California State University, Stanislaus

Appendix 1

California State University, Stanislaus

Academic Program Review Signature Page

______

Title of Program

Signatures:

______
Program Faculty Member (Print) Signature Title Date

______
Department Chair (Print) Signature Title Date

______
College Curriculum Committee (Print) Signature Title Date

______
General Education Subcommittee (Print) Signature Title Date

______
College Dean (Print) Signature Title Date

______

AVP (Academic Affairs) and ALO (Print) Signature Title Date

______

Graduate Council (if applicable) (Print) Signature Title Date

______

University Educational Policies Committee Signature Title Date

(if applicable) (Print)

______

Provost and VP for Academic Affairs Signature Title Date

California State University, Stanislaus: Academic Program Review Self-Study Appendices 18

Appendix 2

California State University, Stanislaus

Substitution of Specialized Accreditation Self Study for the Academic Program Review Self Study

For programs that undergo professional or specialized accreditation, academic program review is coordinated with the accreditation or re-accreditation cycle. The self study developed for professional or specialized accreditation reviews, provides the essential requirements of academic program review and may be used for this purpose with approval by the college dean. The completed table below and the APR signature page (APR Procedures, Appendix 1) are to be forwarded by the college dean to the AVP/ALO for substitution of accreditation self study for the APR self study.

Program______Accreditation Agency______Date of Self-Study______

CSU Stanislaus Academic Program Review Component / Specialized Accreditation Standard
A. Pr
Program Overview / 1. Introduction and Historical Context
2. Relationship to Mission (University and College) and Strategic Plan
3. Program Description (with course requirements)
4. Review of Changes since the Last APR/ Accreditation Review
Data Review / 1. Student Profile and Enrollment Trends (demographics)
2. Faculty Profile
3. Delivery of Instructional Program
· Location (Turlock, Stockton, Merced, etc.)
· Distance Education (online, ITV)
· Scheduling of classes (3 year plan)
· Justification of additional units
4. Peer Institutions/Benchmarking
Commitment
to Student Learning / 1. Faculty
· Advising and Mentoring
· Teaching
· Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity
2. Assessment of Student Learning
· Program Learning Outcomes/Student Learning Outcomes
· Curriculum Map
· Student Assessment
· Student Achievement
Resources / 1. Facilities (classroom space, equipment)
2. Fiscal (budget review)
3. Technology Resources and Support
4. Library Resources and Information Literacy
Implementation
Plan / 1. External Consultants/Accreditation Review / Date of Review Visit______
Date of Review Report______
Date of Response to Review Report______
2. Implementation Action Plan

Note: Appendix 1 (Academic Program Review Signature Page) to accompany Appendix 2.

California State University, Stanislaus: Academic Program Review Self-Study Appendices 18

Appendix 3

California State University, Stanislaus

Graduate Assessment – DRAFT

Graduate Education Assessment: FAQs

Why do we need to assess student learning in graduate programs?

1. Going through the process of developing an assessment plan ensures that your program curriculum is logically designed and reflects the desired student learning outcomes.

2. Assessment data provides evidence that students are meeting faculty expectations for graduates of the program.

3. Assessment is required by WASC, disciplinary accreditation agencies, and for grants such as CEGE, in order to determine if students (or specific sub-groups of students) are meeting student learning outcomes.

What are the major steps for developing a graduate assessment plan (linked to APR Procedures)?

1. Program faculty decide on what they want students to learn (Section V-A).

2. Faculty identify the courses that emphasize the various learning outcomes (Section V-B).

3. Faculty identify one or more signature assignments that provide opportunities for students in the program to show their mastery of learning outcomes (Section V-D). Examples of signature assignments could include term papers, exams, projects, and theses.

(Note: Steps 1-3 are incorporated into the curriculum map- Section V-B)

4. Faculty develop rubrics for each signature assignment, to facilitate evaluation and comparison across courses or cohorts of students. Ideally, each of the program learning outcomes are included in one or more rubrics. (Section V-E)

5. Assignments are graded by course instructors (and/or additional reviewers). Students’ scores on signature assignments become the raw data for the direct assessment of student learning outcomes (Section V-D).

6. Data from the direct assessment of student learning (with additional data from indirect assessments, e.g. surveys) are used to evaluate the degree to which students are meeting program learning outcomes, and trends over time. Data are reported in annual reports and used for academic program reviews (Section IX).

Graduate Education: Assessment Plan

Over a decade ago, the Graduate Council was a leader in creating an assessment approach centered on student learning goals for graduate education and continues its commitment, as a collective governance body, to promoting and evaluating graduate program quality. The Graduate Council created university‐wide graduate student learning goals that link to the major discipline‐specific program learning outcomes unique to each graduate program (drafted 1999; approved in 2000). Since that time, the Graduate School has employed various assessment methods for collecting information that has assisted the Graduate Council in its consideration of the quality of graduate programs (see Table 1). These methods collectively contribute to answering the important question of the degree to which our graduate programs achieve their shared goal of educating graduates.

The assessment methods described in the Academic Program Review procedures are aligned with and complement the assessment methods used by individual graduate programs. Most importantly, the assessment strategies adhere to the University’s Principles for the Assessment of Student Learning (2004) which defines the role of assessment within the institution.

The Graduate Council recognizes the complexity of assessment and the significance of designing methods that are multidimensional, meaningful, and oriented toward program improvement and enhanced student learning. Further, the Graduate Council subscribes to the philosophical conviction that the quality of teaching is inextricably connected to the quality of student learning. Thus, while recognizing the importance of student learning outcomes as an important component of program assessment, the Graduate Council avoids reliance on this measure alone as it engages in a critical, comprehensive analysis of the quality of our graduate programs and our graduate students’ academic achievement.

Graduate Student Learning Goals

The six overall graduate student learning goals follow. Students will demonstrate…

1. advanced knowledge, skills, and values appropriate to the discipline.

2. ability to be creative, analytical, and critical thinkers.

3. ability to work as individual researchers/scholars as well as in collaboration with others in contributing to the scholarship of their disciplines, as appropriate.

4. relevant knowledge of the global perspectives appropriate to the discipline.

5. knowledge of new and various methods and technologies as appropriate to the discipline.

6. advanced oral and written communication skills, complemented, as appropriate to the discipline, by the ability to access and analyze information from a myriad of primary, print, and technological sources.

Table 1 displays the alignment between the graduate student learning goals and methods of assessment (both direct and indirect methods).

Table 1

Alignment of Graduate Student Learning Goals and University-Wide Assessment Methods

Graduate Student Learning Goals / Assessment Methods
Academic Program Review / Accreditation / *Admission Examinations / *Culminating Experience: Thesis, Project, Comp Exam / External Consultants / Grade Point Average / *Student Scholarship / Student Awards and Honors / Graduate School Exit Survey / Graduate Alumni Survey / IDEA Course Evaluations / Graduate National Survey of Student Engagement / Graduate Faculty Survey of Student Engagement / Program Approval Processes
1. Advanced knowledge, skills, values / X / X / x / x / X / x / x / x / x / X
2. Creative, analytical, critical thinking / X / X / x / x / X / x / x / x / x / X / X / X
3. Individual and collaborative scholarship / X / X / x / X / x / x / X / x / x / x / X
4. Global perspectives / X / X / x / X / x / x / x / x / X / X / X
5. Methods and technologies / X / X / x / X / x / x / x / x / X
6. Communication skills; source analysis / X / X / x / x / X / x / x / X / x / x / x / X / X / X

*Direct methods. Table excerpted from the CSU Stanislaus Graduate Assessment Plan (2009).

The three levels of student learning assessment at CSU Stanislaus are institution-level, program-level, and course-level. Institution-level graduate learning goals provide a structure for institution-wide learning outcomes assessment. These aims, stated in the graduate student learning goals, collectively specify that all graduate students, regardless of what program they pursue, will be taught and assessed in the knowledge, skills and dispositions defined in these aims.

Table 2 illustrates the way in which graduate learning goals could be used as the “anchor” in an alignment process, whereby program learning outcomes are listed and aligned with graduate learning goals. Similarly, courses that fulfill these learning outcomes are also listed and therefore in alignment with the graduate learning goals. An assessment conducted in a course contributes to determining the level of student competency in the program and towards achieving the graduate learning goals.

Table 2

Alignment of Graduate Student Learning Goals, Program Learning Outcomes, and Courses

Graduate Learning Goals / Advanced knowledge, skills, and values / Creative, analytical, and critical thinkers. / Researcher/ Scholar / Global Perspectives / Knowledge of new and various methods and technologies / Advanced oral and written communication /information literacy
Program Learning Outcomes / e.g., PLO 1 / PLO 3 / PLO 2,4 / PLO 5 / PLO 1,5 / PLO 6
Courses / e.g., Course X / Course Y / Course Z / Course A / Course B / Course C

Graduate Council: Reviewing and Reporting on Graduate Assessment Results

Graduate Council reviews all graduate-level APRs. Information is collected from the programs on student achievement on the six learning goals.

Adapted from Draft Institutional Plan for the Assessment of Graduate Programs (2012).

California State University, Stanislaus: Academic Program Review Self-Study Appendices 18

Appendix 4

California State University, Stanislaus

Academic Program Review Timeline

TARGET DATE / YEAR 6 ACTIVITY
By February 1 / AVP (Academic Affairs) notifies college deans and department chairs/program administrators the programs to be reviewed two years prior to the completion date of the self study, recommendations, and implementation plan.
By March 1 / Department chair/program administrator request from the college dean that the program be subject to an external evaluation. An external consultant to be invited to assist in the self-study phase of the academic program review process.
By March 15 / AVP (Academic Affairs) conducts a program review workshop(s) with department chairs/program administrators and program faculty to discuss the academic program review process and discuss data provided by institutional research, as required for the academic program review.
March 16 – May 29 / Department chair and dean identify process and timeline for milestones for completion and identify/arrange for external reviewers (as appropriate).
March 16 – May 29 / Program faculty and department chair begin draft review of data and begin draft of self study.
March 16 (Year 6) – February 1 (Year 7) / Program faculty and department chair conduct the self study and complete the self-study document, including recommendations and a preliminary implementation plan.
TARGET DATE / YEAR 7 ACTIVITY
By February 1 / Department chair/program administrator submits the self study and supporting materials to the college dean.
February 1 – 27 / College dean submits self study to external reviewers (as appropriate).
February 15 – April 30 / College governance committee(s) reviews the self study, requests additional materials as needed, summarizes findings, and forwards the self study to the department chair/program administrator.
February 15 – April 30 / General Education Subcommittee reviews the General Education portion of the self study; evaluates according to CSU Stanislaus’ articulated General Education program goals, objectives, and criteria; and forwards summary/findings to the department chair/program administrator for inclusion with the final self-study report.
By April 30 / College dean forwards the self study to the Office of Academic Programs.
By April 30 / Office of Academic Programs forwards the self study to the UEPC (if requested) and/or to the Graduate Council (for master’s and post-baccalaureate programs).
April 30 – May 29 / UEPC and/or Graduate Council (as appropriate) reviews the self study, summarizes the findings, and forwards the document and findings to the department chair/program administrator and college dean.
May 29 – June 30 / College dean finalizes self study to include recommendations from external reviewer(s) (if applicable); responses from the department (if any); recommendations from the college governance committee(s), UEPC, and/or Graduate Council; and dean’s recommendation for program continuance, continuance with conditions, or program discontinuance.
By June 30 / College dean submits to the AVP the self study; recommendations from external reviewer(s) (if applicable); responses from the department (if any); recommendations from the college governance committee(s), UEPC, and/or Graduate Council; and dean’s recommendation for program continuance, continuance with conditions, or program discontinuance.
TARGET DATE / YEAR 7 ACTIVITY continued
September – October / Office of Academic Programs schedules a meeting to include the program representative(s), the department chair/program administrator, the college dean, the AVP, and the provost to discuss the results of the academic program review and the preliminary implementation plan.
October – November / Department chair/program administrator submits to the college dean a final implementation plan that identifies resource needs consistent with the recommendations of reviewing committees and consistent with the college mission and strategic plan. Within three weeks, the college dean submits the final implementation plan to the AVP.
By December 1 / Provost issues a letter indicating final determination of program continuance and additionally may require progress reports and a timeline related to specific elements of the final implementation plan.
By December 15 / Office of Academic Programs archives the academic program review documents and posts on the web (program faculty’s final implementation plan and provost’s recommendation for program continuance/discontinuance).
By January 15 / AVP provides a summary of academic program reviews to the Board of Trustees.
ONGOING / College dean incorporates the results of the academic program review into the college’s strategic and budget planning processes and forwards to the provost as part of the regular planning and budgetary processes within academic affairs and within the university’s strategic planning processes.
Department chair/program administrator submits annual reports (due September) based on program review implementation plan to college dean.
ACCREDITED PROGRAMS / Accredited programs will follow the applicable timeline steps as they apply to the accrediting agency’s due date and timeline for the program’s self study.
After completion of the accreditation review, and upon receipt of the accrediting agency’s determination letter, the Department chair/program administrator requests of the college dean a substitution for the academic program review document.
College dean determines whether the accreditation review process fulfills all or a portion of the academic program review in accordance with any CSU or CSU Stanislaus mandated requirements and communicates decision to the department chair/program administrator. College dean submits completed substitution for the academic program review documents to the Office of Accreditation.
Office of Accreditation schedules a meeting to include the program representative(s), the department chair/program administrator, the college dean, the AVP, and the provost to discuss the results of the accreditation self study and the recommendations. If periodic reporting is not required by the accrediting agency, an implementation plan will be developed for the university’s annual reporting process.

California State University, Stanislaus: Academic Program Review Self-Study Appendices 18