content
Publication Date: September 1, 1997

Chapter 2

Faculty and Academics

2.39 Academic Program Review

Overview and Objectives

  1. The University of Texas at San Antonio provides quality programs to students in each of its academic disciplines. Quality programs result from careful, collaborative self-study and reflection by the faculty in each of the disciplines and appropriate stewardship by university administrators.

    Effective review of academic programs institutionalizes the self-study process and focuses the attention of the faculty and administration on the mission of the university, including the role of each program in fulfilling that mission. Because a university is a complex institution with a variety of missions, the objectives of university program review must range broadly and consider relationships among many different activities.

    The objectives of the Academic Program Review process at UTSA include the following:

    1. to maintain and enhance academic quality in all programs;

    2. to promote efficiency in the allocation of academic resources in response to the needs of the University and the San Antonio and South Texas communities and in conformity with the requirements of state government;

    3. to support the planning and budgeting processes of UTSA, The University of Texas System, and the State of Texas;

    4. to respond systematically and efficiently to requirements for self-assessment from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, The University of Texas System, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and other accrediting agencies.

    All reports prepared according to the procedures of the Academic Program Review policy and all general measures of effectiveness applied to programs and units will address these objectives.

  2. Assessment Criteria

    Detailed university-wide academic program assessment criteria are included in guidelines issued by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. These criteria will be reviewed as needed and at intervals of no longer than five years. To the greatest extent possible, University criteria will be formulated in terms compatible with Southern Association criteria. As specific Coordinating Board and University of Texas System criteria for program evaluation become available, they will be incorporated into the University's criteria. Criteria appropriate to the programs of particular divisions, colleges or other units may be developed as supplements to university-wide criteria.

    Among the general categories within which assessment criteria are defined are the following:

    1. Student success criteria, including an assessment of student persistence, retention, and graduation rates; student support structures and processes, and responsiveness to student needs.

    2. Academic quality criteria, including an assessment of academic standards such as admission and degree requirements and procedures; the curriculum; instructional methods; faculty preparation and development; scope of scholarly activities and funding; and academic support services and facilities such as library, equipment, and technical support.

    3. Planning criteria, including assessment of the extent to which program or units support state, University, and unit planning objectives.

    4. Resource efficiency criteria, including an assessment of efficiency and effectiveness in the utilization of human and fiscal resources in support of the academic mission.

  3. Programs and Activities Subject to Review

    The following are subject to regular review under the Academic Program Review process:

    1. All degree programs and minors; all certification, licensure or similar programs; and all extended education programs.

    2. All organized units under the authority of the Provost which offer or directly supervise the above programs, including colleges and divisions.

    3. Organized units under the authority of the Provost which provide significant support and direction to academic programs.

    4. The undergraduate Core Curriculum.

    In addition, the Provost may designate other programs, activities or units for extraordinary review as the need arises. Research centers and institutes are reviewed under a separate procedure, although results of such reviews are considered in assessing a college's performance.

  4. Process Participants

    1. Divisional Self-Study Committees. Self-studies will be carried out by committees for each of the disciplines and will form the basis of the college self-study process. Divisional Self-Study Committees will organize the self-study effort, which will focus on undergraduate degree programs and involve faculty in each of the disciplines included in the division. Divisional committees are chosen from among division faculty by the Division Director in consultation with the Division Faculty Advisory Committee. Special committees may also be established to conduct self-studies of other units and activities.

    2. Division Director. The Division Director will review and forward the divisional self-study report to the College Self-Study Committee. Copies will also be provided to the Dean and the Provost for informational purposes.

    3. College Self-Study Committee. The self-study report of a college will be prepared by a College Self-Study Committee. The committee is appointed by the Dean of the college, after consultation with the College Faculty Advisory Committee, no later than the beginning of the Fall term of the academic year in which the college's programs are to be reviewed. The committee will compile, review and comment upon the reports of the self-study committees of the divisions and other units in the college.

      College and division procedures will adhere to the provisions of the University Academic Program Review Policy and other guidelines issued by the Provost. All divisions within a college must be represented on the College Self-Study Committee. The College Faculty Advisory Committee or other existing college committee may be designated as the College Self-Study Committee, if the Dean so decides. In a year in which no college is under review, a Self-Study Committee will be appointed by the Provost from faculty or other personnel associated with non-college programs or units under review.

      A College Review Coordinator, appointed by the Provost, shall be a member of the College Self-Study Committee. The Coordinator will be responsible for liaison between the University-level Academic Program Review Committee (APRC) and the college, for coordinating support for the college data collection and self-study elements of the review process, for supervising adherence to reporting schedules in the college, and for organizing the outside visitation. During a year in which no college is under review, a Review Coordinator may be appointed by the Provost from any college.

    4. College Dean. The Dean of a college whose programs are under review is responsible for supervising the conduct of the college contribution to the review data collection effort and the college self-study, for responding to questions and requests from the University-level APRC, and for cooperating with the College Review Coordinator in ensuring adherence to procedures, criteria, and schedules. The Dean is responsible for structuring and implementing the college's self-study process and for reviewing and forwarding the college self-study report with comments to the Provost who, in turn, will provide materials and instructions to the APRC.

    5. Graduate Council and Graduate Studies Committees. The review of graduate degree programs will be conducted separately by the Graduate Studies Committees of the various programs and by the Graduate Council as outlined in Section 2.1 of the Handbook of Operating Procedures. A copy of the Graduate Council Report of the latest review of each graduate program in the college, together with supporting materials, will be provided to the College Self-Study Committee and will accompany the college's program review self-study report. These materials and other data collected on graduate programs in the college will be taken into account by the College Self-Study Committee and by the University-wide APRC in their reports, as will the role of graduate programs in relation to the other activities of the college and University.

    6. Academic Program Review Committee. The Academic Program Review Committee (APRC), a special University committee, will coordinate academic program reviews under the direction of the Provost and will assist in data collection, review self-study reports from the colleges, and make recommendations to the Provost based on these reports. The APRC consists of:

      1. A Chair, who is a tenured faculty member, appointed by the Provost for a two-year term.

      2. One tenured faculty member elected by the Faculty Senate for a two-year term during one of itsSpring meetings. (The member need not belong to the Faculty Senate and must not be from a college whose programs will be under review during his or her term.)

      3. One full member of the Graduate Faculty elected for a two-year term by the Graduate Council during one of its Spring meetings. (The member need not belong to the Graduate Council and must not be from a college whose programs will be under review during his or her term. The Graduate Faculty member's term should be staggered with the term of the member elected by the Faculty Senate.)

      4. One tenured faculty member from the college under review during an academic year. (This member is appointed for one year by the Provost in consultation with the Dean of the college to be reviewed and will be designated as College Review Coordinator.)

      5. The Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs (ex officio, without vote).

      6. The Dean of Graduate Studies and Associate Vice President for Research (ex officio, without vote).

      7. The Director of Academic Advising for the Tomás Rivera Center for Student Success (ex officio, without vote, with the exception of a review of the Center, at which time the Director will not participate as a member of the APRC).

      All appointments and elections to the APRC should be completed by the end of the Spring term. Terms become effective in August of each year. Personnel of the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will be designated to support the APRC, as will personnel of the Office of Institutional Analysis.

    7. Provost. The Provost is responsible for the overall conduct of program reviews under the provisions of the Academic Program Review policy.

  5. Review Cycle

    The undergraduate programs of each college will be reviewed once in a five-year cycle. Normally, the review of only one college will begin in each academic year. In a year in which no college is scheduled for review, special arrangements will be established by the Provost to review non-college programs and units, including the undergraduate Core Curriculum, the University Honors Program, International Programs, the Tomás Rivera Center for Student Success, the Library and other academic support activities.

    The Provost will establish the order of colleges to be reviewed within a cycle. If necessary, the Provost may alter the order of the cycle, delay or accelerate the review of certain programs or units, and make special arrangements to meet particular or unusual needs, including those related to accrediting bodies.

  6. Schedule and Procedures - Undergraduate Program Review

    Detailed procedures, guidelines, and undergraduate assessment criteria are the responsibility of the Provost, following consultation with the Faculty Senate. Additional procedures and criteria designed to meet the needs of particular colleges and programs will be established at the beginning of each college program review in the manner described below.

    Under normal circumstances, the undergraduate program review process in a single academic year will take place in the following phases:

    1. Organization and data collection phase (August): The Provost will meet with the APRC and issue instructions for the review. The APRC will meet with the Dean, Division Directors, and the College Self-Study Committee of the college under review (or other persons as designated by the Provost in a non-college review year) to identify particular data requirements, to assess the need for additional procedures and criteria, and to establish a schedule for the review. The APRC, working closely with the Office of Institutional Analysis and the college Dean, will organize the collection of data to support the review. Data will be collected centrally and at the level of the college, divisions, and other units in the University and, wherever possible, across the state and nation. Data should be collected in categories required for Southern Association review and for the reviews of other accrediting and other oversight bodies. Data available from the Coordinating Board will be employed to the greatest extent possible so as to enhance the University's contribution to statewide review processes.

    2. Self-study phase (September-December): The College Self-Study Committee, following university and college guidelines, will coordinate a self-study of all programs, units and activities under review. The self-study will be based primarily on divisional self-studies. Divisional self-study procedures will emphasize the evaluation of programs by the faculty of the programs. Divisional self-studies will elicit substantial input from faculty at all levels, administrators, students and professional staff. The College Self-Study Committee will submit its report to the Dean, who will forward it to the Provost with his or her comments.

    3. Visitation phase (January): A visitation team of distinguished scholars and administrators in appropriate fields from outside the University will be invited to review the college self-study report, visit the college, and report to the APRC on their assessment of the college's programs. The visitors will be provided a set of questions around which to structure their report as well as a list of the University's assessment criteria and supporting data. The members of the visitation team will be selected and invited by the Provost, with nominations prepared by the APRC. The team will consist of from two to five members and must, as far as possible, reflect the range of disciplinary coverage of the college. (In the case of a non-college review, the Provost may choose to dispense with visitation or to modify the process.)

    4. Review and reporting phase (February-May): The APRC will review the collected data, self-study reports and related materials provided by the Provost, the report of the visitors, and responses to any additional inquiries it may choose to make. It will prepare a report, focusing particularly on the performance of the programs and units under review in terms of the assessment criteria and the objectives of academic program review as well as the planning objectives of the programs, units, colleges and University. The APRC will include in its report specific recommendations for action. The report of the APRC will be forwarded to the Provost, the Dean of the college under review (or the administrators of the units reviewed in a non-college review), the directors of divisions under review, and the Chair of the Faculty Senate.

    5. Administrative review phase (June-September): The Dean of the college under review, after consultation with Division Directors, other administrators, and the Dean's Faculty Advisory Committee, will prepare a response to the APRC report by the end of August. The Dean's response will be sent to the Provost with an information copy to the Chair of the Faculty Senate. (Equivalent arrangements will be made for non-college reviews.)

    6. Implementation phase: The Provost will forward to the President the APRC report, supporting materials, responses to the report, and his or her comments. The Provost will also prepare for the President a set of specific action recommendations with respect to the programs and units under review. The results of the academic program review will be used in the University's budgeting and planning processes, including strategic planning.

    7. Follow-up phase: One year after the college response to the review, the Dean of the college will submit a report to the Provost on actions taken in response to the Provost's recommendations and directives.

  7. Schedule and Procedures - Graduate Program Review

    The Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation is charged with periodically assessing the quality of graduate education at UTSA. Programs are to be reviewed within four years after their implementation and every seven years thereafter with the following exceptions: (a) programs subject to accreditation review may elect to combine (within one year) the external accreditation review with the review by the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation, and (b) graduate programs utilizing common faculty and resources should be reviewed at the same time.

    This review is to be a four-step process: 1) an internal, self-evaluation conducted by the Graduate Studies Committee of the program under review; 2) a review conducted by outside experts in the field; 3) a report by the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation to the Graduate Council; and 4) a follow-up of recommendations and time table for actions is presented to the Council of Graduate Education. The internal self-evaluation reviews are to follow the format described in guidelines available from the Office of the Provost.

    Members of the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation, a standing committee of the Graduate Council, are elected by the Graduate Council from among all members of the Graduate Council and the Graduate Faculty. The committee is composed of one member from each college and two members at large.

    The following is the calendar for the overall review process:

    1. Internal Review: The Chair of the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation of the Graduate Council shall inform the Chair of the Program Graduate Studies Committee that the program is scheduled for evaluation. Copies of the notification will be sent to the Division Director and Dean. This notification will be made by March 1. The Dean of the College in which the program being evaluated is housed is responsible for submitting a self-study report to the External Review Committee on or before December 15. The Dean shall request the graduate faculty in the specific Division to submit a draft self-study report to the Dean at an earlier date set by the Dean. A copy of the self-study report should also be provided to the Division Director. Any graduate faculty member in the Division whose program is being evaluated may submit a minority report if he or she desires. For programs undergoing combined accreditation and committee review, the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation may choose to suspend the appended program evaluation format and limit themselves to specific questions not covered in the self-study report directed towards the accreditation review.

    2. External Review Committee: This committee shall be selected by the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation and shall consist of the following members: One from the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation, one from the program under review and a minimum of two consultants from outside the University. The Chair shall be from the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation. The outside consultants will be selected from solicited recommendations by the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation. These consultants are to be recognized authorities in the areas of the graduate program under review and should be drawn from organizational affiliations appropriate to the program under review. A report shall be made to the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation by April 1 and copies provided the appropriate Dean, Division Director and Chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies of the degree program being evaluated.

    3. The Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation shall review both internal and external review reports. A program evaluation plus any recommendations shall be submitted to the Council on Graduate Education no later than the May meeting of the Council. Copies of the program review should be provided to the appropriate Dean, Division Director and Chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies. At the meeting of the Council in which the report is discussed, the Division Director and Chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies will be invited to attend.

    4. Upon approval of the Council's recommendations for a specific program under review, the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation should meet with the administration and obtain a specific plan of action with respect to the recommendations. The meeting should include the Chair of the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation, the Chair of the Graduate Studies Committee for the program(s) undergoing evaluation, the Director of the Division and the Dean of the college housing the program, and representatives from the Provost's office. The Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation should report to the Council no later than the semester following the report regarding the follow up actions and the associated time table for implementation of the accepted recommendations.

    The format of the report submitted by the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluations to the Graduate Council is as follows:

    1. Strengths

    2. Weaknesses

    3. Recommendations (mandatory)

    Each of the three parts may be broken down into three (3) subsections:

    1. As perceived by the reviewed program faculty.

    2. As perceived by the outside evaluator(s).

    3. As perceived by the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation.

    In conjunction with the individual program reviews, the Committee on Graduate Program Evaluation may, whenever it deems appropriate, submit a report to the Graduate Council discussing the strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations on UTSA graduate programs in general.

navigation

Legal Affairs
Contact Us

text size– | + | R |