Checklist for Assessment of Graduate Programs

Effective Fall 2005

Institution: ______________________________________________________________________

Program: ________________________________________________________________________

^{Title Degree Designation(s) CIP Code}

Instructions for External Reviewers:

In accordance with the 2005-10 Performance Funding guidelines of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC), each non-accreditable graduate program undergoes external peer review according to a pre-approved review cycle.

The criteria used to evaluate a program appear in the following "Checklist for Assessment of Graduate Programs." The Checklist consists of two standards: Objective and Qualitative. THEC will use the criteria designated with an asterisk (*) to assess standards in the graduate programs. The remaining criteria will be used by the institution, but will not be included in the overall assessment reported to THEC.

For each criterion within a standard, the responsible program has provided evidence in the form of a Self Study document. Supporting documents will be available as specified in the self study. As the external reviewer, you should evaluate this evidence and any other evidence observed during the site visit to determine whether each criterion within a standard has been met. A checkmark should be placed in the appropriate box to indicate whether you believe that a program has “met” or “not met” each criterion for the eight items under the Objective Standards. The 20 items under the Qualitative Standards must be rated on a 4-point scale ranging from “poor” to “excellent” (or “NA” for items which are not applicable to the program).

This evaluation becomes a part of the record of the academic program review. The checklist will be shared with the department, the college and central administration, as well as the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. When combined with the written report, prepared by the entire program review committee, the checklist will facilitate development of a program action plan to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Your judgment of the criteria designated by an asterisk on this form will be used in allocating state funds for the university's budget.

Name, Title, and Institutional Affiliation of Reviewer(s):

__________________________________ ________________________________________

^{Name Name}

__________________________________ ________________________________________

^{Title Title}

___________________________________ ________________________________________

^{Institution Institution}

___________________________________ ________________________________________

^{Signature Date Signature Date}

Checklist for Assessment of Graduate Programs

Please indicate with a check mark whether each of the following Objective Standards has been met or not met. Where two or more conditions correspond for a given standard, all such conditions must be fulfilled to meet the standard.

A. Admission of Students q Met q Not Met

1. Admission standards are appropriate to the degree level.

2. Admission standards are stated clearly and are circulated to all applicants. Inclusion in the institution’s catalog is sufficient to fulfill this condition.

3. Evidence exists that admission standards are consistently applied.

4. There is appropriate orientation of new students.

B. Supervision and Retention of Students q Met q Not Met

1. Retention standards are stated clearly and are circulated to all enrolled students. Inclusion in the institution’s catalog is sufficient to fulfill this condition.

2. Evidence exists that retention standards are consistently applied.

3. Orientation, personalized instruction, advisement, and guidance are provided to enrolled students.

4. Students’ progress is periodically monitored.

5. Time limits are appropriate for the degree level and are checked to ensure student’s knowledge is up to date when the degree is awarded.

C. Availability and Sophistication of Coursework q Met q Not Met

1. There is a core of planned coursework appropriate to the discipline.

2. Courses are offered frequently enough to allow students to progress at a reasonable pace.

3. There is provision for planned disciplinary specialization beyond the core.

4. Courses are characterized by advanced disciplinary content and academic rigor.

5. In master’s programs, degree credit is given for dual-listed (undergraduate-graduate) courses in no more than 1/3 of total hours required.

6. Sufficient distinction is made between coursework at the master’s, educational specialist and/or doctoral levels.

D. Methodologies and Techniques of Discipline q Met q Not Met

1. The program includes tools, techniques and methodology that are needed to understand the discipline, undertake research in the discipline, and actually practice the education acquired.

E. Extra-disciplinary Experience q Met q Not Met

1. Some academic exposure outside the degree major or discipline should be available to students without increasing the total number of hours required for the degree. Among the elements that would constitute such exposure are related courses outside the major and internships or practice. In professional fields, students should be allowed courses outside their professional school.

F. Comprehensive Examination q Met q Not Met

1. At or near the end of all coursework, students should be required to take a written or oral comprehensive examination demonstrating the breadth of knowledge in the discipline, depth in specific areas, and the ability to integrate what has been learned, or to complete a culminating experience that demonstrates communication skills and the ability to apply knowledge independently.

2. A student’s comprehensive written examination or culminating experience or the results of oral exams must be kept on file for a minimum of five years.

G. Research q Met q Not Met

1. Each student must demonstrate mastery of research in the discipline through thesis, dissertation, research papers, literature reviews, reports, or case studies.

H. Communication q Met q Not Met

1. Each student must demonstrate the ability to communicate, both orally and in writing, in a manner and at a level appropriate to the degree and discipline. Explicit program components should be designed to provide opportunity for this demonstration.

For each of the Qualitative Standards below, please provide a rating by checking the appropriate column.

A. Student Experience		N/A	Poor	Minimally Acceptable	Good	Excellent
* 1	There is a critical mass of students to ensure an appropriate group of peers.
* 2	Prudence is exercised in the number and type of short courses accepted toward the degree.
* 3	Programs offered entirely through distance education technologies are evaluated regularly to assure outcomes at least equivalent to on-campus programs.
* 4	There are adequate enrichment opportunities, such as lecture series, to promote a scholarly environment.
* 5	There are adequate professional development opportunities, such as encouraging membership in professional associations, participation in conferences and workshops, and opportunities for publication.
B. Graduate Faculty Quality		N/A	Poor	Minimally Acceptable	Good	Excellent
* 1	Faculty hold terminal degrees in the appropriate discipline.
* 2	Faculty academic credentials correspond to the concentrations in which they teach.
* 3	Faculty scholarly activity is sufficient to serve as effective mentors for graduate students
* 4	Faculty have sufficient practical/professional/academic experience to serve as effective mentors for graduate students.
* 5	Faculty have regular opportunities for professional development, including travel and participation in professional organizations, workshops and other learning activities.
* 6	Faculty teaching loads are consonant with the highly individualized nature of graduate instruction, especially the direction of theses or dissertations.
C. Teaching/Learning Environment		N/A	Poor	Minimally Acceptable	Good	Excellent
* 1	There are ample materials and secretarial support to encourage research and publication.
* 2	There is adequate library support.
* 3	There is adequate and accessible computer support.
4	There are adequate lab facilities.
5	There is adequate office space.
D. Program Evaluation		N/A	Poor	Minimally Acceptable	Good	Excellent
* 1	Follow-up data on graduating students are regularly and systematically collected
* 2	The curriculum is evaluated periodically.
* 3	Evaluation of placement of graduates is regular and systematic.
* 4	Completion rates are at an acceptable level.

*Criterion included in the performance funding calculation.