I. Purpose and Scope
SGU is committed to continuous quality improvement across all its academic programs. This policy establishes a formal process for the periodic review of programs and their constituent courses, or phases, to ensure that instructional content, teaching methodologies, and assessment strategies remain academically sound, mission-aligned, and consistent with institutional learning outcomes and accreditation standards.
This policy applies to all schools and programs within SGU, including the Schools of Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Arts and Sciences, and Graduate Studies.
II. Guiding Principles
- Quality and Alignment: Reviews confirm that curricula and instruction support the program-specific objectives and accreditation standards and align with the SGU’s mission and vision.
- Constructive and Collaborative Approach: The review process is growth oriented, supportive, and designed to guide improvement.
- Evidence-Informed: All decisions and recommendations are-evidence based utilizing data such as internal assessment results, external assessment performance, completion and progression rates, and reflection from course and program leadership, faculty and student groups.
- Confidentiality and Faculty Protection: To promote open, candid, and constructive participation, all review deliberations and materials will remain confidential. Information shared during the review will be used solely for academic quality enhancement. Individual faculty members will not be personally identified or cited in reports, are only cited as aggregated feedback.
- Transparency and Accountability: The process, expectations, and timelines shall be communicated clearly to all participants.
III. Frequency and Scheduling
- Program Reviews: Each academic program shall undergo a formal review on a cycle that should not exceed 5 years; exceptions to delay elements of review by the relevant curriculum committee should be communicated to the Provosts Office.
- Phase reviews: Some programs have distinct academic blocks that may constitute academic phases and should be reviewed as a block. Where relevant these should also occur synchronized to the program review so that their report is considered at the program review.
- Course Reviews: Courses within each program will be formally reviewed at least once every 5 years or more frequently if significant curricular revisions occur.
- Schools may adjust these intervals to align with discipline-specific accreditation timelines, provided consistency with the institutional framework is maintained.
IV. Oversight and Roles
- Academic Oversight Committees:
Each School’s Curriculum Committee (or equivalent) is responsible for selecting programs and courses due for review in the upcoming year and communicating with the course leadership.
- Appointment of Review Chair:
The relevant Curriculum Committee Chair, in consultation with the Dean of the School, appoints a Review Committee Chair from the School to lead the process.
- Review Committee Composition:
The Review Committee shall include the schools faculty members (including, as much as possible, those external to delivery the program), and administrative or quality-assurance staff as needed. The Chair of the review committee should be free of conflicts of interest (i.e. should not have a course or program leadership role, or substantive teaching allocation, for the program under review). The committee must be constituted with a diversity of faculty levels, disciplines, stakeholders and must be comprised of at least 4 members plus 1 chair.
- Program Director / Course Director Role:
The academic director of the course must actively participate by providing all relevant materials and data, responding to feedback, and contributing to the development of an improvement plan. Course directors will be notified of review by the relevant curriculum committee chair; and given appropriate notice for collection of information.
- Deans Office
The Dean's office should keep a calendar of review for each program and file it with the Provost's Office. Program leadership should be aware of the calendar and ensure all course directors and academic leaders in the program have access and notification. Each Dean's Office will also have a detailed policy/procedure document for each program and the review elements.
V. Review Components
Course/clerkships review will typically include:
- Alignment of course and program learning outcomes with institutional outcomes.
- Curriculum design, sequencing, and mapping.
- Assessment methods and outcome analysis.
- Student performance and progression data.
- Student and faculty feedback and reflection.
- Resource adequacy (facilities, staffing, technology, library support).
- Review of previous improvement plans and evidence of progress.
- Benchmarking with comparable courses, where applicable.
- Course leadership, faculty, staff and student feedback
Phase reviews typically look at aggregate academic blocks made of multiple associated courses. Phase reviews look at the collective performance of the curriculum across multiple courses especially where curricular themes, threads or longitudinal content is present or any issues that collectively apply to all courses in a block, e.g. clinical terms in SVM and SOM versus basic sciences terms.
Program reviews will use course and phase reviews and provide a platform for all stakeholders in the curriculum to look at the whole program holistically; defining focus and strategy for the next 5 year cycle.
Each school will publish a policy/procedure document that provides specific details for each of the appropriate reviews for their programs.
VI. Outcomes and Reporting
- Report: The Review Committee will produce a written report summarizing findings, strengths, areas for improvement, and specific recommendations for the course/phase or program as a whole, as appropriate.
- Response: The Program or Course Director shall prepare an action plan responding to recommendations, including timelines and responsible persons.
- Approval and Archiving: The report and action plan shall be submitted to the relevant Dean’s Office and to Provosts Office.
- Follow-Up: Progress toward implementation of the improvement plan shall be reviewed by the respective curriculum committee until the next scheduled review.
VII. Exclusions
The review process addresses curriculum, learning outcomes, instructional methodology, and assessment practices. It does not include individual faculty performance evaluations or departmental administrative issues, which are managed through separate University processes.
VIII. Continuous Quality Improvement
Each School will periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the review process itself to ensure its continued relevance and alignment with institutional goals and accreditation standards.
IX. Authority
Office of the Provost; reviewed every 3 years.
X. Version History
(1025022)