Existing Program Review

Use the following list to jump to a particular section:

• All Programs: EPR Schedules
  • The Year before Review
  • The Year of Review
• Accredited Programs: External Review Process and Information Flow
• Non-Accredited Programs
  • External Review Process and Information Flow
  • Budget for External Review
  • Self-Study Guidelines
    • General Note
    • Self-Study Outline
• All Programs: Internal Review Process and Information Flow

This section of the guide provides detail for and occasional revisions to the more general policies outlined in UCA's Institutional Plan for Existing Program Review (EPR). See Appendix B for the text of the institutional plan.

All Programs: EPR Schedules

A periodically updated ten-year Existing Program Review schedule is maintained in the Office of the Provost. To review the schedule, use the EPR Schedule page. The current section outlines general scheduling expectations.

The Year before Review

The Year of Review

Accredited Programs: External Review Process and Information Flow

Accredited programs will be constrained by the usual review practices of and schedule imposed by their accreditors. With allowance for the particular practices of individual accreditors, the following list and Figure 2, below, detail the process.

1. The program completes a comprehensive self-study and forwards copies of the self-study to the college dean and the Office of the Provost.
2. The program sends the self-study to its accreditor and/or the visiting team of consultant/evaluators.
3. As arranged with the accreditor, a site visit takes place.
4. The site team's written evaluation is sent to the department. The department forwards copies to the college dean and to the Office of the Provost.
5. If required by the accreditor, the program prepares a written response to the site team's evaluation. Copies of the response, if any, are forwarded to the college dean and to the Office of the Provost.
6. The accreditor notifies the program (and others--typically the college dean and the university president) of its action. The department forwards a copy of the notification to the college dean, if necessary, and to the Office of the Provost.
7. The Office of the Provost notifies other parties as appropriate and ensures disclosure of accreditation status in university publications.

Figure 2: External Review Information Flow, Accredited Programs

Non-Accredited Programs

External Review Process and Information Flow

In establishing a review schedule, non-accredited programs should consider the several steps to be completed during the review. The following list and Figure 3, below, detail the process.

1. Program faculty, consulting with their college dean, prepare for the provost a list of five external professionals as potential consultants to the program; the list includes only professionals from programs outside the state of Arkansas with mission and scope similar to the program under review. The provost selects from this list two consultants for the review; the provost may request additional names from the program. Once the provost has selected the consultants, the faculty in the program determine which consultant will perform the on-site review and which will act as reader-consultant, subject to agreement by the college dean and the provost.
2. The program completes a comprehensive self-study draft and forwards copies to the college dean, the graduate dean (if appropriate), and the Office of the Provost. The program allows at least two weeks for suggestions and comments from on-campus readers.
3. The program sends the completed self-study to the two consultants selected in step 1.
4. As arranged with the on-site consultant, a site visit takes place. Typically, the program will have scheduled consultant interviews with the program's students, faculty, and chair, the college dean, the graduate dean (if appropriate), the assistant provost, and the provost.
5. The consultants confer, prepare a written evaluation of the program under review, and send the evaluation to the program. The program immediately forwards copies to the college dean, the undergraduate or graduate dean, and the Office of the Provost.
6. Within four weeks, the program prepares a written response to the consultants' evaluation and forwards copies of the response to the college dean, the undergraduate or graduate dean, and the Office of the Provost.
7. The Office of the Provost notifies other parties as appropriate.

Figure 3: External Review Information Flow, Non-Accredited Programs

Budget for External Review

The February notification for non-accredited programs undergoing external review during the following year includes information about current UCA expectations for Existing Program Review honoraria and other expenses. In general, the program being reviewed is expected to pay honoraria; the provost will underwrite travel expenses, hotel, and meals. The Existing Program Review budget assumes that the on-campus consultant will visit for one day only. For further information, check with the Office of the Provost.

Self-Study Guidelines

General Note

At the heart of a useful self-study for program review is a question: What is the program's performance in relation to its purposes/goals and its intended outcomes/objectives? To answer that question, a program offers evidence and analysis in support of conclusions reached on the basis of agreed-upon criteria. It stands to reason that the value of the conclusions reached will depend on the soundness and persuasiveness of the evidence offered and the analysis performed. The self-study requires identification of external reference points and disciplinary/professional best practices to ensure an appropriate context for the evidence, analysis, and evaluation.

Self-Study Outline

NB: The order of elements in this outline is not set in stone; it has, however, been chosen to provide a reasonable progression of information, ideas, and evaluation. UCA's plan for Existing Program Review has specifically allowed for additional components or materials as a program sees fit. Evidence for conclusions drawn should include the views of as many constituents as is appropriate to the particular matter being considered.

1. Title Page
2. Introduction
   1. Program history, purposes, and description, including alignment of the program with university mission/purposes
   2. Program's student "outputs" over time: number of majors and minors, number of graduates, information about graduates' placements (e.g., graduate or professional school, discipline-related employment, etc.). This sort of information is generally reported as annual numbers during the years covered by the self-study.
   3. Summary response to the last program review
   4. Identification of the program's external reference points and disciplinary/professional best practices supported in the literature. External reference points might include benchmark programs at other institutions, published professional standards, and government-/foundation-sponsored (e.g., NSF) criteria.
3. Physical and Financial Resources
   1. Description
   2. Evaluation in relation to external reference points and best practices
   3. Conclusions: strengths and concerns
4. Faculty and Staff Resources
   1. Description
   2. Evaluation in relation to external reference points and best practices
   3. Conclusions: strengths and concerns
5. Curriculum
   1. Description
   2. Evaluation in relation to external reference points and best practices
   3. Conclusions: strengths and concerns
6. Assessment of Program Outcomes, Including Student Learning Outcomes
   This is the evaluative heart of the self-study, focusing on the program's performance in relation to its intended outcomes or objectives. For five "essential questions" to be answered when reporting outcomes assessment activities and results, see General Reporting Guidelines.
   1. Description of assessment plan and processes
   2. Results of assessment
   3. Conclusions: strengths and concerns
7. Program Improvement
   This section brings together in one place the evaluative material from all the other sections of the self-study, presenting in summary format the strengths and concerns identified in those evaluations and outlining the program's planned responses. The outline of planned responses should clearly set forth a plan for action for each area of concern, including specific information about steps to be taken, their sequence, a projected timetable for action, how outcomes of the plan of action will be evaluated, and person(s) responsible for action.

Internal Review Process and Information Flow for All Programs

See the general schedule, above. The following list and Figure 4, below, detail the process.

1. The department completes its response to the appropriate internal review form (Form EPR-I-UC or Form EPR-I-GC), both available for download.
2. The department submits all internal review documents (the form as cover sheet, the departmental response, the last external evaluation, and the assessment report) to the college dean; the dean forwards all materials, with her/his review, to the Undergraduate or Graduate Council.
3. 3. The Undergraduate or Graduate Council reviews the documents and responds to the department, forwarding copies of the internal review documents and the council's response to the Office of the Provost and the college dean.

Figure 4: Internal Review Information Flow, All Programs

Return to top of page.