Year 2: October - Year 3: February

External Review and Report

The external review process invites qualified leaders in an academic area to provide feedback and guidance surrounding continuous programmatic improvement. The nomination of potential reviewers is initiated by the home unit. Reviewers should have experience with similar academic units as those undergoing the APR process in terms of program offerings, size of student and faculty population, and private university or colleges, particularly those identified as Jesuit institutions.

The list of nominated reviewers is assessed by the Provost, and CAS Dean if appropriate. Following approval, selection of two reviewers available during the same timeframe are coordinated and scheduled by the home academic unit. External reviewers will review the Loyola University Chicago Self-Study report and attend a 2-day site visit to the respective campus of the academic unit.

While at Loyola University Chicago, external reviewers will meet with groups that are invested in the improvement process of the academic unit, including administration, faculty, students (current and former), or external partners, over the course of two days. Reviewers will be given several questions the unit and University want addressed. A summation of their findings will be included in a ten-page report, used to stimulate strategic planning to cultivate the home unit's operation.

Questions addressed by external reviewers in their report should include:

• A brief overview that addresses the key facets of the unit and programs and addresses strategic issues that are a focus of the Academic Program Review.
• Views on unit’s Program Learning Outcomes
• What has the department been doing well? What evidence supports this conclusion?
• What could the department do to improve? What evidence supports this conclusion?
• What should the department do that it is not currently doing? What evidence supports this conclusion?
• What should the department stop doing that it is currently doing? What evidence supports this conclusion?
• What next short and long-term steps do you recommend the unit take and why? Please also share any other observations and/or suggested actions to support continuous improvement in these academic programs that arose from the Academic Program Review.
• What resources might be reallocated within the unit to meet these priorities? What resources would be vital to attain the top priorities, if available? What policies or practices should be changed to support any planned improvements and/or recommendations?

Deliverables: External Reviewers approved October; site visits Jan/Feb; Reports end of February

External Reviewers Nomination Form (Word/draft)