(Updated - December 4, 2014)
Murray State University has a variety of programmatic review processes; including initial, continuous and termed to complement its Strategic Imperatives. 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.
Initial review of all academic programs takes place upon inception by a thorough review of each Department and Collegiate Curriculum Committee. Additional reviews above the Collegiate level are conducted by either the respective Undergraduate or Graduate Committee of the University Academic Council, the full Academic Council, and subsequently the Murray State University Board of Regents and the Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE).
These goal measuring reports 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 Strategic Imperatives. In addition, each unit completes an Academic Program Assessment annually, which aids in the measurement of academic effectiveness and viability.
Termed reviews are scheduled for each academic college or school once every 6 years on a rotational basis. A unit/college may be term reviewed on special occasions relating to formal accreditation visits, at the request of the University Provost or President, or at the request of the Academic Council Executive Committee.
2014-2015: Jesse D. Jones College of Science, Engineering and Technology
2015-2016: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
2016-2017: College of Education and Human Services
2017-2018: University Libraries, Center for Adult and Regional Education
208-2019: School of Nursing and Health Professions
2019-2020: Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business, Hutson School of Agriculture
Please note that new programs are initially reviewed separately from their college or school, according to the following schedule:
New associate programs will be reviewed by the institution and the results forwarded to Council staff for review after three years. Upon a successful Council review, these programs will be placed on the regular institutional program review cycle.
New baccalaureate programs will be reviewed by the institution and the results forwarded to Council staff for review after five years. Upon a successful Council review, these programs will be placed on the regular institutional program review cycle.
New master’s degree programs will be reviewed by Council staff four years after implementation. Upon a successful Council review, these programs will be placed on the regular institutional program review cycle.
New doctoral programs will undergo an abbreviated interim review by Council staff after three years and a full review three years after the interim review. Upon completion of a successful abbreviated Council review, these programs will be put on the regular institutional program review cycle.
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 (email@example.com) and Sheila Haley (firstname.lastname@example.org). For help with your academic program review, please consult these recommendations and/or contact Renee Fister (email@example.com).
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.