Skip to Search Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content
Handbook of Operating Procedures
Chapter 2 - Faculty and Academics
Publication Date: February 18, 2019
Responsible Executive: VP for Academic Affairs

2.39 Academic Program Review


POLICY STATEMENT


The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) 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.


RATIONALE


This policy establishes procedures for review of academic programs at UTSA.


SCOPE


This policy applies to all academic programs and the academic administrators and faculty assigned to those programs.


WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY


http://www.utsa.edu/hop/chapter2/2-39.html


RELATED STATUTES, POLICIES, REQUIREMENTS OR STANDARDS


SACS Commission on Colleges “Principle of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement” (Comprehensive Standard 8.2a Student Achievement)
University of Texas System Program Review Requirements

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Program Review Requirements

CONTACTS


If you have any questions about HOP policy 2.39, Academic Program Review, contact the following office:

Office of Institutional Intelligence
210-458-4706
210-458-4819


DEFINITIONS


Academic Program
For the purposes of this policy, an academic program is defined by the combined undergraduate and graduate educational programs of a discipline and the associated scholarly and service activities of its academic unit(s).


RESPONSIBILITIES


Academic Dean

  • For Program Review, the Academic Dean, in consultation with the Senior Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and Dean of the Graduate School, finalizes the list of external reviewers and alternatives.
  • Assists in the preparation of a written response to the review team recommendations.

Implements recommendations in consultation with the Provost and reports back results.
Graduate School Dean

  • In consultation with the Provost, leads the effort for Graduate Program Review in collaboration with the Academic Dean of the college, where the graduate program resides, and finalizes the list of external reviewers and alternatives.
  • Assists in the preparation of a written response to the review team recommendations in collaboration with the Academic Dean.

Senior Vice Provost of Academic Affairs

  • In consultation with the Provost and the Dean of the Graduate School finalizes the list of external reviewers and alternatives. In partnership with the Dean of the Graduate School and in collaboration with the Academic Dean of the college leads the effort for the Undergraduate Program Review.
  • Assists in the preparation of a written response to the review team recommendations in collaboration with the Academic Dean.

Department

  • Proposes a list of suitable reviewers to the college Dean at least six (6) months in advance of a scheduled review.
  • Prepares a set of materials to aid external reviewers in their task of reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities of the unit.
  • Prepares a written response to the review team recommendations and submits that response to the college Dean.

Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

  • Maintains a set of guidelines specifying the process by which external reviews take place. These guidelines are available on the Provost's web site.

Office of Institutional Intelligence

  • Maintains a general schedule of program reviews
  • Notifies Academic Dean, Department Chair, and other appropriate individuals (e.g., Program Director) no less than eight (8) months in advance of an upcoming review.

PROCEDURES


General Requirements for Academic Program Review

  1. All department programs shall undergo periodic academic program review.
  2. Reviews shall be conducted by a panel of external reviewers representing expertise in the academic discipline of the programs under scrutiny.
  3. The frequency of program review shall not be more than ten (10) years between successive reviews.
  4. Units subject to periodic specialized accreditation reviews may use those reviews to satisfy this requirement.
  5. Reviews shall be based on organizational units (for example, departments) and shall integrate reviews of all degree programs offered through those units. Exceptions include:
    1. interdisciplinary programs involving multiple departments, and
    2. instances where specialized accreditation only reviews the undergraduate or graduate programs (e.g. ABET only reviews undergraduate programs). In this event, the Department or College shall separately schedule a complementary review for programs not covered by specialized accreditation.
  6. Reviews shall include the following components:
    1. A self-study document prepared by the department to aid external reviewers in reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities of the unit.
    2. An external review conducted by expert faculty members from universities equivalent to UTSA’s aspirant institutions, culminating in an external reviewer report.
    3. A written response to the review prepared by the department and college, in consultation with the Senior Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and/or the Dean/ Vice Provost of the Graduate School (or their representatives).
  7. The Office of Institutional Intelligence shall maintain a general schedule of program reviews and will notify the Dean, Department Chair and other appropriate individuals (e.g. Program Director) no less than eight (8) months in advance of an upcoming review.
  8. The The Office of Institutional Intelligence shall maintain a set of guidelines specifying the process by which external reviews take place. Said guidelines will be made publicly available on the Provost’s web site.

FORMS AND TOOLS/ONLINE PROCESSES


Academic Program Review (Provost’s Web Site, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs)