 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SELF-STUDY FOR REACCREDITATION California State University, Sacramento Phase I Report November 11, 1996 Table of Contents Chapter 1 - CSUS in Context Chapter 2 - WASC Self Study Design Opportunity KnocksChapter 3 - Teaching and Learning at CSUS Survey ApproachChapter 4 - Student Outcomes -- Measuring Educational Effectiveness Survey ApproachChapter 5 - The Learning Community Survey ApproachChapter 6 - From WASC Self-study to Institutional Commitment: A Culture of EvidenceStaff Perceptions of the Learning CommunityFaculty Perceptions of the Learning Community The Institutional Commitment to Assessment PREFACE
California State University, Sacramento's WASC self-study reflects the piloting of a new approach to reaccreditation. At the suggestion and encouragement of the Director of WASC, CSUS undertook a self-study that replaced the traditional nine standards approach with one designed to document the character and effectiveness of the institution with data. While the traditional approach relies on data to document input and activities (e.g., number of faculty with advanced degrees, research proposals submitted, volumes in the Library), this innovative approach uses data in an entirely different way--to document outcomes of the educational experience. It is well known that defining outcomes for educational enterprises is not only complex but one fraught with ambiguities. We have learned over the past several years that it can be an overwhelming task to decide what data, of the plethora of data available, best reflects the character and effectiveness of CSUS. We made a decision to collect, analyze and report data on three themes selected by the WASC Steering Committee. While the themes certainly do not encompass everything that CSUS is, and does, they were judged to be of fundamental importance, not only to achieving the mission and purpose of the University, but to meeting the expectations of an accrediting agency. The experimental nature of the self-study design is reflected in both the structure and content of the report. We begin with an introduction to CSUS, containing key demographic facts and other characteristics of the University. The second chapter describes the WASC self-study process. An innovative study requires an innovative process. The third, fourth, and fifth chapters summarize the most salient evidence that we have generated during our assessment of the three themes--Teaching and Learning, Student Outcomes, and The Learning Community. Two points must be made clear about the content of these chapters. First, data are presented to capture the "flavor" and character of CSUS, which we decided could be achieved most effectively using a modified version of classic research study. Significant findings are summarized and suggestions are made for institutional action. Complete summaries of the data can be found in the tables that are included in the appendices. Second, the data presented both in the text and the appendices are drawn primarily from the surveys selected and/or designed by the subcommittees responsible for each theme area. The surveys reflect the understanding of the theme by the WASC Steering Committee and its subcommittees. Additional data, relevant to the WASC self-study can be provided to the WASC Review Team upon request. The final chapter of the self-study report explains the steps that CSUS has taken to institutionalize planning and assessment as an ongoing University activity. Our planning process has already been profoundly affected (and improved) by our engagement in this innovative self-study process, and many programs and services have been changed as a result of assessment data. We welcome the opportunity to share these changes with the WASC team. We understand that the campus visit conducted as part of the reaccreditation process will be non-traditional. A smaller team will make two visits to the campus with the intent of assisting the University in its efforts to institutionalize its commitment to a "culture of evidence." In between the visits the campus is expected to discuss and respond to the report. This innovative self-study document is a work-in-progress. The process that produced it, is sensitive to the elements inherent in the traditional standards for WASC re- accreditation. Specifically, the report presents sufficient information to assess compliance with traditional standards; demonstrates a process of collaboration, consultation, and peer review; addresses themes consistent with the University's Strategic Plan; focuses on undergraduate teaching; and represents the spirit of genuine self-examination.
A final note concerns the style of the written document. The report is the culmination of the collective efforts of numerous faculty, staff, and students over a period of almost three years. We have chosen to let the reader hear the voices of the many individuals contributing to this assessment of CSUS. The reader, therefore, will encounter the first person plural "we" as representative of the discussions, conclusions, and assessments of multiple viewpoints. It is our hope that "we" have presented a rich, informative, responsive, and useful self-study report. At this time, we wish to thank everyone who provided assistance and support to the WASC Steering Committee in developing the design, collecting and summarizing the data, and analyzing the results. While we met resistance along the way, we realize we have traveled down a new path. We have learned, and will continue to learn, what it is that we as a University are all about. With this information, we will influence the future of California State University, Sacramento as we enter the 21st Century. Chapter 1
|
| Verbal Reasoning | Physical Sciences | Writing* | Biological Sciences | |
| CSUS April 1995 Average | 7.8 | 8.5 | O=50th percentile | 8.2 |
| CSUS August 1995 Average | 7.5 | 8.5 | O=75th percentile | 8.4 |
| National Average | 7.9 | 8.1 | N | 8.3 |
CSUS students compare favorably with the national sample except for writing
competency. *The letter "O" indicates that CSUS students fell below the national averaged
represented by the letter "N." In August of 1995 students scored in the 50th percentile; in
April of the same year, they scored in the 75th percentile.
Law School Admission Test (LSAT) - Scores on the LSAT are reported
on a scale ranging from 120 to 180. Three sets of scores were reviewed for tests taken in
December 1995, February 1996, and June 1966:
| December 1995 | February 1996 | June 1966 | |
| CSUS Mean | 147.79 | 144.58 | 148 |
| Percentile Rank | 38th | 24th | 35th |
| CSUS Range | 127-167 | 134-156 | 134-161 |
| National Mean | 149.45 (1995) | unknown | unknown |
Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in General Education - In the Fall of 1994,
1,701 students enrolled in "Race and Ethnicity in American Society" courses were
surveyed at the end of the semester to determine whether they perceived that the course
they were enrolled in met the objectives, which were to develop ". . .a significant and useful
understanding of the perspectives and contributions to human activities and experiences of
people from a diversity of cultures and backgrounds." Of the students surveyed, 60 percent
were female; 40 percent male; 41 percent were seniors; 27 percent were juniors; 20 percent
were freshmen; and 10 percent were sophomores. Self-identification of race/ethnicity status
revealed 54 percent were Caucasian, 18 percent were Asian, 11 percent were Mexican
American and Latino, and 6 percent were Black.
Overall, the majority of students responded positively to the questions, indicating
that the Race and Ethnicity courses were meeting the intended General Education objectives
(Appendix P). The proportion of respondents choosing "agree" or "strongly agree" on each
question varied from a high of 82 percent on "Having positive attitudes toward other ethnic
groups" to a low of 57 percent on "Interacting frequently with other ethnic groups as a
result of the course." The average was a 73 percent positive response across all survey
questions.
Strong negative responses of "disagree" or "strongly disagree" ranged from a high
of 12 percent on "How to interact effectively with ethnic groups" to a low of 3 percent on
"Whether the course provided information on the history of underrepresented minority
groups in the United States." The average proportion of negative responses was percent for
all questions.
Neutral responses ranged from a high of 24.1 percent on "Interacting more
frequently with members from other ethnic groups as a result of the course" to a low of
11.2 percent on "Whether the course included the study of at least two minority cultures."
A rather high, 17 percent average, response of "neutral" was recorded on the survey and
could not be interpreted.
Further analysis revealed that some courses appeared to meet the General
Education Race and Ethnicity criteria better than others. Data summarizing the results for
each course, including summaries of each section, were shared with the departments offering
the courses, since they are responsible for monitoring their own courses. The survey
instrument will be revised and refined before it is used again. The neutral response will be
eliminated from the survey in favor of a forced-choice format. Perhaps students could be
asked to assess the effectiveness of teaching strategies used in the course. One of the more
interesting observations about the University's contribution to the understanding and
appreciation of ethnic and cultural diversity was the congruence between student
evaluations of Race and Ethnicity courses and responses of alumni and graduating students
to cultural diversity questions on the ACT surveys.
ACT-COS data demonstrate that CSUS performs satisfactorily in almost all areas of
inquiry. However, graduating students identified aspects of their University education in
need of improvement. Student performances on standardized basic skills tests seem
significant enough to require further inquiry. The Steering Committee recommends that the
following issues be examined:
and job seeking skills. What can CSUS do to facilitate student transition from school
to career?
Students need and want more experience in using technology effectively.
What is CSUS doing to ensure that its graduates are technologically literate?
ESL students scored below the mean on writing tests. While this might be
expected, the question is What specific difficulties do ESL students have in
writing and what can be done to improve the writing competency of ESL
students?
Black and Mexican American students scored below the State and CSUS
rates in reading, mathematics, and writing. Other Latino students scores
below the State and CSUS scores in reading. Men scored below the writing
norm while women scored below in reading and mathematics. These
outcomes demonstrate the need to continue special support for students.
Further inquiry might yield competency areas that can be targeted for
improvement.
Students majoring in community services, computer science, engineering,
and home economics scored below the mean in writing tests. What are the
contributing factors for students in these majors having writing difficulty and
what can be done to improve their writing competency?
Asian students scored below the campus and national means in the critical
thinking test. What are the reasons for this below average performance and
what can be done to improve this competency?
Students majoring in liberal studies and engineering scored below the mean
on the critical thinking test. What are the reasons for this below average
performance of students in these majors and what can be done to improve
their critical thinking competency?
THE LEARNING COMMUNITY
To the extent that we foster a community on campus, we further
our goals
in all areas.
--CSUS Strategic Plan
How does a regional comprehensive university define itself as a community,
particularly when the majority of students commute to campus? It was this general
question that prompted the WASC Steering Committee to examine the campus as a
"Learning Community" as one of its themes for the University's self-study.
The easiest response to the question is to say that a commuter orientation limits
involvement in the life of the campus; however, it does not lessen the University's
commitment to create a learning community in which "teaching and learning are fundamental
values and where people come together in community" (CSUS Strategic Plan). Within this
broad definition the University's Strategic Plan asserts that the campus "should be
recognized as a place of importance for students, faculty, and staff". . . "a place where
achievement is recognized, collegiality and collaboration are valued, and all persons are
respected." We agree with Ernest Boyer who noted that a community is a place where a
balance exists between individual interests and shared concerns.
Using these definitions as a framework for its theme, the Steering Committee
explored the characteristics and dimensions of a Learning Community. Faculty on the
Steering Committee saw a need to explore the issue of community among the faculty at
large. Anticipation of the retirement of many faculty, and an interest in the "socialization"
process for junior faculty added, for some, a sense of urgency to the issue of community.
The student and staff dialogue in the WASC Steering Committee developed in a somewhat
different direction. For them, diversity became a defining dimension. The issues of
representation and respect that a commitment to diversity expects from all constituencies
were clearly of concern. These diversity themes became a significant feature of this first
phase of data collection and examination.
Community by surveying staff, faculty, and students about their satisfaction with the
University and the nature of the campus climate, particularly with respect to diversity. A
study of the Learning Community is essentially a study of the organizational culture, the
formal and informal environment of the institution where individuals learn, work, and live.
The survey design explored values, beliefs, and relationships which contribute to a sense of
community, the expectations and needs of faculty, staff and students as members of the
community, and issues of diversity on the campus. The committee wanted to answer the
following questions:
faculty, staff, and administrators?;
To what extent are there widely shared values and beliefs about the
campus as a Learning Community?;
What are the expectations and needs of faculty, staff and students as
members of the community?;
What impediments to, or incentives for, strengthening community
exist?; and,
How do faculty, staff, and students view issues of diversity as
integral to the idea of a Learning Community?
With these questions, a subcommittee of the WASC Steering Committee
examined
existing survey data and instruments that might be used in the data gathering
process.
A survey was developed in 1993 to measure student perceptions of campus
climate using questions from an instrument generated and validated by CPEC. The
Campus Education Equity Committee (CEEC) and the Committee on Diversity and
Equity (CODE) collaborated in the development of the instrument. A faculty and
staff survey was to follow in 1994. When the WASC Steering Committee decided to
explore issues of diversity in its study of the Learning Community there was general
agreement to include the results of the student Campus Climate Survey (1993) and
to develop an instrument to survey faculty and staff.
The WASC Steering Committee agreed to use items from the Assessing Campus
Climate instrument developed by CPEC. CPEC had validated the items for three
separate instruments designed specifically for faculty, staff and student groups.
While the student version of the instrument focused primarily on issues of
diversity, the faculty and staff surveys sought to broaden the scope of issues to
include general perceptions of the campus community as measured by personal
expectations and needs, values and beliefs, and impediments and incentives.
In retrospect, it must be acknowledged that the faculty and staff surveys reflected
some of the inevitable weaknesses of any attempt to mesh different goals and thus
different variables in a single instrument. Questions were added to an existing
instrument designed to assess campus climate on diversity issues. Nonetheless,
there are many interesting and provocative findings which suggest rich avenues for
continuing to explore the campus as a learning community. In addition to the
student Campus Climate Survey (1993), the results of other surveys, conducted as
part of the WASC Self-Study and relevant to student perceptions of the Learning
Community, will be included in this chapter.
In May 1995 all staff at CSUS were sent the Learning Community Survey which
included 11 demographic questions and 254 items regarding staff roles,
responsibilities, campus relationships, and satisfaction with CSUS. One qualitative
question included in the survey was designed to probe attitudes and experiences
associated with the rewards and challenges of working in a multicultural campus
community. Approximately 1,300 surveys were distributed and 184 (14%) were
returned. With the exception of the narrative question, responses were marked on a
scannable answer form.
The ethnic distribution of the respondents varied from the ethnic composition of
the full staff population. Caucasian respondents were overrepresented with 127
(71.3%) of the total returned questionnaires while they constitute 67.7 percent of
CSUS staff. African American respondents made up 2.2 percent (N=4) of the total
while 10.2 percent of the CSUS staff are African American. In addition 65.7 percent
of the respondents were female compared to 41.2 percent of the staff as a whole. The
majority of the respondents (85.4%) were full-time employees for an average of ten
years. A little over half worked in student services or administrative support services.
The average age was 43 years. The Committee does not perceive the staff survey results
as conclusive, but rather views the data as helpful as a starting point for further
exploration via focus groups or additional surveys (Appendix Q).
Values, Expectations and Needs of Staff - The reasons why staff chose to
work at CSUS were somewhat standard and predictable: job security, competitive
salary, further educational opportunities and career advancement. A significant
finding was the importance staff placed on opportunities for faculty/staff
collaboration; 94 percent ranked it as "very important" or "important", giving it an
intensity certainly equal if not stronger than some of the traditional
factors above.
When asked to assess their satisfaction with various aspects of CSUS, staff were
"most satisfied" with working in a collaborative manner with faculty (74%),
followed by campus life (66%); and, campus facilities (61%). They were "least
satisfied" with opportunities for promotion to a different job classification (64%),
reclassification within the same job classification (62%), professional growth (58%),
and earning a competitive salary (53%). Approximately one- half indicated
"dissatisfaction" with opportunities to develop skills for professional
advancement.
Incentives and Impediments - Among the staff, incentives for community
center on the quality of relationships with supervisors, including mentoring, and
general cohesion within their work groups. For example, 84 percent of respondents
indicated that they regularly meet with their supervisors; almost half said they
receive mentoring. Seventy-nine percent perceive appreciated by their supervisors;
job expectations are clear for 70 percent; and 72 percent believe that their work is
judged objectively.
Impediments to community include the lack of clear performance standards
(43%), the lack of information and advice on promotional opportunities (62%), and
the lack of effective staff orientations (41.6%). A set of questions probed the
orientation that new staff receive to CSUS campus policies and procedures,
departmental policies and procedures, the nature of the student body and the
mission of the institution. Almost 50 percent of the staff indicated that they
received "no orientation" in these areas.
Relationships with Faculty, Students and Administration - Although there is
general satisfaction (85%) with staff/staff relationships, only 66 percent of staff
perceive that their work is appreciated by faculty. When staff were asked to
evaluate the leadership administrators provide in the areas of campus governance,
opportunities for staff development, quality of campus life for staff and students,
and the quality of teaching, research and public service, the most frequent response
on all dimensions was "sometimes". Similarly, "sometimes" was the most frequent
response to questions of whether campus administrators are receptive to ideas from
staff, communicate important information, regard staff as professionals, and
promote positive faculty/staff relations.
Diversity Issues - Issues related to the University's commitment to diversity are
really woven throughout all the data as can be seen in the survey results. Fifty to 60
percent of the respondents participated in activities related to understanding
diversity, including campus programs, informal discussions, reading books and
attending special events which increase respect for diversity. The overwhelming
majority of respondents indicate that when they have seen and heard about campus
events where individuals from various groups (gender, culture, race, and age) are
portrayed, these portrayals are positive. Administrators are also "almost always" or
"frequently" perceived as supportive of staff from diverse racial groups, regardless
of gender orientation, or disability. Similarly, most staff are satisfied with
opportunities to become campus leaders regardless of gender, race, sexual
orientation, or disability.
Despite these generally positive findings, staff indicate that they had "sometimes"
experienced discrimination by other staff (46%), administrators (42%), faculty
(35%) and students (25%). The most frequent source of discrimination felt by staff
respondents was gender.
Attitudes about diversity are varied. Staff responses to special programs designed
to diversify staff hiring and student admissions are somewhat evenly divided
between those advocating qualifications as a sole criterion (44%) and those
committed to including diversity factors in the decision process (38%).
Four qualitative questions, developed by CODE and included in the
questionnaire, were designed to probe attitudes and experiences associated with the
rewards and challenges of working in a multicultural campus community. One
question was included in each staff learning community survey on a random basis so
that 25 percent of the surveys contained each question. Of the 184 completed
surveys, 94 respondents answered the question contained in the survey packet.
Included in the 94 responses were 22 who replied that the situation was "not
applicable" or they had not experienced or observed difficult situations of cross-
cultural interactions that made them feel uncomfortable or ill-at-ease. The narrative
responses were transcribed omitting identifiable information; samples are included in
Appendix Q.
The Steering Committee was disappointed in the responses of staff (14%) to the
Learning Community survey. Anecdotal information indicated that some
respondents were frustrated and even angry about a numbering error on 300 of the
1,300 surveys; others were concerned about its length.
Committee Responses to the Data - Respondents to the staff survey on
the Learning Community did some areas that the Committee believes need to be
pursued further.
collaborate more with faculty. While all staff are members of the Learning
Community, their roles in the University would influence the nature of the
collaboration. In what ways and how might staff collaborate more with
faculty?
The survey indicated staff ambivalence about administrative
leadership in a variety of areas. What are the specific concerns? How might
they be addressed?
Staff were concerned about career advancement and promotional
opportunities at CSUS. How should the University respond?
Respondents also indicated concerns about orientations for new
staff and the standards used to evaluate staff performance. What kind of
orientation should be provided for new staff? What are the concerns about
the current standards used to evaluate staff performance?
There are perceived difficulties among staff related to the issue of
diversity. How can the University strengthen its policies? Their answers
indicate a need for further education and knowledge about issues such as
racism, affirmative action, sexual harassment, and what is considered
reasonable and sensitive behavior toward others. How might supervisors be
more responsive when difficult situations arise in the workplace
related to gender or ethnic discrimination?
orientation, and strengthening the staff evaluation and performance evaluation
system. Others will require a more concentrated effort. More information about
staff perceptions of administrative accessibility and leadership and
promotional/advancement opportunities is needed.
Responding to comments regarding the length of the staff survey, the Steering
Committee decided to survey the faculty in two stages. In January 1996, all faculty,
full-time and part-time, were sent the Faculty Learning Community Survey, Part I,
which assessed the campus climate regarding issues of diversity and equity. Part I
included 79 multiple choice questions relating to diversity, four qualitative
questions, and 13 demographic items. A total of 1,262 surveys were distributed to
faculty with a 13 percent response rate (N=166) for Part I.
Part II of the questionnaire was distributed in March 1996 to all faculty,
addressing the roles and responsibilities of faculty on campus. The survey included
127 quantitative questions including demographic information. There were no
qualitative questions included in Part II. The response rate was again 13 percent
(N=164). To maintain anonymity, no attempt was made to match faculty responses
in Part I to those who responded to Part II. The demographics of the respondents
were virtually identical for both Part I and II.
The respondents to Part I (N=166) represented the following variation: 60
percent were Caucasian, 20 percent were from a diverse group, and 20 percent
declined to specify. (Twenty-five percent of the total faculty are from Hispanic,
Black, Latino, Native American, and Asian cultural groups.) Respondents were
almost equally divided between males (40%) and females (44%), and 16 percent did
not indicate gender. Fifty-five percent were full professors, average age was 51.3
years, and the average number of years on the CSUS faculty was 16.6 years. The
greatest number of respondents were from the School of Arts and Sciences (41%),
Health and Human Services (18%), Education (12%), Engineering/Computer Science
(4%), and School of Business Administration (4%). Responses to the faculty
survey are included in Appendix R.
Values, Expectations and Needs of Faculty - Faculty respondents were asked
to identify what was important to them when they came to CSUS; then they were
asked to evaluate their level of satisfaction with their progress toward meeting their
goals or expectations. Most striking about these comparative findings were the large
number (91%) of faculty who came to CSUS with expectations to inspire students
to continue their education and the equally large number (85%) who are either very
satisfied or satisfied with their progress on that dimension. In almost all areas,
faculty indicated satisfaction with their progress in proportion to the importance
given to the goal when they initially came to CSUS. The item which revealed the
greatest difference between initial expectation and current assessment concerned the
pursuit of academic freedom through shared governance.
Faculty perceived numerous changes in the University. Changes in the curriculum,
diversity of faculty and students, and the University's Mission Statement were
perceived positively. Increases in the University's student/faculty ratio were
perceived negatively.
When faculty were asked to indicate how they spend their time outside the
classroom, an overwhelming majority (98%) cited class preparation. More than 50
percent of the respondents reported spending ten or more hours per week on class-
related tasks. Faculty, by contract, are required to hold three office hours weekly.
Fifty-three percent of the survey respondents are available for students an
additional one to three hours weekly and 23 percent are available an additional four
to six hours. Fifty-three percent said they attend student sponsored functions, 64
percent spend time making presentations, 69 percent participate in department
and/or school activities, 78 percent volunteer in the community and 89 percent serve
on campus committees.
Impediments and Incentives - Faculty seem satisfied that their teaching is
respected (96%) and evaluated fairly (84%). Research was perceived as having a
somewhat lower respect (76%), although 73 percent indicated that research received
a fair evaluation.
Faculty enjoy teaching well-prepared, motivated students from diverse
backgrounds. However, only 35 percent of the faculty respondents "strongly
agreed" with the statement that they "enjoy teaching students needing assistance to
succeed." When asked if they "prefer teaching only students who meet admission
requirements," 37 percent "strongly agreed" or "agreed."
Unfortunately, the instrument did not sufficiently address factors which could be
interpreted as internal campus impediments to community. These factors need to be
addressed further.
Relationships with Staff, Faculty, Students and Administration - There were
no questions which directly assessed faculty relationships with staff. An indirect
measure of faculty/faculty relationships may be found in the respondents'
perception of changes in collegiality over time. Twenty-seven percent indicated a
positive change, 37 percent a negative change, with the balance (36%) noting no
change. Positive student relationships can be inferred from the responses on number
of hours spent by faculty in advising, both academic and personal, and by the
overall receptivity to teaching a diverse student population.
As was the case with staff, most faculty respondents perceived administration as
"sometimes" providing leadership on issues like academic freedom, governance,
teaching, research, and diversity. Faculty responses indicated that the administration
should provide stronger leadership in supporting quality teaching. In general, faculty
are about evenly divided in their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with campus
administrative leadership.
The administration is given high marks by both faculty and staff for its
commitment to diversity in the student, staff and faculty communities. Given a list
of possible priorities of the administration, the hiring and retaining of quality
faculty, responsiveness to the community, efforts to enhance diversity, and efforts
to create a climate of respect were recognized by the faculty as priorities of the
administration.
Diversity Issues - Part I of the faculty survey addressed four concerns:
perceptions of rewards and recognition for faculty who actively promote diversity;
experiences with discrimination; administrative policies and leadership regarding
diversity; and views on special programs and policies designed to enhance
diversity.
Most faculty respondents did not perceive discrimination toward themselves.
However, 40 percent of respondents said that "sometimes" they had been
discriminated against because of their gender and 25 percent answered "sometimes"
because of race or ethnicity. The source of discriminatory behavior is more often
other faculty and administrators than staff. Faculty generally are satisfied with their
opportunities to become leaders regardless of race/ethnicity, sexual orientation,
disabilities, or gender.
When asked to assess the behavior of other faculty, 50 percent of the respondents
said that other faculty behave as though students from particular racial/ethnic
groups are unprepared for college. When asked if special admission programs and
policies lead to the admission of underprepared students, 64 percent strongly agreed
or agreed, and 30 percent feel the programs are remedial. Sixty-five percent of the
faculty are satisfied with the sensitivity of faculty/staff to students.
Committee Response to the Data - The Steering Committee was similarly
disappointed in the response rate of the faculty survey (13%). In contrast to the
staff survey, which was more straight forward in identifying issues for change,
faculty responses to the Learning Community Survey, raised more questions than
they appeared to answer. Questions requiring study include:
has declined over time? To what extent is it linked to the growth of the
professional schools in contrast to the arts and the sciences? Do perceptions
of collegiality differ among the Schools? Do perceptions differ by senior and
junior faculty? By full- and part-time? Where does the responsibility lie for
strengthening collegiality? Has the reorganization of the School of Arts and
Sciences into three smaller school units had an effect on collegiality?
Is the consistent use of "sometimes" in response to issues of
administrative leadership a sign of apathy, antipathy, or marginal
satisfaction? What is an appropriate response if we wish to strengthen trust
in the learning community?
What is the faculty response to the desire of the staff to be a stronger
participant in the learning community? To the high value they place on
staff/faculty collaboration?
The original intent of the WASC Steering Committee was to assess student
perceptions of the community using the results of the 1993 Campus Climate
Survey. However, other surveys conducted as part of the WASC self-study
provided additional data from the perspective of students and alumni on CSUS as a
Learning Community. This section will begin with a summary of the campus climate
survey results, followed by the results of other surveys.
Campus Climate - The 1993 Campus Climate Study, used to assess
diversity issues on campus, was administered to two different samples of students.
One sample of 1,600 students was stratified by class level and ethnicity. The
sample, comparable to the total CSUS student body in terms of ethnicity, gender,
and class level, was drawn from lecture classes in Fall, 1992. A total of 1,171 usable
responses were received. A second sample consisted of underrepresented students
in organizations or classes recommended by the CEEC. The following refers to the
survey of the stratified cluster sample.
In general, respondents to the survey were moderate in their opinions about the
University and how they are viewed by the campus community. Students gave
ratings of about 3.5 on a 5.0 point scale of attributes. The highest rated campus
attribute was friendliness (3.8), the lowest was sensitivity (3.15). When responding
to how they are perceived by the campus, students were also moderate. Seventy-
eight percent "agree" or "strongly agree" that the highest campus priority for all
students is a quality college education. Positive interaction among ethnic, racial and
cultural groups is a high priority for Hispanic (84%) and African American* (94%)
students. Seventy-three percent of all respondents "agree" or "strongly agree" that
recruitment of underrepresented students is a priority, especially if it is embedded
in the context of a quality education. Student perceptions of the campus
environment were organized around the social, cultural, physical and organizational
environment and the academic environment. *In the Campus Climate Survey,
African American, rather than Black, was listed as one of the options
for Ethnicity.
Social, Cultural, Physical and Organizational Environment - In
general, the University provides an environment that supports and reflects its
diverse student population. There are however, pockets of insensitivity and areas in
which behavior is patently offensive.
Incidents of discrimination do occur on our campus. African American students
perceive they are discriminated against with greater frequency than students of other
ethnic, racial and cultural groups. Six percent of all respondents, 24 percent of
African American students, 11 percent of Hispanic students, and 11 percent Asian
students responded they had been discriminated against "almost always" or
"frequently." Individuals who discriminate are more likely to be students from
ethnic groups other than those of the student.
A majority (71%) of students perceive positive portrayals of ethnic, racial, and
cultural groups at campus events, and are aware of the availability of textbooks and
other books written from a variety of viewpoints regarding ethnicity, race or culture
(60%). However, respondents do observe negative portrayals, including graffiti, of
various ethnic, racial or cultural groups on campus (33%).
Students reported very little pressure from their own ethnic group to socialize,
study, date, "hang out" or participate in activities with their own group. Of the
items listed, the pressure to participate in activities with their group was cited most
by Hispanic and Asian students. African American students (23%), Asian students
(9%), and Hispanic students (9%) perceived this pressure "almost always" or
"frequently." The highest source of pressure for Native American students was to
study with their group (18% "almost always" or "frequently"). Only African
American students perceived pressure to "hang out" with their group "almost
always" or "frequently" (25%). African American students are more likely to be
sensitive to and have stronger opinions about ethnic, racial, and cultural issues than
other groups. The proportion that responded with "does not apply" or "no
opinion" was generally less than other groups.
Students were asked if they interacted with students of other racial/ethnic groups
in a variety of settings. A majority responded "yes" to classes (92%), in-class study
groups (67%), and out of class study groups (54%).
Academic Environment - Since most of the interaction that occurs
between ethnic, racial, and cultural groups is in the classroom, the climate in the
classroom needs to be equitable for accepting all students. Generally, students gave
a high rating to the professionalism and helpfulness of the faculty. A majority
(56%) noted that professors are comfortable teaching all students regardless of
ethnicity, race, or cultural background. African American students, however, were
more likely to believe that professors are less comfortable teaching African
American students (35%) than students of the professor's own ethnicity (41%).
Students responded affirmatively that professors in their classes (71%), and
professors in their majors (65%), were the individuals who most frequently assisted
them in achieving their goals.
Thirty-two percent of the students stated that professors "sometimes"
incorporate materials that acknowledge the contributions of other ethnic, racial, and
cultural groups. On a 5.0 scale from "almost always" to "never," the average rating
was 3.27. African American students rated professors lower than other students in
this area. Forty-five percent indicated "rarely" or "almost never" with an average
rating of 2.8. Students also indicated that multiple viewpoints on race or ethnicity
are "sometimes" discussed in departments (3.15) and "sometimes" discussed with
enthusiasm by professors (3.15) or students (3.25).
Respondents indicated that they "sometimes" see materials in texts that increase
their understanding of other ethnic, racial, and cultural groups (3.05). At the same
time, respondents rarely saw materials that stereotype on the basis of race or
ethnicity (2.35). More than any other group, African American students "rarely"
see materials that increase understanding (2.48). Native American students rated the
incidence of both types of materials higher; perhaps publications and materials
selected to increase student understanding of Native American culture contain
materials which are viewed as stereotypic by Native American students.
A majority of the students agreed that the most preferred qualities of their
professors are that they are knowledgeable (89%) and good teachers (89%). The
ethnicity of the professor was important to less than fifteen percent of the
respondents.
Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with a variety of factors on a 5.0
point scale in which 5.0 indicated "very satisfied." Students were generally satisfied
with the opportunities provided by the campus to learn about different cultures
(3.44), discuss issues related to ethnicity and culture in orientation programs (3.22),
and receive assistance when they feel discriminated against (3.28). African
Americans were consistently less satisfied with these opportunities than other
groups (3.0, 2.95, and 3.05, respectively).
Students were asked to rate on a 5.0 point scale their level of agreement with
statements about academic preparedness. Five indicated "strongly agree." Overall,
students did not relate academic preparedness with ethnicity. They disagreed with
the statement that their ethnic group was the most unprepared (2.47), and that other
groups were most unprepared (2.82). Most were in agreement that all ethnic groups
are equally unprepared (3.16). Hispanic and African American students were more
likely, however, to believe that their group was unprepared (3.55 and 3.45,
respectively, indicating ratings between "neutral" and "agree").
Student perceptions of the campus and their experiences with faculty, and fellow
students, both in and out of the classroom, fell most frequently into the middle of
the range. The responses with respect to discrimination on campus ranged more
toward the less frequent end of the range. When asked to identify the source of
discrimination, most students identified faculty and members
of other ethnic groups.
Other Dimensions of the Learning Community - Valuable information on
student perception of CSUS as a Learning Community was also obtained from
SNAPS, the ACT Surveys and the CASPER phone surveys.
Values, Expectations and Needs of Students - A majority (78%) of
students in a recent CASPER phone survey (Spring 1996) supported the
University's efforts to build a stronger campus community. However, only 44
percent of graduating students in the Spring of 1995 (ACT-COS) were "very
satisfied" or "satisfied" with "My sense of belonging on this campus" and 33
percent indicated they were "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied." A slight majority
of graduating students (ACT-COS) reported that they are "very satisfied" or
"satisfied" with other aspects of the campus. Faculty respect (74%) was ranked
highest, followed by the University's response to non-traditional students (62%);
to students with special needs (62%); freedom from harassment (57%); and the
campus atmosphere of ethnic, political and religion understanding, and tolerance
(54%).
Although a majority of graduating students responded positively to statements
about CSUS, less than half (34%) "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that the campus
"welcomes and uses student feedback in making decisions. This finding is almost
identical to the results of the SNAPS survey in which 36 percent of the students
"agreed" or "strongly agreed" with a similar statement.
Perceptions about Campus Life - In the SNAPS survey, 35 percent of the
students rated students clubs and organizations "important" or "very Important" to
"Achieving Educational Goals." Similarly, 68 percent of graduating students
reported that they spent "No time" participating in campus clubs or organizations;
24 percent spent one to five hours a week and 7 percent spent over five hours a
week (ACT-COS).
Although enrolled students spend an average of nine hours a week on campus
outside of class, most of this time is spent studying (SNAPS). Twenty percent of
the students spend more than eight hours and 51 percent spend more than four
hours studying on campus. Twenty percent of students spent more than two hours
per week socializing on campus. Seventy-six percent spent less than one hour per
week in activities/events, and 6 percent spent more than four hours (SNAPS).
Student Relationships with Students and Faculty - Students are isolated from
each other and the faculty. Students were asked about their study habits and
interaction with faculty in the SNAPS survey. A majority (59%) indicated that they
study in their homes; 18 percent study in the library and 8 percent study alone.
Although 66 percent were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with "Accessibility of
faculty" and "Availability of faculty out-of-class," 11 percent never meet with
faculty outside of class. Seventy-three percent of the students surveyed during
CASPER (Spring 1996) never meet with faculty in campus meeting areas.
Interestingly, alumni were more positive about student faculty interaction. A
majority (61%) noted "The opportunity for faculty/student interaction" as positive
or very positive (ACT-Alumni Survey, 1995).
Committee responses to the data about students suggest that CSUS has
impediments that must be overcome in order to assure student participation in the
Learning Community.
Questions requiring further study include:
at CSUS than other students. What are the appropriate actions that the
University should take to improve the experiences of African American
students on our campus?
Students do not perceive a "sense of belonging" on the campus.
What changes need to be made in the Learning Community to enhance the
sense of community on campus?
Student interaction with faculty outside the classroom is rather limited.
What is needed to expand opportunities for interaction?
Students are perceived as non-receptive to student feedback about the
University. How can faculty, staff, and administration encourage student
feedback in a meaningful and constructive manner?
Students typically spend a relatively small amount of time on campus
outside of their formal classes. Given this characteristic, what can be done to
support and encourage student interaction with other students and with
faculty?
Almost 75 percent of our students do not participate in campus clubs,
organizations, activities, or events. Given the assumption that participation
in campus life is important to the development of a sense of belonging, how
can students be supported and encouraged to participate more extensively?
--Frank Neuman
Rather than end the CSUS story with a report of assessment activities for WASC, it
is critical that we describe our ongoing institutional commitment to assessment. It is in this
chapter of the report that the major impact of the WASC self-study process is told.
Although CSUS had previously begun to document its strengths and weaknesses through
assessment activities, it was the WASC initiative that stimulated an institutional
commitment to the use of evidence to assess institutional quality and effectiveness. What
began as a response to WASC accreditation has become an ongoing commitment to building
a "culture of evidence."
In this chapter we describe the transformation of "WASC" into an institutional
commitment. Secondly, we describe in greater detail the means by which CSUS is
assessing its progress in achieving the goals of the University's Strategic Plan and the
critical link between planning, assessment and budget. Finally, we offer selected examples
of how CSUS has used assessment to implement change in order to improve the
University's ability to achieve excellence in teaching and learning.
dimensional cube (See Figure 2 on the next page) similar to the cornerstone used to
describe WASC (Figure 1, page 13).
One dimension of the cube represents the Initiatives. These are the external and
internal forces that call for assessment. The second dimension represents the Assessment
Resources, the activities and instruments that inform and respond to the Initiatives and the
University Planning Themes, the third dimension of the cube. These planning themes from
the CSUS Strategic Plan guide and direct our assessment efforts.
The CSUS assessment cube has evolved, and continues to evolve, as a concept
that guides and unifies a constellation of campus assessment plans. The plans are generally
related to one of the initiatives; for example, assessment plans for Academic Program
Reviews are a response to WASC and the CSUS Assessment Policy. Although it is
possible to discuss the three dimensions of the cube separately, it is essential to understand
that the action, the assessment activity, lies at the intersection of all three dimensions.
Therefore, the discussion of each dimension frequently refers to the
other two.
and our decision to conduct an experimental self-study, has, more than any other initiative,
encouraged the University to bring assessment into the mainstream of the campus. The
WASC document Achieving Institutional Effectiveness Through Assessment(1992) has been
and continues to be instrumental in shaping the University's campus-wide assessment
efforts.
NCAA- In 1990 the NCAA introduced new reporting requirements and
practices. The NCAA now requires "outcomes" data in the form of graduation rates for
athletes that are made available to the public.
CSUS Assessment Policy - In 1992 the CSUS Academic Senate recommended,
and the President approved, an Assessment Policy that provided the framework for a
process to determine in what ways and how well individual units (e.g., departments,
schools, student services) and the University were meeting their individual and collective
goals. This policy was created in response to assessment initiatives from the CSU System
and from WASC.
University policy defines assessment as an ongoing process, required of all units
in the University, conducted by the members of each unit, with the primary goal of
improving the educational program at CSUS. The Assessment Policy directs each unit to
define its goals and evaluate: (1) the interaction among its academic program, student
services, and the campus environment; (2) the results/effects of its goals on students; and
(3) the progress toward meeting the goals. According to the policy, assessment results
cannot be used to determine funding, nor can they be used to compare units with other
units at CSUS or at other universities.
Initially the campus focused its assessment efforts at the program level to meet
the assessment mandate from WASC. Departments are to prepare assessment plans that
include student outcomes assessment. The integration of assessment into the program
review process was intended to support planning at the unit level. The Academic Senate
approved a two-year interim change in the Program Review process in the Spring of 1994
that required departments scheduled for program review in 1995-96 to prepare an
assessment plan as part of the self-study process. The revised policy and format was
reapproved for use during the 1996-97 academic year.
Academic Program Review - In 1971 the Board of Trustees of the CSU
mandated that an annual performance review be conducted for all existing undergraduate and
graduate degree programs. The policies and procedures governing compliance with this
mandate have changed over its 25-year history. Recent changes reflect the increased demand
for student outcome measures at both the system and campus levels. The Program Review
Process became a three-year cycle as a result of the WASC assessment initiative. An
assessment plan is submitted the first year, the next year the program prepares a self-
study, and the following year the program is reviewed by the University Review Team.
Current CSUS policy and procedures require that every program conduct a self-study every
six years.
The Assessment Plan should include both a review of current evaluation practices,
and consideration of alternative approaches. The primary purpose of the Assessment Plan
is to evaluate the results of programs, policies and plans of the unit on an ongoing basis.
The process is conducted by members of the unit, which meets the WASC requirement that
faculty have a major responsibility for deciding how to assess student learning. The Plan
should include the method for evaluating the results of the program, related policies, and a
time table for assessment. The methods used for assessment should go beyond grades, and
should result in giving information to the individual members of the unit, the unit as a
whole, and to students. Departments should consider both qualitative and quantitative
sources of data. The Office of Institutional Studies assists the department in determining of
the data currently collected by CSUS, what might be useful in evaluating program
outcomes. Academic Affairs and the Office of Institutional Studies provide the unit with
suggestions on alternative methods of assessment that are program specific. The plan is
submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs for approval.
During the 1994-95 academic year, the following units developed their assessment
plans:
Counselor Education
Foreign Languages (including Educational Administration
and Asian Studies)
Policy Studies
Physics and Astronomy
Special Education, Rehabilitation and School Nursing
Electrical/Electronic Engineering
School Psychology
Liberal Arts
Teacher Education
Bilingual Multicultural Education
In 1995-96 the following units were to develop their assessment plans:
Theater Arts
International Affairs
Gerontology
Music
Regional and Continuing Education
assessment plans:
Economics
Journalism
Geography
Learning Skills
Health and Physical Education
Intercollegiate Athletics
Nursing
Computer Engineering
Once the assessment plan is approved, the department proceeds to implement
the
plan as it prepares its self-study document. Typically the self-study addresses the nine
traditional WASC standards, including a standard called "Educational Programs," for which
the department is expected to indicate how program effectiveness is being assessed, and
how the results will be used to improve teaching and learning. The program is also expected
to integrate the goals of the University's Strategic Plan in its planning and self-study
process.
The Dean of the School reviews the department's self-study and forwards the
completed document to Academic Affairs for conveyance to the Academic Senate
Subcommittee on Curriculum. Specially appointed review teams conduct the University-
wide Academic Program Review. The Team examines the department's self-study and other
relevant materials, conducts interviews, gathers additional information, and makes
recommendations. The Team prepares a detailed substantive report evaluating all aspects of
the programs offered by the unit. The department has an opportunity to respond to the
report. After the University's Curriculum Subcommittee acts on the report, it is submitted
to the Academic Senate and then to the President for approval. Program review documents
are available for review, along with the assessment plans, from departments who have
completed program reviews since 1995-96.
Academic Program Accreditations - At least 16 professional programs conduct
periodic reviews in order to maintain accreditation and/or professional licensing. Consistent
with the trend toward assessment, more professional reviews are increasingly placing an
emphasis on outcome measures. Generally these activities are governed by the accrediting
agency and are conducted by the program undergoing review.
Non-Academic Program Review - A University Non-Academic Program
Review policy was approved by the President in February 1991. The policy requires that
Non-Academic Programs conduct a performance review every five years. Co-curricular and
all other support areas are included within and governed by the procedures set forth in this
campus assessment initiative. The policy was modified in 1994, providing guidelines for the
scope of the review, stipulating responsibilities for the Review Team and proposing a
tentative timetable of review activities, and providing a schedule for review of specific
programs. The assessment of non-academic programs, although modeled after academic
program review, is conducted independent of the other assessment efforts.
The primary objective of the non-academic program review was to implement a
systematic process that will provide the University with information about the strengths
and weaknesses of the existing functions of the unit, as well as opportunities for new
functions or services. The components of the non-academic program review include the
preparation of a self-study, a campus user survey, and a review of the program's
management operations.
The following Non-Academic Programs have currently completed their self-
studies as of Fall 1996:
Computing and Media Services
Procurement and Risk
Research and Graduate Studies
Management
Residential Life
Career and Testing Center
Educational Equity and Student Retention
The assessment process is an integrated fabric of existing and new activities and
instruments selected to address specific questions and issues. (See Figure 2 on the following
page.)
Institutional Data - The University's data base includes standard information on
student enrollment, demographics, retention rates, graduation rates, and student/faculty
ratio by discipline. Additional data on class size and enrollments over time, faculty
workloads and grading patterns are collected and provided to academic programs, especially
when they are preparing their self-studies.
Surveys - The University has selected a comprehensive package of standardized
campus surveys to assess its overall effectiveness. The package, administered
on a regularly scheduled rotation basis, includes the ACT surveys for entering students,
continuing students, graduating students, non-returning students, and alumni. The results
are used to enrich and inform the themes outlined in the University Strategic Plan. The
academic departments currently in the program review process help shape the local
questions administered with the ACT surveys. The reports of the results for their majors
are available for use during the self-study phase of the Program Review
process..
Standardized Surveys - The planned schedule for administering standardized
surveys follows:
administered in the Spring of alternating years (odd numbered years) to all
undergraduate and graduate students who petition to graduate in the Spring
Semester.
years) to continuing students enrolled in classes of programs in the cycle.
Local questions are adjusted to reflect the concerns of the specific programs.
programs entering the self-study phase of their program review. Program
specific questions are developed in the planning phase of the review.
Generally the survey is mailed to all alumni who graduated within the
previous five years.
(odd numbered years) to all new undergraduate and graduate students who
register for the Fall semester.
five years.
Chancellor's Office every four or five years. Since SNAPS is similar to the
ACT Student Outcomes Survey, we have integrated it into our overall
assessment model, alternating it with the ACT Continuing Student Survey,
to provide feedback from continuing students.
Campus Surveys - The campus regularly
administers the following surveys:
they register for classes using Computer Access Student Phone Entry
Registration (CASPER). Since this survey is administered every semester, it
is used to examine in-depth selected issues that emerge primarily through
other assessment activities. Generally the Fall survey focuses on academic
issues and the Spring survey focuses on student support issues.
Campus Climate Surveys - CSUS conducted surveys of student, faculty and
staff perceptions of campus climate. The student survey, administered in
Spring 1993, was an initiative of the Campus Educational Equity
Committee. Information from this survey was used in the assessment of the
"Pluralism" Theme in the University's Strategic Plan and in the WASC
study of The Learning Community.
In response to the WASC accreditation standards an assessment plan for the
University's General Education program was included in the General Education/Graduation
Requirements 1990 Policy Document. Two assessment strategies are described in the
document. One is a requirement that courses approved for General Education be reviewed
every five years by the General Education Committee to determine whether they meet the
GE AREA criteria for which they were originally approved. The second is an assessment
by students of whether the courses in fact are meeting the GE AREA
criteria.
During the 1994-95 academic year the General Education Committee decided to
begin its assessment of General Education by developing an assessment instrument for
courses approved as meeting the Race and Ethnicity in American Society requirement. A
subcommittee of the General Education Committee, in consultation with instructors
actually teaching the courses, developed a survey instrument which was given to students
enrolled in Race and Ethnicity courses in the Fall of 1995. Results of the student survey,
reflecting their perception of whether the courses were meeting the criteria, were described
in Chapter Four on Student Outcomes.
During the 1995-96 academic year the General Education Review Committee
decided to assess the course syllabi of instructors teaching Race and Ethnicity in American
Society courses to determine if the syllabi provided adequate information to ascertain that
the criteria for Race and Ethnicity courses were being addressed in the course. Information
from both assessments were shared with the departments offering courses in this category.
If the course syllabi did not reflect adequate information, department chairs were asked to
address the committee's concerns or risk having the course withdrawn from the General
Education Program.
Department Based Assessment Activities - The first step in the
Academic Program Review Process is the development of an assessment plan. In addition
to providing relevant data from ongoing campus surveys, the Office of Institutional Studies
works closely with program staff to develop and implement the department's plan. The
expectations for department assessment plans were described in the Academic Program
Review Section of the chapter.
Focus Groups - CSUS plans to use focus groups to identify and clarify
issues that emerge in its surveys. Initially, focus groups will be used to clarify issues related
to the themes of the WASC self-study. Continuing use of focus groups is planned as
follow-up to the Graduating Student Survey on alternating years when the Student
Outcomes Survey is not administered.
The data acquired through these assessment activities provides important
information for internal and external accountability and guides campus planning and
resource allocation priorities at the University and academic program levels. In this sense,
CSUS is nurturing the development of a "culture of evidence" that is woven into the
decision making fabric of the University rather than appended to it. Assessment activities
are grounded in the University's assessment initiatives and shaped by the themes in the
Strategic Plan.
The long term University Assessment Model grew directly out of the WASC self-
study model (Figure 1, p. 13). The WASC self-study focuses on three themes: Teaching
and Learning, Student Outcomes, and The Learning Community. The University's long-
term model, an extension of the WASC model, focuses on the eight themes presented in the
University Strategic Plan. The themes provide a focus for assessing the University's
progress toward achieving its goals. These assessment reports are prepared for each of the
eight themes, incorporating all relevant assessment data. The goal and explanatory text are
the source for identifying the "key concepts" which provide the structure for assessment
reports.
Assessment reports on Teaching and Learning, Academic Programs, Campus Life
and Enrollment Planning were presented to the Council for University Planning (CUP) in
the Fall of 1995, and those on Public Life, Capital Campus, Pluralism and Scholarship were
presented in the Spring of 1996. The first four assessment reports were presented prior to
CUP establishing the Resource Allocation Priorities and as a result had a profound impact
on the priorities established by CUP. In fact, seven of the eight Resource Allocation
Priorities for 1996-97 were derived from, or influenced by, the assessment reports. In this
way, a critical linkage among planning, assessment, and resource allocation is established.
The Theme Assessment Reports established baseline measures for several themes
from information that was readily available or recently collected. For example, retention is
recognized as a key concept within the "Enrollment Planning" theme, and "retention rates"
are recognized as valid measures of retention. The current retention rates serve as the
baseline measure for the University's performance. A status report on retention identified a
need to establish standards of performance while raising questions that have yet to be
addressed. Typical questions asked were, "What should the retention rate at CSUS be?" or,
"How does the University interpret the finding that 77 percent of the graduating students
are 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the 'Quality of their program of study'?" For other
themes, like "Public Life" the University had very little assessment data available.
Assessment theme reports help the University 1) identify areas where there is little or no
data and 2) establish priorities for new assessment activities, and 3) establish budget and
planning priorities for the University.
CUP has become instrumental in shaping assessment at the University level by
determining the focus of University-wide assessment activities, recommending
measurement tools, and deciding how to organize and present information. CUP also helps
place the information in context since it is not useful in and of itself. As a result, CUP is
actively involved in the process of setting standards and criteria for determining progress
toward meeting the University's goals.
The Theme Assessment Reports provide guidance regarding the future direction
of the University's Strategic Plan. The relationship between the themes and assessment is a
dynamic interaction in which the themes shape the assessment activities, and the
assessment reports reshape the themes. For example, based on CUP's work in 1995-96, a
new theme is being drafted and several themes are being substantively
revised.
While the assessment reports present objective findings, evaluation of the findings
requires judgment, and judgment requires standards. The result of this interactive process is
the evolution of University themes with University-defined standards and priorities. In this
context, outcomes assessment is an integral component of planning, policy, and resource
allocation decisions. It is a circular process that promotes continuous review and
improvement.
Since 1991 CUP has developed and recommended Resource Priorities to the
President for the following year's budget. Once approved by the President, the Resource
Priorities are used by the Vice President for Administration in drafting the University
budget. In CUP's annual review of the University budget, the Vice President for
Administration is asked to explain how the proposed budget responds to the University's
Resource Priorities.
In the past two years, the linkage between planning and budgeting provided by
the Resource Priorities has been strengthened appreciably. The enactment of the University
Strategic Plan provided a framework for the priorities. In planning for the 1995/96 budget,
the Resource Priorities were drawn from the various themes of the Strategic Plan. This
guarantees that there is a broad consensus behind the priorities and that the various
priorities are part of a plan to address the University's mission and
goals.
Even with the improvement brought about by the adoption of a Strategic Plan,
there was still a piece missing in the planning process--there was no objective evidence on
which to choose one set of priorities over another. While we could direct resources toward a
variety of Strategic Plan initiatives, we would not know if we had chosen those most in
need of attention. Nor would we know when we had made progress toward achieving our
goals.
Inspired by the opportunity to model a new, evidence-based accreditation
process in our ten-year institutional accreditation, our planning process has now been
improved immeasurably by the addition of the missing link--assessment. This critical link
manifests itself in the Theme Assessment Reports which use institutional and assessment
data to create a snapshot of where the University is in relation to the stated goals of a
particular theme. During the 1995-96 academic year, CUP based its Resource Priority
recommendations not only on the Strategic Plan but on the Theme Assessment
Reports.
Assessment reports for those themes deemed most important to next year's
budget are now reviewed by CUP during the Fall semester prior to setting its Resource
Priorities. In this way, a picture emerges of the status of the University with respect to
these key themes that helps CUP decide what the priorities should be for the allocation of
resources. Assessment reports for the remaining themes are reviewed in the Spring semester
to provide a context for CUP's review of the proposed budget for the
following year.
Assessment also supports planning activities that occur at the level of the
academic department. Whereas CUP reviews assessment data at the aggregate level,
department and program data are made available to departments participating in the
Academic Program Review process. Departments are now required to develop assessment
plans and report on student outcomes, pursuant to those plans, in their self-studies. There
are no plans to bring this aspect of University planning to the CUP's agenda. However,
department and program assessment data will help the schools in determining priorities and
allocating resources.
The goal in the planning process at CSUS is to integrate planning, assessment, and
resource allocation. Clearly we have made great strides in the last two years with the
introduction, first, of the Strategic Plan, and second, of assessment designed to create a
"culture of evidence". However, assessment at CSUS is in its infancy, and strategic planning
is only slightly more advanced. Much work and discussion are needed to determine how to
improve planning and how best to use assessment data in the planning process. The next
section describes some of the actions the University has taken in its concerted effort to
respond to assessment data.
Using Evidence to Build Institutional Effectiveness: Actions Taken in
Response to Assessment Findings
During the last two and a half years, CSUS has made a concerted effort to use the
results of its assessment efforts to achieve the goals of the University's Strategic Plan. Our
first attempt was to respond to the results of SNAPS. Significant findings from other
surveys, including data from the WASC self-study, have been used to assess the eight
themes of the Strategic Plan. Actions taken in response to the Teaching and Learning and
Campus Life Theme Assessment Reports are included in this chapter because they are
most closely related to the themes of the WASC self-study. We believe they illustrate the
University's commitment to build and respond to its "culture of evidence."
New Scheduling Initiatives - Students who responded to the SNAPS survey
indicated that they were dissatisfied with the scheduling and availability of courses. In the
Spring of 1995, we decided to use CASPER, the student phone registration system, to
solicit more information from students on their concerns and preferences. We learned that
the majority of the respondents preferred to schedule all of their classes on two days a
week. In response the Academic Senate developed an alternative to the traditional MWF
and TTh scheduling of classes that had governed the offering of most lecture classes on the
campus since time immemorial. By the Fall of 1995, the Senate recommended, and the
President approved, a new scheduling pattern, which was implemented
in the Spring of 1996.
In response to concerns about the availability of classes, the President requested
that Academic Affairs investigate the feasibility of changing the academic calendar from a
two-semester to a trimester system. A group of faculty representing the Academic Senate
and each of the Schools, along with selected administrators, met to consider the issues
involved in such a change, and an outside consultant was hired to conduct an analysis of the
fiscal impact. After much discussion and analysis, a different alternative, the Extended
Semester, was recommended to the campus. In the Extended Semester departments can
offer courses, funded by general fund dollars, during the months of January, June, July, and
August and include them as part of their fall and spring semester offerings. Numerous
administrative hurdles needed to be overcome in order to implement this program. During
the summer of 1996 a cohort of graduate students in Educational Administration began a
program of study that allows them to enroll in one three-unit course per month on a year-
round basis as part of the regular offerings of the department.
Learning Communities - In the Fall of 1995, the Dean for General Education, in
consultation with the General Education Committee, initiated a Learning Communities
program on a pilot basis for first semester freshmen. In the program 25-30 students enroll
in two or three General Education classes as a group; the courses complement each other
and are linked by a common theme. Faculty are encouraged to integrate the courses,
promote group interaction and provide academic study sessions. In addition to providing
some structure to the General Education program, the Learning Communities provide
students with a "sense of belonging" to an academic community, a concern noted by
students in the ACT-COS.
The retention rate for Learning Community participants is 85 percent which is
higher than compared to the University's retention rate of 70 percent. The program, in its
second year of the pilot phase, has also grown from 100 students to 300 in the Fall of 1996.
Of the 100 students who participated in the Fall of 1995, 85 returned in the Fall of 1996.
While the program is open to all students, during the second year, some Learning
Communities were designed for Educational Opportunity Program students admitted under
special contract.
Technical, Communication and Research Skills - While a significant majority
of students who responded to the ACT-COS and the Alumni Survey are very satisfied with
the academic programs of the University, the CASPER phone survey in the Fall of 1995
revealed some dissatisfaction with the provision of technical, communication and research
skills. Since the survey, the number of computer workstations, lab hours, lab assistance and
computer training opportunities for students have increased. In addition to expanding its
library instruction program, the University Library has increased its staff hours to help
students with on-line and traditional research methods. Reference librarians have designed a
series of lectures entitled, "Demystifying Library Databases" to meet student needs for
information literacy.
Technology - Both the ACT-COS and the Fall 1995 CASPER surveys indicated
that only 28 percent of CSUS students perceive that they have made significant progress in
"using technology effectively." A large number of students indicated that they were either
"interested" or "very interested" in word processing, library access, spreadsheets,
databases, multimedia and/or presentation software. In addition to providing more
computers and computer labs, more training programs are now available for students to
develop their computer skills in a variety of areas.
In a 1994 Teaching, Technology and Scholarship Faculty Survey a
majority (88%) of faculty indicated that they use computers to do work formerly done by
clerical staff; fewer use computers for instructional or scholarly work. Only 36 percent
indicated that they were skilled in "using information technology to
enhance instruction."
The University's Center for Teaching and Learning and the Computing,
Communications and Media Services (CCMS) sponsored a two-day faculty workshop
"Integrating Technology Into the Classroom" during the January 1996 intersession. To
meet the demand for training in the use of technology for instruction, CCMShas
quadrupled its training programs for faculty. CCMS also received a lottery fund grant from
the University to establish a Multi-Media Fellows Program during the 1996-97 academic
year. The program is designed to provide training, resource tools and personnel support to
a cadre of faculty which will help them develop the basic knowledge, skills and experiences
to, not only create instructional multi-media modules, but to become mentors for other
faculty. Academic Affairs provided travel grants ($150 each) to faculty who participated in
instructional computing workshops and a limited number of grants for operating expense
($5,000) to departments for developing and implementing a plan for integrating
instructional technology into the curriculum. The University has established a Teaching,
Learning and Technology Roundtable to involve faculty in campus planning for the use of
information technology.
of areas where improvement was needed in the quality of services provided to students. In
response, Academic Affairs made "student centeredness" its highest priority during the
1995-96 academic year. The Academic Deans and other administrators developed new
activities or expanded existing ones that put the needs of students at the center of their
plans for the year. Deans, in turn, sought additional information and ideas from the
students, faculty, and staff in their schools. Already a number of new programs and
activities have been put in place, including:
necessary program information;
special events at graduation that accord recognition to students for program-
and club-based accomplishments;
the use of students in the recruitment of new students;
a complete evaluation of the academic policies in one school with a
commitment to rewrite policies to be clearly understandable from a student
viewpoint;
an e-mail advising system in one school whereby students can obtain
academic advising services in a very convenient manner;
a new automated telephone answering system in one school to make it
easier for students to reach the desired office;
the administering of "customer satisfaction" surveys to students for
purposes of improving student support services;
expanded opportunities for internships, cooperative education placements,
and service learning experiences to respond to student desire to more closely
connect their coursework to the world of work;
peer advising;
an evaluation of all regular correspondence from Academic Affairs units to
students to achieve "student friendliness";
the initiation of a comprehensive review of all academic policies
(University, school, and department levels) to ensure that they best meet the
needs of students;
the holding of open office hours by all school deans for purposes of being
available to meet with students;
an increase in social activities designed to increase student/faculty contact
outside of the classroom.
Attention to "student centeredness" continues to be at the top of the
University's agenda
and the term has been incorporated into the vernacular of the campus. In addition to the
above activities, the expansion of opportunities for student development outside of the
classroom, for department-based activities to improve student retention, and for
student/faculty interaction have been identified as priorities for the allocation of funds for
next year's budget.
Student/University Relationship - To address the concern that
students did not have a
"sense of belonging" or did not feel connected to the campus (SNAPS, ACT-COS), a larger
student life component was added to the University's outreach, orientation and new
student programs. Students who participated in our Summer Orientation Program were able
to register for classes while on campus. Continuing students were hired to counsel and
advise new students, and more faculty participated in the summer program. Summer Bridge,
a summer transition program designed to assist underprepared students develop skills in
writing and mathematics, was expanded to include more students.
The Fall 1995 CASPER survey indicated that more than half of our students did
not feel adequately informed about campus events. The University Union Programming
Board worked with the "State Hornet," the student newspaper, to increase student reporter
awareness of the importance of timely and complete coverage of campus events. A section
of the "State Hornet" is now dedicated to campus-wide programs and events. The Office of
Student Activities, increased the production of its publication The Campus Calendar by 34
percent, in an attempt to increase the awareness of scheduled events by all members of the
campus community.
In addition to providing information on student life and campus programs to prospective
students through the mail, information is also made available electronically through the
CSUS Home Page. Information on campus clubs and organizations and opportunities to
participate in student and faculty governance are now regularly shared with students.
Electronic kiosks, a 24- hour computerized information line, which provide students with
information on more than 250 campus topics, made its debut in the Spring
of 1995.
To address the student perception that the University does not use student feedback
(SNAPS, ACT-COS), President Gerth invited students and other members of the campus
community to nominate any policy, procedure or rule which might be considered
cumbersome or unfair. Since its inception the program has produced changes in parking
policies, improved the grade change policy, modified signs in the Library and increased
student accessibility to campus computer labs.
Student participation in the life of the campus was a also a major consideration in the
decision to affiliate with a larger, more comprehensive, more prestigious athletic conference.
In a general election students gave the University a clear message that they value a viable
athletic program.
Campus Environment - More than 50 percent of the respondents in the SNAPS survey
indicated that safety was an important factor influencing their choice of a university. The
topic of campus safety is an ever present concern of parents who attend the University's
Parent Orientation program each summer. The University has taken a proactive approach
to safety on the campus. With the support of the Division of Student Affairs, the
Department of Public Safety instituted police bicycle patrols in an effort to increase officer
visibility and approachability. In response to concerns about lighting on the campus, Public
Safety initiated a complete lighting assessment of the campus each month. The Office of
Housing and Residential Life provided funds to support a Public Safety Officer to provide
in-service training and consultation for residence hall staff members on a part-time basis. A
night shuttle service was re-instituted by University Traffic and Parking Services. Each of
these initiatives is designed to make CSUS a more responsive, safer
campus for students.
Student Support Services - While students are very satisfied with the University
Library services (SNAPS, ACT-COS), respondents to the SNAPS survey indicated a low
level of satisfaction with the University's Financial Aid Office. A Voice Response System
and three electronic kiosks were installed in the Spring of 1995 which permit students to
access their Financial Aid documents, award status and disbursement information. A
Satisfactory Progress Computer Program was implemented in the Spring 1996, which
notifies students of their status immediately after grades are posted. All-Calc, a software
program designed to provide timely eligibility estimates, was placed in service during the
1995-96 academic year for prospective students. In addition to extending hours of service,
the Financial Aid Office hired peer counselors and additional professional and support staff
to improve service to a increasing number of financial aid applicants. A Financial Aid
Management System, which will link the University's Student Information System (SIS)
with financial aid records, will improve the ability of the Office to process financial aid
applications in a more timely manner. Finally, efforts are underway to upgrade the
infrastructure in the Financial Aid Office with an electronic document
imaging system.
Commuter Campus - Both the SNAPS survey and a Housing Needs Assessment
survey conducted in 1992 indicated that there was a market for apartment style housing on
the CSUS campus. Since that time a housing plan has been approved which will include one
and two bedroom apartment-style units with private baths.
Evening services, and hours of operation, for both undergraduate and graduate student
were expanded during the 1995-96 academic year. A system was also put in place whereby
evening students could virtually request any service on campus and be guaranteed a
response from that office within 24 hours of their request. In the Fall of 1995 the
University worked with the Associated Students, Inc. to establish a Student Access Center
on the first floor of the University Library where students can receive information on a
broad range of University programs and services.
Student/Community Relationships - The University considers its location in the
capital city of California and its proximity to state government a real asset for students.
The number of internship opportunities has increased significantly over the past several
years. Students have increasingly indicated a desire to become involved in community
service. The ACT-COS indicated that learning is generally limited to the classroom. CSUS
has become a member of Campus Compact established to assist universities in forming
partnerships with local community service agencies to expand opportunities for students
and, at the same time, provide much needed volunteer hours to the community. The Office
of Student Activities created the Community Service Volunteer Agency to collect
information and coordinate volunteerism on behalf of more than 250 registered student
organizations. A faculty/student affairs partnership fostered the development of a Service
Learning Program at CSUS with the goal of integrating community service into classroom
activities. In the Fall of 1996, Academic Affairs established the Office of Community
Collaboration to expand opportunities for students and faculty in the community. These
new initiatives will provide the opportunity for students and faculty to use the community
as a laboratory for learning.
The words in this self-study document cannot begin to capture the passion, thoughtfulness,
care and dedication of the members of the University community who have engaged in the
WASC re-accreditation process. Nor does the document come close to describing the
changes that have occurred at CSUS because the institution undertook this innovative self-
study approach. A "ripple effect" has influenced the deliberations that occur in the collegial
governance activities of the University. A review of the agendas and recommendations of
the standing committees of the Academic Senate reveals that the use of evidence has become
a standard feature of discussion. The Senate's Faculty Policies Committee has, for example,
just completed a proposal to use assessment as a key element in promotion, tenure, and
post tenure review evaluations. Other proposed changes to the Program Review process
include the use of a campus-specific questionnaire on teaching and learning as part of the
Academic Program Review process.
The ambitious nature of the undertaking, while clear from the beginning, has often been
daunting. And, certainly, change in a University this large, with its history, complexity, and
diversity will require persistence and commitment. Nevertheless, the WASC self-study
represents a genuine commitment on the part of CSUS, its faculty, staff, students, and
administration to become a student-centered, publicly accountable institution of higher
education serving the people of the Sacramento region.
