Women's Studies Review Process | Women's Studies Review Effectiveness

Women’s Studies Review Process

Overview:The pilot process was designed to lead to a more meaningful and productive self-study and review process. Specifically, it was designed to (1) develop a more useful set of questions and criteria for evaluating undergraduate education to guide both the departmental self-study and the committee's charge; (2) get better information and data analyses to both the department and the review committee to help them evaluate undergraduate education, including survey data from undergraduates; and (3) create a more effective joint structure for internal and external program review. Women’s Studies is the only department on campus without a full-scale graduate program, and it had not been formally reviewed since its establishment.

Evaluation Criteria: The Academic Senate Committee on Educational Policy and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education worked jointly to develop a new set of criteria for the evaluation of undergraduate programs. The resulting criteria were incorporated into the department’s self-study outline, the review committee charge letter, and issues to the committee. The departmental self-study outline was designed to be flexible to maximize the opportunity for the departmental review to produce meaningful and productive results. However, the new outline did provide a structured format for the department to address a number of issues deemed critical to the evaluation of the undergraduate program, including (1) the department’s learning objectives and outcomes for majors, (2) curricular and co-curricular enhancements to the undergraduate curriculum, and (3) evaluation of the quality of teaching and advising. The charge letter to the committee also highlighted the special nature of the review and the focus on student learning.

Data Appendices: To help ensure the success of the pilot process, data were provided centrally to decrease department workload associated with the development of the self-study. The data set included information on faculty, staff, and departmental resources; the undergraduate program (e.g., data on undergraduate majors, gender and ethnicity, freshmen vs. transfers, the proportion of double majors, trends for declared majors, time to degree data, and career destination survey data); the curriculum (e.g., course enrollment information by course type and majors vs. nonmajors); and faculty workload. The data package was prefaced by a summary analysis that highlighted areas of potential interest and key trends for the department and review committee to consider. In addition, a pilot survey of majors and prospective majors was designed, administered, and analyzed as part of the review. The survey instrument included questions on how students decided to become majors; academic engagement indicators; and ratings of departmental practices and policies, the quality of the curriculum, self progress in key areas, and satisfaction with the major. All of these data components were included in a set of appendices provided to the department to support the preparation of its self-study and to the academic program review committee to aid in the development of its final report.

Joint External/Internal Review Committee: The Women’s Studies review also provided an opportunity to pilot a more effective joint structure for conducting academic program reviews. Under the old process, a campus review committee and an external review committee conducted separate meetings and submitted two separate reports. For the Women’s Studies pilot review, the campus convened a single academic program review committee, with two external members and an internal member appointed by the Academic Senate.

Women’s Studies Review Effectiveness

Overview:The site visit for the review took place on April 9-11, 2003. We are able to make some preliminary observations about the effectiveness of the review process, which is not yet complete. These observations are based on (1) a review of the content of the departmental self-study, (2) the review committee’s comments at the exit interview, (3) a review of the final report of the review committee, and (4) an e-mail survey of both campus and external review participants requesting feedback on the review process.

Productiveness of Review Process: Overall, the review process appears to have yielded productive and meaningful results. The review committee was able to gain a good understanding of the department by reading the self-study, examining the data appendices, and conducting on-campus interviews. Its final report made a series of recommendations designed to capitalize on the department’s existing strengths and to help it realize its vision. The department also found the review process to be worthwhile. The department chair praised the "extraordinarily helpful report" which "will help us take and keep our bearings for many years." The incoming chair for 2003-04 wrote: “Thanks . . . for helping us—finally! move on with the external review of [Women’s Studies]. What a shot in the arm! With our new faculty coming in and a vision . . . we've now got very high morale and forward momentum.”

Evaluation of the Undergraduate Curriculum: As part of the pilot process, assessment of the undergraduate program was intended to be a major focus. In practice, the results were mixed. The departmental self-study underlined the importance of undertaking a review of the undergraduate curriculum, noting that “courses for this major have not been changed in the last decade.” However, because of a combination of sabbatical leaves and new faculty hires not yet in residence, the department argued that “the process of reviewing the curriculum and making recommendations for its alteration cannot take place during this time or through this vehicle [of the program review self-study].” The review committee devoted a significant portion of its final report to the undergraduate major. It concurred with the department that the curriculum is in need of “restructuring and revitalization in order to realize the mission the self-study articulates” but urged that “curricular reform” be a “major departmental priority next year.” In the fall, the Committee on Educational Policy will take the lead for the Senate to evaluate whether Women’s Studies has made sufficient progress in revamping its undergraduate program and to recommend action steps.

Data Utilization: The new data elements were an effective addition to the review process. The departmental self-study cited extensively the data provided by the Office of Planning and Analysis and also provided contextual interpretations and factual corrections as needed, indicating that the data and summary analysis were “very helpful to our review.” In the exit interview, the review committee praised the usefulness of the data provided. The pilot undergraduate survey, administered by the Office of Student Research, was a particularly effective addition to the review process, yielding a 72% response rate. In its final report, the review committee drew on both survey data and site visit follow-up interviews with five Women’s Studies majors to make very specific recommendations in response to direct student input, an element that had been lacking in previous campus academic program reviews.

Student Learning: Both the department and the review committee were asked to address student learning as part of the pilot process. To aid in this investigation, the undergraduate survey asked students to rate progress on a variety of student learning outcomes, including learning to write more clearly and fluently, developing research skills, developing analytical and critical thinking skills, and developing a greater understanding of culturally diverse viewpoints. Despite the availability of these new data elements, the departmental self-study did not adequately reflect on this dimension of the data. They did indicate that a future curriculum review would need to include discussion and agreement on the “goals of an undergraduate education in Women’s Studies,” and by extension an assessment of student learning. The review committee found that “courses are appropriately concerned with developing student skills and competencies rather than specialized forms of expertise.” However, it observed that “better means could be devised for assessing majors’ experiences,” such as the use of student portfolios. While the pilot was successful in introducing a discussion of student learning where none had existed, the campus will need to continue to find ways to strengthen this focus.

Internal/External Review Structure: At the exit interview, one of the external reviewers indicated she had initially been skeptical of the combined committee structure, but came to appreciate the advantages of having both an insider and outsider perspective jointly represented in the report. The review committee worked extremely collaboratively, with the internal reviewer taking the lead on providing historical context and perspective afforded by her “broad familiarity with the history of the department,” and the two external reviewers focusing on future directions for the department’s scholarship and curricular contributions.

Next Steps: As the campus moves forward to conclude this particular program review, we have identified a need to establish an ongoing mechanism for accountability. The review lays a solid foundation for rethinking the future directions of the Women’s Studies department, but it is also missing some key elements. In particular, the success of this review depends on the successful completion of the curricular review recommended by the review committee. Next steps in the review process to be undertaken are (1) request for written responses to the review committee report from departmental faculty and undergraduates; (2) written comments from designated Senate committees, the cognizant Dean, and the College of Letters and Science Executive Committee; and (3) a wrap-up meeting and a summary letter that will document the expected unit response and provide a timeline for any recommended actions, which will be the basis for follow-up and accountability.

[Back to Essay][Back to Top]

[Accreditation Home][Undergraduate Education Home][UC Berkeley Home]

© Copyright 2002 The Regents of the University of California at Berkeley. All Rights Reserved.
To report problems with this website, please contact the webmaster.