Procedure for Periodic
Review
of
Academic Departments
and Schools
I. Purpose
Regular, periodic reviews of academic departments and
schools provide a formal process for thorough, fact-based documentation and
evaluation of academic programs and the infrastructure supporting them, and for
setting and acknowledging plans for their growth and improvement. The distinctive feature of these reviews is
that they focus uniquely on evaluation of the academic department as an
integrated whole, and on the way the department’s resources are managed to promote
its overall success.
II. Review
Cycle
Each academic department/school will be reviewed on
either a five-year or a six-year cycle.
Departments/schools whose degrees are accredited by ABET will be
reviewed on the ABET six-year cycle so the efficiency and effectiveness of data
collection and evaluation can be maximized.
The
The review cycle shall be reviewed annually to
accommodate changes in accrediting times, schedules, or cycles.
III. Responsibility
and Locus of the Review
Reviews are initiated by the Provost by memo to the cognizant Dean(s). The Dean works with the Department Chair
to set out a detailed time line, to identify specific elements of the review,
and to identify two external reviewers and one internal reviewer. For units
with graduate programs, the Dean of the
IV. Schedule
A. Departments/schools
to be reviewed will be identified in the fall for reviews to be conducted
during the following academic year.
B. Self-studies
will be completed by the end of the fall semester of the review year.
C. Off-campus
reviewers will be identified during the fall semester of the review year.
D. The self-study
will be provided to outside reviewers by the second week of the spring
semester.
E. The visit to
campus by the external reviewers will be completed by the eighth week of spring
term, with the reviewers’ reports due in the Dean’s(s’) office by the end of the eleventh
week.
F. The Dean
(and if the review includes a department with a graduate program, the Dean of
the
G. The
Department will provide the dean of the college, or the School will provide the
Provost, with its Departmental Review Summary Report (described below) by
October 15.
H. The
cognizant Dean forwards to the Provost the departmental report and the
Dean’s(s’) commentary
and analysis by end of October.
I. The
Provost reports the findings of the review to the Board of Control in a timely
fashion.
V. The
Self Study
A. The
department or school under review prepares a self-study. The principal author
may be the chair or a committee. The
final document should represent a departmental consensus, when possible.
B. The
self study shall contain, but not be limited to, the following statements and
analyses:
1. Departmental
mission and vision statements
2. Quantitative
data – faculty, staff, facilities, budgets, students, rates of retention and
degree completion, placement after graduation, faculty scholarship and
funding. Institutional Analysis will
provide basic data using a uniform template and clearly defined units. The department may provide additional data as
they deem helpful.
3. Results
from surveys of graduates and their employers, as appropriate
4. Report on
assessment of student academic success
5. Recent initiatives
and their evaluation
6. Goals for
the future
C. Supplemental information shall be presented in an
Appendix. Each Appendix shall be
given a number.
D. The Self Study shall conclude with responses to
questions on five broad issues (synoptic questions) that form an important part
of the departmental evaluation as described in Attachment 1.
VI. External
Reviewers
Two
senior academic faculty members, department chairs, deans or similar
individuals of significant professional stature in a field central to the
department under review will serve as external reviewers. The department, the cognizant Dean and the
Dean of the
VII. Internal
Reviewer
The
cognizant Dean, in consultation with the Chair and the
Dean of the
VIII. Review
Summary Report
The
department/school then prepares for the Dean(s’) a document consisting of a
one-page executive summary, the self-study, the reviewers’ reports, the
department’s/school’s response to the reviewers’ reports, and a comprehensive
summary. The comprehensive summary will
bring together all that has been learned through the review, and will draw
conclusions that serve as the basis for future growth and improvement. The final section of the Summary Report will
be an itemized action plan with mileposts, dates and responsible parties for
each item. The action plan should
include significant items that are not dependent on new resources from the
general fund. Separately, the department
shall prepare a listing of the principal observations and comments made by the
reviewers in their reports as well as a listing of the reviewers’ principal
recommendations for submittal to the Provost.
IX. Dean’s(s’)
Evaluation
The
School or College Dean and the Dean of the Graduate School (if a graduate
program was reviewed) shall consult in preparing their respective reports to
the Provost, but each dean shall provide the Provost with a separate written
response to the review (with a copy to the department chair).
X. Provost’s Report
The
Provost will communicate the findings of the review to the Board of Control in
a timely fashion.
XI. History
of Revisions or Changes
Attachment A
There are five synoptic
questions to be addressed by all departments and schools under review:
1. In what ways does your unit support both the
University’s and your college’s/school’s mission and vision statements?
2. In what ways does your unit intersect with the
University’s current strategic planning statement?
3. In what ways does your unit promote a positive image
of MTU beyond the University (locally, regionally, nationally)?
4. In what ways does your unit contribute to
interdisciplinary education and/or research?
5. In what ways does your unit integrate its undergraduate
program(s), graduate program(s) (if applicable), research, and scholarly
activities?
Supplemental
questions provided by the Dean of Graduate School:
1. In what ways does your unit manage the
sometimes-competing needs for resources generated by graduate and undergraduate
programs?
2. In what
ways does your unit demonstrate leadership in the growth of your discipline?