Chapter 1 - CSUS in Context

Chapter 2 - WASC Self Study Design

Opportunity Knocks
Initial Steps
Survey Approaches
Building a Culture of Evidence--Phase I
Building a Culture of Evidence--Phase II
WASC Response to Self-Study Plan and Site Visits

Survey Approach
Student Perceptions of the Quality of their CSUS Experience
Student Perceptions of Teaching and Learning
Faculty Perceptions of Teaching
General Education and Major: Different Perceptions
Concluding Thoughts
Committee Responses to the Data

Survey Approach
ACT College Outcomes Survey

College Outcomes
Personal Growth

ACT Alumni Survey

Employment
Educational Outcomes

CAAP Basic Skills Assessment

The Tests
Writing Test Results
Critical Thinking Test Results
Mathematics

Pre-Professional Standardized Tests

Graduate Record Examination
California Basic Educational Skills Test
Medical College Admission Test
Law School Admission Test

Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in General Education
Committee Responses to the Data

Survey Approach

Staff Perceptions of the Learning Community
Values, Expectations and Needs of Staff
Incentives and Impediments
Relationships with Faculty, Students and Administration
Diversity Issues
Committee Responses to the Data

Faculty Perceptions of the Learning Community
Values, Expectations and Needs of Faculty

Impediments and Incentives
Relationships with Staff, Faculty, Students and Administration
Diversity Issues
Committee Response to the Data
Student Perceptions of the Learning Community

Campus Climate

Social, Cultural, Physical and Organizational Environment
Academic Environment

Other Dimensions of the Learning Community

Values, Expectations and Needs of Students
Perceptions about Campus Life
Student Relationships with Students and Faculty

Committee Response to the Data

The Institutional Commitment to Assessment
University Assessment Initiatives

WASC
NCAA
CSUS Assessment Policy
Academic Program Review
Academic Program Accreditations
Non-Academic Program Review

Assessment Activities and Instruments

Institutional Data
Surveys

Standardized Surveys
Campus Surveys

General Education

Department Based Assessment Activities
Focus Groups

Assessment of Themes in University Strategic Plan
Link Among Assessment, Planning, and Budget
Using Evidence to Build Institutional Effectiveness: Actions Taken in Response to Assessment Findings
Teaching and Learning Theme

New Scheduling Initiatives
Learning Communities
Technical, Communication and Research Skills
Technology

Campus Life Theme

Student Centeredness
Student/University Relationship
Campus Environment
Student Support Services
Commuter Campus
Student/Community Relationships

Concluding Remarks

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.

Founded in 1947, California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) is the sixth

largest of 22 campuses in the California State University (CSU) system. It is a

comprehensive regional university uniquely located in the state capital. Over 800 full-time

faculty and approximately 475 part-time faculty offer 73 baccalaureate and 38 master

degree programs, in addition to 75 credential programs at the post baccalaureate level.
 

Our faculty are among the most senior in the CSU with 500 of them over the age of

50 and 150 over the age of 60. Seventy-five percent of our faculty are full professors. Of

the University's 1,000 clerical and support staff positions, 820 are full-time employees and

212 are part-time. Fifty-seven percent have worked at the University for over 15 years.

The diversity of the State of California is represented in the University's faculty and staff,

with more than 25 percent from the Latino, Black, Native American and Asian populations.

Although one-half of the employees of the university are women, 70 percent of the faculty

are men.

The University 's enrollment over the past five years has undergone a budget related

decline from a high of 19,837 full-time equivalent (FTE) students in the Fall of 1990 to

18,060 in the Fall of 1996. Graduate students account for 15 percent of our FTE

enrollment. Eighty percent of our undergraduate enrollment is upper division. Seventy-one

percent of our undergraduate students transfer to CSUS from other institutions, primarily

community colleges. The average unit load of our students is 11.5, the median age is 24,

and the average student works at least 24 hours per week. More women than men are

enrolled at CSUS. Students reflect the diversity of the state's population; almost 50 percent

of the student population comes from groups traditionally underrepresented in United States

universities.

During the 1995-96 academic year, three new Schools, Arts and Letters, Natural

Sciences and Mathematics, and Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, were created

from the School of Arts and Sciences, previously the University's largest school. With over

10,000 FTES, the School of Arts and Sciences was larger than six other CSU campuses.

CSUS also has four other schools: Business Administration, Education, Engineering and

Computer Science, and Health and Human Services. Fifty-three departments are housed in

these seven schools.
 

Historically, the primary mission of CSUS, like its sister campuses in the CSU, has

been teaching (Appendix A). Because teaching is considered the major responsibility of

CSU faculty, successful instructional performance is the primary factor in retention, tenure

and promotion decisions. From within the senior faculty, and increasingly from the ranks of

newer faculty, the place of scholarship in the roles and responsibilities of faculty has been

challenged, particularly its relationship to the mission of the CSUS. However, faculty

increasingly consider scholarship as an essential component of their roles and

responsibilities.

As CSUS approaches its 50th birthday, it is struggling with its identity as a

comprehensive regional university in a growing metropolitan area of California. Many of

the faculty, particularly those hired in the sixties and seventies, came to CSUS when it was

relatively small and its largest academic programs were in the arts and sciences. The growth

in pre-professional and professional degree programs, and the University's move toward

meeting the needs of the region and extending the campus into the community, while valued

by many, has challenged what some faculty perceive as the fundamental character of the

University, the liberal arts.
 

Within the CSU system, the Sacramento campus is also known for its active and

committed faculty participation in the governance of the campus. The relationship between

faculty and upper-level administrators has not always been positive. At various points in

the history of the institution, presidents have been openly challenged by the faculty.

Between 1969 and 1972, CSUS had four presidents. While there has been relative stability

in administrative leadership since Donald Gerth was appointed president in 1984, tensions

do exist between faculty and administration. These tensions, while not always explicit, are

an ever-present characteristic of the University's collegial governance relationships.

As we enter our 50th year as a University, CSUS finds itself favored by a number

of human and geographic assets. We have a committed and accomplished faculty; visible

and influential student leadership; an established and influential relationship with state

government; a dedicated support staff; strong alumni and community support; a much

improved physical plant; and strong faculty and administrative leadership. Over the past

ten years, since its last re-accreditation, the University has faced many challenges and made

many changes. How the University faced these challenges has made it what it is today.

California State University, Sacramento, like most state-supported universities that

rely heavily on state funds, has faced some particularly difficult budgetary challenges during

the past decade. The nature of the social contract between the people of California, acting

through their elected governmental representatives, has changed dramatically. As the State

struggled in response to an economic downturn, funding for the CSU was reduced. Since

1990 CSUS has experienced severe budget reductions with the usual consequences.

Although faculty and staff were threatened with layoffs, no permanent employees were laid

off. Students were turned away as classes were eliminated. Over the past several years, the

University experienced a drop in student enrollment which resulted in the threat of

diminished resources from the CSU. Since 1990 state university fees have doubled. Full-

time students now pay approximately $2,000 in fees per year.
 

The disruption of the social contract between the State and universities in

California, particularly the CSU, had significant consequences for the CSUS community.

Relationships between and among various constituencies were strained. Students expected

more of the institution. Faculty saw class sizes increase. Administrators were challenged to

make do with less. Simultaneously, our campus was increasingly more culturally and

ethnically diverse. Articulation of the University's affirmative action and educational equity

goals created some tensions and problems. Given these challenges, examining the

University as a community was almost an inevitable choice as a theme for our

WASC self-study.
 
 
 

Along with the severe budget reductions, the University was increasingly being told

that it needed to become more accountable and plan for the future. The WASC Assessment

Initiatives in 1989, and similar initiatives from the CSU, made it imperative that the

University begin to assess the outcomes of its academic programs. Although policies were

in place, they had not been implemented. A new General Education program was

implemented in 1992. In 1991 the Academic Senate recommended, and the President

approved, a policy on Instructional Program Priorities, which outlined criteria for

establishing priorities among the University's academic programs. The Instructional

Program Priorities document, which represented a major effort to classify academic

programs according to their centrality to the University's mission and plans for enrollment,

formed the basis for the University's Academic Plan. While the University had responded

to the recommendations from the last WASC visit to prioritize its programs, it had not yet

embarked on assessment as a mechanism which could be used to measure student outcomes

and, at the same time, guide decision-making and demonstrate accountability to its

constituencies.

It should come as no surprise that a "teaching" University, like CSUS, was

interested in learning more about what goes on in the classroom. We knew that reduced

resources had increased class size. While faculty typically teach 12 units (usually four

classes) per week and are committed to their roles as teachers, little was known about the

teaching and learning experience as perceived by students and professors. Therefore, the

WASC self- study became a vehicle to explore teaching and learning and to begin to assess

student outcomes.
 

We hope that this "snapshot" of CSUS, along with some of the issues and

challenges we faced, will help the reader understand why our WASC Steering Committee

selected Teaching and Learning, Student Outcomes and The Learning Community as the

three themes for the University's self-study.
 
 

Historically, Western regional universities were expected to base their self-studies

on the following nine standards: Institutional Integrity; Institutional Purposes, Planning,

and Effectiveness; Governance and Administration; Educational Programs; Faculty and

Staff; Library, Computing, and Other Information; Student Services and the Co-Curricular

Learning Environment; Physical Resources; and Financial Resources. In a 1988 revision of

the standards, WASC called on schools and colleges to focus on assessment as a means to

assure "institutional and program quality and effectiveness." Universities were expected to

build a "culture of evidence" to use in their decision-making processes. Colleges and

universities were asked to do the following over a three to five year period:

• develop an institutional plan for assessment;

 
• incorporate assessment data in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the General

 

 
 
 

Education program;
 

• incorporate assessment techniques into program review procedures; and

 
• develop an assessment plan to review the co-curricular program of the

 

 
 
 

institution (Achieving Institutional Effectiveness Through Assessment, 1992).
 

As the time drew near for CSUS to prepare a self-study to reaffirm its accreditation by

WASC, the campus was given an opportunity to play a part in shaping the future direction

of accreditation in the Western region. In Fall 1993 Ralph Wolff, then the Associate

Executive Director of WASC, asked if CSUS would be interested in developing an

innovative self-study design based on an assessment model. If CSUS agreed, Dr. Wolff

expected the University's self- study to focus on the teaching and learning process, while

simultaneously building an institutional infrastructure for ongoing assessment. CSUS would

not be expected to address, in a traditional sense, the nine standards used by WASC.

Although CSUS had compiled a census of assessment data at the University level and in

1992 approved an Assessment Policy (Appendix B) that incorporated assessment into the

University's Program Review process, there was no University plan or timeline to

implement the assessment policy.
 

While there was concern about this new approach to a self-study, many perceived

it as an opportunity to conduct a meaningful self-study, to respond to the 1992 WASC

assessment initiatives, and to implement the University's assessment policy. In the Spring

of 1994, Ralph Wolff met with selected members of the campus community to explain the

approach and explore possible themes for our self-study. After extensive consultation with

the Academic Senate leadership, we concluded that this new approach would provide the

campus with an opportunity to ask itself some serious questions, which would be

addressed with "evidence," rather than guesses. Hopefully, in the process CSUS would

learn more about itself and its commitment to excellence in teaching. A decision was made

to accept the offer to experiment and planning began.
 
 

staff and students for the WASC self-study. The first major threshold decision for the

group was to determine the substantive focus of the self-study. The Steering Committee

initially considered using the University's Program Review process as a vehicle to assess

teaching and learning at CSUS. A consultant was hired to assist in formulating and refining a

plan to assess student outcomes. One idea was to prepare assessment plans and gather data

on student outcomes in those departments currently engaged in program review.

Department chairs who would be preparing self-studies and implementing assessment plans

the following year were invited to meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the plan,

but things did not go smoothly. The proposal to focus the self-study on department-based

assessment of student outcomes was not greeted with enthusiasm. Some faculty questioned

the level of consultation with the Academic Senate on establishing the membership of the

Steering Committee. By the second meeting, anxiety surrounding the proposed approach to

assessment of student learning was widespread. The Steering Committee realized that it

needed more time to educate itself about the entire area of student outcomes assessment,

particularly appropriate methodologies for specific programs. The plan to base the self-

study on student outcomes assessment at the academic program level was abandoned.
 

In the Fall of 1994 an expanded Steering Committee (17 faculty, 4 students, 3 staff, 2

alumni, 7 administrators), was endorsed by the Academic Senate (Appendix C). This group

resumed a discussion of alternatives. Since WASC expected the University to focus on

teaching and learning, particularly the assessment of student outcomes, the Steering

Committee decided that it would be useful to begin by finding out how students perceive

their educational experience at CSUS. Although University data was available on our

students from the 1994 Students Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS), little, if any, data

had been collected from staff and faculty. After much discussion the Steering Committee

proposed the examination of three aspects of the educational experience at CSUS:

the extent to which students experience, and faculty use, effective teaching practices,

an exploration of student outcomes from a variety of perspectives, and

faculty and staff perception of the University as a Learning Community.
 
 

Three subcommittees were formed to develop plans to measure the University's

"performance" on each of the three themes. With broad-based representation on the

Committee and involvement from all constituencies, faculty, staff, students, and

administrators, the University began to build its "culture of evidence."
 
 

The Steering Committee examined available institutional data, identified several new

data collection activities, and proposed some specially designed processes to address the

three themes: Teaching and Learning, Student Outcomes and The Learning Community. The

subcommittees, formed from the membership of the WASC Steering Committee, further

refined the questions, examined survey instruments, determined the methodology and, in

effect, designed the study of each of the three themes. Items from the California

Postsecondary Education Commission's (CPEC) instrument, which focused primarily on

diversity as an indicator of community, were selected to assess faculty and staff

perceptions of The Learning Community. Student responses to the 1993 Campus Climate

Survey were used to assess student perceptions of campus climate.
 

Surveys on the use of effective teaching practices, based primarily on Wingspread's

Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education(Appendix D) were

developed and administered to students in general education classes, graduating students

and faculty. Standardized surveys from American College Testing (ACT) were selected to

assess the perception of continuing, non-returning and graduating students, as well as

alumni regarding their educational experience at CSUS. The writing and critical thinking

skills of our students would be assessed, and compared to those of students from similar

institutions, using the ACT-College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP). All of

these methods were designed as a way to address the selected themes.
 

A graduate student who assisted the WASC faculty coordinator in collecting and

analyzing the data from the teaching surveys compared the perceptions of students about

teaching and learning with those of the faculty. An Anthropology graduate student

interviewed 90 faculty on their perspectives of teaching at CSUS. The mathematics

competency of graduating students was assessed by a graduate student in Education who

designed a questionnaire which was included with the ACT-College Outcomes Survey. All

three graduate students were able to use the data they collected as part of their requirements

for the Master's degree.
 

In addition to using data from the studies described above, the Steering Committee decided

to incorporate data on student outcomes into the self-study from other sources whenever

possible, including the results from SNAPS and student responses to phone surveys

conducted during CASPER (the University's phone registration system. Data from the

General Education Committee's assessment of General Education "Race and Ethnicity in

American Society" courses would be included in the Student Outcomes chapter.
 

The University Assessment Policy prompted a revision to the Academic Program

Review process that required academic departments to prepare, submit for review, and

implement a plan to assess student outcomes. The intent was that some departments would

have successfully implemented their assessment plans for program specific student

outcomes by the time of the WASC Review Team visit. As the WASC self-study plan

emerged, Robyn Nelson, the Faculty Coordinator conceptualized the design as an

"educational cornerstone" incorporating the four WASC assessment initiatives, the three

performance themes, and the surveys and instruments we planned to use (See Figure 1 on

the next page). The cornerstone represents the three themes studied through the CSUS self-

study process, the activities and instruments used by the University in collecting its

evidence, and their intersection with the four areas for assessment prescribed by WASC.
 

There was ample support for university-wide assessment activities, including assigned-time

for the faculty coordinator, a graduate research assistant, and staff support. Funds were

allocated to purchase instruments, send faculty to assessment conferences, and provide

consultation to departments as they developed their assessment plans. This support was

essential to sustaining the self-study process for the past two years.

regularly to oversee the implementation of the process and to review the data as it was

collected. The Academic Senate and the Council for University Planning (CUP) were

regularly apprised of the self-study progress (See Appendix E for a CSUS Organizational

Chart.). An "Accreditation Update" appeared regularly in the faculty and staff Bulletin

where monthly activities and assessment issues arising during the self-study process were

shared.
 

Chapters Three, Four, and Five in this document are the results of Phase I of the process.

Each chapter addresses one of the three themes and includes statements of methodology,

significant findings, some preliminary interpretations and questions generated by the data.

All background information, including the results of the studies, is in the Appendices.
 

Since WASC expected the University to provide an infrastructure for ongoing

assessment, the Steering Committee proceeded to explore ways to build a "culture of

evidence" around the three performance themes. The University's Council for University

Planning, representing all campus constituencies, has committed itself to assess progress

toward meeting the goals of the University's Strategic Plan. The institutional plan for

assessment, its significance to the planning and resource allocation process of the

University, and some of the changes that have already been made in response to what was

learned are described in Chapter Six.

already begun, faculty, staff and students will be invited to participate in focus groups to

explore in more depth the findings from the surveys used to assess the three themes. The

WASC Steering Committee will take the results of its assessment activities to the campus

community to help the University understand the significance of what has been learned and

to determine the next steps that should be taken in response to those findings. After

widespread consultation with the Academic Senate, the Associated Students Incorporated,

the University Staff Assembly, CUP, and the Administrative Council, the WASC Steering

Committee will prepare a response integrating the comments for the WASC Visiting Team.

the Spring of 1995. The response was generally positive, particularly its ". . . innovative

approach to gathering a wide range of data on . . . program outcomes, general education, and

co-curricular experiences, from a combination of sources." There still remained, however,

the issue of the traditional nine standards. Ultimately, CSUS was given permission to

proceed with its self-study plan without separately addressing each of the nine standards.

Instead, the campus agreed to place the three performance themes at the heart of the self-

study, with an additional chapter describing the institutionalization of assessment at CSUS.
 

In May of 1996 representatives from the campus met with Dr. Wolff and prospective

Visiting Team members to discuss further the format for the self-study document and the

structure and process for the site visit. We agreed to two site visits. In December of 1996 a

Visiting Team will come to campus to discuss the data collected and review documents

traditionally examined in an accreditation site visit. The Team will visit again in April of

1997 to review the response to assessment data and subsequent actions of the campus

community.

CSUS has identified itself as a teaching institution since its inception almost half a century

ago, one in which the pursuit of excellence in teaching takes precedence over all else. The

dimension of teaching and learning, therefore, was an important theme upon which to focus

the University's self-study efforts. The Steering Committee wanted to explore what was

happening in our classrooms, how instructors teach, and how students perceive their

educational experience at CSUS. In particular, the Committee wanted to move beyond the

"culture of anecdote," our primary source of evidence about teaching effectiveness at the

University, to a "culture of evidence."
 

Toward that end, the Steering Committee launched the most far-reaching and systematic

survey of perceptions about pedagogy and related issues in the nearly 50-year history of

this campus. The goals were threefold: (1) to produce a comprehensive profile of student,

faculty and alumni perceptions of teaching and learning at CSUS; (2) to establish a baseline

against which the results of future departmental self-studies and program reviews could be

measured; and (3) to suggest a range of questions about teaching and learning that would

engage the campus community during and after the WASC self-study. Ultimately the

results will be added to the University's "culture of evidence" and used as a basis for

decision-making. There has been significant progress toward each of these goals.
 
 

The primary means by which the Steering Committee sought to discover how students

viewed their academic experience at CSUS was the ACT-College Outcomes Survey (ACT-

COS) which was administered to the CSUS graduating class of 1995. Thirty campus-

specific questions, developed by a subcommittee of the Steering Committee, were added to

the survey (ACT-COS), the great majority of which were based on the 1987 Wingspread

report, Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, which in turn

represented a synthesis of "best practices" derived from a number of studies of pedagogy in

higher education. In keeping with the commitment to develop an instrument that reflected

the consensus among higher education scholars about what constitutes effective teaching

and learning, the subcommittee also made extensive use of the Harvard Assessment Seminar

reports in developing its questionnaire. In addition, the campus-specific questions on

Teaching and Learning were administered to students in selected General Education classes,

along with four additional questions.
 

A total of 3,994 graduating students (2,902 undergraduate and 1,092 post baccalaureate)

were sent the ACT-COS and the campus-specific Teaching and Learning Survey. The

response rate was 15.6 percent (N=622). Among the respondents, 67.5 percent were female

and 32.5 percent were males. Another 2,000 Teaching and Learning surveys were

distributed to selected General Education courses. Of the 657 General Education students

(32.9%) who completed the surveys, 53.4 percent were females, and 35.2 percent were

males (the balance declined to identify gender).
 

Both groups of students responded to the same 30 Teaching and Learning questions, but

graduating seniors were asked to answer them in terms of their experience in the major while

the on-campus group responded only in terms of their experience with General Education at

CSUS. Supplementing the 1996 graduating students ACT-COS data, and by far the largest

group of respondents, were alumni who responded to the ACT-Alumni Survey sent to

1,667 alumni in departments undergoing program reviews during the 1995-96 cycle. Student

data from SNAPS and the Spring 1995 ACT-Non-returning (Withdrawing) Survey (ACT-

NRS) related to our study of Teaching and Learning will also be included in this chapter.
 

In order to explore faculty perceptions of teaching and learning, a questionnaire was

developed based primarily on Wingspread's Seven Principles for Good Practice in

Undergraduate Education, including some campus-specific questions generated by the

subcommittee. Twelve of the items were similar to those on the student survey of Teaching

and Learning. The majority of the items on the questionnaire were designed to elicit

responses to specific teaching practices.
 

The faculty survey included items that related to campus efforts to support teaching,

such as whether faculty read The Teaching Newsletter, a publication of the University's

Center for Teaching and Learning; participated in faculty development workshops; or used

information technology, e.g., electronic mail and list servers. The instrument also included

three open-ended questions which asked faculty to describe how they learned to teach, the

methods they use to evaluate their teaching performance, and activities they engage in to

enhance their teaching.
 

The faculty survey of Teaching Effectiveness was sent to 1,262 full- and part-time

faculty during Fall 1995. A total of 310 surveys (24.6%) were returned. This chapter will

attempt to highlight some of the significant findings on teaching and learning at CSUS.

During Phase II, all segments of the campus community will have an opportunity to react

and respond to the findings.

majority of graduating students surveyed in the ACT-COS survey in Spring 1995

(Appendix F) reported positive perceptions of the University. More than three-fourths of

the respondents were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the "Quality of instruction," the

"Quality of their program of study" and the "College in general." Even greater numbers of

students "strongly agreed" or "agreed" with the statements indicating that they were

"Proud of their accomplishments at this university" and that the "University has helped me

to achieve my goals." When asked about their "Intellectual growth," more than three-fourths

of the respondents reported that the contribution made by CSUS was "great" or "very

great."
 

A majority of students who responded to the SNAPS survey administered during the

Spring of 1994 have positive perceptions of the instructional experience at CSUS

(Appendix G). Sixty-one percent reported being pleased with their "experiences at this

University," and sixty-one percent said they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the

question that asked them if they "would recommend this University to others."
 

Similarly encouraging were alumni responses to the question, "How would you rate the

university?" Thirty-one percent responded "excellent"; 56 percent responded "good"; 12

percent responded "average;" only two percent responded "poor." (ACT-Alumni Survey,

1995)
 
 

Given that students and alumni are generally satisfied with the University, it is not

surprising that more than 80 percent of those surveyed (ACT-COS), including students

who had withdrawn from the University and were surveyed in the Spring of 1995

(Appendix H), perceive that instruction at CSUS is organized, coherent, sensitive to

student needs and taught by enthusiastic instructors. Seventy-five percent of the graduating

seniors said that their professors "almost always" or "frequently," "took the quality of

their teaching seriously" and "seemed to enjoy teaching." Eighty-two percent of the alumni

who returned the ACT-Alumni Survey were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the quality

of instruction at CSUS, compared to 76 percent of the graduating students who completed

the ACT-COS survey.
 

The University received high marks from alumni on the appropriateness of class size

relative to the type of courses offered. Approximately 75 percent of the alumni indicated

that the faculty encouraged and supported academic success and were available outside the

classroom. Two-thirds of the alumni were "satisfied" with the variety of instructional

approaches used in the classroom and found their CSUS experience to be intellectually

stimulating.
 

Both graduating seniors and students enrolled in General Education courses in the Spring

of 1995 noted that faculty encouraged the free exchange of ideas and challenged students to

think about and explore new concepts and theories. A high percentage of General Education

students indicated that "almost always" or "frequently" classes met as scheduled,

instruction was systematic and feedback on assignments was prompt (Appendix I).
 
 

Respondents to the Faculty Survey on Teaching Effectiveness use many of the good

teaching practices identified in higher education research on pedagogy (Appendix J).

Ninety-eight percent of the faculty enjoy teaching, a response similar to that of both

students and alumni. More than 90 percent of the respondents "almost always" or

"frequently" use contemporary examples, encourage students to challenge the ideas of

faculty and classmates, give students concrete, real-life situations to analyze, allow free

exchange of ideas, return assignments within one to two weeks, expect students to complete

assignments promptly, explain consequences of non-attendance to students, make their

expectations clear, explain what will happen if work is not completed on time, help

students set challenging goals, revise their courses, encourage students to speak up if they

don't understand, design courses to connect new knowledge to what is known, and notify

students when classes are canceled.
 

About 30 percent of the respondents "almost always" or "frequently" work with staff

and administration on student activities, take students to professional meetings in the field,

carry out research with students, try to resolve student conflicts on campus, use pretests at

the beginning of courses, call or write students who miss class, or develop mastery learning,

learning contracts or computer assisted learning activities for class.
 

When faculty and student perceptions of classroom behaviors are compared, in almost

every category, faculty report that they use "good practices" more frequently than students

recall, even the practice "encouraging cooperation among students" which students rated

lowest of all. While 95 percent of the faculty perceive that they allow free exchange of ideas

between themselves and students, "almost always" or "frequently," only 64 percent of the

General Education students and 70 percent of the graduating students agreed with their

perception. Although 85 percent of the faculty respondents say they take course

evaluations seriously, only 51 percent of the graduating students and 55 percent of the

General Education students agree. The perceptual differences between faculty and students

in the use of "good practices" need to be studied further.
 

Seventy-four percent of the faculty read The Teaching Newsletter. Although less than 20

percent of the respondents participated in the Peer Coaching Program or the teaching series

offered by the Faculty Professional Development Center on campus, over half of the

respondents have had a formal course in instructional design and teaching. Forty-five

percent of the faculty indicated that they were either too busy or not interested in attending

the series on teaching.

pedagogy at CSUS. Certainly, graduating senior and alumni responses indicate that there is

a largely favorable view of teaching and learning in the major. But several areas of concern

about General Education, both its pedagogy and intended goals, emerge from the data.

Student perceptions need to be explored further in the Focus Groups scheduled for the Fall

1996 semester.

A close examination of data generated by questions based on the Wingspread criteria reveals

that good teaching practices in virtually every category are reported less frequently--

sometimes dramatically so--in General Education courses compared to major courses

(Appendix K). Seventy-one percent of the graduating students indicated that professors in

major courses had high expectations and were willing to help them "almost always" or

"frequently" compared to 55 percent of the students enrolled in General Education courses.

Similarly, 70 percent of the graduating seniors, and only 46 percent of the General

Education students, noted that instructors use a variety of teaching methods "almost

always" or "frequently." Seventy-five percent of the graduating seniors compared to 46

percent of the General Education students claim that faculty knew their names "almost

always" or "frequently." Less than 50 percent of the General Education students indicated

that they needed to use the library to complete assignments, compared to 71 percent of the

graduating students. More cooperative learning experiences, both in and out of the

classroom, appear to occur in major courses than in General Education courses.
 

The WASC Steering Committee discussed some of the comparative data at one of its

meetings in the Fall of 1996. Some members observed that a good many students at a

comprehensive university, such as CSUS, consider General Education a hurdle to be

surmounted before they can get on to what matters to them--their major. To be sure, the

survey asked students to recall specific classroom practices, and not to express their general

impression toward the program itself. That said, there can be no guarantee that their

attitudes toward General Education did not enter into the results. (The complexity of the

program and its seeming arbitrariness have been suggested as possible explanations for the

somewhat negative student views of the program.)
 

Although 61 percent of the graduating students indicated that most of their General

Education coursework was completed at CSUS, how much of the General Education

program was actually completed here is not unknown. More than 75 percent of the

undergraduate student population at CSUS are transfer students from community colleges.

While the students may not be critiquing our General Education program specifically, the

responses indicate perceptual differences in their experiences of General Education and

major courses.
 

Other explanations of the perceived differences between General Education and major

courses can be offered. Some faculty may resent General Education courses almost as much

as the students; they would rather be teaching in an upper-division specialty course. Their

displeasure may be communicated to their students. Large class enrollments in some

General Education courses may discourage faculty from using the same classroom practices

in General Education that they use routinely in major instruction.
 

Whatever the explanation, the question of pedagogy and general education is clearly one

that has been raised by this inquiry and should be pursued. Student resistance to the

program or not, it is precisely the General Education program that separates CSUS from,

say, those proprietary universities that primarily specialize in professional career

development and training.
 

Data generated from the General Education Teaching and Learning Survey and the ACT-

Alumni Survey raise further concerns about General Education. While a significant majority

of the alumni reported CSUS as having had a "Major" or "Moderate" impact on a range of

skills involving effective verbal communication, problem solving, and accessing and using

various information sources, it is also the case that much lower percentages were recorded

in areas involving broader values, in particular "Appreciating and exercising my rights,

responsibilities and privileges as a citizen," "Living personal and professional life by my

own standard/ethic" and "Understanding international issues." (Both of these dimensions,

of course, could reasonably be expected to fall within the purview of general education more

than curriculum in the major.)
 

Fewer than 40 percent of the General Education students surveyed indicated that they

used what they learned in General Education in their major, or work, social, volunteer or

other activities apart from school. Less than 50 percent of these same students indicated

that their learning experiences in GE helped them deal more effectively with personal,

moral, or social problems. Similarly, fewer than 50 percent of the graduating students said

that their education at CSUS prepared them "very much" or "much" to participate

effectively in the electoral process, to recognize their rights, responsibilities and privileges

as a citizen or to gain insight into human nature through the study of literature, history or

the arts.
 

While it may be the case that alumni are simply now reporting the lack of something in

their education that they themselves did little to embrace, it may also be the case that their

recollection of the CSUS curriculum, and that of graduating students as well, reflects an

emphasis in the classroom on the transmission of information to the exclusion of an

examination of questions related to values and their roles as citizens. If so, this is cause for

concern given the promise in the University's Mission Statement that "[CSUS] will be

known for graduating students with the knowledge and skills to assume productive roles in

society."
 
 

Much of the data summarized in this chapter points to a teaching culture at CSUS that is

appreciated by a good majority of the University's students and alumni. Particularly in the

major, teaching effectiveness is reported by students to be generally high--both in terms of

general satisfaction and when considered in the context of what the literature has to say

about effective teaching practices. More problematic issues are (1) the data reported for

the General Education experience, and (2) apparent contradictions in some of the

"satisfaction" data, particularly those reported by alumni. For instance, 31 percent of the

respondents rate the University as "excellent" and 56 percent rate it as "good" on the one

hand. On the other hand, 49 percent say they would recommend it to a friend "without

reservation," yet 46 percent say they would recommend it "with reservation."
 

Similarly, 33 percent said they would definitely attend this school if they had it to do

over again, 46 percent said "probably yes," 13 percent responded "uncertain," and 7

percent said "probably no." In some respects, this is less than unbridled enthusiasm, and it

would be useful to further explore the degree to which teaching effectiveness may have

something to do with these mixed feelings.
 

In all of this there is perhaps a larger problem, the absence of standards against which to

measure the data. For instance, is the finding that nearly a quarter of the students rated their

major curriculum as "less than adequate" or "very poor" in providing needed technical skills

cause for alarm or not (CASPER Phone Survey, Fall 1995; Appendix L)? Should we be

concerned that students perceive research skills required by the discipline as inadequate? In

considering all of its data, the Steering Committee really has no way of saying what is an

"acceptable" threshold and what is not. It may be that standards, in the usual sense of that

term, cannot be usefully developed from self-study data, but a campus-wide conversation

about whether it is possible to develop standards could make a significant contribution to

clarifying what CSUS hopes to achieve.
 
 

During Phase II of the WASC self-study process, results from the study of teaching and

learning at CSUS will be explored further in Focus Groups. In addition, the Academic

Senate and its committees will be asked to respond to significant findings, where they will

be integrated into the University's assessment database on teaching and learning.
 

The WASC Self-Study Committee recommends further exploration of the following

issues:

1. Apparently there are perceptual differences between faculty and students

 

 
 
 

about teaching and learning at CSUS. What is the basis for this perceived

difference?
 

2. Students likewise perceive differences between General Education and major

 

 
 
 

courses. What accounts for the difference?
 

3. Students do not seem to value General Education. Do students understand

 

 
 
 

the relationship between General Education and a University education?

How can faculty help students appreciate the value of General

Education?
 

4. Students do not perceive that the University 's General Education program

 

 
 
 

contributes to the development of personal values and citizenship. Assuming

these are implicit, if not explicit goals of the University's General Education

program, how can they best be achieved?

CSUS, until a few years ago, was not a participant in the national assessment movement in

higher education to measure student outcomes. In the late 1980's the CSU held several

assessment conferences for faculty and administrators, and, along with WASC, expected

campuses to develop and implement assessment initiatives to assess the effectiveness of

their educational programs. In 1993 the CSUS Academic Senate responded by developing a

policy, which the President approved, requiring departments to develop assessment plans

to measure student outcomes in the major. The 1992 revised General Education program

also included an assessment mandate. Faculty and administrators attended assessment

conferences and meetings of the Assessment Forum of the American Association of Higher

Education to learn more about assessment.
 

When the WASC Steering Committee was presented with the opportunity to build

assessment into its self-study, the selection of the Student Outcomes theme was

particularly pertinent. However, when the proposal to have selected academic departments

measure student outcomes in the major was challenged, the Steering Committee moved

toward a more general assessment of educational outcomes. The Committee was aware that

an initiative to examine student outcomes would contribute to future curriculum changes,

and, in the long run, might have a positive effect on students, faculty, alumni, employers,

and the public.
 

The WASC Educational Standards, as well as the liberal arts tradition, require that

University graduates demonstrate competence in written and oral communication,

quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, and develop an appreciation of cultural diversity. A

subcommittee of the WASC Steering Committee examined instruments and studies

conducted at other universities designed to measure these competencies. An assessment

framework was developed to measure 21 outcomes using multiple sources of evidence.

Realizing any attempt to measure such a large number of outcomes would be an extremely

complex enterprise, the subcommittee reduced the list to 11. The research task remained

daunting. Given the time frame for the self-study, the subcommittee realized it would be

impossible to develop assessment tools unique to CSUS. Eventually the WASC Steering

Committee agreed to examine the performance of CSUS students on existing tests taken by

graduating students and to use assessment instruments developed by professional testing

services that measure student outcomes. Since this was the University's first foray into the

assessment arena, validated tests and instruments would provide some baseline data on

CSUS students for future assessment efforts at the program level.
 

Measuring an appreciation of cultural diversity posed a special problem. Since one of the

underlying objectives for requiring a course approved for the Race and Ethnicity in

American Society General Education category is to develop an appreciation of cultural

diversity, the WASC Steering Committee decided to include the results of the General

Education Committee's assessment of courses approved to meet this requirement. Students

enrolled in these courses were asked to assess whether the course they took met the

intended General Education objectives.
 
 

A variety of instruments were used to gather data for the Student Outcomes theme. The

ACT surveys were used to measure the perceptions of graduating students, alumni, and

non-returning students regarding their educational experience at CSUS. CAAP tests were

used to examine the critical thinking and writing skills of CSUS students. A survey of

mathematical skills was added to the CAAP test when it was administered to graduating

students. The performance of graduating students on pre-professional standardized tests

was also examined. Finally, the self-study examined the development of an appreciation of

cultural diversity in "Race and Ethnicity in American Society" General Education courses

through a survey administered to students at the end of the Fall 1994 semester. A summary

and analysis of the survey data follows.
 
 

All graduating undergraduate students (2,902) and graduate students (1,092) were sent the

ACT-COS Survey in the Spring of 1995. The 622 (16%) respondents did reflect the

demographics of the CSUS student population. Students were asked to evaluate their

educational experiences at CSUS on a five-point scale with "5" representing the highest or

"most satisfied" rating. For a complete summary of the results of the ACT-COS Survey see

Appendix E. What follows is a profile of perceived student outcomes with the average

rating for each item.

College Outcomes - Students rated "Acquiring skills and knowledge needed for a

career" as the most important college outcome (4.7); followed by "developing problem-

solving skills" (4.6); "becoming competent in my major" (4.6); "learning to think and

reason" (4.6); and "drawing conclusions after weighing facts and evidence" (4.5). There was

a high level of congruence between the value graduating students placed on these college

outcomes and student perceptions of their progress in meeting them. Although students

noted the importance of developing job-seeking skills, learning about career options, and

using technology effectively, they were not as satisfied with their progress in attaining

these desired.
 

When asked to evaluate the contribution the University had made to their growth and

preparation, students reported that their educational experience at CSUS contributed

strongly to their "intellectual growth" (4.1); "preparation for further study" (3.7); "career

preparation" (3.7); and "social and personal growth" (3.5). Students perceived that required

courses outside the major helped them to "broaden their awareness of diversity among

people as well as their values and culture" (3.9). These courses also helped students to

"develop as a whole person" (3.8) and become "more independent and self directed

learners" (3.7).
 

CSUS Contribution to Personal Growth - When asked how much CSUS

contributed to their personal growth, students gave the highest ratings to "intellectual

curiosity" (4.2) and "academic competence" (4.1). When asked to indicate the extent of

personal growth since entering college, and the University's contribution to such growth,

the following items received the highest ratings: "acquisition of a well-rounded general

education" (95%); "becoming academically competent" (93%); "gaining insight into human

nature through the study of literature, history and the arts" (91%); "increasing my

intellectual curiosity" (90%); "becoming more willing to consider opposing views" (90%);

and, "interacting well with people from cultures other than my own" (90%). The

University was seen as contributing much less to developing religious values, learning to

become a more responsible family member, and managing finances.
 
 

In the Spring of 1995, the ACT-Alumni Survey (Appendix M) was mailed to CSUS alumni

who had graduated within the last five years. Alumni from ten programs undergoing

program review were surveyed: Asian Studies, Bilingual-Multicultural Education, Biological

Sciences, Counselor Education, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, French, German,

Interior Design, Spanish, and Special Education. A total of 1,667 surveys were mailed with

an 18 percent response rate (N=291).
 

Employment - The respondents reported that they were employed full-time (71%),

part- time (9%), continuing to pursue their education (11%), or were unemployed (2%).

Most respondents were employed in jobs highly related to their degree (59%); only 14

percent reported that their degrees and jobs were unrelated. The survey did not determine

why some respondents were employed in areas unrelated to their degree, or how they felt

about such an outcome. Almost half (49%) indicated that CSUS was more than adequate to

exceptional in preparing them for their employment, while 11 percent reported that the

University prepared them poorly. It was not known from the survey results what

contributed to the poor preparation rating.

Educational Outcomes - Although the University was perceived by the alumni as having a

major impact on the development of skills in the areas of understanding and appreciating

culture and ethnic differences between people (41%), accessing and using a variety of

information sources (39%), verbal communication skills (38%), and written communication

skills (37%), the percentages were relatively low. These are important educational

outcomes that need to be investigated further to ascertain the reasons for low university

impact. Alumni indicated that verbal communication skills (77%), living life according to

their own standards/ethics (76%), and commitment to life-long learning (70%) were very

important; however, they did not perceive that CSUS had strong impact on the

development of these outcomes.
 
 

The Tests - CSU systemwide objectives for General Education are articulated in

Executive Order No. 595: Graduates ". . .will have achieved the ability to think clearly and

logically, to find information and examine it critically, to communicate orally and in writing,

and to reason quantitatively." To determine whether students at CSUS possessed these

basic competencies, acquired primarily through General Education coursework, the

Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) tests on writing and critical

thinking were administered to a sample of students enrolled in Advanced Study courses in

the University's General Education program. Advanced Study courses are upper-division

courses and are not taken until students have passed the Writing Proficiency Examination.

Note: Copies of the CAAP tests are not available for viewing; the tests were scored by

ACT.
 

The CAAP tests were selected because they measured more than minimum competency in

writing and critical thinking and CSUS results could be compared with similar institutions.

Faculty with expertise in the areas to be tested reviewed the tests and concurred that the

tests would be an effective measure of writing and critical thinking skills. The Writing Test

was designed to measure skills most commonly taught in college-level writing courses and

required in most upper-division coursework. The test measures a student's skills in

formulating and supporting assertions about a given issue and in organizing and connecting

major ideas. The Critical Thinking Test measures the ability to clarify, analyze, evaluate,

and extend an argument. The WASC Steering Committee did not intend to measure the

effectiveness of any given General Education course; rather, it wanted to measure the

effectiveness of the educational foundation acquired through General Education coursework

and reinforced in the major curriculum.
 

During Fall 1995, 600 students enrolled in advanced study courses were invited to take

the CAAP tests in writing; another 600 students were asked to take the CAAP test in

critical thinking. There were actually 288 completed writing tests and 338 completed critical

thinking tests. The CSUS sample of students was comparable with national samples on all

demographic elements except ethnicity (see below).
 

Writing Test Results - The mean score on the CAAP Writing Test taken by

CSUS students was 3.2 (SD 0.7, range 1 to 4.75) -- a mean score identical with the national

sample mean. African American students (2.9), Filipino students (2.55), and Native

American students (2.61) scored below the mean.
 

The mean on the Writing Test for the 258 students whose primary language was English

was 3.26 compared with the mean of 2.54 for the 28 English as a Second Language (ESL)

students who took the test. Students scoring above the mean of 3.2 were from general

studies (3.35, N=7), education (3.45, N=24), and fine arts (3.32, N=10). The lowest mean

scores were students majoring in community services (3.08, N=24), computer science (3.05,

N=5), engineering (2.94, N=13), and home economics (2.58, N=6). Note: Community

services includes criminal justice and social work.
 

Critical Thinking Test Results - The mean score on the Critical Thinking Test

for the CSUS sample was 63.6 (SD 5.0, range 0 to 99). The national mean was 62.7 (SD

5.4). Only Asian students at CSUS scored below (58) the campus and national mean scores.
 

The mean on the Critical Thinking test for the 289 CSUS students whose primary

language was English was 64 compared with a mean of 59 for the 40 ESL students. Students

majoring in the health professions (19) and home economics (7) scored the highest mean

scores (66). Students majoring in liberal studies (6) and engineering (32) scored below the

mean on Critical Thinking Test.
 

For the most part, CSUS students performed satisfactorily on the Writing and Critical

Thinking Tests. Black, Filipino, and Native American students scored below the CSUS

mean as did ESL students. ESL students likewise scored below the CSUS mean on the

Critical Thinking Test. Note: The national norms for the writing and critical thinking tests

were based on sophomore level skills. Students who completed the tests at CSUS were

enrolled in courses typically taken by seniors.
 

In several instances, majors in one field scored high on one test and low on the other.

Only students from engineering scored below the mean on both tests. Due to the low

numbers of students, caution must be exercised in drawing inferences from these test

results. While ESL students may have had difficulty responding to the writing test, it is not

known why students from community services, computer science, engineering, and home

economics scored below the mean. The University needs to examine more closely the basis

for variations in scores on the Writing and Critical Thinking tests.
 

Mathematics - CSUS has a well-developed system for evaluating mathematics

competence of incoming students. Students admitted to the University are required to have

completed three years of mathematics in high school. The Entry Level Mathematics (ELM)

test, administered on campus at the beginning of the student's first year, assesses student

competence in mathematics at entrance. Some students need developmental work in

mathematics before they can enroll in college level mathematics courses. There is no test of

mathematics competence before graduation from CSUS, as there is for writing proficiency.

Quantitative reasoning scores on the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) and California Basic

Educational Skills Test (CBEST), an examination given to prospective teachers in

California, indicate that CSUS students perform lower than national and state averages.
 

For this self-study, a mathematics knowledge survey was included in the ACT-COS

(Appendix N) and sent to all graduating students in Spring, 1995. The mathematics

assessment consisted of ten questions about mathematics knowledge and two questions

about attitudes toward mathematics and the use of mathematics skills. While 700

mathematics questions were randomly included in the ACT-COS survey, only 56 (8%)

were returned. The respondents answered an average of 4.5 questions correctly out of the

10 (SD 1.8). The scores closely approximate a normal distribution. The performance of the

CSUS students was average, but there was only a very small number of respondents. Thus,

drawing conclusions based on the sample must be approached cautiously.
 
 

Four of the standardized tests currently being taken by CSUS students to meet credential

requirements and to determine admission to graduate and profession schools were reviewed

as part of the assessment of student outcomes.
 

Graduate Record Examination - The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is a

general test of verbal, quantitative, and analytical reasoning designed to assess

undergraduate achievement or the qualifications of students for graduate study. The test

does not and cannot measure all the factors important in predicting success in graduate

study or in assessing undergraduate achievement. Although universities are discouraged

from using the scores in aggregate form, a review of score ranges at CSUS indicated that:

• half of the students scored at the 50th percentile or below on the verbal portion

 

 
 
 

and half scored above;
 

• 73 percent of the students scored below the 50th percentile on the

 

 
 
 

quantitative reasoning component; and,
 

• 56 percent scored at the 50th percentile or below on the analytical

 

 
 
 

portion of the exam.
 

In 1997 the GRE will be adding new sections to the exam that will provide CSUS

with more outcome assessment information. The University has not established an

acceptable performance score to use in interpreting the GRE test scores. Many graduate

programs have established a minimum raw score of 1,500.
 

California Basic Educational Skills Test - Since 1983, prospective

teachers have been required to take the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) to

ensure an acceptable level of competence for credentialed K-12 teachers. The full array of

CBEST scores for three tests administered during 1995 can be found in Appendix O. The

data include scores for CSUS students and others across the State of California, comparing

scores by gender and ethnicity and those of seniors to those with the BA, those with more

than the BA, and those with the MA degree.
 

The overall pass rate for the State on the CBEST was 68 and for CSUS students

was 64.7. CSUS students met or exceeded the State rates in reading and writing, but not in

mathematics. Those with more than the BA exceeded the State and CSUS rates in reading,

mathematics, and writing as did those with the MA. Black and Latino students scored

below the State and CSUS rates in reading, mathematics, and writing. Other Latino students

scored below the State and CSUS scores in reading. Males scored below the norm in writing

while females scored below the norm in reading and mathematics. These results indicate a

continuing need for academic support programs to improve student competencies in

reading, writing and mathematics.
 

Medical College Admission Test - In 1995 two test results were

available for CSUS students seeking admission to medical schools. The Medical College

Admission Test (MCAT) measures proficiency in verbal reasoning and writing, and

competency in biological and physical sciences. Forty-two CSUS students completed the

test with the following results:
 

	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:

Students want the University to provide more assistance with career development

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?

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:

What is the nature of the relationships between and among students,

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