Office of the Provost and Senior Vice President

Academic Program Review

Cycle

The Florida Board of Governors (BOG) requires the cyclic review of all academic degree programs in State universities at least every seven years, in accordance with BOG Regulation 6C-8.015.  Each USF degree program listed on the SUS Academic Degree Programs Inventory must be reviewed during the 7-year period.   Exceptions may be made for programs with specialized/professional accreditation if the accreditation cycle is more or less than 7 years.

Purpose

Promote and maintain high-quality academic programs that are delivered and administered efficiently and effectively and are consistent with the USF mission and with the strategic priorities of the USF Board of Trustees (BOT) and the BOG.  Systematic review and improvement of academic programs with an emphasis on student learning outcomes is an integral part of institutional effectiveness.

Each accredited institution within University will review its own academic programs.  Copies of all self-studies, external reviews, and summary reports will be provided to the Tampa campus Office of Academic Affairs, which will prepare the annual submission of summary reports to the BOG.

Process

Elements of the program review:

• Program self-study
• Dean's Report
• External review
• Summary report to BOG

External reviewers will be selected and retained by the Office of Academic Affairs in consultation with the department chair/school director and/or dean from a list of nominees developed by the faculty of the program under review.  Guidelines for the selection of external consultants are found in Attachment B .

For programs with specialized/professional accreditation, program reviews will be scheduled to coincide with professional accreditation reviews.

Timeline

The University’s Academic Program Review Plan is updated and disseminated annually and is posted on the Academic Affairs web page.  A timeline for the annual review process is in Attachment C.

In the Spring semester of the academic year preceding its program review year, an academic unit will be reminded of its scheduled review.  The Academic Affairs Office may conduct an orientation meeting with representatives of the academic unit and its college to discuss the rationale, timeline, and process for the review; possible utilization of outcomes; and the relationship of program review to professional accreditation, strategic planning, academic learning compacts, and other institutional and state-level processes. The unit, in consultation with the college dean, a representative of Academic Affairs, and the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and/or Dean of the Graduate School as appropriate, will identify questions and issues to be addressed by the review.  The college dean will also provide to the Academic Affairs Office the names of three to five potential external reviewers.

For programs being reviewed in conjunction with specialized/professional accreditation, a University addendum to the accreditation self-study may be developed to address questions and issues of specific interest to USF, the BOT, and the BOG.

The Office of Decision Support will assist the unit in obtaining all relevant institutionally generated data needed for the self-study.

For programs not undergoing specialized/professional accreditation review, self-study reports (including the Dean’s Report) are due in the Academic Affairs Office in early November.  Site visits by outside reviewers will be scheduled in late Fall or early Spring.

For programs being reviewed in conjunction with specialized/professional accreditation, the schedule for preparation and submission of University addenda (if required) will be coordinated with the schedule for preparation and submission of the accreditation self-study and the visiting team report.

The USF Provost and Senior Vice President, the Vice President for USF Health, or the USFSP Regional Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will discuss the final report and recommendations with the chair/director and/or dean.  Units may be asked to report annually on actions taken with respect to program review recommendations.

Self-study Guidelines

The format for the self-study is in Attachment A.   Although the report should be comprehensive and substantive, in most cases it will not exceed 25 pages.  Tables, charts, and other relevant documents such as strategic plans and outcomes assessment plans should be placed in appendices.
 
If the academic unit plans to develop a new degree program in the same or a similar discipline as the program(s) being reviewed, a description of the proposed program and a timeline for implementation should be included in the self-study.  If a new program proposal is in preparation, the draft proposal should be included as an appendix to the self-study.

For programs being reviewed in conjunction with specialized/professional accreditation, the elements of any University addendum to be prepared in addition to those required by the accrediting association will be agreed upon by the Office of Academic Affairs, the chair/director, and/or the dean.

The Dean’s Report will include, but not necessarily be limited to, a discussion of the following aspects of the program(s) under review:

• Internal and external demand/need
• Competitive/strategic advantage
• Quality of students
• Faculty productivity
• Centrality

Program Review Outcomes

The results of academic program review will be used to plan for continuous program improvement as well as to inform strategic planning, program development, and budgeting decisions.  Specific outcomes may include:

• Resource decisions (e.g. enhance, reduce, maintain, eliminate, or review further)
• An action plan to implement recommended changes on a specific, agreed-upon schedule.