Assessment of the Major

This policy governs the process for program review and assessment of learning outcomes in the undergraduate major at the State University of New York.

Program Review and Assessment of Student Learning in the Major

Each campus, following existing curriculum and governance procedures, is responsible for overseeing program review and the assessment of student learning in academic majors. Campuses and programs have maximum autonomy in the development of assessment plans for academic majors, but it is recommended that plans reflect input from faculty, professional staff and students. The assessment of student learning outcomes is only a part of the comprehensive program review process academic programs should undergo on a regular basis in order to stay current and provide the best possible education to their majors.

In carrying out their assessment plan, all programs shall:

· complete one cycle of assessment every five to seven years, or on a cycle of programmatic accreditation of ten years or less;

· include measures of student learning outcomes;

· seek review of their final assessment report by an external review team, including a campus visit and report to the chief academic officers; and

· include a strategy for measuring, specific to designated learning outcomes, change in students’ knowledge and skills over time.

Programmatic accreditation by an accrediting agency recognized by the Commission on Higher

Education Accreditation (CHEA) or the U.S. Secretary of Education that includes assessment of student learning satisfies the requirement for program review and assessment of student learning in the major.

A campus shall assess every academic major during each cycle, except that the chief academic officer may decide not to assess:

· majors that have no or very low enrollment (e.g., less than 10 students);

· new majors that are not yet due for assessment in the cycle; and

· majors that are scheduled for assessment after the current cycle ends due to a programmatic accreditation cycle or other scheduling reasons.

External Review

The purpose of the external review is to provide programs and academic leadership with an objective critique of programs to provide the basis for improvement. While issues related to funding levels may have some relevance, the focus of the review should be on the academic enterprise and on steps that could and should be taken to improve the program within available funding levels. Given the importance of good governance, it would also be appropriate for the external review team to examine the effectiveness of program leadership and the level of functional collegiality.

Many programs are reviewed regularly for re-accreditation purposes. Usually the professional accrediting body determines the membership of the review team. The membership of external review teams for all other programs should be discussed between the program/department being reviewed, the dean (where applicable) and the campus chief academic officer or designee. The campus chief academic officer should make the final determination.

In general, external review teams should consist of not less than two individuals who have no academic, professional or other significant relationship to full-time faculty in the program/departments, no previous significant or formal affiliation with the institution, and who come from academic or professional institutions belonging to a peer or aspirational peer group (equivalent to being in the same Carnegie class and having similar program size, scope and statistical, or perceived reputational, ranking). However, two-year programs may include one Advisory Board member as part of each review team. In addition, the chief academic officer may use professional judgment to determine whether one reviewer would be sufficient to achieve the goals of external review.

The report from the external review team should include:

· The date of the campus visit and a list of the people whom the team met during the visit;

· The team’s assessment of the program, including major strengths and weaknesses; and

· The team’s recommendations to the chief academic officer for program improvement.

Program – for the purpose of SUNY assessment in the major, an active, registered program that is on the State Education Department’s Inventory of Registered Programs and that leads to an undergraduate degree or certificate awarded by a SUNY campus

Criteria – the evidence collected as markers of quality

Standards – the benchmarks against which the evidence is compared

Measures – the methods used to collect the evidence

MAJOR-1 2009 Schedule of Program Review and Assessment of Student Learning in the Major

MAJOR-2 Program Review and Assessment of Student Learning in the Major Summary Report

NOTE: Updates to MAJOR-1, with data reported by campuses, will be sent to campuses.
MAJOR-1 2009 should only be used for reporting in 2009.

NYS Education Law §355(2)(h) § 355 (Powers and duties of trustees.)

Memorandum to Presidents, Volume 87, Number 8 (August 14, 1987)

Memorandum to Presidents, Volume 85, Number 18 (December 31, 1985)

Memorandum to Presidents, Volume 79, Number 3 (March 14, 1979)

Memorandum to Presidents, Volume 77, Number 3 (March 1, 1977)

In 1977, the Board of Trustees asked the Chancellor to develop and disseminate guidelines for a rigorous and periodic review of authorized academic programs. Guidelines were developed that, among other things, advised campuses that their assessment could be structured as they saw fit, depending on their campus structures and the relationships between programs. For example, they could do a separate assessment of each major, or they could assess a group of related majors at one time. Since then, revised guidelines have been issued and SUNY campuses have conducted program reviews, including reviews for programmatic accreditation, on a regular cycle, and have reported on their activities in various ways to System Administration. Appendices B – F

In 1983, the SUNY Faculty Senate's Undergraduate Programs and Policies Committee undertook the development of a Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs In formulating the Guide, that committee attempted to identify the major factors that might be expected to influence the quality and scope of academic programs in order to develop questions that could elicit information important to a meaningful assessment, including faculty, students, curriculum, administration, and academic support services. The Guide was reissued in 1990 and again in 2001. Appendix A

The 2001 revision of the Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs built on the work of the original committee. This revised Guide continued and increased the centrality of outcomes assessment in program review. Consistent with the Characteristics of Excellence adopted by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association Commission on Higher Education (MSACHE) and the Final Report of the Provost's Task Force on the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes, the Guide fostered an awareness of the relationship between any specific programmatic activity and the overall mission, goals, and objectives of the program and the institution. The revised guide also benefited from two decades of research about and practice of assessment and program review. Departmental Assessment: How Some Campuses Are Effectively Evaluating the Collective Work of Faculty by Wergin and Swingen analyzed current policies and practices and offered useful conclusions. Because SUNY academic programs undergo periodic evaluation by SUNY, MSACHE, the New York State Education Department, and, sometimes, specialized accrediting associations, the revised Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs suggested criteria for a comprehensive evaluation of programs, criteria that are useful and adaptable to any review. Campuses should coordinate program review with anticipated reviews of external evaluators and professional accrediting bodies. The Committee strongly suggested that where there is an external specialized agency, that program review be accepted as the SUNY program review, assuming that the agency utilizes external review teams and includes student learning outcomes in its evaluation.

In 2009, policies and procedures for program review were clarified, and reporting procedures were changed, in response to Re-Engineering SUNY and preliminary recommendations from an audit conducted by the New York State Office of the State Comptroller.

Appendix A - The University Faculty Senate's Guide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs, 2001

Appendix B - Report of the Provost's Advisory Task Force on the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes and Guidelines for the Implementation of Campus Based Assessment

Appendix C - Memorandum to presidents from the office of the vice chancellor for academic programs, policy and planning dated August 14, 1987 regarding Summary of Academic Policy Issues

Appendix D - Memorandum to presidents from the office of the vice chancellor for academic programs, policy and planning dated December 31, 1985. regarding Undergraduate Academic Program Reviews

Appendix E - Memorandum to presidents from the office of the vice chancellor for academic programs, policy and planning dated March 14, 1979. regarding Undergraduate Academic Program Reviews

Appendix F - Memorandum to presidents from the office of the vice chancellor for academic policy dated March 1, 1977 regarding Review of Academic Programs