SFSU WASC Self-Study: Undergraduate Education Beyond the Major

Chapter 3:

Undergraduate Education Beyond the Major

INTRODUCTION

Since undergraduate education is central to SFSU's mission, we place great importance on providing students with a quality undergraduate experience that will lead to the following learning outcomes:

• The ability to think well;

• Verbal and nonverbal communication competencies, mathematical/computational competencies, natural sciences competencies, humanities and arts competencies, and behavioral and social sciences competencies;

• Historical, social, and cultural consciousness;

• Civic competencies;

• Intercultural and international competencies;

• In-depth study and mastery of an area of knowledge.

Chapter 2 included a discussion of the undergraduate major and minor curriculum at San Francisco State University. The focus of this chapter is on programs and issues that affect all undergraduate students, regardless of their degree objectives. The chapter addresses many of the recommendations in the strategic plan regarding academic excellence and the undergraduate experience. Topics covered include: remediation and basic skills development, information competence, General Education, development of a structured first-year experience, and the recommendation to create an Undergraduate Council.

As will be shown in subsequent pages, a substantial concerted effort has been mounted among all levels of SFSU faculty, staff, and administration to design and implement a structured progression for undergraduate students. The university has developed programs and policies designed to better assure that students move—in a timely and systematic way—from entrance at either the lower division or upper division level, through orientation and advising, assessment, remediation, and other interventions as appropriate, to graduation. The programs and policies are the outcomes of strategic plan recommendations, senate policies, system wide executive orders, and campus compliance plans that will be described below. The progression is illustrated in figure (1) at the end of this webpage.

Remediation/Developmental Instruction

and Basic Skills Development

Basic skills at SFSU are defined as written English communication, oral communication, critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, and information competence. Students begin the written English sequence by demonstrating their readiness for college-level composition. Those who are exempt from the system-wide English Placement Test (EPT) based on satisfactory scores on college admission tests may begin first-year composition. Others must take the EPT or show completion of transfer course work equivalent to first-year composition. For students without test or course exemptions, the EPT determines the appropriate level to begin the English course sequence. Students who score 151 or above may go directly into first-year composition, English 114. After completing English 114, and during their sophomore year, students take English 214 or equivalent. Upon completion of this requirement and at least 48 total baccalaureate units, students take the Junior English Proficiency Essay Test (JEPET). If they pass this examination, they have completed SFSU’s written proficiency requirements for graduation. Basic skills in writing for English as a second language students are developed in a similar sequence.

Oral communication skills are developed in a GE freshman-level course in public speaking (Speech 150 for native speakers of English and English 210 for English as a second language students). Critical reasoning skills are introduced in the GE Segment I freshman level course in critical thinking. Several departments and programs offer GE Segment I critical thinking courses.

The final area of basic skills is quantitative reasoning. To establish readiness for their freshman level GE quantitative reasoning course, students must pass or prove exemption from the Entry Level Mathematics (ELM) test. Students who do not demonstrate readiness must remediate by taking one or more courses. Students demonstrate basic information competence by completing self-paced, web-based, information competence tutorials.

This section of the chapter will focus on the university’s response to strategic plan recommendations that focus on remediation, written English proficiency, and information competence. More detailed information on all of the university’s endeavors in assessing students’ basic skills (including oral communication and critical thinking) will be found in Chapter 23.

Strategic Plan Recommendations

There were many relevant recommendations in the area of basic skills development and the undergraduate experience. A number relate to the importance of strengthening students' basic skills by defining, evaluating, developing, and assessing those basic skills throughout the undergraduate years. The recommendations emphasize:

• Ensuring student preparedness for and facilitating progress in university work;

• Evaluating and strengthening students' basic skills, first, by defining and evaluating standards; second, by assessing skills early enough to enable timely completion of basic skills courses; third, by ensuring that basic skills curricula incorporate multicultural experiences and perspectives; fourth, by weaving basic skills development in information competence into all areas of the curriculum; and fifth, by providing students with systematic and useful feedback in General Education classes regarding their basic skills;

• Providing faculty with information regarding incoming students' basic skills preparation.

1992-2000 Overview

Placement in Mathematics and English

Since the early 1980s, new students entering SFSU have been required to take placement tests in mathematics (Entry Level Mathematics Test—ELM) and English (English Placement Test—EPT) before being allowed to enroll in entry-level courses in these subjects, unless they were exempted. Although students were told they had to take these tests before starting their second semester at SFSU, there was no policing mechanism. SFSU tried to enforce the test-completion calendar in the early 1980s, with the result that we spent a great deal of resources on reviewing petitions for exemptions and exceptions. The university instituted support mechanisms (for example, Summer Bridge and Intensive Learning Program) to assist students who needed remediation and strongly encouraged students to take these tests and remediate early on; but compliance was still difficult to enforce.

Two recent statewide initiatives have had a huge impact on timely completion of basic skills. The first was Executive Order 665, which required that, beginning Fall 1998, first-time freshmen and lower division transfer students who are not exempt must take the tests prior to their first semester or face disenrollment [www.sfsu. edu/~ppg/csueo665.htm]. In addition, students who place into pre-collegiate math and/or English must remediate within one year or be disenrolled.

The tables on the next three pages indicate the numbers of students needing remediation in English and mathematics. For English, the percentages have gone from 53% (Fall 1998) to 39% (Fall 1999) to 38% (Fall 2000). For mathematics, the percentages have gone from 60% (Fall 1998) to 53% (Fall 1999) to 52% (Fall 2000). Two additional tables display the number of Fall 1998 and Fall 1999 first-time freshmen requiring, receiving, and completing remediation in one year—the first two years of implementation of EO 665.

The task of bringing large numbers of regularly-admitted, first-time freshmen requiring remediation (74% in Fall 1998 and 65% in Fall 1999) to full proficiency within one calendar year from admission has been a formidable one. To begin with, in compliance with the executive order, all new, regularly-admitted, first-time freshman in Fall 1998 and Fall 1999 either completed placement testing, or provided proof of (con't after charts below)

Fall 1998
Freshman Remediation Rates*

San Francisco

Ethnicity	Number of Freshmen	Number Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Percentage Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Number Needing Remediation in English	Percentage Needing Remediation in English
American Indian	15	12	80%	5	33%
African American	108	83	77%	68	63%
Mexican American	122	92	75%	75	61%
Other Latino	102	72	71%	54	53%
Asian American	421	242	57%	301	71%
Pacific Islander	18	13	72%	11	61%
White Non-Latino	445	242	54%	124	28%
Filipino	284	185	65%	177	62%
Unknown	227	131	58%	90	40%
Non-Resident	80	28	35%	63	79%
Total	1,822	1,100	60%	968	53%


Gender	Number of Freshmen	Number Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Percentage Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Number Needing Remediation in English	Percentage Needing Remediation in English
Female	1,164	754	65%	616	53%
Male	658	346	53%	352	53%
Total	1,822	1,100	60%	968	53%

* for regularly admitted, enrolled, first-time freshmen

Fall 1999
Freshman Remediation Rates*

San Francisco

Ethnicity	Number of Freshmen	Number Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Percentage Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Number Needing Remediation in English	Percentage Needing Remediation in English
American Indian	10	5	50%	2	20%
African American	133	98	74%	62	47%
Mexican American	124	90	73%	64	52%
Other Latino	124	81	65%	52	42%
Asian American	374	177	47%	217	58%
Pacific Islander	11	7	64%	1	9%
White Non-Latino	519	229	44%	92	18%
Filipino	264	160	61%	122	46%
Unknown	265	132	50%	69	26%
Non-Resident	81	33	41%	65	80%
Total	1,905	1,012	53%	746	39%


Gender	Number of Freshmen	Number Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Percentage Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Number Needing Remediation in English	Percentage Needing Remediation in English
Female	1,169	690	59%	455	39%
Male	736	322	44%	291	40%
Total	1,905	1,012	53%	746	39%

* for regularly admitted, enrolled, first-time freshmen

Fall 2000
Freshman Remediation Rates*

San Francisco

Ethnicity	Number of Freshmen	Number Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Percentage Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Number Needing Remediation in English	Percentage Needing Remediation in English
American Indian	8	6	75%	4	50%
African American	124	92	74%	64	52%
Mexican American	143	99	69%	50	35%
Other Latino	118	65	55%	37	31%
Asian American	388	197	51%	226	58%
Pacific Islander	15	7	47%	4	27%
White Non-Latino	494	224	45%	91	18%
Filipino	249	127	51%	113	45%
Unknown	309	159	51%	98	32%
Non-Resident	59	14	24%	32	54%
Total	1,907	990	52%	719	38%


Gender	Number of Freshmen	Number Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Percentage Needing Remediation in Mathematics	Number Needing Remediation in English	Percentage Needing Remediation in English
Female	1,230	706	57%	481	39%
Male	677	284	42%	238	35%
Total	1,907	990	52%	719	38%

* for regularly admitted, enrolled, first-time freshmen

(con't from above charts) exemption, or were disenrolled. Monitoring of students requiring remediation has been challenging, as has been the necessary follow-up to notify non-compliant students of the consequences. Lessons learned from the first two years have made identification and tracking more systematic.

With enforcement of the policy becoming stricter over the two-year period, students have increasingly followed through. Undergraduate Studies, the Testing Center, and Enrollment Planning and Management have been vigilant and creative in supervising the process. They have sent multiple mailings, called students, and offered a variety of courses, institutes, and workshops in order to see that as many students as possible did what was required of them. In response to Executive Order 665, a formal Remedial Education Plan was developed and sent to the Chancellor's Office in October 1999 [www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/eo665com.htm]. As part of its response, the campus has offered additional testing dates, improved diagnostic procedures, improved communication and advising for affected students, redesigned remedial courses, expanded the wide range of tutorial and support services, improved monitoring of student progress, added remedial classes to guarantee a seat to all needing one, and, with very limited exceptions, disenrolled non-complying students.

As a result of all of the above, the university has significantly increased the percentages of regularly-admitted, first-time freshmen receiving remediation within one year. Seventy-eight percent of Fall 1999 first-time freshmen requiring remediation completed that remediation by Fall 2000. This compares with 63% of the Fall 1998 group. Of the Fall 1998 group, 498 students were non-compliant in completing remediation. Forty-five percent of them left SFSU on their own or were disenrolled. The other 55% were given exceptions and allowed to remain, with contracts to complete remediation with additional time. Among the Fall 1999 group, 272 students were non-compliant, despite SFSU's best attempts to provide them with the means to be compliant. Ninety-seven percent of them left SFSU on their own or were disenrolled (1). The university's goal is to improve compliance and reduce the disenrollment penalty. In Fall 2000, the university established a combined Office of Orientation and Retention to better assure that information reaches students in a timely way and that students are contacted and monitored from the beginning, making disenrollment far less likely.

(1) There is a significant reason for the differences between the 1998 and 1999 percentages. In 1998-99, SFSU had a three-course remedial sequence in mathematics for the poorest scoring students on the ELM. Many of the students not completing remediation in one year were duly progressing in their remediation efforts. It would, therefore, have been inappropriate to disenroll them at the end of two semesters. However, in 1999-00, the university compressed its three-course remedial sequence into a more intensive two-course sequence. With this change, and with increased advising, tutoring, and remedial course offerings (including offerings for first-time freshmen in the summer immediately preceding their first fall enrollment), disenrollment for non-compliance became a more appropriate option.

Admissions Policies

The second state-wide initiative requiring all upper division transfer students to complete basic subjects courses prior to admission largely takes care of what had been another major problem—junior-level transfer students who came to SFSU without having completed their basic subjects. Many students were waiting until their final semester to complete quantitative reasoning and/or basic English requirements. In 1997, juniors were required to have all basic subjects complete upon transfer (written communication, oral communication, critical thinking, and quantitative reasoning). However, an alternate path remained. If these students were admissible based on their high school transcripts, we would admit them because of their high school eligibility. Beginning Fall 2000, that loophole no longer exists; and all junior transfer students will have to complete their basic subjects before admission to SFSU.

While not a loophole in the same sense, there is one unresolved issue concerning admission requirements. SFSU requires both first- and second-year composition as a graduation requirement; but this is not a uniform requirement among the CSUs. Many community colleges and many CSUs certify first-year composition as completing GE written communication basic skills. The result is that, although our transfer students are now admitted only if their basic subjects are completed, many of them still lack second-year composition that we maintain is essential preparation for upper division work. These students thus begin their upper division courses without having completed second-year composition and also, as a consequence, delay taking JEPET.

Partnerships

Currently, SFSU is engaged in a variety of partnerships with local high schools to encourage basic skills development and early testing at the high school level. We expect this to minimize the number of students required to remediate at the college level. For example, the University and College Attendance Network (U-CAN) is an educational support service provided by the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) to assist students in achieving academic success in high school and to facilitate their entrance into a university or community college. Operating as a year-round program, U-CAN students attend the SFSU campus after school to receive tutoring in math and English. Students take the EOP Diagnostic Skills Test (which parallels the EPT and ELM) during the program orientation to determine areas that need attention. For more information on these and other programs, please see Chapter 6.

Remedial/Developmental Instruction

The English and Mathematics Departments are attempting a variety of approaches to teach basic skills. Among these approaches are redesigning courses, exploring alternative delivery systems, developing short courses, and experimenting with combined curricula.

In its 1992 report, WASC's visiting team was concerned about student access to basic skills courses. The above developments, along with changes in the touch-tone registration priority system, have helped to alleviate this problem. Since Fall 1998, there have been enough seats to accommodate all students needing remedial English and Mathematics.

Remedial English Sections and Students Enrolled

Year	Sections	Enrollment
1997-98	54	1,377
1998-99	105	1,524
1999-00	94	821

Remedial Math Sections and Students Enrolled

Year	Sections	Enrollment
1997-98	72	3,284
1998-99	107	3,666
1999-00	93	2,394

Because junior and senior transfers (the majority of our student population) are now required to enter with their basic subjects complete, these classes are more available to freshmen and sophomores. In 1992, our touch-tone registration system was changed to assist first-time freshmen in getting the courses they need. Freshmen have touch tone priority over all other undergraduates. Thus, they are able to take most if not all of their basic subjects within their first year at SFSU. However, a bottleneck still remains at the sophomore level—sophomores are the last to register. Thus, if they spent their freshman year taking pre-college English, they often experience difficulty in finding space in English 114 (first-year composition), slowing down their progress and development. In Fall 2000, 29 additional sections of basic skills and General Education courses were added to the schedule of classes, and a like number has been added to the Spring 2001 schedule of classes to address the issues of excess demand.

Innovative course development has been another of SFSU's approaches to meeting the needs of students requiring remediation. In Spring 1999, the Mathematics Department piloted a web-based section of MATH 60: Algebra I, while maintaining the traditional class format for the other sections of the course. The web-based MATH 60 was a self-paced version of the regular course and did not require students to attend class. Instead, they read lessons on the web and completed exercises. The software responded interactively as students completed the exercises. Each chapter ended with a quiz, which students completed over the web when they were ready. Two in-person midterm exams were administered, as was an in-person final exam. Students could get assistance from the instructor either via e-mail or during in-person office hours. Students also had access to extensive free math tutoring days and evenings on campus.

Student satisfaction with the web-based MATH 60 has been extraordinarily high. Over 90% of the students in the web-based course responded that they preferred the web-based, self-paced format to a regular classroom. This was confirmed more recently during the first in-person mid-term of the Fall 2000 semester. While student satisfaction is important, whether they are learning the material is obviously foremost. The best test for this is how the students performed in the follow-up course, MATH 70: Algebra II that requires that they actually learned the material in MATH 60. MATH 70 has been offered only in a regular classroom format.

Students who completed the web-based MATH 60 performed better than students in the regular sections of Math 60 one semester and not as well the second semester based on the percentage of students who received a grade of C or higher in the course. (A grade of C or higher is prerequisite to progression to the next course in the sequence.) Combining data from two semesters, students who completed the web-based MATH 60 did about as well in terms of average grade in MATH 70 as did students who took regular sections of MATH 60. If indeed the two methods are roughly equivalent, then the extra flexibility that the web-based course offers for students who prefer that format is sufficient justification to continue offering the web-based course and developing it further after more extensive evaluation.

In the Fall 2000 semester, the Mathematics Department made further changes to the web-based MATH 60 in order to improve the course. The on-line material was rearranged and modified to correspond to a new textbook; and students taking the on-line MATH 60 were required to purchase a set of auxiliary CDs that presented the material in yet another format. As the Mathematics Department faculty continues to learn what works and what does not work with the web-based, self-paced format, the course will no doubt continue to change as a result.

Thanks to campus-wide web access and our Student Information Management System (SIMS), instructors now have the ability to determine their students' basic skills preparation. Instructors can view their course enrollment lists and student EPT and ELM scores as well as whether or not they have passed JEPET and completed the Information Competence requirement. This availability of information enables faculty to get a snapshot of their students' skills and readiness for upper division work and facilitates advising. The SFSU Class Roster program described above has a second, very important, interactive component. Instructors can manually enter the SFSU courses that they deem appropriate preparation for their own courses and examine their entire class roster along with a listing of whether or not their students have completed the preparatory courses and what grades they received. This "prerequisite check" is, at this time, capable of checking only preparatory course work taken at SFSU.

Written English Proficiency

Student perceptions of the role of their major program in developing or enhancing their written communication skills have been assessed by the Undergraduate Exit Survey and the Alumni Survey. In Spring 1999, three-fourths (74.6%) of the respondents to the Undergraduate Exit Survey rated the development or enhancement of their written communication skills as 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Similarly, 73.2% of the 1999-2000 respondents rated written communication skill development as 4 or 5. Alumni in selected areas have also been asked to rate the extent to which their major helped develop or enhance written communication skills. Engineering alumni rated written skill development or enhancement as 3.74 on a 5-point scale; Liberal Studies rated it as 3.72; and Behavioral and Social Sciences alumni rated it as 3.7.

Written English proficiency has been a great concern at SFSU and the subject of many committees, task forces, and workshops. Although the importance of writing throughout the curriculum has always been recognized on this campus, lately it has come even more to the fore.

In 1993, the Academic Senate approved a revision of the university policy on written English proficiency [see www.sfsu.edu/~senate/S93-14.htm]. This change in policy acknowledged the changing needs of an increasingly diverse student population, as well as the university-wide responsibility to facilitate improvement of student writing skills. This revision also included changes to the charge of the Literacy Committee, now known as the Committee on Written English Proficiency (CWEP). As now charged, CWEP offers workshops and activities to strengthen writing proficiency across the curriculum and is currently conducting an on-going research project on bilingual students at SFSU. CWEP also hosts articulation information workshops for community colleges. Almost every campus faculty retreat includes discussion of the issue of written English proficiency. For example, "Teaching Writing Using Computers," "Improving Student Writing Through Taped Feedback," and "Writing Across the Curriculum: Fad or Not?" were titles of sessions in 1994; "JEPET Demystified: Assessing Graduation Writing Proficiency at SFSU" was presented in 1996; "The Assessment Pilot Project: Assessing Basic Skills in Graduating Seniors" was offered in 1999; and in 2000, "Writing in the Disciplines" was the topic of a session.

Increasingly, academic programs are asking for assistance in working with students to improve their writing. In October 1999, the Math and Science Teacher Education Program (MASTEP) sponsored a workshop for faculty entitled "Writing for Learning in Science and Mathematics." In Spring 1999, the Academic Senate Academic Policies Committee (APC) discussed the issue and made several recommendations to the provost. In October 1999, the provost convened a Task Force on Writing in the Disciplines, whose charge was to recommend short- and long-term strategies to improve writing across the curriculum.

In January 1998, the Composition Program of the English Department revised the Junior English Proficiency Essay Test (JEPET), including allowing additional time, to better assess upper division writing skills. Data gathered by the English Composition Program show trends based on whether JEPET was taken at the junior or senior class level and on whether students took their lower division composition courses at SFSU or elsewhere.

Although the figures fluctuate slightly from year to year, what is of significance is the generally stable fail rate of approximately 40% (see chart on following page). This statistic underscores the significant and on-going problem of how literacy is addressed in higher education. Clearly, a mere 32 weeks of lower-division course work—comprised of one freshman and one sophomore writing class (the latter of which focuses primarily on literary analysis)—are insufficient to prepare our linguistically diverse and often aca-

demically underprepared student population to meet the kinds of literacy standards we hold for our upper division students. Unless and until students are routinely required to produce extended texts and are held accountable for the quality of writing they do produce in their courses—neither of which occurs, often because faculty are teaching huge classes; because they feel "teaching/evaluating writing" does not fall under their scholarly purview; or because they know retention and promotion decisions are not informed by the work they would have to do to attend to students' writing rather than their own—we are not likely to see the pass rate increase. This is obviously not a new problem, nor is it unique to San Francisco State.

A separate but related trend is evident in the number of students who do not take the JEPET until their senior year, often as they are nearing graduation. Between 1993 and 2000, the mean percentage of seniors taking this junior writing test was 52%. The good news is that the trend has been dropping since 1995-96, when a record 69% of the students taking the test were seniors. The bad news is that 59% (the 1999-2000 percentage) is still a very high figure. Unless and until changes are made that will enforce a timely completion of this requirement (before 80 credit units have been completed), a sizeable number of students will naturally postpone taking the test until graduation itself makes it imperative.

In Fall 1999, the Academic Policies Committee considered whether to create a JEPET enforcement mechanism, but decided against it. Based on a survey of department chairs, there was strong support across campus for enforcement of JEPET policy at the junior level. However, after meeting with representatives of the English Department and discussing the ramifications of student course registration holds, APC agreed to put off recommending enforcement mechanisms for the time being because, at this point in time, it is difficult to ensure that students complete the lower division English requirements (English 114 and 214) by their junior year. Since completion of English 214 is the prerequisite to taking JEPET, APC deemed it unwise to attempt to move further on enforcement at this time.

Several factors may make enforcement more feasible (or less necessary) in the future: (1) the demand for remediation should decrease over the next few years, thus freeing up more resources for 114/214 offerings; (2) changing admission standards and better articulation with community colleges should make it more likely that transfer students come in with 114/214 completed; and (3) current advising initiatives should improve communication of the requirement.

Writing across the curriculum remains a challenge at SFSU (and we assume everywhere else) because there are no quick fixes. Writing is still best taught in small groups of students. There is, thus, a fundamental conflict between the requirement to teach writing and the requirement to process more students at lower cost. Additionally, most faculty—while perhaps skilled writers within their own disciplines—are not teachers of writing. The solution to this problem of writing across the curriculum requires a significant, permanent allocation of resources. The Academic Policies Committee agenda for academic year 2000-2001 includes a discussion of the JEPET/English 414 pass/fail rates, university written communication policies, and steps needed to reinforce writing instruction.

Establishment of Learning Objectives for Basic Skills

When the current SFSU General Education Program was approved in 1980, specific learning objectives for GE Segment I (Basic Skills) were not included in the SFSU policy. Objectives and outcomes for Segments II and III were enumerated and have since been updated for compliance with changes in system requirements. The revision to Segment I policy was necessary in order to establish specific learning outcomes for the purpose of reviewing and approving courses and for assessment of the effectiveness of the area. Thus, the amendment to GE policy was a priority for 1998-2000.

In Spring 1999, the GE Segment I Committee produced an amendment to Segment I policy that revised the language regarding course descriptions and objectives. This amendment includes specific learning objectives that were not included in the original policy for the four areas of Segment I. The Academic Senate approved the revision of GE policy on Segment I [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/S99-64.htm]. With these learning objectives in place, SFSU will now be able to assess its success in facilitating student development in these areas. (For more information, please see the undergraduate education assessment chapter in Part Two.)

Learning Assistance Programs

Students receive assistance outside of the classroom in developing their basic skills through a variety of tutoring and learning assistance programs: the English Tutoring Center for those students currently enrolled in English Department composition courses; the Community Access and Retention Program (CARP), which focuses on assisting students in their writing, quantitative reasoning, and information competency skills, as well as other areas across the curriculum; the Disability Resource Center (DRC), which offers tutoring across the curriculum to eligible students; the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), which offers tutorial assistance in courses across the curriculum and workshops to prepare for the ELM, EPT, and JEPET tests; the Faculty/Student Mentorship Program (FSMP), which offers tutoring to FSMP students in reading/writing, critical thinking, composition, mathematics, and a variety of other academic subjects; the Intensive Learning Program (ILP), which offers low-scoring freshmen special sections of math and English as well as tutoring; the Learning Assistance Center (LAC), which is a tutoring center for all lower level GE and entry-level courses; and Learning and Testing for Success, which offers workshops to enhance academic skills. In addition, many departments offer discipline-specific tutoring and assistance (for example; Accounting, Chemistry, and Economics). The programs mentioned above are working to establish a more coordinated effort in providing retention services. For more information, please see Chapter 6.

Information Competence

Student perceptions of their competence in accessing information from various electronic and print resources have been assessed in the Undergraduate Exit Survey. Similar percentages of respondents in Spring 1999 (61.8%) and 1999-2000 (60.6%) rated the role of their major in helping them achieve this competence as 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. In the 1999 SNAPS survey, students were asked to indicate how difficult they found six educational activities in doing their course work during the past year. Responses to the three activities related to information were similar, with 21.6% reporting difficulty with organizing and using information, 23.4% reporting difficulty with locating and retrieving information, and 23.9% reporting difficulty with evaluating the accuracy and validity of information.

Undergraduate students have been required to complete a Library Requirement at SFSU since 1981. Although this self-paced requirement should be completed early in the student's career in order to improve his/her research skills, students have put it off until the last minute. When the requirement was first put in place, freshmen were required to complete it as part of their oral communications requirement (because that was a course most students took in their first year at SFSU). However, because most SFSU students arrived as transfers with the oral communications requirement already completed, and because many freshmen ended up failing their speech classes simply for lack of completing the Library Requirement, the two requirements were separated. This resulted in many students putting off the requirement until the last week of their final semester. Failure to complete the Library Requirement has for many years been among the top ten reasons for denial of the baccalaureate degree at SFSU.

Over the past few years, some progress has been made in encouraging students to complete the Library Requirement early in their academic career, thanks to the emphasis placed on the importance of early completion at new student orientation programs. Also, many departments require students to show completion of the requirement when enrolling in certain key major courses (for example, Engineering and Classics).

In Spring 1999, the Academic Senate Library Advisory Committee (ASLAC) led the move to change the outdated Library Requirement to a new Basic Information Competence Requirement. This new requirement is consistent with the CSU systemwide Academic Senate resolution on basic information competence. The CSU has defined information competence as the ability to find, evaluate, use, and communicate information in all its various formats, including electronic communication, at several levels. See the Library chapter in Part Three for additional information.

The SFSU Academic Senate passed the Basic Information Competence Policy in May 1999 [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/ S99-207.htm]. Under this new policy, the Library faculty takes primary responsibility for introducing students to basic information competencies and works with disciplinary faculty on the integration of information competence in the disciplines. The Basic Information Competence Requirement is designed to provide an introductory framework of general concepts to prepare students for university course work and academic inquiry. This change in the policy will provide students—early in their university careers—with the skills they need to conduct research and complete assignments.

The policy went into effect in Fall 2000. In order to ensure timely completion, all first-time freshmen must complete the requirement by the end of their second semester, and all transfer students by the end of their first semester at San Francisco State. Students who fail to complete the requirement in a timely manner may lose their registration priority. The university's new first-year experience courses incorporate completion of this information competence requirement for first-time SFSU freshman students (see a later section of this chapter). Also, the Library devised ways to make the information competence requirement easier to access and more interesting to complete by moving from a workbook format to a series of tutorials that students take on-line [http://oasis.sfsu.edu] from any computer with access to the web. Additional information on SFSU's information competence requirement can be found at www.library.sfsu. edu/instruction/infocomp.html.

GENERAL EDUCATION

Strategic Plan Recommendations

The strategic plan included eighteen recommendations in the broad areas of General Education and graduation requirements. Many of these recommendations have been addressed in the preceding section. Those with specific reference to General Education call upon the university to:

• Identify, articulate, and publish values, competencies, and learning outcomes.

• Assess the currency of the learning objectives on a regular basis and revise them in response to changing needs and new knowledge.

• Develop procedures for deciding whether the articulated values, competencies, and learning outcomes have been achieved, as well as methods for increasing achievement.

• Include curricular opportunities to explore, examine, and address ethical and moral issues, as well as to apply ethical/moral reasoning to contemporary societal problems.

• Infuse learning objectives relating to appreciating diversity and combating discrimination and harassment throughout the curriculum in all departments and appropriate courses.

• Increase the opportunities for students to take upper division courses with international perspectives as part of their baccalaureate degree requirements.

1992-2000 Overview

As a result of its Spring 1992 visit, the WASC review team concluded that SFSU clearly met expectations in WASC Standards related to General Education and that the program benefited from continual, active oversight. Reviewers noted accessibility problems in Segment I resulting from budget cuts, but commented that coherence problems in Segment III identified in 1987 "had been significantly overcome." The reviewers were concerned that the large size of Segment III might lead to resource problems in hard times; and they concluded that assessment "is not much in evidence at the university."

GE Segment III is SFSU's upper division General Education requirement. A 9-unit Segment III cluster of courses entitled "Relationships of Knowledge" provides students with a focused and coherent theme of study that challenges them to integrate and apply skills and knowledge. Each cluster addresses the diversity of human experience, values, and contributions through a required Cultural, Ethnic, and Social Diversity (CESD) course component in each cluster.

The improvement cited in the WASC report of 1992 followed the incorporation of many of the recommendations of the comprehensive GE Program Review conducted during the 1986-87 academic year. Changes included requiring all clusters to be 9-units minimum, explicitly requiring upper-division status for completion of Segment III courses, requiring completion of Segment I before enrolling in Segment III classes, and strengthening oversight and the proposal approval process. Segment III courses would now be required to be offered at least once each year, and departments and colleges were instructed to include commitment to an offering plan in new proposals.

Thus, the history of this section begins with full implementation of the 9-unit cluster requirement and associated learning objectives in Segment III. Segment II, Arts and Sciences core, remained basically unchanged until the approval in January of 1993 of an amendment [www.sfsu.edu/~ugs/two.htm] to the existing Segment II policy which included an expanded set of learning objectives and outcomes.

Several initiatives were mounted in order to continue to respond to the issues raised in the 1986-87 program review. Among the issues were the need to communicate broadly and clearly the requirements as well as the intellectual rationale for the program; the mandate that any revisions of GE be done through the broadest possible collegial participation; and examination of the impact of the program both on resources and on student progress toward graduation. A sample of activities is described here.

Each issue of the Undergraduate Review, the newsletter of the Office of Undergraduate Studies, included articles concerning GE and special features intended to provide information to faculty looking for answers to questions about GE. One edition focused on helping faculty in their advising of students nearing graduation. That edition was an example of the proactive effort to communicate to faculty and students in a timely way information to help avoid the pitfalls associated with graduation denials.

In 1992-93, the Segment III Committee, in conjunction with the Office of Undergraduate Studies, produced a Handbook for Cluster Coordinators in Segment III, including information on the origins of the Segment III program; coordinator responsibilities; lists of General Education advisors, advising coordinators, and cluster coordinators; and source documents. The handbook has been published subsequently in about two year intervals, most recently on the SFSU web site at: www.sfsu.edu/~ugs/Handbk97.htm.

During this same period, the university began implementing the automated Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS) that would provide students with a customized audit of their completion of GE and other (non-major) graduation requirements. At the outset, the system incorporated only SFSU course work; but DARS is increasingly including transfer-equivalent work and eliminating the need for hand-produced Advanced Standing Evaluation forms for students from participating transfer institutions. At this time, 31 California Community College GE transfer patterns are encoded into DARS. DARS is having a significant impact on a student's ability to measure progress towards graduation and on the role of advisors. University faculty groups and committees such as the General Education Council and the GE advising coordinators were consulted at steps along the path of development so that DARS would respond to the needs identified by each group. In the years to come, work will continue in order to improve the user-friendly quality of this tool and the number of schools encoded.

In Spring 1995, the scheduling of the 1995-96 GE Program Review was announced. The General Education Council (GEC) divided into subcommittees to plan the program review. The subcommittees working on Segment II and Segment III issues built their planning recommendations upon surveys and other assessments already underway or ongoing. Others began collecting data and developing assessment instruments over the summer. As described in the undergraduate education assessment chapter in Part Two, a great deal was learned by the GE Council through the process of mobilizing the GE committees in the pursuit of developing assessment strategies.

The foundation for the program review was the survey of faculty, General Education instructors, students, and recent graduates conducted by the university's Public Research Institute (PRI). The final report, issued in November 1996, became an integral supporting document for the GEC program review report. A summary of the outcomes and the actions that have been taken is described in the undergraduate education assessment chapter.

Since its inception, the GE program has included requirements with foci on American ethnic and racial minorities (at the lower division level) and cultural, ethnic, and social diversity (at the upper division level). The GEC discussed proposals for incorporating ethical and moral issues, as well as applying ethical/moral reasoning to contemporary societal problems into Segment III policy. The discussions focused on the judgment that, even without policy changes, Segment III already provided these opportunities. Courses dealing with diversity, discrimination, and harassment were already built into Segment III via the Cultural, Ethnic, and Social Diversity (CESD) component. At least nineteen of the clusters in the current Segment III program deal with discrimination, diversity, and American multiculturalism in the course content. Another nineteen involve ethics, values, and social justice within the thematic framework of the clusters. Opportunities for students to take upper division courses with international perspectives have not been mandated as discrete baccalaureate degree requirements, but are already inherent within the range of Segment III learning objectives. Among Segment III clusters, twelve in the current program have foci on international/global perspectives. Brief statements of the themes of each of the Segment III clusters may be found at www.sfsu.edu/~ugs/themes3.htm.

Assessment in General Education

In Fall 1998, the General Education Research Committee (GERC) of the General Education Council was convened after several years of dormancy. Its charge was to implement the GEC's assessment activities. The GERC presented its proposed activities to the GEC, including the development of a proposal to assess student learning in the GE program. The proposal developed in the spring described an intention to address some basic questions inherent in how we might use assessment for the purpose of enhancing our GE program. A major question debated was whether it was even possible to construct a single instrument that, with respect to student learning in GE course work, would provide information meant to enhance teaching and learning in GE courses. This project and its outcomes are described in the undergraduate education assessment chapter, along with the other GE assessment activities in which this campus has been engaged. Two of particular importance are the following: (1) a Segment III study aimed at evaluating student learning in the upper division, culminating, interdisciplinary GE experience, and (2) a study conducted by the University Interdisciplinary Council (UIC) of the degree to which students are able to approach problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. Both studies address written English proficiency, since development of this competence is an objective of GE at both the lower division and upper division level.

A major priority for 1998-2000 has been the implementation of a broad-based comprehensive GE program assessment plan. This time, rather than repeat aspects of the 1995-96 Program Review, which centered on perceptions of students and faculty on the importance and quality of the areas of the GE program, the GERC acted upon the charge from the GEC to assess the learning outcomes of the program. It established action plans for conducting an assessment that would take on a broad scope, as well as incorporate a mechanism for gathering, summarizing, and analyzing data on and from the specific segments and areas within GE. Specific foci of action include assessments of Basic Skills courses, Segment III learning outcomes, and the degree to which our students are learning to approach issues from an interdisciplinary perspective. An additional endeavor has been a pilot testing of a standardized instrument in the areas of GE learning outcomes (Segment I: Basic Subjects and Segment II: Arts and Sciences). See the undergraduate education assessment chapter for further details.

STRUCTURED FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE

Strategic Plan Recommendations

The university strategic plan recommended that a structured first-year experience be provided to all new freshmen and transfer students. For first-time college students, such an experience should include:

• A significant student orientation component

• Incentives for full-time enrollment

• Intensive advising

• Early diagnosis of strengths and needs

• Guaranteed placement in appropriate remedial/developmental courses

• Availability of tutorial centers

• A structured curriculum with courses in common

• Development of cohorts and cohort experiences

1992-2000 Overview

Over the years, SFSU has grappled with how to serve first-year students in order to make them feel more welcome and integrated into the institution. In 1988, the Academic Senate passed a resolution endorsing the creation of an orientation course for new SFSU students. Unfortunately, the budget crisis of the early 1990's made it impossible for the university to pursue this project. In 1995, the Academic Senate passed an academic advising policy, which reinforced the importance of orientation.

There are several initiatives and experiments currently under way that are helping to make the structured first-year experience a reality: (1) the early assessment and completion of basic skills requirements as mentioned earlier in this chapter; (2) a variety of cohort experiences being developed across campus (for example, Summer Bridge; the Presidential Scholars program; the integrated B.A. in Liberal Studies/Multiple Subject Credential program; and FASTrack, a structured first-year experience program designed for students living in the residence community); (3) the development of introductory or gateway courses in a number of departments throughout the university and of college-specific orientation courses in all eight colleges; and (4) new student orientation, which offers incentives to attend and reaches increasing numbers of students each year, including even those students who are far afield via "virtual orientation." These initiatives will now be discussed (with additional information provided in Chapters 5 and 6).

Summer Bridge

The Summer Bridge Program is a comprehensive support service provided by the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) that assists disadvantaged students in achieving academic success. Summer Bridge is a five-week, live-in, learning program that consists of academic, social, and cultural activities designed to prepare 120 incoming freshmen for the demands of university life. Students are provided with free room and board and an opportunity to adjust to the university environment. The program usually takes place in the month of July. Students attend English, mathematics, computer, and college skills classes especially designed to develop and improve skills necessary to succeed at the university level. The program allows students to formulate a strong sense of belonging and connectedness to EOP and the university in general. In addition to attending classes and special EOP tutoring sessions, students participate in a variety of seminars covering topics including interpersonal relationships, community involvement, multiculturalism in education, and AIDS awareness.

New Student Programs

Although not enforced, first-time freshmen were told that New Student Orientation was mandatory for Fall 1999. As a result, freshmen attendance was up for summer orientation. In addition, students unable to attend orientation in person had the opportunity to participate in "virtual orientation" on the web with an e-mail advising component. In Summer 2000, first-time freshmen actually registered for classes at New Student Orientation, thus increasing the likelihood of attendance, since the earlier students attended orientation, the earlier they were allowed to register. Data show that students who attend orientation programs have a higher success rate than those who do not (please see Chapter 5 for additional information). As this message has been better conveyed to new students, orientation attendance has risen.

FASTrack

The on-campus housing community has always offered special programming for its residents. However, several developments are occurring concurrently which have enabled a new, structured, first-year experience to be implemented for the residence halls effective Fall 2000. First of all, there is new housing that makes it possible to have an entire hall (Mary Park Hall) comprised of first-time freshmen. Second, there is more of a push campus-wide to have weekend course offerings, and campus residents are an excellent population to take advantage of such offerings.

Beginning Summer 1999, administrators, faculty, and staff from across campus began meeting to create a structured first-year experience for campus residents. This committee developed FASTrack, the Freshman Accelerated Success Track, the goal of which is to foster an integrated living and learning environment for first-year students in the residence halls. In Fall 2000, Mary Park Hall students with no declared major are participating in special courses (including a first-year experience course), workshops, tutoring, advising, peer mentoring, career development, and faculty/student events.

Presidential Scholars

Each fall, SFSU admits 20-25 Presidential Scholars. This program offers a structured first-year experience which includes the following: a special welcome, orientation, and advising session during the summer, before students register for courses; automatic payment of in-state registration fees in full (room and board are not provided, but a space in the residence halls is guaranteed); $500.00 per year for books and other course materials; priority registration for courses; a special dinner for scholars and their parents or guests, hosted by the president; and a scholars' seminar. In addition, presidential scholars are required to take two General Education courses in concert. Periodic co-curricular and cultural events expand their intellectual and social experience. For more information, please see Chapter 7.

Four-year Integrated B.A. in Liberal Studies/Multiple Subject Credential

Throughout the state of California, the B.A. in Liberal Studies is the most common undergraduate subject matter preparation for students seeking the Multiple Subject Credential that allows them to teach elementary school. In response to a CSU initiative regarding teacher education, in 1998-99 the SFSU Liberal Studies Council developed a program permitting first-time freshmen to enter an integrated B.A./Credential program (the Liberal Studies Integrated Teacher Education Program, LSITE) that allows them to study subject matter and pedagogy at the same time. The program was reviewed and approved by the General Education Council, the Educational Policies Council, and the All-University Teacher Education Committee (AUTEC) and has been approved by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. The first cohort of students began in Fall 1999 and is required to follow a structured curriculum with common courses. The first course they take together is an orientation course that introduces them to the university as well as to the idea of becoming educators. In addition to the specified courses they take as a cohort, students are assigned two advisors—one from the Liberal Studies faculty and the other from Elementary Education. A transfer version of this program will be forthcoming.

Orientation/Gateway Courses

In Fall 1999, a group of faculty was recruited from across campus and charged with creating college-based orientation courses that would be required of all incoming freshmen beginning Fall 2000. For declared majors, the courses include a component of discipline-specific material unique to each college, as well as more generic information about the university, student services, and academic development. Undeclared students enroll in an all-university version of the course. (See www.sfsu.edu/~advising/firstyear.htm for information about the program in general and about each of the courses.) As mentioned above, students are required to complete the Information Competence Requirement in order to pass the course.

It is important to note that some faculty are unhappy with the use of the word "mandatory" that is being used when publicizing this course—the Academic Senate approved the creation of an orientation course but did not approve making the course a requirement for graduation. The term "mandatory" is being used to make it more likely that students will actually enroll in the course, but there will be no penalty for those students who do not take or pass it. Additionally, despite the attempt to be as inclusive as possible in the planning of this course, some faculty members have felt that the course design was rushed and not well publicized. It will be important to monitor the success of this course and determine whether modifications should be made (including whether to actually make it mandatory) before offering it again in Fall 2001.

Where We Are Now

Given all of the above, the university has made a great deal of progress toward offering students a structured first-year experience. People from across the campus are working together to create experiences that will enhance a student's first year at the university. Faculty, administrators, and staff from Academic Affairs and Student Affairs are working together to offer first-time college students a structured experience that introduces them to the institution, requires them to achieve a basic skill level within their first year, assists them in program planning, and offers them the support they need to succeed in college. Fall 2000 enrollment in the first offering of the college-based orientation courses totaled 1,558 first-time freshmen—out of a total entering cohort of 2,042—in 41 sections across eight colleges. Remaining first-time freshmen will be encouraged to enroll in additional sections to be offered Spring 2001.

One potential obstacle, as SFSU attempts to implement a mandatory orientation course, is the fact that the CSU Trustees have lowered the minimum number of units required for graduation from 124 to 120. Although there is widespread support at all levels across campus for an orientation course and much support for one that is mandatory, there is also the concern that an additional requirement will make it impossible for some students to be able to graduate within the minimum required units.

Many of the goals for improving transfer students' first year are well underway. More transfer students are attending New Student Orientation every year. Beginning Fall 2000, all upper division transfer students are required to enter SFSU with all of their General Education basic subjects completed, thus eliminating any need for remediation. Lower division transfer students must complete any remediation within the first year. All academic departments have implemented mandatory advising, and a number offer gateway courses to the major. Many departments offer tutorial services for students in their majors; and tutors at the Learning Assistance Center work with students in a wide variety of disciplines, not just in the area of basic skills development. (Please see Chapter 6 for more information regarding these services.)

With the above programs in place, by 2003 we envision the typical freshman experience to be cohesive and well structured. Students will have been tested early, with far fewer of them requiring an entire year of remediation. They will develop their writing skills in a timely fashion and learn to use the Library and other information resources early on, giving them the skills they need to succeed in their upper division courses. Through their first-year experience courses, students will develop an academic plan for the rest of their undergraduate education, being sure to enroll in appropriate prerequisite courses. Thus, our freshmen will be less likely to experience academic difficulty and will be able to complete their studies in a timely fashion. As the effectiveness of the freshman first-year experience course is assessed, and as resources permit, a decision will be made, in line with the recommendation of the university strategic plan, to adapt the course to the needs of first-year transfer students.

Creation of an Undergraduate Council

The university strategic plan recommended that the Academic Senate consider establishing a parallel Undergraduate and Graduate Council structure, with both councils having on-going responsibility for both curricular and policy issues. After reviewing this recommendation in June 1999, the Academic Senate Executive Committee determined that such a change would not be useful. There are so many issues relating to both curriculum and policy that a single body would be unable to address them all.

In fact, the current Academic Senate standing committee structure is a result of dividing a single committee in 1977 so that both curricular and policy issues could be addressed more fully. Prior to 1977, the Educational Policies Committee of the Academic Senate dealt with both sets of issues. In its introduction to the proposed change in 1977, the committee members stated that "[s]ince its establishment through a senate reorganization, the Educational Policies Committee has habitually found its agenda so crowded that the bulk of its time and effort has been spent in dealing with individual curricular changes…. Meanwhile, crucial long-range policies which figure in its charge have not received the thorough, continuing attention and review so vital to the establishment and maintenance of a coherent core of overall policies governing the educational mission of the university."

The current structure consists of the Academic Policies Committee (APC), which is charged with studying and evaluating educational policies; the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), which is charged with reviewing proposals for new and revised programs; and the Educational Policies Council (EPC), which is a committee consisting of both APC and CRAC members and charged with reviewing proposals that have a potentially far-ranging effect (for example, program discontinuances; exceptions to General Education policy). Many other bodies report to EPC: the General Education Council, Graduate Council, Committee on Written English Proficiency, University Interdisciplinary Council, and Library Advisory Committee. When any of these committees wishes to propose changes to university policy, its recommendations must be reviewed by EPC and presented for approval to the Academic Senate. The Executive Committee has determined that the current structure is still appropriate.

However, one result of the recommendation was for the Academic Senate to reexamine EPC's charge and update it to make it more reflective of actual practice and to facilitate communication among committees. The revised charge was approved by the Academic Senate in September 1999 [www.sfsu.edu/~ senate/committees.htm#EPCcharge].

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Over the last several years, a major portion of the university community has been engaged, in one way or another, in developing the programs and activities described in this chapter. That is, of course, the way it should be if responsibility for their implementation is to be broadly shared. Some may still believe that committees have moved too quickly in implementing programs. Others are relieved that the committees have completed their work and that the fruits of their labor are becoming apparent.

Perhaps it takes the perspective gained from the development and implementation of each of the programs and policies to know what we need to do to facilitate students’ development of basic skills and progress toward their degrees. These efforts have involved all segments of the campus community: admissions counselors have talked with deans; deans have talked with staff in the Registrar's Office; faculty GE committees have talked with advisors; orientation advisors have talked with Testing Center staff; and learning assistance and tutorial support staff have talked with faculty—to cite a few examples. What results is a progression of programs and policies that recognizes the many facets of the undergraduate experience and empowers the university community to work together to address the challenges.

The university has engaged in an intensive effort to prepare prospective students—several years in advance—so that they will not lose valuable time as they approach college admission (see Chapters 5 and 6). The university has worked with community colleges to alert them to the enforcement of admission standards to better assure a seamless transition. The university has notified its own admitted students of requirements for placement testing and remediation so that they do not jeopardize their admission. The university has developed innovative courses and support programs to enable its own students to fulfill the remediation requirements within the mandated first year.

We have developed mechanisms to monitor student compliance and evaluate our progress. Students who are disenrolled for failure to remediate within a year are advised of their opportunities to avail themselves of appropriate remedial courses at local community colleges and then return to SFSU. Learning objectives for basic skills courses have been developed by GE faculty committees and approved by the senate in order to enable the university to assess the effectiveness of the curriculum provided for lower division students. Mandatory advising is in effect for students experiencing academic difficulty. Departments are implementing mandatory advising for all of their students when they enter the major; when they attain upper division status; and as they prepare for the final semester before graduation. Experiments are being conducted to determine whether or not a cohort of prospective teachers can enter SFSU as first-time freshmen, proceed through an integrated major/teacher credential program, and graduate and earn a credential in four years plus a summer.

We have learned a great deal from the intensive work on these programs—chiefly that the first-year experience is the time to provide the right start. The concept is, of course, not new. There is abundant research that indicates that students who complete freshman orientation/college success courses tend to have higher retention and graduation rates, earn better GPA's, and become more academically and socially integrated into the university community. The first-year experience courses at SFSU will introduce students to SFSU, and to academic life in general, by containing a common personal and interpersonal or social development component, as well as a presentation of the themes, subject matter, methodologies, and programs of the college in which the course is given. The university intends to build academic success from the start and reduce wasted time, lost energy, and costly penalties.

All of this enthusiasm must be tempered by the awareness of more challenges ahead. While the university is doing a good job of addressing many of the issues raised in its strategic plan, factors not considered in that plan will have a major impact on undergraduate education in the coming years. Since the budget cuts of the early 1990s, class size has increased. We have an aging faculty, many of whom will be retiring within the next few years. The cost of living in the Bay Area is making it difficult to attract and retain qualified new faculty. Space, always at a premium, will be even more valuable as the number of students on campus increases. Despite diminishing resources, the institution is endeavoring to reach a wider audience and to accommodate the non-traditional schedules of non-traditional students. As in other fields, faculty and staff are feeling increasingly overworked. These resource issues will have a huge impact on how we educate our undergraduates in the coming years of the twenty-first century.

Goals/recommendations for the future include:

1. Improving monitoring of student remediation and retention—a function of the new Office of Retention and Orientation.

2. Continuing to monitor enrollment demand in remedial and basic skills courses (by the Dean of Undergraduate Studies) and continuing to confer with colleges and departments about increasing course offerings as appropriate.

3. Continuing to develop new modes of delivering and supporting remediation.

4. Reinforcing GE Segment I basic skills in upper division GE course work.

5. Charging the Committee on Written English Proficiency and the Task Force on Writing in the Disciplines to review JEPET and English 414 pass/fail rates and to make recommendations to the Academic Senate regarding the writing proficiency sequence, student compliance, enforcement strategies, reinforcement of basic skills in upper division courses, and the facilitation of students’ timely progress through the writing proficiency requirements.

6. Improving information dissemination regarding student completion of prerequisites for lower and upper division courses prior to student enrollment in the courses.

7. Improving advisement of prospective transfer students regarding SFSU's expectation of completion of both first year and second year written English composition prior to transfer.

8. Assessing our first-year experience (FYE) courses and modifying structure, curriculum, delivery, and class size as appropriate.

9. Developing a FYE course for transfer students (contingent on outcomes of Freshman FYE assessment).

10. Monitoring the success of the OASIS information competence program and determining whether students are completing it in a timely manner.

Return to Section B: An Academically Excellent University | Return to Accreditation | SFSU Home | Top of page

Please see charts below (referenced from text of this chapter):

Undergraduate Student Progression | Fall 1998 & Fall 1999 First-Time freshman requiring/receiving remediation within one year

Fall 1998 First-Time Freshmen

Requiring and Receiving Remediation within One Year

Year

1998-1999

Students Requiring Remediation

Students requiring remediation who were proficient by the beginning of the 2^nd year

(in compliance)

Students who did not complete remediation by the beginning of the 2^nd year

(not in compliance)

Students not in compliance who left SFSU unremediated

Students not in compliance who were disenrolled by SFSU

Students not in compliance who were granted permission to re-enroll in 2^nd year

N (%)

First Time Freshmen Regularly Admitted and Enrolled Fall 1998 = 1,822

1,356*

(74% of 1,822)

858

(63% of 1,356)

498

(37% of 1,356)

205

(41% of 498)

(4% 0f 498)

273

(55% of 498)

* Of the 1,356 students requiring remediation, 968 (53%) required English and 1,100 (60%) required math. Some students required both English and math remediation.

Fall 1999 First-Time Freshmen

Requiring and Receiving Remediation within One Year

Year 1999-2000

Students Requiring Remediation

Students requiring remediation who were proficient by the beginning of the 2^nd year

(in compliance)

Students who did not complete remediation by the beginning of the 2^nd year

(not in compliance)

Students not in compliance who left SFSU unremediated

Students not in compliance who were disenrolled by SFSU

Students not in compliance who were granted permission to re-enroll in 2^nd year

N (%)

First Time Freshmen Regularly Admitted and Enrolled Fall 1999 = 1,905

1,234*

(65% of 1,905)

962

(78% of 1,234)

272

(22% of 1,234)

(24% of 272)

199

(73% of 272)

(2.6% of 272)

* Of the 1,234 students requiring remediation, 746 (60%) required English and 1,012 (82%) required math. Some students required both English and math remediation.