Cal Poly Pomona
A Guide to
Academic Program Review
Revised - Fall 2009
Office of Academic Programs
Division of Academic Affairs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Preface
ii
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1
Purposes of Academic Program Review................................................................................ 1
General Principles .................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2 - Accreditation
3
Interaction with WASC accreditation .................................................................................... 3
Interaction with Discipline-Specific Accreditation ............................................................... 3
Chapter 3 - Guidelines and Procedures for Academic Program Review
5
General Guidelines................................................................................................................. 5
The Academic Program Review Process ............................................................................... 6
Guidelines For External Review ............................................................................................ 8
Department Responsibilities:
8
Reviewer Responsibilities:
9
Appendix A - General Timeline
10
Appendix B - Guidelines for Program Self-Study
12
Section 1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................... 12
Section 2 - The Program Description................................................................................... 12
Section 3 – Program Assessment ......................................................................................... 13
Section 4 - Program Quality ................................................................................................ 13
Section 4.1 Faculty
13
Section 4.2 Student Success
14
Section 5 - Resources ........................................................................................................... 15
Section 6 - Suggestions for Action ...................................................................................... 15
Section 7 – External Review Report .................................................................................... 15
Section 8 - Summary............................................................................................................ 15
Section 9 - Faculty Participation .......................................................................................... 15
Appendix C - External Reviewer’s Responsibilities
16
Note: The guidelines for program review may be updated as required by the Office of Academic
Programs based on approved changes of campus or system policies.
i
Preface
Cal Poly Pomona (CPP) and the California State University (CSU) have long-standing policies
concerning Academic Program Review. The policy requires that every academic program,
undergo some type of self-study and external review every five to seven years. The policy is
both flexible and evolving. The requirements for Academic Program Review have undergone a
metamorphosis. The idea of ‘program assessment’ as an integral part of Program Review has
become accepted by the WASC Commission and is now an area for close inspection during the
Educational Effectiveness Review.
Many academic programs have national boards that accredit either the specific discipline or the
entire field. Examples of the former are the National Association of Schools of Art and Design
(NASAD) that accredits an Art program while examples of the latter are ABET (Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology) which accredits the entire College of Engineering and
Computer Science programs. Most accrediting agencies have different requirements for renewal
of accreditation than the CSU requirements for program review. Therefore, the campus allows
the Accreditation Review, to replace much of the Academic Program Review.
It should be stressed that assessment as it is used in this guide means program assessment. It is
not course assessment in either a content or pedagogical sense, although it is assumed that any
program assessment will ask whether the material in every particular course is necessary, and if
necessary, is this material being mastered. Assessment as it is used in this document is not
faculty assessment. The requirements for the evaluation of faculty are covered by an existing
contract between the faculty and the CSU.
Contact information
For more information and resources, please contact the Office of Academic Programs.
ii
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Purposes of Academic Program Review
The purpose of academic program review (APR) is to encourage excellence in the instructional
program. Specific goals include:





reviewing and, suggesting improvements in the following:
 curriculum of the program
 instruction in the program
 contributions to student success
 faculty participation in research, scholarship, and creative activity
 faculty service to the University
 cooperation with other academic programs on campus
attending to issues of diversity and campus climate
assessing student learning in the program for the purpose of program improvement
reviewing the use of resources and facilities, and identifying needs for additional
resources
charting new directions for the program and the department
General Principles
The terms “department” and “program” aren’t necessarily synonymous but may be used
interchangeably in this document. Please keep in mind that an academic program (the object of
review) may be housed entirely in one department, or may span more than one department.
Departments that have multiple programs are encouraged to review them simultaneously.
Although the detailed content of an academic program review will certainly vary between
programs, some key principles of program review cut across disciplinary lines.
Most importantly, the review must be a product of the program faculty. They are in the
best position to raise and respond to the strategic and operational questions raised by the
review. They are also in the best position to use the results to improve the overall
program.
Students and graduates participate actively in the program review process by providing
comments and other information for use in the self-study and by the external reviewers.
External reviewers, as recognized experts in the field knowledgeable about assessment,
are consulted to provide critical judgment, to ensure the objectivity of the process, and to
determine how the program compares to others in the region or nation.
Participation of the Academic Senate, and its Academic Programs Committee, is an
integral part of the academic program review process. Additionally, the College Dean
and the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs can provide support and
1
advice and should be consulted frequently and informed regularly as to the project’s
progress and results.
The program review process is forward-looking and provides for follow-up. Each step of the
process generates Suggestions for Action. These suggestions should include actions that can be
accomplished by the department with existing funds and resources, as well as actions that may
require additional funding or resources. The Suggestions for Action resulting from program
reviews / program assessment plans are considered in departmental and college budget requests
and department college, and university strategic planning.
2
Chapter 2 - Accreditation
Interaction with WASC Accreditation
The 2001 WASC Handbook of Accreditation focuses on four standards, each of which has
implications for academic program review and assessment.
1. Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives. Both
academic program reviews and program assessment plans require the program
faculty to examine its objectives and purpose for being. A clear statement of
purpose will help the program faculty critically examine courses, faculty
needs and expertise, and resource allocation issues.
2. Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions. Program faculty
attain their objectives by balancing teaching & learning, scholarship &
creative activity, and support for student learning. The program review
process promotes faculty dialogue about those core functions.
3. Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure
Sustainability. Sound investments in human, technological, physical and
fiscal resources are key in helping the faculty achieve the program’s
objectives. The review process affords faculty the opportunity to examine
their resource needs holistically, in both the long- and short-term.
4. Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement. The
results of program review and assessment help the faculty create a “culture of
evidence” with regard to the accomplishment of objectives. Such results can
inform future planning processes.
In July 2008, WASC update the Handbook. The new Handbook places a greater emphasis on an
outcomes-based analysis of student learning. It asked its members to incorporate such an
analysis into its program review and to integrate the results of the program review into the
institution’s budgeting and planning processes. In September 2009, the WASC Commission
released a “Guide for ‘Good Practices’ in Academic Program Review” designed to assist
colleges and universities with meeting the new program review expectations within WASC’s
revised accreditation standards. The WASC guide was consulted during the revision of this
guide.
Interaction with Discipline-Specific Accreditation
In accordance with CSU Trustee policy, campuses must seek accreditation for degree programs
whenever it is available in the particular disciplines. Accredited programs are subject to rigorous
review by the appropriate agencies, which also require evidence of support by the University’s
administration.
3
Discipline-specific accreditation standards, such as those provided by the Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the National Architectural
Accrediting Board, echo the need for faculty to examine their programs thoughtfully with an eye
toward maintaining excellence. Academic programs accredited by agencies recognized by the
Council on Postsecondary Accreditation may establish a program review cycle, in consultation
with the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs, to coordinate the program review
process with the accreditation process, so as to avoid duplication of faculty effort in report
preparation. As departments coordinate the self-study process and the visit by the accrediting
team, the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs is available to contribute to the selfstudy and to meet with the visiting team.
Accredited programs will satisfy the external review portion of program review through a visit
and a report by an accreditation team and may satisfy much of the self-study portions of program
review through the accreditation self-study document. For each accredited program, the Dean,
the Department Chair, and the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs work together to
determine a format that meets accreditation requirements and responds to campus program
review guidelines. (Please see section 5, Guidelines and Procedures for Academic Program
Review.)
The Office of Academic Programs will coordinate reports to the Chancellor’s Office as
necessary regarding accreditation of programs at Cal Poly Pomona.
4
Chapter 3 - Guidelines and Procedures for
Academic Program Review
General Guidelines
1) Reviews for each degree program are scheduled every five years. In accordance with
university and system policy, each year the campus reviews approximately 20% of its
approved academic programs.
2) In addition to degree programs (as required by the Chancellor's Office), certain other
academic programs are included in the program review process on this campus:
ROTC, CPU courses, certificate programs, and Interdisciplinary General Education
(IGE). The review process shall be modified as appropriate in consultation with the
AVP for Academic Programs for these additional programs. For example, external
reviews are not normally required in the program reviews of CPU courses.
3) The Office of Academic Programs is responsible for coordinating and monitoring the
program review process, and submitting a yearly report to the Chancellor's Office.
The Deans and Directors are responsible for ensuring that the self-studies and
external reviews are completed by their programs in a professional and timely
manner.
4) Self-studies are prepared by the faculty of the program and submitted to the Dean and
the Office of Academic Programs. Department Chairs and/or faculty coordinators
should ensure that there is widespread faculty participation in the self-study and
external review and that faculty are informed of all Suggestions for Action from each
level of review. All faculty in the program should certify that they have been
involved in the review process and have reviewed the self-study, external review
report, and responses to the external review.
5) The Office of Institutional Research and Planning will provide quantitative data to the
program.
6) All departments are required to have an external review as part of the program review
process. The external review report should review the department's Suggestions for
Actions, indicating agreement or disagreement with each suggestion and, as
appropriate, offer additional suggestions.
7) Academic programs accredited by agencies recognized by the Council on
Postsecondary Accreditation must:
 establish a program review cycle, in consultation with the Associate Vice
President for Academic Programs, to align the program review process with the
accreditation process
5


satisfy the external review portion of program review through a visit and a report
by an accreditation team
satisfy all criteria of the program review and accreditation For each accredited
program intending to submit a single document, the Dean, the Chair of the
Academic Programs Committee, and the Associate Vice President for Academic
Programs will work together to determine a format that meets accreditation
requirements and clearly identifies responses to campus program review
guidelines.
The Academic Program Review Process
1.
The Office of Academic Programs shall initiate the program review via a memo to the
Program Chair and Dean.
a. The Chair and/or program self-study coordinator, the Dean, other interested
faculty, a representative from IRAP, and the AVP for Academic Programs
shall be invited to attend a meeting.
b. The agenda for the meeting shall include:
i. Status of recommendations from the previous self-study
ii. Model for next cycle – Does the program wish to develop a program
assessment plan in lieu of one cycle of the program review?
iii. Review of process and timeline
2.
The department shall prepare a self-study according to the guidelines listed in
Appendix A. It is important that the self-study include Suggestions for Action. All
faculty in the department should certify that they have been involved in the review
process and have reviewed the self-study. When completed, the department shall
send one copy to the College Dean and two copies to the Office of Academic
Programs, including one electronic copy.
3.
An external review shall be scheduled on the campus for the period of at least one
day. The review team shall submit a report within 30 days of their visit. The report
should comment on the department’s Suggestions for Action, and may contribute
additional suggestions.
4.
The department shall respond to the external review report. The department's
Suggestions for Action may need to be revised, based on the external review report.
5.
The Dean shall review each self-study and external review report for quality and
consistency with the overall goals and directions of the college/school/center. The
Dean will comment on the Suggestions for Action and add other Suggestions for
Action as appropriate. The Dean then shall submit the self-study, the external review
report, and the Dean's comments to the Office of Academic Programs for review and
for forwarding to the Academic Senate.
6
6.
The Academic Senate Steering Committee shall refer the program review to the
Academic Programs Committee. The Academic Programs Committee shall review
the program review files. The committee shall meet with the Chair, Dean, and other
faculty members as needed to clarify points in the program review file. The Academic
Programs Committee has two tasks:
 To examine the program review and to recommend action regarding acceptance
of the program review as fulfilling the specific requirements of program review
and the general intention that program reviews are to provide critical selfanalyses;
 To review and evaluate the Suggestions for Action, adding suggestions as
appropriate, and to recommend that the Suggestions for Action be forwarded to
the Vice President for Academic Affairs for consideration in the development of
Five Year Strategic Plans and budget requests.
7.
The Academic Senate has two tasks:
 To recommend acceptance or rejection of the program review as fulfilling the
intention and specific requirements of the University regarding program review;
 To recommend that the Suggestions for Action be forwarded to the Provost and
Vice President for Academic Affairs for consideration in University and
Academic Planning and budget proesses. (Note: The Suggestions for Action are
not recommended for approval or disapproval, but for consideration in the
planning and budgeting process.)
8.
The President shall respond to the Academic Senate recommendation of acceptance
or rejection of the program review as fulfilling the intention and specific requirements
of the University regarding program review. The President shall act on the
Suggestions for Action by forwarding them to the Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs for use in University and Academic Planning and budgeting
processes.
9.
Following Academic Senate action and the President's response, the resulting reports shall be
reviewed in a meeting including the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, AVP
for Academic Programs, the college dean and or associate dean, department chair, faculty
coordinator and or program review coordinator, and program faculty as appropriate, and a
representative of the Academic Programs Committee. Particular attention shall be given to
the Suggestions for Action from the department and the comments on, or additions to, these
suggestions from the external review team, the Dean, and the Academic Senate. Each of the
suggestions will be reviewed and identified as follows:
 suggestions that will be implemented
 suggestions that will be implemented if additional resources are provided
 suggestions that will not be implemented, with justification for not
implementing
 suggestions that have already been implemented
A written record of the meeting(s) will become part of the program review file. This
written record will become the starting point of the department's next program review
so that the results of the program review process may be assessed.
7
Guidelines For External Review
Department Responsibilities:
1.
External reviews are conducted by a team of two people for each program, with one
of them being from outside the CSU system. The selection of the reviewers is made
by the faculty of the department in consultation with the Office of Academic
Programs and the College Dean.
a. The department compiles two pools of potential reviewers, those from within
the CSU system and those outside of the CSU system.
b. The pools, including names titles, and brief backgrounds, shall be forwarded to
the College Dean and the AVP for Academic Programs. The Dean and AVP
may concur with the pool of reviewers or may exclude, with explanation, an
individual nominee.
c. After this consultation is completed, the proposed pool will be returned to the
department so that the faculty can select the external reviewers.
2. The department shall schedule the external review in coordination with the Dean and
the Academic Programs Office.
a. The reviewers are formally invited to the campus by the AVP of Academic
Programs. Academic Programs shall send the external reviewers a copy of the
self study, the itinerary, and any other pertinent materials.
b. The department, in coordination with Academic Programs, shall complete
preparations for the visit, including a detailed itinerary.
i.
The department is responsible for collecting materials for the reviewers to
review, including: course outlines, advising materials, samples of student
work; and for master’s degree programs: student theses, projects and/or
comprehensive exams.
ii.
Initial and exit meetings should be scheduled with the Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs, the AVP for Academic Programs, and the
College Dean.
iii. The visit should include opportunities for the reviewers to meet with the
department chair, faculty, and students. The external reviewers should
also be given a tour of the facilities.
iv.
The external reviewers should be given time and a location to review
documents and confer before the exit meeting.
c. There shall be standard honorarium for a single-day review (negotiable for
reviews that may extend two to three days). The college is responsible for the
honorarium.
d. Expenses, including reasonable airfare and one night’s lodging at KW, shall be
covered by the college. The department shall provide meals and other
incidental costs. KW reservations shall be made by the department, and air
reservations shall be made by the reviewers.
8
Academic Programs Responsibilities:
1.
The Office of Academic Programs and the College Dean select the reviewers,
ensuring that one is from the CSU, one from outside the CSU, experts in their
fields, and knowledgeable about program assessment and review.
2.
The Office of Academic Programs formally invites the reviewers to the campus.
Academic Programs shall send the external reviewers, and all parties with whom
they shall meet, a copy of the self study, the itinerary, and any other pertinent
materials.
3.
The External Reviewers will send a copy of the review to Academic Programs who
will distribute the review to the department, dean, and Provost.
4.
While the college and department are responsible for all costs related to the visit,
including the honorarium, Academic Programs will be responsible for all
paperwork related to the honorarium. The external reviewers receive the
honorarium upon the University’s receipt of the external review report.
Reviewer Responsibilities:
Reviewers should bring an informed and unbiased view to the assessment of the program.
External reviewers should consider whether the plans of the department are appropriate,
considering such factors as the current condition of the program, trends in discipline, the nature
of the faculty, and the characteristics of the students and the community the program serves.
Reviewers may be provided with a list of questions to be specifically addressed in their report,
but they are not to be constrained from covering other issues that might arise during the course of
their review.
The report does not need to be in a specific format. However, it is expected that the report will
address each of the Suggestions for Action in the self-study indicating agreement or
disagreement with each suggestion, and as appropriate, make additional Suggestions for Action.
The final report is a single report signed by both reviewers and should be submitted within one
month after the completion of the visit. Dissenting opinions should be included when consensus
is not reached. The report should be addressed to the AVP for Academic Programs, who will
distribute copies to the college dean and the department chair.
9
Appendix A - General Timeline
While the timeline for individual Academic Program Reviews may vary, the Office of Academic
Programs suggests following the timeline below. The responsibility for maintaining open lines
of communication about the status of the project rests principally with the program faculty, who
often delegate the responsibility to a department chair or faculty coordinator. At every step in the
process, the faculty’s designee should communicate with both the Office of Academic Programs
and the College Dean or designee.
Using the timeline below, a program completing an APR for the five year period ending Spring
2010 would complete the pre-APR activities in Spring 2010, the Year 1 activities from Fall 2010
to Spring 2011, and the Year 2 activities from Fall 2011 to Spring 2012.
Spring
Fall
Fall / Winter
Early Winter
Early Spring
Within 30
days of visit
Within 7 days
Late Spring
Pre-APR Activities
Pre-APR meeting scheduled by Office of Academic Programs. Attendees are
Department Chair or Faculty Coordinator, interested program faculty, and
AVP for Academic Programs.
Year 1 activities
IRAP sends data to department for analysis
Program faculty write Self-study and may send electronically to the AVP for
Academic Programs for preview and comments.
Program faculty make any necessary changes and send:
a) One electronic copy (on disk, CD, or via e-mail) to Academic Programs
b) One electronic copy to the College Dean
Program faculty nominate external reviewers to Dean and AVP for
Academic Programs. Dean and AVP approve reviewers.
Visit of External Reviewers – May be one or two days.
External Reviewers submit report in electronic and printed formats to AVP
for Academic Programs.
AVP forwards External Review in electronic form to Program and to Dean
for their response.
Program response and Dean’s response to External Review to External
Review submitted electronically with signature page to Office of Academic
Programs
10
Fall/Winter
Spring
Year 2 activities
Academic Program Review is submitted by Office of Academic Programs
for Academic Senate review
a) Academic Programs (AP) Committee adds comments in generic response
matrix as appropriate and submits recommendation for approval to
Academic Senate
b) Senate reviews AP Committee report and makes recommendation to
President
c) President acts on Senate recommendation
Follow-up meeting scheduled by Office of Academic Programs. Attendees
are Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, AVP for Academic
Programs, College Dean or Associate Dean, Department Chair, Faculty
Coordinator and/or Program Review Coordinator (as appropriate), Program
faculty, and a representative of the Academic Programs Committee.
11
Appendix B - Guidelines for Program Self-Study
Section 1 – Introduction
(a) Describe the program, including in which department and college it resides, the degree
granted, and any emphases or options within the program.
(b) List the mission and goals and discuss their relationship to those of the college and
University.
(c) Review of previous self-study, its recommendations, and resulting changes.
Section 2 - The Program Description
This section should fully describe the program and its role in helping the University achieve its
overall mission.
(a) Review the units to degree. If the degree program being reviewed is deemed to require more
than 180-quarter units, academic reasons for continuing such practice should be presented.
(b) List the curriculum (core, directed electives, emphasis areas, minors, etc.). Updated expanded
course outlines (no more than five years old) for all courses must be on file in the department
office and available to reviewers.
(c) List the service learning and honors courses that have been incorporated into the curriculum.
Discuss their role in the program.
(d) List GE or other service classes offered by the department that are not part of major program.
Discuss their role in the department in relationship to the major program.
(e) Compare the curriculum in terms of content and distribution of units with comparable
programs at other CSU and non-CSU institutions.
(f) Discuss any major curricular changes made in the past five years.
(g) Discuss the anticipated evolution of the curriculum. Describe the external needs/demands for
the program. Describe how new ideas, directions, and technical advances have been
incorporated into the curriculum. Discussion should include comparisons, as relevant, to
college, university, CSU, and national trends and needs.
(h) Discuss any curricular bottlenecks and efforts to alleviate such problems.
(i) Include a table indicating often required and elective courses have been offered in the four
years preceding the program review. Explain the reason for any courses that have not been
offered at least every two years. (See example below)
Course
CPU 100
CPU 201
CPU 205
CPU 301
CPU 401
CPU 402
CPU 425
CPU 435
F’xx
3
2
1
1
W’xx
3
2
1
Sp’xx
2
1
Su’xx
1
1
1
1
Comments
In winter, one section is offered at night
1
1
1
(1)
CPU 435 alternates with CPU 425
12
Section 3 – Program Assessment
(a) Summarize the accreditation status or other external assessment of the program.
(b) List the programs’ student learning outcomes
(c) Include a matrix showing how courses in the program meet the student learning outcomes.
(See example below.)
LO 1
LO 2
LO 3
LO 4
LO 5
I, A
I
CPU 100
D
I
I
CPU 201
D
D
I
CPU 205
D
D
D
CPU 301
D
D
M, A
D
CPU 401
D
M, A
CPU 402
M
M, A
M
CPU 425
M, A
M
M, A
CPU 435
I = introduced; D = developed and/or practiced; M = demonstrated mastery; A = Assessed
(d) Describe the process used for assessing the learning objectives, courses and curricular
structures.
(e) Evaluate the procedures for collecting and analyzing evidence that program goals and
objectives are being achieved.
(f) Summarize the assessment performed in the last five years, conclusions from that
assessment, and any changes to the program based on that assessment. (You may use a table
format. See example below.)
Student Learning
Outcome
List any outcomes
that were revised,
assessed, had
results of
assessment
analyzed, or
caused some
action.
Place in
Curriculum
where Outcome is
Addressed
Indicate course or
step in program
this outcome is
addressed. Include
level it is
addressed:
introduction,
development,
mastery.
Assessment
Procedures,
Methods,
Strategies
List assessment
procedure, direct
or indirect method
or strategy. You
may wish to attach
rubrics, surveys,
etc.
Summary of
Findings
Use of Findings
for Program
Improvement
Include findings on
what students are
doing well as well
as those that
suggest an
adjustment or
improvement.
Did faculty discuss
findings, make
suggestions for
change, carry out
change?
Section 4 - Program Quality
Section 4.1 Faculty
This section should include both description and self-appraisal of the following:
(a) Assess the quality of teaching. This section must include the computer-generated discipline
averages of course evaluations as well as a copy of the questionnaire and an evaluation of the
results, with particular attention to the most important questions on the questionnaire. The
section may also include other indicators such as distinguished teaching awards.
13
(b) Summarize faculty research and scholarly activity. Include in an appendix the resumes of the
faculty or a list of research, scholarship and creative activity.
(c) Include a table describing the typical annual workload (not including summer) for each
tenure track faculty member and full time lecturer. (See example below.)
Faculty
member
Joe Smith
Carla Cruz
Su Yen
Teaching
WTU
28
24
12
Assigned WTU
for Research
8
0
0
Assigned WTU
for Service
0
12
0
Administrative
WTU
0
0
24
Total
WTU
36
36
36
(d) Summarize faculty participation in the department, university, profession and community.
Include evidence of collegiality, interdisciplinary activities, committee involvement, and
faculty development activities.
(e) Describe the department involvement in civic engagement and other community outreach
(not including service learning) and discuss any plans for increase or decrease in such
activities.
(f) Describe the department involvement in service functions for other programs such as
involvement in interdisciplinary, certificate, or credential programs for undergraduates.
Discuss any plans for increase or decrease in such activities.
Section 4.2 Student Success
a) Describe the departmental advisement program and evidence of quality (for example,
assessment plan of advising program, faculty involvement in special advising programs
such as CARES or SEES, advising awards, and the student persistence rates provided by
the Office of Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning.)
b) Assess the learning environment. Include indicators such as special department events,
department publications, and faculty involvement in student clubs or other extracurricular
activities.
c) Summarize and assess the steps taken to implement a First Year Experience Program.
d) Discuss student commitment, motivation and satisfaction. Include surveys of student
opinions regarding the program outcomes and quality. This section also may include
discussion of special student contributions to the work of the department.
e) Discuss co-curricular learning experiences that are relevant to the program goals (such as
internships, research experiences, study abroad); include the number of students that
participate in these experiences.
f) A summary of the following data should also be included:
 Number of graduates employed in a field or job requiring the degree(s)
 Number in graduate schools
 Numbers taking and passing licensing exams
 Other accomplishments by current and former students that reflect on program
quality.
g) Discuss alumni opinions regarding the program and its quality. (The Office of Alumni
Affairs should be asked for assistance in compiling names and addresses of alumni.)
14
These may be based on survey results, interviews or opinions of graduates invited to
campus to give their views on the program in small discussion groups or panels.
Section 5 - Resources
(a) Enrollment. Discuss five-year data supplied by the Office of Institutional Research,
Assessment and Planning. The discussion should include trends in numbers and retention of
students by gender and ethnicity, and should include comparisons, as relevant, to college,
university, CSU, and national trends and needs.
a) Describe the department’s involvement in student outreach and recruitment. Explain any
steps to encourage transfer students to enter the program or to assist transfer students to
make a smooth transition.
(b) Faculty. Discuss the use of faculty resources, retirement projections, plans for hiring new
faculty, and trends in numbers of faculty by gender and ethnicity. The discussion should
include comparisons, as relevant, to college, university, CSU, and national trends and needs.
(c) Library Resources. Discuss data supplied by the University Library.
This section should include both a description and self-appraisal of the following:
(d) Staff
(e) Operating Budget
(f) Space and Facilities
(g) Computing Resources
(h) Scholarships, brochures, websites, other efforts to support recruitment and retention
(i) External funding – contracts, grants, gifts, etc.
Section 6 - Suggestions for Action
The Suggestions should include actions that can be accomplished by the department with
existing funds and resources as well as actions that may require additional funding or resources.
Section 7 – External Review Report
Section 8 - Summary
A brief, substantive summary of the major findings and revised suggestions for action in
response to the External Review.
Section 9 - Faculty Participation
All department faculty responsible for the program should certify that they have been involved in
the review process and have reviewed the full academic program review report. A copy of this
certification must accompany the program review report.
15
Appendix C - External Reviewer’s Responsibilities
External reviews are conducted by a team of at least two professionals for each program, one
from another CSU campus and one from a non-CSU institution, or from business, industry, or
the public, as appropriate.
The purpose of academic program review is to encourage excellence in the instructional
program. Specific goals include:
 reviewing and suggesting improvements in the following:
 curriculum of the program
 instruction in the program
 student advising
 faculty participation in research, scholarship, and creative activity
 faculty service to the University
 cooperation with other academic programs on campus
 reviewing the assessment of student learning in the program for the purpose of
program improvement
 reviewing the use of resources and facilities, and identifying needs for additional
resources
 attending to issues of diversity and campus climate
 charting new directions for the program and the department
The program review process is forward-looking and provides for follow-up. Each step of the
process generates Suggestions for Action. These suggestions include actions that can be
accomplished by the department with existing funds and resources, as well as actions that may
require additional funding or resources.
External reviewers, as recognized experts in the field, are used to provide critical judgment, to
ensure the objectivity of the process, and to determine how the program compares to others in
the region or nation. More specifically:
1. Reviewers are expected to bring an informed and unbiased view to the assessment of the
program. External reviewers should consider whether the plans of the department are
appropriate, considering such factors as the current condition of the program, trends in
discipline, the nature of the faculty, and the characteristics of the students and the community
the program serves. Reviewers may be provided with a list of questions to be specifically
addressed in their report, but they are not to be constrained from covering other issues that
might arise during the course of their review.
2. The external review team’s itinerary will be established by the Department concerned in
consultation with the Dean, the Office of Academic Programs, and the reviewers. External
reviewers are expected to meet with designated University and College/School
administrators, department chair, departmental faculty and students, and others as
appropriate.
16
3. To help orient the reviewers to the campus and the review process, the team will first meet
with the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Associate Vice President for
Academic Programs, and representatives from the college. The Department Chair or
Department Program Review Chair may attend this meeting.
4. During the team’s visit, time will be provided for the reviewers to tour facilities and review
documents. The department shall provide course outlines, advising materials, and samples of
student work. For master’s degree programs, student theses, projects/ and or comprehensive
exams will be provided.
5. Prior to the reviewers’ departure from the campus, a one-hour exit interview will be
conducted to answer any final questions the team may have and to receive an oral report on
any preliminary findings, assessments and conclusions they may have reached. The Provost
and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice President for Academic
Programs will be present at the exit interview.
6. Although the report does not require a specific format, it is expected that the external review
report will address each of the Suggestions for Action in the self-study, indicating agreement
or disagreement with each suggestion, and as appropriate, make additional Suggestions for
Action. A single report signed by both reviewers should be submitted within one month after
the completion of the visit. Dissenting opinions should be included when consensus is not
reached.
7. The final report of the external reviewers should be sent to the Associate Vice President for
Academic Programs, addressed to the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs.
17