Academic program review

Mission: 

Department/program reviews at Linfield University will promote collaborative, systematic and deliberative assessment of the curriculum, the programs, the allocation of resources (both human and material), and any other issues of concern.

The review process should engage all department members in a reflective self-study. Respected colleagues will be invited to assist in the departmental review of courses and curricular connections. These reviews are meant to identify departmental/programmatic strengths and weaknesses, linkages across the institution and potential programmatic directions in light of developments their fields.

Departmental/program reviews take place on a rotating basis every seven years.  Those departments/programs required to meet external accrediting review standards may request the dean to consider the accrediting review a substitute for the university review cycle.  Substitutions will be determined on a case by case basis, depending upon the requirements of the accrediting review process compared to the Linfield process.

The Program Review process will consist of a Self-study, an External Review and a Follow-up Plan for implementing change.

 Self-Study: Self-studies should involve all members of the department.  They should include:

• Overview and mission of the program (e.g., statement of purpose, currency, coherence (systematic/logical connections among courses), uniqueness of program; goals for major/structure of curriculum; recent or impending changes)
• Expectations for student learning in the major and the minor, how the department assesses these, and current outcomes based on that assessment
• Curricular relationship with other departments in interdisciplinary study and other majors where appropriate; why and when the course content is needed for this department’s curriculum and the effectiveness of that coursework in the learning outcomes within the department, how the department assesses these, and current outcomes based on that assessment
• Contributions to the general education program of the institution; the degree to which course learning goals incorporate the general education learning goals, how the department assesses these, and current outcomes based on that assessment
• Departmental contributions to strategic principles/themes, as interpreted by the department:

o   global/multicultural learning; integrative learning; experiential learning (e.g., internships, fieldwork, co-curricular and extra-curricular experience)

o   Advising (effectiveness of program of mentoring students in the major/minor)/frequency and nature of student-faculty contact outside of classroom;

o   Scholarly/creative/professional development of faculty; include updated CV of all faculty  teaching in last 3 years

o   Resources: sufficiency of faculty, financial and administrative support, program-specific resources, university-wide resources such as Library; physical facilities, technology, etc.)

o   Student outcomes: graduate school admissions, employer satisfaction, alumni satisfaction (as available)

o   Analysis of self-study, highlighting strengths, weaknesses and strategic questions for the External Review Team for which the department/program is specifically interested in receiving feedback

 External Review Process: Appropriate logistical support for the visit will be provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. 

• The External Review Team shall consist of one disciplinary expert from outside of Linfield, preferably from a liberal arts university similar to Linfield, and one faculty member from a different school or division at Linfield (or from another department in the Division that is substantially different from the department under review)
• Review team members will be nominated by the department but final selection rests with the VP for Academic Affairs/Provost
• The Self-study report will be made available to the Review Team approximately 4 weeks prior to the visit
• During the visit, the Team members should be provided with a tour of university facilities relevant to the program, and the opportunity to communicate with:

• VPAA/Provost plus Department Chair (once at the start and a second time just before the closing session with the department – see e. below)
• Department members as a group and individually
• Students (majors, minors)
• Colleagues from allied departments
• University Librarian
• Alumni (as available)
• Others (e.g., Field placement supervisors, Cooperating teachers)

• The Review Team visit schedule will include an early orientation session and a closing session at the end of the visit, both with the department. The latter session is for the Review Team to outline verbally the observed departmental strengths and weaknesses, and to give a preliminary indication of major recommendations to be expected, as shared in the second meeting with the dean.

Follow-Up

• Within 5 working days, the External Review Team will provide a written version (bullet format) of the verbal remarks previously shared with the dean, chair and department at the conclusion of the visit.
• The Review team will provide the complete written report to the Chair of the academic program or department being reviewed and the Dean within four weeks of the visit (the payment of the final stipend is contingent upon receipt of the report).  The written report should be succinct and list specific commendations and recommendations and suggested strategies/resources for the department/program to review.  The External Review Team will also identify/prioritize the recommendations that are most crucial for the program under review.
• Departments will have approximately two weeks to review the report and append any factual corrections.
• Within approximately two months of the visit, there will be a follow-up meeting with the department chair and the dean to discuss explicit departmental proposed changes and the departmental task list for implementing changes.
• The follow-up process and timeline will be adjusted to reflect the realities of external accreditation processes.
• In each annual departmental report to the dean, the department/program will report on progress made in each area designated for further review.
• Departments that receive a review documenting significant difficulties (as determined in consultation with the dean) are expected to address those concerns expeditiously and will be supported in the completion of a “mid-course” external review within two to three years of the original review.