Listen To Our PodcastBLOG
Top 6 Best Practices from the Front Lines of Academic Program Review
I recently had the opportunity to discuss comprehensive academic program review with two Provosts that had just been through it: Glendalí Rodriguez, Provost at University of Wisconsin – Stout and Dr. Diana Rogers-Adkinson, former Provost at Commonwealth University. Combined, these two discussions (which you can find on TRANSFORMED podcast episodes 85 and 83 respectively) provide a treasure trove of insights that should help you think through your next academic program review, be it partial, rolling, or comprehensive.
1. Integrate Academic Planning with Strategic Planning
Comprehensive academic planning must be integrated with an institution’s strategic planning process. By aligning academic goals with strategic objectives, institutions can ensure coherence and unity in their efforts. Rodriguez mentions the importance of a flexible strategic planning cycle that incorporates new information and allows for timely adjustments. This integration facilitates the allocation of resources to support program changes and provides a framework for accountability and progress tracking.
2. Establish a Clear Vision and Purpose
Rogers-Adkinson emphasizes the importance of having a clear vision and purpose for the academic program review process. In the case of Commonwealth University, the merger of three institutions drove the creation of a new identity and program alignment. The vision was to serve learners across different campuses with similar programs, ensuring shared outcomes and opportunities. It is crucial for institutions to define their goals and communicate them effectively to faculty, staff, and students to ensure everyone is aligned and working towards a common vision.
3. Take a Systematic Approach
To effectively navigate the rapidly changing educational landscape, institutions need to adopt a systematic approach. Rodriguez emphasizes the significance of listening to external parties, including employer partners and community stakeholders, to understand emerging needs and trends. By incorporating external perspectives, institutions can act on this information and create academic programs that meet the evolving demands of the job market.
4. Set Clear Metrics and Timelines
To ensure accountability and progress, institutions should establish clear metrics and timelines for the program review process. For example, Rogers-Adkinson mentions the use of student-to-program ratio as a key metric at Commonwealth University. This metric helped determine the viability and resource allocation for each program. Additionally, leaders set a timeline for the completion of the new curriculum, and faculty were made aware of the consequences of not meeting the deadline. Clear metrics and timelines provide a sense of urgency and focus, ensuring that the program review process stays on track.
5. Foster Collaboration and Inclusivity
Successful program review requires collaboration and inclusivity among faculty and staff from different campuses and departments. Rogers-Adkinson highlights the need for functional integration teams, which allowed faculty members from different campuses to assess existing curricula, identify shared courses and norms, and determine industry needs. The teams were given autonomy to decide how to seek input from external partners, ensuring that the new curriculum aligned with market demands. Inclusivity and collaboration foster engagement, creativity, and a sense of ownership among faculty, leading to a more successful program review process and outcome.
6. Leverage Program Advisory Committees
Program advisory committees play a crucial role in program review and evolution. These committees, consisting of employers, recent graduates, faculty, staff, and students, provide valuable insights into industry trends and help identify gaps in curriculum and skill development. Regular engagement with program advisory committees ensures that academic programs remain relevant and responsive to industry needs. Rodriguez shares examples where program changes were driven by feedback from these committees, such as incorporating sustainability aspects into the plastics engineering program.
Conclusion
The pace of change in Higher Education is diversifying the drivers and increasing the urgency of academic program reviews. Regardless of the circumstance, institutions must consider a data-driven, collaborative, and forward-looking approach. By establishing a clear vision and purpose, integrating academic planning with strategic planning, and setting clear metrics and timelines, institutions can clearly show why academic program review is required and what outcomes will determine success. By systematically gathering external input, fostering collaboration and inclusivity, and leveraging program advisory committees, institutions can dramatically improve their chances for success in the context of their unique cultures. The experiences of the Provosts from University of Wisconsin-Stout and Commonwealth University provide valuable insights into how these practices can be applied effectively, resulting in successful program reviews and the reinvention of academic programs.