Workstream #4 Reports—Background Research: University Program Review Process

Part 1 Report: Background Research

As part of the APPR project, Hanover was asked to assist with developing an ongoing process to regularly review Penn State’s portfolio of programs. This report, prepared by Hanover Research, presents findings from a literature review and outlines best practices used by four public institutions with broad academic portfolios. The report includes common elements of a program review, criteria used by other institutions, and best practices, which includes self-study, external evaluation and recommendation elements. This report is being used by the APPR process development and systemic analysis tool development teams to assist in crafting recommendations for a university wide set of guidelines for program review. It is publicly shared for purposes of transparency.

Report and supplemental materials

For those who would like to review and learn more about the report, the APPR tri-chairs recommend you read the report, and accompanying documents, in the following order:

Part 2 Report: Interviews Analysis

This is the second part of the workstream 4 request for information from Hanover Research on the program review process as used by other institutions with the goal of informing a university-wide process at Penn State. In-depth interviews were conducted with six relevant higher education administrators at institutions with comparably sized portfolios. The investigation focused on understanding the existing processes of program review, methods for assessing program quality, and the real or perceived value of the review process and whether this value aligns with the resource costs associated with implementing the process.

Hanover Research has conveyed to the APPR leadership team that this report should be used as a starting point for additional inquiry. From pg. 5 of the report: “Qualitative research is exploratory and designed to add insight and a depth of understanding to a particular question or topic. Qualitative findings provide commonalities and trends but are not intended to be statistically significant or to provide generalizable conclusions.” It is the University’s responsibility to provide additional context and data, as needed, to the report as we develop a process for Penn State.

Report and supplemental materials:

The accompanying documents help to outline Hanover’s own methodology, as agreed upon by the many individuals working on the APPR project, as well as a few limitations that exist within the data.