Appendix A

Comprehensive Review Process 

Note: Program self-study reports and all evidence to support self-study must be submitted via AEFIS Assessment Management System starting in January 2020. Training and support will be provided by SCSU’s Office of Assessment & Accreditation. The overall self-study and each section will have word limits in place.  

Step 1: Program Self-study Preparation 

As part of the self-study process, all programs will prepare a self-study report with the following sections. The self-study should specifically address data and measures provided by the university, as well as program and college specific data collected through local assessment and evaluation efforts. All claims made in the self-study must be supported by documented evidence, which will be loaded into the evidence folders within the assessment management system. Items in the evidence folder will not be included in the word count.  

Section 1: Outcomes and Achievements [maximum: 1000 words]:   

1. Based on evidence from assessment and evaluation efforts, describe the outcomes and achievements of the department/program over the last six years. Specifically provide evidence that demonstrates the quality and effectiveness of the department or program. Provide peer comparisons whenever possible.   
2. Describe changes to your department over the last six years and provide your interpretation of the department or program’s performance on those measures.  

Institutional Metrics: 

• Graduate Placement Outcomes [source: Graduate Placement Survey] 
• Student retention and completion rates [source: student record data] 
• Student retention and completion gap [source: student record data] 
• Student belonging index [source: student survey] 
• Student satisfaction [source: student survey] 
• Alumni satisfaction [source: alumni survey] 

Section 2: Programs and Services [maximum: 2500 words]: 

1. Program Quality: This section must be linked directly to evidence acquired through assessment and evaluation of the program, including the direct and indirect assessment of student learning outcomes. 
   1. Current Assessment Results: The following should be uploaded in AEFIS assessment management system (this section is not included in word count): 
      1. Student learning outcomes for each program 
      2. Department/program assessment plan  
      3. Copies of the last five annual assessment findings and reports 
   2. Provide a summary of major changes you have made as a result of assessment findings (program, course, Our Husky Compact, and Liberal Education Program) 
   3. Distinctive Program Characteristic: How do your current program outcomes align with professional standards and/or career options for your graduates? 
   4. Describe examples of discipline-specific best practices and program innovation that have occurred in your program since your last program review.  
   5. Distinctive Program Characteristic: What are the applied and experiential learning requirements or opportunities for your program? How are these aligned with your program outcomes? 
   6. Describe your current process for ensuring instructional quality within your program? Provide evidence that this process is effective. 
2. Student Success and Engagement: 
   1. Distinctive Program Characteristic: How does the program provide individualized student support (i.e. Navigate, Student Success Maps, Huskies Advance, other) 
   2. Provide a brief description of how students are advised in your program? Provide evidence that this process is effective. (Include a copy of the full departmental advising plan in the evidence file) 
   3. Describe any co‐curricular activities that support achievement of your program outcomes (student leadership development, volunteering or community engagement, academic clubs and organizations, research/scholarship/creative projects). 
   4. Distinctive Program Characteristic: How does your program provide ongoing, life-long learning opportunities in your field? 
3. Program Demand and Potential: Assertions in this section must be supported by internal demand and/or market data.  
   1. What is the current and future demand for the program?  
   2. How will the program respond to current and future local, regional, state and/or national needs? 
   3. What does data indicate about employment opportunities in the careers your students pursue? What are the projections for the growth in jobs that your graduates are likely to pursue? 
   4. How is this program distinctive or unique? Are similar programs offered elsewhere in the state?  
   5. What is the potential for alternative program delivery (online, Alnwick, Plymouth, 2+2, etc.) 

Institutional Metrics: 

• Program enrollment over the past 6 years [source: student record data] 
• Program average market share over past 6 years [source: student record data] 
• Employer demand for program graduates [source: DEED data] 
• Assessment Policy Compliance [source: AEFIS] 
• Meta-assessment results [source: AEFIS] 
• OHC Assessment Participation and Outcomes [source: AEFIS] 
• LEP Assessment Participation and Outcomes [source: AEFIS] 
• Program faculty participation in EAB Navigate [source: EAB Navigate] Instructional quality of program [source: student survey 

Section 3: Constituents and External Stakeholders [maximum: 1500 words] 

1. Needs assessment:
   1. Distinctive Program Characteristic: Who are the external stakeholders/partners for the department or program? [Information should be updated in SCSU’s Partnership Inventory. Not included in word count] 
   2. How does the department or program learn about the needs, perceptions and priorities of constituents and external stakeholders, such as employers, graduate schools, educational and community partners, and alumni? 
   3. How has needs assessment data informed program and service revision and development? 
2. Collaboration: Describe your current and possible future collaborations with:
   1. Other units within St. Cloud State University, especially as they relate to the 4 Areas of Distinction (Health, Leadership, Education, Engineering & Applied Science) 
   2. Other colleges and universities within MnSCU 
   3. Other colleges and universities nationally, and internationally 
   4. Community organizations, business, industry, and government 
3. Community Engagement:  
   1. How does the program/faculty contribute to the community?  
   2. How does the department share its expertise with local groups or organizations?  
   3. How does the department sponsor activities which are open to and/or benefit the community? 

Institutional metrics: 

• Employer/partner satisfaction [source: partners and employers survey] 
• Community engagement activity of program faculty [source: partners and employers survey] 
• Applied research and scholarship activity of program faculty [source: partners and employers survey] 

Section 4: Strategic and Resource Planning [maximum: 1000 words] 

1. Provide your current department/program mission and strategic plan, including date of last revision (not included in word count)
2. How does the department or program align with and support the University and college/school mission, vision and strategic plan?
3. Provide an evaluation of currently available department resources (financial, library holdings, facilities, equipment, technology, etc.). What resource adjustments or reallocations will need to occur to address future programmatic needs as well as those of students?
4. Assuming current rates of funding for students and existing resources, what programmatic changes will need to occur to address these resource constraints?

Institutional Metrics: 

• Revenue/cost ratio [source: system HR and finance data] 
• Productivity ratios [source: system HR and finance data] 

Section 5: Faculty and Staff [maximum: 1000 words] 

1. Provide a current or update existing vita for all faculty and staff in the department or program in the AEFIS faculty qualifications system (not included in word count). How does the faculty members' professional training and experience relate to the academic program(s) offered?  
2. How does the program support the Engaged Teacher/Scholar Model? What are the faculty members' activities relative to University, college and departmental goals, teaching, scholarly activity/research, student growth, and community service? 
3. How does the department or program create a positive climate within the area and facilitate personal and professional development of its faculty and staff?  
4. How are contingent faculty trained and supported to ensure that programmatic quality and student support is maintained? 
5. What are the long-term hiring needs of the department or program? How does the unit promote the recruitment and hiring of diverse faculty and staff? 

Institutional Metrics: 

• % of program faculty with current vitae on file [source: AEFIS] 
• Employee engagement and satisfaction [source: employee survey] 
• Diversity of department faculty and staff [source: Office of Institutional Equity & Access] 

Section 6: Leadership and Governance [maximum: 1000 words] 

1. Describe the process by which departmental or programmatic decisions are made. Provide the current department/program policies and procedures, including the dates of the most recent revisions (not included in word count).  
2. How does your department/program encourage engagement and innovation among all members of the unit in both department activities and programs?  
3. How does the department or program contribute to the institution? How are faculty members involved in university-‐wide committee work?  

Institutional Metrics: 

• Employee engagement and satisfaction [source: employee survey] 

Section 7: Future Direction and Continuous Improvement [maximum: 1500 words] 

This section should provide a self-‐evaluation of the program's strengths, weaknesses, and possible future directions based on assessment and evaluation findings, changing student demographic, market and trend data, and information on disciplinary changes, best practices, student interest, etc.) 

1. What are the changing dimensions of the discipline? How are the needs of graduates and employers changing? What changes will need to occur within your department's offerings/programs in order to respond? 
2. What is the program’s plans for new and/or alternative program delivery, especially as they relate to the 4 Areas of Distinction (Health, Leadership, Education, Engineering & Applied Science) 
3. What support will the program need to implement these plans? 

Step 2: External Review and Follow-up 

At the beginning of the review process, the Dean will work with the programs in the college or school to identify an appropriate panel of external reviewers that fit the program portfolio of the college/school and that align with the strategic needs and interests of the college. The programs can submit 3-5 names of potential reviewers to the Dean for consideration. Programs are encouraged to consider reviewers with both disciplinary and industry/sector experience and expertise. The Dean of the Graduate School also should be consulted to ensure the specific needs of the graduate programs within the college or school are addressed. The Dean will make the final determination about the number and expertise of the external review panel and the structure of the visit(s) based on the strategic and programmatic needs of the college or school.  

The reviewers’ final written report(s) should be sent directly to the Dean for distribution to the programs. The department will prepare a written response to the reviewers' report and give it to the Dean within three weeks of receiving the report. The department should respond to statements and recommendations made by the review team. 

Timeline 

The final Comprehensive Review Timeline for each college and school will be determined by the Dean but the following is a suggested timeline: 

• Preparation of the program self-‐study reports is begun in spring of the year prior to the review and completed by March 1 of the review year. 
• External review process (consultants' visit, departmental response, etc.) to be completed by May 15 of the review year. 
• By September 1 of the year following the review, the Dean must provide a copy of the self-‐study reports, the consultants' reports, departmental responses, and the Dean’s written comments to the Office of Academic Affairs and the Office of Assessment and Accreditation for institutional documentation.  

Step 3: College Program Portfolio Assessment 

Based on the results of Comprehensive Review of each program, the Dean will update the college/school Program Portfolio Management (PPM) matrices and 3-year Program Development Plan using the following review and consultation process (Appendix B): 

1. The Dean shares the college/school PPM matrices, associated strategies, and 3-year Program Development Plan with the college/school Dean’s Academic Council (DAC), faculty, and staff.  
2. Dean submits updated PPM matrices, associated strategies, and 3-year Program Development Plan framework to Provost for discussion. 
3. Provost and/or President share key recommendations with Deans Council, FA Executive Committee, Strategic Planning Committee, and others as deemed appropriate. 
4. Dean engages appropriate units across the University and impacted departments to create the 3-year Program Development Plans and associated implementation plans and timelines.   

The resulting effort will result in the college/school academic plan that will be included as part of the unit’s strategic plan developed during Year 2.