Guidelines for Self-Studies

Revised September 2008

"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 self-study process is intended to provide an opportunity for the department to analyze and reflect on the educational effectiveness of the program. Educational effectiveness broadly encompasses:

• The mission of the program, college, and institution.
• The curriculum through which the program's mission and goals are pursued.
• The extent to which the program is achieving its objectives for student learning.
• The quality and diversity of the faculty and staff and their contributions to achieving the program's mission and goals.
• The quality of the infrastructure supporting the program (e.g., library and other educational resources; physical facilities, etc.).

Program review from now until 2012 will primarily be focused on student success. Aspects to the program such as quality of faculty and infrastructure support may be mentioned in the report.

Programs are strongly encouraged to involve their faculty in all stages of the APR process, including design of the self-study. The self-study process is usually conducted in the winter and spring quarters of the first year of the APR process. Reviewers will be asked to determine the extent of engagement by the departmental faculty in 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. A draft report of the self-study should be available for review by the Dean and Vice Provost prior to the end of spring quarter. A final version of the self-study report must be submitted to the Academic Programs office by the end of summer quarter.

The self-study report is then shared with the Dean, the Vice Provost, and the reviewers. It provides a context for the subsequent site visit and the action planning phase of the review process. Therefore, the self study must demonstrate an evidence-based and consultative approach to the review of the educational effectiveness of the program.

Self-Study Content

All programs (accredited and non-accredited) are expected to use in their analysis and include as a part of their self study the following subject matter (in no particular order):

1. General information about the program including:
   • An updated progress report on the action plan from the previous APR cycle (where applicable).
   • An analysis and reflection on available student data by category: enrolled, first year, transfer and where applicable, graduate students. A bibliography on selected resources regarding student learning has been provided to aid in the department’s analysis and reflection on this data.
2. Data from the assessment of student learning outcomes. Use the most recent submission from the department of the WASC program assessment inventory as the outline for this section of the self study.

   The most important part of this section will be the description you provide about how faculty are using the evidence to improve learning experiences for students. The self-study report should include:

   • The program level learning outcomes for students (preferably expressed as measurable outcomes using Observable Verbs for Cognitive Domain Instructional Objectives (PDF)).

     Note: Conduct a self assessment of the program learning outcomes by using the WASC Rubric for Assessing the Quality of Academic Program Learning Outcomes (PDF).

   • An indication of where the program outcomes are publicized to students or will be publicized (see WASC Rubric for Assessing the Integration of Student Learning Assessment into Program Reviews (PDF)).
   • The current plan for assessment of these outcomes. The plan should include the direct and indirect measures that are used for assessing the program learning outcomes. If portfolios or capstone courses are used for assessment, see WASC rubrics (PDF).
   • Indicate who has reviewed the plan in the past six years (program faculty, faculty in the college, faculty at the university, academic administrators in the college, academic administrators in central administration, external reviewer and/or consultants).
   • An executive summary of assessment results since the last program review. (Append the raw data only if deemed necessary for the external reviewers.)
   • Indicate which examples of student work (preferably work that was used as an assessment artifact) will be available for reviewers and whether reviewers will be meeting with students. Please do not include the samples of student work in the self-study but make them available for the reviewers either on a blackboard site (to which the reviewers are provided access) or by some other means (see WASC Rubric for Assessing the Integration of Student Learning Assessment into Program Reviews (PDF)).
   • A description of how the faculty uses the evidence (e.g., the decision making processes that leads to data analysis, data interpretations and recommendations for improvements at the curricular or programmatic level). This is the most critical aspect to focus on in the assessment section of the self-study report (see WASC Rubric for Assessing the Integration of Student Learning Assessment into Program Reviews (PDF)).
   • Where possible, provide evidence of the impact of the curricular or programmatic change.

     Note: Assistance with assessment efforts is available from your college assessment council or other individuals identified by the Dean’s office. The Associate Vice Provost for Academic Programs, in consultation with the Academic Assessment Council, can provide consultation and additional information on program level assessment. See the WASC Rubrics for The Evolution of Program Level Assessment (PDF), Assessing the Quality of Academic Program Learning Outcomes (PDF), Assessing the Use of Portfolios for Assessing Program Outcomes (PDF), and Assessing the Use of Capstone Experiences for Assessing Program Outcomes (PDF).

3. Alignment of university learning objectives with curricula. One of the WASC 2007-2011 self-study themes is an examination of the “integration of the educational experiences of students.” The university learning objectives, approved in the ’06-’07 academic year, support this integrated or holistic approach to the educational experiences of students. This section of the self-study is intended for faculty in the department to explore the “big picture” on students’ educational experiences. How does the department understand how the general education curriculum, the major program curriculum and available co- or extracurricular experiences provide the educational opportunities for students to be introduced to, develop, and master the skills, knowledge and abilities that are implied by the university learning objectives? (One outcome for the GE Assessment plan for 2007-2009 will be to propose measurable outcomes for various aspects of skills, knowledge and abilities associated with each university learning objective.)

   In essence, the goal of this section of the self-study is for the program to describe (using a map) where in the curriculum and, to the extent possible the co-curriculum, students are introduced to (I), develop (D) or master (M) university learning objectives (where applicable include college learning objectives). The map for the alignment of the university learning objectives with the curricular areas of GE (PDF) is already provided. The department is asked to incorporate the GE map along with a map of the program’s curricula and significant co- or extracurricular experiences. For these co- and extracurricular experiences consider the following:

   Co-curricular Activities	Extracurricular Activities
   ASI	Athletics
   Career Services	Clubs
   Disability Resource Center	Greek and other campus organizations
   Health and Counseling Services	Advising
   Residential Life and Education	Student employment (HR, ASI)
   Student Academic Services	Study abroad
   Student Life & Leadership	Internships
   Any other experiences that a significant number of students in the program participate in.

   Here is a suggested approach to this section:

   1. Produce a map or matrix that aligns program learning outcomes with the program’s curricula showing where students are introduced to, develop and demonstrate mastery of the outcomes.
   2. Produce a map or matrix that aligns program learning outcomes with the university learning objectives.
   3. Produce a map or matrix that aligns the university learning objectives with the “typical educational experiences” of students as they move through your program. Please include significant co-curricular experiences. For this step, you may ask a few faculty to create a map that reflects their understanding of a typical student’s experience.  From this collection of maps, you could generate one that reflects “majority opinion” or you could attempt to arrive at a consensus through discussion.

   With this section, we are interested in how the department thinks about the whole of the educational experience for students in this major.

4. Alignment of university diversity learning objectives with curricula/program experiences. University diversity learning objectives were approved in the ’07-’08 academic year. We are asking all departments up for review in 2008-2012 to include evidence of how the program currently provides or intends to provide in the future opportunities for students to meet these objectives through the curricula and/or program experiences.
   

   (One outcome for the GE Assessment plan for 2007-2009 will be to propose measurable outcomes for various aspects of skills, knowledge and abilities associated with the university diversity learning objectives. As information becomes available, we will provide it to departments undergoing program review.)

5. Specific issue of concern: The department is asked to identify for review an issue of particular interest or concern to the program in regards to its educational effectiveness. It may be shaped by the context of what is currently important to the college or university. This issue is proposed by the program faculty to the Dean and Vice Provost for their approval. The program is asked to complete the Self-study Issue Proposal form and submit the form electronically to the Academic Programs Office.

   The program could consider the following WASC self-study themes as a starting point:

   • What it means to be a polytechnic in the 21st century.
   • Learn-by-doing.
   • The integration of the educational experiences of students.
   • The teacher-scholar model.
6. University Items of Continued Importance for 2008-10 Program Reviews: For programs with curricula over 180 units; state the reasons why the CSU minimum of 180 units was exceeded. Consider describing the relationship between learning outcomes and the curriculum. If there is any relevant learning outcome data it should be summarized in the self-study report. (Raw data does not need to be included.)

Self-Study Report Format Guidelines

Although no single presentation format is prescribed for the self-study report, the report should respond to the self-study content items #1-5 (and #6 as applicable) listed above, and follow the general guidelines listed below. Accredited programs will follow the format determined by their accrediting body and incorporate self-study content items #1-5 (and #6 as applicable). For the benefit of reviewers, please keep in mind that the self-study report should contain relevant summations of any data and read like an executive summary.

1. A cover page reflecting the name of the program being reviewed, the name of the college, the name of the department chair, and the date of the self-study.
2. A table of contents.
3. A “Standard Program Information” page immediately following the table of contents. This page will provide a general overview of the program for the reviewers and should include the information listed below:
   • Name of program, department, and college
   • Program mission statement
   • Location of department and faculty offices
   • Department web link
   • Complete list of programs offered in the department including concentrations/specializations and minors.
   • Number of faculty, instructors, lecturers, and staff
   • Number of students enrolled in program
   • Total operating budget (including expenses)
   • List of specialized facilities
   • List of urgent space needs
4. The body of the report should be narrative and may include relevant tables, charts, or graphs that summarize data findings.
5. Web links can be included in the body or appendix of the document. Avoid printing web pages to include them in the self-study.
6. Raw data, print outs, faculty vitae, lists of publications, and similar documentation should be burned onto a CD or added to a Blackboard site for the reviewers.
7. The length of the report should be at least 25 pages but no more than 50. Double-sided printing is encouraged.
8. List page numbers in the bottom right corner of the document.
9. Use a spiral/comb binding or a staple in the top left corner to bind the report in lieu of a three ring binder.
10. Accredited programs will provide two copies of the final self-study report; one for the Academic Programs office and one for the internal reviewer. Non-accredited programs will provide one copy for the Academic Programs office, one for the internal reviewer and one for each of the external reviewers. In addition, both accredited and non-accredited programs will provide an electronic copy of the final self-study report to the Academic Programs office.

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