EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW:
INTRODUCTION
While the Preparatory Review emphasizes the university’s analysis of its conformity to the first Core Commitment—basically, of its institutional capacityto offer a quality education consistent with its mission—the Educational Effectiveness Review examines the university’s success at fulfilling the second Core Commitment:
The institution evidences clear and appropriate
educational objectives and design at the institutional and program
levels, and employs processes of review, including the collection
and use of data, that assure the delivery of programs and learner
accomplishments at a level of performance appropriate for the degree
or certificate awarded.
In other words, this review strives to answer the question, “To what extent is the university effective in delivering a quality education consistent with its mission?”
As outlined in its Preparatory Review, California State University, Fresno’s WASC self-study focuses on three themes:
- Opportunity—“Access to Quality Programs for Diverse Populations”
- Exploration—“Discovery of Knowledge, Self, and Society through Expanding Horizons”
- Interaction—“Transformation through Integration of Knowledge and Experience”
Each of these themes was carefully defined and developed in the Preparatory Review, accessible by the links above. In approaching the Educational Effectiveness Review, the WASC Self-Study Steering Committee reexamined each thematic area and formulated a set of specific research questions for focused analysis.
The selection of focus questions was guided in large part by a practical goal: the committee felt it important that such an intensive in-depth examination as called for by the Effectiveness Self Study result in information that would be useful to the university in its formation of future pathways to success. Thus the review itself must become an effective mechanism for learning and advancement of the university’s mission, and not a mere indulgence in accumulation of data supporting foregone conclusions.
With this in mind, working groups composed of faculty and staff each were charged with drafting the response to a single research question, refining the questions as they proceeded. The questions, in their final form, and the themes that each most strongly represents, are:
OPPORTUNITY
Here, the WASC committee and the writing teams elected to examine the university’s proactive stance toward providing the opportunity for a quality education as well as the success rates for diverse first-year undergraduate students:
A. How does the university advance student learning and its own improvement in achieving student learning?
B: How effective are academic and student support programs in meeting the needs of first-year students and improving retention and graduation rates?
EXPLORATION
Building upon their emphasis in the Preparatory Review, technology integration and research/creative/scholarly activity became the featured targets of the investigation, relating each of these to the institution’s educational mission:
C. How effectively has the university integrated the use of technology to support teaching and learning?
D. How has the expansion of faculty research, scholarship, and creative activity affected the learning environment?
INTERACTION
In its third thematic area, it was decided to examine evidence regarding the impact and extent of the university’s engagement with the community:
E. How has the university’s community engagement affected students?
F. How productively is the university engaged with the community?
The subgroups added committee members as needed to ensure broad and appropriate representation across the university community. Extensive consultation with the university community was involved in the drafting of these essays, including requests for existing data and supportive material, compilation of new data, and faculty and student surveys. These sources have been detailed as appropriate throughout the essays. The resulting drafts were reviewed and critiqued by the Steering Committee and the drafts were further revised. While basic structural unity has been sought, essays composed by different committees vary in internal organization and voice.
Following the presentation of each of the responses to the research questions are conclusions and recommendations elicited by what was learned from the essays and their development. In many cases, this takes the form of a list, a rather stark approach that avoids the temptation to hyperbole or gloss, and provides both the WASC review committee and the university with material that can be usefully employed to move forward in the years to come. A final section of this Effectiveness Review draws overall conclusions and prioritizes major recommendations. Throughout the text, the notation “CFR” in the right margin points to a Criterion for Review, indicating that the material involved contributes to the evidence that the noted CFR is being met. Because they are selective, the essays do not necessarily correspond directly to Criteria for Review.
The WASC Handbook of Accreditation calls for the Educational Effectiveness report to include a description of the Educational Effectiveness approach. This is addressed in detail in response to the first educational effectiveness review question, “How does the university advance student learning and its own improvement in student learning?” Additional background information on program review and outcomes assessment processes is available in the Preparatory Report.
Attached to this Educational Effectiveness self-study are a number of appendices appropriate to the various research questions and an appendix responding to issues raised in the March 13 Commission Action Letter (Appendix G). Availability of referenced material via the Internet (hyperlink) and/or in the site visit document room is indicated in the text. References cited in the text are listed in full in a corresponding appendix.
|
