ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE |
. |
Curriculum, Undergraduate Education, and Graduate Education |
. |
Impact of Strategic Planning on Academic Programs. |
. |
Major Findings |
. |
Strategic planning has played a vital role in energizing and unifying
campus constituencies on University issues and initiatives. As one faculty
member put it, the strategic plan reflects the "ingrained
values" shared throughout the institution, and consequently has not
only influenced the direction and emphasis of the University's academic
programs, but generated strong faculty and administrative support for the
plan itself, its six strategic themes, and the related curricular themes.
Certainly the self-study reflects the abundant success SFSU has
experienced in infusing ethical and moral issues, diversity and
multicultural issues, international perspectives, and community service
learning initiatives into the curriculum. Indeed, the
"bottom-up" nature of the strategic planning process employed in
producing the 1998 Strategic Plan is applauded by the faculty, and has
facilitated:
In short, the faculty considers the strategic planning process a success, and SFSU should be applauded for the manner in which it carried out the strategic planning process and resulting unanimity on its "ingrained values." |
. |
However, discussions with members of the academic administration, Graduate
Council, Graduate Program Coordinators, and members of various curriculum
committees (Academic Policies Committee, Curriculum Review and Approval
Committee, Educational Policies Council, and various General Education and
written communication committees), failed to reveal the existence of any
formal mechanism that:
|
. |
Significantly, several important components directly impacting on academic programs - instructional technology, library and information resources, increasing emphasis on faculty research and scholarship, deferred maintenance and physical plant, and the fiscal implications of these matters - are not addressed in the strategic plan. Rather, these matters are amicably but separately addressed and resolved by academic administration in a budget process that is not explicitly and directly tied to the strategic plan. Hence, while faculty members believe that the strategic plan reflects their priorities, they also concede that more work needs to be done to implement the strategic plan and that there is a need to create a process whereby strategic planning guides funding decisions. While the present system may operate amicably in an era in which adequate resources are available to SFSU, it may prove to be inoperable in periods of shrinking resources during which decisions to prioritize must be effected. |
. |
Strengths, Challenges, and Suggestions |
. |
The Visiting Team endorses the suggestion received from several quarters
that the time may be right to revisit and update the strategic plan, to
discuss how the institution might prioritize the various recommendations
in the strategic plan yet to be implemented, and to revitalize the
strategic planning process so that it more effectively guides the
institution in resource allocation decisions.
In this regard, the Team commends the Provost's efforts to enable departments to clarify their priorities as they make requests for replacing retiring faculty. Where appropriate, this discussion can focus attention on the strategic planning themes that may inform departmental five-year plans and hiring requests. Similarly, the improvements incorporated into the fifth cycle of program reviews may also provide an effective vehicle allowing the institution to link resource allocation decisions more closely to the strategic planning process and to encourage academic departments to become more active in obtaining external funding for program resources that cannot be provided by normal CSU funding mechanisms. Hence, the Team encourages SFSU to aggressively pursue the implementation of the revised program review procedures and to use those reviews as a prime opportunity to focus on the strategic planning themes in a more meaningful way so that the issues of student learning, faculty development, instructional technology, program improvement initiatives, and faculty workload can be addressed in a more cohesive manner. |
. |
Strategic Planning and General Education |
. |
Major Findings |
. |
SFSU has achieved significant success in identifying students’ needs in
the areas of quantitative, critical thinking and written communication
skills and by meeting them through innovative programs (e.g. initiatives
linking reading and writing and designing creative, web-based,
quantitative skill building courses). The Self-Study presents strong
evidence of success in remediating those skill deficiencies through the
General Education curriculum.
Similarly, SFSU is developing effective mechanisms to facilitate the review and improvement of the general education curriculum. More particularly, the General Education Council plans to propose the equivalent of a "program review" for Segments I, II and III of the General Education curriculum, is developing explicit criteria for reviewing and approving proposals for new Segment III course clusters, and is prepared to utilize those criteria in performing reviews of existing Segment III clusters as part of lifting the ‘moratorium’ on new Segment III clusters." |
. |
Strengths, Challenges, and Suggestions |
. |
The implementation of these "continuous improvement" processes
is strongly endorsed by the Visiting Team, and should prove enormously
beneficial in systematically effecting desirable changes to the General
Education curriculum to better meet the needs of SFSU students. Similarly,
the Visiting Team is favorably impressed with the work of the various
written communication committees and task forces to develop and implement
the next stage of SFSU's effort to enhance the writing skills of its
students, viz. the writing within the discipline endeavor. This proposal
elevates SFSU's effort to enhance its students' writing skills to the next
level, and will enable all SFSU students to gain proficiency in written
communications within the context of the major.
Nonetheless, the Visiting Team observes that the strategic planning themes and the related curricular themes are not explicitly reflected in the design of the general education curriculum. Rather, the faculty appears to consider these themes to be a "synthesis" of common goals articulated by SFSU in the strategic planning process, rather than curricular emphases. Should SFSU engage in a renewal of its strategic planning processes, it might also consider applying those processes to determining more clearly how to infuse the strategic planning themes and the related curricular themes into the general education curriculum. |
. |
Strategic Planning and Degree Programs |
. |
Major Findings |
. |
Discussions with chairpersons of, and faculty in, various academic departments demonstrate that there are varying levels of recognition, adaptation, and infusion of the strategic planning themes and curricular themes into the major programs. Some departments (e.g. Health Education and Broadcast & Electronic Communication Arts) vigorously use those themes not only in configuring and improving their curriculum, but in developing and annually updating their strategic plans and budget requests. Other departments appear to observe the themes in a more passive and less recognizable manner. |
. |
Strengths, Challenges and Suggestions |
. |
This varying degree of familiarity with, and utilization of, the strategic
planning themes highlights the critical role of the department
chairpersons in implementing the plan. In order to assist the chairpersons
in this effort, SFSU should consider the implementation of a department
chairs support program that will:
2. develop ways to facilitate the chairs' work in their departments. |
. |
Strategic Planning and Graduate Programs |
. |
Major Findings |
. |
The administrative vision of SFSU was presented to the Visiting Team as a
committed urban public university, where one of its marks is applied and
regionally focused research. This vision has research ties to the
community, particularly through appropriate institutes. This vision
appears to provide an appropriate guide for graduate education at San
Francisco State.
In contrast, the Visiting Team's meeting with the Graduate Council and Graduate Coordinators failed to produce any equivalent expression of a clear institutional vision about what graduate programs should be. Although attendees did report that specific graduate programs served the community (e.g. education and psychology), there was no emphasis on applied and regionally focused graduate programs or research. Criteria for excellence in graduate education apparently resides in the departments. Indeed, one graduate program coordinator expressed the view that common criteria on excellence in graduate education would be an imposition on the faculty members’ curricular control. The Visiting Team understands that program review information regarding graduate programs is not shared with the Graduate Council. The Visiting Team has no sense either that the strategic planning process had produced an institutional vision of graduate education or that the strategic planning themes now inform choices for graduate programs. Moreover, there was widespread and strongly expressed feelings that graduate education is undersupported and that the institution does not recognize the impact and size of graduate education. Members present said that SFSU conducts itself as an undergraduate institution, despite the significant student enrollments in graduate programs. In Fall 2000, approximately 24% of students were enrolled in graduate programs. It appeared to the Visiting Team that the focus on the quantity of graduate programs in the self-study report was a cry for the basic support and recognition associated with graduate programs: graduate student support, including tuition remissions, and released time for thesis advising. |
. |
Recommendations |
. |
Recommendation 3. The Visiting Team recommends that SFSU develop criteria defining the marks of high quality graduate programs that are consistent with the strategic plan, disciplinary and professional standards, and available resources. |
. |
Assessment |
. |
Major Findings |
. |
In addtion to interviewing faculty, department chairs, program heads, and
deans, and reviewing the Self Study, the following documents provided
information for the commendations, descriptions, and recommendations in
this section: the Self Study Assessment Appendix, the
Resolution of Endorsement of Student Outcomes Assessment, the
Academic Assessment Policy, and the Final Report of the
Academic Assessment Office Task Force (3/98). This
section of the review addresses the following recommendations of
the "Envisioning Our Second Century" Strategic Plan (11/98):
Recommendations 1, 2, and 3.
It must be acknowledged up front that in the last few years assessment has been addressed with resources, campus-wide attention and efforts, and use of a broad knowledge base. There is evidence that significant progress and advances have been made. The achievements can best be identified in a description of important assessment activities in place at this time. Those include: |
. |
An important factor in the achievements is the focus on assessment that accompanies many of the disciplinary accreditation processes, the CSU Cornerstones document, WASC accreditation emphasis, and the campus Program Review process. Some of the early successes of program assessment have "spilled over" to other programs across campus and the stories of those successes and benefits to their programs have been and will continue to be important assets. |
. |
Challenges and Opportunities |
. |
The challenges of the work already completed and the work ahead in assessment are very much impacted by some general campus-wide issues: faculty turnover due to retirements, the large number of part-time faculty, the lack of sufficient resources, need for more administrative support, the pressure of "scaling up" for large numbers of students, and the existence of multiple discrete sources of data and the difficulty of integrating them conceptually. The more specific challenges that will affect the success of continuing assessment work are: |
. |
2. addressing the differences in size, scope, etc. of programs in the assessment process; 3. educating and involving new faculty in the assessment process;4. addressing the issues of writing deficiencies that have emerged across disciplines and the need for expert assistance to do so (Note: currently faculty from the English Department are called upon for assistance with no "release" or rewards for their additional efforts); and 5. focusing development on the lack of alignment between objectives, assessment strategies, results, and use. The final challenge may involve education of faculty about assessment or use of examples to guide development. |
. |
Recommendation |
. |
A recommendation related to the cost of development work in assessment is
critical here—assessment is expensive. Once the development of clear
outcomes and assessment approaches is complete and initial implementation
has been achieved, the work of assessment can be integrated into the
"way faculty work." Assessment can be embedded in course work or
programmatic components once there is a sophisticated level of skill among
faculty and development work is complete. For now, there is an enormity of
work to be accomplished and it will require extensive time on the part of
faculty, resources for guidance (consultants, conferences, other campus
models) and support (release time, stipends, grants, etc.) for the
developers.
Recommendation 4. The recommendation is therefore to make assessment a high priority in budget decisions and to financially support the development and early implementation work of assessment. |
. |
Suggestions |
. |
Related to assessment work in progress, the following suggestions are offered in the WASC spirit of accreditation being a learning and consultative process: |
. |
|
. |
Program Review |
. |
Major Findings |
. |
While discussing Program Review, other review type processes will also be
addressed—processes currently proposed or in use for review of General
Education segments, and teaching evaluations.
In addition to interviewing faculty, department chairs, program heads, and members of the Academic Program Review Committee, the Handbook for the Fifth Cycle of Academic Program Review informed the commendations and descriptions in this section related to recommendations 36 and 41 of the strategic plan. First, the Program Review process and its participants are to be commended. The most current handbook is an excellent document to assist faculty in the six major parts of the review process. It promotes the important aspects of reflection, analysis, evaluation, and assessment. The format and guidelines are reasonable and appropriate for the purposes of the self-study. The categories of information to be addressed by the self-study are fairly comprehensive but they do not address teaching and learning with much emphasis. Perhaps when the assessment work is complete, evidence of student learning will be addressed as a major consideration in the self-study outline. |
. |
Strength |
. |
Faculty found mostly strengths in the Program Review process. Those faculty whose programs have recently been reviewed described the many benefits. Those who have served or are serving on the Program Review committee also described the benefits. |
. |
Suggestions |
. |
Suggestions focus on making the Program Review process more meaningful and
enhancing the capacity for program improvement. It is suggested that SFSU
may consider conceptualizing the Memorandum of Understanding as a
two-way document with university commitment and input to the agreement.
The University may also consider developing follow-up processes at annual
levels that assess progress and provide support. And finally, SFSU may
consider situating individual program reviews in the "big
picture" of a School or College.
With respect to program review in General Education, the 1989 policies related to General Education Segments I, II, and III contain well developed outcomes (an extensive number) as well as very appropriate criteria for review and selection of courses to meet the outcomes. The 1989 policy for Segment III describes the importance of cluster themes that are "highly significant in terms of human experience, achievements or problems and that compels an interdisciplinary perspective," the need for internal cohesiveness, and the requirement of understandings and appreciations of cultural, ethnic, or social diversity in at least one course. Such criteria reflect the university’s core values, pedagogical and curricular integrity, and relevance for the SFSU students and as such are ideal guides for the General Education course work. The Offering Plan requirement should address the issues of scheduling, and meeting students’ program and degree completion needs. The policies also attend to the use of assessment information for improvement of programs. |
. |
Commendations and Suggestions |
. |
The commendations and suggestions of this section are related to Recommendations 6, 7, and 10 of the Strategic Plan. In addition to interviewing faculty, deans, and the Associate Vice President for Academic Program Development, two documents informed this section: Assessing Teaching Effectiveness: An Information and Background Paper, and Academic Senate Resolution RF00-174 on Core Items for a University-Wide Assessment of Student Opinions on Teaching Effectiveness. A final area to be considered is the development of a teaching evaluation form to be used across the campus. Again the university and the collaboration of a number of individual faculty and administrators are to be commended. In a true scholarly process, the knowledge base of "assessing teaching effectiveness" was studied and became the foundation for currently proposed core set of items to be used campus-wide. In addition, campus practices across programs, recommendations from "best practice" literature, and faculty input were addressed in the development process. Continued development responds to Recommendation 50 of the Strategic Plan and is currently focused on a pilot study of the core items to assess reliability, validity, and faculty/student feedback. The intended campus form will encourage the inclusion of program-focused items as well as a faculty reflection form (as recommended in the Cuevas, Casella, & Verhey (2000) paper). The development process is an exemplary one and the resulting instrument shows promise as a model for the CSU. |
. |
Return to Team Report Table of Contents | Accreditation Homepage | SFSU Home |