Program Review
Printer-friendly version
If external grant support represents a current or plausible activity of the program under review, include a meeting with the VP for Research & Graduate Studies or designee.
Provide brief bio sketches of the external evaluators in advance to those who are scheduled to meet with them, providing basic information such as their names, institutions, and areas of expertise.
Remember to incorporate travel time from meeting place to meeting place in the schedule.
Consider having graduate or advanced undergraduate students serve as escorts for the evaluators as they move from meeting to meeting.
Last updated May 22, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Guidelines for Selection of Reviewers
Guidelines for Units under Review
Sample Schedule for Site Visit
Self Study Format
Appendix A - Degree Options and Certificate Programs
Appendix B - Other Data
Appendix C - Faculty CVs
Appendix D - Unit Data from Institutional Research
Guidelines for the State of the Unit Report
Guidelines for the Implementation Plan
The University of Oregon believes that periodic review of each of its degree programs is essential to maintaining excellence and for effective long-range planning. The University community benefits from the program review process as the interconnections among academic programs, program components, and different administrative units on campus are clarified. Program review, by definition, implies scrutiny, examination, inspection, study, and evaluation. Because the review process embodies such activities, it is important that program reviews be comprehensive, involving both graduate and undergraduate programs, and make use of accurate, consistent, and reliable data.
Academic program review is a primary means to maintain and improve program quality. As a result, academic units can realize many benefits from a thorough program review. Some of the most positive outcomes include:
• An examination of the quality and value of the unit's academic programs by the faculty and students.
• An evaluation, and perhaps revision, of objectives for the teaching, research and service missions of the academic program as they relate to the University's academic mission and strategic priorities.
• A clarification of program goals, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities.
• An improved source of information to help guide decisions on strategic priorities and associated resources.
The review process at the University of Oregon is a positive approach to academic assessment. It supports programs' desires to develop, evolve and reaffirm their own and the University's commitment to excellence.
As delegated by the Provost, the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs is responsible for coordinating the necessary periodic reviews of degree programs, is the main point of contact for programs being reviewed, and has responsibility for oversight and implementation of the Program Review process.
In order to minimize the number of reviews, and to examine units in the most natural way, the Senior Vice Provost collaborates with the Deans of the Colleges and Schools and the Heads of academic units to schedule reviews.
Program review is most effective if it is conducted on a cyclical rather than an ad hoc basis. The University will review each of its programs every 10 years (more frequently, if required), and report results to the University community. The current schedule for Program Reviews is available at http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/files/uploaded/Final_Program_Review_Schedule.pdf
ACCREDITATION AND PROGRAM REVIEW
Accreditation and program review are different. Accreditation typically measures minimum standards of performance, while program review focuses on identifying goals and objectives and assisting a program to reach its greatest potential. Because these reviews respond to different questions and concerns, an accreditation self-study report cannot substitute entirely for the program review self-study report. It is possible, however, that a program review self-study report may be comprised, in part, of an accreditation self-study report. Decisions about whether an accreditation review team may or may not substitute for external reviewers will be made on a case-by-case basis by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Dean and the Head of the unit scheduled for review.
The evaluation and planning processes typically require a full year. The self-study phase is conducted during the fall and winter quarters. The Program Review Committee conducts the site visit and prepares its written report during the spring quarter, and the State of the Unit Report and Implementation Plans are drafted by the Dean and or his designees and submitted to the Senior Vice Provost during the summer.
Academic units shall be notified by the Senior Vice Provost approximately six months in advance of the scheduled program review.
The Senior Vice Provost shall consult with the appropriate Dean(s) in advance of the scheduled review to discuss issues relevant to the review of academic and non-instructional aspects of the unit.
The Senior Vice Provost and the Dean shall then meet with the head or director of the unit scheduled for review to discuss the review and any other important issues. At this meeting, the lists of potential external Program Review Committee members are discussed (see "Guidelines for Selection of Reviewers"). Members of the review team are appointed by the Senior Vice Provost following consultation with the Dean and unit Head. The Senior Vice Provost will make the initial contact with these individuals to recruit them as reviewers.
Once the Senior Vice Provost, Dean, and the Head of the unit have discussed the initiation of a review, the unit begins to prepare a self-study document about the degree program under review.
A format for the self-study consistent with University requirements is provided to the unit by the Senior Vice Provost (see "Guidelines for Units under Review"). The Office of Institutional Research will provide as much data to the unit as possible to facilitate the completion of the self-study.
The completed self-study is submitted by the unit to the Dean, who then transmits the completed self-study and any other information available to the Senior Vice Provost, who in turn will forward all pertinent materials to the Program Review Committee members.
During the site visit the Program Review Committee meets with the Senior Vice Provost, other relevant senior administrators (e.g., Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies), Dean(s), faculty, and students during a two- or three-day site visit.
Following the site visit, the Program Review Committee submits its written assessment and recommendations regarding the program under review to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, who then transmits the report to the Dean. Any factual inaccuracies and/or conclusions based on factual inaccuracies or misunderstandings may be addressed by the Dean with the Senior Vice Provost prior to further distribution of the report. In some cases, the Dean and the Senior Vice Provost may together determine that further communication with the external reviewers is required. When the Senior Vice Provost and Dean agree the report is ready, the Senior Vice Provost will forward copies to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies. The two Vice Provosts will each augment the report with additional comments regarding the undergraduate and graduate programs, and then return the enhanced documents to the Senior Vice Provost to be forwarded to the Dean for analysis, review, and commentary. The Dean will then forward this augmented report to the Department Head.
The Dean and or his designees are then asked to prepare a State of the Unit Report (typically in June) and an Implementation Plan (typically in September) to be submitted to the Senior Vice Provost and the Provost.
Summer
1. Units due for review and dean(s) are notified - 6 months before self study period (March)
2. Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs meets first with the dean of the unit scheduled for review and then with the dean and the department head. (Distribute and discuss Program Review guidelines and information; discuss
potential reviewers) - During 6 month period before self study begins (March-August)
Fall
1. Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs makes initial contact with potential reviewers and finalizes Program Review Committee membership. (Unit under review provides contact information) (September-October)
2. Unit carries out self study process. (September-December)
3. Unit arranges March/April site visit schedule for external Program Review Committee
4. Office of Academic Affairs arranges travel and accommodations for external Program Review Committee (November - December)
Winter
1. Unit submits self study to Dean - 4 weeks prior to scheduled site visit (February)
2. Dean submits self study to Office of Academic Affairs- 4 weeks prior to scheduled site visit (February)
3. Office of Academic Affairs sends unit's self study to Program Review Committee - 3 weeks before scheduled review (February)
4. Unit Head communicates with internal review participants (see "Guidelines for Units under Review") prior to site visit, if necessary, to clarify any issues (February)
Spring
1. Program Review Committee carries out site visit - early Spring (March & April)
2. Program Review Committee Report and outstanding reimbursement requests are submitted to Office of Academic Affairs - 3-4 weeks after visit (May)
3. Program Review Committee Report is reviewed by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the Dean for factual inaccuracies, then distributed by the Office of Academic Affairs to the Vice Provosts for Graduate and Undergraduate Studies (May)
4. Vice Provosts for Graduate and Undergraduate Studies forward comments on the committee report to Office of Academic Affairs for transmittal to Dean - late Spring (June)
Summer
1. State of the Unit Report and Implementation Plan are completed by Dean (or designee) - early Summer (Due by the 3rd Friday in July)
2. Implementation Plan is submitted to Senior Vice Provost via meeting with Dean - End of Summer (Due by September 15th)
GUIDELINES FOR UNITS UNDER REVIEW
The following guidelines have been developed to assist units involved in program review. Please feel free to contact the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs whenever there are questions. Reviews should be viewed positively, as an opportunity for the unit to conduct healthy self-examination, affirm current practices, propose changes, and receive constructive criticism.
The self-study document (see "Self Study Format") is the unit's main opportunity to provide background information about the unit to the Program Review Committee, the Dean, and the Senior Vice Provost. It should describe the status of the program clearly and concisely in terms permitting review by non-specialists.
In order to make the most efficient use of the limited time available during the site visit, the unit Head should communicate with the internal participants (identified in the following paragraph) in advance of the site visit to clarify important issues if necessary. The unit should be prepared to provide any additional information requested by the Program Review Committee beyond the self-study.
The unit Head is responsible for coordinating the site visit schedule. The Program Review Committee will meet with faculty and with students broadly representative of the program under review and with campus administrators (see section entitled "Sample Schedule for Site Visit"). The unit Head should review the proposed schedule with their Dean and with the Senior Vice Provost. Remember, the Senior Vice Provost will make first contact with potential Program Review Committee members.
The Office of Academic Affairs is responsible for coordinating travel, accommodations, and food arrangements for the Program Review Committee members. Each visiting Program Review Committee member will receive an honorarium, organized and distributed by the Office of Academic Affairs. The Office of Academic Affairs will also cover the travel, lodging and meal expenses for the external Review Committee members.
Following receipt of the final augmented Program Review Committee report (see "Procedure Overview"), the Dean will make it available to the unit Head, who in turn will make it available to every faculty member connected with the unit under review. The unit Head will coordinate faculty analysis, review, and commentary. If the unit perceives major errors in the report, the unit Head should confer informally with the Senior Vice Provost to propose revisions before the State of the Unit Report is drafted. The final decision on content rests with the Program Review Committee members that made the original submission.
Following any final changes resulting from discussions with the Unit, the Dean will prepare a State of the Unit Report (see "Guidelines for State of the Unit Report") and an Implementation Plan (see "Guidelines for the Implementation Plan"). These will be submitted to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the Provost.
GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REVIEWERS
Selection of an effective external Program Review Committee represents a critical element of the Program Review process. It is important to begin the selection of committee members early, even before the self-study is initiated, in order to avoid loss of desired high-caliber reviewers due to scheduling conflicts.
A list of suggested external reviewers is submitted to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs by the Dean of the unit being reviewed. The names submitted by the unit are studied by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the Dean in charge of the unit being reviewed, each of whom may suggest changes to this list. All concerned parties, unit heads, deans, etc., will confer to select a final list of potential reviewers. The Senior Vice Provost will then issue invitations to the selected potential reviewers. In the event of declinations, alternates on the list will be contacted until the roster of reviewers is complete.
The external Program Review Committee will consist of three reviewers. The list of recommended reviewers should contain at least nine names, in ranked order of preference. Suggested reviewers may be chosen from different areas within the discipline in order to cover as many of the activities of the unit as possible. If there are multiple areas within a discipline, the unit should submit the names of suggested reviewers in groups with three names each. The potential reviewers in each group should be considered as possible substitutes for each other but may not be exchangeable between groups. The details of how the reviewers might best be grouped are a matter of professional judgment for those in the discipline.
For each individual nominated to serve as an external reviewer, the unit must provide to the Senior Vice Provost their name, current address, email address, phone number, and a brief statement of the individual's academic background and accomplishments. Any previous contacts with the unit or its faculty should be described. The cooperation of the unit in providing this information in a timely manner will materially aid the difficult task of assembling a first-rate external committee and producing a useful and meaningful program review.
External reviewers should be nationally recognized experts in the academic field and respected peers with expertise in the areas of specialization that are central to the unit being reviewed.
Reviewers should be experienced academics who understand the operation of a major research university and who are able to evaluate the unit's strengths and weaknesses. Such individuals should also be able to assess the performance of the unit in relation to similar units at other comparable institutions in terms of the unit's operations, plans for growth and development, and the professional activities and accomplishments of its faculty.
In selecting external reviewers, it is preferable to avoid former mentors or close personal friends of faculty members, former University of Oregon employees, and individuals who have applied for or are likely to apply for a position at the University of Oregon. It is similarly preferable to avoid individuals from institutions substantially different in character from the University of Oregon.
The long-term viability of the unit and the credibility of the review will be enhanced by identifying thoughtful, knowledgeable, and objective external reviewers.
SAMPLE SCHEDULE FOR SITE VISIT
The introductory and exit interview meetings will be scheduled as indicated below and the Office of Academic Affairs will provide the times for these two meetings prior to the unit completing the remainder of the agenda. The order of all other meetings and events will vary depending on the availability of the different individuals and groups and the time frame and criteria determined by the hosting unit.
General ConsiderationsIf external grant support represents a current or plausible activity of the program under review, include a meeting with the VP for Research & Graduate Studies or designee.
Provide brief bio sketches of the external evaluators in advance to those who are scheduled to meet with them, providing basic information such as their names, institutions, and areas of expertise.
Remember to incorporate travel time from meeting place to meeting place in the schedule.
Consider having graduate or advanced undergraduate students serve as escorts for the evaluators as they move from meeting to meeting.
Day One
1. Introductory meeting with the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies. (45 minutes)
2. Meet with Dean of the College or School to whom the unit reports.
3. Meet with Head of the Unit under review.
4. Begin meetings with individual members or small groups of the unit's faculty.
5. Tour facilities.
Day Two
1. Conclude meetings with individual members or small groups of the unit's faculty.
2. If necessary, meet with any other central administrative officials (e.g., Vice President for Research).
3. Meet with graduate students.
4. Meet with undergraduate students.
5. Meet with unit administrative/clerical staff.
6. Final interview with Dean and Department/Unit Head.
7. Exit interview with the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies. (60 minutes)
Although programs engage in continual self-assessment and review of their work, periodic program reviews are designed to provide a broader view of a program's academic structure and performance. Some presumed outcomes of the reviews are clearer understanding of the program's...
• mission, goals and objectives;
• quality and breadth of instruction, research, and public service;
• preparation of students in the discipline;
• role within the University and effectiveness in fulfilling that role; and
• utilization of resources and resource requirements.
INSTRUCTIONS: Departments or other degree-granting units should follow this format in preparing self-study documents for periodic reviews of their degree programs. The information submitted should be completed in narrative or table form as applicable, and the total length of the document, excluding appendices and faculty curriculum vitae, should not exceed (30) pages and may be less. The Office of Institutional Research will be a primary contact for institutional indicators and other data necessary for a complete self study. (See Appendix B, Other Data, and Appendix D, Unit Data from Institutional Research.)
One electronic copy (PDF) of the unit's Self Study document should be sent to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs by the academic dean. It will be distributed by the Office of Academic Affairs to each member of the Program Review Committee, the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies.
In preparing the self-study report, units are asked both to reflect upon objective data and to engage in thoughtful reflection and analysis on their past performance, goals, and future plans.
Units that do not have every level of program (e.g. no doctoral program) will note that in the first section of the self-study and ignore any subsequent sections related to that element. The self-study report should include each of the following elements:
I. DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION
A. Assessment Plan - An essential element of the self study report is the unit's academic assessment plan,
created by the unit and clearly presenting its assessment practices with respect to academic programming. These
practices should include defined methods for measuring success and/or other outcomes, as well as plans for
"closing the loop" - i.e., for using the results of the assessment effort to inform modification or revision of the
academic program. This procedure is part of a university-wide effort to gather information for institutional
assessment and review processes, and is also consistent with the recognition that assessment can and does
enhance academic efforts. To that end, assessment documents that pay particular attention to the enunciation of
specific essential learning objectives, that map curricular offerings to these learning objectives, and that identify
"high impact practices" (including research, internships, service learning, writing-intensive courses, senior
capstone projects, first-year seminars, learning communities, and study abroad) will be of particular assistance,
both to the university and to the unit preparing the document. Considerable latitude is permissible and expected
in these assessment statements. The Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs is available for consultation
regarding unit-specific models and/or templates if desired. Sections II.A.4 and II.B.4, below, raise a number of
issues of direct relevance to the assessment plan.
B. Degree Offerings and Accreditation - What degrees are granted by the unit? Give the exact title of these
degrees (e.g. Bachelor of Arts, Master of Science, Doctor of Musical Arts, etc.). List any separate curricular
programs and/or specialties within the unit, as well as any official certificate programs. If any of the unit's
programs are accredited, provide the name of the accrediting agency, the date granted, and the frequency of the
accreditation review. If accreditation has been denied or has not yet been attained, describe the current status of
the program in this regard. (See Appendix A, Degree Options and Certificate Programs)
C. Administrative Structure - Locate the unit within the structures of the University (e.g., English, Humanities,
College of Arts and Sciences). Describe any important formal and informal relationships the unit has with other
departments, institutes, centers, or other units within the university. Briefly describe the administrative structure
(s) of the unit. Summarize the structure and function of major committees. Describe and explain any significant
changes in these structures or relationships which have occurred over the last five years. Describe any planned
or desired changes in these structures or relationships.
D. Comparator Programs - For the undergraduate program, identify similar programs that are offered at other
universities. For the graduate program and faculty identify those programs, nationally or internationally, that are
perceived to be the unit's peers. In each case, describe how the unit is similar to and/or different from these
programs. Describe what specifically makes any of these elements (undergraduate, graduate, faculty) distinctive
or unique relative to these comparators.
E. Role within the University - Units have a variety of roles and responsibilities within the university, and may
contribute to the mission and strategic priorities of the university more directly in some areas than in others (e.g.,
undergraduate education or graduate education; basic or applied research; enriching the lives of Oregonians;
international awareness, etc.). What are the unit's perceptions of the University's strategic priorities; and how
does the unit contribute to fulfilling those priorities? Identify specific ways in which the unit contributes to the
mission of the UO. In both cases, focus on those things the unit does particularly well or that you believe are
relatively unique or distinctive.
F. Funding and Budget - Using the data provided, briefly summarize the unit's budget including sources of
funds, expenditures relative to student credit hours and faculty FTE, and grant and contract funding. Comment on
recent trends in these figures.
G. Infrastructure - Describe and comment on the facilities dedicated to the unit, the types and amounts of
technical support, and the types and amounts of administrative support. Describe any significant changes in these
over the last five years. Describe any planned or desired changes in these elements. What are the most pressing
needs?
H. Special Concerns (Optional) - Describe any particular issues or concerns that the unit wishes the review
committees to address or give special attention.
II. CURRICULAR PROGRAMS
This section should describe in detail the curricular programs within the unit. If a unit offers multiple degree programs at either the undergraduate or graduate level, the description of these programs may be presented separately or together. However, units should note and justify their method of presentation.
A. Undergraduate Programs
1. Description and Rationale for the Curriculum
1.1 Degree Programs and Options for Majors - Describe the bachelor's degree program options
including the total number of required credits and credit distribution among any options. If more than one
option or specialization track is available, list each option or track and their curricula separately (use
attached Appendix format). Briefly explain the rationale for the structure of the major requirements,
including any prerequisites or proficiency requirements. Indicate the scheduled frequency at which
courses within the curriculum are offered. What is the typical size of classes within each segment of the
curriculum? Describe any opportunities for independent study, research, honors programs, international
experiences, and/or participatory learning experiences that exist within the major curriculum.
1.2 General and Service Education - What roles, if any, do general education offerings and service
courses to other disciplines play in the curriculum? Describe the general education and/or service course
offerings and briefly explain the rationale for these courses. Describe any recent trends in these types of
offerings, including enrollment trends.
1.3 Interdisciplinary & International Components - Describe the extent of the unit's participation in
interdisciplinary courses or curricula and the rationale for the development of and participation in these
courses or curricula. Describe any components that provide international experiences for majors.
1.4 Use of Technology - Describe the extent to which technology is being used to deliver the
undergraduate curriculum. Comment on the use of class management technology (e.g., Blackboard) in the
undergraduate curriculum. Identify all courses that are delivered predominantly or exclusively via
distributed learning. Discuss any plans to increase or decrease the use of technology and/or distributed
learning.
2. Student Characteristics
2.1 Number of Students and Enrollment Patterns - Discuss trends over the past 10 years (or since
the time of the last review) in the numbers of students within the program and degree options. Discuss
enrollment patterns such as enrollment at different levels of the curriculum, enrollment in individualized
study and other specialized courses, and whether or not students are customarily enrolled for summer as
well as other quarters.
2.2 Demographic Data - Describe the demographic characteristics (including gender, age,
race/ethnicity) of undergraduate majors. Highlight any characteristics on which majors in the area may
differ from the University as whole (e.g., higher percentage of non-traditional students).
2.3 Diversity Initiatives - Describe and comment on the extent and quality of the unit's efforts to attract,
retain, and graduate members of traditionally underrepresented groups.
2.4 Academic Quality - Discuss data available on the academic characteristics of majors within the
program including entry test scores (e.g., SAT), average entering GPA, GPA at graduation, and if
applicable, placement test scores (or comparable metrics for performance-based disciplines). Compare
these characteristics to those of closely related departments, and the university as a whole. Also include a
discussion of trends over time and any other indicators collected by the unit.
2.5 Graduation Patterns - Describe trends in the number of degrees and the length of time required for
degree completion since the time of the last review or within the last 10 years. What are the approximate
attrition rates from the major? Compare these indicators to those in closely related departments and the
University as a whole.
3. Academic and Support Staffing
3.1 Teaching - What proportion of courses at each level (e.g. lower division, upper division) are taught by
tenure track faculty, non-tenure track faculty (career NTTF v. adjunct NTTF), and/or graduate teaching
assistants? If non-instructional staff members have responsibility for delivering some elements of the
curriculum, describe the nature of their involvement and the rationale for this practice. How are decisions
regarding course assignments made?
3.2 Advising and Other Services - Who provides academic advising to undergraduates? Do faculty
members or other staff serve in additional roles, such as mentor, internship supervisor, other? How are
decisions made regarding the assignment of academic advisors and service in other roles?
4. Assessment and Reflection
4.1 Quality of the Undergraduate Curriculum - What procedures does the unit use to evaluate a) the
quality of undergraduate courses and degree programs; b) the progress of individual students toward a
degree; and c) the long-term effectiveness of the program? Describe the results of these assessments.
How satisfied is the unit with the breadth and quality of the various parts of the curriculum? Describe the
cultural awareness, and/or individual-based research and learning have been addressed. Discuss how
grade inflation has been dealt with in the unit's undergraduate courses. Highlight any areas of
specialization and/or features of the unit's undergraduate programs that make them distinctive or unique.
4.2 Curriculum Changes - What significant changes have taken place in course offerings and degree
programs over the past five years? Explain the rationale for these changes and their relation, if any, to
recent trends and developments in the field, to ongoing assessments of student learning and the
curriculum, and/or to trends in the placement of graduates. Are there desirable changes in the
undergraduate curriculum that have not been accomplished? What has prevented the implementation of
these changes? What changes, if any, are being considered or planned for the next 3-5 years.
4.3 Quality of Instruction and Advising - What procedures are used to judge the quality and
effectiveness of instruction and academic advising within the undergraduate curriculum (e.g. course
evaluations, classroom visitations, post-graduation surveys of students, etc.)? Discuss the results of these
assessments. Comment on how this unit compares to similar departments and the University as a whole.
4.4 Student Learning - Describe what the graduates of your programs should know and be able to do
when they leave the university. How does the unit assess the extent to which students have met these
expectations? Include a discussion of any department-specific indicators that have been developed (e.g.
exit exams or blind reading of senior essays) as well as university-provided indicators of the quality of the
graduates.
4.5 Student Satisfaction - What steps does the unit take to assess graduating students' perceptions of
the quality of their experiences? What are the results of these assessments? Have any changes been made
in the undergraduate program based on these measures?
4.6 Postgraduate Placements - Describe any data available on the postgraduate academic and career
placement of students. Are there specific trends in these placements? Does the unit assist in the placement
of graduates? To what extent are alumni, visiting committees, or advisory boards involved in evaluating
the quality of the unit's graduates in the work place?
B. Graduate Programs
1. Description and Rationale for the Curriculum
1.1 Masters - Describe the master's degree curriculum including the total number of required credits and
credit distribution among various fields or subfields. If more than one option or specialization track is
available, list the options or tracks and their curricula separately (use attached Appendix A format for this
purpose). Note any required research experience (or performance or creative activity) such as a thesis,
terminal project, internship, or other experiences outside the classroom. Indicate any associated
professional certification or licensure requirements. Include any additional information concerning curricula
emphasis which would aid in characterizing this program as practice or research oriented. If there is
substantial dependence on some other unit or program, comment on this relationship. Finally, explain the
rationale for the structure and sequence of the curriculum for the master's degree, including any
prerequisites or proficiency requirements.
1.2 Doctoral - Describe the doctoral curriculum, including the total number of required credits and credit
distribution among various fields or subfields. If more than one option or specialization is available, list the
options or tracks and their curricula separately (use attached Appendix A). Indicate whether the master's
degree is usually completed before proceeding to the doctoral degree program and explain any differences
in requirements between students entering with or without a master's degree. Explain the rationale for the
structure and sequence of the doctoral curriculum, including any prerequisites or proficiency requirements.
Describe all requirements for advancement to candidacy (e.g., written examinations, oral examinations,
required papers, proposals), including recommended or required deadlines for completing each
component.
1.3 Instructional Relationships to Other Programs - Describe how graduate instruction and research,
performance, and/or creative activity in this unit relate to other programs (undergraduate, graduate,
professional, postdoctoral) within the unit, in other University units, with other OUS institutions, or with
external partners. What is the rationale for these relationships? Identify other programs where students
frequently take minor fields of study or other program options in the unit. Describe the extent of the unit's
participation in interdisciplinary programs at the graduate level. List any courses in the program that are
requirements, prerequisites, or frequently recommended for students in graduate degree programs outside
this unit.
1.4 Research Participation - What types of formalized research training do graduate students receive
before they begin work on their theses or dissertations? Describe the nature and extent of this training,
how it differs for masters and doctoral students, and the rationale for the specific nature of this training. If
any of these training experiences are not a part of the regular curriculum, how are these experiences
supported and how are students selected for them?
1.5 Teaching Preparation - How is the development of graduate students' teaching abilities addressed
by the program? What types of teaching experiences do graduate students have during their program, and
what percentages of the students get those experiences? Describe any awards or other types of support
for graduate students' teaching.
1.6 Funding - Describe the stipend support packages available for graduate students and the number of
each type of appointment (teaching and research assistantships, fellowships, traineeships) available
annually. Describe the procedures used to allocate the support and any information as to how the level and
type of student support compares to that offered by closely related units, the university as a whole, and
comparator universities. Discuss how current funding affects the recruitment of graduate students to your
program.
2. Student Characteristics
2.1 Number of Students and Enrollment Patterns - Discuss trends over the past 10 years (or since
the time of the last review) in the numbers of students within each segment of the graduate programs.
Discuss enrollment patterns such as enrollment at different levels of the curriculum, full-time and part-time
ratios, and the extent to which students are customarily enrolled for summer as well as other quarters.
What is the optimal size of the graduate program at each level (Masters, Doctoral)? If the current program
differs from the optimal size, how does the unit plan to move toward that goal?
2.2 Demographic Data - Describe the demographic characteristics (including age, gender,
race/ethnicity) of graduate students. Highlight any characteristics on which graduate students in this unit
may differ from graduate students in other units within University.
2.3 Diversity Initiatives - Describe and comment on the extent and quality of the unit's efforts to
attract, retain, and graduate members of traditionally underrepresented groups. Discuss any initiatives that
focus on international students or providing international experiences for enrolled students.
2.4 Academic Quality - Discuss data available on the academic characteristics of graduate students
applying to, and accepted by, graduate programs in this unit (separate these data by Masters vs. Doctoral
if appropriate). Include information on criteria used to make admissions decisions (e.g., entry test scores,
average entering G.P.A., placement test scores, portfolio, audition). Include data on applicants, students
offered admission, and those who accept, including measures of selectivity and yield. Compare these
characteristics to those of similar departments and the university as a whole. Also include a discussion of
trends over time and any additional indicators collected by the unit.
2.5 Graduation Patterns - Describe trends in the number of degrees and the length of time required
for degree completion at each level of the graduate program since the time of the last review or within the
last 10 years. What are the approximate attrition rates from each portion of the graduate program? For the
doctoral program, what percentages of students successfully reached advancement within four years, and
what percentages completed the degree within seven years? Compare these indicators to those for closely
related departments and the University as a whole.
3. Academic and Support Staffing
3.1 Teaching - What proportions of courses in each segment of the graduate program are taught by each
of the following: tenure track faculty, career NTTF, or adjunct NTTF? How do these proportions compare to
those for other similar units within the university? If non-instructional staff shares responsibility for
delivering the curriculum, describe the nature of their role and the rationale for this practice. If graduate
teaching assistants are involved in teaching any graduate courses, describe the nature of that involvement
and the rationale for this practice. How are decisions regarding course assignments made?
3.2 Advising and Mentoring - How are advisors assigned to graduate students and what is the
advisor/advisee ratio at the graduate level? What is the role of the advisor in the unit? Describe the nature
of any workload adjustments that the unit makes for faculty service on dissertation or thesis committees?
4. Assessment and Reflection
Units should note at the beginning of this section whether they will be presenting their assessments of Master's
and Doctoral programs together or separately.
4.1 Quality of the Graduate Curriculum - What procedures are used to evaluate a) the quality of
graduate courses, mentorship, and advising; b) the progress of individual students toward a degree; and
c) the long-term effectiveness of the program? Describe the results of these assessments. How satisfied is
the unit with the breadth and quality of the various parts of the graduate curriculum? What proportion of
the graduate curriculum consists of courses that contain only graduate students (i.e., 600 level)? If a
significant proportion of courses are not graduate-only (i.e., 400/500 courses), describe what requirements
are added to these courses to assure that graduate level training is taking place. Describe the ways in
which issues such as time toward degree, attrition, involvement in research, and job placement have been
addressed. Identify any areas of specialization and/or features of the unit's graduate programs that make
them distinctive or unique.
4.2 Curriculum Changes - What significant changes have taken place in the graduate program(s) over
the past five years? Explain the rationale for these changes and their relation, if any, to recent trends and
developments in the field, to ongoing assessments of student learning and the curriculum, and/or to trends
in the placement of graduates. Are there desirable changes in the graduate curriculum that have not been
accomplished? What has prevented the implementation of these changes? What changes, if any, are being
considered or planned for the next 3-5 years.
4.3 Quality of Instruction and Advising - What procedures are used to judge the quality of instruction
and academic advising within the graduate curriculum? Discuss the results of these assessments.
4.4 Student Learning - What outcomes are expected for students at each stage of the graduate program
and how does the unit assess the extent to which students have met these expectations? Include a
discussion of any departmental specific indicators that have been developed (e.g. exit exams or blind
reading of comprehensives). To what degree have graduate students published research (or presented
creative work) before graduation?
4.5 Student Satisfaction - How satisfied are graduating students with the quality of their experiences?
How do these measures compare with data from similar units and from the university as a whole?
4.6 Postgraduate Placements - Provide data on the placement of graduate students over the last 5
years. How does the unit assist in the placement of its graduates? To what extent are alumni, visiting
committees, or advisory boards involved in evaluating the quality of graduates in the work place?
III. FACULTY
This section should describe and reflect on the quality and adequacy of academic staffing within the unit. As an attachment to the self-study narrative, units must provide an alphabetic list of faculty members, their ranks, and the number of masters and doctoral committees they have headed and/or served on during the past five years. Current curriculum vitae (CVs) for each tenure-track faculty member should follow the text and all appendices. Also include CVs for all career NTTF and any currently appointed adjunct NTTF, and any others (e.g. emeriti, participating or courtesy faculty) who are appointed in the unit. It is strongly recommended that all CVs be compiled on a disk and submitted only on the disk rather than in printed copies - one disk per each copy of the Self Study. (See Appendix C, Faculty CVs)
A. Numbers and Status
1. Size and Composition - Describe the size and composition of the unit's faculty in terms of ranks and
areas of specialization within the discipline. To what extent are non-tenure track faculty (e.g. visiting, career
NTTF, adjunct NTTF) a part of the unit's programs? Do faculty members from other university units serve
important roles within the unit? What is the typical duration of involvement for non-tenure track faculty in their
roles? Describe the rationale for the unit's staffing plan.
2. Recruitment, Retention, Tenure and Promotion - Describe the rates at which the unit has successfully
recruited its top choices for new faculty over the last 10 years (or since the last review). Where have new
faculty received their training and/or been employed prior to coming to the UO? Describe the unit's record of
retaining faculty, and discuss any plans or strategies for continuing or improving on this record. Provide data
on the success rates (successful vs. tried, and time to promotion) for junior faculty receiving tenure and/or
tenure and promotion, as well as the rates for faculty being promoted to full professor.
3. Diversity - How do the proportions of women and minority groups on the unit's faculty compare to the
University as a whole, comparator institutions, and the field nationwide. What specific plans and programs
does the unit have in place to increase the proportions of traditionally underrepresented groups in the faculty
and to support their professional development?
B. Research and Scholarly Work
1. Current Research - Provide a brief description of notable and/or unique ongoing research, performance,
or creative activity in the unit. Describe three to five major accomplishments in this area over the past five
years by faculty and/or graduate students.
2. Interdisciplinary Projects or Programs - Describe interdisciplinary research projects or programs with
other units on campus or with other universities or agencies. How successful is the unit in developing and
supporting these types of activities? How important are these kinds of interdisciplinary relationships to faculty
and graduate students in the unit? What changes in this area, if any, are being considered or planned for the
next 3-5 years.
3. Funding - Describe and evaluate the level of internal and external funding for research or
performance/creative activity for faculty in the unit. Are the faculty and unit competing effectively for external
support? What are the unit's goals, if any, for internal and external research funding? How does the unit's
performance in this area compare to other similar units within the University, the University as a whole, and
comparator departments at other universities.
4. Transfer of Knowledge - Describe any significant recent research or other scholarly/creative interactions
with the private sector which have been developed by the unit or individual faculty members (other than
consulting). To what extent are faculty engaged in the knowledge or technology transfer process (e.g.
invention disclosures, patents, license agreements, spin-off companies)? Does the unit actively encourage
such activities or consider them in evaluations such as tenure and promotion decisions? What are the policy
and/or regulatory concerns that influence your unit's ability to form research or creative partnerships with the
private sector (e.g. conflict of interest policy, Oregon Administrative Rules, intellectual property rights)?
C. Teaching
1. Teaching Load and Distribution - Describe how the teaching loads of faculty within the unit are
determined, including the number and level of courses. Does the pattern of teaching assignments differ among
members of the unit and if so, what are those differences and what is the rationale for this distribution?
2. Teaching Support - How does the unit support and reward the development of quality teaching? To what
extent have faculty, GTFs, and other instructional staff used these mechanisms and what have been the
results?
D. Service
1. Outreach and Community Service - Describe the extent to which the unit's professional expertise is
made available to the community, state, and nation through lectures, concerts, service to governmental
boards, scientific/professional associations, or any other means. Evaluate the quality of this service and
indicate how it contributes to the unit's instructional and/or research programs?
2. Continuing or Executive/Professional Education - To what extent is the unit involved in offering
continuing education and professional development courses or programs? List any courses offered through
continuing education. Describe any courses or programs designed for professional or executive education.
Identify any of these courses or programs that are offered in locations other than the Eugene campus, or via
distance technology. Describe any changes that are being considered or planned for the next 3-5 years.
3. Consulting - To what extent is the faculty involved in outside consulting work? Provide a quantitative and
qualitative assessment of this type of work and explain in what ways it contributes to the unit's instructional
and/or research programs.
E. Assessment and Evaluation
1. Evaluation Criteria - Describe how (and how often) the unit evaluates the quality of its faculty in
teaching; research, performance, and/or creative activity; and service. How are the results of these
evaluations used by the unit? Attach a copy of the standards for promotion and tenure that have been
developed with the approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost. Attach a copy of the standards used for
post-tenure review. Provide a copy of any other standards or forms used to evaluate teaching,
research/performance or service.
2. Assessment - Provide a brief and candidly descriptive overview of the quality of the research, teaching,
and service of faculty in the unit. How do assessments of faculty teaching compare to similar departments and
to the University as a whole? Highlight any areas in which faculty have provided exemplary service to the
university, the discipline, the public. How does the research, performance or creative activity in the unit
compare nationally or internationally to research in the discipline? Describe the criteria by which faculty are
evaluated for success in research performance, how these criteria compare to comparator departments, and
how well the faculty meet them. Describe any external rankings of the unit. What are the unit's goals for
faculty in the research/creative activity area?
3. Faculty Development - What does the unit do to encourage and develop research, performance or
creative activity? How well are these incentives working? Describe any deficiencies in facilities and resources
that negatively affect the unit's attempts to reach its research objectives.
4. Adequacy of Staffing and Resources - Is the unit staffed adequately to meet the needs of various fields
of specialization in the discipline? How will the unit maintain an appropriate distribution of specializations if
available resources remain essentially constant?
IV. SUMMARY
Reflect upon and summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the degree programs and the unit as whole, and the issues that the unit is likely to face in the next five years. Review briefly the unit's objectives for the next 5 to 10 years. What changes might help the unit attain these objectives. If changes require resources, identify possible sources for any additional resources. If changes will free-up resources, discuss how those resources would be reallocated.
V. APPENDICES
A. Degree Options and Certificate Programs - Using the format below, please provide descriptions of each
degree option, pathway, specialization, concentration, and/or formally recognized certificate program. Identify
each separate option or program as Undergraduate, Master or Doctoral.
Option/Certificate:
*Descriptive Title
*Percentage of Majors in Option / Certificate
*Percentages of Faculty (by type) who Teach in Option / Certificate
Curriculum for Option/Certificate Program:
*Course
*Title
*Credits
*Required or Elective
*Offering Unit
B. Other Data - This section should be used to present data that have been extracted from the institutional
indicators provided by the Office of Institutional Research. (The entire set of data may be provided in Appendix
D.)
C. Faculty CVs - This section should be used to compile current curriculum vitae (CVs) for each tenure related
faculty member; non-tenure track faculty (NTTF), including career and adjunct NTTF; and any others (e.g. emeriti,
participating or courtesy faculty) who regularly teach for the unit. It is strongly recommended that this be done in
disk form rather than in printed copies - one disk per each copy of the Self Study.
D. Unit Data From Institutional Research - This appendix should consist of a copy of the entire set of data
provided to the unit by the Office of Institutional Research.
Appendices additional to those listed above may be added as appropriate and might include:
• A brief department history since the last review
• The department's constitution or mission statement
• The department's diversity report
• Ad Hoc or other committee reports
• General duties and responsibility statement
• Student Handbook (Graduate, Undergraduate or both)
• Summary of faculty recruitment, retirements and resignations
GUIDELINES FOR THE STATE OF THE UNIT REPORT
Following receipt of the finalized external Program Review Committee report, a State of the Unit Report is prepared by the Academic Dean, with review and input by the department and by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. In preparing this document, the Dean will draw from the self-study document, the Program Review Committee report, comments on this report from the Vice Provosts for the Graduate and Undergraduate Studies, and the unit's response to the report. The State of the Unit Report should contain the following elements.
• An introduction that briefly describes the findings of the evaluation process.
• A record of issues and accomplishments recorded during the course of the review.
• A candid description of the extant strengths and current limitations across the research, teaching, and service missions of the unit.
• A summary of the unit's development in terms of strategic planning at the College and University levels.
• A list, in priority order, of the unit's goals and objectives, and the courses of action needed to reach those ends.
HOW THE REPORT IS DEVELOPED:
1. The Academic Dean will draft the preliminary State of the Unit Report, drawing information from the self-study report, the report of the Program Review Committee, and all written responses to these reports.
2. The unit Head, together with the unit's faculty, will discuss the preliminary report and propose to the Dean revisions as deemed appropriate.
3. The unit Head will work with the Dean to finalize the report.
4. The Dean will share the report with the Senior Vice Provost, addressing any issues arising from that engagement to complete a final report. The final report should be completed and submitted to the Provost and the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs by the third Friday in July.
5. After the report is completed, the Dean will draft an Implementation Plan, working with the department head and/or designated others to do so. (see "Guidelines for the Implementation Plan")
6. By September 15, the Dean will submit the Implementation Plan to the Senior Vice President and Provost via the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs for analysis, review, and commentary.
GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Once a unit has undergone review, and after the State of the Unit Report (see "Guidelines for the State of the Unit Report") has been completed, an Implementation Plan must be drafted to document a plan for action to effect change necessary or desired by the unit, the Dean, or the university based on the information gathered in the program's review. This is a critical opportunity to address issues relevant to the unit for future assessment.
The Dean is the party ultimately responsible for the Implementation Plan and will report on this to the Senior Vice President and Provost (with participation by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs). The plan is subject to change by agreement among the parties (unit members, governing School or College members, and Administration members, including Graduate and Undergraduate Studies) as circumstances warrant. It represents a good-faith statement of intent to implement actions, and each party indicated in the plan is accountable for carrying out its provisions. The emphasis is on mutual understanding and cooperative efforts toward achieving agreed-upon objectives. The Implementation Plan will be considered a public document and can be reviewed by the University community, alumni, and other appropriate constituencies upon request. It is highly recommended that the Dean keep available a bound volume containing the Implementation Plan, the State of the Unit Report, the Self-study Report, and the reports of the Program Review Committee. This report and plan will form a basis for measuring progress within the department and can serve as a valuable resource for the unit to prepare for future assessment or review.
HOW THE PLAN IS DEVELOPED:
1. The Dean is responsible for the Implementation Plan, delegating responsibility to the unit or others as he or she believes appropriate.
2. Drawing on the information in the State of the Unit Report, in particular, the list of the unit's goals and objectives, and the courses of action needed to reach those ends, consideration must be made of which goals or objectives will be addressed and in what order. These will be the basis for the plan.
3. Once the selected efforts are listed, the following information must be attached to each individual goal:
a. A clear concise description of the goal.
b. A well defined plan of action for achieving the goal or objective.
c. A statement of who will carry out the action item. If this is an entire unit or department, be sure to include the
name of at least one person, accountable for this action and any individual or sub efforts related to this item.
d. A timetable for attainment.
e. A statement of necessary resources and investments.
4. Once the plan is written, the unit Head will work with the Dean to reach agreement on issues and actions in the plan. Budgetary ramifications may be included in the plan and should be clearly indicated in the relevant areas.
5. After agreement has been reached between the unit Head and the Dean, and the document has been revised accordingly, the Dean will present the Implementation Plan to the Senior Vice President and Provost and the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. This should be completed by September 15.
6. Although the Dean has oversight for the Implementation Plan, the Provost, or the Senior Vice Provost if designated by the Provost, may negotiate specific changes to the plan in cases where university priorities indicate a need to do so.
7. Following the unit's review, the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs may request periodic summaries (1-2 pages) of progress the unit has made in implementing the recommendations in the Implementation Plan.
8. The Dean will provide final copies of the report and plan to the department head who will then provide copies for all faculty members of the unit and any individuals associated with the Implementation Plan.
9. It is the responsibility of the Dean to integrate the goals and objectives of the memorandum into the college's strategic plan.
