A campus of The California
State University
Office of the Academic
Senate • One Washington Square • San Jose, California 95192-0024 •408-924-2440 Fax: 408-924-2451
SS-F06-2
At its meeting of
November 20, 2006, the Academic Senate passed the following Sense of the Senate
Resolution presented by Senator David for the Curriculum and Research Committee.
SENSE OF THE SENATE
RESOLUTION
In Support of Revised Program Planning
Guidelines
Whereas: Program
planning which is evidence-based and future-oriented is essential in order to
align program goals and objectives with assessment of student learning
outcomes, student recruitment and retention efforts, faculty hiring,
interaction with the community, and resource allocation; and
Whereas: Program planning is most useful when
the process is completed within a single
academic
year so that results are available on a timely basis and is informed by
systematic data collected from multiple sources; and
Whereas: Current
program planning guidelines were revised and streamlined in response to new
university, college, and department visions, goals, and objectives;
therefore
be it
Resolved: That
the following document, “Program Planning Guidelines” be endorsed by the
Academic
Senate; and be it further
Resolved: That
the Program Planning Committee collect data from programs using the new
guidelines
and use that input to review and, as necessary, revise the guidelines and
report to the Curriculum and Research Committee during the 2009-2010 Academic
Year.
Approved: October
16, 2006
Present: Peter Buzanski, Toni Campbell,
Robert Cooper, Debra David,
Triant Flouris, Benjamin Henderson, Michael Kaufman, Dea
Nelson, Pam
Stacks, Dominique Van Hooff, Beth Von Till
Absent: Bill Nance
Vote: 11
0-0
Financial Impact:
None
Workload Impact: It
is expected to reduce workload
related to program planning.
San Jose State University
Program Planning Guidelines
AUTHORITY............................................................................................................................... 1
MOTIVATION FOR REVISED POLICY AND GUIDELINES.................................................. 1
PROGRAM PLANNING GOALS.............................................................................................. 1
PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS.......................................................................................... 1
Program Planning for Accredited Programs................................................................................ 3
Primary Steps in Program Planning............................................................................................. 3
Program Planning Procedures.................................................................................................... 5
Program Coordinators........................................................................................................... 5
Undergraduate Programs with More than 120 Units............................................................... 5
Standardized Data and Required Data Elements..................................................................... 6
Role of the Liaison................................................................................................................. 6
Responsibility for Self-Study.................................................................................................. 6
External Reviewers................................................................................................................ 6
Departmental Review and Response...................................................................................... 8
College Curriculum or Other Review Committee's Report...................................................... 8
Dean's Report....................................................................................................................... 8
Program Planning Committee Report..................................................................................... 9
Final Decisions...................................................................................................................... 9
Format of the Self Study.............................................................................................. 9
Accredited Programs................................................................................................................. 9
SECTIONS OF THE SELF STUDY.......................................................................................... 10
Title Page:............................................................................................................................... 10
Table of Contents:................................................................................................................... 10
1. Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 10
2. Context and Scope.............................................................................................................. 11
3. Curriculum and Achievement of Student Learning Outcomes................................................ 11
4. Students.............................................................................................................................. 12
5. Faculty................................................................................................................................ 13
6. Resources........................................................................................................................... 14
Self Study Appendices............................................................................................................ 14
Further Details on Preparing the Self Study................................................... 15
Table 3. Materials Gathered by Coordinators........................................................................... 16
Program Planning Guidelines Appendices.......................................................... 16
Appendix 1: Required Data Elements....................................................................................... 17
Appendix 2: Program Review Schedule................................................................................... 19
Appendix 3: Sample Cover Page for Self-Study Report........................................................... 20
Appendix 4: Five-Year Plan for Faculty Recruitment................................................................ 21
Appendix 5: External Reviewer................................................................................................ 25
Appendix 6: Department Program Planning Checklist............................................................... 28
These guidelines are published pursuant to University Policy S94-2, "Organization of
the Program Planning Process at SJSU", as amended by S96-10,
"Program Planning Process" and F03-4, “Coordination of
External Accreditation with Program Planning.” Policy statements shall prevail
in case of any conflict with these guidelines. These Guidelines are guided by
University Policy S93-14
"Curricular Priorities."
These revised guidelines are designed to enhance and streamline the current
Program Planning Process to foster more effective assessment and planning and
to ensure that the effort leads to maximum payoff. There are two key changes in these guidelines. (1) The timeline is shorter. The preparation of the self study is expected
to be completed in a single academic year (9 months). The external review and internal processing
of the self study is expected to be completed in a second academic year. (2) A more focused self study with a strict
page limit is defined around a set of required data elements, many of which
will be supplied to the department at the beginning of the process.
The three key goals of the Program Planning process are:
1)
To promote a continuous internal review and planning
process that will provide programs with purposeful future direction.
2)
To serve as a vehicle to help programs support the
mission of
the university, college, and department.
3) To
provide an opportunity for programs to systematically assess their course
offerings, achievement of student learning outcomes, and the faculty and
instructional resources necessary for providing an excellent educational
experience to students.
Program planning is
evidence-based and future-oriented; program goals and objectives should guide
assessment of student learning outcomes, faculty hiring, student recruitment
and retention efforts, and interaction with the community. Program planning and
evaluation involve faculty at the department, college, and university levels
and culminate with the Provost's approval of clearly articulated goals and a
corresponding framework for resource management. Typical questions to bear in
mind include:
·
What changes in career opportunities,
professional practice, technology, or other relevant discipline characteristics
are students completing this program likely to face five years from now?
·
What changes are expected in the characteristics
or academic backgrounds of students coming into the program five years from
now?
·
What changes in the curriculum (e.g., for
lifelong learning, good citizenship, living in a complex, multicultural
society, etc.) should be in effect five years from now to better prepare
students?
·
What alternative modes of instructional delivery
will best help students achieve program outcomes?
·
What faculty recruitment and development
opportunities are needed during the next five years to support the program?
·
What changes in support resources (e.g., staff,
equipment, infrastructure, travel funds, etc.) are needed to maintain or change
the program quality, size, and achievement of student learning outcomes in the
next five years?
Evidence gathered from student outcomes assessment
should inform both curricular and resource decisions.
The unit of analysis is the program, defined as a sequence of studies
leading to a degree or teaching credential. Whenever separate descriptions are
provided in the University catalog for similar sequences of study, they are
treated as different programs to be reviewed. Concentrations are considered to
be specialized variants of a more general field, are reviewed as separate
programs, and may have different final decisions. Teacher education programs
meeting the requirements of the California Commission on Teacher Credential
(CCTC) are reviewed as programs. Minors, options, and emphases are reviewed
with the degree or program to which they most closely relate.
One or more external experts in the discipline will review the self-study,
visit the campus, and provide observations and recommendations in a written
report. After program faculty have had an opportunity to respond to the report
in writing, the college curriculum or other review committee and the dean, who
offer college-wide perspectives on the program, review all relevant documents.
The college committee and the dean provide written responses to the self study
and external review and recommend actions stated in Section V(A) of University
Policy S96-10 namely, (i) acceptance of the plan without modification, (ii)
provisional acceptance of the plan with suggestions for improvement and/or
requests for additional information, (iii) rejection of the plan for explicit
reasons, or (iv) initiation of program termination review for specific reasons.
These documents are next reviewed by the University Program Planning Committee
(PPC), which provides a university-wide perspective on the program and makes
recommendations to the Provost. The Provost (or the Provost’s designee), dean
and department chair (or other faculty member designated for this purpose) will discuss program recommendations and
plans. This will lead to an administrative planning document that will be kept
in the Program Planning files, and also in program and college files. It is expected that programs and colleges will
refer to this administrative planning document and any amendments made to it
when requesting faculty positions, proposing major curricular actions, or
initiating other major changes in program activity.
The Office of Undergraduate Studies will be the official site of records and
is responsible for electronic distribution to concerned entitities.
In accordance with University Policy F03-4, the Program Planning
Committee (PPC) coordinates the timing of program reviews with those of
external accreditation agencies. Programs normally are scheduled for review
once every five academic years except for programs that have an accreditation
cycle that is other than five years.
According to University Policy F03-4, the program planning cycle for
accredited programs will be coordinated with accreditation cycles up to seven
years in length. If the accreditation
cycle is greater than seven years, then there will be one program planning
cycle between successive accreditation cycles.
For departments in which only some of the degree programs are
accredited, the other programs will go through the program planning process at
the same time as the accredited programs. The format of the self study for
accredited programs is discussed later in these guidelines.
The primary steps and timeline in program planning are summarized in Table
1. The events of the external reviewer
visit are summarized in Table 2.
|
Table 1.
Summary of Program Planning Timeline
|
|
Self-Study
Preparation Year
|
|
Events
|
Deadline date:
May occur at any
time before deadline
|
Primary
Responsible Party/Parties
|
|
Call issued for appointment of coordinators
for all programs to be reviewed during following academic year
|
Beginning of fall semester
|
Office of Undergraduate
Studies (UGS)
|
|
Initiate process to identify suitable
external reviewers for programs as paid consultants
|
Beginning of fall semester
|
Departments
|
|
Informational meeting held with department
program planning coordinators and department chairs to distribute guidelines
and identify liaisons for the program review
|
During September
(before October 1)
|
Program Planning Committee
(PPC)
|
|
University-provided data elements delivered
to the department
|
By October 1
|
UGS in consultation with
the Office of Institutional Research, Faculty Affairs and SJSU Foundation
|
|
Negotiated schedule (see Guidelines
Appendix 2) for major tasks of the review, signed by the Department Program
Planning Coordinator, Department Chair, Dean, and University PPC Liaison, to
be filed with the Office of Undergraduate Studies
|
Schedule approved by Dean
and forwarded to UGS by Nov. 15
|
Department Program Planning
Coordinator, University PPC Liaison,
and College Dean
|
|
Justification for unit
requirements in excess of 120 units approved by department and college
curriculum committees delivered to UGS for action by the Undergraduate
Studies Committee and the Curriculum and Research Committee
|
By November 1
|
Department and College
Dean's Office
|
|
Assemble all documents
needed to prepare self study
|
December 1
|
Department
|
|
Provide the vitae of three
External Reviewers to the College Dean (in the case of accreditation reviews,
this is handled by the accreditation agency).
|
April 1
|
Department
|
|
Completed self study due to
Dean for review and approval
|
May 1
|
Department
|
|
Forward to Undergraduate
Studies two copies of the approved self study (signed by College Dean) along
with an electronic copy and the Dean’s recommendation for an external
reviewer
|
May 15
|
Department and College Dean
|
|
Send approved self study to
the external reviewer.
|
July 1
|
Department
|
|
Program
Review Year
|
|
Confirm availability of
external reviewer and schedule visit with all concerned parties (Dean, Vice
Provost for Planning and Budget, AVP Undergraduate Studies, AVP Graduate
Studies and Research (if graduate program is involved), Director of
Assessment, and PPC liaison.
|
September 1
|
Department
|
|
External Reviewer Visit
|
By November 1
|
Department
|
|
External Review received (electronically)
by UGS and Department
|
By December 1
|
Reviewer
|
|
Response to External
Reviewer’s Report or memo saying that no response is required from the
department sent to College Dean and UGS (electronically)
|
By December 20
|
Department
|
|
College Committee Report
with endorsement of or addendum from the College Dean sent to UGS for
consideration by the PPC (hardcopy and electronically)
|
By March 15
|
College Dean
|
|
PPC report to Provost
|
By April 30
|
PPC
|
|
Department and Dean meet
with the Provost
|
Month of May
|
Provost’s Office
|
|
Table
2. Site Visit Schedule
|
|
Site Visit
by External Reviewer; meet with students, faculty, staff, administrators, and
other relevant constituencies
|
Late fall of academic year scheduled for completion of review
|
Department Program Planning Coordinator in consultation with the
Provost's Office and the Office of Undergraduate Studies
|
|
Initial
interview of External Reviewer with AVP for Undergraduate Studies and, where
appropriate, the AVP for Graduate Studies & Research
|
Early on
first day of Site Visit
|
Department
Program Planning Coordinator in consultation with the AVP’s
|
|
Exit
Meeting: External Reviewer presents initial findings/impressions to Provost;
AVP for Undergraduate Studies, AVP for Graduate Studies & Research (where
appropriate); college dean; department chair and faculty; PPC liaison;
University Director of Assessment; students majoring in program under review;
other relevant constituencies
|
At
conclusion of reviewer's Site Visit
|
Department
Program Planning Coordinator in consultation with the Provost's Office and
the Office of Undergraduate Studies
|
At the beginning of each fall semester, the Office of
Undergraduate Studies will call for appointment of coordinators for all
programs to be reviewed during that academic year and initiate consultation to
find suitable external reviewers to serve as paid consultants.
In September, the University PPC will hold an informational meeting with the
departmental program planning coordinators (and the chairs, if different from
the coordinators). At this meeting, the guidelines will be distributed, along
with the names of the liaison members of the PPC designated for each of the
programs to be reviewed.
By November 15, the program planning coordinators and liaisons, in
consultation with the College Dean, will file negotiated schedules for the
major tasks of program planning with the Office of Undergraduate Studies.
It is the responsibility of the coordinator to invite the PPC liaison to all
relevant meetings including exit interviews and college committee
deliberations.
If the department has undergraduate programs that require more than 120
units and does not intend to reduce the requirement to 120 units during the
program planning cycle, by November 1 the department will provide the
appropriate request materials to the Undergraduate Studies Committee, which
will make a recommendation on the request to the Curriculum and Research
Committee of the Academic Senate.
By October 1 the University will provide the department with the required
data elements that are available from the Office of Institutional Research,
Undergraduate Studies, Faculty Affairs and the SJSU Foundation (see Appendix
1). By December 1, the coordinator will
have completed collection of the required data elements to be provided by the
department and the college, with the exception of additional assessment data
that may be collected in the spring
Each program will be assigned a liaison from the University PPC. Liaisons
are responsible for tracking program planning as the process occurs in the
department, and for reporting to the PPC monthly on the progress made, and on
problems that may occur. Also, the liaison assists the department in
interpreting the guidelines and requirements of the program planning process.
The liaison usually prepares a draft of the final report on behalf on the PPC,
which is the basis for committee action and for the summary reports. The
liaison acts on behalf of the PPC and shall be invited to all relevant meetings
including exit interviews and college committee deliberations.
Although provisions are made for departments to name coordinators for
program planning purposes, department chairs have the ultimate responsibility
to ensure that all tasks necessary to develop a self-study are assigned. Chairs
are expected periodically to check on the progress made toward accomplishing
those tasks, making adjustments as needed. Typically, the self-study should be
completed and the external reviewer selected (see Appendix 5 and sections that
follow for further details) by May 15. The self-study should be placed into the
last section of a three-ring binder having the following dividers, in this
order: "Decisions", "Program Planning Committee",
"College Committee", "External Review and Responses", and
"Self-Study.” Additional material is added to the front of the binder as
planning progresses. Two copies of the completed self-study should be sent to
Undergraduate Studies. The College Dean
and the Department should also retain copies.
Selection
If the program is reviewed by an external accrediting
agency, the SJSU Office of Undergraduate Studies funds the accrediting team
visits. The departments are responsible, however, for making arrangements for
the visit of the team as directed by the accrediting agency. For all other
programs, the department normally recommends two to three external reviewers to
the Dean. The Dean sends his/her recommendations to the AVP of Undergraduate
Studies who is responsible for the final decision. (See Appendix 5 for
selection criteria, budget, and consultation procedures for selecting the
external reviewer.) Before the self-study is completed, the Provost's Office
will make arrangements for an appropriate external reviewer, including payment
of expenses and an honorarium.
Role
After the selection of the external reviewer by the Provost
(typically designated to the AVP of Undergraduate Studies), the department
confirms the external reviewer’s willingness to serve and sends an approved
copy of the self study to the external reviewer. The Office of Undergraduate
Studies will provide the external reviewer with a copy of these guidelines,
curricular priorities, a formal letter of invitation, and other relevant
additional information such as CSU system information, particularly for
reviewers who are not from a CSU campus. This material shall be sent at least
one month prior to the visit. The role of the external reviewer is to bring an
informed and dispassionate view to his/her evaluation of the plan as presented.
Does the plan respond to the assessment materials included in the report? Does
it flow reasonably out of the current condition of the program? Does it respond
to the university "Statement of Curricular Priorities"? Does it
recognize important trends in the discipline, both nationally and as they may
be reflected in the regional metropolitan area served by San
José State University?
Do the planned activities related to faculty, students, and community provide
measurable guidelines for the program for the next five years? Do they address
educational needs of the diverse community of which SJSU is a part? Clearly,
faculty in the program hope that they have achieved those objectives, but it is
the external reviewer's privilege and responsibility to evaluate that
achievement.
Site Visit.
During the site visit, the external reviewer should
meet students, faculty, staff, and administrators. A separate interview will be
held early on the first day with the AVP for Undergraduate Studies and, where
appropriate, the AVP for Graduate Studies. At the end of the visit, the
external reviewer is asked to present initial impressions and findings at an
"exit meeting", to which any party concerned is invited. Those
specifically invited shall include the Vice Provost, the AVP for Graduate
Studies and Research (if any graduate programs are under review), the AVP for
Undergraduate Studies, the college dean, the department chair, the faculty of
the department, the liaison member of the Program Planning Committee, the
University Director of Assessment, and students who are majoring in any of the
programs under review. Representatives from other areas of the University may
be asked to attend on request of the dean.
Reviewer's report.
The evaluation report
should be guided by information in Appendix 5, "Role of the external
reviewer.” It must include recommendations for change if the external
reviewer's evaluation finds that the plan is inadequate. Recommendations should
be based on comparison with other programs in institutions and communities that
are similar to SJSU. The length of the report should be appropriate to the
complexity of the plans and the external reviewer's assessment of their
contribution to the quality of the program(s) during the next five years. The
format of the report is left to the external reviewer's discretion. Three
possible organizations are: (a) subdivide the report into sections representing
curriculum, faculty, students, non-faculty resources, and community
interaction, (b) subdivide the report in the same fashion as the self-study, or
(c) subdivide the report into responses to specific recommendations for the
next five years as summarized in the Executive Summary.
The external reviewer's report should be submitted to the
Office of Undergraduate Studies within three weeks after completion of the
site visit, and no later than December 1. The Office of Undergraduate Studies
will then distribute the report to the dean, department chair, department program
planning coordinator, University Program Planning Committee liaison, and the
Office of Graduate Studies, where appropriate.
Within three weeks after receipt of the external reviewer's report and no
later than December 20, the department program planning coordinator reviews the
report and forwards the report, along with any response, to the college
curriculum or other review committee. The department program planning
coordinator sends a copy of any departmental response to the external
reviewer’s report to the Office of Undergraduate Studies and the University Program
Planning Committee liaison.
Upon receipt of these materials from the department program planning
coordinator, the college committee prepares a written report, commenting on the
self-study from a college-wide perspective, and recommending one of the actions
stated in Section V(A) of University Policy S96-10 namely, (i) acceptance of
the plan without modification, (ii) provisional acceptance of the plan with
suggestions for improvement and/or requests for additional information, (iii)
rejection of the plan for explicit reasons, or (iv) initiation of program
termination review for specific reasons. The report is thereafter provided to
the department, the dean, the Office of Undergraduate Studies, and the
University Program Planning Committee liaison, and is due in sufficient time
that the dean can endorse the report or add additional comments by March 15.
The college committee report will be placed in the "College
Review" section of the binder. Disposition
of the binder depends on the committee's recommended action. If the committee
recommends action (i), (iii), or (iv) above, the binder is sent to the college
dean's office; if the committee, recommends action (ii), the binder is returned
to the department for insertion of the additional information (this action
extends the timeline and requires modification to schedule). When a binder is
returned to the department for additional information, the department places
the additional information in the "Self-Study" section of the binder
and also places a memorandum in the "College Review" section of the
binder that references the additional information that has been provided.
After reviewing all relevant documents, the dean either accepts the College
Committee report or adds an addendum and submits the report to the Office of
Undergraduate Studies, and University Program Planning Committee liaison, with
copies of any addenda to the department chair, department program planning
coordinator. The dean’s approval or
addenda should be received by March 15.
The Office of Undergraduate Studies notifies the Program Planning Committee
that the binder is available for review. Within one month, the liaison member of
the Program Planning Committee reviews the binder and makes a presentation
which may include a draft report to the full committee about the program plan,
including observations made while working with the department coordinator and
after attending the external reviewer's exit meeting and the college committee
meeting. After discussion, the liaison member drafts (or revises) a final
report, which the Committee may adopt with or without modifications as
appropriate. The final actions of the PPC are reported to the Provost prior to
April 1.
The PPC may recommend several actions to the Provost as stated in Section
V(A) of University Policy S96-10
namely, (i) acceptance of the plan without modification, (ii) provisional
acceptance of the plan with suggestions for improvement and/or requests for
additional information, (iii) rejection of the plan for explicit reasons, or
(iv) initiation of program termination review for specific reasons.
The Provost (or
designee) will schedule a meeting with the Chair/Director and the Dean, and
other administrators as needed. The
outcome of the meeting will be an administrative planning document that will be
kept in the Program Planning files, and also in program and college files. It is expected that programs and colleges
will refer to this administrative planning document and any amendments made to
it when requesting faculty positions, proposing major curricular actions, or
initiating other major changes in program activity. A copy of the administrative planning document will be placed in the binder
and the entire binder maintained in the Office of the Provost.
The
self study is to be organized according to the format described herein, which
is in alignment with the Curricular Priorities statement in S93-14. The self study can contain as many appendices
as the department may wish, but the main text (the Sections 1 through 6) is to
be no more than 25 pages for a department with one degree program.
Departments that offer two or more degree programs, concentrations, or
interdisciplinary programs in conjunction with other departments can add an
additional five pages per program to the main text, appropriately expanding
Sections 1 through 6. For example, a department with both an undergraduate and
a graduate degree will have a maximum of 30 pages to incorporate both programs
into Sections 1 through 6.
The self study is to be placed in a binder with, at minimum,
the following dividers, in this order, "Decisions", "Program
Planning Committee", "College Review", "External Review and
Program Response", and "Self-Study."
For Program Planning purposes, all accredited programs must
prepare, at minimum, an Executive Summary and Table of Contents formatted
according to Program Planning Guidelines.
Specifics of the content of the Executive Summary and Table of Contents
are found in “Sections of the Self Study” below. The table of contents will
serve to map the accreditation self-study onto the University self-study format,
so that the accreditation self-study can be used as is without revision. When
accreditation agency criteria do not require, or inadequately address, one or
more Program Planning criteria (for example, assessment) the accreditation
self-study must be supplemented accordingly. Questions regarding sufficiency of
accreditation criteria should be discussed between the program coordinator and
the PPC.
Within each section, the self-study should provide an analysis of the
current status of the program(s), any changes since the previous program
review, and expected or recommended changes for the next five years. All
criteria must be fully discussed, and, to the
extent possible, relevant assessment data should be used to support analyses.
Appendices should be used for presentation of detailed data, while the
narrative sections of the self-study should provide interpretation, context,
perspective, and analysis.
The
title page should provide the name of the instructional unit: The school,
department, or program offering the academic program. A list of academic
programs: Include official titles of authorized degrees and concentrations.
Include any program added within the last five years. Such programs are not
usually required to be reviewed; however, the faculty may wish to comment on
these programs in the self-study report and provide information regarding their
present status. Date the self-study report was completed. Places for signatures
of the Program head and College Dean indicating that the self-study is ready
for review. A sample title page is found
in Appendix 3.
The
table of contents should include a listing of all sections and appendices of
the self study with corresponding page numbers.
In the case of accredited programs, the table of contents
will match the sections delineated here, while the page numbers will match the
accreditation self-study report. The
goal is for SJSU readers to be able to find the corresponding sections in the
attached accreditation report. When
accreditation agency criteria do not require, or inadequately address, one or
more Program Planning criteria, the accreditation self-study must be
supplemented accordingly. When a
department has both accredited and non-accredited programs, a self study is
required for the non-accredited programs.
This section of no more than five
pages provides the reader with a quick summary of the key recommendations
resulting from the self-study. The contents of the executive summary should be
organized as follows:
1.1 Description of the
Department and its Program(s):
·
Briefly describe the organization of the
departmental program(s) and provide indicators of size such as FTEF, FTES, and
degrees awarded per year.
·
Include information about any significant
additions to the program(s) since the last program review.
1.2 Synopsis of the Previous Program Review Recommendations
(A complete description is placed in Appendix A):
·
Summarize progress on recommendations made in
the last program review.
·
Include the rationale for recommendations which
were deferred or abandoned since the previous program review.
·
Include any issues from the last review that are
still pending. Refer to the appropriate section(s) in this self-study report
where these issues are addressed.
1.3 Summary of Present Program Review Recommendations:
List the recommendations described
throughout the self-study under the appropriate subsections as follows: (Do not
discuss or describe their rationale here.)
1.3.1 Curricular Recommendations
1.3.2 Student Recommendations
1.3.3 Faculty Recommendations
1.3.4 Resource Recommendations
For each recommendation, refer to the section(s) in the
self-study where the issues, rationale, and recommendations are discussed in
detail.
This section contains a brief description of the structure of the department and the program(s) under review.
Include a discussion of how the program(s) are aligned with the missions/goals
of the college and university, and the scope of the review described in the
self-study. (Suggested length: 1 page)
3.1 Curriculum
a. Briefly
summarize the current curriculum for each degree program. For graduate degree
programs, summarize the required culminating experiences (thesis, oral exam,
written exam, etc.). Include catalog descriptions of each degree program in
self-study Appendix E.
b. Summarize
all curricular changes since the last review, including changes that are now
pending. Include the rationale for these changes.
c. If
your program differs from standard curricula in your discipline, please explain
how and why.
d. Describe
any curricular bottlenecks, (e.g, required or prerequisite courses which are
either oversubscribed in enrollment or offered so infrequently as to impede
student progress). Explain the plan to
alleviate such problems in section 3.4.
e. If
applicable, describe to what extent your program is interdisciplinary.
3.2 General Education and Service
Courses
a. Summarize
the General Education courses taught in the program. Include any bottlenecks in
the delivery of General Education courses.
b. Summarize
any service courses. Evaluate how well
the courses meet the needs of the departments/programs being served.
c. Describe
any management/resource challenges in offering your department’s mix of General
Education, service courses and courses required for the major.
3.3 Assessment of student learning
a. Summarize
the process for regular department review of learning objectives, courses, and
curricular structures (described in detail in the assessment plan included in
self-study Appendix D).
b. Evaluate
the procedures in place for collecting and analyzing the evidence that program
goals are being achieved. Include procedures that are in place for assessing
student learning.
c. Evaluate
the results of assessment efforts with particular attention to
modifications that have been made to improve student achievement of learning
goals and outcomes.
3.4 Goals and Plans
Make curricular recommendations in
this section. This section must include
a discussion of how assessment results are being used for program
planning. Evaluate the intended learning
outcomes of all the programs being reviewed, and revise if appropriate. Provide
the rationale for any recommendations in light of the information collected and
analyzed. A summary listing of the recommendations (without their rationale) is
to be provided in Section 1.3.1.
4.1 Analysis of Student Data
a. Use
the Data Elements from the past five years provided in Appendix C to comment on
status and trends in: (a) number of applicants to each program; (b) number of
majors; (c) number of graduates, and (d) gender and ethnicity ratios of program
majors in the context of the University at large and your college(s).
b. Summarize
any available information on where your students go after completing your
degree programs (e.g., employment, graduate school)
4.2 Student Experiences
a. Evaluate
student advising procedures. In self-study Appendix F, include degree road-maps
and other important advising materials (including electronic resources such as
website URLs).
b. Identify
tutoring or special assistance, services, or activities that are regularly
provided to students to assist in achieving academic goals.
c. Where
available, analyze student responses to program questionnaires, exit
interviews, and/or alumni surveys. What key issues emerge from student
perspectives?
4.3 Student Recruitment and
Retention
a. Describe
the effectiveness of your process for student recruitment, including recruiting
underrepresented students.
b. Describe
the effectiveness of your process for student retention. In particular,
describe any process for retaining underrepresented students.
c. Describe
the mechanisms in place for ensuring that students are graduating in a timely
manner.
d. In
self-study Appendix F, include important samples of outreach brochures and/or
website URLs describing your programs.
4.4 Student Scholarly and Creative
Achievements
a. Summarize
the involvement of students in research, scholarship activities (exhibitions,
publications, etc.), and other scholarly or creative works.
4.5. Student Engagement Activities
a. Summarize
the service and engagement activities of the students to the University.
b. Summarize
current student interactions and engagement with the community, the
professional field, or other outside groups.
4.6 Goals and Plans
Make recommendations regarding students in
this section. Provide the rationale for recommendations in light of the
information analyzed above. A summary listing of the recommendations (without
their rationale) is to be provided in Section 1.3.2.
5.1 Faculty profile
a. Summarize
the profile (e.g., gender, rank, ethnicity) of the tenured and tenure-track
faculty, noting the estimated schedule of expected retirements.
b. Summarize
the profile (e.g., gender, number of years teaching at SJSU, ethnicity) of the
full- and part-time lecturers contributing to the program(s), noting any recent
trends.
c. Identify
any issues that the profiles may present in the next five years.
5.2 Faculty Scholarly and Creative
Achievements
a. Summarize
the scholarly and creative achievements of the faculty as a whole in the areas of:
1) research
and publications;
2) creative
works;
3) grant
activity.
b. Summarize
any notable research and creative work collaborations between your faculty and
faculty in other disciplines within the college, other colleges of the
University, and other institutions.
c. If
you include faculty resumes in self-study Appendix G, please limit them to a current two-page
resume for all tenured/tenure track faculty and full-time lecturers.
5.3. Service and Community
Engagement
a. Summarize
and reflect on faculty service to the University.
b. Summarize
and reflect on faculty service and engagement with the community, the
professional field, or other outside groups.
5.4 Goals and Plans
Summarize
your hiring plan (self-study Appendix B), with associated rationale.
Make other faculty recommendations
in this section. Provide the rationale for them in light of the information
collected and analyzed. A summary listing of the recommendations (without their
rationale) is to be provided in Section 1.3.3.
6.1 Program Support
a. Analyze
the adequacy and effectiveness of the program's clerical support, technical
support staff, and other instructional
support.
b. Analyze
the adequacy and effectiveness of the program's equipment and facilities.
c. Identify
any external funding (contracts, grants, gifts, etc.) received by the program
to support its instructional
program.
d. Evaluate
the adequacy of library holdings and related informational resources.
6.2 Resource Management
a. Describe
the process for distribution/allocation of resources within the program(s).
b. Reflect
on resource utilization in relation to level of instruction for the period
under review (e.g., ratio of Part-time faculty to Full-time faculty, faculty
teaching workload balance, etc.). This analysis should be completed using the
data in self-study Appendix C.
c. Prioritize
any instructional support needs in order of importance to the program.
6.3 Goals and Plans
Make resources recommendations in
this section. Provide the rationale for any recommendations in light of the
information collected and analyzed. A summary listing of the recommendations
(without their rationale) is to be provided in Section 1.3.4.
Appendix A:
Recommendations from Previous Program Planning Cycle
Discussion of how department addressed the recommendations
from the previous program planning committee review report.
Appendix B: 5-Year Plan for Faculty Recruitment
Modifications to 5-year plan for faculty recruitment (See
guidelines Appendix 4) should be consistent with new Provost hiring plan.
Appendix C: Required Data Elements
The required data elements are discussed in Appendix 1 of
the Program Planning Guidelines. Elements of the required data elements will be
supplied by the Office of Undergraduate Studies, other elements are the responsibility
of the Dean and the Department.
Appendix D: Assessment Plan and Assessment Results
This appendix should include, program learning outcomes,
mapping of degree student learning outcomes to the courses in the major, the
assessment plan for the department/programs, relevant data, assessment reports
submitted to the university each semester and other relevant assessment
materials.
Appendix E: Catalog Copy
Appendix F: Student Outreach and Advising Materials
Include the roadmap for each degree and other representative
outreach and advising materials.
Appendix G: Faculty Resumes (Optional)
Include faculty resumes of no more than two pages each,
covering only the period of review (generally the last five years).
The department should designate one faculty member as Department Program
Planning Coordinator who will be responsible for coordinating the development
of each self-study. This faculty member, often (but not necessarily) the
department chair, will work with a member of the University Program Planning
Committee who has been assigned liaison responsibilities and the Office of
Undergraduate Studies, who provides staff support to the University Program
Planning Committee. Most departments will have more than one program to be
reviewed during a given review cycle.
In preparing the self-study, program faculty should review existing catalog
descriptions of the curriculum, previous program planning documents, assessment
data gathered by the department, and the University-provided components of the
required data elements. Additional information may be gathered and considered.
The Coordinator should begin by collecting at least the materials set forth
in Table 3, as follows:
|
Document or Published Information
|
Source(s)
|
|
Current Program Planning Guide
(this document, including attachments)
|
Office of Undergraduate Studies web site
|
|
Previous department or program planning documents (self-study or
accreditation reports and related recommendations and responses)
|
Department Office, Dean's Office, or Office of Undergraduate Studies
|
|
Required Data Elements
|
Undergraduate Studies, College, Department
|
|
Catalog copy describing the program(s), including updates which may not as
yet have appeared
|
Office of Undergraduate Studies,
Graduate Studies & Research.
See web site address:
http://webdev.sjsu.edu
|
|
Annual statements of program revenue
(by source of funds)
|
Department Office, Dean's Office, Institutional Planning & Resources,
Reports to the Academic Senate, International & Extended Studies,
Foundation
|
|
Annual statements of program expenditures
|
Department Office, Dean's Office, Continuing Education, Foundation
|
|
Representative student advising materials
|
Department Office
|
|
Description of departmental procedures for assessing student achievements
|
Department Office
|
|
Evidence from assessments and surveys conducted over the period of the
review (assessment results, surveys of majors, graduation surveys, alumni
surveys)
|
Department Office, Dean’s Office
|
|
Summary of faculty accomplishments, including externally funded grants
|
Department Office and colleagues
|
|
Summaries from any advisory boards
|
Department Office
|
|
Summaries of community service/outreach activities
|
Department Office and colleagues
|
1. Required
Data Elements
2. Sample
Program Planning Schedule
3. Sample
Title Page
4. Sample
Faculty Recruitment Planning Forms
5. Information
Regarding External Reviewer
6. Department Program
Planning Checklist
By October 1 the University will provide the department with
required data elements A through D.
A. Provided by Undergraduate Studies in Consultation with
the Office of Institutional Research.
Student Profile
Data for the last five years will be available on the Office
of Institutional Research website (at www.oir.sjsu.edu).
1. Enrollment
Patterns (in the major and concentration):
·
Headcount and full-time equivalent – students
(FTE/S) broken down by lower division, upper division, credential and graduate
students
·
Headcount and full-time equivalent – students
(FTE/S) for lecture, lab/activity courses, and supervision courses broken down
by lower division, upper division, credential and graduate students
·
Enrollment yield (applied-admitted-enrolled)
analyses broken down by first time freshmen, new undergraduate transfers, and
new graduate students
·
Enrollment trends broken down by gender and
ethnicity
2. Degrees
awarded (in the major and concentration):
·
Headcount broken down for undergraduate and
graduate students by gender and ethnicity
·
Graduation rates for native students and
undergraduate transfers
Student Academic
Performance
Data is available on the Office of Institutional Research
website (at www.oir.sjsu.edu).
·
Grading distribution
·
Grade Point Average
·
Students on Probation
Faculty Profile and
Course Information
Data on faculty for the last five years is available on the
Office of Institutional Research website (at www.oir.sjsu.edu).
1. Faculty
Profile
·
Headcount and full-time equivalent – faculty
(FTE/F) broken down by tenure status (tenured, tenure-track, FERPS, full-time
temporary, part-time temporary and teaching assistants)
·
Student/Faculty Ratio (SFR)
·
Gender and ethnic composition
2. Course
Information
·
Number of sections offered broken down by course
level (lower division, upper division and graduate)
·
Average section size
·
Proportion taught by tenured/tenure-track/FERP
faculty
B. Provided by
Undergraduate Studies in Consultation with Faculty Affairs
·
Five-year number of tenured/tenure-track
searches and number filled
·
Five-year number of retirements, and number of
resignations.
·
Five-year gender and ethnic distribution of the
faculty
C. Provided
by Undergraduate Studies in Consultation with the SJSU Foundation
·
Five-year number of grant applications, number
of grants funded, total dollars funded
D. Provided by Undergraduate Studies
·
Mission
and goals statement for the University
·
Electronic copy of the current catalog for each
major
E. Provided by the college dean’s office
·
Five-year salary and O&E budget, and FTE/S
target if assigned.
·
Five-year Continuing Education (open university
and special session) income and end-of year balance
·
Mission
and goals statement for the college.
F. Provided by Department
Curriculum Profile
·
Five-year number of major, GE, and other service
courses offered
·
Proportion taught by tenured/tenure-track/FERP
faculty
·
Roadmap for each degree program
·
Assessment plan, data, and results
(Due to Office of Undergraduate Studies by
November 15)
Scheduled Review
Completion ____________
Degree BA BS MA MS Other
____________
Program ______________________________________________________
Department ________________________ Chair ____________________
College ________________________ Dean ____________________
Date
Submit vitae of proposed
external reviewers __________________________
to Dean
Dean
submits ranked reviewers to UGS __________________________
Submit
Self Study to UGS and PPC Liaison __________________________
Send Self Study to External
Reviewer __________________________
Site Visit __________________________
External Reviewer’s Report
received by __________________________
Office
of UGS
Department
forwards any response to __________________________
College Dean & Office of UGS
College Committee Report with
Endorsement __________________________
of Collage Dean sent to UGS
PPC Report to PPC Committee __________________________
PPC Report to Provost __________________________
Meeting of Provost, Dean,
Chair/Director __________________________
PPC Liaison
_____________________ Signature
________________ Date ________
Chair/Director____________________ Signature ________________ Date ________
Dean _____________________ Signature ________________ Date ________
Undergraduate Studies_________________ Signature ________________ Date ________
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
PROGRAM PLANNING SELF-STUDY
(NAME OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT AND
COLLEGE)
Programs (add or delete degree programs as
appropriate):
B.A. in ------
B.S. in ------
B.S. in ------
Concentration in-----
Concentration in-----
M.A. in-----
M.S. in-----
Joint Ph D. in-----
(DATE)
The
enclosed self-study report has been reviewed by the faculty in the
instructional unit and is now submitted for external review.
|
(signature of Department or Program Head)
|
|
|
Department/Program
Head
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
Draft has
been read and deemed ready for external review by:
|
|
|
(signature of College Dean)
|
|
|
College
Dean
|
Date
|
Dated signature
of department/program head: This signature serves to verify that there has been
widespread faculty participation, including faculty in interdisciplinary
programs, in the preparation of the self-study report and that the faculty are
aware of all findings and recommendations.
Dated signatures
of the College Dean: This signature indicates that the self-study report is
complete and ready for external review. It does not necessarily indicate
agreement with the recommendations in the self-study report.
School/Department __________________ College ________________________
Inclusive Years _____________________________
This
form is designed to facilitate the program planning process and the request for
authorization to conduct searches for tenure-track faculty. Initially you must complete the entire
form. Subsequent requests to conduct
searches (up to 5 years after initially completing this form) require that you
update only the position announcement and sections III.2.a, III.2.b, III.3 and
IV. Please
continue, however, to submit a complete 5-year plan with each request.
I. Curricular
Responsibilities/Faculty Competencies
The objective of this section
is to develop a profile of faculty competencies required to meet current
curricular responsibilities. You should assume that the number of equivalent
full-time faculty will remain approximately the same over the next five
years. Please reference or attach any
documents explaining anticipated changes in curricular responsibilities, and
describe responsibilities at the level of specificity required to identify
faculty competencies (i.e., by major, concentration, or course level).
1.
Identify current
curricular responsibilities and the number of full-time equivalent faculty required
for each.
2.
Identify regular
faculty currently performing these responsibilities, noting by year any
retirements anticipated in the next five years.
|
Curricular
Responsibilities
|
Equivalent Full-
Time Faculty
|
Names of Faculty
|
Retirement Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. Anticipated Needs
To
allow flexibility for changes in course offerings and enrollments, the number
of regular (tenure-track and tenured) faculty should be limited to a maximum of
80 percent of the of full-time faculty equivalent. Although FERP faculty need not be counted in
calculating this percentage, they must be considered in deciding if 80 percent
is a reasonable norm: assignments for all FERP faculty must be covered in
departmental/school allocations. All new
participants in FERP
represent faculty competencies that will need to be replaced after the
five-year term in the program has expired.
1. Program needs and 80 percent
limitation may require retraining or reassignment of regular faculty. If so, please indicate if such a situation
exists and identify when and how retraining or reassignment may be
accomplished.
2. Identify those needs (other
than replacement of regular faculty on leaves) for which you expect to be
hiring temporary faculty. (Remember that
this category should be .20 FTE/F.)
3. Identify those
specializations or responsibilities for which you anticipate making
tenure-track requests and the year in which you anticipate recruitment. Plans for recruitment at other than assistant
professor rank must be accompanied by documentation that there is a need for
program or departmental/school leadership or that the number of available
candidates is limited.
III. Annual
Request and Program Review Documentation (if a five-year plan has been submitted within the
last five years, this section and section IV must be updated; attach this
updated section and section IV to the most recent program review relevant to
curricular development/faculty competencies.)
1. Attach position announcements for the areas of specialization for which
you wish to conduct searches this year.
Announcements must clearly identify the qualifications that will
constitute screening criteria, and the responsibilities which appointees will
be expected to perform.
2.a Using the following formula, calculate the percentage of equivalent
full-time faculty positions filled by tenure-track and tenured faculty if
recruitment is successful.
(1) Number of full-time tenured faculty _____________
(Do
not count administrators with full-time assignments
outside
the department/school.)
(2) Number of tenure-track faculty _____________
(3) Number of tenure-track searches extended _____________
(4) Number of tenure-track searches proposed _____________
(5) Present year’s allocation (in equivalent
full-time positions) _____________
(6) [(1) through (4)] divided by (5) _____________
b. Identify other factors
affecting actual or potential use of allocation.
(1) Number of faculty on Pre-Retirement or FERP _____________
(2) Number of full-time administrators with
retreat rights _____________
(3) Number
of faculty regularly teaching outside the department/
school (note time fraction and department) _____________
(4) Amount of administrative time and
assigned time currently
allocated to department chair/school
director _____________
3. Add supplementary information regarding the position request,
including for example, revisions to the five-year plan, additional
documentation supporting a request to hire at an advanced level or above the 80
percent limitation, or particular expectations to be written into the
appointment letter.
IV. Department Diversity Profile Overview /
Tenured & Tenure-Track Faculty
1.
Department Gender and Racial / Ethnic Breakdown, tenured and
tenure-track faculty.
# of Male # of Female
|
African American
& African
|
|
|
|
Asian / Pacific
Islander
(Asian Indian, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Guamanian /
Chamorro, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Samoan, Vietnamese ).
|
|
|
|
Hispanic
(Cuban, Mexican / American, American / Chicano, Puerto
Rican, Other Latin American origin ).
|
|
|
|
American Indian /
Alaskan Native
(Original peoples of North America
with cultural identification maintained through tribal affiliation or
community recognition ).
|
|
|
|
White
(Original peoples of Europe, North
Africa, or Middle
East, not of Hispanic origin ).
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2. Provide a brief overview of gender,
racial / ethnic diversity of doctoral degree recipients
(
or other terminal degree recipients ) in your discipline [e.g. Doctorate
Recipients from
United
States Universities: Summary Report
2004. (2005). Chicago: NORC.]
3.
What are the outreach efforts the department will employ?
1. Role of External
Reviewer
The reviewer’s role is to
bring an informed and dispassionate view to the assessment of the plan as it is
presented. Does it respond to the assessment materials included in the report?
Does it flow reasonably out of the current condition of the program? Does it
respond to the university "Statement of Curricular Priorities?" Does
it recognize important trends in the discipline, both nationally and as they
may be reflected in the metropolitan area served by San José State University? Do the planned activities related to faculty,
students, and community lead to measurable outcomes for the program in the next
five years? Does it address the educational needs of the diverse community of
which SJSU is a part? Clearly, the faculty in the program hope they have
achieved those objectives, but it is the reviewer’s privilege and responsibility
to evaluate that achievement.
Before visiting the campus,
the reviewer should review the Program Plan submitted by the Department. The
current Program Plan, along with the program data from the last five years,
should be sent to the reviewer at least a month prior to the site visit. The
plan provides the framework within which the faculty and the program intend to
operate over the next five years. It should focus on the curriculum as the
blueprint for all activity during that time. The curriculum, as a manifestation
of the program’s goals and objectives, should guide faculty hiring, student
recruitment and retention, and interaction with the community. It should
indicate awareness of the pluralistic community in which SJSU exists. If it
does not do that, then the "plan" realistically cannot be
implemented.
During the visit, the
reviewer will meet with students, faculty, and administrators. An initial
interview will be held on the first day with the Dean, the Associate Vice
President for Undergraduate Studies and, as appropriate, the Associate Vice
President for Graduate Studies. At the end of the visit, the reviewer will be
asked to present initial impressions and findings at an exit interview, which
will include the dean, faculty from the department, a representative of the
Provost, the Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies (and, when a
graduate program is under review, the Associate Vice President for Graduate
Studies), the Director of Assessment, and the liaison from the Program Planning
Committee.
The evaluation report should
be guided by the question in the first paragraph. The length of the report
should be appropriate to the complexity of the plans and the reviewer’s
assessment of their contribution to the quality of the program over the next
five years. It must, however, include recommendations for change if the
reviewer’s evaluation finds that the plan is inadequate in the light of
assessment responses or reasons that are explained. If possible, it should also
include comparisons with other programs in institutions and communities that
are similar to SJSU. The format is left to the reviewer’s discretion. Two
possible organizations are as follows: (a) subdivide the report into sections
representing curriculum, faculty, students, non-faculty resources, and
community interaction, or (b) subdivide the report in the same fashion as the
self study.
A written report should be
submitted to the Office of Undergraduate Studies within three weeks after the completion of
the reviewer’s visit to San José State University. This is necessary if the department is to meet its
own deadlines.
2. External Reviewer
Selection Criteria
The Department nominates at
least three acceptable candidates for the external reviewer, who meet the
following criteria:
·
Demonstrated
leader in the field (publications or creative works; reputation in instruction;
active participation in appropriate scholarly and/or professional activities).
·
Affiliation with
accredited academic department or program or professional organization
appropriate to program being reviewed.
·
No
conflict-of-interest (i.e., no recent graduate of program, recent employee,
friend or relative of any member of the program, recent contractual
arrangements with program).
·
Familiarity with
academic/professional goals of the departments as well as the nature of the
program being reviewed (e.g., experience with similar programs, experience with
graduates of program being reviewed).
·
Willingness to
accept budget constraints (see following guidelines).
3. Budget
·
Cost of air
travel from outside California, not to exceed rates available from a University
contracted travel agency.
·
$1,000 honorarium
out of which the reviewer is expected to pay all expenses (except for
out-of-state airfare).
·
If the program wishes
to offer additional funds, it may do so at its own expense.
4. Procedures
A.
Department
submits to the Dean the resumes of the three candidates who are acceptable to
the department and able to serve within the required time period as agreed
upon. The Dean recommends the reviewers
in rank order and provides all resumes to the AVP Undergraduate Studies.
B.
The Associate
Vice President of Undergraduate Studies or Graduate Studies as appropriate,
selects one reviewer from the three submitted candidates and notifies the
Department of the selection.
C.
The Department
arranges for the date of the review and the site visits in late fall or early
spring of the year of scheduled completion date as agreed upon in the
negotiated Program Planning Schedule. The Office of Undergraduate Studies
engages the reviewer and sends contract and other relevant documents (including
the Program Planning Guidelines, Curricular Priorities, and letter of
invitation) to the reviewer. The Department then arranges the schedule of the visit,
including the entrance and exit interviews, in consultation with the College,
the Program Planning Committee liaison, the Office of Undergraduate Studies,
and Graduate Studies & Research.
D.
The Department
sends the Program Plan to the reviewer one month prior to the visit.
E.
At the time of
the visit, the Office of Undergraduate Studies and Academic Resources transfers
funds to the College. The Department arranges for all payments of honorarium
and airfare.
F.
The reviewer must
submit a final report to the Office of Undergraduate Studies within three weeks of the visit.
5. Schedule
A.
Time: One and a
half days to two days for site visit.
B.
Contact People:
·
Department
faculty, staff, students, and Department Chair
·
College Deans and
Associate Deans
·
Associate Vice
Presidents Academic Affairs
·
Provost
·
Program Planning
Committee Liaison
·
Alumni
C.
Required
Meetings:
·
Initial interview
with the Dean, AVP for Undergraduate Studies and, when appropriate, the AVP of
Graduate Studies and Research on the first day.
·
Exit meeting for
Reviewer to present initial impressions, to which all interested persons are
invited. The following people will be invited to the Exit meeting:
representative of the Provost; AVP for Undergraduate Studies, and where
appropriate, the AVP for Graduate Studies & Research; college dean;
department chair and faculty; PPC liaison; University Director of Assessment;
students majoring in program under review; and other relevant constituencies.
(This form is optional. It is provided so that the
departments can easily keep track of the progress of their program planning as
it goes through the various steps of the process.)
Degree BA BS MA MS Other
____________
Program ______________________________________________________
Negotiated schedule
completed, signed, & sent to UGS ____
Justification for more than
120 units approved ____
Submit list of proposed
external reviewers to Dean ____
Submit two hardcopies and
electronic copy of Self Study to UGS ____
Confirm reviewer(s)
willingness to serve ____
Send approved Self Study to
external reviewer(s) ____
Make schedule in conjunction
with appropriate people for Site Visit ____
Initial and Exit interviews
scheduled with appropriate people ____
Initial interview held with
external reviewer(s) ____
Exit meeting held with
external reviewer(s) ____
External reviewer(s) report
received by UGS ____
External reviewer(s) report
distributed to Department, College ____
Departmental response sent to
College Committee and UGS ____
College Committee report
completed ____
Dean endorsement of College
Committee report completed ____
PPC Report completed ____
Meeting of Provost, Dean,
Chair and faculty ____