  |
CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNARDINO
FACULTY SENATE
Educational Policy and Resources Committee March 2000
PERIODIC
ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEWS
FSD 99‑03.R1
(superseded 79‑219. R3)
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 the programs 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 on completion of the course of study. Each department
or program is responsible for designing its own outcomes assessment policy
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, although care must be taken to assure
that programs are not penalized for frankness and honesty in their self‑study.
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 5 years, unless
special circumstances warrant a more frequent review. Under normal circumstances,
all degree programs housed in a particular College are reviewed during the
same academic year.
After consultation and approval of the College Dean and the
Associate Provost for Academic Programs, programs which have specialized professional
accreditation by state or national accrediting bodies may modify the normal,
procedures and time lines to avoid duplication of effort. All areas and issues
covered by this document must be covered in the self‑study, however.
This policy provides for review of the departmental self‑study
efforts by a team of CSUSB faculty from the Colleges that are not involved
in periodic program review that year. This will provide each department the
benefit of advice from experienced colleagues outside of their discipline.
Purpose:
Several purposes are intended for and accomplished by
Program Reviews. The 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 graduate
programs with recognized national standards of excellence.
8.
Tie program evaluation
results to university‑wide planning and budgeting.
The Review Process:
The self‑study representatives and the college dean will
meet, following the annual calendar (see Appendix 11, "Self‑Study
Deadline Calendar"), with the Associate Provost for Academic Programs,
(the campus‑wide self‑study coordinator) for orientation, directions
and questions. At that time, data from Institutional Research and Academic
Programs offices will be supplied. (See Appendix III, "Data to be Included
in Self‑study Reports.")
Self‑Study reports will be written by the end of fall
term. Drafts will be reviewed and revised during December. The final version
of report will be completed by mid‑January and distributed. Each department/program
report will be reviewed by all members of that department/program, the College
Dean, the Dean of Graduate Studies (where master's degrees are offered) and
the Associate Provost for Academic Programs. The report will then be forwarded
to the University Self‑Study Review Committee, an ad hoc
committee of the Faculty Senate. This committee will read all department,
program and college reports, meet with those under review, ensure the general
accuracy and consistency of these self-study reports, and prepare a brief
report of its major findings and recommendations, including results of annual
reviews of outcomes assessments.
A summary statement for each department/program be will prepared
by members of the University‑level Self‑Study Committee and reviewed
by the College Dean prior to being forwarded to the President, Provost, and
Budget/Planning Committee. The Associate Provost for Academic Programs will
further summarize the findings and report them to the Chancellor's Office
for presentation to the CSU Board of Trustees.
Role of Department/Program:
The format for the self‑study process 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 reports will relate measurements of student
achievement to the operations of the department, its curriculum and courses,
its instructional modes, its students and its resources. The College as a
whole will also be reviewed. (See Appendix 1, "Organization of Self‑;Study").
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.
Role of Outside Consultants:
Funds will be made available by the Academic Affairs Office
to provide each college with off‑campus consultants. Graduate Programs
should have a separate off‑campus consultant. The outside consultants
will:
1.
Provide disciplinary expertise and objectivity, and may be
involved in the preparation of departmental reports;
2.
Provide an outside/national
perspective;
3.
Meet with department
chair, faculty, students, members of University Self‑Study Review Committee,
and Provost to discuss the report; obtain 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;
8. Make recommendations for change and improvement
which will supplement the departmental reports and findings.
The Campus Self‑Study Review Committee will recommend
consultants to be invited by the University selected from a list of three
names per consultant position submitted by the college dean following consultation
with department chairs and program coordinators. For off‑campus consultants,
names should be accompanied by brief biographical‑ sketches. (See form
provided.)
University
Self‑Study Review Committee
The Self‑Study Review Committee will consist of four
faculty from outside the college under review, one college‑dean (usually
chosen from the college reviewed the previous year), and one administrative
representative.
The faculty will be selected, one from each college (exclusive
of the college currently being reviewed), by the Executive Committee of the
Faculty senate from among the senior faculty. 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 year. However,
committee members may be reappointed.
Functions of University Self‑Study Review Committee:
1. To approve external reviewers nominated by programs,
2. To approve and review document drafts,
3. To assist writing and revision or report where
needed,
4. To note (and where possible reconcile) discrepancies
between the program's views and the conclusions and recommendations of the
outside consultant,
5.
To summarize the department and college findings,
6. To make recommendations to the Dean, Provost,
President, and Budget/Planning committees,
7. To report to the Faculty Senate.
The Report of the University 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 end 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.
Role
of the College Dean
The College Dean will:
1. Oversee the preparation of the departmental
and program reports to ensure timeliness, accuracy, consistency, and completeness.
It is particularly important that the dean impress upon the department that
the self‑study 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 reports of interdisciplinary programs which have no department or faculty.
3. Provide the University Self‑Study
Committee with a report of the disposition of recommendations of the most
recent program reviews.
4. Review program reports and
provide an overview and summary from the college's perspective, noting patterns,
issues, and concerns which span departments. The College Dean may make recommendations
for change and/or for further study and analysis.
5. Assist the departments and
programs in developing a Plan of Action for responding to the findings and
recommendations of the reports of program, consultant and university‑level
review committee. .
6.
Provide follow up and assistance (both financial and operational)
in addressing the recommendations and needed actions.
Role
of Graduate Dean
The Graduate Dean will:
1. Provide additional nominations
and review of possible outside reviewers to be selected 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 outside reviewers regarding curriculum, admissions and candidacy procedures,
academic standards, quality of theses and projects.
4. Provide data from surveys
of graduating master's degree students.
5. Communicate results and
findings of completed self‑study, consultant's reports, and recommendations
to the graduate coordinators.
6. Assist programs in follow up
and carrying out the Plan of Action for addressing University Self‑Study
Committee 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.
Role of the Program Review/Self‑Study
Coordinator (Associate Provost for Academic Programs).
The Associate Provost will:
1. Notify college and programs
of the review schedule.
2. Establish a budget for the
review.
3. Oversee appointment of committee
personnel.
4. Oversee general conduct
of the review.
5. Submit final review outcomes
to the President, Provost, and Faculty Senate.
6. Prepare summary of findings
for report to Chancellor's Office and Board of Trustees..
Post‑Review
Procedures
After the self‑study review committee has presented its
report, the college dean, department/program representatives, and campus‑wide
self study coordinator will meet to identify problem areas, coordinate recommendations
and plan appropriate steps to convert recommendations into curricular and
other proposals.
The department/program, working in conjunction with the college
dean; will prepare a Plan of Action for addressing the recommendations and
concerns noted ire the self‑study and reports of consultants and university
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. Persons) responsible for
carrying out the needed change.
4. What the anticipated cost
will be.
5. Where the resources will
come from.
‑‑reallocation
within department
‑‑reallocation
from College
‑‑funding
from Academic Affairs division
‑‑grants
and other outside sources
‑‑University
resources to be requested through budget process
6. A full report on the actions
carried out will be sent to the Provost, Associate Provost and Dean by dates
established and agreed upon in the Plan of Action. Some reports will also
require conveyance to other groups such as the Strategic Planning Council,
Budget Council, or specialized accrediting body as appropriate and needed.
Cycle
of Reviews
1999‑2000 College of
Natural Sciences 2000‑2001College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
2001‑2002 College of Business and Public Administration
,
2002‑2003 College of Arts and Letters
2003‑2004 College of Education (And so forth…)