Academic Program Review

Office of the Provost

The Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs oversees the APR process.

• Approving nominations of external reviewers
• Hosting entry and exit meetings with members of the External Review Team
• Hosting the post-review meeting
• Submitting the Institutional Response to the THECB

The Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness & Planning is the primary point of contact for all review activities.

• Coordinating the 10-year review cycle in consultation with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)
• Assisting with self-study development
• Reviewing self-studies for feedback and final approval before distribution
• Preparing Institutional Response in collaboration with program(s), college(s) leadership, and the APR Administrative Team

The Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate & Professional School and Vice Provost for Student Success work with the Office of the Provost to provide support and guidance to programs undergoing review. They help ensure that reviews of programs and other educational and teaching priorities, faculty expertise and research priorities, and service and outreach programs are appropriate to the individual program undergoing review.

The APR Coordinator in the Office of the Provost provides logistical support for the review. The APR Coordinator works directly with programs undergoing review to assist with preparations for the review and with monitoring progress throughout the entire review cycle. The specific responsibilities of the coordinator include:

• Assisting with logistical arrangements
• Scheduling academic program review dates in consultation with the program
• Scheduling all meetings involving the APR Administrative Team
• Contacting potential reviewers on behalf of the Provost
• Facilitating external review team lodging and travel

The college dean's responsibilities include:

• Approving the program’s nomination of peer reviewers
• Reviewing and approving the self-study
• Meeting with the External Review Team during the site visit
• Participating in the post-review meeting with the APR Administrative Team
• Approving follow-up correspondence from the program and monitoring strategies and outcomes in response to the APR and providing additional input from the college’s perspective.

All documentation must be reviewed and approved by the college dean before it is forwarded to the Provost Office.

The Degree Program

Program leadership has significant responsibilities in preparing for the review and in executing the visit. To assist with this effort, degree programs should closely follow the procedures outlined below.

The external review team participates in and conducts the site visit. The role of the review team is to ensure the integrity of the academic program review, provide valid feedback regarding the status of the program and make recommendations for improvement. The external review members will receive a $1,500 professional fee and will be reimbursed for all travel-related expenses by the Office of the Provost upon completion and transmittal of the final report to the Provost.

External Review Team Charge

• Based on the information provided in the self-study report and gathered by the review team during its campus visit, what are the programs’ overall strengths and weaknesses?
• How well do the programs’ focus and learning outcomes align with the strategic academic goals and priorities of the department, college(s), and those of Texas A&M University?
• How would you compare the program(s) reviewed with those offered by peers? Specifically, do the curriculum, the identified learning outcomes, and overall program outcomes align with similar programs offered at peer institutions? If not, are unique characteristics of the program(s) reviewed a strength or area of concern?
• With only current resources or a modest infusion of new ones, what specific recommendations could improve the programs’ performance, marginally or significantly?

External Team will be asked to complete an External Review Team Form that asks about each section covered in the self-study

An important task for the Degree Program is to develop a list of 8 to 10 potential reviewers. Nominees should be professionally prominent individuals who have experience not only with undergraduate and graduate programs, but also with teaching, research, and engagement or service components as appropriate. Programs should identify a diverse group of nominees from peer or aspirant peers. When appropriate, nominees may also be from business or government. A team member who participated in a previous review is recommended, but not required. Programs should coordinate their nominees in consultation with the appropriate college dean.

The list of potential reviewers will contain the following information:

• Preferred potential reviewers
• Complete job title, rank, and name of a reviewer’s department or program
• Nominee's principal area of scholarly activity (related to degree program being reviewed)
• Name of university or organization
• Contact information (full mailing address, e-mail, and telephone number)
• Preference for chair of external review team (top two choices)

Upon receipt of the college-approved peer review candidates, the Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness & Planning will forward the list of candidates to the Provost for approval. After approval by the Provost, selected members will be invited by the Provost.

Review team members selected from the list of potential reviewers will be chosen according to the following criteria:

1. All external reviewers with subject matter expertise must be employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas.
2. External Reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline; they will be asked to benchmark Texas A&M’s programs with their peer and aspirant peer programs based on discipline-specific rankings and other publicly available comparisons to graduate programs.
3. External Reviewers must affirm that there exists no conflict of interest related to the program under review.

Preference will be given to External Reviewers from peer programs at public, preferably land grant, institutions

The Program’s faculty prepare the self-study prior to review. This study provides detailed information about the program and includes an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The self-study is the faculty’s opportunity for self-evaluation and reflection both on historical data (the past five years) as well as a strategic path forward (the next five years). Programs are encouraged to commit themselves to specific, long-range planning in the self-study. An analysis of each major section of the self-study helps reviewers put the program data into context within the college and larger institution.

The self-study is completed in an online platform that clearly outlines each of the sections to be included (as outlined below).

The program’s self-study will be your external review team’s primary source of information. In addition to presenting the information requested in tables, charts and narratives, the program should complete each section with an analysis.

Organize the self-study report according to the order of required items as listed.

Sections of the self-study denoted with * are required by the State of Texas (see “Characteristics of Texas Doctoral Programs” and Texas Administrative Code Rule § 5.52). Additional information will be embedded in the template.

Executive Summary of the Self-Study Report (1-2 pages)

• Overview of the program(s) to be included in the APR
• Overview of the number of faculty and students across programs for the current academic year

Department Overview and Infrastructure

Briefly describe each of the following:

• Mission and strategic plan
  • Include a summary of the strategic priorities for the department, the college/school, and the University as they relate specifically to academic programs
• Leadership of the department
• External program accreditations (if applicable) *
• Facilities supporting the program(s) included in the APR, including space and equipment used for the delivery of the programs and related activities (e.g., research)
• Finances related to academic programs(s)

At a minimum, supporting documents should include the following:

• Institutional Summary – provided by the APR Coordinator
• Department Strategic Plan (if available)
• School/College Strategic Plan

Academic Program(s) Overview

• List the academic degree programs to be addressed in the APR
• Identify peer and aspirant programs
• Summarize the curriculum by program, including program learning outcomes
• Describe how the curriculum is appropriate for the level and type of degree awarded by the program
• Specify the admissions criteria (by program)
• Provide the number of degrees awarded per year (based on the most recent 5 years) and average time to degree (based on the most recent 5 years) by program*

At a minimum, supporting documents should include the following:

• A summary of the program curriculum for each program; documents might include the catalog description of the program and curricular requirements or sample degree plans from the most recent academic year.

Summary of the last APR if applicable (if this is the first APR review for the programs in the department, note this in this section)

• Provide the date of the last review and list the members of the external review team
• Summarize the recommendations and actions taken to date based on the recommendations, with particular attention to the last 2-3 years since the submission of the last Status Report
• Provide a summary of any significant structural or curricular changes to programs offered since the last review (e.g., new programs, program phaseouts, changes to mode of delivery, changes to the administrative location of the programs)

At a minimum, supporting documents should include the following:

• The last External Review Team Report
• The Institutional Summary submitted to the THECB
• The 1-Year Status Report
• The 5-Year Status Report

Program Assessment (by program)

• Learning Outcomes
• Provide the strategies used to assess identified learning outcomes (as outlined in Section 3)
• Summarize the results from previous student learning outcome assessments
• Discuss (1-3 improvements made based on results of the program’s assessment of learning outcomes (by program) over the last 2-3 years.
• Program Outcomes (for the previous 5 years, by program)
• Provide data on the identified program outcomes, to include but not limited to the following:
  • Retention rates*
  • Number of degrees per year*
  • Graduate rates*
  • Average time to degree*
  • Student publications / presentations*
• Discuss the degree program’s progress and efforts related to retention and graduation rate, time to degree, degrees awarded and placement upon graduation

Student Profile

• Provide the following data for the last 5 academic years (based on fall semester data) by academic program included in the current APR:
  • Enrollment by academic year, including % of full-time students*
  • Student demographics (gender, ethnicity, domestic v. international, first generation) by level (e.g., baccalaureate, masters, doctoral) *
  • Average institutional support provided for graduate students by program/year (e.g., first year master’s students, first year doctoral students) *
  • Number of applied, admitted, and enrolled students by program*
  • Percentage of full-time students with institutional financial support*
  • Employment profile (in field/discipline within one year of graduation) *
• Analysis: Discuss the degree program’s contribution to the land grant mission of the university as described in the Strategic Plan. Discuss any discernable trends in the data, including efforts undertaken to address any identified deficiencies.

Additional information could include:

• Average SAT/GRE scores for entering students
• Average GPA for enrolled students by program
• Comparisons with similar programs offered across the college/school or among the identified peer/aspirant programs

Faculty Profile

• The information provided in the tables below should reflect the faculty integral to the program(s) such as those who teach courses, mentor students, or serve on advisory committees

• Faculty demographics

Demographics of full-time faculty as of the fall semester immediately prior to submission of self-study

• Faculty qualifications (i.e., expected qualifications for faculty by rank)
  • Provide a summary of expected qualifications for faculty by rank and type (i.e., tenure/tenure-track, APT). Include a discussion of metrics commonly used to assess faculty performance such as in annual reviews.
  • In the table below, list the names of all faculty represented in the tables above and provide the information as indicated (add rows as needed).

• Analysis: Discuss the extent to which the number of full-time faculty members is sufficient to support the mission of the program(s) under review and to ensure their quality and integrity. Using the degree program(s) standards (i.e., Program Evaluation Metrics for faculty teaching, research and service, as well as other relevant data such as annual reviews or other benchmarks) discuss the faculty’s overall performance.

Identified Priorities and Opportunities for Improvement as a result of the Self-Study process.

Based on the self-study process,

• What opportunities for improvement did the program faculty identify?
• What priorities did the program faculty develop?
• Are there any specific areas for which the program faculty is particularly interested in ERT feedback/guidance?

Data is to cover the most recent 5-year period and will include the information summarized below.
Data can be found in the Accountability website and in the Faculty Affairs Intranet under the Data tab.

Student Data

• Student enrollment by degree program
• Student demographics (gender, ethnicity, domestic vs international) by level
• Average SAT/GRE scores and GPA for enrolled students by level; also compared to the average for the affiliated academic college (by semester and academic year)
• Degrees awarded by degree program
• Number of applied/admitted/enrolled students for degree program by degree program and by level (fall semesters only)
• Average time to degree by degree program (by academic year)
• Average retention rates by degree program (by academic year)
• First time in college by Texas high school

Faculty Data

• Average annual faculty salary by rank (by academic year converted to nine-month salaries); this will include full-time faculty only and will be divided among tenured/tenure-track individuals and non-tenure-track individuals
• Average faculty salary by rank relative to TAMU, and relative to peer institutions comparable degree programs; this will include full-time faculty only
• Faculty demographics (gender, ethnicity, age) by rank (divided by full time and part-time)
• Teaching load per faculty rank by level (by academic year)
• Faculty to student ratio; also compared to other degree programs within the affiliated academic college

Other Data

• Semester credit hours taken by major (regardless of degree program) by level (by academic year)
• Semester credit hours taught in degree program courses (regardless of major of student taking the course) by level (by academic year)
• Courses taken by major
• History of courses taught
• Outside-degree program students by gender and level
• Outside-degree program students summary by gender and level

External reviewers arrive in College Station by 6:00 p.m. on the first day of the review and will depart the afternoon of the final day of the review. The site visit consists of Entry/Exit Interviews with the APR Administrative Team, various meetings with the dean of the college (or designee), DH/PC, faculty members and students, and tours of degree program facilities. Below is a sample itinerary. This is a suggested itinerary and is flexible with the exception of the breakfasts that are scheduled by the APR Coordinator.

Sample Itinerary - 1 1/2 day option (for Bachelor or Master's (or both) or Doctoral program only)

Sample itinerary for 2 1/2 day option

Transportation, Meals, and Lodging

Transportation: Members of the external review team will be making their own travel arrangements. The program is responsible for ground transportation while in College Station.

Meals: The program is responsible for arranging lunch for the External Review Team.

Lodging: Lodging is arranged by the APR Coordinator . Reviewers will stay at The Texas A&M Hotel & Conference Center

Texas A&M Hotel & Conference Center
177 Joe Routt Boulevard
College Station, Texas 77840
979-260-2235

Once the external review team completes the site visit, and based on state reporting requirements, the Chair will be asked to submit the committee’s Final Report within two weeks of the conclusion of the campus visit/review.

The external review team’s (ERT) final report on the degree program will be forwarded to the DH/PC, the college leadership, and members of the APR Administrative Team upon receipt from the chair of the ERT by the APR coordinator (APR@tamu.edu). The DH/PC will have 30 days to provide a draft written response on the ERT report to the dean, based on input and discussion with program faculty. Following preliminary agreement by the dean (or designee) to the proposed actions, the DH/PC will submit the preliminary program response to the APR coordinator (at APR@tamu.edu) no later than two weeks prior to the scheduled post-review meeting. 

At a minimum, responses and approved actions are required for any issues identified in the ERT report as “Needs Improvement.” Responses to other recommendations provided by the ERT are strongly encouraged.

The goal of the post-review process is to finalize actions to be taken in response to recommendations by the ERT (particularly as they relate to issues noted as “Needs Improvement”). Post-review consists of a post-review meeting and submission of the final Program Response Form.

The Post-Review Meeting
The post-review meeting, typically held 45 – 60 days following the site visit,  includes the DH/PC, the college dean (and/or designee), and members of the APR Administrative Team. The post-review meeting provides the DH/PC the opportunity to present the Program Response and finalize actions to be taken.    The final Program Response Form and a cover letter indicating approval of the actions by the dean are to be submitted to the APR coordinator (APR@tamu.edu) no later than three weeks following the post-review meeting. 

 The Institutional Response
The Institutional Response Report, prepared by the Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness and Planning (AVP-AEP), will be based on the approved Program Response Form and in consultation with program and college leadership and members of the APR Administration Team.  The Institutional Response will include an overview of the external review process and a summary of actions to be taken.  The AVP-AEP will be responsible for submitted all required documentation to the THECB (i.e., the Executive Summary from the self-study, the final ERT Report, and the Institutional Response Report). 

1. In accordance with the requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges, each public institution of higher education shall have a process to review the quality and effectiveness of existing degree programs and for continuous improvement.
2. The Coordinating Board staff shall develop a process for conducting a periodic audit of the quality, productivity, and effectiveness of existing bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs at public institutions of higher education and health-related institutions.
3. Each public university and health-related institution shall review all doctoral programs at least once every ten years.
   1. On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all doctoral programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workforce.
   2. Institutions shall begin each review of a doctoral program with a rigorous self-study.
   3. As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least two external reviewers with subject-matter expertise who are employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas.
   4. External reviewers must be provided with the materials and products of the self-study and must be brought to the campus for an on-site review.
   5. External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
   6. External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review.
   7. Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
   8. Institutions shall review master’s and doctoral programs in the same discipline simultaneously, using the same self-study materials and reviewers. Institutions may also, at their discretion, review bachelor’s programs in the same discipline as master’s and doctoral programs simultaneously.
   9. Criteria for the review of doctoral programs must include, but are not limited to:
      1. The Characteristics of Texas Public Doctoral Programs;
      2. Student retention rates;
      3. Student enrollment;
      4. Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
      5. Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes;
      6. Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs;
      7. Program facilities and equipment;
      8. Program finance and resources;
      9. Program administration; and
      10. Faculty Qualifications.
   10. Institutions shall submit a report on the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewers and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewers have submitted their findings to the institution.
   11. Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
4. Each public university and health-related institution shall review all stand-alone master’s programs at least once every ten years.
   1. On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all master’s programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workspace.
   2. Institutions shall begin each review of a master’s program with a rigorous self-study.
   3. As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least one external reviewer with subject-matter expertise who is employed by an institution of higher education outside of Texas.
   4. External reviewers shall be provided with the materials and products of the self-study. External reviewers may be brought to the campus for an on-site review or may be asked to conduct remote desk review.
   5. External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
   6. External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review.
   7. Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
   8. Master’s programs in the same 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code as doctoral programs shall be reviewed simultaneously with their related doctoral programs.
   9. Criteria for the review of master’s programs must include, but are not limited to:
      1. Faculty qualifications;
      2. Faculty publications;
      3. Faculty external grants;
      4. Faculty teaching load;
      5. Faculty/student ratio;
      6. Student demographics;
      7. Student time-to-degree;
      8. Student publication and awards;
      9. Student retention rates;
      10. Student graduation rates;
      11. Student enrollment;
      12. Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
      13. Graduate placement (i.e. employment or further education/training);
      14. Number of degrees conferred annually;
      15. Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes;
      16. Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs;
      17. Program facilities and equipment;
      18. Program finance and resources;
      19. Program administration.
   10. Institutions shall submit a report of the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewer(s) and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewer(s) have submitted their findings to the institution.
   11. Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
5. The Coordinating Board shall review all reports submitted for master’s and doctoral programs and shall conduct analysis as necessary to ensure high quality. Institutions may be required to take additional actions to improve their programs as a result of Coordinating Board review.