SFSU WASC Self-Study CH 21- Program Review and Accreditation

Chapter 21:

Program Review and Accreditation

INTRODUCTION

The primary focus of this chapter is the process of academic program review, i.e., the formal, periodic evaluation of all undergraduate and graduate degree programs. The chapter addresses the recommendations in the strategic plan regarding the content and function of program reviews, which are focused on improving academic excellence within a multicultural, learning-centered environment. Further, it addresses the university’s (and the strategic plan’s) increased emphasis on assessment and the modifications made in order to incorporate learning objectives and assessment outcomes into the program review process.

HISTORY 1992-1998

Academic Program Review in the CSU is mandated by Chancellor’s Office Policy (AP 71-32), which was instituted in 1971. At SFSU, we had completed three cycles of program review pursuant to this policy and were well into the fourth cycle of review by 1992. Campus guidelines for each cycle of review are established by Academic Senate policy. Guidelines for the fourth cycle were established in Senate Policy S89-161.

Program review at SFSU is the primary means of formally, periodically evaluating the academic excellence of degree programs. It focuses on the four topics of curriculum, faculty, students, and resources. Program faculty are asked to describe how well the curriculum organizes and presents the underlying knowledge base; the currency of curricular content and how well it prepares students (as appropriate) for the job market; faculty qualifications and how well the faculty are able to deliver the curriculum; the movement of students through the curriculum and how well the major meets student expectations; what happens to students after graduation; how well existing resources are utilized; and the program’s priorities for additional resources. A team of external reviewers provides an objective outside assessment of factors including curricular currency and quality, faculty qualifications, and preparation of graduates for the job market. The program faculty and college dean have an opportunity to respond in writing to the report of the external reviewers, then the review moves to the campus-wide Academic Program Review Committee (APRC). APRC includes members of the campus Academic Senate representing a broad range of departments and programs. APRC both monitors whether all topics have been adequately addressed and evaluates the quality of programs as presented in the program review documents (including the self study, the external review report, and responses to the report from the program head and college dean). APRC’s summary and recommendations are forwarded to the program faculty for response. Finally, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is developed jointly by the program faculty and the administration and finalized in a meeting of the program chair, college dean, the provost, and key members of the Academic Affairs administration. The MOU summarizes agreements emerging from the program review, identifies steps the program faculty will take to improve the program, and forms a context for administrative decision making with regard to tenure track searches, curricular revisions, facility and equipment requests, etc.

To facilitate the preparation of self studies and clarify the various phases of program review, a Handbook for the Fourth Cycle of Academic Program Review was prepared and made available in Spring 1995. The handbook included a uniform organization and outline for self studies. This not only expedited the writing process for program faculty but also helped administrators and APRC members track how the faculty addressed various topics.

To provide better data for self studies, the Provost’s Office engaged the services of the Public Research Institute (PRI) in Fall 1996 to develop and routinely administer a survey of alumni of all academic programs. The Graduate Division had been gathering data (using a standardized Educational Testing Service instrument) on graduate students applying for graduation since 1995 but had not had the resources for data entry, analysis, or reporting. In Fall 1997, the Provost’s Office contracted with PRI to produce a report based on the data collected and begin analysis and reporting on a regular basis as data continued to be collected. In Spring 1998 the Provost’s Office further contracted with PRI to develop and begin regular analysis and reporting of data from an exit survey of undergraduates applying for graduation. (An analysis of the findings of all major university surveys is found in Chapter 22; survey results themselves are found at www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/surveys.html.)

As nearly as feasible, programs are supposed to be reviewed on a six-year cycle. Administrative responsibility for the process currently resides with the associate vice president for academic program development. In 1994, and again in 1996, administrative responsibility for academic program review shifted, resulting in some delays in the fourth cycle. The reorganization of colleges during 1993-95, including the creation of the new College of Health and Human Services, caused further delays. In 1998 we were still engaged in the fourth cycle of review.

Strategic Plan Recommendations

The strategic plan recommended that the academic program review policy and its implementation guidelines be reviewed and revised, as necessary, to ensure that faculty in the program review process adequately address the currency and quality of undergraduate and graduate programs; provide evidence of basic skills development in the major; track graduates following completion of their degrees; and document progress toward a more learning-centered academic environment. Additionally, the strategic plan placed increasing emphasis on identifying learning objectives and assessing each program’s success in achieving those objectives. Assessment of learning outcomes, then, was deemed an important theme to emphasize in the academic program review process as a measure of academic excellence.

1998 Benchmarking

With the exception of tracking graduates, the Guidelines for the Fourth Cycle of Academic Program Review were not explicit in addressing most of the issues identified above, although the review process as a whole generated evidence regarding currency and quality of programs. Some but not all departments (mostly those with accredited programs) surveyed their graduates. By Spring 1998, PRI had developed the alumni survey instrument, completed the pilot testing of the survey, and was beginning to gather data for use by departments in preparing their self studies for program review. The undergraduate exit survey instrument was also developed and the first pilot test conducted in Summer 1998. Reports based on the graduate exit survey were still being developed.

The conclusion of the fourth cycle and beginning of the fifth cycle of program review were projected for 1999-2000. In preparation for this, plans were under way to revise senate policy to establish guidelines for the fifth cycle and revise the handbook accordingly. This was a timely opportunity to incorporate changes recommended in the strategic plan. The increased emphasis on outcomes assessment was also to be reflected in those revised documents.

Priorities for 1998-2000

Priorities for 1998-2000 included finalizing the report format for presenting the data and analysis from the alumni survey and providing reports to faculty and deans for use in the fifth cycle of program review beginning 1999-2000. Similarly, pilot testing of the undergraduate exit survey was to be completed, the instrument finalized, and the report format for both the undergraduate and graduate exit surveys determined in time to regularly provide data and analysis for the fifth cycle of review.

As this was to be taking place, Academic Senate Policy S89-161 (Guidelines for the Fourth Cycle) and the accompanying handbook were to be reviewed and amended, as needed, in preparation for the fifth cycle. The policy review process was to address the issues identified in the strategic plan as well as other issues raised in the course of the fourth cycle. It was also to integrate outcomes assessment into program review. Recommendations for changes were to be discussed by APRC and recommendations forwarded to the Academic Senate.

CURRENT STATUS

The alumni survey report format was finalized and the first reports produced in Spring 1999. Pilot testing of the undergraduate exit survey was completed in Fall 1998, the first official data were generated in Spring 1999, and the first official reports were produced in Summer 1999. Analysis and reports from the graduate exit survey were also produced and disseminated beginning Summer 1999.

Meanwhile, APRC considered each of the strategic plan’s recommendations for revisions to academic program review. With the exception of a few recommendations which APRC determined were already adequately addressed in the program review process, the committee incorporated the recommendations into a revised policy. Specifically, self study guidelines were amended adding instructions to discuss (a) the use of introductory courses to set standards of study in the discipline; (b) the use of advisory boards to help maintain currency of programs; (c) the integration and enhancement of students’ basic skills within the major; and (d) specific features (e.g., student research/scholarship) related to the academic excellence of graduate programs. Instructions were also added regarding how to describe the interdisciplinarity of programs, where appropriate.

APRC also strengthened the policy language regarding the role and importance of outcomes assessment in program review. The revised policy included the following statement:

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.

In Spring 1999, the Academic Senate approved the revised guidelines as Academic Senate Policy S99-161 [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/S99-161.htm], and President Corrigan authorized the new policy. During Summer 1999, the program review handbook was revised accordingly and became available, both in hard copy and on-line [http://www.sfsu.edu/~apd/5th%20cycle%20handbook.html], as the fifth cycle was initiated in Fall 1999. Introductory meetings with deans and program heads emphasized revisions for the fifth cycle, as did briefings of new APRC members. By Spring 2000, the first self studies were completed in accordance with the fifth cycle guidelines and handbook.

Review of Accredited Academic Programs

With very few exceptions, all SFSU programs that can be nationally accredited, are accredited. (See the list of programs and accrediting bodies at the end of this chapter.) Since national accrediting bodies require periodic reviews for re-accreditation, SFSU has tried to streamline the program review process described above for accredited programs. The guidelines for the fourth cycle of review provided for an abbreviated self study report derived from the most recent accreditation self study and the substitution of the accrediting team visit for the external reviewers’ visit. The guidelines retained the APRC review and the development of an MOU. For the fifth cycle, the guidelines adopted by the Academic Senate established that the accreditation review will normally substitute for academic program review with only two exceptions. First, once the accrediting body has notified the campus that a program has been reaccredited, an MOU will be developed embodying agreements reached in the accreditation review. Second, upon special request of the program faculty, college dean, and/or provost, an accredited program shall undergo program review, although the self study may be abbreviated and the accreditation team visit may be substituted for the external review.

Assessment and Recommendations for the Future

Achievement indicators demonstrating implementation of the strategic plan recommendations include the completed and institutionalized alumni, undergraduate, and graduate exit surveys and reports, the approved senate guidelines for the fifth cycle of academic program review, and the revised handbook. Recent self studies completed in accordance with the fifth cycle guidelines have also reflected the revisions recommended by the strategic plan.

As the fifth cycle of academic program review progresses, the university will look for evidence that faculty are heeding the guidelines for the fifth cycle and reporting assessment outcomes in self study reports. We will look for improvements in the specificity of program reviews as a direct or indirect response to data, analyses, and self evaluations provided in accordance with the revised guidelines. We will also look for evidence that improved program reviews are indeed leading to improved programs. Achievement indicators for programs will include the addressing of topics added to the self study guidelines, identification of learning objectives and assessment of learning outcomes, incorporation of survey data and other objective measures in self assessments, and the reporting of program modifications in response to assessment data.

San Francisco State University

Accredited Programs

PROGRAM	ACCREDITING AGENCY
Art BA/MA/MFA	National Association of Schools of Art and Design
Business Administration
BS/MS/MBA	American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business
Chemistry BS/MS	American Chemical Society
Civil Engineering BS	Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
Clinical Laboratory Science Internship Program	National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Communicative Disorders MS	American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Computer Science BS/MS	Computing Sciences Accreditation Board
Counseling MS	Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs
Dietetics BS	American Dietetics Association
Drama BA/MA	National Association of Schools of Theatre
Education MA	National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
Electrical Engineering BS	Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
Family & Consumer Sciences BA/MA	American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
Hospitality Management BS	American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business
Journalism BA	Accreditation Council on Education in Journalism & Mass Communications
Mechanical Engineering BS	Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
Music BA/MA/BM/MM	National Association of Schools of Music
Nursing BS/MS	Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
Physical Therapy MS	American Physical Therapy Association
Public Administration MPA	National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration
Recreation BA/MS	National Recreation and Park Association
Rehabilitation Counseling MS	Council on Rehabilitation Education
Social Work BA/MSW	Council on Social Work Education
Special Education MA and conc in EdD/PhD in Education	National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
Taxation MS	American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business
Theatre Arts MFA [concentration	National Association of Schools of Theatre in Design and Technical Production]

Academic Affairs

September 20, 2000

Return to Part Two: University-Wide Assessment Endeavors | Return to Accreditation | SFSU Home | Top of page