Department Chair and Program Director Guidance

There are four report stages within each 7-year cycle:

• Biennial Assessment Report (years 1, 3, and 5)
• Program Viability Check-Ins (years 2 and 4)
• Program Review Self-Study (year 6)
• Program Review Wrap Up (year 7)
   

You can view which report is due and when on our assessment schedules page.

The Philosophy of Assessment at Weber State University

Assessment at Weber State University is an ongoing process of reflection, evidence, action, and improvement. Through this process, programs examine student learning, identify strengths and challenges, implement changes, and evaluate the impact of those changes over time.
WSU’s assessment practices are designed to be meaningful, measurable, and manageable. Rather than emphasizing compliance, the Biennial Assessment Report supports programs in using evidence to improve student learning, strengthen program quality, and document progress over time.
This report replaces the previous biennial report format and is intended to support both ongoing assessment work and the longer-term program review process.

The Role of Assessment in Institutional Accreditation

Assessment also supports Weber State University’s ongoing accreditation with the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). NWCCU emphasizes student learning, program quality, faculty responsibility for curriculum and assessment, and the use of assessment results to improve learning.

These standards, in particular, address outcomes and assessment:

• 1.C.1 - The institution offers programs that are consistent with its mission, lead to college-level degrees, certificates or credentials, and include designators consistent with program content in recognized fields of study. Faculty have responsibility for the establishment and ongoing review of curriculum.
• 1.C.2 The institution identifies and publishes program learning outcomes for all degrees, certificates, and credentials. Information on student learning outcomes for all courses is provided to enrolled students.
• 1.C.3 The institution awards credit, degrees, certificates, or credentials for programs that culminate in achievement of program learning outcomes that demonstrate an appropriate breadth, depth, sequencing, rigor, and synthesis of learning.
• 1.C.4 The institution systematically assesses and documents student attainment of program learning outcomes in its academic programs, regardless of instructional modality, location, or program length. Faculty have primary responsibility for the assessment of student achievement of program learning outcomes.
• 1.C.5 The institution systematically evaluates the quality and effectiveness of its academic programs, including factors such as program resources and student achievement.
• 1.C.6 The institution uses the results of student learning assessment and the evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of its academic programs to inform continuous improvement.

(the full set of standards can be seen here.)

It is important that our assessment processes support our ongoing accreditation. NWCCU gives each member institution a high level of autonomy in identifying and implementing assessment processes that resonate with each institution.

What Role Biennial Reports Play in Assessment 

Biennial Assessment Reports help programs answer the question: 

What are we learning from our assessment work, and how are we using that information to improve?

• These reports provide a regular opportunity to reflect on:
• student achievement of program learning outcomes
• patterns or themes emerging from assessment data
• faculty discussions about student learning
• actions taken to improve curriculum, instruction, or student support
• progress on prior assessment actions
• challenges or support needs related to assessment processes

This work also helps programs build a continuous record of evidence and improvement that can be used in future program reviews.

Biennial Assessment Report Layout

Biennial Assessment Reports are completed every two years unless a program is completing a full Program Review.

The template includes the following sections:

• Program Foundation Updates
• Reflection on Prior Actions from Previous Reports / Closing the Loop
• Overview of Assessment Approach and Key Insights
• Findings from Student Learning Assessment by Outcome
• Program Priorities and Next Steps
• Challenges and Process Reflection
• Key Takeaway for Future Program Review
• Supporting Evidence

A new template will be shared each reporting cycle with any needed updates.

Feedback and Support

Feedback on Biennial Assessment Reports is provided through a faculty review process under the guidance of the Faculty Senate Assessment Committee and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

OIE is also available to support programs with assessment planning, Canvas learning outcome reporting, evidence-of-learning summaries, curriculum grids, and interpretation of assessment findings.

For questions, template access, or assessment support, please contact OIE@weber.edu.

 

The Purpose of the Viability Check-In

Program viability is an important part of Weber State University's seven-year Program Review cycle. Viability Check-Ins provide program leaders with regular opportunities to review key program data, understand trends over time, and identify areas that may warrant further attention or discussion.
The purpose of the check-in is to support proactive planning rather than create an additional reporting requirement. OIE provides and compiles the primary viability data, and programs are not asked to prepare a separate written report as part of the regular check-in.

What the Viability Check-In Examines

Viability Check-Ins occur in Years 2 and 4 of the seven-year cycle. Depending on the program and available institutional or USHE data, indicators may include:

• enrollment trends
• program completions
• enrollment-to-completion patterns
• service-related enrollment
• persistence or retention indicators
• other data relevant to long-term program sustainability

The specific metrics used in viability review may evolve as USHE continues to refine its system-wide approach to program evaluation.

How OIE Supports the Process

OIE works with program leaders to review and interpret available data, understand relevant trends, and identify whether additional information or context may be helpful.

These regular check-ins also help programs become familiar with their viability indicators well before the formal Program Review Self-Study. By the time a program reaches Year 6, faculty and program leaders should have an established understanding of important trends, opportunities, and potential concerns.

If you have questions about your program's viability data or would like additional support interpreting program trends, please contact OIE@weber.edu.

The Purpose of The Program Review

Program Review provides academic programs with an opportunity to synthesize what they have learned throughout the seven-year review cycle, engage in comprehensive reflection, and receive feedback from internal and/or external peers.

The process examines the program holistically, including its mission and strategic identity, student learning and program quality, curriculum, ongoing viability, student support and engagement, community engagement, resources, accomplishments, challenges, and future direction.

Program Review is not intended to begin a new evaluation process in Year 6. Instead, the self-study draws together assessment findings, program data, faculty discussions, prior actions, and other evidence developed throughout the preceding years.

The Relationship Between Biennial Assessment, Viability, and Program Review

Program Review is the culmination of work occurring throughout Weber State's seven-year review cycle.

In Years 1, 3, and 5, Biennial Assessment Reports document what programs are learning about student achievement, actions taken in response to assessment findings, and priorities for continued improvement.

In Years 2 and 4, Viability Check-Ins help program leaders review key indicators such as enrollment and completion trends and develop a clearer understanding of long-term program viability.

In Year 6, these sources are brought together in the Program Review Self-Study. Rather than reconstructing several years of activity, programs can draw from the evidence, reflections, and decisions they have documented throughout the cycle.

Program Review Self Study

The Program Review Self-Study is organized around seven standards:

1. Program Description — mission, strategic identity, and academic and structural inventory
2. Summary of Actions from Previous Report — progress on recommendations and actions from the previous Program Review
3. Program Quality/Student Learning — synthesis of assessment findings, actions, and improvements related to student learning
4. Curriculum Design and Change — curriculum revisions, current disciplinary expectations, and future directions
5. Ongoing Program Viability — enrollment, completion, staffing, student support, facilities, and technology
6. Student Support and Engagement and Community Engagement — student support, campus partnerships, research opportunities, engagement, and community connections
7. Program Self-Reflection — landmark successes, anticipated challenges, and prioritized resource needs

Programs should use evidence selectively to support reflection and analysis rather than attempting to reproduce every piece of data collected during the review cycle.

Site Visit and Peer Review

Following submission of the self-study, the program coordinates a one-day site visit with a peer review team. In consultation with the dean, programs determine the composition of the review team, which may include internal reviewers, external reviewers, or a combination of both.

The review team considers the self-study and supporting evidence, meets with relevant faculty, students, administrators, and other stakeholders as appropriate, and prepares a site-visit report identifying commendations, concerns, and recommendations.

Program faculty then respond to the site-visit findings and identify priorities moving forward. The college dean also provides a response and identifies priorities from the college perspective.

Program Review Wrap-Up

Following the self-study and site-visit process, Program Review moves into the Year 7 wrap-up phase.

OIE compiles key findings from the review documentation to support continued discussion among the program, dean, and institutional leadership. Resource needs and recommendations may be considered at multiple levels, including:

• Department-level needs
• College-level needs
• Institutional-level needs

The resulting documentation provides a record of priorities and commitments that can inform institutional planning, resource discussions, and the program's next review cycle.

Data and Support Provided by OIE

OIE provides programs with institutional data and other resources to support the Program Review process. Depending on the program, these may include:

• enrollment and completion trends
• persistence and retention indicators
• service-related enrollment data
• student achievement information
• staffing and other program viability indicators
• workforce and labor market information
• other institutional data relevant to program planning and evaluation

OIE is also available throughout the process to help programs interpret data, understand reporting expectations, prepare for the site visit, and navigate required documentation.

For current templates, timelines, checklists, and submission information, please visit the OIE reporting page.

Student evaluations of teaching, also referred to as course evaluations, will be administered each semester once 80% of the academic days are completed. Because each block and semester is a variable length, the use of a 'percentage of days completed' will provide a more consistent time frame than identifying a specific week.

Please access the Course Evaluation section of the website for detailed information.

We can support you and your faculty by showing how to access and utilize the Report Gallery and Argos and all the dashboards/reports available within.

While we are primarily users of these to applications in eWeber, the Offices of Student Success Analytics (OSSA) and Institutional Research (IR), have the data analysts to help you create custom dashboards and reports if needed. 

In OIE's experience, here is a list of a few important dashboards/reports that we recommend chairs and program directors be familiar with:

• In Report Gallery
  • Program Review Undergraduate and Graduate Dashboards
  • Course Information
  • Student Persistence and Success
  • Ten Year Trends Enrollment FTE Graduation & Majors
• In Argos
  • Graduation Application
  • Student Degrees Awarded
  • Program of Study
  • Cohort Dashboard

There are great how-to videos and guides created by OSSA for most of these dashboards and reports. If you need to have detailed training for either yourself or for your faculty as a group, reach out to Daniel Jensen in OSSA to schedule a meeting.

OIE can support/supplement your reports or external accreditation efforts with additional data or a survey if requested. Please reach out to OIE@weber.edu for inquiries. 

Weber State University is accredited through the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). NWCCU accreditation follows a 7 year cycle with interim reporting and visits from peers.

From the NWCCU website:

"Institutional accreditation is a process of recognizing educational institutions for performance, integrity, and quality that entitles them to the confidence of the educational community and the public. In the United States this recognition is extended largely through nongovernmental, voluntary membership associations that establish accreditation criteria, evaluate institutions against that criteria, and approving institutions that meet the criteria."

"Institutions accredited or pre-accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities are required to examine their own missions, goals, operations, and achievements. The Commission then provides expert analysis by peer evaluators, and, later, commendations for accomplishments and recommendations for improvement from the accrediting body. Since the accreditation status of an institution is reviewed periodically, institutions are encouraged toward continued self-study and improvement."

When accreditation is granted, it applies to the entire institution and indicates that "the institution as a whole is substantially achieving its mission and that it meets the Commission's expectations for compliance with the accreditation criteria."

If you would like more information about the 7-year reporting cycle, and copies of the last few years of reports, you may find that on the institutional accreditation page here. 

Data and Support Provided by OIE Developing a New Program

Weber State uses a multi-step vetting and approval process for new degree and certificate proposals. The process is designed to help proposers evaluate program need, institutional fit, workforce demand, potential duplication, and resource implications before beginning the formal curriculum approval process.

Programs should be included on USHE's three-year plan before beginning the exploratory process.

Phase 1: Exploratory Process

The exploratory process is the first step for all new certificate and degree proposals.

• Initial Inquiry
  • The proposer completes an initial inquiry form with basic information about the proposed program and submits it to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.
• USHE Feedback
  • Proposal information is shared with USHE to gather preliminary information related to statewide program duplication, CIP code alignment, and initial workforce metrics.
• Data Enrichment
  • OIE supplements this information with additional workforce-demand data and targeted skill information relevant to the proposed program.
• Review Return
  • State, institutional, and workforce information is compiled and returned to the proposer to help inform further development of the proposal.

Following review of this information, the proposer determines whether to move forward to the Pre-Vetting phase.

Phase 2: Pre-Vetting and Committee Review

Programs moving forward complete the Pre-Vetting proposal, which requests more detailed information about the proposed program, including:

• alignment with institutional mission and priorities
• projected enrollment and student demand
• budget and resource considerations
• opportunities for collaboration
• other information needed to evaluate the feasibility of the proposal

A review committee evaluates the completed proposal and provides a recommendation to the Provost. Recommendations may include:

• Approved
• Not Approved
• Not Approved Yet
• Revise and Resubmit
   

The Provost makes the final decision regarding whether the proposal may proceed.

After Pre-Vetting Approval

Once a proposal is approved through the Pre-Vetting process, the proposer should:

• submit the proposal to the State Authorization team within OIE to determine state exemption status; and
• begin the Curriculog 2.1 New Programs process, including the signed Pre-Vetting approval letter and State Authorization sign-off.
   

Proposals asked to Revise and Resubmit should incorporate the committee's requested revisions and return through the designated proposal cycle.

Formal Curriculum Approval

After the exploratory and Pre-Vetting requirements are complete, approved proposals move into Weber State's standard curriculum approval process.

The proposal proceeds through the following levels of review:

1. Originator
2. Department Chair
3. College Curriculum Committee
4. College Dean
5. University Curriculum Committee
6. Faculty Senate Executive Committee
7. Faculty Senate
8. President's Council
9. USHE Peer Review
10. WSU Board of Trustees
11. NWCCU
12. Final USHE Notification
     

How OIE Supports New Program Development

OIE supports the early stages of new program development by helping proposers gather and interpret information needed for the Exploratory and Pre-Vetting processes. This may include coordination with USHE, workforce-demand information, skill and occupation data, and other institutional information relevant to evaluating program need and viability.

By beginning with the exploratory process, this allows departments to identify important questions and considerations before investing significant time in a full curriculum proposal.

For questions about the exploratory or Pre-Vetting process, please contact OIE@weber.edu.