Select the tab below to learn more about your role in the Academic Program Review Process.
If you have questions about any aspect of this process, email them to Michelle Brattain, Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs at [email protected] or call 404-413-2615.
General Information for Academic Units
On this page, unit heads and unit APR committees can find links to the guidelines, templates, and other information that are needed to navigate the APR process. A detailed APR timeline for units and programs is available here: APR Timeline – Units (2021).
APR Self-Study Report
APR Guidelines for 2020-2027 cycle (updated November 2023)
This document provides a detailed description of the APR process as well as the purposes of APR, funding domain, timeline, and data sources.
APR Self-Study Report Guidelines (June 2024)
This document provides the section-by-section structure for the Self-Study Report, identifies the parameters to be addressed in each section, and identifies the data source for each parameter. Many of the parameters are displayed on the APR Dashboard. The sources of other parameters are IPORT, the Office of Institutional Research, the unit’s internal data, and comparisons with units in peer and aspirational institutions.
The unit should submit a first draft of the Self-Study Report to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) and the relevant Dean’s Office for review by September 15. A final draft should be approved by the faculty and submitted to OIE by the Friday before Thanksgiving.
Centers
- Research Centers
- Service/Education Centers
Evaluation of Research Centers
The University System of Georgia defines a research center as follows: “A research ‘center’ provides an organizational base for research in a given academic area or closely related area. It often provides a vehicle for interdisciplinary research in a given area involving faculty and students from a variety of internal administrative structures. It may be involved in the offering of continuing education activities related to its area(s) of interest. The ‘center’ structure may facilitate efforts of the college or university to obtain extramural funding in specific areas. It serves as a formalized link between the academic community and the professional community in the area(s) of focus. A ‘center’, however, is not an autonomous structure within the internal statutory organization of a college or university. It is administratively most often an appendage of one of the traditional administrative structures, such as a department. A ‘center’ is not involved in the independent offering of credit course or degree programs.” (Academic and Student Affairs Handbook, Section 2.14)
The template for research centers outlines the information to be provided by the center’s director(s) and submitted as a supporting document to a unit’s Self Study Report. In general, the center is evaluated on the basis of the accomplishment of its stated goals and objectives and the success in developing research programs. This evaluation will be based, in large part, on extramural support generated for the programs in the center, publication record, and training of students and research associates.
APR Template for Research Centers
Evaluation of Service/Education Centers
Georgia State University has adopted the definition of a Service/Education Center from the University System of Georgia’s definition of a research center. A Service/Education Center provides an organizational base for service and/or education in a given academic area or closely related area. It may provide a vehicle for interdisciplinary efforts in a given area involving faculty and students from a variety of internal administrative structures. It may be involved in the offering of continuing education activities related to its area(s) of interest. The ‘center’ structure may facilitate efforts of a college or the university to obtain extramural funding in specific areas. It serves as a formalized link between the academic, professional, and/or Atlanta communities in the area(s) of focus. A ‘center,’ however, is not an autonomous structure within the internal statutory organization of a college or the University. It is administratively most often an appendage of one of the traditional administrative structures, such as a department. A ‘center’ is not involved in the independent offering of credit course or degree programs. (Academic and Student Affairs Handbook, Section 2.14)
The Template for Service/Education Centers gives specific instructions on the information to be provided by the center’s director(s) for purposes of review and submitted as a supporting document to a unit’s Academic Program Review Self Study. In general, the center will be evaluated regarding its accomplishment of the stated goals and objectives as well as its quality, its impact on constituencies served by the center, and its contributions to the University’s and the unit’s mission and strategic plan.
Chair's Letter
- highlight elements of the report of particular interest, such as notable strengths and limitations of the unit as well as the principal challenges and opportunities it faces;
- provide additional context, such as the unit’s contribution to the college
- review the appropriateness and feasibility of the unit’s goals, and, perhaps most importantly,
- raise specific questions for the reviewers to address.
Recent examples can be found in the APR Documents webpage.
The chair’s letter is due to OIE and the respective Dean’s Office on the last day of Fall semester classes.
Guidelines for Selection of Reviewers
External Reviewers
- The review team typically includes two external reviewers. In exceptional cases, a unit may be granted an additional reviewer if there is a strong justification for doing so. Units should be strategic in identifying potential reviewers who can be most useful in helping the units determine how to seize opportunities and/or address challenges.
- External reviewers should be selected from peer or aspirational departments/programs, preferably (but not necessarily) located at peer or aspirational institutions.
- Wherever possible, reviewers should hold the rank of professor and have significant administrative experience (e.g., department chair, center or program director, associate dean, or dean).
- Except under special circumstances, reviewers from the Atlanta area or from other University System of Georgia institutions should be avoided.
- The academic unit should submit a rank-ordered list of at least 10 names to the Dean’s Office by June 1. The list may be subdivided to ensure a desired distribution of expertise. The Dean’s Office may reorder or modify the list. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will invite reviewers in the order in which they are listed.
- The list should include the name of each proposed reviewer, his/her contact information, and a brief biographical sketch that makes clear the person’s qualifications to serve as a reviewer.
Internal Reviewers
- The review team also includes two internal reviewers selected from among the GSU faculty. One reviewer is intended to provide a college and/or meta-disciplinary perspective while the other provides a broad university-wide perspective.
- The first internal reviewer is selected from another unit in the college of the unit under review or a related discipline in another college. The unit should submit a rank-ordered list of at least 5 names to the Dean’s Office by June 1. The list should provide a rationale for each nominee and describe any potential conflicts of interest. The Dean’s Office may reorder or modify the list. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will invite reviewers in the order in which they are listed.
- The second internal reviewer is selected by the Committee on Academic Programs of the University Senate. Wherever possible, this reviewer should not come from the same college as the unit under review.
- Ideally, all internal reviewers will be senior faculty members with college- and/or university-wide leadership, administrative, and service experience.
Mock Site Visit Schedule
Mock APR Site Visit Schedule | |||
DATE/TIME | ACTIVITY | PARTICIPANTS | LOCATION |
Sunday | |||
6:00 p.m. | Dinner/College Overview | Dean, Reviewers | |
Monday | |||
8:45 | Meet Reviewers at the Ellis | Assistant Provost Academic Affairs, Reviewers | Ellis Hotel |
9:00 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. |
University Overview | Provost, Senior VP, Associate Provosts, and Reviewers | 100 Auburn Ave* |
10:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. |
Unit Overview | Unit Head, Reviewers | Chair's Office |
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. |
Meetings with unit faculty, individually or in groups | ||
12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. |
Lunch | ||
1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. |
Meetings with unit faculty, individually or in groups | ||
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. |
Review Team discussion | Review Team | |
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. |
Review Team dinner | Review Team | |
Tuesday | |||
8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. |
Review Team working breakfast | Review Team | |
9:15 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. |
Meetings with program directors and heads of unit-affiliated centers | ||
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. | Working Lunch-Graduate Students | ||
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. |
Meeting with Undergraduate Students | ||
2:15 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. |
Preparation for Exit Interview | Review Team | |
3:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. |
Exit Interview | Provost, Senior VP, Associate Provosts, Reviewers, Dean, Associate Dean (optional), Unit Head | 100 Auburn Ave* |
* These meetings have already been scheduled by the Office of the Provost. |
Developing the APR Action Plan
Action Plan Guidelines (effective 2021)
The purpose of the APR Action Plan is to define the unit’s direction for the next five to six years, based upon information and recommendations provided at various stages in the review process (the Self-Study Report, the Chair’s and Dean’s Letters, and the Review Report).
I. Process.
Typically, the unit head works with the Dean’s Office in the development of the Action Plan, especially with regard to action steps that may require resources from the college. At the discretion of the unit head, units may find it useful to involve other faculty in the process of developing the action plan or to present a draft of the action plan to the full faculty for discussion and feedback.
Once the unit head and the Dean agree on the Action Plan, it should be forwarded for review and comment to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), which may request revisions. When the Action Plan is ready, OIE will forward it to the Provost, who may also ask for revisions. Once the Provost has approved the Action Plan, the Dean may begin supervising implementation.
II. Format, structure, and content.
The Action Plan consists of two parts, plus a signature page and an appendix. It should be limited to 3 pages (not including the signature page and appendix), using Times New Roman 12 point and single-spaced.
1. Major Findings of the Current Review
2. Action Steps for the Coming Cycle
For details, link to the Guidelines above
III. Comprehensive Program Review (CPR) Appendix
Beginning in 2019, units are required to provide a summary for each degree program offered by the unit regarding the program’s productivity, viability, and quality. This summary will be used by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness in the preparation of a Comprehensive Program Review report for each program for submission to the University System of Georgia. For more information, see the Comprehensive Program Review webpage.
The Dean and Dean’s Office in the college of the unit undergoing review play numerous roles in the APR process:
Year 1:
- Confirms units to be reviewed with Office of Academic Affairs (OAA)
- Provides college-level guidance to units (APR orientation)
- Provides ranked list of potential external and internal reviewers
- Reviews draft of unit’s self-study report
- Prepares letter for review team based on final self-study report and unit head’s letter
Year 2:
- Hosts orientation dinner for review team and attends site visit exit interview
- Reviews report prepared by review team
- Works with unit to prepare draft Action Plan and make necessary revisions
Subsequent Years:
- Supervises the unit’s implementation of the Action Plan
- Submits reports on progress toward implementation of the Action Plan. A template for the Action Plan Implementation Report is available here: Action Plan Implementation Report Template
Guidelines for the Selection of Reviewers
External Reviewers
- The review team typically includes two external reviewers. In exceptional cases, a unit may be granted an additional reviewer if there is a strong justification for doing so. Units should be strategic in identifying potential reviewers who can be most useful in helping the units determine how to seize opportunities and/or address challenges.
- External reviewers should be selected from peer or aspirational departments/programs, preferably (but not necessarily) located at peer or aspirational institutions.
- Wherever possible, reviewers should hold the rank of professor and have significant administrative experience (e.g., department chair, center or program director, associate dean, or dean).
- Except under special circumstances, reviewers from the Atlanta area or from other University System of Georgia institutions should be avoided.
- The academic unit should submit a rank-ordered list of at least 10 names to the Dean’s Office by June 1. The list may be subdivided to ensure a desired distribution of expertise. The Dean’s Office may reorder or modify the list. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will invite reviewers in the order in which they are listed.
- The list should include the name of each proposed reviewer, his/her contact information, and a brief biographical sketch that makes clear the person’s qualifications to serve as a reviewer.
Internal Reviewers
- The review team also includes two internal reviewers selected from among the GSU faculty. One reviewer is intended to provide a college and/or meta-disciplinary perspective while the other provides a broad university-wide perspective.
- The first internal reviewer is selected from another unit in the college of the unit under review or a related discipline in another college. The unit should submit a rank-ordered list of at least 5 names to the Dean’s Office by June 1. The list should provide a rationale for each nominee and describe any potential conflicts of interest. The Dean’s Office may reorder or modify the list. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will invite reviewers in the order in which they are listed.
- The second internal reviewer is selected by the Committee on Academic Programs of the University Senate. Wherever possible, this reviewer should not come from the same college as the unit under review.
- Ideally, all internal reviewers will be senior faculty members with college- and/or university-wide leadership, administrative, and service experience.
Guidelines for the Dean’s Letter
1) contextualize the unit’s roles in and contributions to the activities of its college.
2) evaluate the fit between the unit’s proposed goals and objectives, as stated in its self-study report, and those of any ongoing, college-level, strategic planning efforts as well as the suitability of those goals and objectives more generally.
3) offer insights with regard to the desirability and feasibility of allocating college resources to meet the unit’s stated goals and objectives.
APR is expected, wherever possible, to be a budget-neutral process, with its major focus on non-resource-dependent program quality improvements. The cost of quality improvements will need to be met, for the most part, by reallocations elsewhere within the relevant unit or college or from sources external to the university. Therefore, recognizing that some quality improvements may require resources, deans and unit heads may choose to redirect resources within existing college and department budgets to facilitate the achievement of the unit’s goals and objectives. Moreover, deans can engage with units to identify and pursue entrepreneurial strategies for funding particular initiatives.
4) direct the attention of the reviewers to particular questions and issues for which their insight and feedback may be most helpful.
Mock Site Visit Schedule
Mock APR Site Visit Schedule | |||
DATE/TIME | ACTIVITY | PARTICIPANTS | LOCATION |
Sunday | |||
6:00 p.m. | Dinner/College Overview | Dean, Reviewers | |
Monday | |||
8:45 | Meet Reviewers at the Ellis | Assistant Provost Academic Affairs, Reviewers | Ellis Hotel |
9:00 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. |
University Overview | Provost, Senior VP, Associate Provosts, and Reviewers | 100 Auburn Ave* |
10:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. |
Unit Overview | Unit Head, Reviewers | Chair's Office |
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. |
Meetings with unit faculty, individually or in groups | ||
12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. |
Lunch | ||
1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. |
Meetings with unit faculty, individually or in groups | ||
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. |
Review Team discussion | Review Team | |
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. |
Review Team dinner | Review Team | |
Tuesday | |||
8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. |
Review Team working breakfast | Review Team | |
9:15 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. |
Meetings with program directors and heads of unit-affiliated centers | ||
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. |
Working Lunch-Graduate Students | ||
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. |
Meeting with Undergraduate Students | ||
2:15 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. |
Preparation for Exit Interview | Review Team | |
3:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. |
Exit Interview | Provost, Senior VP, Associate Provosts, Reviewers, Dean, Associate Dean (optional), Unit Head | 100 Auburn Ave* |
* These meetings have already been scheduled by the Office of the Provost. |
Implementing the APR Action Plan
Thank you for your service as a reviewer for the Academic Program Review process at Georgia State University. Information you may need to complete your service is located under this tab.
The responsibilities of the reviewers include
- Reviewing materials provided by the Office of Academic Affairs (instructions for review, unit self-study report and appendices, chair’s letter, dean’s letter, college and university strategic plans, and other documents, as available)
- Visiting campus for two days and meeting with faculty, students, staff, and administrators
- Participating in an exit meeting with the unit head, dean, and the provost’s leadership team
- Within 10 business days of the site visit, submitting the completed review report to the Office of Academic Affairs.
Please explore the tabs below, which include a mock site visit schedule, the review report template, links to relevant college documents, and information about honoraria and the reimbursement of travel expenses. The documents that you have been asked to review can be found on the page APR Documents. If you need any assistance, please contact:
Michelle Brattain
Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs
404-413-2615
[email protected]
Mock Site Visit Schedule
Mock APR Site Visit Schedule | |||
DATE/TIME | ACTIVITY | PARTICIPANTS | LOCATION |
Sunday | |||
6:00 p.m. | Dinner/College Overview | Dean, Reviewers | |
Monday | |||
8:45 | Meet Reviewers at the Ellis | Assistant Provost Academic Affairs, Reviewers | Ellis Hotel |
9:00 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. |
University Overview | Provost, Senior VP, Associate Provosts, and Reviewers | 100 Auburn Ave* |
10:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. |
Unit Overview | Unit Head, Reviewers | Chair's Office |
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. |
Meetings with unit faculty, individually or in groups | ||
12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. |
Lunch | ||
1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. |
Meetings with unit faculty, individually or in groups | ||
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. |
Review Team discussion | Review Team | |
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. |
Review Team dinner | Review Team | |
Tuesday | |||
8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. |
Review Team working breakfast | Review Team | |
9:15 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. |
Meetings with program directors and heads of unit-affiliated centers | ||
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. |
Working Lunch-Graduate Students | ||
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. |
Meeting with Undergraduate Students | ||
2:15 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. |
Preparation for Exit Interview | Review Team | |
3:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. |
Exit Interview | Provost, Senior VP, Associate Provosts, Reviewers, Dean, Associate Dean (optional), Unit Head | 100 Auburn Ave* |
* These meetings have already been scheduled by the Office of the Provost. |
Review Report Template
1. Executive Summary
2. Please evaluate the unit’s principal strengths, limitations, opportunities, and challenges in each of the following areas:
a. Undergraduate Education (e.g., curriculum; students; enrollment, retention, and graduation; resources and support structures; learning outcomes; etc.)
b. Graduate Education (e.g., curriculum; students; enrollment, retention, and graduation; resources and support structures; learning outcomes; etc.)
c. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity (e.g., quality, quantity, impact, recognition, etc.)
d. Any other Important Programs and Activities
e. Resources (faculty, staff/administrative, financial, space, technology, etc.)
3. Please evaluate the unit’s goals and objectives (e.g., appropriateness, feasibility, fit with the university and college strategic plans, etc.)
4. Please address any additional questions raised by the
a. Provost
b. Dean
c. Unit head
5. Please provide your recommendations
College Documents
Andrew Young School of Policy Studies:
Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions:
College of Arts & Sciences:
College of the Arts:
College of Education and Human Development
College of Law:
Institute for Biomedical Sciences
- Promotion and Tenure Manual for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
- Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty
- Mentoring Programs
- Faculty Obligations and Expectations
- Workload Policy
- Bylaws
- Tenure-Track Promotion and Reappointment
- Non-Tenure-Track Promotion and Reappointment
School of Public Health:
Honorarium Statement
To facilitate processing of honorarium payments, each external reviewer is asked to complete two forms:
(1) the GSU Substitute W-9 and Vendor Authorization Form, and
(2) the Service Provider Classification Worksheet form (SPCW).
Please complete the entire Substitute W-9 form and sign it.
For the SPCW form, you need only complete the “Service Provider Information” section on page 1 and then sign and date the form on page 3, under the “Service Provider Acknowledgement” section.
A link has been provided for each form. You may either email or mail the completed and signed forms to Adrienne Tankersley at
Office of Academic Affairs
Post Office Box 3985
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30302-3985
Please note that the honorarium is considered to be a service payment by the GSU Office of Disbursement Services.
Reimbursement of Expenses
Georgia State University will provide airfare and accommodations, as needed, for each external reviewer for the site visit to Atlanta. The University will purchase the airline tickets, and the hotel will directly bill the University for the hotel accommodations. The University reserves a hotel for two evenings, beginning the evening (typically Sunday) before the first day of the scheduled visit, with departure late on the second day of the visit (typically Tuesday). In addition, several meals will be paid for directly by the college or the unit under review.
Reviewers will be reimbursed for other reasonable expenses (e.g., meals, ground transportation, parking) that they may incur during travel and the site visit. Please note that the GSU office of Accounts Payable has strict rules for approving reimbursements. To make the reimbursement process as smooth as possible, we have developed the following guidelines based on recent experience.
Meals:
We will provide a meal per diem, so each meal expense does not have to be documented. We can reimburse up to the current (2025) GSA per diem meal allowances ($22 for breakfast, $23 for lunch, and $36 for dinner in Atlanta).
Personal Mileage:
If you drive to Atlanta or to your home airport and wish to be compensated for mileage, please provide a map (Google Maps, Apple Maps, MapQuest, etc.) showing the route taken and mileage, and please state in the accompanying email or letter the total mileage requested. The 2025 reimbursement rate is 70 cents per mile.
General:
For meals, we will not require receipts or proof of purchase, but for all other expenses please provide evidence of payment if possible. If you do not provide the above documentation, your request for reimbursement may be delayed or even denied.
Reimbursement requests should be completed within 30 days of the trip. Receipts may be submitted by email ([email protected] , copying [email protected] ) or by traditional mail to:
Office of Academic Affairs
Attn: Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs
P.O. Box 3985
1 Park Place, Suite 818
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303
Please keep copies of all receipts until you receive your reimbursement.
The Provost’s Leadership Team plays a key role in the APR process, reflecting the centrality of Academic Program Review to Georgia State’s efforts at continuous improvement. The Provost and the other members of the Team read the review documents and meet twice with the reviewers during the site visit: for a University Overview at the beginning and for an Exit Interview at the end. Then, the Provost works with the unit head and the respective Dean to develop an APR Action Plan for the unit. In subsequent years, the Provost monitors the implementation reports prepared by the Deans as part of the Deans’ annual evaluation process.