The faculty of Georgia Perimeter College has responsibility for the quality of undergraduate instructional programs. Georgia Perimeter College, the Executive Committees, the Academic Affairs Policy Council, and the Provosts and Academic Deans have oversight responsibilities in this area. Through the Executive Committees, in-depth reviews of undergraduate programs following a standard format are conducted approximately once each seven years. The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs initiates a schedule of reviews, notifying the chair and discipline dean of programs proposed for review. (see Appendix IV, Review Schedule).

This initial report will summarize the academic program review plan and process adopted by the institution, outlining the procedures and methods to be used. An initial list of the programs to be reviewed during the institution's full program review cycle is provided.

Self-Study and External Review

Each program under review will conduct a self-study focusing on relevant data such as program admissions, student credit hours, number and percentage of graduates, cost/student credit hour, and resources committed to the program. The self-study should include defined expectations and a measurement of these expectations relative to internal standards and external benchmarks. Following the self-study conducted during the year of the review cycle, the programs will select an external review team. This team of external experts will conduct a site visit in the second half of the review year and submit a report to the college of their findings.

Evaluative Elements

Based on Board of Regents guidelines, appropriate input and evaluative elements of an academic program review include:

Mission - program mission, relation to institution mission, relation to University System mission, needs of students, and demand for graduates

Teaching and Learning, Research and Scholarship, and Service - evaluation of these program functions should include, but may not be limited to, the following kinds of elements:

Students - percent and number of majors and graduates, percent and number of graduates passing professional and qualifying examinations, diversity, selectivity, skills at entry, service course enrollments, program applications compared to program capacity, credit-hour generation, and student learning, satisfaction and evidence of success in meeting student needs and learning outcomes.

Facilities - space (adequacy and condition), cost, technology labs, equipment, library, and other indicators of adequacy of campus infrastructure to support the program.

Curriculum - coherence, currency, relevance to program learning outcomes and student needs, course sequencing or frequency of course offerings, and enrollment patterns.

Other Learning and Service Activities - advising, tutoring, internships, service learning, practica, study abroad, and career planning and placement.

Research and Scholarship - faculty and student involvement, productivity, reputation, level of financial support, mentoring and development opportunities for new faculty.

Service - projects completed and outcomes (program, division/school/college, institution, community and/or region levels) and contributions to mission.

The following performance indicators should be addressed in all program reviews.

Dedicated Resources (Human, Physical, Fiscal)

Faculty qualifications. The program meets all regional accreditation requirements for faculty qualifications. It is suggested that the program meet discipline-based accreditation requirements, whether or not special accreditation is sought.

Faculty/student ratio. The program reports the faculty/student ration and demonstrates that it is adequate and efficient for its mission. (Suggested: The faculty/student ratio meets the standard recommended by accrediting organizations.)

Instructional technology. The program demonstrates that instructional technology is current and is adequate for the institution's mission.

Facilities and non-instructional technical support. The program demonstrates that its physical facilities and non-instructional technical support are current and adequate for the program's mission.

Learning resources for faculty and students. The program demonstrates that the library and other information resources are current and adequate for the mission and that they meet the requirements of the relevant accreditation body.

Budget Resources. There is evidence that the program has financial resources necessary to support its teaching, research, and outreach efforts as appropriate to program and institutional mission.

Program, Learning, and Service Outcomes

Faculty/graduate ratio. The program's faculty/graduate ratio is computed and judged to be appropriate to the program's mission.

Success of graduates. The program's graduates find appropriate employment or meet post-graduation educational goals in light of market trends and the needs of the state.

Scholarly contribution. The program's scholarly productivity is appropriate to the mission of the program and the institution.

Community services and outreach. The program's activity in community service and outreach is appropriate to the mission of the program and institution.

Retention rates. The program demonstrates that retention rates are appropriate for the program and the student population.

Student learning outcomes. Graduates of the program demonstrate that the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors of general education have been maintained and advanced. Graduates of the program exhibit mastery of their discipline.

Processes

Curriculum review. The program demonstrates that periodic review of the curriculum (focusing on coherence, level, and comparison with similar programs) is carried out, based on assessment of learning outcomes and other types of feedback, such as practice in the field.

Design of learning experiences. Learning experiences are designed to reinforce the general attributes of a college graduate through recognized good practices such as the following:

High expectations of students
Coherence in learning
Synthesizing experiences
Integrating education and experience
Active learning
Ongoing practice of learned skills
Prompt feedback to students
Collaborative learning
Significant time on task
Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning

Attrition rates. The program monitors attrition rates in light of similar rates for comparator institutions, with particular attention to sub-populations of the student body. The program demonstrates that it has a process in place to monitor and promote student progress.

In addition, institutional program review plans must meet the requirements of the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Criteria, Section 3.1. (in part):

The institution must develop guidelines and procedures to evaluate educational effectiveness, including the quality of student learning and of research and service. This evaluation must encompass educational goals at all academic levels and research and service functions of the institution. The evaluation of academic programs should involve gathering and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate student achievement. Measures to evaluate academic programs and general education may include the following: evaluation of instructional delivery; adequacy of facilities and equipment; standardized tests; analysis of these, portfolios, and recitals; completion rates; results of admissions tests for students applying to graduate or licensing examinations; evaluations by employers; follow-up studies of alumni; and performance of student transfers at receiving institutions. The institution must evaluate its success with respect to student achievement in relation to student achievement in relation to purpose, including as appropriate, consideration of course completion, state licensing examinations, and job placement rates.

At the minimum, the Review Committee is to be comprised of the Executive Committee of the reviewed program, any additional members of the Faculty (who may or may not be members of the Executive Committee), the Discipline Dean, and one student. Additional participants may be desirable, especially external members where professional programs are involved. The inclusion of a representative of the employing profession may be particularly helpful.

The External Review

The external reviewers to be used in the second phase of the review should be highly knowledgeable and reputable leaders in the field under review (see Appendix I, Guidelines for External Reviewers).

A major initial step in the program review process is the preparation of a departmental self-study. Self-study is process, not print. In order to derive maximum benefits from the external review effort, it is crucial that the "self-study" be approached as a process of communication and planning rather than as an exercise in generating paper. The self-study is an opportunity for departmental colleagues to review departmental accomplishments, to share concerns and aspirations, and to develop long-term vision and strategies. The self-study report simply documents the matters considered during self-study and the conclusions emerging from that process.

Following review of the self-study report, the External Reviewers are scheduled for and will conduct a site visit in the department. The site visit is typically one and a half days in length, but may be extended if deemed desirable by the Committee. Responsibility for the schedule and agenda of the site visit should be assumed jointly by the chairs of the program being reviewed and the chair of the Executive Committee. The visit allocates time to interview the discipline dean(s), the department chairs, faculty, staff, and students. Confidentiality must be assured in these discussions. Additional materials may be requested and reviewed at this time if appropriate. Time should also be arranged for any faculty or staff member or undergraduate student who wishes to have a private meeting with the Review Committee. The Committee also examines the instructional facilities used by the program. The opportunity should be extended for additional feedback to the Committee after the site visit, to allow input from faculty and students who may not be present at the site visit, or who may have follow-up comments. At the conclusion of the site visit, the Committee, in executive session, should allocated time to review its findings and discuss its sense of the review. This is a particularly important opportunity to share the observations of the external reviewers. Following this discussion the Committee should agree upon format, content, and assignments for various components of its review report.

When the External Reviewers have completed their review, they prepare a report of their findings. This report provides evaluations and recommendations. The contributions of the external reviewers and other committee members will be integrated into a single report. No format is specified for this report, but it should address the quality, vitality, and direction of the academic program being reviewed in coordination with the Board of Regents guidelines. It should also comment on the quality of the students in the program, the productivity of the faculty, the leadership of the program, and the continued relevance of the program. It is essential that all Committee members agree upon the structure and nature of the report, and the responsibility for preparation of its various sections. Unless the Committee agrees otherwise, the creation of the draft and final version of the report are the responsibility of the Executive Committee chair and discipline dean(s).

A draft of the Review Committee's report(s) should be completed within thirty days of the site visit and circulated to Committee members for their input. Following this, a final draft is to be submitted to the Provosts and the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs no more than two months following the site visit. After factual information has been confirmed, the report will be formally reviewed by the Executive Committee.

BOR Report