Academic Program Review Team (APRT) | Office for Academic Affairs

March 2024

The Academic Program Review (APR) is a vital process for long-range planning and setting priorities at both university and program levels. It provides critical insights into the program’s size, stability, future needs, strengths, weaknesses, and its alignment with the institution’s mission. In certain instances, external reviewers from the Academic Program Review Team (APRT) can offer invaluable expertise, objectivity, and a broader disciplinary perspective. University of Alabama (UA) faculty members on the APRT bring an understanding of the university’s mission, policies and practices, contributing to a well-rounded assessment of the department under review.

Role of External Reviewers in APRT

Expertise in Discipline: External reviewers offer specialized knowledge in the program’s field, contributing valuable insights into current trends and standards within the discipline both nationally and internationally.

Objective Assessment: By being outside the internal dynamics of the university, external reviewers are able to provide an unbiased evaluation of the program’s quality and its alignment with academic standards.

Recommendations: Their recommendations, grounded in expertise and a broader context, can help guide the program towards achieving excellence and relevance in its field.

Collaboration with UA Faculty: External reviewers collaborate with UA faculty on the APRT to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the university’s mission, policies, and practices.

Reviewing the Self-Study

Access and Preparation: Members will receive access to the self-study files. The chair of the APRT will coordinate the analysis of these documents and begin drafting an initial report or outline, incorporating contributions from all team members.

Collaborative Analysis: All members should actively contribute to analyzing the self-study, focusing on their areas of expertise. If additional information is needed, the chair should liaise with the department chair under review or relevant university officials.

Conducting On-Site Interviews

Preparation and Identification: Prior to the site visit, members should identify key questions and personnel for interviews, submitting these to the Associate Provost. Changes to the interview list may be made by the APRT chair as needed.

Interview Guidelines:

– Prepare specific questions in advance to obtain essential information.

– Maintain professionalism and collegiality to foster open dialogue.

– Ensure discussions stay focused on the relevant issues and opportunities.

– Avoid dominating the conversation or allowing interviewees to do so.

– Keep track of time to adhere to the schedule.

Interview Format: Consider the grouping of interviewees (e.g., junior vs. senior faculty) for more effective discussions. A sample interview schedule can be found in the appendix.

Expectations for the Final Report

Report Composition

The report, primarily initiated by the APRT chair, should be evaluative and forward-looking, spanning around 12-15 pages. It’s essential that every APRT member actively contributes to and assists in the writing and development of the report, ensuring a comprehensive and collaborative final product.

Content Focus

The report should address the program’s alignment with the core criteria outlined in the self-study and respond to any specific questions from the Dean. Recommendations should be realistic, considering available resources.

Presentation and Distribution

A summary of key findings and recommendations should be presented during the exit interviews. The complete report is to be submitted electronically to the Senior Associate Provost within 4-6 weeks post-visit, with any necessary revisions completed within 6-8 weeks.

Report Content Guidelines

Mission: Examine how the program’s mission aligns with and supports UA’s strategic plan.

Additional Observations: The APRT is encouraged to identify any other exemplary aspects or areas for improvement that emerge during the review.

Recommendations: Propose strategic actions for enhancing program quality.

Planning: Review the department’s strategic planning and its effectiveness in program improvement.

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Process: Analyze the rigor and effectiveness of the program’s student learning outcomes and their assessment methods.

Program Quality: Evaluate the quality of academic programs, research activities and outreach initiatives. Assess faculty, staff, and student recruitment and retention, especially among underrepresented groups.

Additional Notes

– Following feedback from recent reviews, it is imperative that APRT members engage in unbiased, non-leading questioning during interviews, focusing on the department’s operational processes and pedagogical goals.

– The process of drafting the report is a collaborative endeavor, with the chair playing a coordinating role. Regular communication and clarification of roles will be emphasized in future APRT meetings to ensure an effective and inclusive approach.”