APR Charge to Reviewers

The APR Reviewers are expected to read the APR Self-Study from the unit under review prior to the two-day site visit. The site visit may be in-person or virtual via zoom, as decided by the unit under review and the Dean. The site visit includes a series of meetings with different stakeholders to enable the APR Reviewers to gather answers to questions they may have about the unit. 

The APR Reviewers are expected to submit a report (five to seven pages) in about three weeks after the site visit to the Associate Vice Provost. The report will be distributed to the Provost, Dean, department head, and Senior Vice President for Health Sciences (as appropriate). The report will be a public document. The department head/director will distribute the report to the faculty, staff, and students in the unit. The department head is invited to write a two-page response to the report, and the report and department head response are discussed with the Provost, Associate Vice Provost, Dean, and department head a few weeks after the site visit to establish an improvement plan.

The APR Reviewers are asked to provide a report that covers the strengths and weaknesses/challenges of the unit and to list their recommendations. Under the strengths, weaknesses/challenges and recommendations, the APR Reviewers are asked to address appropriate topics under the following:

  • Faculty (scholarship, productivity, funding (as appropriate), diversity, teaching, service/outreach, turnover, composition of tenured/tenure track to career track and lecturers, and other relevant topics)
  • Academic programs (curriculum, assessment of student learning outcomes, time to degree, enrollment numbers, and number of degrees awarded)
  • Students (undergraduates, graduate students, professional students, as appropriate)
    • Diversity
    • Academic backgrounds upon entering and graduating from the program
    • Post-program outcomes (jobs, additional education, etc, of the graduates)
  • Staff (diversity, turnover, appropriateness for unit needs)
  • Unit collaboration and outreach to the community (campus, Tucson, state, and nation)
  • Unit planning for the future (to increase quality, scholarship, rankings, improve teaching, increase efficiency, etc.)

As much as possible and appropriate, the report should have short paragraphs to provide context, but the strengths, weaknesses/challenges, and recommendations should be listed as bullet points. This is especially true for the recommendations since bullet points are easier for the unit to address than long paragraphs.