Cal Poly Academic Program Review (APR) for Graduate Programs
Revised December 14, 2005

Guidance for Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and Faculty

Purpose

First and foremost, the purpose of academic program review (APR) at Cal Poly is to acknowledge the strengths and seek ways of further enhancing the quality of academic programs. APR provides an opportunity for us all to make better, more informed decisions, leading (it is hoped) to program improvement.

The review of academic programs is mandated by the CSU and is expected by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), our regional accrediting agency.

Features

• APR is intended to be a collaborative process involving the department, the college, qualified reviewers, and the Office of Academic Programs. It is intended to be formative and to lead to program improvement. It is not intended to be punitive in its consequences.

• The entire APR process takes place over a two year period, and is normally repeated every six years. See calendar.

• APR is timed to coincide with an external accreditation review whenever applicable. The self-study and everything else that is part of the accreditation review are automatically included in the dossier for APR. The program is generally asked to address additional items that are of interest within the university but not necessarily to the accrediting team.

• In the absence of a concurrent accreditation review, at least two external reviewers and one internal reviewer are preferred for a graduate program review, although a single external reviewer plus one internal reviewer may suffice when a small program is under scrutiny. There may be an advantage to utilizing the same team of reviewers to conduct simultaneous reviews of undergraduate and graduate programs in a particular discipline or field. When there is an external accreditation team, one internal reviewer is appointed. See guidelines for appointment of reviewers.

• Programs are strongly encouraged to involve their faculty in all stages of APR, including design of the self-study. The Program Head/Chair, the Dean, the Dean of Research and Graduate Programs, and the Vice Provost all sign off on the self-study proposal and the time-line for its preparation. See guidelines for self-studies.

• Following a 1-2 day site visit, the review team submits a written report (which may be the report submitted by an accreditation team along with supplementary material addressing issues/concerns of university interest).

• The Program Head/Chair prepares a response to the reviewers' report.
  
• A working meeting is held to assist in the development of an action plan for the program, typically involving the Department Head/Chair, the faculty members, the Deans (or designees), the Vice Provost (or designee), and one or more Faculty Associates with responsibilities relating to APR, learning outcomes assessment, etc.
  
• The action plan is completed and submitted via the Dean and Dean of Research and Graduate Programs to the Vice Provost, who then approves the plan.
  
• The Department Head/Chair reports annually via the Dean and Dean of Research and Graduate Programs to the Vice Provost on implementation of the action plan and resulting outcomes.

Back to top

Time-Line

• With the Vice Provost's approval, target dates may be adjusted to be consistent with dates set by an external accreditation agency (where applicable) or for other reasons.
• Some events may occur concurrently.

Back to top

Further Reading

Task Force on Institutional Accountability and Learning Assessment, Report on Institutional Accountability: Academic Program Review, Nov 21, 2000. (This 11 page document laid the foundation for the current review process.)

Senate Resolution on Academic Program Review AS-552-00/IALA (In addition to adopting the Task Force Report, this resolution provides rationale and background information.)

For More Information

Contact Valene Mathews in the Office of Academic Programs.