Program Assessment

Working groups from each academic program conduct reviews, with support from administrative departments. The SPH Curriculum Committee is primarily responsible for ensuring the integrity of the assessment process, and results are reviewed by School leadership, Department Chairs, and Doctoral Directors.

Key questions that should be addressed in a programmatic self-study include:

•  How is effectiveness of this program defined?
•  What data is or should be collected to demonstrate effectiveness? How is it collected and analyzed?
•  How will stakeholders (faculty, staff, current students, alumni, employers, community partners) be engaged to gather input on our program?
•  How are we using data and stakeholder input to inform and strengthen programs?
•  Are our programs aligned with University and School mission and goals?
•  Are our programs complainant with professional and regional accrediting bodies?
•  How will we organize an external review of our programs by professional peer reviewers?

Minimum data elements provided by the Office for Institutional Research include:

•  Curriculum requirements
•  Applicant pool and admissions data
•  Student population: cohort sizes (FTE and HC), length of program, graduation rates, employment rates
•  Student and alumni survey results
•  Course evaluations in aggregate
•  Samples of student assignments and culminating projects
•  Faculty list (FTE and HC): qualifications, courses taught, advising assignments, scholarly activity
•  Fieldwork sites, project titles, student feedback, preceptor feedback

*New programs are not reviewed until five years after implementation
** Assessment process paused for revision in 2021-2022

Faculty should use the academic program review template to develop their programmatic self-study.

Key questions that should be addressed in a programmatic self-study include:

• How is the effectiveness of this program defined?
• What data is or should be collected to demonstrate effectiveness? How is it analyzed?
• How will stakeholders (faculty, staff, current students, alumni, employers, community partners) be engaged to gather input on our program?
• How are we using data and stakeholder input to inform and strengthen the program?
• How is this program aligned with University and School mission and goals?
• Is this program compliant with professional and regional accrediting bodies?
• How will we organize an external review of our programs by professional peer reviewers?

Minimum data elements provided by the Office of Institutional Research include but are not limited to:

• Applicant pool and admission data
• Student population: cohort sizes (FTE and HC), length of program, graduation rates, employment rates
• Student and alumni survey results
• Course evaluations in aggregate
• Faculty list (FTE and HC): qualifications, courses taught, advising assignments, scholarly activity

• Developing an academic program mission statement and competencies
• Sample timeline of academic program review
• External review template
• Bloom’s taxonomy
• Creating a curriculum map

Working groups from each unit conduct reviews, with support from administrative offices, including Institutional Research. The SPH Assessment Committee is primarily responsible for ensuring the integrity of the assessment process, and results are reviewed by School leadership.

Existing data elements which might be applicable to these units and can be provided by the Office for Institutional Research include:

• Continuing and New Student Survey
• Graduating Student Survey
• Alumni data
• Student enrollment

*Delayed due to staffing changes
** Assessment process paused for revision in 2021-2022

Administrators and staff should use the AES unit review template to develop their unit’s self-study.

Existing data elements that might be applicable to these units and can be provided by the Office of Institutional Research include:

• Continuing student survey results
• Graduating student survey results
• Alumni data
• Student enrollment data

• Developing AES mission statement, goal statements, and outcome measures
• Support outcomes taxonomy