Academic Program Review
Overview & Process
State law (see Texas Administrative Code in the Appendices) requires that all public doctoral programs and stand-alone master’s programs be externally reviewed on a 10-year cycle. Texas A&M University has elected to review all degree programs, including bachelor’s degrees, within the scope of the Academic Program Review (APR). Programs reviewed by an external accrediting body are not part of the formal APR process described here. However, the findings of any external accrediting body should be submitted to the Provost’s office as evidence of compliance with Texas Administrative Code for the accredited program.
The APR process, coordinated by the office of Academic Effectiveness and Planning, aligns with, and complements, existing measures for assessment and quality enhancement of academic programs across the university. It facilitates discussion about change and strategies for improvement, and it provides the basis for making strategic decisions based on an extensive review from various constituents. APR is an opportunity to realign actions with current priorities of the university, colleges, departments, and programs as articulated in mission statements and strategic plans. APR underpins the process of achieving the university’s goal of continuously improving the quality of all academic programs in the pursuit of excellence.
APR Administrative Team
The APR Administrative Team provides a university perspective for review teams and programs undergoing review.
Alan Sams, Ph.D.
Executive Vice President and Provost Texas A&M University
Alicia Dorsey, Ph.D.
Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness & Planning SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
Michael Johnson, Ph.D.
Associate Provost for Academic Enhancement Interim Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Office of the Provost & Executive Vice President
Blanca Lupiani, Ph.D.
Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Division of Faculty Affairs
Fuhui Tong, Ph.D. '06
Associate Provost and Dean Graduate and Professional SchoolResponsibilities
Office Of The Provost
The Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs:
- Approves nominations of external reviewers
- Hosts entry and exit meetings with members of the External Review Team
- Hosts the post-review meeting
The Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness & Planning:
- Coordinates the 10-year review cycle in ensuring compliance with the university and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) requirements.
- Assists with self-study development
- Reviews self-studies before distribution and ensures timely distribution to members of the ERT and members of the APR Administration Team.
- Prepares the Institutional Response in collaboration with program(s), college(s) leadership, and the APR Administrative Team and submits in a timely manor based on THECB deadlines and procedures.
The APR Coordination Team in the Office of Academic Effectiveness and Planning, provides logistical support for the review. The Executive Assistant to the Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness and Planning:
- Assists with logistical arrangements
- Schedules academic program review dates in consultation with the program
- Schedules all meetings involving the APR Administrative Team
- Contacts potential reviewers on behalf of the Provost
- Facilitates external review team lodging and travel
- Manages all reimbursements to the ERT members and payment of expenses covered by the Office of the Provost.
The Colleges
The college dean's responsibilities include:
- Approving the program’s nomination of peer reviewers
- Reviewing and approving the self-study
- Meeting with the External Review Team during the site visit
- Participating in the post-review meeting with the APR Administrative Team
- Approving follow-up correspondence from the program and monitoring strategies and outcomes in response to the APR and providing additional input from the college’s perspective.
All documentation must be reviewed and approved by the college dean before it is forwarded to the Provost Office.
The Degree Program
Program leadership and faculty have significant responsibilities in preparing for the review and in executing the visit. To assist with this effort, degree programs should closely follow the procedures outlined below.
| Approximate Time Frame | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| 6 months prior to the beginning of the upcoming academic year |
|
| 6 months prior |
|
| 5 months prior to the upcoming academic year |
|
| Spring semester prior to the upcoming academic year through the fall semester |
|
| 1 month prior to the established due date for the final self-study |
|
| 6 weeks prior to the campus visit |
|
| 7-10 days after site visit |
|
| 30 days after receipt of review team's report |
|
| Approx. 6-8 weeks after review |
|
The External Review Team
The external review team participates in and conducts the site visit. The role of the review team is to ensure the integrity of the academic program review, provide valid feedback regarding the status of the program and make recommendations for improvement. The external review members will receive a $1,500 professional fee and will be reimbursed for all travel-related expenses by the Office of the Provost upon completion and transmittal of the final report to the Provost.
External Review Team Charge
- Based on the information provided in the self-study report and gathered by the review team during its campus visit, what are the programs’ overall strengths and weaknesses?
- How well do the programs’ focus and learning outcomes align with the strategic academic goals and priorities of the department, college(s), and those of Texas A&M University?
- How would you compare the program(s) reviewed with those offered by peers? Specifically, do the curriculum, the identified learning outcomes, and overall program outcomes align with similar programs offered at peer institutions? If not, are unique characteristics of the program(s) reviewed a strength or area of concern?
- With only current resources or a modest infusion of new ones, what specific recommendations could improve the programs’ performance, marginally or significantly?
The External Team will be asked to complete an External Review Team Form that asks about each section covered in the self-study.
Academic Review Process
The APR process is initiated by department heads and program directors participating in a mandatory APR Orientation session approximately 6 months prior to the beginning of the academic year in which the review will occur.
The Academic Program Review involves five primary steps or phases completed by department or program leadership and faculty:
- Nominating members for the external review team.
- Preparing the self-study and itinerary for the campus visit.
- Hosting the ERT during its campus visit.
- Developing an action plan based on the self-study and recommendations provided by the ERT.
- Providing a Status Update approximately 1 year after the action plan is finalized.
Nominating The External Review Team
An important task for the Degree Program is to develop a list of 8 to 10 potential reviewers. Nominees should be professionally prominent individuals who have experience not only with undergraduate and graduate programs, but also with teaching, research, and engagement or service components as appropriate. Programs should identify a diverse group of nominees from peer or aspirant peers. A team member who participated in a previous review is recommended, but not required. Programs should coordinate their nominees in consultation with the appropriate college dean.
The list of potential reviewers will contain the following information:
- Complete job title, rank, and name of a reviewer’s department or program (provided in rank orders)
- Nominee's principal area of scholarly activity (related to degree program being reviewed)
- Name of university or organization
- Contact information (full mailing address, e-mail, and telephone number)
- Preference for chair of external review team (top two choices)
Upon receipt of the college-approved peer review candidates, the Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness & Planning will forward the list of candidates to the Provost for approval. After approval by the Provost, selected members will be invited by the Provost.
Review team members selected from the list of potential reviewers will be chosen according to the following criteria:
- External Reviewers must be employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas.
- External Reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline; they will be asked to benchmark Texas A&M’s programs with their peer and aspirant peer programs based on discipline-specific rankings and other publicly available comparisons to graduate programs.
- External Reviewers must affirm that there exists no conflict of interest related to the program under review.
Preference will be given to External Reviewers from peer programs at public, R1, land grant institutions.
Preparing The Self Study Document
The Program’s faculty prepare the self-study prior to review. The self-study is the faculty’s opportunity for self-evaluation and reflection on historical data (the past five years) and aren't challenges and priorities for the future. An analysis within each section of the self-study helps reviewers put the program data into context within the department, college, and larger institution.
A template is provided that clearly outlines the information to be included in each section.
Establishing The Itinerary For The On-Site Visit
External reviewers arrive in College Station by 6:00 p.m. on the first day of the review and will depart the afternoon of the final day of the review. The site visit consists of Entry/Exit Interviews with the APR Administrative Team, various meetings with the dean of the college (or designee), DH/PC, faculty members and students, and tours of degree program facilities. Below is a sample itinerary. This is a suggested itinerary and is flexible with the exception of the breakfasts that are scheduled by the APR Coordinator.
Sample Itinerary - 1 1/2 day option (for Bachelor or Master's (or both) or Doctoral program only)
| Time | Event |
|---|---|
| 2-6pm | Review Team arrives in College Station. |
| 7-9pm | Welcome dinner hosted by DH/PC at local restaurant. Orientation/background will be provided at this time. Those in attendance include DH/PC, associate department heads/chairs and/or other relevant people. |
| Time | Event |
|---|---|
| 7:30-8:30 am | Reviewers eat breakfast at The Texas A&M Hotel (a voucher will be provided in the reviewer’s welcome packet to eat breakfast in the Brazos Restaurant at the hotel) |
| 9-10am | Meet with college dean at The Texas A&M Hotel |
| 10-10:30 am | Meet with DH/PC at The Texas A&M Hotel |
| 11am-12pm | Meet with faculty committees |
| 12-1pm | Lunch (possible brown bag or pizza with grad students) |
| 1-2pm | Meet with faculty in sub-discipline areas |
| 2-3pm | Meet with students |
| 3-4pm | Meet with department heads/program chairs within the same college |
| 4-6pm | Tour degree program facilities |
| 6-9pm | Return to hotel / Dinner / Work session for review team |
| Time | Event |
|---|---|
| 8-9:15am | Exit Meeting and breakfast with APR Administrative Team + dean (or designee) at The Texas A&M Hotel; (degree program will confirm dean’s attendance) |
| 9:30-10:30am | Reviewers debrief degree program leadership at the hotel |
| 10:30-11:30am | Reviewers brief faculty, staff, and students on final report |
| 12pm | Lunch or departure as applicable |
Transportation, Meals, and Lodging
Transportation: Members of the external review team will be making their own travel arrangements. The program is responsible for ground transportation while in College Station.
Meals: The program is responsible for arranging lunch for the External Review Team.
Lodging: Lodging is arranged by the APR Coordinator . Reviewers will stay at The Texas A&M Hotel & Conference Center
Texas A&M Hotel & Conference Center
177 Joe Routt Boulevard
College Station, Texas 77840
979-260-2235
The External Review Team's Final Report
The Response Document
The external review team’s (ERT) final report on the degree program will be forwarded to the DH/PC, the college leadership, and members of the APR Administrative Team upon receipt from the chair of the ERT by the APR coordinator (APR@tamu.edu). The DH/PC will have 30 days to provide a draft written response on the ERT report to the dean, based on input and discussion with program faculty. Following preliminary agreement by the dean (or designee) to the proposed actions, the DH/PC will submit the preliminary program response to the APR coordinator (at APR@tamu.edu) no later than two weeks prior to the scheduled post-review meeting.
At a minimum, responses and approved actions are required for any issues identified in the ERT report as “Needs Improvement.” Responses to other recommendations provided by the ERT are strongly encouraged.
Post-Review Meeting And Reporting
The goal of the post-review process is to finalize actions to be taken in response to recommendations by the ERT (particularly as they relate to issues noted as “Needs Improvement”). Post-review consists of a post-review meeting and submission of the final Program Response Form.
The Post-Review Meeting
The post-review meeting, typically held 45 – 60 days following the site visit, includes the DH/PC, the college dean (and/or designee), and members of the APR Administrative Team. The post-review meeting provides the DH/PC the opportunity to present the Program Response and finalize actions to be taken. The final Program Response Form and a cover letter indicating approval of the actions by the dean are to be submitted to the APR coordinator (APR@tamu.edu) no later than three weeks following the post-review meeting.
The Institutional Response
The Institutional Response Report, prepared by the Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness and Planning (AVP-AEP), will be based on the approved Program Response Form and in consultation with program and college leadership and members of the APR Administration Team. The Institutional Response will include an overview of the external review process and a summary of actions to be taken. The AVP-AEP will be responsible for submitted all required documentation to the THECB (i.e., the Executive Summary from the self-study, the final ERT Report, and the Institutional Response Report).
Appendices
Texas Administrative Code
- In accordance with the requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges, each public institution of higher education shall have a process to review the quality and effectiveness of existing degree programs and for continuous improvement.
- The Coordinating Board staff shall develop a process for conducting a periodic audit of the quality, productivity, and effectiveness of existing bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs at public institutions of higher education and health-related institutions.
- Each public university and health-related institution shall review all doctoral programs at least once every ten years.
- On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all doctoral programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workforce.
- Institutions shall begin each review of a doctoral program with a rigorous self-study.
- As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least two external reviewers with subject-matter expertise who are employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas.
- External reviewers must be provided with the materials and products of the self-study and must be brought to the campus for an on-site review.
- External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
- External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review.
- Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
- Institutions shall review master’s and doctoral programs in the same discipline simultaneously, using the same self-study materials and reviewers. Institutions may also, at their discretion, review bachelor’s programs in the same discipline as master’s and doctoral programs simultaneously.
- Criteria for the review of doctoral programs must include, but are not limited to:
- The Characteristics of Texas Public Doctoral Programs;
- Student retention rates;
- Student enrollment;
- Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
- Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes;
- Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs;
- Program facilities and equipment;
- Program finance and resources;
- Program administration; and
- Faculty Qualifications.
- Institutions shall submit a report on the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewers and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewers have submitted their findings to the institution.
- Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
- Each public university and health-related institution shall review all stand-alone master’s programs at least once every ten years.
- On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all master’s programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workspace.
- Institutions shall begin each review of a master’s program with a rigorous self-study.
- As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least one external reviewer with subject-matter expertise who is employed by an institution of higher education outside of Texas.
- External reviewers shall be provided with the materials and products of the self-study. External reviewers may be brought to the campus for an on-site review or may be asked to conduct remote desk review.
- External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
- External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review.
- Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
- Master’s programs in the same 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code as doctoral programs shall be reviewed simultaneously with their related doctoral programs.
- Criteria for the review of master’s programs must include, but are not limited to:
- Faculty qualifications;
- Faculty publications;
- Faculty external grants;
- Faculty teaching load;
- Faculty/student ratio;
- Student demographics;
- Student time-to-degree;
- Student publication and awards;
- Student retention rates;
- Student graduation rates;
- Student enrollment;
- Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
- Graduate placement (i.e. employment or further education/training);
- Number of degrees conferred annually;
- Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes;
- Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs;
- Program facilities and equipment;
- Program finance and resources;
- Program administration.
- Institutions shall submit a report of the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewer(s) and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewer(s) have submitted their findings to the institution.
- Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
- The Coordinating Board shall review all reports submitted for master’s and doctoral programs and shall conduct analysis as necessary to ensure high quality. Institutions may be required to take additional actions to improve their programs as a result of Coordinating Board review.