Program Review

Program review is a systematic process that occurs every five-to-seven years in order to evaluate and improve academic programs. Program Reviews have several sections that include: background and meaning of the degree, quality of the program, data to support the viability of the program, assessment results from the past five years, and a quality improvement plan. The report, which the process provides, is also reviewed by an external reviewer and by the Advancement of Student Learning Council (ASLC) as an internal reviewer. The ASLC provides feedback which the programs use to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which could include curriculum and programmatic changes and informs planning and budgeting processes at various levels. Program Review is a required practice for accreditation and speaks to the quality and integrity of programs, as one of the criteria for review for WASC Senior College and University Commission reaffirmation. Program reviews have been a part of Pepperdine's assessment cycle since 2003. OIE supports program reviews and serves as the repository for five-to-seven-year reviews. Program reviews would be the foundational source for substantive program changes. Read more in OIE's Program Review Guidebook. (Also, see below for more about ASLC.)

More information is detailed in the following Program Review Materials:

Schedules and Archive

Schedule By Year

Schedule By Program

Advancement of Student Learning Council (ASLC)

The Advancement of Student Learning Council (ASLC) was developed to instill and sustain a culture of systematic student learning assessment in all quarters of the University. The ASLC serves as the internal review board of program reviews and offers programs undergoing 5-year program reviews with feedback on the quality of their critical inquiry process and use of evidence to support their program improvement plan.

Learn more about the ASLC on their website!
The OIE/ASLC Comparison infographic details some of the key differences between the OIE and the ASLC regarding their roles in assessment and program review.
Each year, the ASLC compiles Flash Reports of themes identified in their review of program review reports.

Cycle

pr cycle

Step One: Draft of Program Review

The first component of the seven‑year program review is referred to as a self‑study and is conducted by the faculty and/or staff who are directly involved with the program. This process is data driven with the annual assessments serving as the foundation for the program review, as well as retention and enrollment data, and educational effectiveness indicators (EEIs).

Step Two: External Review

Each program must undergo an external review by distinguished colleagues outside the University who are familiar with the field, discipline, or profession undergoing a program review.

Step Three: Revise Program Review (Optional)

Revisions can be made to the program review at this time based on feedback from the external review team.

Step Four: Internal Review

The internal review process is conducted by the ASLC, a panel of University colleagues, who review and offer feedback on the assessment of learning outcomes. ASLC provides recommendations for program improvement that surface from the program's self‑study and the input of the external review team.

Step Five: Submission of the Program Review

The program review, Including the external reviewer team's report and the Quality Improvement Plan, goes both to the Dean and ASLC.

Step Six: Memorandum of Understanding

The Dean and program faculty negotiate a MOU that delineates the agreed up recommendations, plan of action, and timeline for meeting the program needs. The Dean is the primary source for monitoring the agreement. ASLC may request a progress report, prior to the next program review, on the assessment of student learning.

Step Seven: Monitor Progress

The University Planning Committee (UPC) and the President's Cabinet set priorities for planning and budgeting with the Deans. When the program review results in budgetary requests that cannot be funded at the school level, a proposal will then go to UPC for their consideration. If curricular changes are the result of the program review, they must be approved at the school level and then by the University Academic Committee (UAC).