Skip to Main Content
California State University, Chico

Assessment and Program Review

Mission Statement

The Office of Assessment and Program Review advances student learning and institutional effectiveness by partnering with faculty and campus leaders to design meaningful assessment practices, foster continuous improvement, and ensure transparency, accountability, and academic excellence.

Vision Statement

By 2030, the Office of Assessment and Program Review at California State University, Chico will be recognized as a strategic partner in institutional transformation, advancing the Chico State Playbook’s commitment to excellence, equity, connection, inspiration, and innovation by embedding evidence-informed decision-making into every level of academic and co-curricular life. Anchored in the principles of continuous improvement and accountability defined in the WASC Senior College and University Commission accreditation standards—particularly quality assurance, equitable student success, and sustained institutional learning—we will ensure that student learning outcomes, program effectiveness, and institutional plans are coherently aligned with Chico State’s strategic priorities. Our vision is a campus where assessment drives adaptive strategies that strengthen academic quality, enhance student success for all, and guide resource allocation and organizational structures to deliver measurable impact across the university, region, and beyond.

Alignment

How our vision aligns with the Chico State Playbook:

  • Values: Our vision statement reflects excellence, connection, innovation, and inclusion as core institutional behaviors that shape our strategic focus.

  • Strategic Direction: It supports immersive learning, accessible education, and adaptive ways of working as essential mechanisms for success.

  • Culture & Action: It underscores the Playbook’s emphasis on organizational health and streamlined, collaborative processes as enablers of strategic execution.

How our vision aligns with the WSCUC Standards:

  • Quality Assurance & Improvement: Our vision statement positions assessment as integral to systematic evaluation that informs strategic planning and institutional effectiveness, consistent with WSCUC Standard 4.

  • Student Success & Equity: It commits to evidence-based strategies that promote success for all students, meeting WSCUC’s expectations for educational objectives and an emphasis on student-centeredness, as stated in WSCUC Standard 2.

  • Mission Consistency: It reinforces alignment between mission-driven priorities and evidence-informed operational practices, as required under WSCUC Standards 1 and 3.

Overview

Annual program learning outcomes assessment and periodic program review are two interconnected processes that ensure continuous improvement of the academic programs we offer at Chico State. The diagram below illustrates this synergy:

Assessment cycles from course to university with increasing timelines

In the diagram above

  • Faculty are involved in regular course assessment each semester. They use direct, observable feedback from their students and our campus Student Feedback on Teaching and Learning (SFOT) survey at the end of the semester to make adjustments in the courses they teach.
  • Each year, faculty and chairs (or program directors/coordinators) conduct annual program learning outcomes (PLOs) assessment of their programs by evaluating and reporting on their students' achievement of PLOs selected for assessment in the prior academic year. Campus requires the submission of an Annual Program Assessment Report (APAR) from each academic program.
  • Academic programs undergo a periodic program review (PPR) process at least every five years. Internal program reviews are subject to our campus program review process, while external program reviews are coordinated with discipline-specific professional accrediting agencies.
  • At least every 8 years, our university goes through a reaffirmation process to maintain Chico State's WSCUC accreditation.

The information from each enclosed process is used to appraise the enclosing process; hence, these processes must be nurtured to sustain the continuous improvement of our academic programs.

Additional Information

Institutions, academic disciplines, and even accrediting bodies use different terms for the same program assessment and accreditation concepts. To avoid confusion, the following terms (listed in alphabetical order) will be used in campus conversations about assessment and program review:

  • accreditation – the action or process of officially recognizing that an entity has met standards set by external regulators
  • accreditation liaison officer (ALO) – a campus employee who is the institution’s point of contact with the accrediting body on all matters pertaining to campus accreditation; the ALO coordinates the campus efforts to secure reaffirmation for accreditation
  • assessment – the gathering of data that can be used for the evaluation (see below) of the quality of a program (also compare direct versus indirect assessment methods below)
  • assessment measure - the specific tools, instruments, or indicators used to quantify or evaluate learning within a method; these describe what is being scored or observed and how success is determined (e.g., a rubric with defined criteria and performance levels, a score on an exam question aligned to an outcome, a portfolio evaluation checklist, a rating scale, a survey question targeting a specific learning outcome, etc.)
  • assessment method - the approaches or processes used to evaluate student learning; these describe how the program will gather evidence (e.g. a comprehensive or standardized exam, a written essay, a lab report, performances or presentations, capstone projects, portfolios, surveys, etc.)
  • course learning outcomes (CLOs) – learning outcomes (see below) that students are expected to achieve upon successful completion of a course
  • criteria for review (CFR) – specific standards that can be evaluated to determine if a criterion has been met
  • criterion – a principle or standard by which something may be evaluated (see evaluation)
  • direct assessment method – examination of the actual student performance to determine what students learned and the extent to which students have met a learning outcome (compare with indirect assessment below); examples include faculty-evaluated papers, tests, or performances
  • evaluation – the act of making a judgment based on the analysis of data meant to provide evidence that specific criteria have been met
  • formative assessment –gathering of data early in the cycle so the evaluation can lead to proactive improvements in learning opportunities for students from the same cohort (compare with summative assessment below)
  • indirect assessment method – complements direct assessment methods via the use of proxy signs to determine student learning (compare with direct assessment above); examples include surveys where students self-report what they have learned, or peer reviews of student work where faculty do not directly observe the review process
  • institutional learning outcomes (ILOs) – learning outcomes (see below) that students are expected to achieve by graduation
  • learning outcomes – measurable achievements that learners will be able to understand after the learning is complete; these describe specifically how learners will achieve the goals of the learning activity
  • program learning outcomes (PLOs) – learning outcomes (see above) that students are expected to achieve upon successfully completing degree program requirements; a.k.a. student learning outcomes or SLOs
  • program review – a process used to determine the viability of an academic program based on a set of criteria; external program review is also called program accreditation
  • stakeholder – any entity or group that has interest and stake in the well-being of a program
  • summative assessment – gathering of data late in the cycle so the evaluation can lead to reactive improvements in learning opportunities for students in future cohorts (compare with formative assessment above)
  • WASC – the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, was the accrediting agency our campus was accredited with; until 2012, WASC was a single organization with three units; in 2012, it separated into three organizations that share the WASC acronym as part of their name
  • WSCUC – the WASC (see above) Senior College and University Commission, is the institutional accrediting agency our campus is accredited with; this agency accredits colleges and universities, and it is one of three commissions that used to belong under the umbrella of WASC (see above); the other two education commissions are for community and junior colleges, and for schools.

The Office of Assessment and Program Review coordinates our campus assessment and program review processes for all academic programs offered to ensure our programs are following best practices in continuous improvement and in documenting program learning outcomes (PLO)-based achievement measures of student success.

We continuously assess our role on campus based on the following outcomes:

  1. Compliance and Timeliness. Academic programs complete assessment and program review activities on schedule, consistent with institutional and accreditor timelines.
  2. Quality of Evaluation. Program-level assessment and program review reports demonstrate alignment with institutional mission and data-informed, evidence-based decision making.
  3. Continuous Improvement. Academic programs demonstrate that assessment and program review findings lead to actionable improvements in curriculum, pedagogy, student learning, or student support.
  4. Campus Engagement and Support. Campus constituents report that they receive adequate guidance, tools, and support from our office.
  5. Integration with Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness. Assessment and program review processes align with institutional strategic planning and external accreditation requirements.

The Office of Assessment and Program Review coordinates with other offices around campus to support the Chico State community's efforts to continuously improve student learning by providing the following services:

  • development of assessment processes
  • measurement design (e.g., rubrics, tests, surveys, forms, validity, and reliability)
  • data collection and reporting (e.g., use of Canvas Outcomes)
  • assessment-related consultation, training, and workshops
  • assessment technology training and support (e.g., Canvas, Qualtrics, and use of our campus reporting systems)
  • periodic program review, orientation, and consultation

We partner with the following campus offices to provide the services listed above:

  • Faculty Development (FDEV)
  • Institutional Research and Strategic Analytics (IRSA)
  • Learning Technology Services (LTS)
  • Technology and Learning Program (TLP)