Guidelines for Appointment & Functioning of Reviewers - Graduate Programs

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 act as the designated assessment reviewer and be able to review the program’s efforts with the assessment of student learning outcomes and its impact on improving student learning. Furthermore, one reviewer must have expertise with graduate programs and act as the designated graduate reviewer. These designations must be indicated on the reviewer nomination forms.

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 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, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost of Academic Programs. Following the endorsement by these parties, the Academic Programs Office will forward the nomination to the Senate Executive Committee. Once approval is obtained from the Senate Executive Committee, the Academic Programs Office is notified. The department will then be notified by the Academic Programs Office.

Functions of reviewer

• Acts as a “member” of the accreditation team if an invitation is extended or permission is obtained 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) an 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 it 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. 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: Acting as an internal reviewer is considered 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.

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, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost of Academic Programs. Following the endorsement by these parties, the Academic Programs Office will forward the nomination to the Senate Executive Committee. Once approval is obtained from the Senate Executive Committee, the Academic Programs Office is notified. The department will then be notified by the Academic Programs Office.

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 submits (electronically) an individual report in draft form of the review findings to the Academic Programs Office upon completion of the site visit and after viewing the external reviewers report. In lieu of an individual report, the internal reviewer can 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 it 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.
• One of the nominees should have some expertise with assessment of student learning outcomes and be able to act as the designated assessment reviewer.
• One of the nominees must have specific expertise with graduate programs and act as the designated graduate 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 (Word Doc) 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, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost of Academic Programs. (Please note the Vice Provost and the Deans reserve the right to consider alternative nominations from other sources.) Following the endorsement by these parties, the Academic Programs Office will notify the department.
• 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.

3. 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.
• Prepare a 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 it 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.