Chapter 20:

 University-Wide Assessment


.

INTRODUCTION

.

The purpose of this chapter of the self-study is to provide an overview of assessment throughout the university and to describe university-wide assessment endeavors with particular emphasis on activities over the past three years. While university faculty and administrators have engaged in a wide variety of activities pertaining to program evaluation, this chapter highlights the university’s effort to coordinate its assessment endeavors for the purposes of determining institutional effectiveness and the outcomes of its educational programs. Consistent with this thrust is a major effort to relate academic assessment to strategic planning for the purpose of improving university decision-making and overall institutional performance. The ultimate goal of these endeavors is to continue to develop a culture within the institution that encourages widespread involvement in demonstrating effectiveness and accountability.

.

This chapter documents the evolution of assessment activities at San Francisco State University. The development of assessment at SFSU is traced in three phases: (1) beginning attempts to operationalize assessment; (2) sporadic, individualized endeavors that were primarily concentrated on becoming prepared for program review or accreditation; and (3) recent coordinated efforts that are concentrated on an ongoing, iterative, feedback system that focuses program efforts on improving student outcomes.

.

Historical Background

.

A brief historical perspective on the university’s awareness of the need for, and subsequent development of, an assessment office is presented in this section. The history of assessment can be traced from the 1970s to the present with the implementation of program review and the development of criteria for meeting the General Education requirements of the California State University system; the increasing prominence of the term "student outcomes assessment" in the 1980s; adoption of student outcomes assessment and institutional performance measures by the Academic Senates of the CSU and SFSU in the early 1990s; delays in the implementation of assessment during the budget crisis of the early 1990s; and the reemergence of assessment as a major institutional focus during the mid to latter part of the 1990s.

.

Beginning Attempts to Operationalize Assessment

.

Since 1971 the university has been engaging in five-to-six year cycles of academic program review. The university has completed four cycles of program review and has recently begun its fifth cycle (see Chap-ter 21 for more detailed information). The new guidelines for the fifth cycle formally integrate outcomes assessment into program review. The major thrust of each cycle of program review is intended to ensure quality education in academic programs, including an assessment of the quality of the curriculum.

.

Approved by the SFSU Academic Senate and the president in Spring 1977, the General Education Council (GEC) was established to govern the General Education program and to establish a significant, ongoing research endeavor within it. In addition, General Education was subject to a program review every five years. Numerous surveys related to student and faculty satisfaction with General Education were conducted, and many studies related to the relevance, usefulness, and other attributes of the General Education program continued to be supported through the 1980s and 1990s (see Chapter 23 for a detailed description).

.

Sporadic, Individualized Endeavors

.

The term "student outcomes assessment," along with assessment models directed at achieving specific institutional goals, gained prominence during the 1980s. Assessment became known as an approach for evaluating the effectiveness of educational institutions and programs. In 1985, the CSU became involved with student outcomes assessment when faculty and administrators began to study the implications of new approaches to assessment as an educational and public policy issue. In 1990, the CSU Academic Senate and the CSU Board of Trustees adopted a resolution to implement student outcomes assessment, albeit "subject to available resources."

.

The Beginning of Coordinated Efforts

.

In accordance with CSU Academic Senate action, the SFSU Academic Senate passed a resolution in 1990 endorsing student outcomes assessment and a plan for implementing assessment activities [www.sfsu. edu/~senate/RS90-78.htm]. This resolution was comprehensive and far-reaching, although, at the time, its impact may not have been fully understood. For example, while the resolution stressed that the institution needed to strive to assess student outcomes, it also included statements regarding institutional effectiveness which defined assessment as "information about individual student learning and about curricula or educational programs beyond that normally associated with the determination of grades in individual courses…." In addition, institutional effectiveness was defined as "a function of both the teaching/learning process and educational support services." Thus, this resolution laid a firm foundation for all of the subsequent assessment activities in succeeding years, including the strategic planning effort, the creation of the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment, the establishment of the coordinator of academic assessment position, and the approval of a University Advisory Committee on Academic Assessment [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/S99-206.htm]. Implementation of the 1990 resolution was delayed due to a period of budget crisis and downsizing during the early 1990s. Assessment reemerged as a priority in the mid-1990s with institutional strategic planning ("CUSP") efforts and systemwide planning ("Cornerstones") efforts renewing commitments to assessment and accountability.

.

At the end of the 1996-97 academic year, Provost La Belle established a Council of Academic Deans Assessment Committee which developed a major document entitled, New Perspectives on Assessment at SFSU [www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/newpersp.html]. In this document, three foci for assessment endeavors were identified: (1) focus on General Education; (2) focus on the major; and (3) focus on institutional performance.

.

With the New Perspectives report as a foundation, the provost conducted two retreats in the Summer of 1997 that focused on assessment and teaching effectiveness—a Provost’s Cabinet Retreat and a retreat with the academic deans. In addition to assessment, other topics discussed during the retreats included strengthening the approach to teaching evaluation by developing a consistent measure across programs and colleges. In early Fall, the president declared 1997-98 as a year for celebrating teaching, with "excellent teachers" brought together to further teaching excellence on campus.

.

In his speech at the Faculty Convocation at the beginning of the 1997-98 academic year, the president spoke about the need to "dare to demand that our students are prepared to succeed when they enter and have achieved key skills and knowledge by the time we give them a degree with our name on it." At about the same time, the provost had asked the academic deans to work with each of their departments to develop plans for assessing cumulative student learning in all programs and to identify the strategies that would be used for conducting the assessments. College deans were encouraged to identify a college assessment coordinator to facilitate this process.

.

In the Spring of 1998, to augment other General Education endeavors, the dean of the College of Humanities proposed a pilot project to develop a strategy to assess the written and oral communication and critical thinking skills of graduating seniors within the context of their majors. Provost La Belle approved the project and agreed to extend funding through the Fall of 1998.

.

Also in 1997-98, several nationally-recognized consultants were invited to campus to assist in building a momentum for assessment. Trudy Banta, vice chancellor for planning and institutional improvement at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, and editor of Assessment Update, was one such consultant.

.

As the academic year came to a close, Provost La Belle reminded the college deans that Fall 1998 would be the semester for colleges to begin implementing the assessment plans developed the previous year. The provost indicated that it would be essential that each program demonstrate in writing its ability to state measurable learning objectives; collect reasonable information regarding the achievement of those objectives; summarize that information; and use the information for program improvement in order to increase the likelihood of achieving objectives in an effective and timely manner. Further, it was essential that these endeavors be thought of as part of the normal workload of academic programs. Thus, on-going assessment activities needed to be supported within normal department and college resource allocations. The provost’s memorandum concluded: "I believe that assessment is a tool for quality-control and improvement at the level most appropriate for effecting change. I encourage our campus community—students, faculty, and administrators—to view it in this way." (For additional information, see the provost’s memorandum dated June 25, 1998 at www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/labelle698.html.)

.

The 1997-98 year closed with a team of faculty and administrators being sent to the American Association for Higher Education’s Annual Assessment Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. This team was led by the director of the newly-created Office of Academic Planning and Assessment (see below).

.

Creation of an Assessment Office

.

A major activity related to the development of university-wide assessment endeavors during the 1997-98 academic year was the establishment of an Academic Assessment Office Task Force by Provost La Belle. The task force was charged to develop a proposal for an assessment office that would coordinate the institution’s academic assessment activities. In the Spring of 1998 the task force submitted its final report to the provost and formally recommended the establishment of an assessment office (see Final Report of the Academic Assessment Office Task Force, San Francisco State University, March 27, 1998 at www.sfsu.edu/~ acadplan/asstask.html.)

.

The Office of Academic Planning and Assessment was created in the Summer of 1998. A director of the office and an academic assessment coordinator were appointed and a faculty associate was selected to assist with the coordination of Academic Affairs data analysis projects under contract with the university’s Public Research Institute (PRI).

.

The final report of the task force was used as a basis for organizing the beginning activities of the assessment component of the new office. The original purposes of the assessment component were: (1) to coordinate university-wide assessment activities; (2) to provide consultation and assistance; (3) to identify data needs that could be used to support planning and decision making; and (4) to report on academic assessment activities. A web site was established to maximize the campus-wide dissemination of assessment information [see www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/assessment.htm].

.

Establishment of an Institutional Research Coordinating Committee

.

As the institutional strategic planning process moved to the implementation phase, it became apparent that there was a need for a coordinated approach to overseeing the university’s institutional research efforts and demands for data. An Institutional Research Coordinating Committee (IRCC) was established in the latter part of the Spring 1998 semester. A representative was appointed from each of the major administrative divisions of the university.

.

The IRCC was charged to: (1) allocate responsibility for assessing the institution’s performance on a number of critical indicators approved by the President’s Cabinet during the Spring 1998 semester; (2) oversee and approve survey areas and questions for the SFSU Pulse Program surveying student, faculty, staff, and administration perceptions, expectations, and levels of satisfaction; (3) coordinate responses to requests stemming from strategic planning implementation endeavors; and (4) ensure that appropriate data and documentation were being provided for the self-study for WASC reaccreditation (see Towards a Coordinated Approach to Institutional Research at www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/ ircc.html for a detailed description).

.

University Activities Since the Creation
of the Assessment Office

.

During the past three years, SFSU faculty and administrators have been engaged in developing and implementing systematic, internal processes that focus on assuring the quality of student learning at the program level. This section of the chapter describes the activities that have contributed to the development and implementation of a comprehensive and coordinated program of academic assessment. Topics to be discussed include the University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee; assessment of student learning in the major; assessment of student learning to meet General Education and other graduation requirements; the use of university-wide surveys in assessment; and a variety of activities that have supported assessment endeavors, such as workshops, consultations, grant funding, and a newsletter.

.

University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee

.

An Ad Hoc Academic Assessment Advisory Committee was established in the Fall of 1998 and functioned throughout the 1998-1999 academic year. In addition to providing guidance and advice to the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment, it was charged to develop a proposal for submission to the Academic Senate to create a permanent academic assessment advisory committee. It did so; and, in April, 1999, the Academic Senate established the University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee [www.sfsu.edu/~ senate/S99-206.htm]. The committee’s charge is to provide a channel for communication, advice, and liaison among Academic Affairs, the Academic Senate, and the faculty on academic assessment matters. The specific duties of the committee are to:

.

• Advise and make recommendations to the Office of Academic Affairs on academic assessment priorities and activities, including the methods and measures used to assess the quality and performance of the university's curricular and co-curricular programs and support services.

.

• Advise and make recommendations to the Academic Senate on academic assessment priorities, activities, and policies.

.

• Serve as a channel for input on academic assessment matters from faculty and other members of the university community and advise the Office of Academic Affairs in disseminating information related to academic assessment.

.

• Promote the appropriate use of relevant, accurate and useful information (e.g., retention data; student satisfaction data) as a basis for campus decision-making.

.

• Identify ways of assisting faculty in the area of academic assessment.

.

• Advise regarding the development of resources such as a centralized institutional performance database and regarding the dissemination of information to support program review and accreditation.

.

The committee’s activities are reported to the Academic Senate annually. Committee membership consists of one elected faculty representative from each of the nine colleges; one elected faculty representative from the university Library; one elected faculty representative from the student services professionals; the chair or designee of the Academic Program Review Committee, Curriculum Review and Approval Committee, General Education Council, and Graduate Council; an undergraduate and a graduate student selected by the president of the Associated Students; one representative appointed by the provost; and the coordinator of academic assessment (ex officio, non-voting).

.

Assessment of Student Learning in the Major

.

A memorandum from the provost on April 9, 1999 to college deans, department chairs, and program heads reaffirmed the university’s commitment to the assessment of student learning in stating: "Our assessment endeavors are tied closely to our own university strategic plan, which was a collaborative effort among faculty, staff, and administrators across the campus. The plan states that: ‘All academic programs should have procedures for assessing the currency of learning objectives on a regular basis…. In addition, programs need to develop procedures for assessing whether their articulated values, competencies, and learning outcomes have been achieved, as well as methods for increasing their achievement’."

.

The first step in the process of developing a comprehensive system of assessment in the major had been the development of program assessment plans during 1997-1998. Each academic unit (school, department, or program) had submitted an assessment plan to its respective dean. The deans submitted the program plans to Academic Affairs, which were then reviewed by staff in Academic Planning and Assessment, with feedback being provided to the deans by the provost. The deans in turn provided feedback to the academic units within their respective colleges.

.

The second step in the process was to establish a procedure for reporting assessment activities in order to document that assessment plans were being implemented and that assessment results were being used for program improvement. The April 9, 1999 memorandum from the provost established assessment reporting requirements, a reporting format (provided at the end of this chapter), and an annual reporting deadline. Academic units were asked to submit annual assessment reports to their respective deans, beginning September 1999. The deans were then to submit the departmental assessment reports, a narrative summary of assessment activities in the college, and an overall inventory of assessment activities to the Office of Academic Affairs. The purpose of the inventory was to provide documentation regarding the extent to which all academic programs were: (1) assessing student learning outcomes; and (2) using assessment results for program improvement. In the inventory, colleges are asked to identify how each program and department has used assessment results during the year covered by the report (i.e., the previous academic year). The inventory was revised for the 1999-2000 academic year in order to clearly document the relationship between learning objectives and assessment strategies.

.

The departmental assessment reports, college summaries, and inventories were reviewed by Academic Planning and Assessment, with feedback provided to the deans. The deans in turn provided feedback to the programs and departments, with the expectation that the feedback would aid in the subsequent year's assessment endeavors.

.

After a full year of implementation (1998-1999) all academic units had developed and submitted assessment plans and more than 75% of the academic units reported assessment activities by degree program. Of these, approximately 50% documented use of results for program improvement. In 1999-2000, 95% of degree programs submitted progress reports, and approximately 75% documented the use of assessment results for program improvement. Many programs have made substantial progress in developing or improving their assessment strategies and in using the results of assessment for program improvement.

.

The assessment reports of the nine colleges, the university-wide Liberal Studies program, and the student services area are found in a Self-study Report Assessment Appendix. The reports are comprised of two parts: a narrative summary statement covering assessment endeavors between 1997 and 2000 and a 1999-2000 inventory of assessment activities by program. The summary statements include topics such as how the college, program, or area organized itself to implement assessment, what was learned from the various program assessment activities, what was learned from any college or area-wide assessment activities, how the information is being used for program improvement, and plans for future assessment endeavors. The inventories provide documentation regarding the extent to which all academic programs are assessing student learning outcomes and using assessment results for program improvement.

.

Assessment of Student Learning to Meet General Education
and Other Graduation Requirements

.

The General Education Council (GEC), an Academic Senate committee, is responsible for establishing policies and principles which govern the General Education program. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the GEC engaged in a lengthy, campus-wide process to develop, review, and agree upon common learning objectives for the Segment I basic skills component of the SFSU General Education Program. After receiving approval from the Academic Senate regarding the learning objectives in May, 1999, the GEC turned its attention to developing a process to establish and implement a comprehensive General Education assessment plan with ongoing, systematic methods and procedures that would complement the process established for assessing student learning in the major. While efforts to develop a systematic General Education assessment program continue, the campus has been engaged in a variety of experimental assessment activities designed to determine the extent to which students leave the institution after having developed the general knowledge, skills, and understandings enabling them to function well in society. Chapter 23 presents a detailed description of General Education assessment endeavors. Highlights of these activities, most of which fall under the aegis of the GEC research and assessment committee, include the assessment of:

.

• Written communication skills in English 214 and equivalents (second year written composition), 310 (English as a second language addressing written composition), 414 (upper division expository writing), the Junior English Proficiency Essay Test (JEPET)—a graduation requirement, and selected capstone courses in majors across the curriculum.

.

• Oral communication skills in Speech 150 (Fundamentals of Oral Communication), English 210 (English as a second language course addressing oral communication), and selected capstone courses in majors across the curriculum.

.

• Critical thinking skills in a variety of Segment I courses offered by the Colleges of Humanities and Ethnic Studies.

.

• Information competence skills, including the implementation of OASIS, a web-based educational program designed to allow students to fulfill the basic information competence requirement.

.

• General arts and sciences understanding (humanities, social sciences, and natural and physical sciences), through the use of the Academic Profile, a standardized examination published by the Educational Testing Service.

.

• Competence in understanding relationships of knowledge in upper division Segment III General Education course clusters.

.

Annual reports regarding the status of assessment of the General Education program are submitted to and reviewed by the General Education Council. One challenge facing the university is to develop a procedure that will encourage the reporting of General Education assessment results in a manner consistent with the established reporting procedures for the assessment of student learning in the major. The University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee is expected to address this issue in the 2000-2001 academic year.

.

During 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the provost funded a number of projects focused on the assessment of General Education student learning outcomes, including assessing written and oral communication and critical thinking skills in GE; assessing upper division relationships of knowledge and skills; and experimenting with standardized testing using the Academic Profile.

.

University-wide Surveys

.

Several university-wide surveys [www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/surveys.html] have been undertaken as part of the university's commitment to assess its performance. The surveys include the Student Pulse; Faculty, Staff, Administrator Pulse; Undergraduate Exit Survey; Graduate Exit Survey; and Alumni Survey. In addition, the university participated in the CSU Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS) in 1999 and engaged Lipman Hearne, Inc. to conduct a survey of prospective students and a survey of alumni. The results of these surveys are used to inform program improvement discussions and decision-making. A brief description of each survey is provided below. Chapter 22 provides a more complete discussion of survey findings.

.

Student Pulse: The SFSU Pulse Program was established in 1998 to provide ongoing indicators of institutional performance regarding the implementation of the university strategic plan. The purpose of the campus-developed Student Pulse is to determine the extent to which students believe that the university's strategic directions are being implemented.

.

Faculty, Staff, Administrator Pulse: The Faculty, Staff, Administrator Pulse (FSA Pulse) is another component of the SFSU Pulse Program. The purpose of the campus-developed FSA Pulse is to determine the extent to which faculty, staff, and administrators believe that strategic directions are being implemented.

.

Undergraduate Exit Survey: The SFSU-developed Undergraduate Exit Survey determines the extent to which graduating undergraduate students are satisfied with their program of study and with their overall experience at SFSU.

.

Graduate Exit Survey: The Graduate Division uses a standardized exit survey, the Graduate Program Self Assessment (GPSA) published by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The purpose of GPSA is to provide indicators of institutional performance related to graduate programs.

.

Alumni Survey: The purpose of the SFSU-developed Alumni Survey is to monitor alumni perceptions regarding the usefulness of the education received as a result of attending SFSU. The survey is also designed to determine the extent to which alumni enter and sustain employment related to their major, as well as their level of satisfaction with their educational experience at SFSU.

.

Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS): The Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS) is designed by the CSU Chancellor’s Office and administered on CSU campuses approximately every five years. The purpose of SNAPS is to assess the opinions, concerns, needs, and satisfaction of students that are related to quality of instruction, access to programs and services, campus climate, and perceived barriers to attainment of educational goals.

.

Knight Collaborative Collegiate Results Project: SFSU is a participant in the Collegiate Results Project developed by the Knight Collaborative of the Institute for Research on Higher Education of the University of Pennsylvania. The project survey provides a profile of alumni on 15 target items divided among five target categories: Personal Values, Abilities, Occupations, Work Skills, and Lifelong Learning. Survey results were described in Chapter 2 on curricular content and quality.

.

Lipman Hearne Surveys: Two surveys have been conducted by Lipman Hearne, Inc., a marketing and communications consulting group. First, a survey was conducted in 1998 to gather detailed information on alumni attitudes and perceptions regarding SFSU. Survey topics included perceptions of SFSU and other area universities, satisfaction with the SFSU experience, awareness of SFSU activities and events, interest in possible alumni activities, and philanthropic behavior and attitudes. Second, in 1999 a survey was conducted to document prospective students’ and stop-out and drop-out students’ attitudes towards and perceptions of SFSU; identify prospective students’ reasons for not completing their SFSU application or not enrolling; and identify stop-out and drop-out students’ reasons for withdrawing from the university.

.

University-wide Surveys Database

.

A web-based university-wide surveys database has been developed to provide easy access to student responses to over 300 questions from the major university-wide surveys [http://cet.sfsu.edu/fm5/web/ svhome.htm]. Entitled The Student Voice, the database allows the user to search for data according to the six strategic planning themes, a taxonomy of relevant terms, or a keyword. Data are displayed in easy-to-use graphic formats. This centralized access to survey data will facilitate the use of data by all individuals across the university.

.

Workshops, Conferences, and Consultants

.

Several additional activities have enhanced academic assessment activities. A faculty development series was designed to meet the needs of faculty, staff, program heads, and department chairs across the university in a centralized, coordinated manner. The workshops were a collaborative effort with the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching. Topics or activities included: a poster session (1998) and several panel presentations (1999) at Asilomar Faculty Retreats; a workshop for department chairs; a workshop conducted by Catherine Wehlburg, Assessment Forum associate for the American Association for Higher Education; a workshop conducted by Susan Hatfield of Winona State University on department-level assessment; several workshops focusing on distinct aspects of portfolio development, including a workshop on electronic portfolios conducted by Gloria Rogers and Timothy Chow of the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; and a workshop for College of Ethnic Studies department chairs and program coordinators that focused on how assessment strategies can be culturally appropriate and responsive to their student and program needs. Several of these development efforts were provided with the support of the CSU Chancellor’s Office.

.

Additionally, SFSU faculty and administrators have presented a variety of SFSU assessment projects at regional and national conferences. Presentations of General Education and major program assessment activities have been given at the 2000 WASC annual meeting, the 2000 CSU Conference on Assessing General Education Learning Outcomes, and the 1999 and 2000 Assessment Forums of the American Association for Higher Education. In addition, university-wide presentations have been given at the 1999 Asilomar and 2000 Asilocampus retreats and at the Celebration of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment conference on campus in April, 2000.

.

Finally, the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment has provided information, consultation, and assistance to various colleges, departments, and faculty including the Colleges of Creative Arts, Ethnic Studies, and Extended Learning; the university Library; and the Broadcast and Electronic Communication Arts, Classics, Engineering, History, Human Sexuality Studies, International Relations, Kinesiology, Marketing, Political Science, Psychology, Public Administration, Social Work, Sociology, and Urban Studies programs. In addition, assessment consultation has also been provided to the Office of Community Service Learning and to the Division of Student Affairs.

.

Innovative Assessment Project Grants

.

In Fall 1998, the provost provided funding for a major university initiative to develop and implement innovative assessment projects. The Office of Academic Planning and Assessment coordinated this effort, which was implemented in the Spring of 1999. Approximately 25 proposals were received, 19 projects were funded, and the average award was approximately $3000. Projects were designed to advance program assessment and to be embedded in program assessment efforts after project funding ended. Examples of funded projects include:

.

• Comparative evaluations of History seminar papers across two universities.

.

• Developing assessment instruments and scales for Economics core courses.

.

• Linking mandatory advising and assessment in International Relations.

.

• Assessment of the Jewish Studies and Human Sexuality Studies programs.

.

• Testing the efficacy of the electronic portfolio as an assessment tool in Kinesiology.

.

University-wide program assessment endeavors undertaken by the Office of Community Service Learning, the University Interdisciplinary Council, and the General Education Council also received funding.

.

Perspectives on Assessment Newsletter

.

Early in its existence, the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment determined the need for a vehicle to keep the campus community apprised of university assessment endeavors. It was thought that a newsletter, widely distributed and also available on the web, would provide such a vehicle, thus the creation of Perspectives on Assessment [www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/assessment.htm]. This newsletter is published twice a year, with recent issues featuring articles by individuals across the university describing assessment projects and insights, information about assessment resources, and updates on important assessment and accreditation endeavors.

.

SUMMARY

.

This chapter has documented how SFSU was able to reorganize its assessment endeavors from sporadic, individualized efforts that were focused on preparing for program review and accreditation to a coordinated, institutionalized system that is focused on providing feedback for the purpose of improving academic programs and student learning. Obviously, this new approach to assessment does not ignore the need for the evaluative perspective that is necessary for program review and accreditation activities. Instead, the new approach has focused the university on systematic efforts to re-examine what matters most with respect to supporting student learning. A coordinated assessment effort allows us to use information to inform our processes and procedures and to be more responsive to the changing needs and realities of students and programs, as well as to improve our program review and accreditation processes.

.

A remaining challenge is to formalize the manner in which the university will determine its institutional effectiveness as articulated in the 1990 Academic Senate resolution and identified in the WASC 1992 visiting team recommendations. The university has made progress towards developing a coordinated and coherent system for determining its student learning outcomes, and has embarked on a process that is likely to lead to increasing utilization of information for institutional effectiveness. The assessment endeavors stemming from CSU system-wide strategic planning (Cornerstones) and the resulting accountability processes provide key directions for university action. The Cornerstones Report (1998) and Implementation Plan (1999) provide a comprehensive planning framework that articulates the values, priorities, commitments, and expectations for the California State University system. The report stated that: "The California State University will account for its performance in facilitating the development of its students, in serving the communities in which we reside, and in the continued contribution to the California economy and society, through regular assessment of student achievement and through periodic reports to the public regarding our broader performance." In order to implement this central element of Cornerstones, a CSU accountability process was put into practice in the 1999-2000 academic year [www.calstate.edu/corner stones/reports/ProAcctProcess.html].

.

The process requires each CSU campus to report to the system annually on nine performance areas and every four years on a rotating tenth area. The first performance area is quality of baccalaureate degree programs, with three priorities: "the identification of the expected learning outcomes for students in general education and major programs; the development of systems of learning assessment by which the faculty will assess students’ achievement of the expected outcomes; and the use of assessment results in revising and improving programs." Because of its assessment endeavors during the past three years, SFSU is well positioned to respond to the system-wide accountability initiative. The assessment indicators provided through the CSU accountability process will help ensure that SFSU is assessing both the outcomes of its educational programs and its overall institutional effectiveness.

.

The chapters that follow will present what has been learned from the various university assessment endeavors. Chapter 21 presents a discussion of program review and program accreditation. The primary focus of this chapter is the process of academic program review; the recommendations (focused on improving academic excellence within a multicultural, learning-centered environment) in the strategic plan regarding the content and function of program reviews; and the university’s increased emphasis on incorporating learning objectives and assessment outcomes into the program review process. In Chap-ter 22, the results from the various university-wide surveys will be discussed according to the six university strategic planning themes. Chapter 23 will discuss General Education assessment endeavors.
Charts

Return to Part Two: University-Wide Assessment Endeavors | Return to Accreditation | SFSU Home | Top of page