Murray State University has a variety of programmatic review processes; including initial, continuous, and termed to complement its Strategic Plan. The processes are seen as an integral part of the university’s efforts to strive for academic quality, department and collegiate effectiveness and institutional viability.
All proposals to establish new academic programs are reviewed by curriculum committees in the academic department and college that will house the new program. Following collegiate-level program review, proposed programs are reviewed by either the Undergraduate or Graduate Studies Committee of the University Academic Council, which is comprised of faculty, academic officers, and student representatives. Following committee review and approval, new program proposals are reviewed by the the full University Academic Council, and subsequently the Murray State University Board of Regents. In addition to university review, proposed new programs are reviewed by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, which oversees postsecondary education in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Annual goal measuring reports for academic programs are reviewed and analyzed by the Collegiate Dean, Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, and University President for annualized goal attainment; both for academic quality and institutional priorities related to the Strategic Plan. In addition, each unit completes an academic program assessment annually via SPOL assessment platform, which aids in the measurement of academic effectiveness and viability.
Termed Academic Review Process
Termed academic reviews are comprehensive program reviews which encompass an extensive review of the Academic College and its dependent Departments/Programs. The termed program review process is scheduled, supervised, and verified by the University Academic Council Executive Committee.
During the process, each program is reviewed based on the following guidelines:
Program Self Analysis – Complete the CPE Review of an Existing Academic Program report template, which can be found as a PDF or as a Word document. Please email your completed template to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Sheila Haley (email@example.com). For help with your academic program review, please consult these recommendations and/or contact Renee Fister (firstname.lastname@example.org).
CPE will review and evaluate scheduled academic program reviews using a rubric, and will decide whether the program should continue without modification, continue with modification, or be closed within three years.
Additionally, the Executive Committee or Provost/President may require additional information, such as unit Mission/Vision, a culmination of Triple I Reports, recruitment/retention data, faculty data, faculty and credit hour productivity, certifications, on-going assessment reports, facilities, student graduation survey data, policies and procedures, unit business plans, and other specialized data or requests. Due: March 15.
Peer Review Analysis – Each Collegiate Dean is encouraged to conduct a peer review utilizing an off-campus committee. The committee is encouraged to evaluate the program on the same items as the Self Analysis. The peer review analysis should incorporate the use of at least 3 peers within the academic disciplines offered in the collegiate unit, with at least one individual being from out-of-state. Due: March 15.
Academic Administrative Review – Upon the conclusion of the Self Analysis and Peer Analysis, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, in conjunction with the Academic Council Executive Committee, will review each analysis and formulate a plan on how each collegiate unit is interrelated to the University Strategic Plan. Due: March 30.
The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs will then review the results with the President as part of administrative review and managerial decision-making.