CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ,SAN BERNARDINO

Educational Policy and Resources Committee, June 2005

P ERIODIC ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEWS AND

PREPARATION OF A SELF-STUDY REPORT

Introduction: 

The campus must ensure the continued enhancement of the quality of academic programs and the flexibility and vitality of the academic enterprise. The public, the legislature, accrediting bodies, the CSU Trustees, and the Statewide Academic Senate have all called for campuses to develop programs of assessment and review that provide evidence of the quality of degree programs. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges terms this emphasis on proof of academic achievement and excellence a "Culture of Evidence." 

The emphasis has changed from focus on Inputs (resources, number of faculty, ability of students at entrance, etc.) to Outcomes (demonstrated results, student and employer satisfaction, and proof of how students have met stated program goals and objectives.)  Increasingly, academic departments must specify desired learning outcomes and collect data and information about the accomplishments and progress of their graduates and the student teaming outcomes they desire.

            Outcomes Assessment involves defining program goals and objectives, specifying the criteria and methods to be used to determine whether students have reached the level of achievement expected, and analysis and use of the assessment findings for program improvement. The overall focus is determining what graduates of the program know, what they have experienced, and what they are able to do upon completion of the course of study. Each department or program is responsible for designing its own outcomes assessment plan in accordance with its own specific disciplinary goals and practices. Outcomes assessments should normally include both qualitative criteria and quantitative measurements.

            Program review is essential to this process. It is a tool to examine effective instructional strategies, to focus on the adjustment of curricula to changing student clientele and new knowledge, to identify other areas for improvement, and to assess the effectiveness of earlier actions taken to enhance the quality of a program. Program review can also assist the campus to make informed decisions about academic program priorities and the allocation of limited resources. The review process begins with the preparation of a department/program self-study report.  Contents of the self-study report are described in Appendix 1: Organization and Format of the Self-study Report.  Care must be taken to assure that programs are not penalized for frankness and honest discussion of their program in their self‑study report.  Program review provides information valuable to evaluation of proposals for new programs and to decisions regarding existing programs.

 Periodic reviews of each of the University's academic programs have been mandated by the Chancellor's Office for many years. Each program (majors, certificates, and credentials) must be reviewed every 7 years, unless special circumstances such as accreditation cycles warrant a change in the schedule (Appendix 2: Schedule of Academic Program Reviews). Changes to the review cycle are to be mutually agreed upon by the dean and department chair(s) prior to its acceptance.  Any proposed change that is not mutually agreed upon after consultation between the dean and department chair(s) must be reviewed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, which will act in an advisory capacity to the Vice President (VP) of Academic Affairs, who will have the authority to decide if the program review schedule is to be changed. 

            After consultation with and approval by the College Dean and the Associate Vice President (AVP) for Academic Programs, programs, which have specialized professional accreditation by state or national accrediting bodies, may use their accreditation report as the program review document.  The college dean, associate dean, and department chairs will continue to mimic their roles during academic program review as they do during the accreditation review process.  Contents of the self-study report, when there is a simultaneous accreditation review, shall be determined by the AVP of Academic Programs, the dean, the department chair, and appropriate college faculty, but all areas and issues covered by this policy document must be addressed.  

This policy now provides for review of the departmental program and self-study efforts by a team of CSUSB faculty outside of the department not involved in periodic program review that year. This will provide each department under review the benefit of obtaining advice from experienced colleagues outside of their discipline.

 Purpose:

            Several purposes are intended for and accomplished by the program review process. The program review is expected to: 

1.      Assess changes and progress towards program goals since the last review.

2.      Assess and monitor program quality, and indicate how that quality is to be maintained.

3.      Analyze systematically the objectives and performance of the program/department.

4.      Compile informed feedback about the program from a wide range of sources: faculty, students, and other constituents involved with the program.

5.      Indicate how the needs/demands of the students and region are balanced by the desire to maintain quality.

6.      Identify strengths and weaknesses of the program.

7.      Compare programs with recognized national standards of excellence.

8.      Tie program evaluation results to university‑wide planning and budgeting.

9.    Develop plans for change and improvement.

The Review Process:

            Each phase of the review process must be completed by the dates set forth in Appendix 3:  Calendar of Deadlines for Academic Program Review.  The process begins with formation of University Academic Program Review Committees as described under the section entitled “Composition of the University Academic Program Review Committee” (page 4).

            In the Spring quarter prior to the program review year, by April 1, the College Dean and AVP of Academic Programs will meet with departmental representatives to discuss preparation of the program self-study report, which will be used to review the program.

             The AVP of Academic Programs will serve as the Campus‑wide Program Review Coordinator for all programs undergoing a review.  All necessary data for the self-study report will be supplied by the offices of University Institutional Research and Academic Programs under Academic Affairs Division ( see Appendix 4:  Data to be included in the Self-study Report).  By April 15, each program that will undergo a review will  provide 3 names of possible external reviewers along with a brief vita and ranking based on their preference.  This information will be submitted to the AVP of Academic Programs.  The final appointment of external review will be made by the end of Spring quarter.  During that time, University Institute Research Office will begin the process of surveying students and alumni of the program.

            In the Fall quarter, the program will prepare the draft self-study report, to be submitted to the Department Chair by December 1.  This will allow the AVP of Academic Programs and the College Dean to review the draft document and return it to the program by December 15.  The final self-study report will be submitted to AVP of Academic Programs by January 5 so that it can be distributed to the external reviewer.

            In the Winter quarter, the external reviewer will complete a campus visit and prepare a reviewer report between January 15 to March 5.  This report will be submitted to AVP of Academic Affairs, who will distribute copies to the College Dean and the Department Chair, who will share it with the department faculty.  The AVP of Academic Affairs will distribute a copy of all pertinent information to the members of the University Academic Program Review Committee, an ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate. This committee will review all department, program and college reports, including results of annual reviews of outcomes assessments.  They will also meet with individuals involved in the program under review, ensure the general accuracy and consistency of these self­-study reports, and they will prepare and submit to the AVP of Academic Programs a brief report of its major findings and recommendations by June 1.

            On July 1, the college dean will present a report of disquietude to the recommendations.

            During the Fall quarter, the department will prepare a plan of action and submit it to AVP of Academic Affairs by October 1.  On October 15, the AVP of Academic Programs will meet with the VP of Academic Affairs, college deans and department representatives to discuss any problem areas, review findings, and coordinate implementation of recommendations and the action plan.   

            The review process for this cycle is completed when the AVP of Academic Programs submits the summary statement to the Chancellor’s office in November for presentation to the CSU Board of Trustees.

 Functions of Department/Program:

            Preparation of self-study report will involve the department faculty in gathering and reviewing data about the findings of their annual outcomes assessment and other ongoing measurements of student achievement and learning. In addition, the self-study report will relate measurements of student achievement to the operations of the department, its curriculum and courses, its instructional modes, its students and its resources. (See Appendix 1:  Organization and Format of the Self-study Report) 

The focus of the review and of the resulting report and recommendations will be on examining strengths, weaknesses, needed changes, and the outlook for the future. The results of department outcomes assessment and other ongoing measurements of student achievement will be reflected on and used for program improvements and modification where needed.

            Each department and/or program will assign, where possible, one of its own tenure‑track faculty members, who has been at the University for at least two years, to act as its self-study representative, who will prepare the self-study report

Functions of the External reviewers:

 The Academic Affairs Office will provide honorarium funds for the external reviewer(s).  . Graduate Programs should have a separate external reviewer.  The University Academic Program Review Committee will name the external reviewer for each program, selected from a list of three names and their vita along with a ranking submitted by the department.  The external reviewers will:

1.      Provide discipline-specific expertise  and objectivity, and may be involved in the preparation of departmental self-study reports. 

2.      Provide an outside/national perspective. 

3.      Meet with department chair, faculty, students, members of the University Academic Program Review Committee, and VP of Academic Affairs to discuss the contents of the self-study report, obtain additional information, clarify issues, and develop perspective. 

4.   Verify the accuracy of the self‑study. 

5.   Provide assistance in addressing problems and reaching goals. 

6.   Provide confirmation of the department/program's conclusions. 

7.   Prepare a brief report with analysis of strengths and weaknesses found (the format of the report will be provided by the AVP of Academic Affairs). 

8.   Make recommendations for change and improvement, which will supplement the departmental reports and findings.

The University Academic Program Review Committee

Composition of the Committee:

The University Academic Program Review Committee will consist of four senior faculty, one college‑dean, and one administrative representative.

            The four senior faculty representatives will be appointed from different colleges (exclusive of the departments currently being reviewed during that cycle) by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate.  The college dean and administrative representative will be appointed by the President. The committee will elect its own chair and proceed according to steps its members agree upon.

            Appointments to this committee will be for one review cycle. However, committee members may be reappointed. 

Functions of University Academic Program Review Committee: 

1.   To approve external reviewers submitted by programs. 

2.   To approve and review document submitted. 

3.   To assist with writing and revision of reports where needed. 

4.   To note (and where possible reconcile) discrepancies between the program's views and the conclusions and recommendations of the external reviewer.

5.      To summarize the findings of the department and college. 

6.   To make recommendations to the dean, the VP of Academic Affairs, the President, and the University Budget/Planning committees. 

7.   To report to the Faculty Senate of the task completed by the committee.

The Report generated by the University Academic Program Review Committee should include discussion of the following:

1.   Does the department culture encourage and reward high‑quality teaching? 

2.   Are department teaching loads reasonably similar to those at comparable universities? 

3.      Are the department's grading practices reasonably similar to those of the College and University? If not, is there a reasonable justification for the deviation? 

4.      An overall evaluation of the unit's efforts to promote teaching and learning.  This should include a discussion of the department's strengths and weaknesses. 

5.   Is the department provided with services and resources adequate to its mission, goals, and objectives? 

6.   Suggestions about how the program could improve its performance.

Functions of the College Dean:

1.   Assist with preparation of the program self-study report to ensure timeliness, accuracy, consistency, and completeness. It is particularly important that the dean impress upon the department that the self‑study report is to be a frank self‑assessment and not a public relations report. 

2.   Provide logistical and operational support as required.  This may include assigned time for coordination and preparation of self-study reports of interdisciplinary programs, which have no department or faculty. 

3.   Provide a report of disquietude to recommendations of the current program reviews to AVP of Academic Programs by July 1 of the review cycle.  

4.   Assist the departments and programs in developing a plan of action for responding to the findings and recommendations of the reports of program, external reviewer and the University Academic Program Review Committee.

Functions of the Graduate Dean:

1.   Provide additional nominations and review of possible external reviewers listed by the department/program for master's degree programs.

 2.   Review self‑study documents for graduate programs to ensure completeness, accuracy, objectivity, and breadth of perspective beyond the campus and the CSU. 

3.   Meet with and provide information to external reviewers regarding curriculum, admissions and candidacy procedures, academic standards, quality of theses and project, etc. 

4.   Provide data from surveys of graduating master's degree students. 

5.   Communicate results and findings of completed self‑study, external reviewer's reports, and recommendations to the graduate coordinators of the program. 

6.   Assist programs in follow up and carrying out the plan of action for addressing the University Academic Program Review Committee’s summary recommendations and needed changes. 

7.      Convey findings of graduate program reviews to the graduate coordinators for discussion of general issues of quality of graduate programs.

Functions of the Campus-wide Program Review Coordinator:   (AVP of Academic Programs) 

1.   Notify college and programs of the review schedule and policy. 

2.   Establish a budget for the review. 

3.   Oversee appointment of committee members. 

4.   Oversee general conduct of the program review process. 

5.   Submit final review outcomes to the President, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and the Faculty Senate. 

6.   Prepare summary of findings for report to Chancellor's Office and Board of Trustees.

Post‑Review Procedures

After the University Academic Program Review Committee has presented its report, the college dean, department/program representatives, and the AVP of Academic Programs will meet to identify problem areas, coordinate recommendations and plan appropriate steps to convert recommendations into curricular and other proposals.

By July 1, the college dean will present to the AVP of Academic Programs and the department chair, a report of disquietude to recommendations of the program reviews.

            By October 1, the department/program, working in conjunction with the college dean; will prepare a plan of action for addressing the recommendations and concerns noted in the self‑study report and reports from the external reviewer as well as the University Academic Program Review Committee.

Each item to be addressed will have an indication of the following: 

1.   The expected action/change to be taken, e.g. revision of curriculum, addition of faculty, purchase of equipment, etc.

2.   A specific time line for when the task will be completed.

3.   Individuals responsible for carrying out the needed change.

4.   Any anticipated cost for implementation of the recommendation.         

5.   Possible sources of resources, such as:

‑‑reallocation within department

‑‑reallocation from College

‑‑funding from Academic Affairs division

‑‑grants and other external sources of funding

‑‑University resources to be requested through budget process

List of Appendices

Appendix 1:  Organization and Format of the Self-study Report

Appendix 2:  Schedule of Academic Program to be Reviewed

Appendix 3:  Calendar of Deadlines for Academic Program Review

Appendix 4:  Data to be included in the Self-study Report

Appendix 1

ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT OF THE SELF‑STUDY

The following questions should be addressed by each department, program and college preparing a self‑study report. Because of the diversity among the groups involved, it is appropriate to emphasize those aspects of greatest concern to the group undergoing the program review. The emphasis should be on providing evidence of quality and proof that the department/program is meeting its stated Mission , Goals and Objectives. The self‑study report should be analytical as well as descriptive.

            Evaluation and recommendations resulting from the findings should be included in the appropriate sections of the self-study report. Substantiate each statement in the report with evidence of student learning outcomes, data gathered in the program annual assessment process, and other trends in program and course enrollment, retention, graduation rates, acceptance into a graduate school and/or professional program, student job placement, etc. Avoid self‑praise; instead let the program achievements speak for themselves.  Highlight quality, strengths and weaknesses, and be sure to include recommendations for change.

In general, the essential questions to address in the self-study report are: 

What do you do? 

How do you do it? 

How well do you do it? 

What difference does it make whether you do it or not? 

How well does what you actually do relate to what you say you do?

 Contents of  the Self‑study Report:

A.       Preparation of the self‑study report:

 Indicate individuals participated in the self‑study and preparation of the self-study report.

B.       Response to recommendations of the previous program review.

1.   What were the recommendations made as a result of previous self‑studies? 

2.   What actions have resulted from them? How successful was the program in implementing those recommendations? 

3.   Include results of specialized accreditation by national professional groups, if appropriate. 

C. The department (or program) background:

1.   The department/program’s Mission , Goals and Objectives. 

2.   The number and composition of faculty, e.g., 7 tenure track, 1 full‑time lecturer, 3 part‑time lecturer, etc;

3.   Number and kinds of support staff members. 

4.   How many undergraduate majors and graduate students are enrolled? 

5.   What degree and certificate programs are offered?

6.   What special programs, if any, does the department operate? (Special programs include the    Slide Library, Counseling Clinic; Reading Clinic, Desert Center , etc.) 

7.     Description of departmental budgets and administration. 

8.   Describe and assess the adequacy of administrative and budgetary support granted to the department (or program or college), consistent with its mission, goals, and objectives.

D.  The Curriculum: 

Describe each of the curricular programs offered.  Include the Mission , Goals and Objectives for each major and program concentration. (Are they different from those of last program review?)  For each program in the department, indicate those skills, competencies, concepts and experiences, which each graduate should possess, and the courses in which they are acquired.

1.  How does the curriculum reflect your goals and objectives for students?  Describe the function of each course or group of courses. 

2.  Review the scope and level of complexity of courses offered, and recommend modifications, additions and deletions as appropriate. This self-study process should involve as many of the department faculty as possible. 

 3.   Present the enrollment history of each course offered by the department. (A syllabus for each course, together with sample exams, text titles and assignments are to be placed in a file folder/binder available for inspection by the external reviewer and the University Academic Program Review Committee.)  Incorporate recommend changes to the program curriculum, as appropriate. 

4.      Include a separate review of the general education courses offered by the department. 

5.      Describe and analyze the findings of outcomes assessment done under Program Assessment Plan. 

Based upon the findings of these measures, indicate whether the department and its students are meeting the established objectives after review of curricular and enrollment data presented above, and recommend directions of future curricular development and improvement of instruction.

E.   Instruction:

1.      What are the instructional modes or formats currently employed by faculty in the department?  Are the formats used the most desirable for the program?  If not, recommend changes, as appropriate. 

2.      Where supervised instruction is offered, e.g., internships, describe and evaluate the methods of supervision and evaluation of student performance. 

3.      What innovative instructional methods are being employed?  Evaluate these. 

4.      Present a history of department grading practices.  Evaluate and recommend changes, as appropriate, in the methods of assessing student performance and the standards established by the department.  If department’s grading practices are significantly and consistently above or below College or University averages, the unit should offer an explanation for the variance. 

5.      Do grading practices correspond to other formative and summative measures of student achievement?

6.      Discuss quality of teaching and learning in the department.  How does the program regularly examine its teaching and how does it determine whether learning is occurring? 

7.      Provide analysis of trends in class size at lower-division, upper-division and graduate levels.

8.      Analyze faculty teaching loads and number of student credit hours generated in comparison to other departments on CSUSB campus and to similar departments in the CSU.  Note any special departmental factors influencing credit hour production and faculty teaching loads. 

9.      Describe and evaluate the program’s use of computers, multi-media and other technology for instruction and student learning.

F.  The Faculty:

1.      Provide a brief summary of the professional background, areas of teaching, and professional accomplishments for each full-time member of the department. 

2.      Tabulate the courses offered by each member of the faculty. 

3.      Based on this information and upon future curricular areas indicated under D above, discuss the kinds of instructional faculty or support to be added over the next few years, where possible, and changes in faculty course assignments that appear desirable.  (Personalities and individual problems should not be a part of this report.) 

4.      Present an examination of your department’s (program’s) use of part-time faculty. 

5.      Analyze data on teaching loads provided by Office of University Institutional Research.

            --number of courses taught, 

--number of student credit units taught by each faculty member and by department, 

--Student/Faculty Ratio (SFR) for each over the years since the last review cycle. 

6.      Assess department’s success in hiring faculty (tenure track and lecturers).  What factors worked for or against hiring the most qualified applicants? 

7.      Assess department’s record of hiring and retaining qualified women and minority faculty. 

8.      Amount of annual non-instructional “assigned time” and how it is used to support the program activities and faculty?  Include the number of sabbaticals and leaves for each year over the review cycle?

G.  The Students:

1.      Present, analyze and discuss historical trends in the number of majors and graduate students over the review cycle. 

2.      Discuss the results of student and alumni surveys.  For example, what has happened to individuals who have graduated with a degree from this department?  To what extent are departmental majors and others served by the department satisfied with the curriculum and instruction offered by the faculty?  (Include pertinent data from college survey in body of text along with comparative data from program survey.  How does program compare to other programs in the college and similar programs elsewhere?) 

3.      Discuss how the effectiveness of departmental program is assessed?  Briefly describe how advising is conducted in department.  Are the roadmaps and course schedules available to students?  How are they made available to students?  Include any recommended changes, as appropriate. 

4.       Describe and evaluate student clubs, organizations and co-curricular activities of the department/program.

5.        To what extent are students involved in research activities and projects or faculty and department?

6.         What has department/program done to retain students?  How could this effort be improved?

7.      How has department/program recruited and attracted students?  How would you assess this effort?  What could the department do to improve its recruitment?  What has been done to maximize enrollment?

8.      Interpret trends in student credit hour generation, FTES, numbers of majors, number of graduates, and class size.  Do the trends indicate the need for changes in what you currently do?

H.  Library and Related Resources:

1.      Evaluate the quality and size of the Library collection holdings (including but not limited to print materials in all formats, audiovisual materials, sound recordings, electronic resources, graphics, and three-dimensional materials) relevant to the specific needs and characteristics of the departmental program and national academic library standards. 

2.      Evaluate the level and quality of resource-sharing efforts (including, but not limited to, cooperative library agreements, interlibrary loan, and document delivery) used to augment the Library’s collection. 

3.      Evaluate the quality and extent of reference services and library instruction programs in support of faculty and students in the academic department.  Evaluate the size and quality of the Library’s staff to enable it to provide services, programs, and collection organization relevant to the needs of the departmental program. 

4.      Evaluate the Library’s annual budget allocations for acquisitions relevant for support of degree programs offered by the department. 

5.      Evaluate the quality and extent of support by the Library for off-site programs, if any, conducted by the department. 

6.      What are current and future needs for supporting resources? 

7.      What are space and facilities needs of department? 

I. Departmental Governance:

1.      Describe the departmental organization with respect to responsibilities, committees and procedures.  Do faculty have input in department decisions?  Provide organization chart if needed. 

2.      In particular, discuss the processes involved in:  policy development, curricular review and development, course scheduling, resource allocation, and faculty/student recruitment, etc. 

3.      Assess the quality of interpersonal relations.  Is the department working in a cooperative and mutually supportive manner?

J.  Extramural Funding and Fundraising Activities:

1.      Provide a listing of scholarships, gifts, grants, and contracts awarded each year since the last review.  What is the dollar amount awarded each year and the total for the review period?

2.      How many grants (external) were written and submitted each year?  How many and what percentage were funded? 

3.      Describe departmental effort to secure funds through development each year since the last review.  Assess this record.  How could developmental efforts be improved?

K.  Perception by others:

1.      What are the perceptions of the college, department, or program by entities outside the unit?  For example, how are service courses and programs offered by the program viewed by other departments, universities, community, etc.?  Provide results of any surveys or other methods of obtaining feedback from other departments, Advisory Groups, community, other campuses, professional organizations, etc. 

2.      How well do the department’s programs and courses articulate with the community colleges? 

3.      Discuss departmental efforts to inform university, the state, and the discipline about its program accomplishments.  How might these efforts be improved?

L.  Off-campus Contributions:

1.      Describe the department’s off-campus teaching and learning activities. 

2.      Describe department’s involvement in distance learning and media-assisted instruction via television, Internet, etc. 

3.      Describe department’s off-campus service contributions.  Discuss relationship to various constituencies, such as K-12, community colleges, business, industry, community and government agencies, CSU system projects, community projects, etc.

M. University-wide Contributions:

Describe department’s contributions to university-wide interdisciplinary programs, such as: 

                        --General Education

                        --University Studies

                        --Honors Programs

                        --Liberal Studies

--Teacher Education

--Extended Learning

                        --Environmental Studies

14. Future Directions of the Department

1.                   Identify unexpected trends in your 5-year data and recommend actions to control those trends.

2.                   What new programs does the Department want to initiate over the next 7 years?  Document the need for these programs and relate those programs to the University and/or College Strategic Plans.

3.                   If the administration were to make available additional money, what would be the three priorities (greatest needs) for the department and why?

O.  Summation of department strengths, weaknesses and resource needs:

 Summarize the most important findings and conclusions of the self-study report and program review process:

1.      List main findings for each section of the self-study report. 

2.      List strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities noted in body of the self-study report. 

3.      What is overall assessment of success in meeting program objectives?  What changes in your goals and objectives do you anticipate before the next review cycle? 

4.      What are the recommendations and conclusions made based on the findings of the self-study process? 

5.      What changes and actions are needed? 

6.      What resources and support will be required to reach goals and carry out the recommendations?

Special Focus for Graduate Programs’ self-study reports:

            Masters' degree programs as well as all credential programs shall be reviewed separately from undergraduate programs. The nature of graduate education requires that special questions be asked. The criteria and standards for evaluation should be higher than and different from the undergraduate program.

            Separate external reviewers will be employed for each graduate program to evaluate and compare the program from a national perspective. The external reviewer should be chosen for an objective, unbiased viewpoint and have no prior association with the program.

            The graduate dean, graduate program coordinator and graduate student leaders should all be involved in the review, participate in the development of the self‑study report, take part in interviews, and meet with external reviewers.

            Graduate programs will need to provide additional information on their graduate students and alumni (in addition to the information requested for the undergraduate programs above): 

1.   Enrollment and graduation figures each year since the last review cycle. 

2.   Projected graduate enrollment for the next program review cycle. 

3.   Data on average time to completion of degree.

 4.   Sources of applicants: CSU, other institutions, international students, etc 

5.   What do graduates of the program do after leaving the university?  What percentage of students continues to a Ph.D. program or other terminal degree?  What is the initial employment rate of students upon graduation?

6.   Outcomes of “thesis” work: Information on publication of graduate research, presentations, performances, exhibitions, or critically reviewed performances. 

7.   Funding and financial support for graduate students: include university funding sources, external scholarships, faculty research grants or contracts.  What proportion of students receives support and what is the average amount of support per student per year for the period since the last review cycle.

 8.   Physical Resources: Indicate strengths and weaknesses of the program regarding library resources, laboratory facilities, computer facilities, clinics, etc. 

9.   How is the graduate program contributing to the discipline or profession? 

10.  How does the program respond to the professional and/or community's needs? 

11. How is the program assessed or regarded by experts in the field?

Appendix 2 (pending approval Fall 2007)

Schedule of Academic Program Reviews

Appendix 3

Calendar of Deadlines for Academic Program Review  

Appendix 4

DATA TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SELF-STUDY REPORT

Offices of University Institutional Research and the AVP of Academic Programs will provide these data for the period of program review cycle. 

All individuals should respect individual’s rights to privacy when reporting students’ work and data from student surveys in the self-study report.

1. Course Enrollment Histories for the current review cycle. [Office of the University Institutional Research]
2. Student Faculty Ratios by level for the current review cycle.
3. FTES by LD, UD, Graduate levels for the current review cycle.
4. Demographic data on students: 

Age,

Gender,

Ethnicity,

Student with Disabilities, etc.

5. Grade distribution summaries for the current review cycle.
6. Degrees awarded each year for the current review cycle.
7.  Number of Majors for the current review cycle.
8. Roster of full-time faculty for the current review cycle. [Academic Personnel]
9. Data on faculty teaching assignments and workload. [Institutional Research]
10. Recommendations from previous self-studies (e.g., WASC, periodic program review, specialized accreditation). [Academic Programs]
11. Induced Course Load Matrix. [Institutional Research]
12. Sample “Thumbnail Sketch” of faculty. [Academic Programs]
13. Model student survey instrument and results.
14. Other information. [Academic Programs] 

Data to be supplied by the college, department or program:

1. Organization Chart.  This should show the distribution of staff positions, committee structure, etc.
2. “Thumbnail Sketches” of faculty.
3. Data on Grants and Fundraising.
4. Summary of Library holdings.  The department should establish the categories of interest, and the University Library should supply the data.
5. Data and findings of annual and on-going outcomes assessments.  Provide a brief description of your approved Assessment Plan including:
1. Mission , Goals, and Objectives of each program/major,
2. The Criteria used to determine if objectives of each program/major have been met program graduates,
3. Assessment methods used,
4. Results and findings from assessments,
5. Changes/improvements made in curriculum, instructional methods, and/or program objectives and assessment plan as a result of what was learned from most recent cycle of program assessment. 
6. Student surveys:
1. Demographic information
2. Questionnaire results:  A questionnaire is to be developed for each self-study by the departments involved in conjunction with the AVP of Academic Programs and the Office of University Institutional Research

      7.  Survey of Graduates, since the last review cycle.

1. Demographic information.
2. Survey results.  A survey technique is to be developed by the departments in conjunction with the Associate Provost and the Office of Institutional Research 

      8.  Results of survey of employers of graduates. 

      9.   Budgetary information, where appropriate.

     10.   Syllabi of courses, samples of exams, projects, portfolios, etc. (to be made available to the external reviewer and the University Academic Program Review Committee)

Proposed Successor to Policy on Periodic Program Review

                    Original Approved by the Faculty Senate May 18, 1982

                    Reviewed by the Academic Council 5/24/82

                    Revised March 13, 2000

                    Revised June 7, 2005

______________________________________________________________________________

FSD 99-03.R2

Approved by the Faculty Senate

                                                                                                    ___________________     

Lloyd Peake, Chair                                                                      Date

Review by the Academic Affairs Council

                                                                                                   ____________________      

Louis Fernandez, Provost and                                         Date

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Approved by the President

                                                                                                     _______________________    

Albert K. Karnig                                                             Date

Justifications:

1.       The policy needs to be revised due to changes in the number of years for each review cycle from 5 to 7 years; and to reflect the coordination efforts between the University review and program accreditation processes. 

2.       The new guidelines are needed to expand and clarify the program review process itself and contents of the self-study report. 

3.       The functions of each constituents involved in the program review processes are clarified in this revision.  In addition, the time line of the program review process is clarified to allow for better planning of the review process.

Acrobat Adobe Reader

5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407-2393 Tel. 909-537-5031