1

Appendix I

COLUMBUS STATE UNIVERSITY

PROCEDURES FOR COMPLETING A

COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY

COVER/TITLE PAGE (unnumbered)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (unnumbered: 2-3 pages maximum)

A final version of the executive summary will emerge at the completion of the comprehensive program review process and will be the only document submitted to the University System Office at the end of the academic year in accordance with the Regents' policy on comprehensive program review. The executive summary prepared at the department level for the program review self-study along with the independent judgments of the review team and the CPR Committee concerning the program's executive summary will be used by the dean to prepare the final version of the executive summary which must be approved by the academic vice president before being submitted to the University System Office. The final version will be shared with all concerned and will also guide departmental and institutional follow-up on recommended actions and program improvements. The executive summary is expected to be the first section of the self-study after the cover page and be titled as follows:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE

(NAME OF PROGRAM: DEGREE & MAJOR)

The text of the executive summary should be organized under the following headings:

Major Findings of the Program's Quality and Productivity

An analysis and interpretation of the pattern of strengths and weaknesses among the various indicators of program quality should result in a summary conclusion about the overall strength or weakness of the program's quality. Likewise, the patterns of strengths & weaknesses among the indicators of program productivity should result in conclusions about the overall strength or weakness of the program's productivity. Major findings involving one or more of the indicators may be reported in support of these summary conclusions, but the detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of most indicators should appear in the text of the self-study rather than the executive summary.

The summary conclusion about the overall strength or weakness of a program's quality and productivity should be categorized using the following scale:

Very Strong
Above Average
Satisfactory
Below Average
Very Weak

List of Recommendations for Improving Program Quality

Select the most important recommendations that emerge from the review process for improving the program's quality and list them here.

List of Recommendations for Improving Program Productivity

Select the most important recommendations that emerge from the review process for improving the program's productivity and list them here.

Conclusion about the Program's Viability at CSU

After considering the program's strengths and weaknesses related to quality and productivity and the program's potential for success and improvement in the future, make a judgment about whether the current program is viable or not viable at CSU. A program's viability should hinge on its judged capability of working, functioning, developing, and contributing adequately with a reasonable degree of quality and productivity. Programs that were triggered for review by the University System Office are particularly susceptible to being judged as not viable, and their viability must be sufficiently justified by the outcomes of their comprehensive program review.

Program Improvement Plan

This section should include plans for resource allocation and should be completed by the dean in consultation with the VPAA at the conclusion of the self-study conducted by the department.

Summary Recommendation and Supporting Rationale

Identify which of the four recommendations outlined below applies, and provide a brief rationale for making that recommendation as well as suggestions for how the recommendation should be implemented.

Enhance or Expand the Program. This recommendation would be most appropriate for a program that is judged to have strong or high ratings or great potential for high ratings on program quality and program productivity, and where significant strategic opportunities for program expansion and additional investment exist that have great promise for generating a strong return on those investments for the benefit of the university and its students.
Maintain the Program at the Current Level. This recommendation would be most appropriate for a program that is judged to have satisfactory or average ratings on program quality and program productivity and where there are few or limited strategic opportunities for program enhancement and additional investment as well as little or no promise of substantial returns on such investment for the benefit of the university and its students.
Reduce the Program's Scope. This recommendation would be most appropriate for a program that is judged to have weak or low ratings and little potential for higher ratings on program quality and program productivity and where aspects of this program appear overextended and should be pulled back, streamlined, and/or simplified if quality and productivity are to improve. Depending upon the circumstances, there may or may not be a recommended reduction and redirection of support for a program that should be reduced in scope.
Consolidate or Discontinue the Program. The recommendation of consolidation would be most appropriate for programs whose current and potential quality and productivity are judged to be so weak or deficient that the program's continuation can only be justified if it merges with or is consolidated into another degree program. The recommendation of discontinuation would be most appropriate for a program where the current and potential quality and productivity are judged to be very weak or notably deficient, and where there is little or no reasonable justification for continuation of the degree program under any circumstance; the review concludes that the program is not viable at CSU. A reduction and redirection of support for this program would be likely.

THE PROGRAM'S DETAILED SELF-STUDY (numbered: 25 pages maximum)

The conclusions and recommendations cited in the executive summary should be the culmination of a comprehensive program review involving analyses and interpretations of a standard or common set of key indicators of a program's quality and productivity. A common self-study outline will be followed for all program reviews.

A judgment of the strength or weakness of the program should be made on each of the performance indicators for program quality and program productivity. The same scale described previously in reference to the overall summary conclusions about program quality and productivity should be used:

Very Strong
Above Average
Satisfactory
Below Average
Very Weak

Self-study reports should be limited to 25 pages in length and should be written in a concise, factual, and straightforward style. Clear and summative statements of findings, followed by lists of supporting evidence, are preferred over embedding the same information in long paragraphs of text. Quantitative and qualitative assessments are expected.

The VPAA Office will generate common statistics and trend data related to several of the program indicators, and the sources for those data are referenced below in the self-study outline. This common data should be analyzed and interpreted in the self-study report.

In addition, data and evidence that are unique to the program under review should be collected, analyzed, and interpreted at the department level for many of the quality and productivity indicators. When such program-specific information is unavailable and cannot be collected by the department within the prescribed time period for the self-study, the self-study report should state that the data are unavailable to support that particular assessment and a process for their routine collection has been implemented for future reviews. The assessment of performance indicators must be based on supporting documentation which must be referenced in the self-study report.

The common outline to be followed and reflected in the self-study is presented below:

I. Brief Program Overview

Describe the program, the program mission, and the relation to the Columbus State University mission. Describe how the program meets the needs of students and the demand for graduates.

II. Summary Findings of the Program's Overall Quality

Repeat the major findings of the program's quality as reported in the executive summary and cite any additional detailed analyses, interpretations, or rationale that support this summary judgment. This summary should be consistent with the pattern of strengths and weaknesses observed among the indicators of program quality that follow.

II A. The Quality of Teaching Supporting the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Explain how good teaching is assessed and rewarded.
Explain how good advising is assessed and rewarded
Describe the opportunities for interaction that occur between faculty and students outside the classroom
Indicate availability of tutoring
Describe opportunities for internships, service-learning, practica, study abroad, and career planning and placement
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II B. The Quality of the Curriculum Supporting the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Describe the relationship between the program curriculum and its outcomes
Indicate how technological skills are incorporated into the program of study
Indicate how the program is relevant to student needs
Describe how students are challenged to think across disciplines
Explain how diversity, multiculturalism, and international perspectives are included in the program
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II C. Selectivity, Academic Achievement, and Satisfaction of Students in the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Describe the characteristics of students in the program (i.e., test scores, overall GPA, retention rates)
Describe student learning, satisfaction and evidence of success in meeting student needs and learning outcomes as reflected by major field assessment
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

II D. The Quality of Faculty Supporting the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Describe the adequacy of faculty and staff to support the program (locations of graduate training, post-graduate training, specializations, secondary fields)
Describe the support provided for faculty development
Show faculty diversity and credentials
Describe how part-time faculty are integrated into the program
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II E. The Quality of Facilities and Equipment Supporting the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Describe the condition and adequacy of available space

Describe the condition and adequacy of technology labs, equipment, and library resources

Provide other indicators of adequacy of campus infrastructure to support the program

Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II F. The Quality of Research and Scholarship Supporting the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Explain how faculty involve students in research

Describe how faculty research relates to the program mission

Describe mentoring and professional development opportunities for faculty

List faculty publications, papers given, and public lectures

Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II G. The Quality of Service Supporting the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Describe projects completed and outcomes which contribute to the program, department, college, institution, community, and/or the region
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II H. Program Honors & Awards

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Identify the formal honors, awards, high rankings, citations of excellence, accreditations, positive external reviews, etc. that this degree program has received over the last seven years.
If program accreditation is available but has not been attained at CSU, explain why.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II I. Exceptional Achievements & Honors of the Program's Students, Graduates, & Faculty

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Identify the exceptional achievements and honors received by the program's students, graduates, and faculty over the past five years which reflect on the quality of the program.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II J. General Success of the Program's Graduates

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Report the results of the department's assessments of the general success of the program's graduates such as licensure or certification rates, job offers, job placement statistics, average salaries, subsequent career advancement, test scores, admissions to post-baccalaureate programs, etc.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II K. Stakeholder Satisfaction with the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Report the results of surveys of students, alumni, employers, community partners, etc. concerning their satisfaction with the quality of the program and its learning experiences and any program improvements initiated as a function of such feedback over time.
Also comment on the effectiveness of the program's use of a community advisory board.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

II L. Program's Responsiveness to Change & Improvement

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program quality on this indicator.

Cite the most significant examples of improvements made in the program over the last seven years in response to changing conditions, new external requirements, and/or departmental assessment initiatives.
Comment on how frequently the program's faculty is engaged in program assessment activities, comprehensive program evaluations, and fine tuning of the program and its requirements.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

III. Summary Findings of the Program's Overall Productivity

Repeat the summary conclusion about the strength of the program's overall productivity as reported in the executive summary and cite any additional detailed analyses, interpretations, or rationale that support this summary judgment. This summary conclusion should be consistent with the pattern of strengths and weaknesses observed among the indicators of program productivity that follow.

III A. Enrollment of Students in the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Analyze and interpret the numbers of majors enrolled in the program and the enrollment trends of these majors for the past five years.
For undergraduate programs, compare the strength of the numbers of the upper division majors and enrollment trends for this program with the enrollments and trends of upper division declared majors in other undergraduate programs at CSU.
For graduate programs, compare the strength of the numbers and enrollment trends for this program with the enrollments and trends of in other graduate programs at CSU.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III B. Annual Degree Productivity of the Program

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Analyze and interpret the numbers of degrees granted annually (fiscal year) by this program and the trends of the program's degree productivity over the past five years.
Compare the strength of the degree productivity of this program with the productivity of other programs at CSU.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III C. Program Completion Efficiency & Graduation Rate

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Analyze and interpret the program's graduation rate.
Compare the program's graduation rate with those of the other programs at CSU and offer possible explanations for this program's unusually high or low graduation rate if applicable. (Note: Graduation rates for undergraduate and graduate programs are calculated differently. Data and method of calculation will be provided by VPAA Office.)
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III D. Efficiency & Clarity of the Program's Course Requirements

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Analyze the published course requirements for program completion in terms of the simplicity and efficiency of the program's curricular design and the degree to which program requirements are communicated clearly and effectively.
Comment on the ease with which majors understand and successfully navigate through the required curriculum for program completion.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: CSU Catalog

III E. Frequency and Sequencing of Course Offerings Required for Program Completion

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Analyze and interpret the scheduling and enrollment history of courses required for program completion, giving particular focus to the regularity, frequency, and sequencing of course offerings required for program completion.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III F. Enrollment in the Program's Required Courses

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Analyze and interpret the strength of the enrollments in the courses required for program completion.
Comment on differences between core and elective course enrollments as well as differences among courses required for optional tracks or concentrations. Identify any required courses that are dropped from the schedule of classes frequently due to low enrollment and which majors must complete through approved substitutions or directed studies.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III G. Diversity of the Program's Majors and Graduates

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Analyze and interpret the gender, ethnicity, nationality, and age of the majors and graduates in the program.
Comment on the program's success and distinctiveness in enrolling and graduating a diverse mix of students.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III H. Cost-Effectiveness of Instructional Delivery in the Program's Home Department

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Contrast the instructional cost-effectiveness of this program's home department with others at CSU.
List the principal factors that cause this program's home department to appear to be unusually cost-effective (i.e., have a low ratio of instructional expenses per weighted credit hour of instruction) or to appear to be unusually costly (i.e., have a high cost per credit hour).
Comment on the degree to which this program contributes to or detracts from the cost-effectiveness of the department.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Facts & Figures, Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III I. Program's Responsiveness to State Needs and Employer Demand for Program Graduates

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Comment on the demand for graduates of this program, followed by an assessment of the program's success in responding productively to such need and demand.
List the factors that limit the program's ability to be more productive and responsive to these needs and demands.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: None, this is program-specific.

III J. Position of the Program's Annual Degree Productivity among Comparable USG Programs

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

Identify the ranking of this program relative to comparable programs in the University System of Georgia (or region or nation) in terms of the number of degrees granted annually.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data source: Quantitative Measures (Data provided by VPAA Office)

III K. This Program�s Contribution to Achieving CSU's Mission

State your assessment of the strength of the evidence of program productivity on this indicator.

List the substantive contributions this program makes to the achievement of CSU's published statement of institutional mission.
Describe methods to be pursued for program improvement.

Common data/info source: CSU's published mission statement; other information about contributions is program-specific.

IV. Conclusion about the Program's Viability at CSU

Repeat the conclusion about the program's viability at CSU as reported in the executive summary and cite any additional detailed analyses, interpretations, or rationale that support this summary judgment.

V. Program Improvement Plan

Highlight the department's plans, priorities, and timetable for improving the program's quality and productivity if the program is judged to be viable.

VI. Summary Recommendation

Highlight the department's recommendations, rationale, plans, and timetable for expanding, maintaining, reducing, or consolidating/discontinuing the program.