Site
Index
Site Diagragm
|
|
Preparatory Review
SECTION IV: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
|
|
| As shown in the preceding pages and their accompanying documentation,
California State University, Fresno has a strong sense of its unique
identity and institutional purposes, and a visible commitment to
its vision of service as a premier interactive regional university.
The choice of a thematic approach and the themes selected for this
self-study—Opportunity, Exploration, and Interaction—in
themselves reflect the creative, broad-ranging, yet integrative
role the university recognizes as its charge. Through the lens
of these themes, analysis of representative features leads to an
appreciation of the multifaceted complexity of resources, processes,
and structures underlying the institution's capacity to fulfill
its educational mission. Summaries of specific feature-related
findings appear at the close of each essay. Their conclusions,
however, are relevant to the effective functioning of the entire
university. |
|
| Many strides have been made since the last accreditation review,
in an ongoing pursuit of proactive responsiveness to both internal
and external forces. Importantly, strategic planning has become
integral to campus processes, which support informed and rational
evaluation, decision-making, and implementation of policies and
programs. Moreover, a formal linkage and interface with accreditation
self-study has been established. Plans are operationalized through
agreed-upon and published measures of success. This open climate
supports the highly consultative processes characteristic of the
campus. While consultation may occasionally result in inefficiencies,
it also fosters a collegial atmosphere and a stronger sense of
shared vision. It is further anticipated that commitments to planning,
openness, and consultation will help the university weather the
difficulties expected to result from the current state budget crisis.
Increased non-state funding through grants and contracts and development
efforts will continue to enhance the state-financed instructional
core. |
|
| The university serves the region well. Recruiting efforts have
resulted in a student population that reflects the demographics
of the culturally diverse central valley. While a remarkable array
of services helps maintain a comparatively high retention rate,
we continue to explore a variety of means to improve student engagement.
However, according to the Student Success Task Force, most efforts
are focused on first-time freshmen, and we may wish to examine
support structures for other groups of students (e.g., transfer,
graduate, and distance learning students). |
|
| The university also contributes to the economic viability of
the region through grants and contracts (especially applied research),
service-learning, community service, and the activities of a multitude
of centers and institutes. The enormous range of activities represents
an entrepreneurial spirit that should not be stifled by over-organization.
On the other hand, as is the case for student support services,
some additional organizational structures could provide for greater
internal coordination and collaboration, as well as an increased
external awareness of university resources and access points to
address gaps and unmet needs. The recent explosive growth in research
activity suggests the need for ways to assess the impacts on students,
both undergraduate and graduate, of participation in research,
as well as structures, processes, and reward systems to encourage
student participation in research. |
|
In summary, information collected for this review of institutional
capacity suggests that California State University, Fresno is served
well by its commitment to planning, openness, and consultation.
As a large, complex organization, the university seeks to find
the appropriate balance between a decentralized, entrepreneurial
culture and a more highly controlled academic structure. Continued
progress in fulfilling the institution's declared goals and associated
outcomes for accreditation in the educational effectiveness stage
should serve the university and its constituents well in accomplishing
the mission and achieving the vision.
|
|
Core Commitments and Standards |
|
| References to the Criteria
for Review (CFR) cited herein indicate
that institutional purposes and educational integrity of Standard
I are being met, especially as noted in the Introduction and Institutional
Context sections of this report. Standard III, which in the main
also addresses institutional capacity; has most all of its CFR
checked related to: faculty and staff; fiscal, physical, and information
resources; and organizational structures and decision-making processes.
The partial focus of Standard IV on strategic thinking and planning
is also well referenced with CFR in the Institutional Context section,
as might be expected given its emphasis in our proposal due to
its well-developed status on campus.
The Preparatory Review report used selected CFR regarding the
capacity, not the effectiveness, of the institution's commitment
to learning and improvement in Standard IV as well as Standard
II's emphasis on: teaching and learning; scholarship and creative
activity; and support for student learning. The citations are
spread across the Thematic Features section and the Institutional
Context section; they demonstrated the staying power of the opportunity,
exploration, and interaction themes for the university in addressing
the WASC Standards. The Self-Study Steering Committee is satisfied
that the thematic approach, coupled with the strategic planning
process and goals, presented in the reaccreditation proposal
is, in fact, working well as a reflective, analytical framework
to examine institutional capacity and to prepare for the educational
effectiveness stage of the accreditation review.
|
|
Plan for Educational Effectiveness Review |
|
|
The Educational Effectiveness Review will be centered on the six
research questions, two for each theme, that were formulated
as an addendum to the WASC accreditation review proposal. Since
the research questions are quite broad, more specific questions
will be generated, so that answers can be obtained using existing
data sources as well as additional research to be carried out
prior to the Educational Effectiveness review.
The questions will be addressed by small research teams of
faculty, staff, and administrators, each led by a WASC Steering
Committee member. Each research team will have partial freedom
in selecting the narrower research questions, with
oversight and coordination by the WASC Steering Committee.
In addition to preparing a report that responds to the research
questions, the research teams will be charged with drafting
strategic goals relating to educational effectiveness. These
goals and associated milestones will be submitted to the Strategic
Planning Steering Committee for approval and incorporated into
the university strategic plan.
This process is intended to fully integrate educational
effectiveness considerations into strategic planning.
The broad research questions are listed in Appendix F, along
with sample questions of the type expected to be addressed
in the self-study of educational effectiveness. Research support
will be provided by the office of Institutional Research, Planning,
and Assessment and the Center for Enhancement of Teaching
and Learning. Sources of evidence relevant to each question
have been identified, but research teams may elect to gather
additional data, for example, through surveys or focus groups.
|
|
| <previous> NEXT: Appendix
A: Evidentiary Report—Opportunity |
|
|
 |
