Educational Effectiveness Review

Appendix G1

Major Issues Highlighted by the Commission
in the Preparatory Review

 

In the Commission Action Letter dated March 3, 2004, the WASC Commission noted five areas meriting special attention.

Institutional and Educational Effectiveness

Key areas recommended for emphasis in the educational effectiveness review were “deeper faculty reflection and analysis of assessment efforts,” progress in the assessment of general education, and the review and analysis of student work. Student learning and its assessment, and especially assessment of general education, are addressed in detail in Essay A, which responds to the question “How does the university advance student learning and its own improvement in achieving student learning?” Table 7.1 (Appendix A2) summarizes the status of assessment activities. During the site visit, the team will have the opportunity to engage with faculty to determine for themselves the extent of faculty involvement in assessment efforts. Student work will be made available to the visiting team, including student portfolios, posters displaying student projects, and samples of essays scored during evaluation of general education.

The university was also encouraged to develop institutional learning outcomes “to anchor student learning outcomes in core values of the institution.” The three themes selected for accreditation review ( Opportunity, Interaction, and Exploration) explicate the core values of California State University, Fresno, and the self-study is helping to clarify those values. The university has also begun to articulate a statement of the “Qualities of a Graduate of California State University, Fresno” (Appendix G2), which will be further refined fall 2004 for adoption by the Academic Senate.

Strategic Planning

The university was advised to realign strategic planning with assessment work and to link emerging strategic planning goals with the comprehensive campaign. In recognition of the value to the university of assessment, the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment is being expanded to provide continued support for institutional decision-making and stronger support for outcomes assessment.

The campus is currently in the middle of a five-year strategic planning cycle, implementing 38 measurable goals defined by 240 faculty, administrators, and staff, who, in consultation with 50 business and community leaders, participated in the development of Plan for Excellence II: 2001-2006. Annual milestones reports are used to track progress in achieving the strategic planning goals. The self-study process has provided the opportunity for deeper reflection on key strategic directions. Indeed, as a result of the Preparatory Review, the Strategic Planning Committee has selected six priority goals to be emphasized during the next two years. The self-study and review process have reinforced the general awareness that our next planning effort should be more tightly focused on a smaller number of goals, some of which may grow out of the WASC Steering Committee recommendations.

An emerging aspect of strategic planning is the evolution of goals for the comprehensive campaign. Members of the Strategic Planning Committee, academic senate leadership, and the President’s Cabinet have all been involved in assisting in the selection of comprehensive campaign goals to ensure alignment with the campus strategic goals. In 2003-04, eight meetings were conducted with these and other academic leaders to identify and prioritize comprehensive campaign goals and projects. Those projects designated as “top-tier” will be subjected to a feasibility study in the community and then presented to the campus.

Expectations for Faculty

The commission recommended that the university “engage faculty in understanding expectations of research for various faculty ranks” and “monitor implications of faculty expectations and workload.” Educational Effectiveness Essay D, which responds to the question, “How has the expansion of faculty research, scholarship, and creative activity impacted the learning environment?” addresses these issues. Supporting data include the results of a survey of tenure-track and recently tenured faculty members that investigated attitudes towards clarity of expectations, workload, and balance among competing demands on faculty time (Appendix D1). From the survey results, it can be concluded that expectations are clear, fair, and equitable across faculty, but that the workload in general and the heavy teaching load in particular are sources of stress for probationary faculty members.

Exploring New Program Modalities

Here we were asked to evaluate plans to move into new modalities, as well as the evidence of educational effectiveness and quality assurance for existing programs. These issues are considered in Educational Effectiveness Essay C, “How effectively has the university integrated the use of technology to support teaching and learning?” In programs with sufficient enrollment to allow statistical comparison of student performance, grades of students taking courses through distance learning were at least equivalent to those of on-campus students in the same courses. Educational Effectiveness team members will be given the opportunity to visit the Fresno State-COS site in Visalia.

In order to be offered through a novel modality, programs must receive both campus review (including a check for compliance with campus guidelines for technology mediated instruction, where relevant) and WASC Substantive Change approval. While the campus is not planning wholesale expansion of distance or distributed course offerings, we are confident that our infrastructure will support quality programs where we do move to meet regional or international needs. Our assets include strong program review and approval processes, an expectation of assessment of student learning outcomes, training and support for faculty members teaching televised or online courses, and a faculty with increasing experience in technology-mediated instruction.

University Response to NCAA Issues

As requested by the university president, in August of 2003 the Assistant Director of Athletics – Academic Services began jointly reporting to the provost and the director of athletics. Meetings with the provost have occurred on a bi-weekly basis and have included a focus on academic advising, tutoring and other academic issues for student-athletes.

The new reporting structure has been productive, increasing the effectiveness of Academic Services while providing a system of checks and balances system for review of general service provision as well as specific situations.

Under the supervision of the provost, the following activities have occurred:

• All student-athletes attended mandatory training on academic integrity and signed an agreement of understanding and compliance.
• Academic integrity training and a signed statement were also required for all Athletic Department employees, including student assistants, staff, coaches and administrators. The provost participated in the training session.
• All head coaches met with the Assistant Director of Athletics – Academic Services and their sport supervisor to review any academic services provided through their team. Each coach completed and signed a reporting form indicating the types of services provided as they related to NCAA regulations.
• The Western Athletic Conference (WAC) requires student-athletes to complete six degree units prior to postseason competition. Through a joint effort with the provost and her staff, Academic Services staff was more effective in securing grade verifications from faculty prior to final semester grade postings. This occurred during both the fall and spring semesters.

Overall, the dual reporting lines have strengthened the Academic Services program. Future goals of the provost supervision include continued monitoring of academic integrity and increased outreach to improve the relationship between faculty and athletics.

Top

Close Window