Oral Roberts University PROGRAM REVIEW Dr. Cal Easterling Dr. Gweth Holzmann Dr. Connie Sjoberg

1. Oral Roberts UniversityPROGRAM REVIEWDr. Cal Easterling Dr. Gweth Holzmann Dr. Connie Sjoberg

2. ORU’s PROGRAM REVIEW

3. ORU PROGRAM REVIEW • The Program Review Panel, convened by the Director of Institutional Research, conducts a program review process for all academic programs of the University. • The review process will be completed for each ORU academic program once during every ten year period.

4. Fourfold Purpose • to provide evidence for the pursuit of and ongoing achievement of the University’s mission; (2) to demonstrate accountability for the academic programs delivered by this University; (3) to encourage program improvement and innovation; and (4) to provide information to assist University-level decisions about program revisions, program deletions, and resource allocation based upon program prioritization.

5. PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS PROGRAM INDICATORS REVIEW POSSIBLE DECISIONS

6. Demonstrated Student Learning Outcomes (University-Wide Level) Expenditure/Faculty FTE Expenditure/Student FTE Research/Students Research-Publish/Faculty Expenditure/Credit Hour Field Tests/Professional Tests Community Service/Faculty Faculty Survey Community Service/Students Future Growth or Decline Potential Current Student Survey Student/Faculty Diversity Employer/Graduate Faculty Survey Demonstrated Student Learning Outcomes (Program Level) General Ed Assessment Assessment: Catalog, Use of Rubrics, ePortfolio, etc. Student Opinion Surveys Alumni Survey Expenditure/Credit Hour SELECTED INDICATORS

7. POSSIBLE DECISIONS FROM PROGRAM REVIEW PHASE OUT: The program should be eliminated. REVIEW: Some pressing issues or concerns raised by the Panel’s review of the program need immediate investigation by appropriate administrators and faculty. MAINTAIN but REVIEW: The program should be continued but its review has raised questions or concerns about specific aspects of the program that should be further investigated and addressed by appropriate administrators and faculty.

8. POSSIBLE DECISIONS FROM PROGRAM REVIEW MAINTAIN: The program should be continued.  This recommendation should not be misconstrued to mean that such programs have sufficient resources to maintain quality, or that they should be maintained 'as is'.  Many programs in this category make strong appeals for specific types of additional support, usually staffing and/or equipment. ENHANCE: The program should be provided significant additional resources.

10. Formulae for Program Review Program Budget = (Program Faculty Salaries / Dept. Faculty Salaries) X Dept. Budget Cost Per Faculty FTE = Program Budget / Faculty FTE Cost Per Student FTE = Program Budget / Student FTE Cost Per Credit Hour = Program Budget / Academic Year Credit Hours in Major

11. First Year Process • Self-study by the academic unit responsible for the program. • If the program is externally accredited, the Program Review Panel will accept the self- study prepared for the external agency in lieu of the ORU-prescribed document.

15. PROGRAM REVIEW SURVEYS • Faculty Survey • Current Students Survey • Alumni Survey • Employer/Graduate Faculty Survey

19. SECOND YEAR PROCESS • Site visit by members of the Program Review Panel. • Program Review Rubric completed by panel members and submitted. • Analysis of the self study by a third party from a similar program at another university.

20. Program Review Volunteers

22. Program Review Rubrics

23. Program Review Questions for Third Party Reviewers • Based on the information provided, do you have any comments on the correlation of the program with the overall mission of the university? • Based on the information provided, do you have any comments on the cost of the program, per value to the students? • Suggestions for improvement in terms of faculty development--further education, publications, presentations, grant proposal writing, etc. • Are there any essential substantive areas in this field that we are not covering, or that we are dealing with inadequately? • What are your thoughts regarding the curriculum--course variety, logical sequence, or unnecessary or outdated courses? Are there any fundamental or cutting edge topics we should address? • Do you have a comment on your perception of the overall quality of this program (based on the information provided)? • Do you have a comment on your perception of the overall prestige or academic reputation of this program? • If you were to become the director of this program, in which direction do you think it should be moved over the next five years? • Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Alumni survey. • Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Current Student survey. • Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Faculty survey. • Suggestions for improvement (if any) based on the Employer/Graduate Faculty survey. • Are there other questions or data that we should require from this program? • Other comments (if any).

24. Third Year Process • The program has an opportunity to respond to the suggestions of the Program Review Panel by submitting an action plan for the correction of all concerns.

25. Future Considerations • Streamline Program Review process to at 3-5 year cycle. • Consider a Program Review process for theco-curricular programs and services on campus.

26. Oral Roberts UniversityPROGRAM REVIEWAll the documents to which we have referred are available at:http://ir.oru.edu