At its meeting of February 23, 1999, the Academic Senate approved the following policy for guidelines for the fifth cycle of Academic Program Review:

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.

Academic program review in the fifth cycle will include the following three components:

1. Instructional Unit Self-Study and Recommendation

2. External Review and Recommendation

3. University Review and Decision-Making

At the start of the process for a given College, representatives from the instructional units, the College, the Office of Academic Affairs, and the Academic Program Review Committee (APRC) will meet to discuss substantive and procedural questions. Those attending should indicate any specific areas or issues needing to be addressed, so that these may be given special attention in the review process.

Every instructional unit which offers academic programs leading to baccalaureate, master's, or joint doctoral degrees (other than those subject to periodic accreditation review) shall prepare a self-study that will serve as a basis for all subsequent reviews and recommendations. In this self-study, the unit should describe and assess each degree program it offers, following the guidelines that appear in the Handbook for the Fifth Cycle of Academic Program Review. Department chairs and program heads should assure that there is widespread faculty participation in the self-studies and that the faculty are made aware of all findings and recommendations.

The unit shall forward its completed self-study to the Office of Academic Affairs and to the College Dean for their respective review and signatures indicating that the self study is complete and ready for external review.

The purpose of external review is to help each instructional unit improve the quality of its degree programs and to add an additional perspective to the recommendations made in the self-study. It is anticipated that the external reviewers will provide evaluative assistance and support for program goals.

Typically, the review will be conducted by a team of two members, representing both a CSU and a non-CSU perspective.

The unit faculty and the College Dean, working together, shall choose the potential reviewers. The College Dean shall forward their names and addresses to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for his/her concurrence. Reviewers will receive a copy of the unit's self-study and supporting documents and are expected to spend two days on the campus interviewing students, faculty, and administrators and to prepare a report of findings and recommendations. Copies of this report shall be sent to the program head and to the College Dean, both of whom will be invited to respond in writing, commenting on recommendations made and adding recommendations as needed. The report and responses will become part of the unit's program review file evaluated by the Academic Program Review Committee and the Office of Academic Affairs. Upon receipt of the report, the University will pay the reviewers an honorarium (in addition to travel costs and other expenses).

In order to provide a University-wide faculty perspective and assist in University-wide planning, the Academic Program Review Committee will carefully review each unit's self-study, external review report, and responses to the external review. APRC will meet with the College Dean and program faculty to ensure that APRC fully understands all recommendations made. APRC will accept additional data and recommendations from the units at this time. It will then proceed to evaluate all recommendations and send its report to the Chair of the Academic Senate and the Vice President for Academic Affairs for transmission to all interested parties. APRC should review all recommendations in a timely fashion and submit its findings to appropriate units as expeditiously as possible. APRC will also send any policy recommendations and its annual report to the Academic Senate.

After the faculty of the instructional unit, the College Dean, and the Office of Academic Affairs have had an opportunity to study all reports and recommendations, representatives of these three areas will meet to discuss recommendations and agree on actions to be taken. This agreement will be embodied in a memorandum of understanding which will be in effect until the completion of the next review cycle. This memorandum of understanding will be kept on file in the Offices of Academic Affairs and the Academic Senate.

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.

As nearly as feasible, programs shall be reviewed on a six year cycle by College, in alphabetical order of College, beginning in Fall, 1999. College Deans should assure that their Colleges' programs are reviewed in a timely fashion and that there is appropriate dissemination of information and recommendations.

The Liberal Studies and General Education programs shall also undergo review during the fifth cycle.

A handbook will be prepared based on the Handbook for the Fourth Cycle of Academic Program Review, with the following modifications:

1. In preparing the fifth cycle handbook, the content of the fourth cycle handbook will be reviewed and edited for accuracy and for inclusion of the principles delineated in the following documents (currently included as appendices to the fourth cycle handbook):

• The self-study guidelines which appear as Attachment A of Academic Senate Policy S89-161, "Guidelines for the Fourth Cycle of Academic Program Review."
• "The APRC Perspective in Academic Program Review."

(b) The fifth cycle handbook will include changes made to program review as approved by the

Academic Senate in the "Guidelines for the Fifth Cycle of Academic Program Review."

(c) The fifth cycle handbook will incorporate the following additional self-study guidelines:

• To help maintain the currency of academic programs, academic programs will be asked to describe the use of community advisory boards or appropriate alternatives where such bodies exist.
• Academic programs will be asked to describe the use of introductory courses/experiences which expose students to discipline-specific demands and ways of knowing, set standards of study in the discipline, provide feedback on the quality of student work, and identify opportunities to meet expected standards.
• Academic programs will be asked to describe how the curriculum integrates and enhances students’ basic skills, including critical thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative reasoning, and information access competence. Academic programs will also be asked to describe how this basic skill development is promoted and reviewed within the major program.
• Academic programs will be asked to identify to what extent their programs are interdisciplinary, to articulate the interdisciplinary philosophy of their programs and how the curriculum reflects it, and to describe any plans they may have for cross-department and/or cross-college collaborations.
• Graduate programs will be asked to address the level of preparation of admitted students, the investment of faculty and other resources in the graduate program compared with the undergraduate program(s), student research/scholarship (publications, exhibitions, public presentations, etc.), completion rates of the culminating experience, and average time to degree.

Spring 1999