FAQs

Q: How do I know if my program is an accredited program or if it needs to do a standard APR?
A: Based on requirements from the SU Board of Regents, Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) and the University System of Maryland (USM), an accreditation agency must be recognized by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the U.S. Department of Education, or approved by the Provost's Office. For the most recent lists, check here to download the current year's directory of CHEA-recognized organizations and here for the active organizations recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Ed.

Q: What do I need to do if my program is changing from an accredited to a standard program or vice versa?
A: Be sure to let UARA (Aaron Prebenda) and the Provost's Office (Tara Smith) know of any change or planned upcoming change to your status as this might affect your APR schedule and it will definitely change the reporting needed in the future and require changes to SU's website of accredited programs and society affiliations. Also, the Assessment Coordinator (Aaron Prebenda) can help with the transition as needed.

Q: What do I need to do if my program is accredited?
A: Be sure to let UARA (Aaron Prebenda) and the Provost's Office (Tara Smith) know of any updates to your accreditation (e.g., re-accreditation) for our records. Otherwise, similar to standard programs, you will need to upload certain materials (e.g., student learning outcomes; details of assessment methods, results, dissemination, and use; letters of initial or re-accreditation; annual reports; any notices from the accrediting agency; etc.) to the APR System. This helps us to maintain records and allows for reporting across all SU programs for our institutional accreditation requirements from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Also, the student learning outcomes entered in the APR System will be linked directly to the Academic Program Student Learning Outcomes database, as requested based on a recommendation from the 2016 Middle States re-accreditation of SU.

Q: Is a separate APR required for undergraduate, graduate, and post-baccalaureate programs within the same discipline?
A: It is essential to review each program thoroughly. Each degree- or certificate-granting program should be considered a separate review since they have separate students, learning outcomes, and curricula.

Q: If the program has components that are included in an external accreditation review process, then should they be included in the APR?
A: Some programs are shared across departments (e.g., M.A. in English, TESOL Certification) and one of the departments includes that program in its external accreditation review process. Therefore, the program can be mentioned in the M.A. English program's APR as a component of the program, but then state it will be evaluated more thoroughly by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) review and no longer discussed in the APR.

Q: How should review of multiple tracks, concentrations, or minors within the same major be managed?
A: As per the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC), an APR is required of all programs and each of the concentrations within that program (if applicable) must be addressed. Although at SU tracks are in alignment with the definition of MHEC concentrations, they can be - but are not required to be - included in the APR report. Within MHEC, tracks are not common enough to be compared across institutions. Where there are differences in programs due to concentrations, those differences should be identified and discussed. Attention should be directed towards significant differences in learning outcomes, curricular differences, faculty expertise, resources, and noteworthy trends. The program should discuss its method of allocating resources among the concentrations and the rationale behind those allocations. This is consistent with the student learning outcomes assessment guidelines. Minors are not required to be discussed in the APR report.

Q: The APR Guidelines focus on several primary topics, for instance, student learning outcomes and strategic planning. How do we address issues that are in various stages of progress at both the institutional and programmatic level?
A: The APR Guidelines define what is expected of SU's academic programs in a manner that is consistent with those of our profession. It is understood that there will be different levels of activity along a continuum relative to primary educational initiatives like student learning outcomes assessment. You should describe your progress to date AND your plans (Recommendations Action Plan and the Assessment Action Plan), including a timeline to implement change that embeds these activities into the everyday structure of your program. Additionally, it is expected that all academic program reviews be conducted with the same attention to detail and rigor that are expected of anyone who has the responsibility to educate others and to validate learning.

Q: Where do I find the data tables provided by UARA with enrollment and degree information?
1. Contact UARA (Aaron Prebenda) to request access for yourself and any other individuals that will need viewing/editing privileges on your program's APR documentation.
2. Once access is confirmed, visit the APR System Instructions section on the APR website for more details.

Q: Do I have to complete the Assessment Action Plan if I have reported assessment data in my APR report?
A: Yes. All programs must include an Assessment Action Plan in Part II of their APR. This will help guide the program's future assessment efforts to ensure timely collection and use of data for program improvement.

Q: Do I need to include both internal and external recommendations in the Recommendations Action Plan?
A: Yes.

Q: How do I know if I have all of the necessary information included in my APR?
A: Please review the "APR Report Guidelines" section of the APR Purpose & Guidelines document (find under Documentation). You can also refer to the Checklist (also under Documentation) to make sure that your APR report and APR System upload requirements are complete.

Q: How do we select an external reviewer?
A: The program chair/director should consult with the Dean's Office to select an appropriate external reviewer for the program. The external reviewer may be a faculty member of a comparable program at a University System of Maryland (USM) school, one of Salisbury University's performance peers, or another equally creditable institution. Also, see this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education about choosing an external reviewer. Care should be taken to select a respected external reviewer that can appropriately review the program in the time frame necessary and provide a written report of their findings.

Q: What is the cost of an external review?
A: That depends. During each scheduled review cycle, it is expected that all programs in each College or School undergo an on-site visit. However, due to the pandemic, it is suggested that the on-site visit be replaced with a virtual on-site visit. Although the cost associated with this exercise is well worth the value, budget issues may compel some modification to the guidelines. A reviewer should be paid an honorarium, typically $500 - $1000 (depending on the size of the program, number of programs reviewed, etc.), and reimbursed for all traveling expenses. In the past the expenses were included in the Provost's budget. However, as of the 2016 - 2017 academic year the units were generally directed to budget the cost of external review within their own fiscal year budget request. Therefore, the spring prior to the APR year, the unit should request monies for the external reviewer's honorarium, travel, lodging, and meals - although the latter three would not apply if a virtual on-site visit was planned. As a frame of reference, please consult peers that have performed an external review, but a typical honorarium for a single program's review is $500.00 - $750.00. However, if an external reviewer will be asked to review both the undergraduate and graduate degree programs for a department, then it would be appropriate to increase the amount accordingly for two program reviews. Travel and lodging expenses depend on the external reviewer's particular needs (e.g., distance to travel) as well as if it is a virtual on-site visit. Please contact Human Resources for details on payment forms and processes for the honorarium or travel expenses prior to arranging travel or payment.

Q: What documents should be provided to the external reviewer?
A: Each program under review must provide an external reviewer with a base of relevant information concerning the program. In addition to the current draft of the program’s internally generated Academic Program Review report, the external reviewer can also request relevant information and documentation. Common requests are for:

• current or recent course syllabi,
• representative examples of course materials (e.g., exams, assignments),
• the program’s student assessment and learning outcomes plan,
• evidence of student learning,
• the current course catalog,
• the previous APR report (if applicable),
• and any other materials that will provide an adequate stock of resources from which to assess the program.

Q: Are there guidelines we can provide to the external reviewer(s)?
A: Yes. Please refer to Appendix C "External Review Guidelines" in the APR Purpose & Guidelines document (find under Documentation) or the APR External Reviewer Guidelines.

Q: What activities should be included for the on-site visit, virtual or in-person?
An on-site or virtual remote visit provides the opportunity for the reviewer to evaluate the program in an applied manner that cannot be achieved to the same degree through a rigorous review of supporting documentation. When a reviewer is visiting SU, the program should plan activities such as:

1. individual and/or group meetings with all program faculty (including part-time faculty if possible);
2. meetings with any administrative assistants, other office personnel, or faculty leaders that help in the day-to-day operations of the program;
3. meetings with the faculty of collaborative programs (e.g., those that frequently have shared students as majors/minors);
4. meetings with academic advisors (first-year students are advised by the Academic Advising Center staff); sophomores, juniors, and seniors are advised by either or both Academic Advising Center staff and departmental faculty);
5. meetings with representatives from the Dean’s Office;
6. meetings with students (diverse representation) and student groups, if applicable;
7. visitations to representative classes of both lower and upper-division course offerings;
8. the opportunity to review program resources (e.g., library holdings, technology, supplies, classrooms, labs, office space, studio space); and
9. the opportunity to examine additional documentation that may not have been included in the pre-visit information packet, but are deemed relevant by a reviewer and/or the program.

Q: What are the expectations of an external reviewer?
External peer review provides the opportunity to obtain an objective qualitative assessment from respected colleagues. A reviewer must be able to apply professional standards of evaluation consistent with the goals, expectations, and educational context of the University as well as the standards identified by the program under review. An external reviewer should attempt to affirm the strengths and weaknesses of the program, validate the evidence addressing student learning outcomes, critically evaluate program capabilities and resource needs, and address the issue of academic rigor. An external reviewer should also evaluate the overall quality of the educational experience for program graduates. Within a month of the visit, a written report detailing the external reviewer’s conclusions must be submitted by the external reviewer or review team to the Department Chair/Program Director, UARA Aaron Prebenda, and the Dean’s Office. This report is an essential supporting document and a critical resource for future planning. For further details, please refer to Appendix C "External Review Guidelines" in the APR Purpose & Guidelines document (find under Documentation) or the APR External Reviewer Guidelines.

Q: Academic programs already report in several reporting activities. How can we incorporate those processes into the APR to avoid duplication of work?
A: Duplication of previous work is to be avoided wherever possible. As a result, the APR provides for the liberal use of appendices. The APR need only reference appended documentation as appropriate.

Q: The new APR (updated 2009) requires a completely different level of review. What can academic programs expect from the review?
A: The APR Purpose & Guidelines document (find under Documentation) outlines the primary purposes of the APR process. Beyond those listed, your APR will be critically reviewed by representatives from the Offices of the Dean, Provost, and UARA. The review is expected to foster constructive dialogue regarding the strengths and weaknesses of your program, as well any recognizable threats or opportunities. When supported by evidence, issues that emerge may become the focus of future initiatives, while demonstrable accolades may be promoted in public forums.

Q: When we completed our last program review, we received no formal response or feedback. As a result, we will not be able to address any previous comments.
A: Unfortunately, that may be true. However, unlike previous cycles, the academic officers of SU will critically assess your academic program and provide you with formal, constructive evaluation.