In preparing Comprehensive Program Reviews (CPRs) and Annual Program Reviews (APRs) the following overview of policies and procedures should be followed closely. In addition, please review the Program Review Content guidelines for specific instructions.

Comprehensive Program Review

Overview of the Board of Regents Policies for CPR

A USG System Task force reviewed and recommended changes to earlier regulations for CPR. The new policy requires that institutions have a “robust method of reviewing existing programs” and notes that the role of the system office is “to periodically examine these reviews in order to assure the Board of Regents that institutions are carrying out this responsibility in a way that ensures high academic standards are being met.”

Major Expectations Summary Established by CPR Task Force

  • Institutions must develop a process approved by System Office that reviews all degrees offered by the institution.
  • The process will have an emphasis on program improvement. CPR must emphasize a “culture of evidence,” that is, indicators or outcomes collected, tracked and analyzed to help determine how to improve the quality of a program. The goal is for programs to seek improvement, not just decide if the program is high quality or not.
  • The CPR process will establish and evaluate program-level goals for diversity of students, faculty and staff. The review report should include an analysis of why goals are or are not met.
  • Institutional review of general education is required. In addition, institutions may elect and are encouraged to review groups of courses considered a program (e.g. English as a Second Language, 1st Year Experience, Senior Experience, etc.). These reviews should assure that desired student learning outcomes are being met.
  • Institutions will post program review results on a password protected institutional web site and the System Academic Affairs System Office staff will have access to these sites.
  • Triggered program reports are informational reports to the institution’s leadership for review and follow-up as appropriate. They no longer require an institutional response to the System office.
  • Each new program will be reviewed within seven years (not to exceed ten) to allow institutions to include new programs into regular comprehensive review cycle (a successful new program is defined as on track, making adequate progress toward becoming firmly established; unsuccessful as not on track and making inadequate progress). If deemed unsuccessful, the institution should submit a plan and timeline for corrective actions.
  • Program accreditation reports cannot be substituted for CPR. However, institutions are expected to use information from the accreditation process for CPR purposes.
  • Academic Affairs System Office staff will perform institutional spot audits on institutional reviews posted to respective institutional web sites to ensure institutional decision making follows programmatic recommendations for improvement.
  • The System Office emphasis is on quality assurance, facilitation and support.
  • Online programs should be reviewed by the same guidelines as on-ground programs.

GGC: Procedures for CPR

CPR at GGC is built onto the framework for Annual Program Review (APR).  Each year, every academic program at GGC, including General Education and the Student Success Programs, prepares and presents an extensive review of its status from four perspectives:

  • In relation to its own student learning outcomes,
  • In relation to identified best practices and disciplinary trends,
  • In relation to the strategic plan and vision of GGC, and
  • In relation to its available resources and resource needs.

This annual report compiles data on student demographics, student learning, program productivity, faculty activity. Using these data, the program faculty and the Dean or Director of the area in which the program is housed review the program status, develop specific action plans in response to the resulting findings, and determine the resource implications of the actions plans. Both a written report and an oral presentation are provided to the Senior Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs/Provost. Full details on the expectations and procedures for APR are provided in Section II of this document.

  • On a cyclical basis, each program conducts a Comprehensive Program Review in conjunction with its APR. To conduct the CPR, the program adds the following elements to the APR.
  • A longitudinal analysis of each major component of the annual report addressing specifically indicators of improvement over time and/or indicators of developing or unsolved problems.
  • A focused analysis of the changes in student learning and/or program productivity following implementation of specific action plans. This analysis identifies the indicators that an action plan was intended to impact and assesses that impact to the extent possible. If the action plan did not produce the expected or intended improvements, the analysis addresses possible expectations and details the revisions to the action plan that will be made in response.
  • A projection of the program’s anticipated status over the next several years based on the longitudinal analyses of the annual data.
  • A comparison of the program’s overall demographic profile of students, faculty, and staff to the institutionally established diversity goals. If this comparison indicates that the goals are not being achieved, the CPR includes an analysis of potential explanatory factors including recruitment efforts and profiles of applicants, retained and non-retained students, faculty, and staff, and other data as appropriate.
  • A report by an external review group may be included when appropriate or when requested by the Senior Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs/Provost.

Annual Academic Program Review

All GGC academic programs, including the Student Success programs (e.g., EAP, Reading, Learning Support) and the General Education program will conduct an annual academic program review and a periodic comprehensive program review. The purpose of the annual academic program review is primarily to provide a structure and opportunity for the faculty and leadership of each major program to consider the status of the program from four perspectives:

  • In relation to its own student learning outcomes,
  • In relation to identified best practices and disciplinary trends,
  • In relation to the strategic plan and vision of GGC, and
  • In relation to its available resources and resource needs

The end product of this review is a clearly articulated set of short and long term responses.

The Process and Content of Academic Program Review

Academic Program Review at Georgia Gwinnett College will consist of two parts:

  1. A written report, the details of which will be described in the following section below
  2. An oral presentation which will consist of 5 parts:
    1. Discussion of the best practices in the discipline that have been identified
    2. Discussion of the student learning outcome results for the year, including appropriate action plans in response
    3. Discussion of the results of the assessment of the strategic plan of the unit, including appropriate action plans in response
    4. Discussion of the resource implications of the action plans
    5. One other criterion from the written report which addresses either (a) a topic the discipline/unit considers important to the current state of the program or (b) a specific focus identified by the Senior Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs/Provost.

Back to Program Review options ]