• Academic Units
• Administrative Units
• Academic Policies
• Academic Program Review
  • History
  • Introduction and Purpose
  • Types of APR
  • Roles and Responsibilities
  • The Three Stages
  • Forms and Documents
• Academics
• Academic Reports
• Annual Statistical Reports
• Awards
• Colleges
• Organization Chart
• Provost's Staff
• Site Map

Introduction and Purpose

The national movement toward outcome assessment is becoming increasingly important in the determination of a program's quality and requires that attention be given to the effects of the program on students. Therefore, a clear specification of desired educational outcomes with accompanying evidence of achievement is required when conducting an APR. JMU has also recognized the need for APR to be responsive to outside constituents, to require data necessary for allocation of resources and to demonstrate the effectiveness of programs on students. APR is a common practice in most colleges and universities and has often been a part of an accreditation process or initiated by campus administrators to monitor program quality.

Accreditation often focuses on various data as indicators of program quality. As useful as these data may be, APR requires additional data to assess the actual educational quality of a program. The position stated in the monograph, Program Review and Educational Quality in the Major, suggests that to assess educational quality one must also examine the issues of curriculum and pedagogy. These issues are more directly related to objectives, instructional practices, and learning outcomes. In the endeavor to improve the quality of teaching and learning, APR should result in an increased awareness of faculty members about their educational goals and practices. Foremost, it should encourage the program and program faculty to identify specific areas of the program that have been successful as well as identifying areas of the program requiring change.

"In a very real sense, APR is (or should be) a continuous process." This statement in the aforementioned monograph recognizes the importance of teachers reflecting on the effectiveness of what they are doing when they advise and teach their students. This kind of reflection should result in continual modifications being made to their courses and programs. However, periodic structured reviews are still necessary. APR should not be initiated or viewed solely as a response by administrators to external constituencies or a crisis situation but to the ultimate goal of improving the program.  

APR continues to be a university-wide process that intends to demonstrate both unit and institutional commitment to excellence, rational decision-making, and accountability and that:

• Facilitates and stimulates continuous growth toward excellence (quality improvement) of academic programs.

• Provides a coherent planning process that systematically links unit and university-wide goals, interests, direction, and resources.

• Provides data and program direction to be used by the President and Provost in their interaction with external constituencies.

• Facilitates the program's ability to accurately portray their character and outcomes.

• Creates a positive system of accountability on the part of both the institution and the individual unit that involves both internal and external examination.

• Is integrated with external accreditation and other reporting and planning processes. Most notably of these is the Six-Year Plan of the University, The Southern Association of Schools (SACS), the Annual Report, and various surveys administered by the Center for Assessment and Research Studies (CARS) and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

[Back to top]