state unive rs i ty of new yo r k 
U n i v e r s i t y F a c u l t y S e n a t e 
Guide for the Evaluation 
of Undergraduate 
Academic Programs 
SENATE 
U N I V E R S I T Y 
FAC U LTY 
The Stat e Un i ve r s i ty o f NewYork 
2001 revision
Originally issued by the 
University Faculty Senate 
of the State University of New York 
in June, 1983. 
The Undergraduate Committee of the University 
Faculty Senate of the State University of New York 
and the Faculty Council of Community Colleges 
revised the Guide for the Evaluation of 
Undergraduate Academic Programs during the 
years of 1999-2001. The University Faculty Senate 
adopted this revision on October 27, 2001. 
Undergraduate Committee Members 
1999-2002 
Fredrick L. Hildebrand, Co-Chair 
Marvin LaHood, Co-Chair 
John DeNisco 
Anne Donnelly, Past Co-Chair 
David Elliott 
Joanne Freeman, Student Assembly 
Daniel Marrone 
James McElwaine 
John Pipkin 
Rose Rudnitski 
Malcolm Sherman 
Augustine Silveira 
Carole Torok 
Judith Wishnia 
Joseph Hildreth, President 
University Faculty Senate 
Kathryn E. Van Arnam 
System Administration Liaison 
Joseph G. Flynn, Past President 
University Faculty Senate 
Representatives of the 
Faculty Council of Community Colleges 
Robert Axelrod, President 
Cathleen McColgin, Liaison 
Robert Jubenville, Liaison
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Preface 
Program Review 
Curriculum 
The Faculty 
The Students 
Support Services 
Administrative Support 
Bibliography 
3
4
6
8 
10 
11 
12 
13
PREFACE 
The S 
worked to impr 
UNY Faculty Senate has always 
ove the quality of 
academic experiences. Realizing that 
i m p rovement re q u i res current and accura t e 
knowledge, the SUNY Faculty Senate’s 
Undergraduate Programs and Policies 
Committee undertook in 1983 the deve l o p - 
ment of a Guide for the Evaluation of 
Undergraduate Academic Programs. In 
formulating the Guide, that committee 
attempted to identify the major factors 
that might be expected to influence the 
quality and scope of academic programs 
in order to develop questions that could 
elicit information important to a meaningful 
assessment: faculty, students, 
curriculum, administration, and academic 
support services. Because of the quality 
of the original Guide, the SUNY Faculty 
Senate reissued it in 1990. 
This 2001 revision of the Guide for the 
Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic 
Programs builds on the excellent work of 
the original committee. This revised 
Guide continues and increases the centrality 
of assessment in program review. 
Consistent with the Characteristics of 
Excellence adopted by the Commission 
on Higher Education of the Middle States 
Association of Colleges and Schools 
(MSACHE) and the Final Report of the the 
Provost’s Task Force on the Assessment 
of Student Learning Outcomes, the Guide 
fosters a constant awareness of the relationship 
between any specific programmatic 
activity and the overall mission, 
goals, and objectives of the program and 
the institution. The revised guide also 
benefits from two decades of research 
about and practice of assessment and 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 
program review. Most recently, Departmental 
Assessment: How Some Campuses 
Are Effectively Evaluating the Collective 
Work of Faculty by Jon Wergin and Judi 
N. Swingen analyzes current policies and 
practices and offers useful conclusions. 
Because SUNY academic programs undergo 
periodic evaluation by SUNY, MSACHE, 
the New York State Education Depart m e n t , 
and, sometimes, specialized accrediting 
associations, the revised Guide for the 
Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic 
Programs suggests criteria for a comprehensive 
evaluation of programs, criteria 
that are useful and adaptable to any 
review. Campuses should coordinate 
program review with anticipated reviews 
of external evaluators and professional 
accrediting bodies. The Committee 
strongly suggests that where there is an 
external specialized agency, that that 
program review be accepted as the SUNY 
program review. 
Like the original 1983 Guide, this 2001 
revision will benefit individual departments 
making an internal study, those 
responsible for evaluations that include 
similar programs at more than one 
campus, or a campus embarking on an 
institutional self-study. The results can 
serve as a baseline for demonstrating 
improvement and a source of evidence for 
accountability to various constituencies. 
Regardless of the motivation for conducting 
the study, the program review process 
will contribute important information to 
the institution’s short- and long-range 
planning processes and will result in the 
i m p rovement of the academic experiences 
of the students. n 
3
PROGRAM REVIEW 
The Undergraduate Committee of the 
SUNY Faculty Senate in cooperation 
with representatives of the Faculty 
Council of Community Colleges developed 
the Guide for the Evaluation of Underg 
raduate Academic Pro g rams to encoura g e 
i m p rovement through a self-study pro c e s s 
of planning, implementing, and eva l u a t i n g . 
Although program review is on a five-toseven-
year cycle, institutions should collect, 
analyze, and use data continuously. 
In an effort to be comprehensive, the 
Faculty Senate Undergraduate Committee 
has considered documents from the Middle 
States Association of the Commission on 
Higher Education, the New York State 
Education Department, and specialized 
accrediting associations. Then, the 
Committee organized the Guide so that 
the sections and subsections studied 
would be easily adaptable to any review. 
The mission, goals, and objectives of the 
program and the institution provide the 
necessary framework for evaluation. All 
activities derive their relevance from this 
framework. Consequently, assessment of 
the program evaluates the collective 
effectiveness of the activities in achieving 
the mission, goals and objectives. 
Similarly, mission, goals, and objectives 
determine the appropriate criteria, standards, 
and measures for a program 
review. Quality is difficult to define; consequently, 
faculty, students, and administrators 
should all engage in the dialogue 
to clarify its meaning in the program 
being reviewed. Using multiple measures 
to collect comprehensive sets of data 
results in more valid assessments of 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 4 
quality and success. Open sharing and 
interpretation of data encourage the use 
of evidence to support conclusions. 
Ultimately the effectiveness of a program 
review depends upon the degree of 
involvement of the reviewers. As the 
Report of the Provost’s Advisory Task 
Force on the Assessment of Student 
Learning Outcomes states, “each campus 
is responsible for overseeing the process 
t h rough which the assessment of academic 
major programs takes place, following 
existing curriculum and governance procedures.” 
Personal identification with the 
institution, belief that actions will effect 
i m p rovement, and an institutional climate 
that supports change will encourage 
participation in the process. A recognition 
of the need for external accountability 
combined with a sense of internal responsibility 
motivates faculty, students, and 
administrators to become involved. 
Finally, the process of generating criteria 
and standards encourages the participants’commitment 
to the results of the 
review. Primary responsibility for assessment 
rests with the faculty, students, 
administrators and staff directly involved 
in the program. 
The institution should offer appropriate 
training in criteria, standards, and measures 
for a program review. This Guide 
uses Wergin’s definitions: “criteria refers 
to the kinds of evidence collected as 
markers of quality; standards are the 
benchmarks against which the evidence 
is compared; and measures are the 
methods used to collect the evidence.” 
The following sections suggest criteria 
but leave the reviewers to determine the 
appropriate standards and measures.
PROGRAM REVIEW (CONTINUED) 
Confidence in the quality of each program 
and, therefore, the fulfillment of the insti - 
tution’s undergraduate academic mission, 
results from substantial achievement in 
the areas identified in this Guide for the 
Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic 
Programs. By evaluating the effectiveness 
and efficiency of the programs and using 
the results for planning improvements, 
institutions demonstrate accountability to 
their internal and external constituencies. 
However, each campus, each program, or 
each study will not find all of the criteria 
equally relevant for their purposes. A 
standard set of criteria cannot adequately 
evaluate the characteristics of diverse 
p ro g rams, some of whose strengths re s i d e 
in their uniqueness. Therefore, circumstances 
should stimulate reviewers to formulate, 
articulate, and provide rationales 
for the criteria employed. n 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 5
CURRICULUM 
TThis includes the courses and other educational experiences, the methods of deliver 
he undergraduate academic major as a program of study is defined by the curriculum. 
y, 
and the structure of requirements and electives into which these are arranged to give 
coherence to the program. 
Although some traditional curricular goals underlie all academic programs, curricula for 
programs bearing the same name differ across institutions as a function of variations in 
the training and interests of the faculty, in the background and interests of the students, 
and in the availability of resources both on and off the campus. The resultant variations 
in curricula offer students and employers the desirable situation of having choices; however, 
differences make design and publication of a program’s expectations especially 
important. Faculty must determine the programmatic goals, objectives, purposes, and 
effects for the major. Consequently, faculty, students, administrators, and staff must 
engage in an active review of the combination of in-depth study and specialized skills in 
an academic discipline, general education, and intellectual growth that will best meet the 
needs of their students. 
MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES 
O
O
O
O 
Prepare a program mission statement that outlines the goals and their relationship to 
the institutional mission statement. 
Delineate the program’s goals and objectives. 
Define quality as it relates to the program. 
Identify the learning outcomes students should demonstrate. 
PROGRAM DESIGN 
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O 
Specify the degree requirements for the program, using the format of the catalog 
description of the program. 
Describe the congruence between course and program goals and national standards 
and expectations in the discipline or profession, as appropriate. 
Describe the congruence between course and curricular goals, courses, and prerequisite 
patterns. 
Explain the balance between breadth and depth designed in the program. 
Describe the methods used to ensure comparable learning outcomes among multiple 
sections of a course. 
Describe efforts to assure that required courses and electives are offered on a 
schedule to meet the needs of various student constituencies. 
Describe internship opportunities and the rationale for assigning credit. 
Describe departmental procedures including student participation for the development, 
review, and evaluation of courses. 
Describe the advisement procedures and the way the department assesses advisement 
effectiveness. 
6 Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs
CURRICULUM (CONTINUED) 
O
ASSESSMENT 
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O 
Analyze the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals and objectives in the 
discipline. Describe the procedures, criteria, and methods used for this assessment. 
Analyze the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals and objectives in 
general education. Describe the procedures, criteria, and methods used for this 
assessment. 
Analyze the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals and objectives for 
intellectual growth. Describe the procedures, criteria, and methods used for this 
assessment. 
Describe discipline-, college-, and community-related student activities, and how the 
program promotes and supports faculty and student involvement and effort. 
Describe how the program responds to the needs of the community, if applicable. 
Provide follow-up data on student placement for the last five years. Indicate year(s) of 
data collected and total number of student responses: percentage employed in the 
field, percentage employed elsewhere, percentage seeking employment, and percentage 
continuing education. 
Describe the results of any alumni follow-up surveys that reflect the student outcomes. 
Describe the dissemination of the results of the program review to appropriate 
constituencies. 
Describe the planning processes, including those to be used to formulate and implement 
changes based on program review analysis. 
Describe the most recent evaluation of the program, what was learned from the evaluation, 
and what improvements resulted. 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 7
Part-time Full-time 
THE FACULTY 
The quality of the faculty is critical to the quality of an undergraduate academic 
program. The qualifications of the faculty constitute traditional measures, and they 
are useful to show the extent to which the faculty is prepared to fulfill the mission of the 
program. The quality of the program also depends upon the availability of the faculty to 
the undergraduates and the effectiveness of the interactions, in other words, the extent 
to which the faculty creates a participatory culture. The following are categorized according 
to the five criteria for the evaluation of academic employees in the Policies of the 
Board of Trustees. 
MASTERY OF SUBJECT MATTER 
Faculty Summary 
Number of faculty 
assigned to the program 
Men 
Women 
Minorities 
Credentials 
Bachelor’s Degree 
Master’s Degree 
Doctorate 
Experience 
0-3 years 
4–7 years 
8–11 years 
12–15 years 
16–24 years 
25+ years 
EFFECTIVENESS IN TEACHING 
O
O 
Describe the hiring procedures, including formulation of the job description, publication 
of the position, representation on the search committee, and responsibility for the 
final decision. Include copies of faculty vitae with the report. 
Explain how the training and interests of the faculty contribute to appropriate breadth 
of the program’s mission. Indicate areas, if any, in which greater strength would be 
beneficial. 
Continued next page… 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 8
THE FACULTY (CONTINUED) 
O
EFFECTIVENESS IN TEACHING (continued) 
O
O 
Analyze the teaching loads and how they are distributed among faculty by rank, fulltime, 
part-time, and teaching assistants (number of courses/number of students). 
Highlight faculty innovations in teaching. 
Describe the program’s procedures for evaluating effectiveness in teaching. 
SCHOLARLY ABILITY 
O Describe the recent scholarly and creative contributions of the program faculty that are 
important to the program goals. 
EFFECTIVENESS OF UNIVERSITY SERVICE 
O Describe the faculty’s service to the university, such as committee work, administrative 
work, public service, and other activities that contribute to the fulfillment of the program’s 
mission in relation to the university and the community. 
CONTINUING GROWTH 
O
O 
Identify the steps taken to assure that faculty members maintain currency in their 
disciplines and the activities that result in the continuing growth of the faculty. 
Describe the relative weight of the five criteria for evaluation and promotion in the 
Policies of the Board of Trustees in the consideration of rewards: mastery of subject 
matter, effectiveness in teaching, scholarly ability, effectiveness of University service, 
and continuing growth. 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 9
O
THE STUDENTS 
In the evaluation of the effectiveness of an undergraduate academic program, it is 
essential to consider the students it serves and those it might ser ve in the future. 
Student needs influence the design of the curriculum, the faculty to implement it, and the 
services to support it. The quality and success of the program depends upon the extent 
to which it meets the needs of its students. 
STUDENTPROFILES 
Annual cohorts for the last five years: 
Total Number of Majors 
Year to Year 
to 
to 
to 
to 
to 
Graduates 
Year 
O
O
O
O
O 
Describe the program strategies used to recruit students. 
Identify the program minimum requirements for admitting students. 
Explain the acceptance ratio. 
Compare the student diversity of the program to that of the institution, other institutions, 
the region, and the state. 
Analyze the enrollment patterns over the last five years. 
STUDENTNEEDS 
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O 
Describe the goals of the students entering the program. 
Describe the financial needs of the students enrolled. 
Describe the academic needs of the beginning and transfer students. 
Describe the special needs of groups of students, such as nontraditional, international, 
disabled, and underprepared students. 
Explain any academic placement procedures. 
Describe the diverse learning styles of the students and strategies for engaging them. 
Describe any orientation activities designed to introduce students to the program. 
Analyze attrition patterns and describe efforts to improve retention. 
Analyze the time students take to complete degrees. 
10 
Part-time Full-time 
Number 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs
SUPPORT SERVICES 
Tinstructional efforts of the faculty. Furthermore, support services should contribute 
he academic and student services of the campus provide important support to the 
directly to the richness of students’academic lives. 
SPECIAL STUDENTSERVICES 
O
O
O
O
O
What provisions are made for groups of students with special needs in this program for 
the following groups: 
Nontraditional students 
International students 
Students with disabilities 
Students who need special remedialor tutorial services 
Nonresidential students 
GENERAL STUDENTSERVICES 
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
What provisions are made for all of the students, such as in the following areas: 
Orientation 
Diagnostic evaluation and placement 
Library and media resources 
Computer resources 
Health and counseling services 
Career advisement 
Job placement 
O
O
O 
Describe student and faculty satisfaction with services that support the program. 
Describe the general campus environment and climate. Explain their impact upon 
student performance. 
Describe how student affairs and academic affairs are coordinating efforts to contribute 
to student success. 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 11
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 
An academic program exists within the context of an institution, and it is effective in so 
far as it contributes to the mission of that institution. Similarly, the institution must 
be committed to the quality and effectiveness of the program. 
The health and continued vitality of an undergraduate academic program is critically 
influenced by the quality and continuity of leadership and support that its faculty and 
students receive from the administration of the campus, starting at the level of the 
president. Furthermore, the institution’s leadership plays an important role in fostering 
a climate that supports change and makes clear the consequences of not improving. 
Consequently, administrators also have a need for training as evaluators. 
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O 
Explain the effective ways in which the administration encourages program review. 
Explain how the leadership helps to create an environment and a climate for academic 
excellence. 
Analyze the fairness of the reward structure of the institution and the program. 
Describe the ways by which the administration empowers faculty and students. 
Explain how budget decisions reflect the concern for quality programs and support 
academic robustness. 
Provide an organizational chart that shows the relationship of the program to the rest 
of the institution. 
Explain how the program is represented in the institution’s governance bodies and 
planning processes. 
Describe faculty development and support efforts by administration in the program 
area. 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
In addition to the research and analysis presented in Departmental Assessment: How 
Some Campuses Are Effectively Evaluating the CollectiveWork of Faculty (American 
Association for Higher Education), we appreciate the permission to include the Re f e re n c e s 
used by Jon F.Wergin and Judi N. Swingen in their monograph. 
Barr, F. B., and J. Tagg. (November/December 1995). “From Teaching to Learning: A New 
Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.” Change 27(6): 12-25. 
Bensimon, E.M., and H.F. O’Neil. (1998). “Collaborative Effort to Measure Faculty Work.” 
Liberal Education 84(4): 22-31. 
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement With Everyday 
Life. New York, NY: Basic Books. 
Dill, D. (June 1999). “Implementing Academic Audits: Lessons Learned in Europe and 
Asia.” Unpublished manuscript prepared for the Academic Audit Seminar, Chapel Hill, NC. 
Dill, W.R. (July/August 1998). “Specialized Accreditation: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? 
Or Gone? Change 30(4): 19-25. 
Eckel, P. (Winter 1998). “Thinking Differently About Academic Departments: The Academic 
Department as a Team.” In Teams and Team-work in Institutional Research, edited by 
S. Frost. New Directions for Institutional Re s e a rch, no. 100. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
———, B. Hill, and M. Green. (1998). On Change: En Route to Transformation. Washington, 
DC: American Council on Education. 
Fairweather, J. (1996). Faculty Work and the Public Trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching 
and Public Service in American Academic Life. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 
Ga f f, J. G., J. L. Ra t c l i f f, and Associates. (1997). Handbook of the Underg raduate Curriculum: 
A Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures, Practices, and Change. San Francisco, 
CA: Jossey-Bass. 
H a w o rth, J.G., and C.F. Conrad. (1997). Emblems of Quality in Higher Education: Deve l o p i n g 
and Sustaining High-Quality Programs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). Program Evaluation 
Standards. 2nd ed. London, England: Sage. 
Kuh, G.D. (1999). “How Are We Doing? Tracking the Quality of the Undergraduate 
Experience, 1960’s to the Present.” Review of Higher Education 22(2): 99-119. 
Larson, R.S. (1997). “Organizational Change From the ‘Inside’: A Study of University 
Outreach.” Dissertation, Michigan State University. 
Massy, W.F. (1997). “Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review: The Hong Kong 
Programme.” Quality in Higher Education 3(3): 249-262. 
———, A. K. Wi l g e r, and C. Colbeck. (July/August 1994). “Ove rcoming ‘Hollowe d ’C o l l e g i a l i t y : 
Departmental Cultures and Teaching Quality.” Change 26(4): 10-20. 
Menges, R.J., and Associates. (1999). Faculty in New Jobs: A Guide to Settling In, Becoming 
Established, and Building Institutional Suppor t. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 13
Mets, L.A. (1998). “Implementation Strategies in a University Setting: Departmental 
Responses to Program Review Recommendations.” Dissertation, University of Michigan. 
O’Neil, H.F., E.M. Bensimon, M.A. Diamond, and M.R. Moore. (1999). “Academic Score c a rd . ” 
Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California. 
Pitts, J.M., W.G. White Jr., and A.B. Harrison. (1999). “Student Academic Underpre p a re d n e s s: 
Effects on Faculty.” Review of Higher Education 22(4): 343-365. 
Preskill, H., and R.T. Torres. (1999). “Evaluative Inquiry for Organizational Learning.” in 
Learning Around Organizations: Developments in Theory and Practice, edited by M. E. 
Smith, L. Araujo, and J. Burgoyne. London, England: Sage. 
Serow, R.C., C.E. Brawner, and J. Demery. (1999). “Instructional Reform at Research 
Universities: Studying Faculty Motivation.” Review of Higher Education 22(4): 411-423. 
Smith, V. (1998). “The Futures Project: A Two-Year Activity of 18 Independent Colleges 
and Universities in California.” Final report to the James Irvine Foundation. 
Staw, B.M. (1984). “Motivation Research Versus the Art of Faculty Management.” In 
College and University Organization: Insights From the Behavioral Sciences, pp. 63-84, 
edited by J.L. Bess. New York, NY: New York University Press. 
Thune, C. (June 1999). “European Developments in Academic Quality Assurance.” Paper 
presented to the Academic Audit Seminar: Lessons Learned in Europe and Asia, Chapel 
Hill, NC. 
Tierney,W.G. (1999). Building the Responsive Campus: Creating High Performance 
Colleges and Universities. London, England: Sage. 
Wergin, J.F. (1994). The Collaborative Department: How Five Campuses Are Inching 
Toward Cultures of Collective Responsibility.Washington, DC: American Association for 
Higher Education. 
———, (June 1998). “Assessment of Programs and Units: Program Review and Specialized 
Accreditation.” Paper presented at the AAHE Assessment Conference, Cincinnati, OH. 
———, and J.N. Swingen. (2000). Departmental Assessment: How Some Campuses Are 
Effectively Evaluating the Collective Work of Faculty. Washington, DC: American 
Association for Higher Education. 
Zusman, A. “Issues Facing Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century.” (1999). In 
American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 109-150, edited by P.G. 
Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, and P.J. Gumport. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins. 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 14
NOTES 
Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs 15
NOTES 
16 Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs