Comprehensive Program Review

Assessment Resources

Planning
Completed Comprehensive Program Reviews
2016-17
  • BBA - General Administration
  • BSED - Early Childhood/Special Education
  • BS - Middle Grades Education
  • BS - Nursing (Pre-Licensure)
  • BS - Nursing (RN to BSN)
2017-18
  • BS - Health Sciences
  • BS - Biological Sciences
  • AS - Radiologic Sciences

Parameters
The reporting vehicle does not supplant institutional academic program review processes. Institutional processes are to remain intact. It is intended that the reporting vehicle becomes a standardized form that all institutions use to submit to USG. For any sections of the reporting vehicle that do not apply to specific academic programs (e.g., institution only awards associate and baccalaureate level degrees and majors), please indicate not applicable (“NA”) in spaces provided throughout the document. Consistent with academic program reviews, the attached reporting vehicle is a succinct representation of the institution’s demonstration that it has assessed an academic program and made decisions about its future within a culture of evidence. Academic program reviews will be used for continuous improvement and the adjustment of programs within an institution’s mission, strategic plan, and sector within the university system.

Unit of Analysis

The academic program is the unit of analysis. Data resources involve a combination of university system reports, research and policy analysis databases and reports, academic unit data, institutional data from Banner, Cognos, and other student and academic information systems, institutional assessments, unit self-studies, and/or external reviews. The metrics include qualitative and quantitative measures of progress that provide an institutional context, environmental scan, academic and geographic indicators, and factors specific to the discipline, degree, major, and institution. Information used in preparation for regional and disciplinary accreditation reports as well as external funding agencies and federal agencies may also be replicated where applicable in the reporting vehicle. It is preferable that the final narrative summary of the comprehensive program review be succinct and simultaneously provides enough detail for institutional context such that the result is contained to a maximum of ten (10) pages. Narrative sections are included throughout the document within categorical indicators of productivity, viability, and quality to provide institutional flexibility in relaying contextual and disciplinary narratives when discussing programmatic health. The institutional provost/vice president for academic affairs (or designee) has the final signature/sign-off on completed academic report summaries for comprehensive program review.

Accessibility and Final Institutional Approval

To assist the provost/vice president for academic affairs in sharing the information with academic deans and department heads, the blank form will be available on the public academic programs website at the following url: http://www.usg.edu/academic_programs/changes underneath the section entitled “Program & Curriculum Changes.”

Upon completion and appropriate signature, the provost/vice president for academic affairs (or designee) will fill out corresponding institutional identification information (e.g., name of institution, name of academic program, date, etc. in drop-down boxes) and submit the document to sharepoint as an attachment. It is recommended that the document be completed, reviewed, scanned as a .pdf, and then provided as an attachment to the comprehensive program review site. The mechanism for submitting and attaching documents/files is similar to that used for uploading new programs.

powered by finalsite