University Program Review ofUndergraduate and Graduate Programs

With over 100 unique programs and seven master’s degrees available, all undergraduate and graduate programs are reviewed on a 7-year cycle with three 2-year program progress reports completed in the interim.

The purpose of an academic program review is to analyze and evaluate the degree or program under review, coming to consensus on a plan for improvement. The academic program review process includes four phases: review and analysis of program data and organizing the external reviewer site visit, , preparation of the program review report, and preparing an action plan to be vetted by the administration.

The program review report is prepared and written by the faculty-led University Program Review Committee (UPRC), which is constituted at the beginning of the fall semester of the academic year in which the program review process begins.

The UPRC consists of two co-directors, one faculty senate appointee, one provost appointee, and additional committee members representing the Colleges of Business, Letters, Arts and Sciences, Professional Studies, and the School of Education.

In support of the research and analysis required of the program review report, the review committee receives a comprehensive data packet with information collected from the Office of University Effectiveness, the Director of Academic Effectiveness, and the Data Manager located within the Office of Curriculum and Academic Effectiveness. This data packet is shared with the external reviewer and forms the basis for subsequent discussions of the review committee about the direction and focus of the program review.

The review committee is encouraged to utilize student satisfaction survey data, such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), where possible.

Following the preparation of the data packet, external reviewers (representative of the disciplines constituting the degree program) visit the campus to meet with faculty members, administrators, and students; the reviewer prepares a site visit report. In response to this report and all other information collected by the UPRC, suggestions for program improvement is made. A 1-year follow-up is provided by the Dean. During the 6 year interim, three 2-year program progress cycles are completed, which filter into the program’s next 7th year review.

In addition to the guidelines in this document, review committee members are encouraged to utilize resource materials found in the UPRC SharePoint group, the Academic Affairs program review website, and the and previous program review reports of the same and similar degree programs.

2

Table of Contents

Process Timeline 3

Responsibilities for Program Review Process 4

External Site Reviewer Selection 5

Program Participation of a Site Review 5

Site Reviewer Campus Visit 5

Example Site Reviewer Itinerary 6

Materials to be Supplied by the Program Chair 8

Program Review Self-Study Narrative 8

Program Review Information Packet 11

Faculty Forum with the UPRC 11

UPRC Program Review Report 11

Review Culmination Meeting and Chair Responses 11

Executive Summary 11

1-Year Follow-up Report 12

Annual Updates 12

3

Process Timeline

The program review process is a three-semester process starting in the Fall. Attending regular meetings, collaborating with colleagues across disciplines, and meeting deadlines are essential to completing a successful report and completing the program review process. Below is a table with the phases and deadlines of the program review process.

Activity Deadline or Occurrence

Data manager provides data for all programs. JuneReview committee members assemble. AugustSite reviewer to submit the program narrative program materials, including but not limited to 2-Year Academic Program Progress Reports, faculty CVs (formatted and submitted electronically), and advising materials as outlined in guidelines document.

August

Chair to submit the site reviewer approval request form. (Available on UPRC website.) AugustChair and program review manager finalize site reviewer visit dates. August and

SeptemberReview committee meets to discuss program data packets containing information provided by the Offices of University Effectiveness and Curriculum and Academic Effectiveness (CAE).

September

Review committee meets regularly, typically weekly, to discuss and analyze program data packets, the program’s 2-year Academic Program Progress Reports, and any other relevant data such as the NSSE student satisfaction survey results.

September and October

External reviewer conducts site visit. September to December

Review committee meets to discuss essential questions to be answered in the program review report; committee drafts essential program questions; committee strategizes on the division of work.

September and October

Review committee meets regularly to discuss new drafts of the program review report as it develops, and draft questions for the faculty interviews; data issues or additional requests can be raised with the data manager.

September to November

The review committee interviews the program’s chair and full-time faculty to discuss questions developed by the committee after reading the site reviewer’s report and the program narrative.

October to December

Review committee completes final draft of the program review report. Distributes to all stakeholders to include program faculty, chairs, deans, and provost.

December to March

Review co-directors draft questions for the program chair, which will be discussed at the review culmination meeting,

March to May

Review committee directors, provost, dean, program chair, and AVP of academic effectiveness meet to discuss concerns discovered during the program’s review.

May to July

Review committee completes an executive summary for the institution’s board of trustees. Committee distributes summary to all stakeholders to include program faculty, chair, dean, provost.

May to July

AVP of Curriculum and Academic Effectiveness presents a program review summary and provides annual updates to the board of trustees for each program reviewed.

December

4

Responsibilities for Program Review Process

Semester Program Chair Dean AA or UPRC Director UPRCSummer 2019 Select site reviewer Approve site

reviewerApprove site reviewer

Write narrative; supply information to AA (see below).

Assemble data packet.

Fall 2019 Prepare site reviewer itinerary.

Work with AA/program review manager to select visit dates that work for all (Provost, Dean, UPRC, etc.)

Assist Chair with itinerary.

Assist Chair with itinerary.

Review data packet and program materials.

Facilitate site visit.

Program Chair serves as host for the site visit.

Meet with site reviewer during site visit.

AVP and Provost to meet with site reviewer individually during site visit.

Meet with site reviewer during site visit.

UPRC Director(s) to write faculty interview questions.

Fall 19 – Spring 20

Host faculty forum with UPRC.

Program faculty forum meeting with UPRC.Respond to faculty

forum questions.Spring 2020 -Summer 2020

Review culmination meeting(provost, dean, chair and other stakeholders).

Respond to review culmination meeting questions.

Prepare review culmination memo.

Prepare program review final report.

Assist Dean inresponse to review culmination questions.

Review culmination meeting.

Review culmination meeting.

Fall 2020 Presentation to the BoT (along with CAE AVP).

Presentation to the BoT (along with the dean).

Fall 2021 1 Year Follow-Up presentation to the Board (along with AVP).

1 Year Follow-Up presentation to the Board (along with dean).

Subsequent 6 Years Until

2-Year Program Progress Reports.

2-Year Program Progress Reports.

Review 2-Year Program Progress

Review 2-Year Program Progress

5

Next Program Review See UPRC website

for schedule, forms, and information.

See UPRC website for schedule, forms, and information.

Reports. Reports.

External Site Reviewer Selection

The purpose of the program review site reviewer is to evaluate the quality of the program in the following areas: Curriculum, Faculty, Assessment, Student Experience, Resources, and Online Presence. The ideal program review site reviewer is up-to-date on the curriculum discussions and debates within the discipline. He/she understands that the curriculum can be structured in a variety of ways, all of which can be effective, in addition to understanding a wide range of issues related to faculty roles and higher education resource allocation. The program should select an objective site reviewer who has no previous ties, either professional or personal, with the University or individual faculty members. Site reviewers may not conduct more than one review of a single program. The dean must submit the site reviewer approval request form (http://www.msudenver.edu/asa/facultyinformation/programreview/) by September 30 of the review year.

The following are criteria to consider when selecting a potential site reviewer. The site reviewer:• has been a program review site reviewer for other institutions’ programs or has evaluated

other programs.• has served on an accreditation team that evaluated an institution’s program.• has been active in the educational/curricular organization or sub-organization of a

professional organization aligned with the discipline.• has worked at a number of different institutions and thus has had exposure to different types

of programs.• has written articles covering curricula of the discipline.• Is familiar with both undergraduate and graduate level distinctions (if applicable to this

review).

Program Participation of a Site Review

If the program was reviewed by an accrediting agency within the previous 12 months, the self-study document and report produced by the team may serve in lieu of an external site reviewer. However, a program is encouraged to bring in a site reviewer even in these situations.

Site Reviewer Campus Visit

After the reviewer has been selected, and the dean has submitted the site reviewer approval request form, the chair will contact the site reviewer to determine general availability for the campus visit; prior to confirmation, dates must be cleared with the program review manager to avoid site visit overlaps with other programs undergoing a review, and to verify provost, dean, UPRC, and other stakeholder meeting availability.

The chair will ensure that the site reviewer has a clear understanding of the conditions of payment, consistent with fiscal rules. The site reviewer will not be paid until MSU Denver has received his or her report. The chair should send the program review manager the site reviewer’s contact information after payment information has been confirmed with the site reviewer.

6

Site Reviewer ChecklistThe site reviewer will receive a checklist from the chair detailing what needs to be done prior, during and after the visit. (See checklist at the end of this document.)

The site reviewer will receive a $1,500 payment for conducting the review and preparing a report, which is due to the University within 30 days following the visit. If the report is received between 31 and 45 days following the visit, the stipend is $1,200. If the report is received between 46 and 60 days following the visit, the stipend is $750. The purpose of this reduced stipend schedule is to facilitate the timely completion of the report so the UPRC can proceed with its work. The program review manager works with the site reviewer to arrange travel accommodations. For payment purposes, travel accommodations must be booked by the University directly.

Covered expenses included airfare, lodging, ground transportation (taxi or Uber/Lyft preferred) and a per diem for meals not provided by the program on-site. Receipts are required for reimbursement of those expenses that are not directly paid by the University. Site reviewers are expected to travel home on the final day of the visit unless a flight is not available to accommodate return to the home city by 9 p.m. local time.

The program review manager will process all necessary paperwork for payment and expense reimbursement, requesting from the site reviewer a W-9 form for tax purposes and a copy of their photo ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, along with an invoice for the $1500 stipend.

Example Site Reviewer Itinerary

The program chair serves as host to the site reviewer. The site reviewer agrees to spend two full days oncampus. Working with the program review manager, the program chair schedules the reviewer’s visit so that the reviewer meets with or observes the following:

a. Dean(s) at the end of day one, and end of day two.b. Associate Vice President of Curriculum and Academic Effectiveness.c. Provost.d. Students in the program.e. Classroom visit (and online course review, as applicable)f. Alumni.g. Program faculty members/staff/stakeholders.h. Program faculty and/or staff from related programs and other stakeholders.i. Advisory council, if applicable.j. Members of the UPRC.

A site reviewer’s itinerary should include any meetings essential to a fully-informed campus visit. Chairs should add any additional meetings necessary in order to create the most comprehensive visit possible.

Before creating or distributing an itinerary, please communicate with the program review manager to confirm available dates for site visits to take place. To avoid scheduling conflicts, site visits should be held on a Tuesday/Wednesday combination, with the site reviewer arriving on Monday evening and returning Wednesday evening (if an evening flight is available). Two program reviews cannot be scheduled for the same week. Site visits should take place when all stakeholders are available (provost, dean, UPRC, etc.). Before finalizing your itinerary, please be sure your itinerary contains meetings for two full days. All travel is booked through the University directly.

7

Items in black are scheduled by the program review manager, items in blue are scheduled by the department chair:

Sample Site Reviewer ItineraryTuesday, September 17

Time Meeting Location8:00 Hotel pickup by chair SpringHill

8:00-9:00 Campus and department tour with chair Campus9:00-11:00 Classroom and lab visits

11:00-12:00 Campus constituents/program stakeholders12:00-1:00 Lunch with chair/program/faculty1:00-2:00 AVP of Curriculum and Academic Effectiveness2:00-3:00 Review collected material3:00-4:00 Dean of Department4:00-5:00 Student/alumni forum

Wednesday, September 18Time Meeting Location

8:00-8:15 Hotel pickup SpringHill8:15-9:00 Follow up questions for chair/staff

9:00-11:00 Classroom visit11:00-12:00 University Program Review Committee Always Weds

@11:00 due to committee

teaching schedule12:00-1:00 Lunch with faculty1:00-2:00 Campus constituents (Internship, Advisory

Council, etc.)2:00-3:00 Provost and VP of Academic Affairs Vicki Golich Should be

sometime in the afternoon on day

two3:00-4:00 Dean of Department4:00-5:00 Wrap up

Suggestions• Most programs have the site reviewer visit at least two classes, one of upper-division students,

the other of lower-division students. The instructor may leave the room to allow the site reviewer to ask students about the program.

• Some programs host a gathering for their alumni and/or employers asking them to come meet with the site reviewer.

• As applicable, the site reviewer might be given a tour of the library and the computer labs.• If some of the program’s courses are required by another program, consideration should be given to

scheduling a time for the site reviewer to meet with the chair of the other program.

8

Materials to be Supplied by the Program Chair

Program Chairs, with help from faculty members, supply the following materials to the program review manager by October 1. Materials should be sent in electronic form.

1. up-to-date curriculum vitae for all full-time faculty.2. program review narrative (template and details below).3. program strategic plan, role, and mission.4. program marketing materials.5. advising checklists and/or plans.

Program Review Self-Study Narrative

Program Chairs, with help from faculty members, prepare a narrative that explicitly addresses the following, even if the accreditation self-study and report are serving in lieu of an external site reviewer. The narrative is organized in the same categories as the UPRC report. Please use these categories and questions as a template for the program narrative. Some questions may not be directly applicable to your program.

MissionA. The strengths or distinguishing features of the program as compared with other programs.

In particular the narrative should identify:1. The mission statement of the department.2. The differences between the program and other similar programs offered on the

Auraria campus and in the metropolitan area, if such others exist.3. The interconnections and cooperation, if any, which exist between the program and other

similar programs offered on the Auraria campus and in the metropolitan area.4. If the program has an advisory council, the narrative should contain a description of the

composition and functions of the council and its activities during the review period. Changes to the program that have been suggested by the advisory council might be noted.

CurriculumB. An analysis of the results of assessment activities, including:

1. The results of a faculty review of the program’s student learning outcomes. Should the learning outcomes be revised? If so, in what way?

2. The usefulness of the student learning assessment data. Should the assessment methodology be changed?

3. Changes made in the curriculum to address concerns about student learning, e.g., changed prerequisites because students lack the prerequisite knowledge. See D.

4. How students’ participation in internships, practica, cooperative education, field experiences, service-learning courses or co-curricular activities help them achieve one or more of the program’s student learning outcomes. Which outcomes are these? How is the effectiveness of those experiences evaluated?

5. How faculty members have shared assessment results with students and others, including their advisory council members, if applicable.

C. The motivation for any significant changes in or decisions not to change the curriculum. The response to this question should include a description of:

9

1. The curriculum philosophy, including the appropriateness of required courses offered outside the program, if any.

2. Changes in the curriculum that have been proposed but are not yet through the curriculum process.

3. Changes in the curriculum being considered by the program and an explanation of potential benefits of these changes. Are any of these changes the result of a systematic review of exceptions requested and/or approved by faculty?

4. The program's use of and interest in online courses.5. How the program has integrated technology into the curriculum and plans for integrating

new technologies.6. A list of the specific general studies courses required of program majors or minors, if any.

What is the rationale for these specified general studies courses? Do you have any conflict or confusion with gtPathways transfers? If so, please explain.

7. Any identifiable trends in the employment/further education of graduates, and its impact on the curriculum.

8. The major changes occurring in similar programs at other institutions; that is, the changes in the curriculum of the discipline that are taking place nation-wide.

D. The philosophy of the program regarding helping students learn to live and work in a diverse and global society. Include reference to specific courses, as applicable, as well as other initiatives.

FacultyE. Strengths or specialties of faculty. The narrative should describe the:

1. Strengths or specialties of current faculty’s professional development interests, including faculty faculty’s interest in research on teaching and learning, if applicable.

2. Changes in the faculty since the last program review, i.e. who retired or resigned and who was hired, along with any changes in specialties that resulted either from the change in personnel or from retraining of current faculty.

3. Special expertise possessed by part-time faculty teaching in the program.4. Faculty's interest in research on teaching and learning.

StudentsF. Enrollment Management. The narrative should describe:

1. Admission requirements into the program, if any.2. Strategies the program has developed to recruit and retain students, especially activities

aimed at women, minorities and non-traditional students. 3. Any special academic and/or demographic characteristics of students the program is

intended to serve.4. Any memoranda of understanding (transfer agreements) with community colleges and

their effectiveness in recruiting students5. If prerequisites are not being enforced using Banner, why not?6. Ways the program intentionally uses class size and other variables to manage enrollment.7. Policies on assigning evening and weekend courses, overload courses, and summer teaching.8. Policies and practices in relation to multi-section courses and affiliate faculty. In

particular, methods used to assure reasonably uniform course expectations across different sections should be described.

10

G. Methods by which the program strives to meet the needs of students, particularly nontraditional students, including a description of the:1. Academic and career advising and tutoring services provided to students.2. Success of program strategies designed to improve degree completion rates. What

challenges does the program face in addressing degree completion rates?3. Extracurricular activities and/or clubs sponsored by the program for its majors and minors,

and their recent activities.4. Special scheduling needs of the department's or program's students, if any, and the method

of assessment of those needs.

H. Knowledge about alumni. The narrative should describe the:1. Actions taken or planned to ensure closer and continuing contact with alumni.2. Achievements, awards, honors or recognition received by students in and alumni of

the program that are known to the faculty. [MSU Denver awards should not be included.]

ResourcesI. The program’s relationship to the external community. The narrative should describe:

1. The service and engagement opportunities provided to the community that require significant personnel time or funds and the method by which the service/engagement opportunity is assessed.

2. Evidence that the services/engagement activities provided are valued by the internal and external constituencies.

3. Those community needs that the program cannot meet due to lack of resources.J. Ways in which the program strives to effectively use its personnel and equipment resources,

including strengths and areas of concern. The narrative should address the effectiveness and adequacy of:1. Facilities, equipment, software, and databases. Needed items should be mentioned. Do you

use resources at other institutions or locations (e.g., labs, libraries)? If so, please describe.2. Alignment of faculty expertise with course scheduling/rotation to facilitate student

success and completion of the degree3. Staff support.4. Support given faculty in relation to instruction, e.g., supplies.5. Administrative support.

K. Outside support and funding. The narrative should describe the:1. Attempts the program has made to receive outside funding and the success it has had. Grants

written for the program, as well as other sources from which funds were requested, should be briefly described.

2. Gifts received by the program including their approximate value. This would include gifts of equipment as well as funding for scholarships.

Online PresenceL. The narrative should include information about the program’s website and its overall approach to

establishing an online presence:1. Is the program’s website outward facing, targeting prospective students and the student's family?2. Is the site content current?3. Are all the links on the site functional?4. Are there any pages "under constriction?” When will they be completed?

11

5. Is there someone within the program that is responsible for maintaining the website?6. Does the department have enough resources (faculty or staff) to properly maintain the website?7. What social media or other media platforms does the program use to reach out to prospective

students?

The narrative should answer as many of these topic areas as possible. Do not hesitate to add any additional comments that give a better understanding of how the program views and supports the website and other social media in promoting the program to prospective students.

Program Review Information Packet

The program review data packet will be delivered to the site reviewer approximately 2 weeks prior to the site reviewer’s visit. It will contain program data collected from the data manager, the program’s self-study narrative, faculty CVs, advising materials, and other departmental information. The packet will be sent electronically by the program review manager.

Faculty Forum with the UPRC

Part of the program review process is an interview of the faulty and persons involved with the program by the UPRC. The interview is generally scheduled for about one hour. All tenured/tenure-track faculty members should attend, if possible. In addition, Category 2 faculty members usually participate. The program may want departmental staff or affiliate faculty to attend as well.

Approximately two weeks prior to the faculty forum, the committee will send written questions to the department chair in electronic form. The chair is encouraged to share these questions with all faculty. These questions and their responses will be discussed during the meeting.

UPRC Program Review Report (Spring)

Several weeks after the faculty forum, the committee issues a report summarizing program strengths, along with concerns and recommendations in the areas of:

• Mission• Curriculum• Student Experience• Faculty• Resources• Online Presence

Review Culmination Meeting and Chair Responses (Summer)

After the UPRC issues its report, the chair, provost, dean, UPRC Co-Directors, Director of Academic Effectiveness meet to discuss the program review reports (from the external site reviewer and the UPRC). Prior to that meeting, the UPRC co-directors prepare a review culmination meeting memo identifying the important issues to be discussed.

Executive Summary (Late Fall term of next academic year)

The executive summary presented to the board of trustees contains the most important information from the UPRC and site reviewer’s reports.

12

1-Year Follow-up Report

One year after the review culmination meeting, the UPRC co-directors will request a 1-year follow-up response from the dean and chair summarizing actions taken since the program review process was completed. This statement should indicate how concerns have been addressed, whether recommendations have been followed and if any new issues have arisen. Responses will be forwarded to the program review manager and prepared for presentation to the board of trustees.

Annual Updates

In the six years that follow between program reviews a program will complete three 2-year program progress reports to assess ongoing program goals and initiatives. The data and information contained in these reports will be useful to the next program review.

Additional Information

Please visit the UPRC tab on the Academic Affairs website for forms and ongoing updates related to program review.

Site Reviewer checklist to follow. Chairs are to provide this checklist document to all potential site reviewers prior to obtaining dean approval and submitting the site reviewer approval form.

University Program ReviewExternal Site Reviewer Checklist

Prior to Visit:

◻ Lou Moss, Program Review Manager, will send you forms to be completed and submitted prior to your campus arrival. Forms include a W9, copy of your driver’s license, invoice, and university accounting services forms. Contact info: Lmoss3@msudenver.edu, (303) 605-5279.

This information is used to establish you as a vendor with Metropolitan State University of Denver; all items are required in order to process your payment.

◻ A data packet of program information will be sent to you approximately 2 weeks prior to your visit to MSU Denver. Please note that the University catalog is available electronically at: http://catalog.msudenver.edu/

◻ Once there is agreement about the dates of the visit, your travel itinerary will be created by Lou Moss. Lou will provide you with an itinerary to include flight and hotel accommodations. Please remember that the campus visit comprises two full days.

◻ The University will pay travel-related expenses (Uber/Lyft, meals not covered during the visit, baggage fees.) Meals which are not provided by the University will be paid based on the federal government per diem rate for the city of Denver. Ground transportation and parking receipts must be submitted within 30 days in order to receive reimbursement. The University will not reimburse site reviewers for car rentals.

During the Visit:

◻ Upon your arrival to campus, your first point of contact will be with the department chair, who will provide you with an itinerary for your two-day visit.

After the Visit:

◻ The report (using the attached guidelines) is due within 30 calendar days of your visit to campus. Please submit the report electronically to Lou Moss, lmoss3@msudenver.edu .

◻ The report is to be sent in Microsoft Word formatting (.doc or .docx) and not as a .pdf. This allows formatting changes to be made as necessary. No substantive changes will be made.

◻ The site reviewer will receive a $1,500 payment for conducting the review and preparing the report, if received on time.

If the report is received between 31 and 45 days following the visit, the stipend is $1,200. If the report is received between 46 and 60 days following the visit, the stipend is $750. The purpose of this reduced stipend schedule is to facilitate the timely completion of the report so the UPRC can proceed with its work.

Please contact Lou Moss with any questions. Thank you; we look forward to your visit to MSU Denver.

Site Reviewer Report Format:

Please provide a narrative of your findings concerning the six aspects of the program listed belowdescribing the program’s strengths, noting your concerns, and making recommendations. To aid your response, questions are posed for each aspect. You need not answer each question nor restrict your narrative to the questions asked.

We also ask you to rate certain aspects of the program. A form is at the end.

If, in determining the program’s strengths and weaknesses, you compare MSU Denver’s program to programs at other institutions, please provide the names of the other institutions and, if possible, a short statement as to whether or not they are the same type of institution as MSU Denver (public, urban, non-residential.)

1. Role and Mission Is the program consistent with the role and mission of Metropolitan State University of Denver?

2. Curriculum a. Is the core curriculum appropriate? If not, why not?b. Do the service courses meet the needs of the audiences for whom they are intended?c. Are the elective courses current and useful?d. Are the educational goals (desired student outcomes or competencies) that the program has

for its students clear and reasonable?e. Are there areas of emphasis that should be developed by the program to meet future needs?f. Should certain areas of emphasis be given low priority or discontinued? Explain why.g. Is any overlap or duplication that exists between departments, institutes, disciplines and

programs appropriate and has it been explained or justified?h. Are there any anomalies in the distributions of grades?i. Are courses scheduled at times, locations, and frequencies that are consistent with the

objectives of the program?j. How does the curriculum of this program compare with similar programs at comparable

institutions?

3. Students and Student Satisfaction Based on the data provided, consider the program's effectiveness when evaluated with respect to the:

a. number of degrees awardedb. number of courses offeredc. FTE student enrollmentsd. credit hours generatede. average class size by level of coursef. number of degree recipients who continue their formal education (masters, doctorate,

professional degree)Based on the information provided:

g. Does the assessment plan devised by the program faculty have the potential for effectively determining if students have achieved the desired competencies?

h. Does a review of the assessment results indicate that students have obtained those competencies?

i. Are program faculty making effective use of the information gained from assessment activities?

j. What changes, if any, should be made in the assessment plan?Based on the information provided, do students in the program and graduates of the program:

k. seem satisfied?l. perceive that they were prepared for graduate or professional school?m. obtain suitable employment?

4. Faculty a. Are the areas of faculty specialization and competence appropriate for the program? Are

other specialties needed?b. Is the use of part-time faculty appropriate?

Based on the information provided, evaluate the faculty collectively with respect to:c. their interest in curriculum revision.d. their professional development and scholarship including research in support of teaching and

learning.e. their service to MSU Denver and professionally-related public service.f. their participation in professional organizations.g. the distribution of their effort related to instruction, professional development, and service.h. the number of grants applied for, received, and the amount received.i. the diversity of their academic backgrounds.

5. Resources/Institutional Support a. Are resources adequate for achieving the goals and objectives of the program? Consider the

facilities, capital equipment, operating expenses, office, laboratory, classroom, and other instructional space, library, number of faculty, support staff, and other resources.

b. Does the review indicate that the program should be expanded, sustained at the same level, or contracted?

c. Are there initiatives and improvements that faculty and administrators should be making?d. Could the program be more effective if its place in the organizational structure of the school or

University were changed, e.g., if it were in a different department?

6. Online Presence a. Do you find the program’s website to be content rich and easy to navigate?b. Does the program have a social media presence? If not, what should they consider?c. What changes to the program’s website would be helpful to prospective students?

7. Conclusion

Please rate the following aspects of the program:

Ratings and Rationale

The perceived quality of the curriculum (undergraduate + graduate, whereapplicable).The perceived quality of the facilities

(laboratories, library collection,computers, classrooms, etc.).The perceived quality of the programFaculty.The importance of the program togeneral education.The importance of the program as asupport for, or as an integral part of, other programs offered by MSU Denver.The importance of the program to the region, the state, or the Denvermetropolitan area.The future potential of the program.