This is an archived version of the policy. See current university policy here
PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM REVIEWS
(Approved: UFC 4/13/93)
The Educational Policies Committee has slightly revised and endorsed the following procedures for program review that were initially formulated by the Academic Cabinet. The purpose of the recommendations is to regularize the process of program review throughout the system while at the same time leaving to each unit sufficient latitude to define the parameters of the review in the light of its own particular mission. Accordingly, the EPC recommends:
- 1. that Indiana University implement a campus-based system of regular periodic (once every 5–7 years) program reviews of individual departments and schools [Regular accrediting and professional organization review may serve this purpose.];
- 2. that the reviews be conducted by the chancellor/provost or dean (for large units);
- 3. that the reviews make use of outside peer reviewers who are mutually agreeable to the faculty of the unit and the dean or chancellor/provost;
- 4. that the faculty of the unit under review prepare a mission statement for the unit and a statement of goals to be used by the appointing officer in charging the outside reviewers;
- 5. that there be within one year a follow-up to the report of the outside reviewers indicating the steps taken to address the report, with copies to the outside reviewers;
- 6. that all reviews address certain essential questions:
- a. What are the students learning? Is the curriculum of the unit consistent with the unit’s mission?
- b. Are the teaching, research, and service activities of the faculty consistent with the unit’s mission?
- c. Is the unit better than, the same as, or worse than it was five (seven) years ago?
- d. What changes are needed in the next five (seven) years?
- 7. that the unit under review and the outside reviewers have support services to provide certain items of information useful in assessing progress, such as the number of graduates, retention, external grants and contracts, the diversity of the faculty and student body;
- 8. that each chancellor/provost and dean submit to the Chair of the Academic Cabinet at the end of each year a list of programs that were reviewed that year.