Academic Program Review Process

PNW’s Academic Program Review is intended to be a collaborative process involving each department and/or school, college, the Academic Program Peer Review Corps (APPRC) and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost.

It is designed to be a reflective and analytical process that will lead to program improvement, and its results can be used as input into a variety of strategic and programmatic decisions.

Download the Full Guide (2.2 MB)

Resources

Each academic program will participate in the PNW Academic Program Review process during its assigned slot in the master calendar. The process includes faculty review of assessment of student learning results, analysis of statistical data, the completion of a self-study document, and an in-person presentation to the Academic Program Peer Review Corps.

Our Purpose

The faculty is responsible for curriculum; therefore, APR is a faculty responsibility. The AAPRC is composed of faculty from all colleges and is charged to oversee the process of Academic Program Review across the University.

The improvement of overall academic quality is an ongoing objective. The intent of APR is to support each program in developing and maintaining its own continuous system of academic program review. Within such a system, periodic academic program review serves as an opportunity for a global consideration of the program.

Quality is systemic. While APR originates at the individual program level, the analysis expands to incorporate activities and support services at the department or school, college, and university levels.

The review of a particular program aims to situate it in the context of Purdue University Northwest’s unique mission and values statements and its strategic plan. In so doing, APR seeks to enhance learning within a particular unit and across units, and to further the evolution of a university culture characterized by ongoing institutional self-analysis leading to continually improved practices.

To be efficient, APR’s are conducted within a clearly limited time frame. Thus, each unit is asked to identify important issues during the APR planning stage, investigate them along with those required by the process, and report accordingly. The aim is meaningful reflection in areas identified by the program’s faculty.

The APR process seeks to support and sustain conversations among various university constituents that lead to the identification and analysis of a particular program’s strengths and areas for improvement. The inclusion of multiple diverse perspectives is intended to help programs share their strengths as well as facilitate improved university-wide understanding of the varied disciplinary and professional languages and norms that compose the University.

In addition, the self-study stimulates a culture of continuous reflection, internal research, and collegial accountability that is both program-based and university-wide.

The APR process seeks to facilitate the development of plans of action supported by analyzed data. In so doing, APR seeks to support internal research and, through its ongoing activity, continually refine the University’s academic information systems to support decision-making at the program, department or school, college, and university levels.

AAPRC’s review encourages a cross-discipline/cross-profession dialogue and accountability for the University’s curricular programs as a whole. The APR process combines the strengths of internal review, best understood within the context of Purdue University Northwest’s mission and array of programs, with external discipline-specific review, ensuring that academic programs represent current practice within the discipline.

The APR process is dynamic, reflective, and evolving. While the overall purpose of continuous improvement is paramount, specific features of the process may be modified as needed for any individual program to ensure the purpose is met. Ongoing assessment of the process will result in modifications as indicated by results.

The outcome of the APR process is the identification of sound initiatives for improving quality that are supported by both data and broad-based understanding of a wide- array of PNW stakeholders (e.g., students, faculty, residents of northwest Indiana, etc.).

Self-Study Guidelines

Each academic program will participate in the PNW Academic Program Review (APR) process during its assigned slot in the master calendar.

For the purposes of the PNW APR process, a “program” is defined as the degree credential approved for inclusion in the Indiana State Academic Program Inventory (API), e.g., BA/BS, MA/MS (and other named degrees), Doctorates, and Certificates with more than 12 hours. Majors will be treated as separate programs, while concentrations within those degree programs/majors will be addressed in the same self-study/review process.

For ease of scheduling and to reduce repeated departmental effort, the master calendar is arranged by academic department/school, with all programs in those departments participating in the APR process at the same time (e.g., the BA and MA in Communication are reviewed in the same semester, with two separate review processes).

The APR process includes faculty review of assessment of student learning results, analysis of statistical data, the completion of a self-study document, an external review, and an in-person presentation to the APPRC.

The Self-Study Template includes the elements included in the document, word limits, and the parties responsible for providing the information/data (in red). Wherever possible, information will be supplied to the departments by the Institutional Research Office (IR) or Academic Affairs. A Microsoft Word template, which will be used for completion of the self-study document, will be provided to each program at the time of its review.

Program Description: Department/Program

(2,000 words)

Elements to include:

Mission statement
Brief program history
Description of majors/concentrations
Relationship with other academic units
Alignment with campus strategic plan
Describe how your program contributes to state needs (i.e. workforce development, regional impact, public service)
Strategic plan/goals for next five years
Progress toward goals developed as a result of last program review (future)

Program Curriculum Review: Department/Program

(1,000 words)

Elements to include (for each major/concentration):

Curriculum map
Provide evidence that your undergraduate and graduate curricula are Use benchmarks such as
- Peer institutions
- National disciplinary standards
Provide student outcomes, e. job placement/acceptance to a graduate degree
Briefly describe plans for program/curriculum development and how they tie to your strategic plan
Describe outcomes for accelerated delivery (“Degree in 3;” 3+2; 4+1 for master’s degrees)
Describe any stackable credentials
Describe resources needed to accomplish your planned development

Student Academic Achievement/Program Quality – From Assessment Platform (e.g., Planning & Self-Study, Digital Measures): Department/Program

Elements to include (for each major/concentration):

Brief narrative describing learning outcomes and assessment measures used (future: and results obtained since last APR)
Assessment reports for graduate and undergraduate programs
Your current Student Learning Outcome Improvement Plan
Describe your methods of determining teaching effectiveness
Your current Student Learning Outcome Improvement Plan
Describe your methods of determining teaching effectiveness

Program Quality & effectiveness in Service and Creative Areas

(up to 300 words for each)

Program Service/Engagement Narrative
Program Scholarship, Research, Creative Practice Narrative

Civic Responsibility and Engagement

(up to 300 words)

How does the proposed program cultivate civic responsibility and commitment to the core values of American society? For example, how does the curriculum include components that emphasize civic engagement and the duties of citizenship in a free society?

Talent Pipeline/Career Relevance: Workforce and Societal Need

(up to 500 words)

Explain how the program has and will continue to responsively serve regional, state, and/or national workforce and societal talent needs. Specify whether the program provides preparation for professional licensure or certification, industry-recognized credential(s), and/or professional school.
Explain how the degree program advises students on career exploration and planning. How does the program advise students about labor market need and career pathways?
How does the program facilitate direct connections between students and employment opportunities?
List any required work experiences, experiential learning components, or integrated course-based career experiences. Specify work/practica/clinical hours or other requirements. Provide evidence of how these opportunities connect students with employment opportunities. If none, explain why there are none.

Faculty Achievement (One Template Per Full-Time Faculty Member): Program/Faculty

Elements to include:

Name
Rank
Educational/Professional preparation
Areas of expertise and experience
Teaching experience
Appointments
Honors, awards, certificates, licenses
Scholarly work/Products/Grants/Patents (at least the last three years)
Professional development (at least last three years)
Relevant Engagement/Synergistic activities (at least last three years)

Empirical Performance Measures (For Each Major/Concentration) (Responsible Party to Provide Data)

Standardized Data Sets (Institutional Review/Business Services/Human Resources/Career Center)

Enrollment Measures:
- Number of majors/minors
- Service courses
- Billing hours generated
Effectiveness Measures, such as:
- Degrees (Completions) — FY
- On-time completion rate
- Retention rate (Persistence)
- Credit hour production (as a percent change)
Efficiency Measures, such as:
- Number of faculty
- Courses taught
Competitive Advantage Measures:
- Regional competitors
- Student demand
- Environmental scan
- Labor department statistics
Resource Usage:
- Operating cost of the program
- Operating Revenue
- Faculty numbers and FTE
- Staff numbers and FTE
- Faculty/student ratio
Post-Graduation Student Outcomes:
- Job placement
- Affordability (student wages and debt)
Workforce Alignment:
- Alignment with workforce and societal needs
- Advancing state/national economic competitiveness, national security, and/or a key state/national interest
- In-state graduate retention rate
Quality Measures (Department)
Accreditations
Honors
Awards

Assessment of Empirical Performance Measures: Department

(1000 words)

Overall, what do these quantitative performance measures reveal about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges of the program, its students, and its performance? Evaluate how these performance measures are used.

Summary Overall Evaluation, Future Place: Department

(500 words)

Presentations will be scheduled for a 30-minute time slot. Presentations should be 20 minutes in length, allowing an additional 10 minutes for questions from the Reviewers. Programs must leave the last 10 minutes for Review Committee questions, so it is recommended to practice the timing.

The presentation will be based on a PowerPoint presentation. Programs must provide a copy of the PowerPoint to the Review Committee Chair no later than the Close of Business on the day prior to the presentation. The Academic Program Review Committee will be evaluating the presentation as one component of the overall academic program review.

This is the to present additional information about the program and share details of successes that are not already in the report submitted at the start of the process in the Self Study. Be sure to incorporate only new findings from the data throughout the presentation. Presentations must address the following areas:

Who is this program ideally suited for (both students and employers)?
How does this program prepare students for employment or advanced education?
What are the program’s strengths?
What are the program’s challenges? How will those be addressed?
How will your program meet the needs of students and the community in the future?
How does the program incorporate new technology into the curriculum.
Answer any written questions that have been provided to you by the committee.

Standardized Data Set: Sample Enrolment Measures Data

Billable hours generated by the program, listed by instructor classification and types of students taking the courses.

For example, tenure/tenure track faculty taught 1818 hours to Managerial Studies majors and 944 billable hours to students in other majors, for a total of 2762 billable hours.

And, students majoring in Human Resource Management took a total of 1035 credits as taught in Managerial Studies.

Standardized Data Set: Sample Effectiveness Measures Data

Numbers of Managerial Studies majors who completed their degree programs, for past four years.

Standardized Data Sets: Sample Efficiency Measures Data

Faculty and Courses taught.

Standardized Data Set: Competitive Advantage Measures

Example for Criminal Justice:

The Competitive Advantage Measures include (but are not limited to):

The number of similar programs offered within a given geographic region (in this example, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan)
The number of students who completed those programs
Trends in format (online, face-to-face)
The competing institutions within the set region
Numbers of jobs posted in that region within a certain date range (here, October 2017 to December 2019}
Characteristics of the jobs in the discipline

These data are generated each year for all programs and are available in the shared drive.

Academic Program Review Rubric

Purdue University Northwest Academic Program Review

Rubric

Program Name________________________________________ Evaluator________________________________________

	Exemplary/Exceeds (4)	Meets (3)	Developing (2)	Lacks Evidence (1)
The program’s teaching and learning, scholarship, and service are appropriate to the institution's mission.	The program’s teaching and learning, scholarship, and service efforts are aligned with the institutional mission. Program has a scheduled process for reviewing its alignment to the university mission.	The program’s teaching and learning, scholarship, and service efforts are aligned with the institutional mission.	The program’s teaching and learning, scholarship, and service efforts are not directly aligned with the institutional mission. The program is aware of its need to fit with the institution's mission.	The program shows little to no awareness aligning its teaching and learning, scholarship, and service efforts with the institutional mission.
Strategic Plan/Goals for next five years Progress towards goals since last review	Program uses data and broad-based input from stakeholder groups, accreditors, and peers to develop strategic goals; program shows substantial and demonstrable progress, and is building on those successes to formulate new goals.	Program uses data and input from a broad range of groups to develop strategic goals; program shows demonstrable progress in meeting stated goals.	Program has formulated strategic goals but the methodology used and data to inform them is unclear; program has made some progress in meeting stated goals, but work still needs to be done.	Program does not cite any strategic goals for the next five years; program does not cite any substantial progress in meeting stated goals OR does not have any existing stated goals.
Curriculum: - Reviewed regularly - Current - Relevant - Tied to strategic plan	All courses (including electives) are organized to scaffold students' developing knowledge and skills; the entire faculty regularly reviews the curriculum using input from advisory boards, and national accrediting standards, to align with emerging trends and the institution’s strategic plan; clear, exit outcomes are written at the appropriate level.	Required courses are organized to scaffold students' developing knowledge and skills; the curriculum is reviewed regularly to align with national trends and the institution’s strategic plan; clear, exit outcomes are written at the appropriate level.	Course outcomes are aligned haphazardly or inconsistently with program exit outcomes; reviews of the curriculum are done only sporadically; skills or content are not intentionally developed to align with trends or the institution’s strategic plan.	Individual course outcomes are not aligned to program and/or degree exit outcomes; the process used to review the curriculum is not cited.
Quality, viability, and productivity of efforts in teaching and learning	A clearly defined process is systematically followed for frequent, formal review of instructional effectiveness of all faculty. Complete program outcomes exist and appropriate measures are used to assess them; outcomes and results are published. Gaps in student learning are analyzed. Improvement plans have been formulated/ implemented.	A clearly defined process for the evaluation of teaching is systematically followed Program outcomes include knowledge and skills; outcomes are assessed and results are published. The program analyzes gaps in student learning and is working on an improvement plan.	The review of the teaching quality of program instructors is erratic, incomplete or informal. Incomplete or unclear learning outcomes are identified. Assessment results are incomplete or unclear with no improvement plans.	The review of the instructional quality of faculty is haphazard or nonexistent. Degree and program learning outcomes are not articulated. They are not assessed.
Quality, viability, and productivity of efforts in scholarship	All faculty have required credentials, extensive research/scholarly/ engagement records.	All faculty have required credentials, appropriate research/scholarly/ engagement records, and participate in professional organizations.	Faculty has required credentials, and research/scholarly/ engagement records.	Faculty have required credentials, but no or little evidence of scholarship.
Quality, viability, and productivity of efforts in service	All faculty participate nationally and regionally in professional organizations and service	All faculty participate in professional organizations and service.	Faculty participate in professional organizations or service.	Faculty do not participate in professional organizations or service
Program Enrollment	Quantitative and qualitative data demonstrate program is strongly positioned. Little to no competition for enrollment. Job market statistics show strong employment opportunities for graduates.	Quantitative and qualitative data demonstrate program is competitively positioned. Job market statistics show opportunities for graduates.	Quantitative and qualitative data demonstrate the program is not competitively positioned. Job market statistics show mediocre job market offerings.	Quantitative and qualitative data demonstrate the program is positioned below competitors. Statistics show a weak job market with limited employment opportunities for graduates.
Progressive Improvement	The program uses the findings and recommendations from program review for the progressive improvement and adjustment in the context of the institution's strategic plan. A clearly defined process is used for the periodic review of performance measures to ensure alignment with the institution’s strategic plan; scheduled reviews are integrated into long-range planning.	The program uses the findings and recommendations from program review for the progressive improvement and adjustment in the context of the institution's strategic plan. A clearly defined process is used for the periodic review of performance measures to ensure alignment with the institution’s strategic plan; program effectiveness data is used to revise policies and plans for improvement.	The program does not consistently use the findings and recommendations from program review for the progressive improvement and adjustment in the context of the institution's strategic plan. Performance measure reviews are erratic, episodic or informal; improvement plans rarely include alignment with the institution's strategic plan. Program effectiveness data are not systematically reviewed. and revised as part of ongoing program review.	The program does not use the findings and recommendations from program review for the progressive improvement and adjustment in the context of the institution's strategic plan. Performance measure reviews are episodic.
Program's overall summary; future plans	The program demonstrates a strong record of continuous improvement, with systematic, structured planning and assessment activities which are utilized for data-informed planning.	The program demonstrates a record of continuous improvement, with systematic planning and assessment activities which are utilized for planning.	The program presents a record of non-structured planning and assessment activities which are utilized for planning.	The program does not present a record of planning and assessment activities; no processes for improvement are cited.

Academic Program Review Timeline and Deadlines

For All Reviews

Annually

End of Spring semester (May)	Members of the APPRC/Review Committee named for upcoming year
End of Spring semester (May)	IR provides standardized data sets to all programs
Beginning of Fall Semester (August)	Orientation for APPRC

Fall Reviews

18-month process beginning in July of the year preceding the review.

July (year 1)	Program notified of upcoming review
December 1 (year 1)	IR provides market analysis data to progra
May 1 (year 2)	Self-study due to reviewing team
First Friday in October (year 2)	Program's presentation to reviewing team
First Friday in November (year 2)	Reviewing team provides feedback to program
Third Friday in November (year 2)	Program responses due to reviewing team
December 1 (year 2)	Reviewing team provides final report to the Provost
End of Fall semester (year 2)	Provost's Review

Spring Reviews

18-month process beginning in January of the year preceding the review.

January (year 1)	Program notified of upcoming review
May 1 (year 1)	IR provides market analysis data to program
December 1 (year 1	Self-study due to reviewing team
First Friday in March (year 2)	Program's presentation to reviewing team
First Friday in April (year 2)	Reviewing team provides feedback to program
Third Friday in April (year 2)	Program responses due to reviewing team
May 1 (year 2)	Reviewing team provides final report to the Provost
End of Spring semester (year 2)	Provost's Review

Academic Program Review Calendar

College Department/Program	Review Semester	Self-Study Deadline	Pres. Dates First Friday March / Oct	Feedback Due First Friday April / Nov	Provost Letter End of Semester	Midcycle Review (if needed)	Accred. Date / Cycle External Review
CON/Nursing BSN Nursing (pre); BSN Nursing (Post); MSN Nursing; DNP Post-master’s Cert in Family Nurse Practice; Post-master’s Cert in Adult Gerontology; Post-master’s Cert in Nurse Executive	Spring 2027	1-Dec-26	5-Mar-27	2-Apr-27	May, 2027	Fall 2029	ACEN Fall 2027 8 years
CHESS/SoEC BA Elementary Education	Fall 2027	1-May-27	1-Oct-27	5-Nov-27	Dec 2027	Spring 2029	CAEP Fall 2027 7 years
CES/Computer and Electrical Engineering BS Computer Engineering; BS Electrical Engineering; MS Electrical and Computer Engineering	Fall 2027	1-May-27	1-Oct-27	5-Nov-27	Dec 2027	Spring 2029	ABET Fall 2027 6 years
CES/Civil and Mechanical Engineering BS Civil Engineering; BS Mechanical Engineering; MS Civil; MS Mechanical	Spring 2028	1-Dec-27	3-Mar-28	7-Apr-28	May 2028	Fall 2030	ABET Fall 2027 6 years
COB/Quantitative Business Studies BSA Accounting; BSB Finance; BSB Business Analytics; Master of Accountancy	Fall 2028	1-May-28	1-Oct-28	3-Nov-28	Dec 2028	Spring 2030	AACSB 2028-29 6 years
COB/Managerial Studies & Grad BSB Management; BSB Marketing; MBA; Cert in Human Resources; Cert in Entrepreneurship and Innovation	Spring 2029	1-Dec-28	2-Mar-29	6-Apr-29	May 2029	Fall 2031	AACSB 2028-29 6 years
COB/HTM BS HTM; Cert in Hospitality; Cert in Food Service and Lodging Supervision	Spring 2029	1-Dec-28 External reviewer selected	2-Mar-29	6-Apr-29	May 2029	Fall 2031	Materials to reviewer 1/12 Review Completed 2/16
CHESS/SoEC MS/MSEd	Spring 2029	1-Dec-28	2-Mar-29	6-Apr-29	May 2029	Fall 2031	CACREP Spring 2029 8 years
CES/Biological Sciences BS Biological Sciences; BS Integrative Human Health; MS Biological Sciences;	Fall 2029	1-May-29 External reviewer selected	5-Oct-29	2-Nov-29	Dec 2029	Spring 2031	Materials to reviewer 8/17 Review Completed 9/14
CHESS/CCA BA Communication; MA Communication	Spring 2030	1-Dec-29 External reviewer selected	1-Mar-30	5-Apr-30	May 2030	Fall 2032	Materials to reviewer 1/11 Review Completed 2/15
CHESS/History Politics, and Economics BA History & Politics; MA History; BLS	Spring 2030	1-Dec-29 External reviewer selected	1-Mar-30	5-Apr-30	May 2030	Fall 2032	Materials to reviewer 1/11 Review Completed 2/15
CES/Computer Science BS Computer Science; MS Computer Science	Fall 2030	1-May-30 External reviewer selected	4-Oct-30	1-Nov-30	Dec 2030	Spring 2032	Materials to reviewer 8/16 Review visit Completed 9/13
CES/Mathematics and Statistics BS Applied Mathematics and Statistics	Fall 2030	1-May-30 External reviewer selected	4-Oct-30	1-Nov-30	Dec 2030	Spring 2032	Materials to reviewer 8/16 Review visit Completed 9/13
CES/Chemistry and Physics BS General Physical Sciences	Fall 2030	1-May-30 External reviewer selected	4-Oct-30	1-Nov-30	Dec 2030	Spring 2032	Materials to reviewer 8/16 Review visit Completed 9/13
CHESS/BHS BSW; MSW; CFT; BS Criminal Justice; BA/BS Sociology	Spring 2031	1-Dec-30	7-Mar-31	4-Apr-31	May 2031	Fall 2033	CSWE MSW F 2030 BSW S 2031 8 years COAMFT S 2031 7 years
COT/CIT BS CIT; BS Cybersecurity;	Fall 2031	1-May-31	4-Oct-31	1-Nov-31	Dec 2031	Spring 2033	ABET Fall 2030 6 years
COT/Graduate MS AAI; Doctor of Technology	Fall 2031	1-May-31 External reviewer selected	4-Oct-31	1-Nov-31	Dec 2031	Spring 2033	Materials to reviewer 8/15 Review visit Completed 9/12
COT/CMET BS Construction Management Engineering Tech	Spring 2032	1-Dec-31	5-Mar-32	2-Apr-32	May 2032	Fall 2034	ABET Fall 2030 6 years
COT/ET BS Engineering Tech; BS Mechanical Engineering Tech	Spring 2032	1-Dec-31	5-Mar-32	2-Apr-32	May 2032	Fall 2034	ABET Fall 2030 6 years
COT/Graduate MS Technology	Spring 2032	1-Dec-31 External reviewer selected	5-Mar-32	2-Apr-32	May 2032	Fall 2034	Materials to reviewer 1/9 Review visit Completed 2/13
CHESS/English and World Languages BA English; Cert in Writing Interactive Media	Fall 2032	1-May-32 External reviewer selected	1-Oct-32	5-Nov-32	Dec 2032	Spring 2034	Materials to reviewer 8/13 Review visit Completed 9/10
University College BS Multidisciplinary Studies	Fall 2032	1-May-32 External reviewer selected	1-Oct-32	5-Nov-32	Dec 2032	Spring 2034	Materials to reviewer 8/13 Review visit Completed 9/10
CHESS/Psychology BS Psychology; MS Psychology; Doctor of Psychology	Fall 2032	1-May-32	1-Oct-32	5-Nov-32	Dec 2032	Spring 2034	APA TBD 10 years

Deliverables

From Each Program

A completed program review self-study including quantitative and qualitative analysis of the program consistent with the PNW APR guidelines as described in the following pages.

From the Academic Program Peer Review Corps

A thorough review of the program self-study which results in a final report that situates the program within the larger structure of the University in a way that both highlights actual and potential connections between the program and other units or university stakeholders and suggests opportunities for growth.

From the Academic Program Review Process

A set of initiatives for improvement agreed upon by the program, the department or school, the college, and the University. An official plan of action outlines agreed-upon courses of action that the program will take over the next several years to support improved academic quality. It also identifies resource support priorities for academic improvement.

Academic Program Peer Review Corps

The Purdue Northwest APR is faculty-driven as noted above; the faculty is responsible for curriculum; therefore, APR is a faculty responsibility.

The Academic Program Peer Review Corps (APPRC) is composed of faculty from all colleges and is charged to oversee the process of Academic Program Review across the University. The APR Review Committee is drawn from this body.

The APPRC is comprised of eleven (11) faculty members, with two representatives from each of the five PNW academic Colleges and one from the Faculty Senate, with “faculty” being defined as full-time, benefits-eligible, and current voting members of the instructional staff.
Representatives will be selected by the end of the Spring semester, with terms beginning the following Fall.
The members from each college will be decided by a College-level nomination process and college-wide vote. The single Faculty Senate member should be nominated and voted on by the Faculty Senate.
No APPRC member will participate in the review of the programs in their home department. Thus, the calendar above should be considered when selecting representatives.
The term of service will be for two years, with staggered terms so that half of the APPRC membership is replaced each academic year. Any given member may serve more than one successive term.
Before each Fall term begins, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will provide orientation and information/guidance on the duties and functions of the APPRC. The AVC will also serve as an ongoing resource, support, and ex-officio member of the body.

Participating as active members of the PNW Academic Program Review process.
Serving as members of the Academic Program Review Committee, reviewing program self-studies as submitted and actively participating in reviews each semester.
Providing feedback to each Program being reviewed, and forwarding recommendations to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost.
Acting as a resource for Programs participating in the APR process.