Chapter 7
Creating an Infrastructure to Support Assessment
The purpose of this chapter is to provide more information about three particular
consequences to the campus of the WASC Self-Study. (1) The development of assessment
plans at the program (academic and non-academic) level that will document student
outcomes and student learning outcomes; (2) A critical area of faculty activity on the
campus, the faculty evaluation process, that has been significantly shaped by faculty
participation in the WASC Self-Study activities; and (3) The issue of building and
sustaining faculty expertise and involvement in assessment as a key measure necessary to
assure that an infrastructure that sustains the "culture of evidence" is built and nourished at
CSUS.
§
One of the first consequences of the campus commitment to do an accreditation
Self-Study based in evidence was a revision to the campus Academic Program Review
policy. Beginning with the 1994-95 academic year, every department was mandated to
develop an assessment plan for its programs as part of the process of an Academic Program
Review. This plan for the assessment of student outcomes was to be developed two years
before the actual program review. One year before the review, as the department conducted
its Self-Study, data on student outcomes is to be collected and incorporated into the
departmental Self-Study activities.
During the December visit, WASC team members met with representatives of
selected departments to learn more fully about efforts within the academic programs. This
section summarily describe their efforts.
Efforts in the Government department to assess student outcomes are very
preliminary. The Department's assessment plan describes several different approaches to
gathering information regarding its students. The Department believes assessment should
focus its attention first on what effort faculty are putting forward to make sure students
have theopportunity to learn. We are also interested in knowing what other circumstances
in students' lives affect their opportunities to learn. To gather this information the
Department revised its course evaluation form to seek information on how many hours a
week students work, to see whether faculty provide the opportunity for students to improve
their writing skills, and to gauge how regularly students actually attend class.
The Department will engage in discussions this semester surrounding our Self-
Study, that will take us into the area of trying, as specifically as possible, to define and
generalize our expectations for students and to share with one another how our courses are
attempting to promote the realization of the goals we have identified.
The Department administered a survey to students who submitted graduation
petitions in Fall 1996 to graduate in May 1997 (and are administering it currently to
students now submitting such petitions) asking a variety of questions about their experience
in the Government major. Already the Department has learned that it needs to revise some
aspects of the survey, which will be done this semester. Survey responses will give the
department an opportunity to make some preliminary judgments as to what students believe
is important to them and how well the Department is meeting their perceived expectations.
It hopes to learn something about how to educate students about the Department's
expectations.
During Spring 1997, the Department plans to have interviews with a small,
randomly selected sample of graduating seniors who submitted the survey last Fall
semester in order to probe more deeply their experiences in the Government major. Alumni
are being surveyed by the Office of Institutional Studies as part of the University's
assessment effort. Finally, the Department will consider, as these efforts continue, how it
may refine its assessment efforts. The Chair is establishing contacts through the political
science "network" to learn more about how others in our discipline are approaching this
task.
The objectives of the French major are tested by a comprehensive exam, the French
Major Graduating Assessment. The purpose of this exam is twofold: to let students know
their strengths and weaknesses in French, and to inform the French faculty of the strengths
and weaknesses of the French degree program.
The French program's progress toward its objectives is also gauged by student
opinion polls. Do the current students at CSUS and (more important) the alumni with a
degree in French consider that the French program is doing what it should to train its
students in all the necessary skills?
From the numerical results, it is clear that the students-feel that the French program
has allowed them to become fluent in French (65% "agree" or "strongly agree" on question
3) and has given them sufficient knowledge to understand French culture (79% "agree" or
"strongly agree" on question 1). The written comments amplify these responses by
commenting on the quality of the teaching and teachers. To choose a few samples: "Great
Prof's" (sic), "French major program's greatest strengths - excellent, caring faculty," "A
dedicated and inspirational faculty," "I think there are some great professors but not
enough."
The latter combines praise and blame in one comment, praise for the teachers and
blame for not having enough teachers or classes. The French program's lowest score (42%
"agree" or "strongly agree") on the statement "The University provides adequate faculty
and resources" reflects the reduction in course offerings in upper division French because
of budget cuts and low enrollment.
Other student comments suggest other ways in which the French program might be
improved. Several students expressed the need for classes oriented towards business and
science and a reduction in the number of literature classes, others want more "poetry -
French renaissance" classes. A few students from EDTE 385 - Teaching Methods in
Foreign Languages, a class staffed by the Department, have suggested some changes in the
focus of that class. These suggestions are now being considered by the faculty.
The success of the German program in training its majors is measured by student
performance in German 192, the capstone course for this program. It is the designation as
"seminar" that differentiates it from other upper-division courses and qualifies it as a
"capstone" course.
The German program's progress toward its five objectives is also gauged by
student opinion polls. Do the current students at CSUS and (more important) the alumni
with a degree in German consider that the German program is doing what it should to train
its students in all the necessary skills?
It is clear from both the tabulated scores and the written comments that the students
hold the German program in esteem. In the Departmental questionnaire (DATA pp. 175-
177) the comments for German were on the whole more approving than those of other
language programs. A majority of the students consider the faculty to skilled, caring, and
scholarly (questions 3, 4, 5; scores "agree" or "strongly agree"). The faculty is available
for consultation and advising (questions 2, 8). The program teaches German culture well
(79% "agree" or "strongly agree" on question 7). The students feel that they understand
linguistic phenomena (64% "agree" or "strongly agree" on question 9). They feel that they
have become proficient in German (71% "agree" or "strongly agree" on question 6).
Comments reinforce this impression: "The instructors...are the greatest strengths."
"German teachers...believe in their students and are very excited and personally interested
in the subjects..." "The German Department has professors that give wonderful personal
attention to their students and their needs." Students made suggestions for improvement:
the favorite "less literature" and more grammar and conversation classes; classes at more
convenient times; and then-as in all language programs-more classes. The graduate student
questionnaires raised some problems: too much English used in undergraduate classes;
problems with financial aid, and so on. The Department will respond to these suggestions
as far as possible.
The Spanish program's success in meeting its objectives is gauged by student
performance in upper-division Spanish classes and by performance on the Spanish
program's "G" exam, a comprehensive exam required of all graduates in Spanish and of all
entering graduate students. (The scores of entering graduate students give the Department a
standard by which to judge its own graduates: if the entering graduate students were to do
significantly better or worse than the CSUS graduating seniors, then we could deduce
some facts about the CSUS Spanish program. In fact, the scores are similar.) In addition,
classroom questionnaires administered in 1995-96 reveal the students' perception of the
Spanish program's quality. As an illustration, the following discussion concentrates on the
"G" exam and the questionnaires. The G-Exam is required of all Spanish majors, graduate
students and students seeking the Single Subject Credential in Spanish. The exam
comprises nine sections: 1) Listening Comprehension; 2) Reading Comprehension; 3)
Vocabulary; 4) Grammatical Structures; 5) Verbs; 6) Grammatical Theory; 7) Spelling and
Accentuation; 8) Composition and 9) an Individual Oral Interview. Students must receive a
score of 70% (14 out of 20 points) in order to pass each section. When students are
notified of sections they have failed, they must wait at least one semester before retaking
those sections. Students are encouraged to make an appointment with the exam
administrator right away in order to go over their results and plan strategies for a successful
second attempt. Those who choose not to take advantage of this opportunity increase their
changes of failing sections again. The results of the G Exam govern the topics covered
and/or emphasized in the Spanish major classes. Since the administrators of the G Exam
and the Spanish faculty are one and the same, there is constant feedback about the students'
needs in their major program.
The Spanish program's progress toward its four objectives is also gauged by
student opinion polls. Do the current students at CSUS and (more important) the alumni
with a degree in Spanish consider that the Spanish program is doing what it should to train
its students in all the necessary skills?
From the numerical results, it is clear that the students feel that the Spanish program
has allowed them to become fluent in Spanish and has given them sufficient knowledge to
understand Spanish culture (74% "agree" or "strongly agree" on question 6 and 78%
"agree' or "strongly agree" on question 7 respectively). The students feel that they
understand linguistic phenomena (69% "agree" or "strongly agree" on question 9). The
written comments amplify these responses by commenting on the quality of the teaching
and teachers. To choose a few samples: "...a feeling of community," "... the greatest
strengths...are the professors," "... greatest strengths are the teachers," "The professors
are very helpful in advising us." As the last comment indicates, the students are satisfied
with advising (questions 2 and 8), with the performance of the faculty (questions 3, 4, 5,
the highest scores), and with the overseas programs (question 12). They think that more
classes should be offered at off-campus locations (question 10), and they feel that CSUS
should offer more Spanish classes (question 11, the lowest score). None of these reactions
is surprising.
Prior to designing instruments for outcomes assessment in the Biological Sciences
major, the faculty developed both content and skills objectives for the Department core
curriculum. Assessment instruments were then designed to determine if these objectives
were being met by the current curriculum. The various means of assessment were aimed at
several populations: current students, graduating senior, alumni, and employers of alumni.
For skills objectives assessment, the Department utilizes poster session based
on
senior laboratory projects. Students in BIO 121 Cell Physiology design, execute, and
gather and analyze data for a laboratory project. Students prepare a written project
proposal, design and present a poster which includes photographs and/or graphs of results
for examination by students and faculty, and orally present the research outlined in the
poster. The posters are judged by both students and faculty, and the three best are selected
for display in the Science building. BIO 121 serves and has served for several years as a
capstone course. An additional goal for skills assessment in BIO 121 is to develop a means
by which to measure objectively the level of quality of the posters sessions and project
proposal papers. This will allow the Department faculty to chart progress in meeting skills
objectives.
Assessment of progress in meeting content objectives will be assessed by inserting
"GRE-type" questions into examinations taken by students in upper division core courses.
The Department plans to begin this assessment in the first and penultimate core courses
taken by majors, BIO 160 General Ecology and BIO 184 General Genetics. These courses
are taken by very different class levels of students and cover vastly different content areas
in biology. This addresses the recommendation of a WASC team member who suggested
assessing students at various class levels instead of just seniors. Student responses will be
scored on the number of correct responses for the class as a whole. This will give an
indication of the success in meeting content skills.
Additionally, the Department hopes to continue to annually administer a
questionnaire to graduating seniors to obtain their perceptions in the Department's success
in meeting content goals. This questionnaire was administered in Spring 1996. Forty-four
students responded. Of these, 80% felt that the core curriculum prepared them
exceptionally well or more than adequately in 8 of the 10 curriculum areas identified in the
questionnaire. The exceptions were preparation in evolution which the faculty is addressing
with the introduction of a new course, and preparation in organic and biochemistry, which
is not under the control of the Department. Yearly administration of the questionnaire
would allow the Department to chart progress in meeting content goals.
In Fall 1996, the Department sent a questionnaire to Fall graduates which was
designed to provide information on both progress in meeting curricular goals and on the
future plans of graduates. Few responses were received. In Spring 1997, the Department
will begin a pilot project utilizing exit interviews in which graduating seniors chosen
randomly will be interviewed on such topics as future plans and student perceptions of
strengths and weaknesses of the Department.
Alumni questionnaires similar to those administered to graduating seniors were
administered to alumni as part of the Self-Study process. Data on this questionnaire is
pending and has not yet been analyzed. A questionnaire for employers of alumni was
included in the alumni survey in which the employer was asked to assess the CSUS
Biological Sciences alumna's preparation in five areas. Twenty responses were received,
and they indicate that the level of preparation was better or as good as that of graduates of
other universities.
Outcomes assessment is viewed as an ongoing endeavor by the Biological Sciences
faculty, and assessment instruments will continue to evolve as curricular goals are modified
and as the faculty's knowledge of assessment instruments grows.
"Outcomes Assessment" is now an important part of the accreditation process in
Engineering. ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) is presently
considering a new set of guidelines for the evaluation and accreditation of engineering
programs that focuses on outcomes assessment. The Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering at CSUS will be visited by ABET during Fall 1997 for an
accreditation evaluation. The internal program review will take place during the upcoming
Spring 1997 semester. The EEE Department included an assessment plan in its June 1996
Self-Study document, portions of which have already been implemented. The goal is to
develop a "non-intrusive" outcomes assessment process for the department that is tied to
our mission that can be used to guide decision making, maintain accountability and foster
understanding. This draft will focus on the "Student Outcomes" portion of our assessment
plan which we plan to implement during Spring 1997.
The objectives of the assessment plan are to determine the students' technical
ability/knowledge, ability for life-long learning, laboratory competence,
leadership/teamwork ability, and communication skills. Another goal is to develop a set of
evaluation measures that can account for students' development after entering the program.
This is especially important considering the substantial number of transfer students entering
the Engineering program with varying levels of preparation. Ultimately, longitudinal
studies of significant scope will be required to relate professional performance to expected
outcomes, and validate the evaluation assessment measures. During the Spring semester the
department plans to survey the major employers of our graduates and use the data for
improving program design and delivery. Also the department chair will conduct exit
interviews of all graduating students to determine their satisfaction with the program and
their views on possible improvements.
The department plans to evaluate student outcomes with an ongoing outcomes
assessment process in the following courses:
A detailed description of the evaluation process we propose to employ appears in
our Self-Study document. Briefly, we have developed performance criteria for each
objective (What will students be able to do, or be, or possess when the goal is
accomplished) and the techniques used to achieve the goals. Through timely feedback, both
during the process and at the end, determine if the performance criteria were met and the
objectives were achieved. For instance, laboratory competence and communication skills
are assessed through evaluation of written and oral reports collected from EEE 117L, EEE
118L, and EEE 190B/EEE 191B. These courses are required of all EEE students.
Technical ability, and leadership/teamwork ability is evaluated through an assessment of a
portfolio of final exams, laboratory exams, design reviews and reports, and the Senior
Design Final Report. The department is also discussing a standardized exam to be
administered to all second semester juniors, that covers the fundamentals and core electrical
engineering areas and concepts. For starters and for benchmarking purposes, the
department plans to use a test that was administered to a similar group of students at Cal
Poly, SLO to all students enrolled in EEE 118.
The department's assessment plan is quite comprehensive and very driven by
accreditation requirements. Feedback is received on candidate performance throughout the
training process and after employment in the discipline. Sources of feedback/evaluation
include direct observation of candidate performance with reference to professional
competencies (both during training and after training), candidate evaluation of the
effectiveness of program components in preparing them for the profession, and employer
evaluation of the effectiveness of program components in preparing entry-level
professionals. A variety of methods and instruments is used to collect this information. As
a result of this developmental assessment of outcomes for our students, program
adjustments are routinely made for individual students (e.g., recommending a different
pattern of coursework or additional field hours) and major program changes in order to
render our programs more effective for all students (e.g., requiring early field experience
for all school psychology candidates; adding lab sections to the methods courses in special
education).
§
The non-academic program review process contains three main components. First,
the Self-Study is conducted by the management and staff of the department under review.
A broad ranging series of questions addressing such topics as administrative placement in
the university structure, human and fiscal resources, physical space, and technical support
are to be discussed and written answers provided.
The second component is an audit by the Department of Management Services. At a
scheduled period of time, this department's reviewer assembles key personnel from the
department under review and conducts an introduction to the audit. The reviewer describes
the purpose and scope of the review and compiles a list of key personnel to be interviewed.
This list contains a sample of those with the department under review as well as the names
of individuals within the university community who are knowledgeable of the services this
department provides. The subsequent individual interviews cover issues dealing with
management structure; resource management; adherence to an accomplishment of goals and
objectives, and a review of staffing and technical support.
In 1995-96 a non-academic program review of Procurement Services was
conducted. The Self-Study was completed early in the review cycle. The management
review,, which was conducted soon thereafter, left only the decision of how to evaluate
services provided by the office.
The Chair of the non-academic review process, in consultation with the Director of
Procurement and the Vice President for Administration, decided a comprehensive user's
survey would be appropriate. Conducted by the Institute for Social Research, the survey
was done in two phases. First, on-campus clients were surveyed with respect to their level
of satisfaction with procurement requests. On-campus constituents were asked to rate the
department's quality with respect to efficiency, completeness, demeanor, helpfulness, and
understanding of the specification of requests, among others. Finally, the second survey
was sent to off-campus vendors. In addition to the areas above, vendors also responded to
issues such as notification of requests for bids and the bid process itself. The results of
these surveys were included in the final report.
§
Perhaps the most clear-cut and potentially significant initiative growing out of
WASC concerns rethinking of faculty evaluation. For some time there has been growing
interest on the Sacramento campus in rethinking how the performance and effectiveness of
faculty ought to be evaluated. While periodic efforts to grapple with parts of the puzzle
(e.g., a Senate inquiry several years ago into the nature of scholarship and to reframe
expectations in this area) have come and gone with varied degrees of success, nothing of a
sustained or comprehensive nature has taken place on the campus in at least twenty years.
By identifying teaching effectiveness as one of the core areas to be explored for
accreditation, WASC set in motion a series of steps that has already opened a conversation
long overdue and has provided conditions that show promise of leading to significant
policy change.
The very act of establishing a WASC Steering Committee subgroup on teaching
effectiveness was in itself a significant development. For one thing, it was the first such
campus-wide group in anyone's memory. For another, it served as the catalyst to mount
the first inventory of campus studies on teaching. Perhaps most important, it launched the
first major survey of student and alumni attitudes in the university's history. At the same
time, the WASC process provided a "hot house" for ideas that diverse faculty had already
been contemplating in relative isolation. The momentum given to reconsidering the RPT
process by WASC cannot be overstated.
As a direct result of WASC shorter-term efforts, the Faculty Policies Committee
(FPC) of the Academic Senate has assumed the longer-range task of continuing the
conversation on teaching effectiveness. Using data provided by the WASC Steering
Committee and drawing on the Steering Committee's counsel, the FPC established a
Working Group on Faculty Evaluation that has had wide membership from across the
campus community and which met regularly during the 1995-96 academic year.
In Spring 1996, the Working Group got Academic Senate endorsement in principle
of its direction, and then set about devising a new direction for Retention, Tenure, and
Promotion (RTP) at CSUS, which it articulated in a Position Paper written in Fall 1996.
The paper called for active consideration of a series of reforms in the RTP process,
including (1) the spelling out of expectations for student development in each discipline; (2)
the spelling out of expectations/standards for faculty performance within the context of
the discipline for each of the areas of evaluation (i.e., teaching, scholarship and creative
activity, and service/governance); (3) the devising of a development plan for each faculty
member that gives tentative intentions for the next three or four years; (4) a
teaching/scholarship portfolio that would highlight and document the best of the
candidate's work as a supplement to the conventional Personnel File, which lists
accomplishments; (5) a reflective statement that would address the candidate's performance
in one or more of the areas under evaluation, depending on the department's inclination.
The Working Group's Position Paper on Faculty Evaluation was widely distributed to the
campus in November 1996, and comments solicited. The comments have since been
compiled and will be distributed to the campus by mid-February 1997.
The Senate Working Group's next step is to consider ways to encourage reform
and to recommend them to the Faculty Policy Committee, which in turn will make
recommendations to the full Senate, hopefully no later than the end of Spring 1997. Early
in their deliberations, the Working Group's thought was that a package would be presented
to the Senate for debate and possible adoption as policy. Increasingly, though, as working
group members became more familiar with the literature and examined successful change
models on other campuses, the consensus has changed. Indeed, the thinking now tends to
lean toward recommending modes of change that are "department up" rather than
"university down." Put another way, the group increasingly became concerned that they
were concentrating on political/policy solutions for cultural/academic problems, rather than
exploring ways that are (a) discipline or domain specific and (b) have faculty ownership
from the beginning. Using this approach, the Working Group is leaning toward exploring
ways to strengthen and expand the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) to serve as a
clearing house and incubator for new directions in faculty evaluation. Following this
approach, the Working Group would emphasize (a) opening and sustaining a conversation
at the department and school level of RPT using its Position Paper as a starting point; (b)
working with the CTL to devise and implement an action plan for such activity; and (c)
requesting resources to carry out such an action plan. The concern, of course, is that efforts
of the sort described here will evaporate once WASC is completed. However, there is no
reason to believe that the momentum will necessarily ebb as individuals involved in WASC
or the Working Group move on to other interests if agencies such as the Faculty Policies
Committee and the Center for Teaching and Learning, in cooperation with the university-
wide administration, provide the institutional continuity and leadership.
§
While the University has as assessment policy requiring departments to develop and
implement assessment plans, the infrastructure to support and monitor progress continues
to evolve. The Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, who is the accreditation
liaison officer to WASC, has been assigned this responsibility. The Office of Institutional
Studies both supports assessment activities for the Council for University Planning, and
provides consultation and support to departments as they develop assessment plans.
For the past several years, the Associate Vice President has held workshops on
student outcomes assessment in the major for departments one year prior to their scheduled
Self-Study phase of the academic program review process. For the past several years,
representatives from these departments have attended the AAHE Conference on
Assessment supported by the Office of Academic Affairs. For two years Professor Diane
Halpern from CSU, Bernardino and colleagues of hers assisted the University in its effort
to educate faculty about assessment.
Departments develop their assessment plans in consultation with the Associate Vice
President and Institutional Studies; they continue to work with these offices as they
implement their plans. While the first group of departments in the program review process
is implementing plans, the second group is developing its plans. Because we perceive
assessment to be a continual process (not something that is done once every six years
before the department's Self-Study), we understand the need to build a strong, accessible
infrastructure to ensure that departments receive support and assistance with their
assessment efforts.
Associate Vice President Gray invited Don Farmer, Vice President of Academic
Affairs at King's College, and three of his faculty to present a workshop on Student
Outcomes Assessment in the Major. On March 3, 1997 all departments were invited to this
workshop; 60 chairs and faculty participated. While previous workshops have been
helpful, our department chairs want to learn how their peers are actually assessing student
learning in the major. It was our attendance at the AAHE Assessment Conference last June
that exposed us to King's College assessment team. It is our plan to continue bringing
faculty with experience in assessment to CSUS to share their strategies and results.
The staff in the Office of Institutional Studies provides support to academic
programs in several ways. Institutional Studies has a repository of information on
assessment of student outcomes. Its staff provide suggestions and ideas to departments as
they develop their assessment plans.
As part of the University-level assessment of its strategic themes, Institutional
Studies is also responsible for administering the ACT-Alumni Survey to alumni. The
Council for University Planning endorsed the plan of sending the alumni survey to
graduates from departments engaged in developing assessment plans. Department chairs
are asked to write a letter to alumni and develop 10 additional survey questions to include
with the ACT-Alumni Survey. The information collected from alumni in each department is
sent back to the departments for use in preparing their self-studies. Similarly, results of the
graduating student survey of majors in these departments are forwarded to the department.
Institutional Studies administers, summarizes and forwards results of both surveys to the
department along with other university data on the department, e.g., retention and
graduation rates, grade distribution. The data from these surveys of graduating seniors and
alumni provide departments with perceptions of the "outcomes" of their education and
provide general information that guide departments in developing more specific outcome
measures for their academic programs.
While Academic Affairs and Institutional Studies have played primary roles in
supporting the development and implementation of assessment plans in academic
departments, the General Education Committee, with the support of the former Dean for
General Education and the current Faculty Coordinator for General Education, has
designed and implemented its own assessment plan. The Committee has completed the
assessment of "Race and Ethnicity" courses and are now engaged in assessing Area B:
Physical and Life Sciences, and have initiated an evaluation of the University's writing
requirements. The Faculty General Education Coordinator, who reports to the Associate
Vice President, and the Committee will continue to be responsible for assessing the General
Education Program and CSUS graduation requirements.
§
Now that the WASC Self-Study and review process is drawing to a close, we
recognize that it is important to maintain the momentum generated over the past several
years. The link between establishing priorities and resource allocation and assessment is
strong at the University level. Chapter 6 demonstrates the role that assessment now plays in
setting resource priorities and shaping decisions at the institutional level. In preparation for
the 1997-98 budget cycle, Deans were asked to relate their requests to the University's
Strategic Plan goals.
In an effort to link assessment to priorities and allocations at the School level,
Academic Affairs will be working with the Deans to develop stronger linkages between the
results of academic program reviews and the School's priorities for resource allocation. In
the future as evidence from assessment initiatives becomes an important aspect of the
program review process, the results of assessment will be used by the Dean and
Department Chairs to improve and enhance academic programs. The Deans will be
expected to use the evidence in setting School priorities. Strengthening the link between
program based assessment and the decision-making process at the level of the Dean and,
ultimately, Academic Affairs will be a challenge for us over the next several years.
However, the Academic Senate's Curriculum Policies Committee and the Associate Vice
President for Academic Affairs are at this time developing plans to strengthen the program
review process and involve the Deans more in the process itself.
It is impossible for one administrator, the Associate Vice President, and one office,
Institutional Studies, both with other University responsibilities to carry the full
responsibility for assessing student outcomes in Academic Programs. Academic Affairs set
aside resources in the 1996-97 budget to allow the Associate Vice President and to support
departments as they developed and implemented their assessment plans. Funds were used
to: 1) support faculty from five departments to develop and implement assessment plans,
and 2) develop expertise among the faculty that can be shaped with other faculty. We
selected departments who are committed and eager to get serious about the use of student
outcomes to improve their programs: Biological Sciences, Computer Science, Business,
Communication Studies, and Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Each department
received assigned time for one faculty member for the Spring 1997 semester. If this pilot
program is successful, we will extend this opportunity to more programs next year.
As we identify faculty who are interested and willing to become a resource for other
faculty, we envision two additional alternatives for strengthening the infrastructure for
assessment of student outcomes in academic programs.
In both scenarios, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Office
of Institutional Studies will continue to provide leadership and support in their respective
roles in the assessment effort. Academic Affairs is committed to following through on these
alternatives and perhaps others, as appropriate.
While an administrative infrastructure to support assessment of student outcomes in
academic programs is necessary, it is also critical that the Academic Senate and its
committees continue efforts already underway and to study the results of assessment
initiatives, such as those generated by the WASC Self-Study, where the issues are within
the purview of the Senate.
The Faculty Policies Committee will very soon be coming to some decision about
its proposal to change faculty evaluation process, particularly for retention, tenure and
promotion. Other Senate committees, Academic Policies, Curriculum Policies, General
Education, and Graduate Policies, have been asked to address relevant issues generated
from the WASC Self-Study during the Spring 1997 semester. The WASC faculty
coordinator will spend the spring semester monitoring these discussions. The more
supplemental data relevant to our three WASC Self-Study themes (Chapters 3, 4, 5 in the
Self-Study Phase I and II) will be helpful to these committees.
The WASC Self-Study process has set in motion changes that will make available
to the next WASC visiting team evidence of student outcomes and learning outcomes in our
academic programs and in General Education.