CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA
ACADEMIC SENATE
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
REPORT TO
THE ACADEMIC SENATE
AP-007-023
Program Assessment of General Education
Academic Programs Committee Date:
Steering Committee
Received and Forwarded Date: 5/7/03
Academic Senate Date: 7/23/03
First Reading
9/24/03
Second Reading
Background
The WASC team believes the campus should have guidelines or a policy statement governing the administration of assessment of the GE program. They suggest the formation of an ad hoc committee to work on this policy. The committee has worked with the GE committee and some of the members overlap with the WASC team.
Resources Consulted:
DD Wills, Elhami Ibrahim, Bill Girouard
Discussion
During the last visit by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Cal Poly Pomona was in the process of phasing out its old GE program and starting the process of phasing in the new GE program. Because of several concerns raised during the last accreditation evaluation, WASC scheduled a return visit for October, 2003. During the interim the accreditation criteria used by WASC changed from a ‘standards’ based criteria to a ‘theme’ based criteria that is supposed to be supported by some type of assessment. The campus WASC visitation committee felt that it would be a positive thing for the campus to develop guidelines or a policy statement governing the administration of assessment of the General Education program before the WASC Special Visit. The goal is to avoid a second special visit and all that it entails.
The devising and implementing of an assessment policy is clearly the responsibility of the Academic Senate. Initially, it was suggested that the GR Committee set up the assessment policy and do the assessment but there is a clear conflict of interest with this protocol. This would make the GE Committee the designer, implementer, and evaluator of GE. The Campus WASC Visit Committee has been working with a subcommittee of the Senate’s GE Committee concerning the new GE track. It is clearly undesirable to repeat work already done. And since it is known that GE is one of the topics specified by WASC as requiring further examination at the time of the Special Visit, something needs to be done. While, as Ben Franklin has said, “Twice done is well done,” it is also true that twice done involves a bit of wasted effort.
The solution, at least for the near term, is the appointment of an ad hoc Committee on GE Assessment. Because of the wide interest on campus concerning GE, it is recommended that every college have one representative on this committee, that there be one of two representatives from both the WASC Special Visit Committee and the Senate’s GE Committee, a representative from the Dean’s council, and the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs. In order to speed the Committee on its task, it is recommended that the Associate Vice President call the first meeting at which time a faculty member will be selected to be committee chair.
Second, it should be noted that the WASC Special Visit Committee has proposed the following GE Assessment Guidelines:
GE Program Assessment Referral
1)General propositions
a)GE program assessment should be distinct from other program assessment, until such time as the Academic Senate and Academic Programs Office devise means of cohering all program assessments,
b)an ad hoc committee should be charged with this responsibility, including some of the GE course authors who conducted assessments of undergraduate GE courses.
2)Program goals
When students complete the general education program at Cal Poly Pomona, they should be able to:
a)Communicate in English clearly and effectively orally and in writing.
b)Analyze and respond to contemporary problems and issues critically and thoughtfully.
c)Explain basic principles and contemporary issues in mathematics, natural sciences, humanities and the social sciences.
d)Integrate, apply and synthesize their knowledge in the preceding areas.
e)Articulate and implement plans for their further self-development.
3)Assessment activities
To achieve the preceding goals, students in general education courses should engage in at least one of the following activities for each synthesis course they take:
a)Complete an online opinion survey related to their experience in the general education program.
b)Develop a portfolio of materials to demonstrate their achievement of the general education program goals.
c)Respond to embedded exam questions that demonstrate their achievement of the general education program goals.
d)Participate in a focus group related to their experience in general education.
4)Assessment implementation
To develop and implement the plan, we might recommend the following steps:
a)Form an ad hoc Academic Senate committee of not more than five faculty members and two students charged with carrying out the rest of the steps and devising a timeline for doing so.
b)Develop, in consultation with faculty and students, a brief online survey and focus group questions (see above).
c)Develop, in consultation with faculty and students, a model portfolio that could serve as the basis for actual student portfolios under the direction of a general education synthesis course instructor.
d)Develop, in consultation with faculty, several model embedded exam questions that could serve as the basis for faculty development of actual exam questions to assess general education program goals.
e)Solicit a small cadre of faculty teaching general education synthesis courses to pilot test the preceding materials.
f)Collect and analyze the results in accordance with previously approved Academic Senate guidelines and principles for program assessment at Cal Poly Pomona.
g)Report on project results to interested parties.
The second recommendation is that this ad hoc Committee review the guidelines above and either accept of modify them. Whatever the Committee’s decision, the Committee should report to the Senate and the campus what criteria it proposes using for GE Assessment. Once this criteria is approved by the Senate, the Committee should propose a mechanism for implementing the Assessment.
Recommendations
1.That the Senate Steering Committee appoint an ad hoc Committee of GE Assessment composed of a representative of every college, one of two representatives from the WASC Special Visit Committee, two representatives from the Senate’s GE Committee, a representative from the Dean’s council, and the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs. The Associate Vice President shall call the first meeting at which time a faculty member will be selected to be committee chair.
2.The Committee’s first task is to propose Guidelines for GE Assessment before the actual assessment process begins. The ad hoc Committee will report to the Senate and the campus what criteria it proposes using for GE Assessment. Once the Senate approves this criterion, the Committee should propose a mechanism for implementing the Assessment.
3.After the GE Program Criteria has be accepted by the Senate, the ad hoc Committee will oversee the first assessment cycle of GE and report back to the Senate.
Cal Poly Pomona
A Guide to Program Assessment and
Academic Program Review
Revised - Spring 2003
Office of Academic Programs
Division of Academic Affairs
Table of Contents
Topic Page
Acknowledgement iii
Preface iv
Section 1
Introduction 1
Purposes of Program Assessment and Academic Program Review (APR) 1
General principles 1
Interaction with WASC accreditation and discipline-specific accreditation 2
Comparison / contrast of Academic Program Review and Program Assessment 3
Contact information 3
Section 2
General timeline 4
Section 3
Accreditation 7
Section 4
Guidelines and procedures for program assessment in lieu of one cycle of APR 8
Background and general guidelines 8
General procedures 9
Suggested assessment plan outline 10
Preparing for the external review 12
Section 5
Guidelines and procedures for Academic Program Review 14
Procedures 14
Guidelines for Program Self-Study 17
Guidelines for External Review 19
Appendix 1
Academic Plan 2003-04 through 2008-09 21
Appendix2
Assessment and Program Review Response matrix 24
Acknowledgement
This guide was compiled by Bob Hurt, Faculty Associate for Assessment and Program Review, based on materials contained in the previous edition of the Cal Poly Pomona Curriculum Guide and approved recommendations of the Academic Senate contained in AS-999-967/AP, Academic Program Review Process and AS-1118-990/AP, Student Learning Outcomes Assessment in Lieu of Program Review.
David Caffey, Vinita Dhingra, and Dorothy Wills contributed also to the development of this guide.
Preface
Academic Program Review, Assessment,
and Accreditation
Cal Poly Pomona (CPP) and the California State University (CSU) have long-standing policies concerning Academic Program Review. The policy requires that every academic program, including General Education, undergo some type of self-study and external review every five to seven years. The policy is both flexible and evolving. Many academic programs have national boards that accredit either the specific discipline or the entire field. Examples of the former are the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) that accredits an Art program while examples of the latter are ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) which accredits the entire College of Engineering and Computer Science programs. Most accrediting agencies have stricter requirements for renewal of accreditation than the CSU requirements for program review. Therefore, the campus allows the Accreditation Review, with its implied assessment and external review, to be done in place of an Academic Program Review.
Currently the requirements for Academic Program Review are undergoing a metamorphosis. The idea of ‘program assessment’ as an integral part of Program Review is now gaining momentum. New evolving requirements for accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges are encouraging this trend. Recognizing this emerging trend, the Office of Academic Programs sought approval in AY 1999/2000 from the Academic Senate and President Suzuki to allow an academic program to skip one cycle of program review if a program would initiate a program of continuous assessment (President Approved Academic Senate Referral AS-1118-990/AP - (effective June-2000). Programs that took advantage of this one-time waiver are expected to include the results of continuous program assessment in all future program reviews.
These inter-related policies are spelled out in this guide. General Education Program Review and Assessment, is the subject of a separate referral to the Academic Senate. When that policy is approved, it will be placed in a separate section to be added to this guide.
It should be stressed that assessment as it is used in these next four appendices means program assessment. It is not course assessment in either a content or pedagogical sense, although it is assumed that any program assessment will ask whether the material in every particular course is necessary, and if necessary, is this material being mastered. Assessment as it is used in these appendices is not faculty assessment. The requirements for the evaluation of faculty are covered by an existing contract between the faculty and the CSU.
1
Section 1
Introduction
Purposes of Program Assessment and Academic Program Review
The purpose of academic program review (APR) is to encourage excellence in the instructional program. Specific goals include:
reviewing and, as needed, suggesting improvements in the following:
- curriculum of the program
- instruction in the program
- student advising
- faculty participation in research, scholarship, and creative activity
- faculty service to the University
- cooperation with other academic programs on campus
attending to issues of diversity and campus climate
assessing student learning in the program for the purpose of program improvement
reviewing the use of resources and facilities, and identifying needs for additional resources
charting new directions for the program and the department
Programs have the option, based on Academic Senate policy, to develop a 5-year program assessment plan in lieu of one cycle of academic program review. The specific procedures for such an election are outlined later in this document. In general, though, the purposes of program assessment parallel those of academic program review. The core purpose of program assessment is to assure faculty that the academic program being reviewed meets their needs, as well as those of students, alumni, graduate programs, and employers. Program assessment is about giving faculty the information to improve academic programs—to make them more valuable and attractive to all those constituents. Programs that develop such an assessment plan are expected to incorporate its results as a key component in future academic program reviews.
General principles
Although the detailed content of an academic program review or program assessment plan may vary slightly between programs, certain key constituents’ ideas, feedback and opinions cut across disciplinary lines.
Most importantly, the review / plan must be a product of the program faculty. They are in the best position to raise and respond to the significant strategic and operational questions raised by the review. They are also in the best position to use the results to improve the overall program.
Students and graduates participate actively in the program review process by providing comments and other information for use in the self-study and by the external reviewers.
External reviewers, as recognized experts in the field, are consulted to provide critical judgment, to ensure the objectivity of the process, and to determine how the program compares to others in the region or nation.
Participation of the Academic Senate, and its Academic Programs Committee, is an integral part of the academic program review process. Additionally, the College Dean and the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs should be consulted frequently and informed regularly as to the project’s progress and results.
The program review process is forward-looking and provides for follow-up. Each step of the process generates Suggestions for Action. These suggestions should include actions that can be accomplished by the department with existing funds and resources, as well as actions that may require additional funding or resources. The Suggestions for Action resulting from program reviews / program assessment plans are considered in departmental budget requests and in the Five-year Strategic Plans developed and updated annually by departments, schools, and colleges. These Five-year Strategic Plans are to be used in budget requests and decisions.
Interaction with WASC accreditation and discipline-specific accreditation
The 2001 WASC Handbook of Accreditation focuses on four standards, each of which has implications for academic program review and assessment.
- Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives. Both academic program reviews and program assessment plans require the program faculty to examine its objectives and purpose for being. A clear statement of purpose will help the program faculty critically examine courses, faculty needs and expertise, and resource allocation issues.
- Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions. Program faculty attain their objectives by balancing teaching & learning, scholarship & creative activity, and support for student learning. The program review process promotes faculty dialogue about those core functions.
- Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability. Sound investments in human, technological, physical and fiscal resources are key in helping the faculty achieve the program’s objectives. The review process affords faculty the opportunity to examine their resource needs holistically, in both the long- and short-term.
- Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement. The results of program review and assessment help the faculty create a “culture of evidence” with regard to the accomplishment of objectives. Such results can inform future planning processes.
Discipline-specific accreditation standards, such as those provided by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the National Architectural Accrediting Board, echo the need for faculty to examine their programs thoughtfully with an eye toward maintaining excellence. At Cal Poly Pomona, academic program reviews often are scheduled to coincide with reports and / or visits from discipline accrediting bodies, so as to avoid duplication of faculty effort in report preparation.
Comparison / contrast of Program Assessment and Academic Program Review
The fundamental purpose of Program Assessment and Academic Program Review is the same: to provide faculty the data and information they need to ensure their programs are responsive to the needs of various stakeholder groups. Additionally, both APR self-studies and program assessment plans must involve an outside review component; the guidelines and processes for the outside review are discussed later in this document. Further, the program faculty must be intimately involved in both APR and program assessment throughout the process to ensure that results are reflective of the faculty as a whole, rather than the opinions of a single individual or small group of individuals within an academic program.
Program assessment tries to answer the fundamental question of whether the program offers the material expected to be mastered by any student finishing the program and whether the student did indeed master this body of knowledge. These program assessments are typically multi-pronged strategies that may include things like alumni surveys, employer surveys, or the quality of student portfolios. While program assessment results can and should be included in an academic program review, the scope and content of APR is broader than a program assessment plan. Additionally, whereas APR reports have a specific format (explained later in this guidebook), program assessment plans are as varied as the faculty who develop them. Certainly, some common themes and elements transcend individual program assessment plans; but, faculty have considerable discretion in putting together plans to assess their academic programs.
Contact information
For more information and resources, please contact the Office of Academic Programs via e-mail at Elhami Ibrahim <> – phone ext. 3329 or Lucy Carreras at <>– phone ext. 3330