Comprehensive Standard 3.4.1: The institution demonstrates that each educational program for which academic credit is awarded (a) is approved by the faculty and the administration, and (b) establishes and evaluates program and learning outcomes.

Off-site review question:

     With respect to part (b), the institution has not demonstrated that it has established and evaluated programs and learning outcomes for all programs. Approximately 1/3 of the departments listed in the “PIES” database have no entries for their program/learning outcomes and evaluation procedures (e.g, Geology, Modern Languages.) Further, most of the programs listed in the PIES database use evaluation schemes that rely primarily on verifying that students followed the curriculum plus periodic internal review of student work products (i.e., little or no external assessment input beyond the perceptions of the program faculty.)

     In sum, the general framework presented appears to be satisfactory (“PIES”), but it has not yet been fully implemented through all programs and the assessment means in those where it has been implemented seem too internally focused.

Response:

     In the response to a question about Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (above), we point out the source of some possible confusion. Specifically, the PIE Implementation Status report identifies those departments, programs, and general education curriculum requirements for which we have information for the process of institutional effectiveness. At the time of the submission of our Compliance Certification Review, we had not entered all of the submitted data into the Original PIE database. That created some problems, including for example, the impression that “Modern Languages” has not submitted information on institutional effectiveness. In fact, we had entered the data for the various programs within the modern languages, but the data were entered by the specific program (Hispanic Studies, French Studies, and so on), obviating the category “Modern Languages.”

     The following academic departments, programs, and general education requirements were not represented in the PIE database at the time we submitted the compliance review: Art, Biology, Black Studies, English, Freshman Seminars, Geology, Government, General Education Requirements One through Seven, History, Kinesiology, Mathematics, Modern Languages (see above), Psychology, Public Policy, Russian Studies, and Sociology. In addition, we did not enter data for the Schools of Business, Education, and Law. These schools submit data consistent with their accreditation requirements. All Arts and Sciences departments, programs, and general education requirements now are included in the database describing purposes, expectations for student learning, learning experiences, student work for evaluating learning experiences, and decisions oriented to improving student learning. We are working on arrangements for including in the database the appropriate information from the other schools.

     Although it is not clear in our original presentation, all academic departments, programs, and schools use external evaluation procedures. Those procedures have been in place and have been followed actively for nearly twenty years. In the response to Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1, we wrote the following about “program reviews”:

These reviews included student outcomes components. The initial round began in 1988 with a review of undergraduate majors. In that first round, each department and program provided a statement of educational goals, a description of the curriculum, background information on the program, student exit-time assessment of achievements, student and alumni surveys, and overall evaluations by outside evaluators (emphasis added). Department and program faculty members presented plans of action based on the review, and the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences wrote detailed responses. Follow-up reports on the plans were part of the second round of program reviews (see Examples of Program Review Results).

The discussion then describes the review process for the second round and the events that have shaped the review process in the years that followed.

We recently have revised the department and program (“external”) review process and integrated it more clearly with the Process of Institutional Effectiveness. The Program Review Handbook describes the external review process and the seven-year cycle for review of all academic departments and programs in Arts and Sciences.

Index for Supporting References: