APR - Degree Review Process Steps

---

APR-Degree Review is a five-step process at WKU for non-accredited programs.  For accredited programs, steps 2, 3, and 4 are generally covered with the external accreditation report (see the end of this page for notes).

 

Step 1: Initiation of Program Review

Each year, in late spring (i.e., May), the Provost’s Office will ask the dean’s offices to provide an update on program review activity in their colleges. The information provided in this response is used to compile annual reports to CPE.

When a program review is pending (usually at the end of spring semester), the dean will issue a program review charge memo to the lead member of the program faculty, usually the department chair and cc Provost’s Office.  The charge must include the following elements:

• A request that the self-study/studies be written,
• A list of the department’s academic program(s) (degrees/majors) to be reviewed,
• For accredited programs, a statement about their accreditation status and how that will relate to the APR report and process,
• A request for five names of possible external reviewers with a brief rationale for each, due by October 15,
• A link to the guidelines for structuring the self-study report (university guidelines),
• Information on additional resources to guide and inform the review, including data resources (link to resources),
• A description of specific items or issues to be addressed,
• The due date for completion and submission of the self-study, and
• A copy of the dean’s final summary from the most recent review of the academic program (if applicable).

 

Step 2: Self-Study Report

The program faculty prepare a self-study report according to the instructions in the charge memo. In using the template provided, faculty should respond to the italicized directions at the beginning of each section giving careful attention to the bulleted questions below.  As noted above, most accredited programs will be allowed to submit an annotated report and an abbreviated template for their APR self-study—see final note on accredited programs.

A typical self-study report should be in the range of 15–25 pages for degrees/majors, not including appendices (accredited programs will submit their full self-studies—see note). Guiding principles for the self-study report include:

• Focusing on the recent past and key points over the review period as context for present and future improvements,
• Concentrating on the academic program and student experience,
• Reviewing program learning goals and assessment of learning,
• Understanding the current student experience about academics, advising, climate, and career development,
• Identifying program strengths and recommendations for improvements.

Program review is conducted using data provided by the Office of Institutional Research via Visual Analytics and follows curricula approved at the college level.  Program faculty and administrators are encouraged to consult with Institutional Research, the Graduate School (as appropriate), and other relevant units for information and additional support in gathering information. Anylow levels of enrollment or degree production must be specifically addressed in the review. 

When the self-study is complete, the program faculty formally endorse the report and submit the self-study to the dean, along with the names of the external reviewers upon which the dean and department chair have agreed.

 

Note: In rare circumstances, program faculty may decide that the program should not be continued either before preparing the self‐study, or in the process of conducting it; in such cases they may submit a request to the dean to discontinue the program.

 

Step 3: Review Committee & Visit

The review committee is appointed and convened by the dean, who shares the program’s self-study with the committee. The committee is typically comprised of two members external to WKU and two or more WKU faculty members who are external to the academic program being reviewed. This means they are not in the same department that houses the academic program and are not actively involved (e.g., teaching, executive committee, advising) in the program. Most of the review committee should be tenure-track faculty. Academic staff, including research and pedagogical faculty, may be members of a review committee but should not comprise the majority of a committee. The dean selects the chair of the committee from among the appointed external members.

Department chairs are responsible for coordinating the visit--communicating with committee members, making arrangements for external reviewers, managing logistics, and arranging meetings.

The review committee chair is responsible for setting the meeting agendas, making any specific assignments to review committee members, overseeing the process, producing the report, getting feedback from the committee, and submitting the final report to the dean.

Committees are asked to use the Review Committee Guidelines,Template, and Rubric (attached) and to respond to the italicized directions in each section.  Most review committee reports are brief, 3-10 pages. Ultimately the review committee report must be written and include the following:

• A completed rubric (one per committee),
• A summary of the activities of the review committee and materials reviewed,
• An evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the program, 
• Advice to the program, dean, and/or provost for improving the program, 
• Recommendations for future directions, and
• Specifications for any necessary follow-up action.

The review committee report is submitted to the dean.

 

Step 4: College Discussion and Dean’s Final Summary of Review

The dean discusses the program review documents (i.e., self-study report, review committee report, and any program response) with program faculty and leads a discussion (including any factual errors in the report) about the program review. The dean then prepares a final summary of the review. This summary identifies program strengths and recommendations for improvement or any requirements for follow-up reports that the dean may choose to make to the program.  The dean’s final summary must include the following elements:

• A list of the academic program(s) (i.e., degrees/majors) reviewed,
• A summary of the review committee’s findings, including an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses for the/each program, and
• Recommendations for future directions, and, if applicable, a commitment to provide resources.

This final summary document becomes a public summary of the review and is a very useful document for reference over the time between reviews and at the point of initiating the next program review in the APR cycle. The dean sends the final summary of the review, the self-study report, the review committee’s report, and the program’s response, if any, to the Office of the Provost and (when appropriate) the Graduate School.

 

Step 5: Completing the Review

For all degree programs (graduate and undergraduate) Academic Affairs provides a response to the program coordinator and faculty that the review has been completed.  Academic Affairs uses these documents to report on Academic Review Processes to the CPE.

 

Note for Programs with Specialized Accreditation

If approved by the dean, accredited programs may use their accreditation report as the primary evidence and analysis as part of the WKU APR process. Programs will coordinate with the dean about the appropriate timing to complete APR as it relates to accreditation and follow this general pattern:

1. Program prepares a pdf copy of their final accreditation report with findings for submission to the APR process
2. Program faculty review the standard WKU APR template and cut and paste relevant information from the accreditation report into the template, providing and helpful transitions or context.
3. If issues aren’t addressed for specific categories, program coordinators/departments answer the questions/enter the data into the WKU APR template.
4. Program coordinators and department chairs submit the report and template to deans.
5. Deans or their designees review the accreditation report and check that all APR categories are appropriately covered.  If not, they return report and template to programs, who fill in the gaps and re-submit until the dean is satisfied.
6. If a conversation didn’t happen with the Provost or a designee during the accreditation visit, then faculty will submit the report to them as a basis for a 30-minute, informational, in-person conversation prior to step 5.
7. When the document is complete, Deans and program faculty shift to Step 4: College Discussion and Dean’s Final Summary of Review. If a full conversation occurred with program faculty during the accreditation process, that meeting may count for this step, but deans will still need to provide documentation as required in Step 5.