Guidelines for Appointment & Functioning of Reviewers

Revised September 2008

A key component of the Academic Program Review process is peer review. One peer is selected from Cal Poly as the internal reviewer and two are chosen from other higher education institutions as external reviewers. All reviewers are expected to have some familiarity with the discipline/field of the program under review, although not every member of the review team must have formal credentials in that discipline/field. At least one of the reviewers must be able to review the program’s efforts with the assessment of student learning outcomes and its impact on improving student learning. Reviewer nomination forms are located in Appendix B.

Accredited Programs

APR is timed to coincide with an external accreditation review for accredited programs whenever applicable. The accrediting body normally appoints the team of external reviewers for the program. Due to the presence of the external accreditation team, the program only needs to nominate one internal (“institutional”) reviewer for the process. The nomination needs to be endorsed by the college dean, and approved by Senate Executive Committee. Please note: Acting as an internal reviewer is considered to be university service (a stipend will not be administered).

Internal Reviewer

Criteria for selection

• Nominee must be a Cal Poly faculty member from outside the college of the program under review.
• Nominee must have a knowledge or familiarity of the discipline/field under review. Formal credentials in the discipline/field are not required.
• Nominee has the potential to foster a future inter-departmental collaboration with the program under review.

Process for submission and approval

• The program chair/head contacts the nominee to ascertain interest and availability
• The program completes and submits (electronically) the Internal Reviewer Nomination form (Word doc) and a curricula vitae or brief resume for the nominee to the Academic Programs Office.
• The Academic Program Office oversees the approval process once the form is submitted. This includes obtaining the endorsement of the College Dean and the Vice Provost of Academic Programs and approval from the Senate Executive Committee. The department is notified upon final approval.

Functions of reviewer

• Acts as a “member” of the accreditation team if an invitation is extended or permission is granted by the external accreditation team.
• Ensures that items of interest to the university that are specified in the self-study guidelines are adequately addressed in the review.
• Provides an analysis of the educational effectiveness of the program based on information obtained during the site visit and provided in the self-study report.
• Completes and submits (electronically) a brief and concise individual report in draft form of the review findings to the Academic Programs office upon completion of the accreditation team site visit.
• Makes revisions requested by the Academic Programs office after the draft has been checked for errors of fact.
• Submits (electronically) a final copy of the review report to the Academic Programs office.

Non-accredited Programs

The APR team for non-accredited programs normally consists of two external reviewers and one internal (“institutional”) reviewer. Either the internal reviewer or one of the external reviewers must have some experience with assessment of student learning outcomes and act as the designated assessment reviewer. Occasionally a third external reviewer may be requested by the program or by the College Dean. Expenses for the review, as well as the stipend for the external reviewers, are paid for by the College Dean. Therefore, the College Dean has the final decision as to whether or not a third reviewer is necessary. Please note: The internal review is considered to be university service (a stipend will not be administered).

Internal Reviewer

Criteria for selection

• Nominee is a Cal Poly faculty member from outside the college of the program under review.
• Nominee possesses a knowledge or familiarity of the discipline/field under review. Formal credentials in the discipline/field are not required.
• Nominee has the potential to foster a future inter-departmental collaboration with the program under review.
• At least one of the reviewers should have some experience with assessment of student learning outcomes and be able to act as the designated assessment reviewer.

Process for submission and approval

• The program chair/head contacts the nominee to ascertain interest and availability
• The program completes and submits (electronically) the Internal Reviewer Nomination form (Word doc) and a curricula vitae or brief resume for the nominee to the Academic Programs Office.
• The Academic Program Office oversees the approval process once the form is submitted. This includes obtaining the endorsement of the College Dean and the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Undergraduate Education and obtaining approval from the Senate Executive Committee. The department is notified by Academic Programs upon final approvals.

Functions of reviewer

• Ensures that items of interest to the university that are specified in the self-study are adequately addressed in the review.
• Participates in the team site visit as much as allowed by their teaching schedule.
• Provides an analysis of the educational effectiveness of the program based on information from the site visit and provided in the self-study report.
• Completes and submit (electronically) a brief and concise report in draft form of the review findings to the Academic Programs office upon completion of the review. The internal reviewer may elect to contribute to the “team” report with the two external reviewers. (The team decides if they will submit individual or combined reports.)
• Makes revisions requested by the Academic Programs office after the draft has been checked for errors of fact.
• Submits (electronically) a final copy of the review report to the Academic Programs office.

External Reviewers

Criteria for selection

• Nominee is from an institution other than Cal Poly.
• Nominee possesses a knowledge or familiarity of the discipline/field under review. Formal credentials in the discipline/field are not required.
• Nominee should not have a close personal or professional tie to Cal Poly in order for them to maintain reasonable objectivity.
• One or both of the nominees should have substantial experience with higher education.
• At least one of the reviewer’s should have some experience with assessment of student learning outcomes and be able to act as the designated assessment reviewer.

Process for submission and approval

• The program chair/head contacts the nominee to ascertain interest and availability
• The program completes and submits (electronically) the External Reviewer Nomination form and a curricula vitae or brief resume for each external reviewer nominee to the Academic Programs Office.
• The Academic Program Office oversees the approval process once the form is submitted. This includes obtaining the endorsement of the College Dean and the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Undergraduate Education. (Please note that Vice Provost reserves the right to consider alternative nominations from other sources.) The department is notified by the Academic Programs office upon final approval.
• Once selections have been made, formal invitations are issued by the college dean’s office, which oversees all necessary logistics and is responsible for the payment of expenses, including external reviewers’ stipends (typically $500-$1000 per person). The Dean decides the amount of the reviewer’s stipend.

Functions of reviewers

• Conduct a site visit (internal reviewers are asked to participate as much as their teaching schedule allows during the visit).
• Provide an analysis of the educational effectiveness of the program based on observations made during the site visit and information provided in the self-study report. Depending on the reviewer's expertise, the analysis may include comments on other aspects of departmental offerings such as service and general education courses.
• Prepare a brief and concise draft report of their findings after the site visit is complete. The review team decides if they will complete the report as a team (one report with contributions from each reviewer), as individuals (one report from each reviewer), or a combined report (external reviewers complete one report and the internal reviewer completes an individual report). The draft report will be submitted electronically to the Academic Programs office.
• Make revisions requested by the Academic Programs office after the draft has been checked for errors of fact. (If there is more than one report, each report is checked separately.)
• Submit (electronically) a final copy of the review report to the Academic Programs office.

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