Guidance for Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and Faculty

Revised September 2008

Purpose

“First and foremost, the purpose of the academic program review (APR) process at Cal Poly is to acknowledge the strengths of our academic programs and, at the same time, to seek ways of further enhancing their quality.”

The APR process provides an opportunity for the department, the college and at the institutional level, to make better, more informed decisions that lead to program improvement for the benefit of students and their learning.  Due to the role that program review plays in enhancing educational effectiveness, the review of academic programs is mandated by the CSU and is expected by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), our regional accrediting agency.

APR is intended to be a collaborative process involving the department, the college, qualified reviewers (external to the university as well as internal), and the provost, through the involvement of the Office of Academic Programs. It is intended to be formative and to lead to program improvement. It is not intended to be punitive in its consequences.

The APR is a cyclic 5-6 year process.  Embedded in this cycle are two key components, ongoing assessment of program learning outcomes and a self-study process that takes place over a two year period in four phases: initiation, self-study, site visit, and action plan.  Action plans, based on the self-study and site visit are then implemented in the remainder of the cycle (see Accredited Timeline (PDF) or Non-accredited Timeline (PDF)).

Initiation Phase

• APR is timed to coincide with an external accreditation review whenever applicable. The self study and everything else that is part of the accreditation review are automatically included in the dossier for APR. The program is generally asked to address additional items that are of interest within the university but not necessarily to an accrediting team (see Self-Study Guidelines).
• In the absence of a concurrent accreditation review, APR normally involves at least two external reviewers and one internal reviewer. One internal or external reviewer must have some experience with assessment of student learning outcomes and act as the designated assessment reviewer. A third external reviewer can be requested by the department but is up to the discretion of the College Dean as to whether or not the third reviewer will be allowed.
• When there is a concurrent accreditation review, only one internal reviewer is appointed. The accrediting body will appoint a team of external reviewers for the program (see Guidelines for Appointment & Functioning of Reviewers for complete information).
• APR for undergraduate programs may be done concurrently with graduate programs. However, there must either be a separate self-study or a clearly defined section in the self-study to distinguish between the two programs. At least one of the reviewers must have specific expertise with graduate programs and act as the designated graduate reviewer. This designation must be indicated on the reviewer nominee form.

Self-Study Phase

• Program review sets forth a process for improvement focused on educational effectiveness. The outcome of this process is a short term action plan that guides departmental efforts until the next self-study. Programs are asked to involve their faculty in all stages of review process, including design of the self-study. The Program Head/Chair, the Dean, and the Vice Provost sign off on the self-study proposal and the timeline for its preparation (see Self-Study Guidelines).

Site Visit Phase

• Visits are usually held in one full day. Typical events during a visit include:
  • Entrance meeting with Vice Provost and Dean(s)*
  • Collective meeting with faculty
  • Collective meeting with students
  • Collective meeting with staff
  • Tour of facilities/library/campus
  • Private meeting times for reviewers to confer together
  • Exit meeting with department head/chair (and possibly Dean unless a private meeting is preferred)*
  • Exit meeting with Provost, Vice Provost*
  • Display or presentation of student work**
  • Individual meetings with faculty (optional)
  • Meals with faculty or students (optional)
    (* indicates mandatory events, ** indicates event highly recommended by WASC)

• When specific dates are identified for the site visit, notify the Academic Programs Office. The Administrative Assistant for the Associate Vice Provost will assist with the scheduling of the entrance and exit meetings with the Academic Affairs administrators. Advance notification will help ensure the availability of the appropriate parties.
• Following a 1-2 day site visit, the review team submits a written draft report to the Academic Programs Office. For accredited programs, this may be the report submitted by an accreditation team along with supplementary material addressing issues/concerns of institutional interest. The internal reviewer will also submit a report. Individual reviewers may submit individual reports or the team of reviewers may decide to submit one report.
• Consult with the Dean to make financial arrangements for the external reviewers’ stipends, travel, lodging, etc. Note: Internal reviewers do not receive a stipend.

Action Plan Phase

• After the visit, the Program Head/Chair reviews the draft report for factual accuracy and informs the Academic Programs Office if there are errors. This provides a mechanism to ensure that the reviewers' report, which will receive strong consideration in developing a plan of action for program improvement, is an accurate one.
• Once the Academic Programs Office notifies the department that the reviewers report has been finalized, a working meeting is held to assist in the development of an action plan for the program. This meeting typically involves the Department Head/Chair, the entire departmental faculty, the Dean (and/or designee), and the Vice Provost. The plan is based on the self-study and the review or accreditation report. This meeting is termed the “action plan preparation meeting” (see Action Plan Template (Word doc)).
• Once the action plan is completed it is submitted to the Dean’s office and then transmitted to the Academic Programs Office. If necessary an action plan adoption meeting is called. This meeting may involve the entire program faculty, the Dean, the Vice Provost, and the Provost. In the event an adoption meeting is deemed unnecessary, departments will be notified, by the Academic Programs Office, of the adoption of their action plan.
• One important element of the action plan provides for assessment of student learning at the program level. The action plan specifies the cycle of data collection, data analysis and interpretation, leading to possible changes in the curricula or programmatic offerings for the purpose of improving student learning. This plan may be an ongoing one that has already been established or a revised one.
• Before the next self-study year, the Department Head/Chair will be asked to report periodically on implementation of the action plan and resulting outcomes via the Dean to the Vice Provost (see Action Plan Progress Report Template (Word doc)).

For more information, contact Delores Lencioni in the Office of Academic Programs (756-7299).