Guidance for Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and Faculty - Graduate Programs

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 us all, in the department, in 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, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, 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 Guidelines for Self-Studies).
• APR normally involves at least two external reviewers and one internal reviewer. One of the reviewers must have some experience with assessment of student learning outcomes and act as the designated assessment reviewer.  Furthermore, one reviewer must have expertise with graduate programs and act as the designated graduate reviewer (see Guidelines for Appointment of Reviewers).
• 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.
• Simultaneous reviews of undergraduate and graduate programs in a particular discipline or field may be conducted utilizing the same team of reviewers; however, the self-study must clearly provide an adequate independent evaluation of the graduate program as well as a separate report (or report section), including recommendations, on the graduate program.

Self Study Phase

• Program review provides a process for improving educational effectiveness. As such, programs are asked to involve their faculty in all stages of APR, including design of the self-study. The Program Head/Chair, the Dean of the College, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost sign off on the self-study proposal and the timeline for its preparation (see Guidelines for Self-Studies).

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)*
  • Exit meeting with Provost, Vice Provost (and possibly Dean, if not in prior exit meeting with Department Head/Chair)*
  • 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 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 report is finalized, action planning can begin.
• 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/program faculty, the Dean of the College (and/or designee), the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost. The plan is based on the self-study and the review or accreditation report. This meeting is the “action plan preparation meeting” (see Action Plan Template).
• The action plan is completed and submitted to the Academic Programs Office. It is then reviewed by the Dean of the College, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost prior to a final meeting, if necessary, that may involve the entire program faculty, for adoption of the action plan. This is the action plan adoption meeting. Departments will be notified of adoption of their action plan if no meeting is deemed necessary.
• 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. This progress report is submitted to the Office of Academic Programs and subsequently reviewed by the Dean of the College, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost (see Action Plan Progress Report Template).