Learning Community at CSUS:
Perceptual Measures of Learning Community
To the extent that we foster a community on campus,
we further our goals
in all areas.
--CSUS Strategic Plan
There has been some confusion generated by the concept of "learning community"
in varied contexts throughout the Self-Study. We regret the confusion, but affirm
the importance of the concept as critical to our educational mission. Learning occurs
amid the multiple relationships and activities of the university. The faculty-student
classroom experience is not static or linear, unrelated to the complexity of the university
experience. Therefore, the values and expectations, and indeed the relationships, of all the
participants are worthy of self-examination when we are trying to assess student learning
outcomes. Evidence of the importance of this concept can be found in our use of the term to
describe our most innovative attempt at enhancing student learning outcomes--the Learning
Community in our General Education undergraduate curriculum--where faculty
collaboration is key. At the macro level the Learning Community includes all of us--
students, faculty, staff, and administrators.
This theme (represented in Chapter 5 of Phase I) sought to examine the values,
expectations, and relationships of these major groups. In this reflective process we wanted
to focus on what management consultants call "organizational health" with a primary focus
on the strengths and weaknesses of our communication processes. We feel that
organizational and cultural barriers to faculty collegiality, for example, or past histories and
misunderstandings between different groups, and the challenges of communication in a
diverse community are all worthy of our attention. We want to understand those problems
so that, in strengthening our community, we can strengthen the learning outcomes of our
students.
Our search for methodologies/measurements to assess the Learning Community at
CSUS did not produce comprehensive tools that had been tested and validated in other
settings. We did include the 1993 campus climate survey which had sought to better
understand miscommunication based on racial and ethnic differences within our student
community. Although that survey was not comprehensive, it represented the best "handle"
we could initially develop on the "status" of our learning community from the student
perspective.
The interest in communication in a diverse learning community resulted in a
decision to consider staff and faculty attitudes and experiences along the same dimensions
as the student climate survey. Assessment tools originally developed by others were
adapted by the campus task force in cooperation with the Academic Senate's Committee on
Diversity (CODE). During that process, the campus instruments became too long (staff)
and disjointed (faculty) which contributed to an unsatisfactory response rate. As the results
were tallied, we became conscious of those problems and hoped that the focus group data
would add depth to our initial data. It is unclear that that happened.
We are not satisfied with the totality of our examination of our Learning
Community. We have added data in Phase II which draws together extensive student
outcome data, not previously organized in Phase I but previously collected, which
demonstrates a set of relationships which might properly be set as a baseline for student
perception of the Learning Community. We will continue to work on the development of
valid instruments for assessing the nature of our relationships as members of our Learning
Community seeking to develop a similar baseline. The issues identified for future
examination in Chapter 5, Phase I provide the specific directions for that work. Data on
Student Outcomes in Phase II is organized around 10 desired outcomes.
5.1 Cultural Diversity: Students leaving CSUS appreciate cultural diversity.
5.2 Intellectual Tolerance: Students leaving CSUS have been intellectually stimulated, but not harassed or coerced by, contradictory political, moral, or spiritual beliefs.
5.3 Racial Integration: Students interact with students of other racial/ethnic groups in a variety of settings.
5.4 Non-Discrimination: Students are judged by character, effort, and performance, rather than by gender, ethnicity, or other personal characteristics.
5.5 Sense of Belonging: Students have a sense of belonging to the CSUS campus community.
5.6 Access to Faculty: Students have ample access to faculty.
5.7 Administrative Support: Faculty, staff, and administration handle the administrative details of acquiring an education conveniently, pleasantly and in a helpful manner.
5.8 Career Assistance: CSUS assists students in beginning careers.
5.9 Physical Resources: CSUS provides adequate physical facilities and resources for learning.
5.10 Advising: CSUS provides helpful advising services.
5.1 Cultural Diversity - A GE Assessment Subcommittee was appointed in
Fall 1993 to determine whether the GE Race and Ethnicity courses were meeting the
objective of accomplishing "A significant and useful understanding of the perspectives and
contributions to human activities and experiences of peoples from a diversity of cultures
and backgrounds, including the contributions and perspectives of Non-Western cultures,
and of women and ethnic and other minority groups who have been the objects of prejudice
and adverse discrimination within our society." Generalizing this objective from the
classroom to the entire process of university education the outcome can be summarized as:
Students leaving CSUS appreciate cultural diversity.
Cultural Diversity Indicators:
Responses to the cultural diversity questions were generally positive. The mean
percentage of positive responses was 55.9%. Leading the list was the indicator of
"understanding and appreciating cultural and ethnic differences between people." Almost
three out of four respondents to the alumni survey believed that efforts to help students
understand and appreciate cultural diversity had a "major" or "moderate" impact on their
experiences at CSUS.
Roughly half of the respondents to both the Graduating Senior (ACT Grad) and
General Education (Gen Ed) Surveys claimed that classes almost always or frequently
exposed them to the contributions of a variety of groups or peoples. Alumni responded
about the same in response to a similar question about the multicultural content of courses.
Slightly fewer (42%) perceived that courses had made a great contribution to becoming "an
effective member in a multi-cultural society."
In Fall 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..."
Overall, the majority of students indicated that the Race and Ethnicity courses
were meeting the intended General Education objectives. 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.
5.2 Intellectual Tolerance - Students' intellectual
growth is best
accomplished in an environment free of confrontation: through rational discussion they can
examine their own and others' beliefs, appreciate diversity, and learn tolerance. Students
leaving CSUS have been intellectually stimulated, but not harassed or coerced by
contradictory political, moral, or spiritual beliefs.
Intellectual Tolerance Indicators:
The scores from the nine indicators of intellectual tolerance exhibited a rather large
variability ranging from almost four out of five positive responses to one question, down to
one-third positive responses to another question. Seventy-nine percent of the General
Education students affirmed that professors were "almost always" or at least "frequently"
responsive to student questions and concerns.
A less common observation was that students felt free to disagree with
professors. Less than half of the respondents (46% of the graduating seniors and 43% of
the General Education students) reported such tolerance was frequently the case. The least
impressive indicator of intellectual tolerance was freedom from harassment. Disturbingly,
only 33% of the graduating seniors were satisfied that the campus was reasonably free
from harassment. Since harassment was not defined, we are left to speculate on the type of
harassment.
Nevertheless, better than half of the respondents to a variety of surveys found
CSUS to be supportive of a free exchange of ideas and supportive of "getting along with
people whose attitudes and opinions are different..."
5.3 Racial Integration - It is one thing to appreciate cultural diversity or to be
tolerant of alternative points of view. It is quite another to seek out members of other racial
or ethnic groups or to actively engage in discussions with those holding contrary beliefs.
Yet a university is precisely the setting where this admirable outcome can be pursued:
Students interact with students of other racial/ethnic groups in a variety of settings.
Racial Integration Indicators:
Evidence from three indicators drawn from three separate surveys supports the
conclusion that students believe they get along well with members of other cultural groups,
but they are less successful at integrating others into their daily lives. Seventy-four percent
reported a major or moderate impact on their lives of attempts at "getting along with people
from various cultures, races, backgrounds, etc." Students do not, however, appear to seek
out people from other racial or ethnic groups. Only 48% claimed to have great success at
interacting with people from other cultures.
5.4 Non-Discrimination - If the citizenry is to achieve a society without
discrimination against minority groups, it will likely be due to influences from institutions
such as public universities. But if CSUS is to produce leaders it must first rid itself of
discrimination. A desirable outcome, therefore, is that Students are judged by their
character, effort and performance, rather than by their gender, ethnicity, or other
personal characteristics.
Non-Discrimination Indicators:
According to survey results, students believe that the campus is more accepting of
some forms of equality than others. There appears to be a hierarchy of non-discrimination,
with gender equality at the top of the hierarchy and sexual orientation at the bottom.
Students believed the campus community was most supportive of equality
between the sexes. Sixty-four percent of the graduating senior sample strongly agreed or
agreed with the statement that "this college is equally supportive of women and men."
Similarly, three-fifths of the respondents to the SNAPS survey believed that CSUS was
equally supportive of women and men.
Students believed CSUS was less supportive of racial equality. Fifty-five percent
of the respondents to the SNAPS survey and 54% of the respondents to the graduating
seniors survey agreed with the statement that "this university is equally supportive of all
racial/ethnic groups." Equality appeared to be least common for differences between sexual
orientation. Only one-third of the alumni characterized the CSUS campus as accepting of
individuals regardless of sexual orientation.
5.5 Sense of Belonging - CSUS is different from many Universities of its
size and stature in that it is largely a commuter campus. Students working off-campus, part
or full time, are trying to balance their work time with a part or full time academic load. The
challenge for CSUS then becomes one of ensuring that Students have a sense of
belonging to the CSUS campus community.
Sense of Belonging Indicators:
The pattern that emerged from responses to this set of indicators was entirely
consistent with the commuter demographics of CSUS. The majority of students did not feel
a sense of belonging to this campus. The mean percentage of positive responses to this set
of indicators was 39.8%. This was the second lowest mean among the ten outcomes
summarized in this chapter.
Students simply do not participate with much regularity in campus activities. Only
22% of the respondents to the GE survey said they frequently participate in out-of-class
activities. Only 31% said they participate in campus activities at least once a week
(CASPER phone questions). Furthermore, only 30% said that campus activities
contributed to their personal growth and development. The highest percentage of activity
was registered in response to a question about meeting other students in campus areas such
as The Pub, Library, student lounges, etc. (46%). But for many students, the likely
referent in this question may have been academic study groups or course project groups.
Nor do most students feel that CSUS affords them enough opportunity to
participate in activities. Three separate surveys found the percentage of students who are
satisfied with the availability of activities to be in the low forties.
The lack of extra-curricular activity and the perception that CSUS affords little
opportunity for such activity may be the result of the individual circumstances in which
commuter students find themselves. Students with a full course load, a full work load and
perhaps a full family load may have little time or inclination to search out and avail
themselves of campus activities. Indeed, 68% of the respondents to a CASPER survey
reported that the extra-curricular events and activities provided by the University do meet
their needs. It may be the case that many students do not perceive a need for such activities.
Whether the need for campus activities is felt or not, the effects of such a lack of
activity are acutely felt. Only 45% of the respondents to the ACT Graduating Seniors
Survey expressed a sense of belonging on the campus. The sense of belonging dropped
even further when the graduates had left the campus for a while and became alumni. Only
29% of the alumni sample expressed a strong sense of belonging on the campus.
Even more problematic may be the fact that the lack of connection could translate
to feelings about one's self. The General Education Survey found that only 40% of the
respondents "felt valued as a member of my classes." Only 56% of the alumni believed that
CSUS had been concerned for them as individuals. Certainly there are many causes for
feeling disconnected or not belonging, but more frequent participation in activities on
campus might help the situation.
If the University decides to confront this issue, the difficult task is how to
intervene in what may be a vicious cycle. If students don't have time to participate, or don't
participate, or see few opportunities to participate, or do not value the opportunities that are
available, they feel isolated from the campus, so they participate even less. And the cycle
continues. Indirect support of this cycle comes from the fact that few students positively
evaluated the existing activities (30% on SNAPS and 37% on the ACT Graduating Seniors
Survey). Although the answers to the problem are not apparent, the problem is real.
5.6 Access to Faculty - One of the defining characteristics of an excellent
teaching institution is the ease with which students can access faculty for help with
coursework, advising, and assistance with campus activities such as independent research
projects, internships and career preparation. The desired outcome for students is that...
Students have ample access to faculty.
Access to Faculty Indicators:
Although exposure to faculty may not be as frequent as desired, students
indicated that faculty were available to them. Sixty-five percent of the respondents to the
SNAPS survey rated faculty accessibility as good to excellent. Sixty-six percent of the
graduating seniors were satisfied with faculty availability for office appointments. When
alumni were asked a similar question, 74% agreed that "most faculty were readily available
to students outside of class time." Even 58% of the non-returning students were satisfied
with the availability of faculty.
Less frequent, however, was informal contact with faculty in non-academic
settings. Only 35% of the graduating seniors viewed the level of informal contact as
satisfying. A CASPER survey found that only 26% of the students had met with faculty the
previous semester outside of classrooms or faculty offices in areas such as the library or
lounges. Exposure to faculty outside of the classroom was rated as excellent or good by
only 21% of the students polled.
Despite the limited informal contact with faculty, 74% of the graduating seniors
believed that faculty frequently knew their names. Such familiarity was less common for
students enrolled in General Education courses (46%). The net result of exposure to faculty
was summed up in the alumni survey when, on a 1 to 5 scale, 61% rated student faculty
interaction in the 4 or 5 range.
5.7 Administrative /Student Support - The backdrop for faculty interaction
with students are the many services provided by CSUS staff and administrators. The
typical referent most people have of a college education is a professor standing in front of a
chalk board or a table full of lab equipment and a classroom full of students. But that scene
simply does not take place without a lot of planning and effort by a wide range of key
people who provide the administrative details that make the learning experience possible.
Faculty, staff and administration handle the administrative details of acquiring an
education conveniently, pleasantly and in a helpful manner.
Administrative/Student Support Indicators:
The Administrative/Student Support Indicators evidenced a wide range in the
extent to which students were satisfied with such services. On the positive side, students
gave positive marks to publications (71%), the bookstore (66%), and the efforts made to
inform them when classes were canceled (74%).
Services students need to enroll and get started at CSUS were evaluated slightly
less positively. The SNAPS survey found that only 48% of the students rated admission
services as excellent or good. The process of transferring credits was seen in a more
positive light with 64% expressing satisfaction. Four indicators relating to the process of
registration (printed schedules, registration procedures and scheduling problems) had a
mean positive rating of 56%. A related indicator of course availability scored only 43% in
the positive column.
A problem area for students coming to CSUS seemed to be campus orientation.
Graduating seniors gave campus orientation a 46% favorable rating, SNAPS gave it a 41%
positive rating, but only 21% of alumni recalled the experience as satisfying.
But the real administrative headache for students seemed to be the issue of
financial aid. Regardless of the survey or the way the question was worded, three-fourths
of the survey respondents failed to rate financial aid positively. The performance of
financial aid was consistently rated negatively. It was one of the most negative response to
any of the indicators measuring any of the outcomes in this chapter. Only 16 percent of the
alumni rated "financial aid, counseling and related services" as satisfying.
But the lowest evaluation was directed at remedial and tutorial services. Only 22%
of the graduating seniors assigned a satisfactory rating to these services.
5.8 Career Assistance - Despite the protests of traditional liberal education
proponents, many students focus their education on a subsequent career. If CSUS is to
honor student wishes it must look toward a career outcome: CSUS assists students in
beginning careers.
Career Assistance Indicators:
CSUS did not perform well on the indicators measuring the outcome of career
assistance. The only indicator with a percentage of positive responses above 50% was
"learning to formulate and re-shape my lifetime goals." The specific indicators of "career
planning services" ranged from a high of 40% positive to a low of 27%. Two references to
a specific office scored 25% and 21% for "career planning office" and "job placement
services," respectively.
Achieving only slightly better rating were two indicators referring to "career
options." Graduating seniors reported a 34% positive response to the indicator "learning
about career options." A similarly worded item from the alumni survey yielded a 42%
positive response. CSUS should engage itself in a discussion about career assistance. If
CSUS believes it is providing adequate career assistance there is a gap between the quality
of the service we are providing and the level of service students think they are getting.
5.9 Facilities and Services - Large pieces (literally) of the campus picture
are the physical structures on campus and the physical pieces of apparatus that go inside
those structures. CSUS provides adequate physical facilities and resources for learning.
Facilities and Services Indicators:
Student evaluation of the physical resources tended to fall into two categories: (1)
the physical structures on campus and (2) the learning "hardware" that occupies those
buildings and grounds. Respondents to the various surveys tended to evaluate the adequacy
of the structures more positively than the availability and quality of the "hardware."
CASPER surveys found that students were very happy with the campus meeting areas
(81% positive). Two-thirds of the alumni evaluated the buildings and grounds positively.
The exception to positive evaluations of physical facilities was the reaction of non-
continuing students to parking. Only 32% of this group believed parking to be adequate.
Respondents to CASPER phone survey questions positively responded to
"laboratory facilities in your major." Seventy-three percent of the students reported they
were either very satisfied or satisfied. The percentage of positive evaluations dropped when
the sample was non-returning students, however. Among this group only 57% reported
that they were satisfied with the classroom and laboratory facilities.
A decline in student enthusiasm arose when the subject changed to computer
facilities, services and workstations, however. The percentage of positive ratings in this
category dropped to 46% among graduating seniors, 46% among the SNAPS sample and
35% among alumni.
5.10 Advising - A final desired outcome discussed under the general heading
of learning community is student perception of advising: CSUS provides helpful advising
services.
Advising Indicators:
Considering the fact that advising is a relatively narrow topic the variability of the
scores for the different indicators was surprising. The percentages of positive responses
ranged from a high of 79% (peer or faculty mentors) to a low of 16% (student placement).
A clear pattern was present, however. The indicators referencing the respondent's major
department tended to be very positive, whereas the indicators referencing advising outside
the student's major tended to be less positive. When CASPER users were asked, "how
satisfied are you with academic advising in your major?", 77% responded that they were
very satisfied or satisfied. By contrast, when the SNAPS survey asked students to rate the
"University advising center or general studies office," only 31% offered ratings of "good"
or "excellent."
One indicator of advising made no specific reference to either the major or the rest
of the university. This item was present on the ACT Non-returning student survey. It asked
students to rate the availability of advisors. To this question only 41% said they were
satisfied with access to advising. The mean percentage of all responses to the advising
indicators was 49.0%.
Much of this chapter dealt issues of tolerance, diversity, and discrimination.
Students were relatively positive about the issue of diversity, particularly in the curriculum.
Students tended to be mildly positive in their perceptions of several other learning
community outcomes (access to faculty, physical resources, and advising). But students
perceived several areas where the campus may want to devote some attention: some areas
included under administrative support may need further analysis (particularly financial aid
and advising); many students seem to want but did not feel a strong sense of belonging to
the campus; and most want more attention paid to career assistance.