Search Google Appliance

Program Review

by Grant Farr

Each department is required to conduct a departmental review every five years. I have indicated in the table below when each department is to be reviewed during the first round. Some departments have notified me regarding which year they would prefer to be reviewed. Also there is no reason to duplicate effort, so if a department is being reviewed for another reason (accreditation or a Ph.D. proposal for instance) we will schedule the departmental review for the same year. If you would like to change to a different year, let me know, but remember we need to have about the same number each year.

I also include below the procedures for the review and the material that should be included.

DepartmentReview YearAccreditation or other Issues
Anthropology 2008-2009
Applied Linguistics 2006-2007 May have Ph.D. proposal
Biology 2004-2005 Review for Ph.D. program
Black Studies 2007-2008 Fifth-year review of new major
Chemistry 2006-2007 Accreditation?
Chicano and Latino Studies 2007-2008
Child and Family Services 2007-2008
Communication Studies 2005-2006
Conflict Resolution 2004-2005
Economics 2006-2007
English 2005-2006
Environmental Science Resources 2005-2006
Foreign Languages and Literature 2008-2009 Reviewed in 2003-2004
Geography 2006-2007
Geology 2004-2005
History 2008-2009
International Studies 2005-2006 Possibly later
Judaic Studies 2008-2009 Five year review of program
Mathematics 2006-2007 Five year review of PhD program
Native American Studies 2007-2008 Five year review of program
Philosophy 2006-2007
Physics 2006-2007
Psychology 2008-2009 5 year review of Ph.D. program
Science Education 2005-2006 Five year review of program
Sociology 2004-2005 Review for Ph.D. Program
Speech & Hearing Sciences 2007-2008 ASHA Accreditation done in 2003; next review in 2008-2009
Women's Studies 2007-2008




  1. The Dean, or Associate Dean, develops a schedule for reviews for his or her departments or programs.
  2. At the beginning of each academic year, the Office of Institutional Research and Planning sends a reminder to the Dean listing programs or departments scheduled for review that year.
  3. The Dean, or Associate Dean, meets with the programs or departments to develop a process for the reviews and finalizes agreements on the information that will be required.
  4. The Dean, or Associate Dean, meets with the Provost and either the Vice Provost for Curriculum and Undergraduate Studies or the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research to propose a timeline for review of the programs or departments, and proposals for the appointment of external reviewers.
  5. The program or department prepares review materials according to the Program Review Criteria outlined on the Departmental Profiles/Program Review Website (see below) using the template provided in the Website, and any additional material as required by he Dean.

Review Process:

  1. The Dean, or Associate Dean, conducts a review of the program or department, including external reviews.
  2. The external reviewers prepare a report and present it to the Dean. The Dean prepares a final report for the program or department.
  3. The program or department prepares a response to the reports of the external committee and Dean.
  4. The Dean's report and departmental response are reviewed by the Vice Provost for Curriculum and Undergraduate Studies of the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research.
  5. The Vice Provosts meet with the Dean to recommend any additional steps and send a final report to the Provost.
  6. The Provost signs off on the report or recommends additional steps, in consultation with the Dean and Vice Provost.
  7. Cycle begins again with the new academic year.

Common Criteria for Program Review

The Council of Academic Deans Sub-committee on Internal Academic Programmatic Development and Review identified five common criteria for program review in their 1998 Report.

  1. Centrality to the PSU mission:

    How well does the program/department meet the University's expectations and priorities?


    • Narrative statement created by the program/department, reviewed and approved by the Dean's office
    • Narrative analyzing and assessing performance on quantitative measures related to enrollment, outreach, scholarship, research, and student learning outcomes
  2. Effectiveness of Instruction and Curriculum.

    How well does the curriculum serve students, University, community?


    Common data elements:
    • Student satisfaction: common survey at point of applying for graduation (undergraduates and graduates)
    • Alumni satisfaction (departmental rolling surveys, institutional survey with Alumni Affairs, and 6-month out survey with Career Center/OIRP)
    • Student retention in upper division and graduation rates at sixth year, by declared major (undergraduates)
    • Curriculum (number of crosslisted courses; credit hours generated in courses required outside the major, by department; degree programs offered, chart of course schedules)
    • Proportion of graduates, by major, in CBL/Capstone or other community-based courses
    • Assessment of student learning outcomes (common and departmentally selected) Specific or qualitative data elements:
    • Proportion of graduates who go on to graduate school (Career Center/OIRP survey and departmental sources)
    • Student performance on professional tests (where appropriate)
    • Employer satisfaction (proposed Career Center survey)
    • Percentage with jobs after graduation (Career Center/OIRP survey)
    • Student awards and recognition (departmental sources)
  3. Effectiveness of Program.

    How well does the program serve and respond to the University priorities?


    Common data elements:
    • Number of faculty FTE, (GA's), full-time (part-time), gender, race/ethnic
    • SCH production: lower, upper, graduate
    • Average class size: lower, upper, graduate
    • SCH/faculty FTE
    • Number of degrees awarded
    • Contribution to general education (number of cluster courses--with "U" suffix), science and engineering (where appropriate), international(crosslists or other offerings with international focus)
    • Number of course sections
    • Number/proportion diverse students, by declared major
    • Number/proportion of diverse faculty, by department
    Specific or qualitative data elements:
    • Types of partnerships (OHSU/OGI, Historical Society, Creative Industries)
  4. How well do the faculty support the University's expectations?


    Common data elements:
    • Publications and citations, presentations
    • Number of faculty with terminal degrees
    • Number of proposals and expenditures for sponsored research grants and contracts
    • Prizes, awards, and recognition
    • Community leadership in campus, local, regional, national, international communities (number of members elected, accolades) Specific or qualitative data element:
    • National rankings of schools, colleges, department (where appropriate)
    • Offices held in national organizations
    • Journal editorships, editorial boards
  5. Cost Effectiveness and Level of Institutional Support.

    Relative to other PSU programs and compared to national norms.


    Common data elements:
    • Proportion of budget from grants and contracts
    • Proportion of expenditures from E&G
    • Cost per SCH (over time)
    • Cost per degree granted (over time)
    • Cost per faculty FTE (over time)
    • Average salary by rank
    • Faculty development (total or per FTE?)
    • Number of TA's, GRA's, GAA's
    • Fixed term faculty FTE
    • SCH to Tenured, tenure-track, fixed, GA's

(Modified from Deans' Sub-committee on Internal Academic programmatic Development and Review Report, 1998)