ACADEMIC REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR DEPARTMENTS

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

Purpose: The Academic Review (AR) process is intended to assess, promote, and support the
fulfillment of the academic unit’s mission and vision. The process provides the opportunity to
reflect on the unit’s identity and to engage in strategic planning, particularly with respect to (1)
educational effectiveness, (2) research, scholarship, and creative endeavors, and (3) service on
local to global scales.

In essence, ARs are an opportunity for academic units to reflect on their accomplishments,
challenges, and opportunities to address such questions as: How well are we preparing all of
our students to meet and exceed the challenges they will experience upon graduation? How
well are we supporting faculty and staff in the integration of their teaching, research,
scholarship, and creative endeavors, and service? How well are we equipped to meet the
emerging challenges and demands of our disciplines and their respective roles in our broader
society?

While meaningful and regular ARs are an explicit requirement of the California State University
system and its Board of Trustees as well as for continued accreditation through the WASC
Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), these guidelines are written in a manner
that will affirm faculty’s ability to focus on what they care about while providing evidence that
can inform program, unit, and college-level decision-making.

Practice: Productive ARs provide an opportunity for thoughtful reflection, productive discussion,
and intentional improvement. Thus, academic units are strongly encouraged to articulate an
aspirational vision and to discuss recent accomplishments, plans, opportunities, and challenges
in that context. Such an approach will facilitate connections to broader strategic planning and
resource management at the college and university levels. To this end, a template for the AR
Self Study and Site Visit Schedule are provided at the end of these Guidelines.

Outcome: The intended outcome of each AR is the collaborative development of an Action Plan
among Academic Affairs, the College Dean, and the academic unit that will address identified
challenges and opportunities for improvement, primarily with existing resources and secondarily
on additional strategic investments.

1
 OVERVIEW OF THE ACADEMIC REVIEW PROCESS

1. Notification: Deans will be notified at least one semester ahead of the semester of their
Academic Review (AR). To the extent possible, academic units are scheduled in logical
groupings to facilitate college-level strategic planning. Deans are encouraged to develop and
provide additional prompts, requests, and/or requirements for inclusion as additional
components of an academic unit’s Self Study. Chairs/Directors whose programs are undergoing
AR will be provided with these Guidelines and may receive additional requests and/or prompts
from their Dean for their Self Study. Conversely, Chairs/Directors are encouraged to develop
any additional desirable review components that they deem appropriate and to confer with their
Dean prior to incorporating these into their Self-Study. Department Chairs/Directors with
questions regarding the Academic Review process may contact the Interim Associate Vice
President for Curriculum, Assessment and Accreditation Madhavi McCall ([email protected],
619-594-5050).

NOTE: Professionally accredited programs may propose a modified approach to their AR that
leverages existing efforts and reduces redundancies, while still meeting the spirit and intent of
the process with respect to institutional priorities. If a professionally-accredited program is
interested in a modified AR approach, then they may arrange a meeting with their Dean to
develop a modified AR process and Self-Study design.

2. Selection of Site Visit Dates and potential Review Team Members: Chairs/Directors
should identify at least five preferred two-day Site Visit blocks (Monday/Tuesday or
Thursday/Friday) during the scheduled review semester that will maximize participation of their
faculty, students, and staff. Any blocks that are particularly problematic (e.g., dates of discipline-
focused national meetings, etc.) should also be identified. These preferred and to-be-avoided
dates should be provided to Jonathan Florendo ([email protected]; 594-4167) by the deadline
indicated on the initial notification.

The typical Review Team comprises two external members from aspirational academic
programs and one internal SDSU faculty member from outside the program’s college. This
composition may be modified with approval of the Academic Affairs leadership team. Academic
units shall submit Review Team nominations to Jonathan Florendo ([email protected]; 594-
4167) by the deadline indicated in the initial notification.

External Reviewers: The Chair/Director shall submit a list of no fewer than eight
external faculty from aspirational academic programs whom they consider well-qualified
to serve as reviewers.

Internal Reviewers: The Chair/Director shall also submit the names of four tenured
SDSU faculty members with appointments outside the college whom they consider well-
qualified to serve on the Review Team.

Each nomination should include a single-paragraph bio, an academic home page URL, and an
email address. Nominated reviewers may not have close professional or personal relationships

2
with faculty in the unit undergoing review; any potential conflicts of interest must be declared
and discussed with the Dean’s office prior to their nomination.

3. Finalize Dates and Review Team: As soon as possible after receiving potential dates and
names of reviewers, the interim AVP-CAA will work with the College leadership to finalize the
dates of the unit’s academic review and the names of the review team. Review team members
will be invited to participate by an email from either the interim AVP-CAA or the College Dean,
depending on the College’s preferred practice. The interim AVP-CAA will work with the Provost
Office to secure Academic Affairs Leadership Team participation for the site visit.

4. Production of the AR Documents: The Self-Study is the centerpiece of the AR process,

enabling programs to develop a deliberate and inclusive approach to its development. The Self-
Study (1) provides context for the academic unit’s mission, activities, ambitions, and priorities,
(2) highlights recent achievements and progress, and (3) establishes future directions,
opportunities, and challenges. This document provides a first impression of the academic unit to
the Review Team, so it should be carefully developed and edited to provide a cohesive narrative
with consistent voice, formatting, etc. The Site Visit Schedule may include sessions with faculty,
staff, and students as appropriate, with at least two hours scheduled as private work sessions
for the Review Team.

Templates for the Self-Study and the Site Visit Schedule are appended to these Guidelines.
Academic units are encouraged to confer with their Dean’s office regarding any additional
prompts, requests, or requirements for the Self-Study. The Chair/Director shall provide final
drafts of the Self-Study and Site Visit Schedule as Word files to their Dean’s office at
least seven weeks prior to the Site Visit. These materials will be reviewed by the Dean’s
office for completeness and any comments/suggestions/requests for revision shall be
provided back to the Chair/Director within one week.

5. Distribution of Finalized AR Documents: Following Dean’s office approval of the Self-

Study and Site Visit Schedule and at least four weeks prior to the Site Visit, the academic unit
shall provide Word and pdf versions of the Self-Study and pdf version of any documents
referred to in the Self-Study to Jonathan Florendo ([email protected]), who will share all
finalized AR materials with relative parties across the campus and with members of the Review
Team.
6. Schedule and Conduct of the Site Visit: The Site Visit is typically two days, beginning and
ending with sessions between the Review Team and members of the Academic Affairs
leadership team (i.e., Provost, VP of Research/Graduate Dean, and AVP - Academic Affairs,
Student Achievement). Members of the unit are responsible for transporting out-of-town Review
Team members to and from SDSU and other locations as well as planning and funding lunches
and dinners. Hotel accommodations, travel reimbursements, and honoraria are arranged and
covered by Academic Affairs.

7. Production and Dissemination of the Review Team Report: The Review Team will
prepare a AR Report that represents their collective view of the strengths and weaknesses in
each area of the Self-Study as well as recommendations regarding current and future

3
opportunities and challenges. The Review Team shall submit its AR Report electronically within
five weeks of the completion of the Site Visit, whereupon it will be provided to the Academic
Affairs leadership team, the College Dean’s office, and the Chair/Director of the academic unit.

8. Response to Review Team Report: The Chair/Director of the academic unit may submit a
written response to the AR Report within two weeks of receipt. The response may address each
of the major findings and recommendations of the report as well as additional information.

9. Action Plan and Capstone Meeting: The Capstone Meeting between the academic unit’s
Chair/Director, the Dean, and the Academic Affairs leadership team will be scheduled within six
weeks of receiving the report by the Review Team. The outcomes of this meeting will be
summarized by the Dean in the form of a draft Action Plan for finalization and endorsement by
the Dean, Academic Affairs leadership team, and Chair/Director as a representative for the
academic unit. The Dean will be responsible for scheduling any follow-up meetings regarding
progress on this Action Plan.

4
 SUMMARY: SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC
REVIEW TIMELINE

Stage Component Deadline

College deans, Chairs/Directors notified

At least one semester prior to
1 of AR scheduled and provided AR
semester of AR
Guidelines

Chair/Director submits lists of

five viable Site Visit dates and potential Stated deadline in AR
2
Review Team members (8 external notification email
reviewers and 4 internal reviewers)

Interim AVP-CAA works with the College

ASAP following submission of
3 leadership to invite reviewers, finalize review
names and dates by Department
team members and review dates

Chair/Director submits final drafts of

At least seven weeks
4 Self-Study and Site Visit Schedule
prior to Site Visit
to Dean’s office for review/revision

Academic unit uploads dean-approved

At least four weeks
5 Self-Study and other materials
prior to Site Visit
to shared drive

6 Site Visit

Review Team’s Report submitted to

interim AVP-CAA and distributed to
Five weeks after
7 Academic Affairs Leadership Team, College
completion of Site Visit
Dean’s Office and Chair/Director of
academic unit

Academic unit submits written response Two weeks after

8
to Review Team Report receipt of Review Team Report

Capstone Meeting with Dean, Chair/Director,

and Academic Affairs leadership team.
Academic units should work with their Within six weeks of receiving
9
Dean’s office to develop an Action Plan Review Team’s Report
based on the review that will be discussed at
the capstone meeting.

5
 The Site Visit Schedule below is provided as a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE;
academic unit should develop their own schedule as appropriate.

Timing of Entrance Meeting with Academic Affairs Leadership Team

should not be modified unless previously approved.

Department of <Name>
Academic Review Site Visit
Schedule for Day One – <Date>

Time Component Location

TBD Transport from Hotel Hotel Lobby

8:30 – 9:30 Entrance Meeting with

Academic Affairs Leadership Team

9:30 – 10:00 Pickup by Chair/Director and Break

10:00 – 10:30 Chair/Director (<Name>)

10:30 – 11:30 Department Executive Committee

11:30 – 1:00 Lunch with Executive Committee

1:00 – 2:00 Faculty Group 1 (<Names>)

2:00 – 3:00 Program Assessment Coordinator

3:00 – 3:30 Break

3:30 – 4:00 Program Staff (<Names>)

4:00 – 5:00 Review Team Work Session

5:00 – 7:00 Social Event and Dinner

7:30 Transport from dinner to hotel

6
 <The Site Visit Schedule below is provided as a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE;
academic unit should develop their own schedule as appropriate.>

<Timing of Exit Meeting with Academic Affairs Leadership Team

should not be modified unless previously approved.>

Department of <Name>
Academic Review Site Visit
Schedule for Day Two – <Date>

Time Component Location

TBD Transport from Hotel to SDSU by <Name> Hotel Lobby

8:30 – 9:30 Review Team Work Session

9:30 – 10:00 Meeting with Undergraduate and Graduate

Advisers (<Names>)

10:00 – 10:30 Faculty Group 2 (<Names>)

10:30 – 11:30 Students

11:30 – 1:00 Review Team Working Lunch

1:00 – 2:15 Chair/Director and Other Individuals as Requested

2:15 – 2:30 Break and Escort <Name>

2:30 – 4:00 Exit Meeting with Academic Affairs Leadership

Team

4:00 Transport to airport (if needed) by <Name>

7
Self-Study for the Academic Review of
<Program Title> at
San Diego State University

<Dates of Academic Review>

Prepared by:
< Name, Title and/or Role within Unit, Unit Name>
< Name, Title and/or Role within Unit, Unit Name>
< Name, Title and/or Role within Unit, Unit Name>
< Name, Title and/or Role within Unit, Unit Name>
< Name, Title and/or Role within Unit, Unit Name>

Internally Reviewed and Approved by the

College of <XXX>
on [Insert Date]

Provided to the Academic Review Team:

<External Reviewer #1, Program, Institution>
<External Reviewer #2, Program, Institution>
<Internal Reviewer, Program, Institution>

8
A. Mission Statement, Vision Statement, and Institutional Context: The mission statement
articulates the unit’s purpose, its core activities, and how it serves its key stakeholders. The
vision statement is a future-oriented declaration of aspirations, conveying what the units wants
to become to best deliver on the mission. Mission and vision statements can be as short as a
few sentences or a single paragraph each. The remainder of the section describes disciplinary
and institutional context, including the unit’s history and evolution, distinctive features,
relationships to other teaching and research units on campus, and current degree offerings. If
the department has a diversity and inclusion statement, it should be included in the Diversity
Plan Update attached as an appendix.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

B. Response to Previous Academic Review: Describe the unit’s response to major issues,
challenges, and recommendations identified through the previous academic review (i.e., review
team report, program response letter, and institutional summary letter; include these in the
appendices). Summarize the effects of these actions, and how they influence the current work
and priorities of the unit.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

C. Goals and Strategies: State short- and long-term goals and outline strategies for achieving
them. Goals must be prioritized, explicit and measurable, consistent with the unit’s mission, and
contribute to meeting the unit’s vision. Outline current and proposed strategies for achieving
each goal. Present relevant internal and external data that supports the selection of these goals
and strategies and their prioritization.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

D. Comparable and Aspirational Programs: Describe four comparable and four aspirational
academic units at other institutions and a brief explanation of why they were chosen.
Summarize the following for each of the eight academic units in a table: i) degrees offered, ii)
faculty headcount, and iii) undergraduate and graduate enrollments and degrees awarded. The
Academic Unit may describe and include additional metrics that are meaningful to their
discipline and aspirations. For each comparable and aspirational unit, describe the faculty
research, scholarship, and creative activities, including any available illustrative data. Conclude
with a discussion of how the unit’s articulated vision, goals, and strategies align with those of
the described aspirational units.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

E. Curricular Overview, Student Demographics, and Programmatic Assessment:

9
1. Curriculum: Overview the undergraduate and graduate curricula. Address how and by
whom each is reviewed—internally and/or externally—as well as any changes driven by
previous academic reviews (or professional accreditations). Changes that incorporate
anti-racism and social justice across the curriculum should also be articulated in the
Diversity Plan Update included in the appendix. Include an appendix compilation of most
recent versions of syllabi for major-required courses and major electives

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

2. Degree Learning Outcomes: State the established Degree Learning Outcomes

(DLOs) for each undergraduate and graduate degree offered by the unit, including
specific DLOs for emphases, certificates, etc. as appropriate. In addition, DLOs that
address diversity and equity should also be highlighted in the Diversity Plan Update
included in the appendix.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

3. Curricular Maps: For each undergraduate degree and professional graduate degree,
present the curricular map illustrating how the major-required courses and any additional
required curricular components (e.g., study abroad, internships, practicums, field
experiences, specific general education courses, and other required or supplemental
out-of-classroom learning and development experiences) progressively build the
capability for students to achieve the Degree Learning Outcomes.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

4. Accomplished Program Assessment for Student Learning and Development:

Summarize the Measures, Findings, Targets, and Actions for each DLO since the last
academic review. Discuss these assessment findings and actions within the broader
goals of increasing program quality and student achievement (e.g., referring to goals
that were written in Section C). Please provide an explanation for any DLO that has not
been assessed since the last Academic Review.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

5. Planned Program Assessment for Degree Learning Outcomes: Overview plans for
program assessment for the next five years, including specific DLOs of focus,
approaches for assessing these DLOs, etc. as well as any broader program assessment
goals (e.g., revision/addition of DLOs, incorporation or assessment of High Impact
Practices). If plans will require institutional support via additional resources or campus
expertise, please outline and explain these needs.

10
<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

6. High Impact Practices: Overview current requirements or opportunities for

undergraduates to engage in “High Impact Practices” (e.g., first-year seminars, learning
communities, writing intensive courses, undergraduate research, study abroad, service
learning, community-based learning, internships, capstone courses/projects). Present
relevant evidence-based assessment of these HIPs and their impact upon student
engagement and achievement, and how this impact could be improved. Finally, include
any opportunities to incorporate additional HIPs.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

7. International Components: Describe any international activities in the curriculum. For

programs that have an international requirement, discuss how the requirements are
reflected in the established Degree Learning Outcomes, and how assessment evidence
of the international component is being used to improve student achievement?

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

8. Student, Alumni, and Employer Feedback: Provide any available survey feedback
obtained from students, alumni and employers, and how this information has been used
to improve the program.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

9. Professional Accreditation: If the program is subject to accreditation by a professional

organization, summarize the results and recommendations of the last round of
accreditation and the anticipated date of the next. Append any relevant documents.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

10. Academic Advising: Describe current academic advising structure and strategies,
including the advising experience from a student perspective as they progress through
the degree.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

11. Teaching Associates and Graduate Assistants: Present information on the TAs and
GAs employed per semester, their preparation/mentoring/evaluation, and the nature and
variations of their teaching loads and compensation (including benefits).

11
 <Unit Response – Double-spacing>

12. Recruitment, Retention, and Graduation Measures: Five-year degree-specific data

for this section are derived from the SDSU Tableau Dashboard, provided to the
academic unit along with these guidelines, and included in this section of the Self-Study.
For assistance in the exploration of these data or to develop/obtain additional data of
interest, academic units may confer as early as possible with the Assistant Vice
President for Educational Effectiveness and the Director of Analytical Services and
Institutional Research.
● Applications, admissions, admission rate, and yield for first-time full-time
freshman and transfer students
● Academic preparation of admitted first-time full-time freshman (i.e., HS GPA and
SAT), transfer students (i.e., CC GPA), and graduate students (e.g.,
Undergraduate GPA and GRE)
● 1st, 2nd, 3rd-year retention and 4-, 5-, and 6-year graduation rates for first-year full-
time freshman, disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, and local/resident/non-
resident/international
● 1st and 2nd-year retention and 2-, 3-, and 4-year graduation rates for transfer
students disaggregated by gender, ethnicity and
local/resident/non-resident/international
● Completion rates and time-to-degree for graduate students disaggregated by
gender, ethnicity, and local/resident/non-resident/international
● DFW rates and Equity Gaps in Required Major Courses
● Any available information about students’ preparation for their selected degree
pathway
● Any available information about postgraduate trajectories, pathways, etc.
Based on the above data, discuss trends, areas of concern, and related plans to
improve student success, including recent efforts or opportunities to improve retention
and graduation rates while maintaining quality of learning and development. Also
discuss the relative importance of such traditional degree-at-matriculation-based metrics
in light of student migration into and out of the degree(s) (see Program Migration
dashboard in Tableau and include such visualizations as appropriate to narrative).

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

F. Faculty Composition, Achievements, and Career Advancement:

1. Faculty Roster: Provide a table with one line per faculty member, with name, rank,
field, terminal degree date, and SDSU start date.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

12
 2. Faculty Achievements: For each faculty member, report on research and/or scholarly
works of faculty over the last five years, including discipline-appropriate indices of each
faculty member’s achievements (e.g. publications and their impact, extramural support,
and significant honors received). For each faculty member, also report on graduate
student supervision (theses and/or dissertations served on and chaired) and
undergraduate supervision (honors theses chaired and other supervisory roles).

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

3. Assessment of Faculty Achievements, Productivity, and Workload: Summarize the

policies and mechanisms for tenure, promotion, and post-tenure reviews. Describe how
useful these have been for your academic unit in assuring that faculty meet unit-,
college-, and university-level expectations with respect to Teaching Effectiveness,
Professional Development, and Service.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

4. Faculty Mentorship: Describe the unit’s practices for mentoring tenure-track faculty
members in RTP with respect to Teaching Effectiveness, Professional Development,
and Service.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

G. Resources: Assess how well current resources (human, institutional budget, grants,
philanthropic, other) are being used to support current strategies in service of the unit’s mission,
vision, goals, and strategies. Identify priorities for additional critical resources and articulate how
these would support current goals and the way in which those goals are prioritized.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

H. Shared Governance: The SDSU University Senate and President have endorsed three key
principles of shared governance: Respect, Communication, and Responsibility (see
https://shared-governance.sdsu.edu/trust-a-vision-for-shared-governance). Describe how the
faculty and staff associated with the program currently makes decisions about the curriculum,
staffing, resource management, etc. in light of these principles. Discuss any opportunities to
improve communication, processes, etc. in light of these principles. Provide links to, or provide
as appendices, any local policy documents.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

I. Development: Describe any recent or ongoing efforts to support the mission, vision, and
goals of the program through philanthropic and/or corporate giving in collaboration with

13
University Relations and Development. Discuss how these efforts could be improved and what
future opportunities might be pursued.

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

J. Areas of Distinction and Improvement: In light of the findings of this Self-Study, present, in
prioritized bulleted paragraphs, (1) some specific areas of distinction and (2) some specific
areas for improvement. For the latter, propose potential improvement plans that could be
pursued primarily by existing resources and secondarily by additional strategic investments.
Note that areas of improvement could also identify issues and opportunities beyond the
academic unit and in other areas of the University (e.g., Admissions, Career Services,
International Student Center, etc.).

<Unit Response – Double-spacing>

K. Appendices: Include the following appendices and refer to information within these
appendices as appropriate within the body of the Self-Study. Academic units may include
additional relevant appendices as appropriate and referenced within the Self-Study.
● Appendix 1. Review Team report from previous Academic Reviews
● Appendix 2. Unit’s formal written response to the previous Review Team report
● Appendix 3. Action Plan from previous review (if produced)
● Appendix 4. Most recent versions of syllabi for major required courses and major
electives
● Appendix 5. Full CVs for each faculty member
● Appendix 6. Diversity Plan, last approved
● Appendix 7. Diversity Plan Update

14