POLICY STATEMENT

Nevada State University (NS) reviews Existing Academic Programs pursuant to policies of the Nevada Board of Regents. Reviews are conducted under the direction of the Office of the Provost and are submitted to Nevada State’s president, the NSHE Office, and the Board of Regents.

DEFINITIONS

Academic Program: Instructional program leading toward a certificate or degree.

DFWI Rate: Percentage of students in a course receiving a letter grade of D, F, Withdraw (W), or Incomplete (I).

Existing Academic Program: Academic Program that has been offered by Nevada State for a minimum of ten (10) years.

Faculty: Used to designate full-time and part-time academic Faculty. The text of this policy specifies any areas or stages of the review in which only full-time Faculty may participate.

Form B: NSHE template used for existing program review summaries.

Program Review Committee (PRC): Committee appointed by a dean to review a program and complete the Program Review Report and Form B.

Working Day: Monday through Friday when College classes are scheduled and in session during fall and spring semesters.

PROCEDURES

I.              Purpose of Academic Program Reviews

Periodic review of existing Academic Programs is required by the Board of Regents (Handbook Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 6); criteria to be used in the review of existing programs shall include the following: quality, need/demand for the program, relation to the institutional mission, cost, relationship to other programs in the System, student outcomes, and quality and adequacy of resources such as library materials, equipment, space, and nonacademic services.

Program review is also undertaken as part of the continual improvement efforts that are tied to the accreditation self-evaluation cycle established by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). The goal of program reviews is to enhance the quality of Academic Programs by providing a detailed analysis that identifies areas of strength and areas for improvement. The review is holistic in nature, and is viewed as the culmination of different assessment methods that, taken together, provide a comprehensive evaluation of the program that facilitates improvement and strengthens the alignment between and fulfillment of the missions and strategic plans of the Academic Program, school, and the institution as a whole.

An essential element of an Existing Academic Program review is the identification and evaluation of student learning outcomes as an indicator of program effectiveness. Accordingly, key findings from our annual program of outcomes assessment are integrated into the evaluation and recommendations furnished by the report. Existing Academic Program reviews also provide information for curricular and budgetary planning decisions. Existing Academic Reviews must include both quantitative and qualitative measures of effectiveness.

Existing Academic Program reviews include Faculty input and a data-driven analysis of the Academic Program’s quality and effectiveness. Existing Academic Program Review Reports are produced for the Board of Regents every 10 years, and reflect the culmination of the ongoing evaluation and assessment conducted of every program. Programs accredited by a discipline-specific accrediting body are reviewed in accordance with the review cycle established by the accreditor, not to exceed ten (10) years between Academic Program reviews. Existing Academic Programs cannot be required to undergo review more often than once every ten (10) years unless requested by the provost or required by external accrediting agencies. Academic units may voluntarily conduct Academic Program reviews more frequently than scheduled.

The Program Review Committee for each Academic Program makes recommendations to the dean and provost regarding a ten-year plan for the program, strategies for successful growth, and plans for improvements based on the results of the review, all while maintaining a clear connection with institutional and school-based strategic plans.

II.            Existing Academic Program Review Process

A. Office of the Provost notifies the appropriate dean of a scheduled Academic Program review.

B. Dean appoints a Program Review Committee (PRC) and designates one (1) member to serve as chair. The PRC Chair works with the dean, associate dean, and Office of Institutional Effectiveness to gather necessary materials (e.g., syllabi, course descriptions, learning outcome maps) for the Program Review and shares these materials with all PRC members.

1. The dean may appoint a single PRC to complete more than one program review, if appropriate.
2. The PRC shall consist of a minimum of two (2) Faculty members, at least one of whom must be from the program under review.
3. The PRC chair oversees and monitors the Academic Program Review process.

C. The Office of Institutional Research (IR) generates reports on key program metrics, including total enrollment, growth over time, DFWI rates, student demographics, senior exit survey data, graduation rates, course evaluation ratings, and other data gathered as part of ongoing program assessment efforts. The Office of the Provost will ensure the PRC has access to student learning outcomes assessment results, which measure student mastery of program outcomes.

D. The PRC reviews program materials, analyzes relevant data, and prepares an Existing Program Review Report as well as Form B.

1. A self-study prepared for discipline-specific accreditation may satisfy this requirement. If an Academic Program has recently undergone such a review, the PRC chair will confer with the dean, who will verify with the Office of the Provost whether the accreditation report is sufficient to fulfill NSHE’s Existing Academic Program review requirement.

E. The PRC chair submits the Existing Program Review Report to the dean.

F. The dean reviews the report, completes the final summary, and forwards it, along with the dean’s comments (if any), to the provost.

G. The provost (or designee) reviews the report and returns a copy, along with any comments, suggestions, or feedback, to the PRC.

H. The dean responds to comments and recommendations from the provost. The revised report is then submitted to the provost.

I. The provost issues a letter of completion of the review process to the dean, including summarizing recommendations for improvement.

J. The provost submits each Existing Program Review Report and Form B to NSHE and the Board of Regents.

K. The PRC submits an Existing Program Review Progress Report updating the Office of the Provost on actions taken to address recommendations.

 III.           Timeline

If an extension is necessary, the PRC Chair will send a request to the dean, who will forward the request, along with the dean’s recommendation and comments, to the provost. The decision to approve an extension rests with the provost (or designee).

IV.          Responsibilities

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

• Schedule of Existing Program Reviews
• Existing Program Review Report Template
• NSHE Form B: Program Review
• Existing Program Review Progress Report Template

RELATED INFORMATION

• NSHE Handbook Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 6
• NSHE APIS database of program approvals

HISTORY

Replaces Academic Program Review document.

APPROVALS

Dr. Samantha Jewell, Faculty Senate Chair, March 3, 2022.
Dr. Vickie Shields, Provost, March 8, 2022.
Dr. DeRionne Pollard, President, April 7, 2022.