, and the daily work of the faculty remain areas where further effort is needed. (p. 7)

Less evident is a systematic “program review” or evaluation of academic programs, either at the department or school level. The professional schools have their own accrediting bodies, but the College of Arts and Sciences needs a more robust program review of its academic programs. (p. 21)

Guidance from the Faculty Handbook and Journal of Record

The Faculty Handbook provides no specific content related to periodic program review. The Journal of Record addresses scheduled review after new programs are approved:

When new programs are approved, the approval usually calls for a review of the program after a stated number of years. The following guidelines are based on the procedures for the approval of new programs published in the Journal of Record. Their purpose is to provide a structure for the faculty teaching in the program to carry out the review, and to inform relevant committees of its results. (AC 4/4/2005)

Subsequent guidelines are provided on six dimensions: (1) changes in the program, (2) need for the program from the perspective of student demand and completion, (3) program objectives and their assessment, (4) program impact on students and the university, (5) administrative structure and governance of the program, and (6) program resources and budget.

These Guidelines for Academic Program Review in the College are more comprehensive than those delineated in the Faculty Handbook but do not contradict any information there. Further, as this document is for program review within the College, the routing procedure involves only the Dean and the ASCC unless the program undertakes more significant changes (e.g., affecting core requirements) that would require additional routing or consultation.

Relevant Excerpt from the CAS Governance Document

The College of Arts & Sciences Governance Document situates academic program review within the charge of the College Curriculum Committee (a.k.a. ASCC):

3.5.1.1 College Curriculum Committee

The membership of the College Curriculum Committee consists of members of the College who are serving on the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and the Dean of the College.

The general purpose of this committee shall be to keep under continual review the current curriculum patterns within the College, to assess proposals from any source, and to make recommendations to College Faculty. The specific duties of the committee shall be to review and evaluate: (a) the structure and content of the College curriculum; (b) special programs; (c) academic requirements for, and quality of, undergraduate degrees; (d) proposals for new course offerings within the College. In these areas, it shall encourage and receive reports and recommendations from all sources. It shall also look into such questions on its own initiative. (Approved by the Board of Trustees: 5/3/85)

---

[1] “Program” is used here to refer to majors, minors, concentrations, and interdisciplinary programs. A particular “program review” might encompass all academic programs within a department or focus on some subset of them.

[2] This Guide was created in 2008-2009 by the College of Arts & Sciences Program Review Task Force: Robbin Crabtree, Dean (Chair); Ron Davidson (Religious Studies and Asian Studies), Janie Leatherman (Politics and International Studies), David McFadden (History and Russian & Eastern European Studies), Jim Simon (English), and Curt Naser (Philosophy and Facilitator for Academic Assessment) all appointed by the Dean, and Joan Weiss (Mathematics & Computer Science) and John Miecznikowski (Chemistry & Biochemistry), elected by ASCC.