Montana State University: Guidelines for Program Reviews

Updated October 2024

Program reviews serve a variety of purposes including meeting the requirements of the Board of Regents of the Montana University System (BOR) and providing valuable input into the planning and analysis processes at the University. The Board of Regents requires a review of every degree (including options and minors) every seven years (Policy 303.3), but the Montana State University administration can require a Special Program Review at any time. External program accreditation reviews may be used to satisfy the provisions of BOR policy. However, when external accreditation reviews do not provide the information needed for institutional planning and analysis, additional information or a focused program review may be required.

 

Programs Requiring Intensive Review – Productivity Benchmarks

In the past, the BOR asked for increased scrutiny of programs that fall into any of the following categories:

  • Undergraduate Programs: An average graduation rate of fewer than 10 students per year
  • Masters Programs: An average graduation rate of fewer than 3 students per year
  • Doctoral Programs: An average graduation rate of fewer than 2 students per year
  • Loss of Majors: The number of enrolled majors has decreased by 20% or more since the last review.
  • Loss of SCH: The number of student credit hours generated has decreased by 20% or more since the last review.

These benchmarks are used for program reviews at Montana State University (MSU).

 

Montana State University: Academic Program Review

Purpose: Systemic departmental review should assist the faculty, department head, dean and University administration in: 1) evaluating how effectively the department is achieving its program learning outcomes and educational goals; 2) identifying the department’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT); 3) developing strategic directions and priorities for the future of the department, faculty, and academic programs; and 4) fulfilling the MUS Board of Regents (Policy 303.3) requirements.

A departmental review has three parts: 1) a self-study of the department and its programs by the department head and faculty; 2) a peer review by external and University faculty members from outside the department; and 3) a summary from the dean identifying key opportunities and future directions for the department based on the self-study and peer review.

Timing: The MUS Board of Regents (Policy 303.3 – Program Review) requires campuses conduct regular internal reviews of all of its academic programs at least once every seven years. The reviews “shall include all programs in the “degree and program inventory” maintained by the office of the commissioner of higher education, and shall include options, minors and certificates of more than 29 credits.”

Responsibility and Scope: Reviews will be conducted at the departmental level, the primary organizational structure for academic programming at MSU. A departmental review must cover all undergraduate and graduate instructional programs (degrees, programs, options, minors and certificates). Reviews are forward-thinking and should be evaluative, not just descriptive. Any plans for improvement and future directions require judgements about the program(s), curriculum, learning outcomes, students, staff and faculty within existing resources. Departmental self-studies, peer reviews and dean’s summaries should provide concise, honest appraisal of programs and department strengths and aspirations as well as future directions.

Review Teams: Program reviews are conducted by teams comprised of members of the MSU faculty, with one being from outside the college, and at least one external disciplinary expert. The reviewers will be selected by the Provost. When a site visit is required, the Office of the Provost may cover a portion of the cost, however costs associated with professional accreditation visits are borne by the colleges.

Program reviews are normally conducted during a one or two-day visit (depending on the size of the department and number of programs). Final review reports are to be submitted to the Office of the Provost within three weeks of the visit. Departments have the primary responsibility for scheduling all events associated with a site visit.

Checklist for Program Reviews

  • Vice Provost notifies Dean and Department Head of Program Review
  • Dean and Department Head establish date for site visit, notify Vice Provost
  • Dean forwards reviewer nominations to Vice Provost
  • Provost selects reviewers
  • Department Head coordinates writing of self-study with department faculty
  • Dean and Department Head establish schedule for site visit
  • Department Head arranges for reviewer travel and accommodations
  • Provost provides charge letter to review committee
  • Reviewers meet with Vice Provost at beginning of site visit (Charge meeting)
  • Reviewers interview identified groups according to schedule provided
  • Reviewers meet with Provost and Vice Provost (Exit meeting) 
  • Reviewers complete draft report within two weeks, submit to Department Head and Dean for fact check
  • Department Head responds to reviewers within five days
  • Reviewers complete final report, submit to Dean, Provost and Vice Provost within three weeks of completion of site visit
  • Dean submits recommendations to Provost within two weeks of submission of final review team report
  • Vice Provost writes Board of Regents summary report

 

Program Review – Self-Study Report

Departmental Self-Study – The self-study is to be carried out by the department as a whole. It is evaluative, not just descriptive, and it should provide a meaningful assessment of the educational offerings of the department. It will also identify priorities and directions for the future that take into consideration student enrollments and degree completion rates.

Participation: Departments are encouraged to have all members of the faculty participate in the self-study and a draft should be made available to all departmental faculty for input or comment prior to electronic submission to the Vice Provost one month prior to the scheduled site visit.

General: Self-study report should be limited to 35 pages with data or additional documents included in appendices. This limit has been established in order to make sure that evaluators are able to find the information that is most relevant for future decision making in the unit.

Data: The use of data in standard formats already available in departments, colleges, and from the Office of Planning and Analysis (OPA) website and Tableau will reduce the need for special data collection efforts. Departments must include enrollment and graduation data tables available in Tableau in the self-study as these data are required by the BOR to be included in program reviews.

A.    Title Page: Department name and list of all academic programs offered

B.    Departmental Overview and alignment with University mission, goals and strategic plan

a. Brief description of academic programs offered by department

b. The overall mission and goals of the department and how the department contributes to the college and University missions, goals and strategic plan.

C.   Student-focused academic program data. Explanatory, forward-thinking interpretations of student enrollment and graduation data. The goal is to explain any observed trends since the last program review and provide projections for the next seven years based on current trends and departmental goals. Please include:

            a. Interpretation of the student enrollment and graduation data for the 7-year review period for all degree programs.

b. Focused discussion of degree programs not meeting productivity benchmarks (stated above), by degree.

c. Evaluation of departmental advising and mentoring of students in all degree programs.

d. Discussion of measures taken by department to support student success, degree completion, and enrollment increases and/or declines.

e. Discussion of how curricula being assessed enhances student career-readiness. The Office of Planning and Analysis can assist with identifying sources of data on post-graduate placements.

D.   Summary of Assessment of Educational Programs - Annual program assessment plans and reports should not be included in the body of the self-study but should be linked or included in an Appendix.

a. Relationship between learning outcomes of the program(s) and curriculum content

b. Student achievement of learning objectives of the program(s)

c. Summary of significant curriculum or course changes since last program review, what were changes meant to address? How were changes related to program(s) learning outcomes?

d. Any proposed/anticipated changes to curriculum or programing in the department

 E.    New Degree Programs/Options – Discuss new degree or option implemented since the last program review. 

a. Compare actual program enrollment, graduates, curriculum cost to the original proposal approved by BOR. 

b. Describe planning for new degrees or options within existing degrees currently being considered, if applicable.

F.    Diversity, Inclusion and Equity in the Department (informed by data on students, faculty and staff).

a. Present and discuss faculty and student demographics on DEI indicators

b. Discuss departmental DEI goals and plans to ensure continued or improved attention to University DEI initiatives.

G.     Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT Analysis) with an emphasis on the Analysis of Academic Programs

H.    Strategic Directions for the Future

 

Appendices

a.      Faculty CVs (1-3 pages each)

b.      Program Assessment data, other supporting data or descriptions directed at helping reviewers better understand the department and its faculty, students and staff.

 

Program Review Site Visit

Most program reviews include a site visit, unless the scope of the review is very narrowly focused. During a program review site visit, reviewers typically meet with the following individuals or groups:

1.      Provost and Vice Provost

2.      College Dean

3.      Graduate Dean (if graduate programs are reviewed)

4.      Department Head or Chair

5.      Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty

6.      Non-Tenured Faculty, Post-Doctoral Fellows, and others 

7.      Staff

8.      Graduate Students

9.      Undergraduate Students

10.  External Constituencies (if appropriate)

11.  Others at the request of the reviewers

 

The reviewers conclude their visit with an exit interview with the Provost and Vice Provost. During this interview, and in the subsequent written report, the reviewers will be asked to address the following issues:

1.      Overall observations and initial determinations regarding the quality and the rigor of the academic programs.

2.      Status of each program curriculum in terms of breadth and currency with the discipline. That is, is each curriculum still relevant and has the curriculum kept pace with changes in the discipline?

3.      Summary of strengths, weaknesses or unrealized opportunities, with specific recommendations for action.

 

Program Review: Review Team Report

Scope of Report (typically 5-8 pages): The review team report provides an objective analysis of the review department’s strengths, weaknesses and plans for the future. The analysis should be based on disciplinary standards of the reviewed department but may recommend ways to enhance the department’s academic programs and support of student success. The report should be constructive offering praise for strengths, options for development or modification where appropriate. Specific areas of focus outlined in the charge letter should be addressed.

 

Program Review: Dean’s Recommendation Report

Scope of Report (typically 1-2 pages): The college dean provides feedback to the department to direct them towards next steps, actions, alignment with college and university strategic goals and initiatives, and potential campus collaborations based on the self-study, the review site visit and the review team report.

Recommendations for the future of the program(s): The dean’s report should be forward-thinking, offering recommendations about specific changes, strategic growth or contraction of any academic programs. The dean may also recommend immediate attention, planning or a three-year follow-up around programs that are not implementing program assessment and improvement practices or are experiencing low or declining student credit hours, enrollment head count or degrees awarded. The Dean’s report should also address recommendations for future directions relative to strategic goals or initiatives at the department, college or university level.

Rationale or justification for the recommendations based on the program review/external accreditation process: The dean's report should include brief rationale or justification for the above recommendations based on evidence from the program review/external accreditation process.