HANDBOOK FOR THE FIFTH CYCLE OF
ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW

Fall 1999

Office of Academic Affairs
1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, California 94132

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The purpose of this handbook is to clarify the process of academic program review at San Francisco State University, guide and focus the efforts of those going through the process, and provide a reasonable degree of consistency in the documents generated. The intent is to make the process thorough yet concise, and to minimize the burden on faculty.

.

This edition of the handbook is a revision of the Handbook: Fourth Cycle of Academic Program Review, which was prepared by Judith M. Ekstrand, Kathleen A. O’Sullivan, and Erwin Seibel. Those authors acknowledged Richard Giardina for his leadership in the evolution of the program review guidelines at San Francisco State University. The handbook’s format was modeled after a similar document from CSU Los Angeles.

.

The handbook is organized into six chapters with a set of appendices. The remainder of Chapter 1 presents the policy context for academic program review, implementation parameters at SFSU, and a brief overview of the process. Chapters 2 through 6 provide detailed descriptions of each of the major phases of program review, including step-by-step instructions and sample formats for various documents produced. (For convenience, the detailed instructions for organizing the self-study report are separated into Chapter 3.) The appendices contain more complete texts of source documents, including the policies described in this chapter.

.

The Policy Context for Academic Program Review

.

Three policies provide the genesis of program review. In accordance with WASC standards, and CSU Trustee and SFSU policies, each instructional unit which offers academic programs leading to baccalaureate, masters, or joint doctoral degrees is to be reviewed periodically. Abbreviated statements from the three policies are given below. Complete statements are included in the appendices.

.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges: Standard Four, Educational Programs

.

Under this standard, it is the primary responsibility of every accredited institution to develop, approve, administer, and periodically review "under established institutional policies and procedures through a clearly defined process" the structure and goals of all educational programs in order to achieve and maintain quality programs.

.

Trustee Policy: Chancellor’s Office Memorandum AP 71-32, Performance Review of Existing Degree Major Programs

.

While recognizing that review of existing degree programs is an ongoing part of the academic planning process, this memorandum stresses the importance of a performance review of all ongoing programs at the campus and system levels, in part to determine what is needed to maintain and to improve quality programs. A request to establish a formal performance review procedure for all existing degree programs is made "in order to assess periodically both the quantitative and qualitative viability of each undergraduate and graduate program."

.

Academic Senate Policy #S99-161: Guidelines for the Fifth Cycle of Academic Program Review

.

This policy states in part:

.

The purpose of academic program review at San Francisco State University is to assess the University’s academic degree programs in order to assure that they are of the highest possible quality. Its goals include identifying and articulating the values, competencies, and learning outcomes expected for each program, assessing the currency of learning objectives, and describing how those learning objectives have been revised in response to changing needs and new knowledge. Additionally, its purpose includes assessing how well the articulated values, competencies, and learning outcomes have been achieved and describing methods being employed to increase their achievement. The review should provide information, analysis, and evaluation that will help all elements of the University plan and make decisions about the maintenance, enhancement, reduction, consolidation, or discontinuance of baccalaureate, master’s, and joint-doctoral degree programs.

.

Implementation of Program Review

.

At SFSU, the schedule for program review and all subsequent modifications are developed by the Office of Academic Affairs and provided to the college deans. As nearly as feasible, programs are to be reviewed college-by-college, in alphabetical order of college.

.

For the sake of brevity, the term "program" is used throughout this handbook to refer to the academic degree. The instructional unit granting the academic degree may be a school, department, interdisciplinary program, or program.

.

The administrator primarily responsible for academic program review is the Associate Vice President (AVP) for Academic Program Development. The college dean, Dean of Undergraduate Studies and/or Dean of the Graduate Division (as appropriate), AVP for Academic Resources, and Vice President for Academic Affairs also participate in the process.

.

A faculty coordinator for the process of academic program review has been identified in order to facilitate program review. The coordinator works with the program heads to clarify the review process to their faculty, to coordinate the selection of external reviewers, to review the final draft of the self-study document, and to create the schedule for and otherwise facilitate the site visit. The coordinator works with the AVP for Academic Program Development to ensure the timely progress of programs under review. The coordinator also is in regular contact with the chair of APRC and participates in APRC meetings.

.

Accredited Programs

.

As specified in Academic Senate Policy S99-161 (see appendices):

.

For programs that are nationally accredited and undergo periodic accreditation review involving a campus visit by an accrediting team (see attachment), the accreditation review will normally substitute for academic program review with the following exceptions:

.

(a) Following receipt of notification from the accrediting body that a program has been re-accredited, representatives of the instructional unit, College administration, and Office of Academic Affairs will develop a memorandum of understanding embodying agreements reached in the accreditation review. This memorandum of understanding will be in effect until completion of the next accreditation review and will be kept on file in the Offices of Academic Affairs and the Academic Senate.

.

(b) Upon special request of the instructional unit, College Dean, and/or Vice President for Academic Affairs, an accredited program shall undergo academic program review in addition to accreditation review. In this event, the self-study prepared for accreditation may be adapted or substituted, as appropriate, for the purpose of program review, and the campus visit by the accrediting team may be substituted for the external review.

.

In accordance with this stipulation, the remainder of this handbook applies primarily to programs not subject to accreditation.

.

Overview of the Process

.

The six major parts of program review are: planning and preparation, the self-study, external review, responses to the external review, APRC review, and development of a memorandum of understanding. The faculty's main tasks center on: a review assessing all aspects of the program, preparation of the self-study document, and selection of potential external reviewers. The entire process involves a number of other tasks and persons in each part. The six major parts are summarized below, with details provided in chapters 2 through 6.

.

Planning and Preparation

.

At the beginning of the academic year, the Office of Academic Affairs notifies the college dean as to the schedule of programs in that college to be reviewed. The college dean schedules the initial planning meeting to orient those involved with the review to the review process. Those in attendance include the dean, heads of the programs being reviewed, the AVP for Academic Program Development, the faculty coordinator of program review, and the chair of the Academic Program Review Committee (APRC). Faculty in the programs being reviewed are informed of the meeting and invited to attend.

.

At the initial meeting, copies of the program review handbook are distributed. The review process, data sources, and timelines are discussed, issues unique to any of the programs are addressed, and questions are answered. Program faculty are also asked to begin preparing a list of potential external reviewers (see Chapter 4).

.

Conducting the Self-Study

.

Some data for the self-study review is provided by the central administration. The instructional unit requests and/or gathers additional information as needed to evaluate its academic programs and to substantiate its recommendations.

.

The program faculty conduct a self study as described in Chapter 2 and prepare a self-study report in consultation with the faculty coordinator of program review, college dean, and AVP for Academic Program Development. The final draft of the self-study report is forwarded to the faculty coordinator and to the college dean and AVP for Academic Program Development. Revisions and/or additions to the draft self-study report are made as needed, and the cover sheet is signed indicating that the self-study report is deemed ready for external review. The unit then provides copies for distribution to participants in the subsequent phases of the review process.

.

External Review

.

This phase is introduced at the initial planning meeting and culminates in a site visit by external reviewers. The main tasks related to external review consist of selecting external reviewers, preparing for the site visit, hosting the site visit, and responding to the reviewers' completed report. The faculty coordinator works with the program to coordinate the selection of external reviewers and to prepare for the site visit. For the reviewers, the main tasks consist of conducting the site visit and writing the external review report. The mechanics of the site visit are handled by the faculty coordinator and Office of Academic Affairs.

.

Responses to the External Review Report

.

Upon receipt of the external reviewers’ report, the college dean and program head each prepare a written response. The responses address the recommendations of the external reviewers, correcting any perceived misconceptions or errors and specifying points of agreement and disagreement with the recommendations. The dean’s response may also address any college issues related to the program that have not yet been adequately considered. These responses become part of the materials reviewed and summarized by APRC in its report.

.

Review by the Academic Program Review Committee (APRC)

.

This phase occurs following receipt of the responses to the external review report. The APRC chair participates in the initial meeting with the dean and faculty of each college and also meets with the external reviewers during the site visit. All members of APRC review the program's self-study report, external reviewers' report, and subsequent responses by the college dean and program head. APRC meets with the dean, program head, and any others the program wishes to be present, to discuss questions and issues raised by the reports and responses. APRC then prepares a summary report, including any additional APRC recommendations, and forwards it to the AVP for Academic Program Development with copies to the college dean, program head, and chair of the Academic Senate.

.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

.

Upon receipt of the APRC summary report, the AVP for Academic Program Development sends it to the program head with a request to review it and set program priorities based on the recommendations. After the program head’s response is received, the AVP for Academic Program Development drafts the MOU and works together with the college dean and program head to revise it as needed. The Vice President for Academic Affairs, college dean, program head, AVP for Academic Program Development, and AVP for Academic Resources then confer and finalize the MOU.

.

Timelines

.

From start to finish, each program review typically takes 2 years or more. Following the initial meeting, development of the self-study report requires 1-2 semesters. The external review normally takes place in the semester following completion of the self-study report. After receipt of the external review report and responses from the college dean and program head, APRC review and reporting takes approximately another semester. Development of the MOU and the meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs generally require 2-3 additional months.

.

Return to 5th Cycle Handbook  |  SFSU Home