Academic Affairs Unit Review

Professor and students at Business Quotient launch, FSB
Professor speaks to his class in language lab, CAS
Professor Scott Hartley, wearing protective glasses, talks with students in the lab, CAS
  1. Academic Affairs units involved in this review process include: Academic Personnel, Admissions, Center for American and World Cultures, Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching, Continuing Education, Honors and Scholars Program, Institutional Research, International Education, Liberal Education Program, MUDEC, Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship, Provost’s Office, Secretary to the University, Student Financial Assistance, University Registrar, and the Women’s Center. Dean’s offices to be reviewed include: University Libraries, College of Arts and Science, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Richard T. Farmer School of Business, School of Education and Allied Professions, School of Fine Arts, School of Interdisciplinary Studies, the Graduate School, Hamilton Campus, and Middletown Campus.
  2. Unit review will be conducted on a six-year cycle.
  3. The program or unit head will work with the Provost’s representative to tailor a review process which will effectively evaluate the unit, highlight the unit’s successes, failures, challenges, and opportunities, and enable its future development. Key questions or concerns to be addressed during the review and a reasonable time-line for completion shall be negotiated through this collaboration. Ideally, the review process will be completed within one academic year.
  4. The core of the review is the unit’s self-study with the resulting report to be provided to the Provost and to the external reviewer.
    1. The self-study is to be incisive, not voluminous, and compact appendices should be used for any additional information. The report should emphasize explanation and evaluation and consider issues such as cost effectiveness, administrative efficiency, appropriateness of staffing level, staff morale, and productivity.
    2. The self-study should link the review to any benchmarking or strategic planning exercise in which the unit is participating.
    3. The self-study should include a review of the budget and any available audit reports.
    4. The self-study may be conducted by the unit as a whole and should reflect the views of the constituencies most affected by its operation.
    5. The report shall offer commentary on how the unit has responded to the recommendations of any previous review.
    6. The report shall be no longer than 10 pages. Appendices can be used for statistical data and other information. Résumés and position descriptions for all staff should be provided.
  5. Each unit being reviewed shall be provided with at least one external reviewer with recognized expertise in the field.
    1. When possible, the reviewer should be from a benchmark or aspirant institution.
    2. The external reviewer shall conduct a site visit and have the opportunity to meet with the unit head, faculty, staff, students, relevant administrators, Revised 10/1/2010 2 and representatives of key constituent groups. The reviewer shall also inspect the facilities and resources of the unit.
    3. The external reviewer may also meet privately with the Provost.
    4. The external reviewer shall address a written report to the Provost with copies to the Provost’s representative and the unit head.
    5. At his or her discretion, the unit head may respond in writing to the external reviewer’s report, with that response directed to the Provost.
  6. Units may request assistance from one or more internal reviewers who may provide written feedback on the self-study and external reviewer’s report and/or act as a consultant to the review process.
  7. Following receipt of the self-study, the external review, and any written responses, these reports will be discussed by the Provost with the Provost’s representative, the unit head, and any other individuals identified by the Provost. Subsequently, the Provost will provide the unit with written commentary on the review process and recommendations for the unit.
  8. After a round of program review is completed, the various reports and responses shall be available for review in the Provost’s Office.