| Site
Index
Site Diagragm
Overview
Preparatory Review Sections
I. Introduction
II. Institutional Context
III. Thematic Features:
A.
Opportunity
B. Exploration
C. Interaction
IV. Summary and Conclusion
Appendices
A. Evidentiary Report: Opportunity
B. Evidentiary Report:Exploration
C. Evidentiary Report: Interaction
D. Exemplars
E. Strategic
Planning Goals
F. Plan
for Educational Effectiveness Review
G. WASC
Self-Report Steering Committee
H. Required Displays
|
|
Preparatory Review
SECTION III: THEMATIC FEATURES |
|
C. Interaction—"Transformation through Integration
of Knowledge and Experience" |
|
| Two directions emerged in examination of the Interaction Theme
and its relevance to California State University, Fresno: Campus
Communities [Internal Interaction], and University
Linkages [External
Interaction], and a representative feature was selected from each
of these. Learning Groups are considered a vital aspect of campus
communities because they more fully engage students upon arrival
at the university. Such engagement contributes to academic success
and increased retention and graduation, especially of at-risk students.
Center/Institute Partnerships are the most visible sign of university
linkages serving the region, which faces many economic and social
challenges. The university thus serves as a unique and valuable resource
to the community, in full congruence with its vision to be a regionally
engaged institution. |
|
Facilitating Interaction for a Stimulating Campus Environment
Campus Communities: Learning Groups
|
|
| Two principal components of campus communities are: (1) Academic
Engagement and Co-curricular Participation, and (2) Student Life
and Extracurricular Involvement. The first of these deals with the
student’s intellectual development, primarily through student-faculty
and student-student interaction. The second addresses the student’s
social maturation, mainly through student-student interaction. In
this essay, the first of these features is highlighted as representative,
with specific focus on the formation of learning-focused groups.
Academic engagement deals with institutional efforts to intellectually
absorb and bond the student to the university educational experience.
In part, this is accomplished through academic support programs
that orient and prepare students (especially those at-risk) to
achieve both academic and life success. [See also “Support
for Academic Success” in the reflective essay on Opportunity.]
|
|
| Building on this support structure, there have also been efforts
to establish a variety of learning-focused communities and an array
of academic-related, co-curricular group activities that reinforce
and extend formal classroom learning. In turn, these build on a strong
thread of written university commitments, seen especially in two
of its educational goals: “Foster a learning community on campus
that is actively engaged in discovery of knowledge, development of
skills, and acquisition of experience”; and “Instill
a culture of continual learning and improvement for all educational
endeavors and the systems that support them.” To this is added
the university's stated mission, which addresses the institution's
distinctive surroundings and cultural makeup, melding with the community
concept: “The university fosters an environment in which students
learn to live in a culturally diverse and changing society. Within
that environment, it strives to develop a community. . . . The university
seeks and encourages historically underrepresented students to embark
upon and complete a university education.” |
CFR
2.11
1.2 |
| Based on studies of student success, the supposition here is that
retention and academic achievement are to some degree a function
of connectivity to communities, both academic and nonacademic, and
of engagement in learning and living experiences that encourage intellectual
growth and personal development in a collaborative manner. In fact,
UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute director Alexander Astin
has identified the need to address student disengagement from academic
studies and co-curricular activities as the number one priority in
higher education today [2003 keynote presentation to the WASC Annual
Conference]. Isolated and lonely students are more likely to drop
out. This is believed to be particularly true among first-generation
college-goers, for whom belonging to a community can be essential
to their retention. Fresno State draws heavily from disadvantaged
populations and thus has sizable numbers of at-risk students who
stand to benefit from such connective interaction. As such, developing "an
engaged and diverse student learning community” is actively
pursued as a strategic priority of the campus. |
CFR
2.10
SPG
1
2 |
| A final important support mechanism bears mention: the university's
dedication to realization of a “community of scholars,” as
seen in its ongoing efforts to establish an honor code. These efforts
clearly speak to the declared institutional purpose to “establish
an environment reflecting and encouraging integrity and ethical standards
in individual behavior and organizational conduct.” The evolutionary
process shows the Smittcamp Family Honors College exploring the possibility
of developing an honor code at its fall retreat and Spring Colloquium
(AY 2002-03). In turn, the Craig School of Business initiated the
development of an honor code in spring 2003. And most recently, this
has moved to the university level: the president, upon the recommendation
of the Academic Senate Executive Committee in spring 2003, has appointed
a university-wide group to consider the matter, employing the Bonner
Center for Character Education and Citizenship of the Kremen School
of Education and Human Development. |
|
EXEMPLAR:
Bonner Center for Character
Education and Citizenship
|
|
In the 1990s, the university adopted an enrollment management system
that sought, among many aims, to increase freshman intake and achieve
a more balanced admission of four-year native students and two-year
transfer students from community colleges. Significant numbers
of college-eligible high school seniors, unfortunately, are not
college-ready. Learning-focused communities, combined with academic
support systems and remedial work, are part of the strategy for
success. Two categories of academic-related communities are presented:
those that first-semester freshmen can join; and those for which
only junior level and transfer students are eligible. |
SPG
2
7
|
Communities for Freshmen
Because of the inevitable cross-cutting nature of the Interaction
theme, lower-division programs central to community engagement
of at-risk students have been reviewed in the Opportunity essay.
Their common aim regarding purposeful community relevance, however,
must
be noted. |
|
| Further examples are numerous. In fact, the campus has a long history
of learning communities, in which students enroll as a group in multiple
courses. In many of these, the students' entire schedule for the
semester consists of a set of linked courses. These intensive experiences
generally involve travel, require the full commitment of multiple
faculty members, and are very expensive to run. Beginning in fall
2001, the university explored the possibility of linking enrollments
in sections of two or three General Education courses through block
scheduling. As enrollment in the learning communities was voluntary,
intensive advertising was needed to obtain adequate enrollment in
the course sections. Implementation of General Education-based learning
communities was complicated by the transition to PeopleSoft registration
and to a new registration calendar. One of the recommendations of
the Task Force on Student Success in spring 2003 was to further develop
plans for learning communities, and we anticipate doing so next year. |
|
| Academic Enhancement Services of the Student
Affairs Division offers
two programs, University Migrant Services and South-East
Asian Student Services, which provide counseling and support to special populations
particularly at risk. Through mentoring and advising as well as cultural
enrichment and community service activities these ethnically homogeneous
students from migrant labor families and refugee-rooted families
develop academic and leadership skills that help them succeed. |
CFR
1.5
SPG
2
8 |
| To celebrate the success of many first-generation college-goers
special graduation exercises are held to honor Latino, African-American,
and Asian-American students in front of their families and friends.
These recognition ceremonies are a joining of university communities
with their counterpart communities in the region served by California
State University, Fresno. But they also serve importantly as inspiration
to continuing students to complete their education as have their
friends and relatives ahead of them. |
SPG
1
17 |
| The Smittcamp Family Honors
College has formed a tight-knit community
of cross-disciplinary scholars; last year it moved into new quarters
where students can gather informally. These students share a number
of special honors courses that substitute for regular General Education
courses. Cohort activities are promoted. An annual retreat in the
Sierra, a year-long colloquium series, as well as involvement in
student government and other campus community activities have all
made Smittcamp the model for individual colleges/schools, which have
been challenged to develop similar upper-division Honors programs
for their own continuing and transfer students. |
|
| Undeclared students (freshmen, sophomores) receive academic counseling
from the Advising Services office. But they lack an identification
with a cohort group pursuing lower division prerequisite courses
for a chosen major field of study. Academic departments can be an
intellectual home and common interest community that is better able
to track students and connect them to other students through a myriad
of program activities and clubs. Advising Services points out these
advantages of declaring a major sooner rather than later, to lower
the risk of dropping out. |
|
Another population group that contains academically at-risk students
is student-athletes, many of whom
come from disadvantaged backgrounds – especially
in the revenue-generating sports. In 1996 the football program instituted
an “Academic Game Plan” program for its athletes, which
has demonstrated significant increases in G.P.A. across the board.
This has minimized athletic eligibility problems of underclassmen
and increased graduation rates. Variations of this program have
been adopted by some other teams that also recruit some nonqualifiers
who must sit out their freshman year in order to establish a satisfactory
academic record. The Athletics Academic Services Office provides
on-site academic support for its team communities of student-athletes
on the road during away games as well as at home. In order to demonstrate
institutional control to the NCAA, oversight responsibility has
recently
been transferred from Athletics to the Division of Student Affairs,
reducing the potential for conflict of interest.
Communities for Upper-Division Students |
SPG
5 |
| Honors programs have been established by the Craig School of Business
and by the psychology department in the College of Science and Mathematics.
Other colleges are in various stages of planning. These are intended
to engage outstanding community college transfer students; late-blossoming
native students; high achievers who enrolled here despite non-acceptance
into the Smittcamp Family Honors College; as well as continuing students
of the Smittcamp Family Honors College. The programs provide a sequence
of intellectually challenging honors experiences in the junior and
senior years for a cohort of students who move through the program
together. Attracting and holding these students has an important
educational effect in regular classes, where their presence is likely
to help maintain academic standards and to promote participation
in classroom and co-curricular activities. |
SPG
1
17 |
| Many student clubs and organizations, supported by member dues
and Associated Students Inc. (ASI) funds, are found in the colleges/schools
and their departments, where faculty serve as advisors. ASI’s
Instructionally Related Funds are typically available to academic
major organizations sponsoring field trips and events. Student chapters
of discipline-based or professional associations may be awarded funds
to participate in intercollegiate competitions,
for which teams prepare intensely under faculty supervision for months.
These co-curricular activities enable students to interact with faculty,
demonstrate academic knowledge, and
practice disciplinary skills with respected professionals as judges
of their competencies. |
SPG
18
|
| The Solutions
Center is a team-centered, problem-solving experience
appropriate for upper-division students. Established in the late
1990s, this center creates linkages with private sector sponsors,
giving them an opportunity to participate directly with students
and in university programs. Projects involve teams of three to five
students, working under the direction of a faculty member for a semester
or more on a problem identified and funded by a sponsor. Students
are expected to put into practice the principles and techniques they
have learned in the classroom, and to deal with the dynamics of teamwork,
budget, and schedule restraints. The program is intended to be a
culminating experience for students. |
|
EXEMPLAR:
Solutions Center |
|
Conclusions and Implications for Educational Effectiveness
|
|
| The initial strategic plan of 1993 identified “lack of student
involvement in university life” as an area for improvement
and called for “encouraging student involvement in their own
education” through a variety of academically-related co-curricular
activities. The current strategic plan reiterates this priority through
two of its goals. In turn, the university has responded by creating
and expanding opportunities for student engagement – many,
through connective, learning-focused communities. Structures, processes,
policies, and resources have been marshaled in support of this commitment.
Evenlthough campus percentages for retention are among the highest
in the California State University system, we
continue to work on improving retention rates. |
CFR
4.3
SPG
7
8 |
| At least ten of the goals in the current (2001-06) strategic plan
relate to improvement of the campus community environment, engagement
in quality interactions among students and others, and creation of
greater connectedness to the intellectual and social life of the
campus. The Strategic Planning Steering Committee will have its first
real chance to evaluate progress and provide constructive feedback
to administrative divisions responsible for implementation of the
plan in the fall of 2003, when Milestone reports
for the initial year and a half (spring 2002 onward) are available
for review. Initial review suggests that the plan needs to emphasize
educational effectiveness in its goals, even though
one of the four transcendent strategic directions recognizes “a
shift in orientation from a teaching community to a community of
learners.” In fall
2003, the Accreditation Steering Committee will present its recommendations
to the Strategic Planning Steering Committee, which has agreed to
address this deficiency. |
CFR
4.1
|
| While the organizational and financial capacity of the institution
to develop campus communities has been greatly enhanced over the
last decade in an effort to intellectually and socially engage a
changing demographic mix of students, it is difficult to measure
the impacts of these efforts. However, the operative assumption has
been that such interaction is a positive force that contributes to
student success. The issue for the university is the degree of its
ultimate effectiveness in facilitating various forms of interaction
in support of a stimulating campus learning community. One component
of the Educational Effectiveness Review will be the development of
an integrated perspective of how learning-focused communities can
be improved and how more students can be drawn into them as active
members. |
|
Serving the Region and Student Learning via Interaction with
the Community
University Linkages: Center/Institute Partnerships
|
|
| In examining this feature, two principal areas of emphasis emerge:
(1) Community Service and Intellectual/Cultural Enrichment, and (2)
Institutional Collaboration and Professional Engagement. The first
deals primarily either with students forming a service ethic and
seeking service opportunities with off-campus organizations, or with
on-campus entities that provide services to the community or make
university program activities accessible for public benefit. The
second addresses administrator, faculty, staff, and student professional
involvement in campus-based entities that work with regional bodies
such as cultural groups, non-profit organizations, government agencies,
industry associations, educational districts, professional societies,
and the like. The present essay highlights the latter component,
emphasizing particularly the establishment of center/institute
partnerships as a representative feature. |
CFR
2.8
2.9 |
| The university mission statement reinforces the vision of California
State University, Fresno “to be one of the nation’s premier
interactive universities” by the assertion: “through
applied research, technical assistance, training and other related
public service activities, the university anticipates continuing
and expanding partnerships and linkages with business, education,
industry, and government.” Two Institutional Purposes further
this emphasis: (1) “Be a leading partner in a education/training,
research, and cultural affairs with industry, government, school
districts, and community groups for economic development and improved
quality of life”; and (2) “Promote and support outstanding
scholarly/creative activity and pure/applied research by faculty,
particularly the generation and extension of knowledge benefiting
the region.” Centers and institutes are key contributors to
this portion of the mission, though specialized programs and university-level
coordinating mechanisms also play their part. |
|
The first strategic plan in 1993 assumed “continued emphasis
on regional solutions to area problems” and recognized “a
strong tradition of applied research” as an institutional strength.
One of the nine emphases in that plan was “Linkages with Region,” which
called for actively developing partnerships. The successor plans
have included this emphasis as well. The aim is to utilize the expertise
of faculty and technical/support staff to address the challenges
of society through research and scholarly/creative activity, information
dissemination, and training projects. This essay reflects upon the
capacity of the institution to be educationally effective as a resource
to the broad community of constituents in delivering programs and
activities that serve diverse needs of the region.
|
|
| To thrive in a continually changing environment that presents numerous
complex challenges for the region, an institution must be relevant
and engaged with constituents and stakeholders in addressing problems
and exploiting opportunities. This is especially true for an institution
of higher learning in an area with a depressed economy and a society
underdeveloped in terms of human potential. A symbiotic relationship
exists between this comprehensive university and its surrounding
community, which has been very supportive of Fresno State's many
service endeavors to the San Joaquin Valley. |
|
| Another way the university interacts with the community is via
its numerous centers and institutes. Some are
university-wide in scope (e.g., Interdisciplinary Spatial Information
Systems); others are college/school specific (e.g., University Business
Center). There are umbrella-like organizations (e.g., California
Agricultural Technology Institute (CATI)); and there are self-contained
entities (e.g., Chicano and Latin American Research Center). Broad
community-oriented bodies (e.g., Kenneth L. Maddy Institute of Public
Affairs) exist, along with sector-oriented ones (e.g., Central Valley
Health Policy Institute). Some are general in subject area (e.g.,
Center for Economic Education), while others are more specifically
targeted (e.g., Joyce M. Huggins Early Childhood Education Center).
The genesis of these centers and institutes can also be quite different.
Sometimes a coordinating unit is created for efficient and effective
collaboration of related programs (e.g., Central California Futures
Institute). Other times, centers and institutes spawn new ones (e.g.,
Center for Food Science and Nutrition Research, by CATI). |
|
EXEMPLAR:
Central Valley Health Policy Institute |
|
A recent study by the Central California Futures Institute “Survey
of Institutes and Research Centers” identified over
fifty entities (see
the current list). This number represents a substantial
increase over the last decade, suggesting that university policies
and processes have fostered
a
spirit of entrepreneurialism that has helped enable the expansion
to occur. Highlights of the survey results included:
- Fifty percent of centers and institutes had annual funding
up to $100,000. Thirty-six percent were supported between $100,001
and
$1 million. Fourteen percent received above $1 million.
- External
funding was almost double internal funding, with a quarter
of responses not specifying the mix.
- One quarter of the partnerships was with
the business sector, and another quarter was with public
agencies. Seventeen percent were
with education bodies, and another 17 percent were with non-profit
community organizations. Approximately 5 percent each were
with the community-at-large, healthcare entities, and ethnic
groups.
|
|
Organizational Support
A key policy decision, made two decades ago, to not require
that all outreach and training be channeled through the Division
of Continuing and Global Education
Extension Programs
(as done on virtually all other CSU campuses), established
a permissive environment that allowed two major organizational
appendages to the schools of Agriculture and of Business to start
up in the
1980s: namely, the California Agricultural Technology Institute
(CATI) and the University Business Center (UBC) – each with
its own facility and support staff. These structures modeled what
could be
done across campus in terms of forming partnerships and marshalling
resources to promote “institutional collaboration and professional
engagement” of faculty and technical staff in serving not
only the economic needs of the region, but also the political,
social,
and cultural needs of the community. This “laissez-faire” approach,
involving minimal direct oversight by central
administration in the “market,” became
the norm on campus. Recently, the formation of the Fresno Area Collaborative
Regional Initiative has created even further horizons for productive
campus-community involvement. |
SPG
33 |
EXEMPLAR:
California Agricultural Technology Institute |
|
| As discussed under “Institutional Context,” another
key policy decision, made in the 1990s at the CSU system level was
to decentralize administration to the campuses. California State
University, Fresno took this one step further and devolved more responsibility
from the central administration to the colleges/schools, which had
the effect of empowering them to take greater initiatives in many
realms beyond traditional academic programs. |
|
| Particularly instrumental in fostering engagement has been the
proliferation of advisory boards at all levels of the university,
especially those attached to the institutes, centers, and programs
through which faculty and technical staff become professionally active
in regional research, outreach, and training that serve constituencies. |
CFR
4.8 |
Conclusions and Implications for Educational Effectiveness
Two
significant internal studies contribute to an assessment of institutional
capacity for institutional linkages. First, during
the "planning to plan" phase of the current strategic plan,
seven focus groups interviewed approximately 50 members of the external
community. Participants divulged their sense of key social and economic
priorities in the region and revealed their perception of the university’s
responsiveness to community needs. Among major findings were the
following: |
SPG
28 |
- The university was viewed positively in relation to its
engagement and meeting the needs of the external community, being
judged to have made a “quantum leap” in service to
the region during the second plan period (1997-2000).
|
|
- Access to the university’s resources was viewed as
difficult, however, because of the decentralized organizational
structure of the institution. Focus group members agreed that communications
regarding university programs, services, and resources need to
be
strengthened —especially in the area of university-community partnerships (including student engagement in the community).
Two strategic plan goals were formulated to address the concerns
about
access and communication.
|
SPG
28
29 |
| Secondly, the “Survey of Institutes and Research Centers” (March
2001), conducted for the Strategic Planning Task Force on External
Partnerships & Collaboration, reported judgments about these
partnerships over the past four years. Most had become stronger (64.3
percent), some were unchanged (28.6 percent), and a few had become
weaker (7.1 percent). Reasons were not reported; though the recommendation
that external partnerships be enhanced clearly indicates the perception
that existing constraints may have hampered growth from the status
quo for some, and perhaps contributed to the diminished strength
of others. |
SPG
13
23
35
|
| Of recommendations offered by the directors of the university-based
research centers and institutes in this report, 87% identified the
need for additional resources (funding, staffing, and space). Other
significant responses were to increase marketing and outreach (11.8%)
and improve intra-campus collaboration of institutes/internal policies. |
|
| An important structural deficiency was identified under the recommendations
on marketing/ outreach and intra-campus collaboration – namely,
the lack of an entry portal for efficient referral so that the community
might be able to identify and gain quick access to a center/institute
that could address their needs. Further, the report indicates the
centers /institutes do not necessarily have benchmarks for measuring
performance and determining their effectiveness. It is not known
whether many programs and activities offered through or independent
of these entities are evaluated by participants or sponsors. Developing
ways to evaluate external partnerships and collaborations and value
of the university’s participation in them was therefore adopted
as a strategic plan goal. A scholarly evaluation of issues raised
regarding the need for improved communication, access, and evaluation
on the Fresno State campus is a planned component of the Educational
Effectiveness review. |
SPG
20
30
|
| <previous> <NEXT:
Section IV: Summary and Conclusions |
|
|
 |
