In 2004, Northern Kentucky University approved new procedures for Academic Program Review. The overall process of review will be supervised and carried out by a standing University Academic Program Review Steering Committee. The function of the committee is to review programs; it is not vested with administrative decision-making powers. The Committee's recommendations about programs will be given to the Provost, who will oversee the administrative use made of those recommendations. The Provost will appoint a faculty member to serve as Chair of the Steering Committee. A representative from each of the four colleges and one school as well as a representative from the Faculty Senate will be appointed to serve on the Steering Committee. In 2004-05, four programs from the various colleges participated in the Program Review process.

After completion of the 2004-05 review cycle, the Program Review procedures were modified based on recommendations from the Steering Committee. See Program Review Guidelines for a detailed description of the process. For print-friendly version of Program Review Document, click here.

Procedures for Program Review

Self-Study Report Outline
Outline Checksheet
Template for Report (Word)

Program Review Resources
- Program Data
- Self-Study Reports

Prior Year Documents
  2004 and 2005 and 2006

The primary purpose of program review is to enhance the quality of academic programs, to provide guidance for academic planning decisions, and to enable Northern Kentucky University to determine an appropriate level of support for programs.

While the primary emphasis is on program improvement, the review process should also lead to identification of those academic programs that are most central to strategic priorities of the university and therefore are most appropriate targets for growth and increased investment.

Process for Program Review

Program Review is an internal process that should be both meaningful to the program being reviewed and closely aligned with planning and budgetary decision of the University. The process requires careful organization and planning, recognition of specific program/departmental characteristics, and development of a comprehensive data profile for each program.

The review must be evaluative as well as descriptive, directed toward improvement, resulting in specific actions, and be aimed at coordinating programs’ objectives with institutional mission and priorities. The outcomes of such reviews will normally address some or all of the following questions:

1. What is the mission of the program?
2. How well do the program’s mission and goals align with institutional priorities?
3. What quantitative and qualitative evidence supports the hypothesis that the program is vital, attractive to students, and meets the CPE’s minimum productivity standards? [The University will provide to each program under review a standard set of demographic data including a recent history of enrollments, graduates, and retention rates. The University also will assist programs in obtaining information on similar programs at benchmark institutions]
4. What evidence supports the hypothesis that faculty of the program are well-trained, current in their field, and are teaching effectively?
5. What evidence supports the hypothesis that the program’s curriculum is clearly defined, coherent, intellectually rigorous, and connected to the mission of the university?
6. What are students in this program expected to know and be able to do when they complete the program’s curriculum?
7. What measures are used to assess whether or not students are meeting the educational objectives of the program’s curriculum? How is assessment information used to improve and/or maintain the quality of the program?
8. Are University resources adequate to enable the program to fulfill its mission?
9. How do the program’s mission, faculty, curriculum, and student profile compare with those of similar programs at NKU benchmark institutions?

Program Review Schedule

 Program reviews for all degree programs are scheduled on a five-year cycle. To minimize duplication, units are encouraged to schedule reviews at a time that coincides with other reviews (e.g., professional accreditation or board reviews). Programs may request a change to the standard five-year cycle through the Provost, based on timing of external reviews or in the case of SACS review. It is expected that all associate, baccalaureate and master’s level degree programs, excluding Law, will undergo review and will be assigned a place on a program review master calendar.

Typically, the program review process takes 6-9 months for completion.

The Program Review Steering Committee

Each year of the review cycle, the Provost will appoint members of a committee whose responsibility it is to coordinate the review process University-wide and:

• review of all the self-study reports submitted by the programs;
• negotiate variations in report format and calendar with programs which have recently undergone review by external accrediting agencies; and
• prepare a brief response to each report to share with the program, its Dean or Deans, and the Provost.

The responsibility of this committee is to promote consistent standards throughout the review process and to give advice and counsel to the program, the appropriate college dean (and dean of graduate programs where appropriate), and the Provost.

The committee will be composed of at least eight members representing a cross-section of University programs and colleges including:

• One faculty member from each college/school (from departments whose programs are not under review)
• One faculty member chosen by the Faculty Senate, and
• One department chair or his/her designee from each department with programs under review
• For the review of graduate programs, the Graduate Council shall elect one of its members to serve on the Steering Committee.

The Provost shall appoint a chair of the Steering Committee each year.

 Program Review Results

The program review results will be used in strategic planning, programmatic planning, and the institutional budgeting process. As a key component of the Academic Strategic Plan, program review supports responsiveness to needs for programmatic development and restructuring, as well as for other changes, and may be modified pending strategic planning outcomes.

The information gathered will provide critical internal data about size and stability of program, current and future resource needs, market demand, equipment and space needs, strengths and weaknesses, and how the program relates to the mission of the University, the Academic Strategic Plan, and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education’s Key Indicators of Progress.

Reviews culminate in recommendations developed by the Program Review Steering Committee in consultation with the appropriate college dean (and the graduate dean in the case of graduate programs) . The recommendations are communicated to the Provost, who will make a final determination on the response to the self-study document. The recommendation may include a summary statement indicating the strength of program or a statement recommending placing the program in one of the following five categories:

• recommend program expansion;
• recommend continuation of program in current form;
• recommend program continuation, but with adjustments to current funding level and/or program modifications;
• recommend special attention to program and continuing review; or
• recommend the program be discontinued.

The emphasis is on requiring plans for action in response to the reviews: the Program Review Committee might, in the absence of satisfactory findings and adequate plans for remedying deficiencies, recommend sanctions such as the phasing down or reduction of the program.

Program Review Steps

1. Appointment of self-study committee - Once the program scheduled for program review is notified (at least one year in advance), the chair of the department offering the program will appoint a self-study committee and a chair of the committee. The self-study committee is responsible for producing the self-study document in accordance with stated guidelines.
2. Orientation - Academic Affairs will arrange a self-study orientation for the benefit of all programs under review. The orientation will provide an overview of the process, materials, and outcomes.
3. Preparation and submission of the program’s preliminary self-study report. Programs have 6 months to complete their self-study report. Report should be available in electronic version for distribution to deans, committee members, and provost. Institutional data will be distributed to programs under review on or before August 15 of the review year. Preliminary self-study documents are due to the appropriate college dean (and the Dean of Graduate Programs in the case of graduate programs) by February 15 of the review year. Review by dean(s) and consultation with programs will occur during March. The final self-study document and dean’s (or deans’) comments are due to the Steering Committee by March 15. The Steering Committee will forward its report and recommendations to the Provost by June 15. After completion of the preliminary self-study report, the appropriate college dean (and the Dean of Graduate Programs in the case of graduate programs) has an opportunity to review the program’s report and prepare formal written comments. The Dean of Graduate Programs’ comments are forwarded to the appropriate college dean and than are shared with the Steering Committee and Provost as part of the final report packet submitted to the Steering Committee. Deans’ comments are shared with the program prior to submission of the final version of the self-study to the Program Review Steering Committee.
4. Response from Program Review Steering Committee. The Program Review Steering Committee summarizes its findings and recommendations in a written report. Copies of the response are provided to the programs to review for accuracy and to prepare any written comments they may choose to make.
5. Final report with recommendations to the Provost. The Program Review Steering Committee will submit a final report to the Provost for his/her consideration. The final report will include (1) the Committee’s report and recommendations, (2) the program’s self-study report, (3) the dean’s (or deans’ in the case of graduate programs) response to the self-study and (4) any responses to the Committee’s report made by the program or the college dean or the Dean of Graduate Programs where appropriate.
6. Actions taken in response to recommendations. After reviewing the report and comments, the Provost meets with program representatives and the college dean (and the Dean of Graduate Programs at the discretion of the Provost) to determine future action related to the recommendations. Within 18 months after the review, a follow-up meeting will be scheduled by the Vice Provost to discuss the progress on recommendations, if required, and invite comments from the program about the review process. If ongoing action is required, additional follow-up sessions will be arranged. At the completion of the review process, comments from the program on all or any part of the program review process are invited. Actions taken in response to program review recommendations will be reported to the President, the Provost, the college dean (and Dean of Graduate Programs where appropriate), the program, and all University parties involved in the planning, assessment, and budgeting processes. Normally, a copy of the program review report may be shared with the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education.

For Outline of Self-Study Report, click here.

Site Maintained by

Office of Curriculum, Accreditation, and Assessment
FH 502
Nunn Drive
Highland Heights, KY 41099
Phone: 859-572-6124
Fax: 859-572-6055