Chapter 7:

 Teaching and Learning at SFSU

x

INTRODUCTION

x
At San Francisco State, one need go no further than the three key commitments, outlined in the mission statement adopted by the Academic Senate and approved by President Corrigan in 1992, to recognize the importance of teaching and learning as it relates to the university’s mission, vision, planning, and day to day interactions [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/S92-176.htm]. All of the three commitments require excellence in the teaching and learning process if they are to be achieved. The commitments are to:

x
• Create and maintain an environment for learning that promotes respect for and appreciation of scholarship, freedom, human diversity, and the cultural mosaic of the City of San Francisco and the Bay Area;
• Promote excellence in instruction and intellectual accomplishment; and
• Provide broadly accessible higher education for residents of the region and state, as well as the nation and world.

x
Excellence in teaching has long been the hallmark of San Francisco State University, from the founding of the institution as a teacher preparation college to the current focus on the importance of teaching in the evaluation of professors for promotion and tenure. The attention teaching has received throughout the strategic planning process has given us the opportunity to examine what faculty are currently doing, explore new strategies, research innovations, focus attention on the assessment and evaluation process, and celebrate successes. Since teaching is only as effective as the learning it evokes, and since effective learning is an active rather than a passive endeavor, San Francisco State faculty understand the importance of designing interactive classes which challenge their students to think critically, to articulate their thoughts and experiences, and to immerse themselves in the learning process.

x
This chapter addresses the recommendations in the strategic plan focused on the role of faculty in providing a learning-centered environment and the institutional commitment to supporting excellence in teaching. It addresses how the university has developed an infrastructure to assist faculty as they embrace innovative ways to engage students in learning, to support faculty in the development of course content to be delivered in non-traditional systems, and to explore parameters for new directions in the teaching and learning process.

x

HISTORY

x
Prior to 1992, there were numerous efforts on campus to provide faculty opportunities to engage in professional development, to examine their teaching methods, and to institute change in their manner of course delivery. These efforts were most often at the departmental level and frequently funded by external resources. The outcomes of the efforts were seldom institutionalized or widely disseminated, as there was no mechanism to share the strategies or to provide support for faculty as they explored the various teaching methodologies and their impact on learning.
Faculty, staff, and administrators became aware of the need to establish university-wide programs that would:

x
• Support faculty as they researched and implemented new approaches to teaching and learning;
• Recognize innovative faculty using effective teaching strategies;
• Lead to the dissemination of promising practices;
• Influence systemic change in course delivery; and
• Provide direction and leadership in the assessment and evaluation process.

x
As the need for support in these areas escalated and resources became available, the university responded by establishing and/or expanding a wide range of programs. Prior to the establishment of any centralized support mechanism, careful consideration was given to assessing perceived need, consulting with the campus population, and determining what resources were available and how they could be allocated to achieve the most efficient, and effective outcomes. There are numerous programs, initiatives, and projects that have been implemented to support these areas of need. We will now address how some of the university-wide support programs have directly impacted the quality of teaching and learning on this campus.

x
Center for the Enhancement of Teaching [http://cet.sfsu.edu]. One of the most significant university-wide events in support of teaching came with the establishment of the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching. Support for the concept of the center came out of the Academic Senate with the full collaboration and support of the administration.

x
In Spring 1990, at the recommendation of the Academic Senate Faculty Development Planning Committee, the vice president of academic affairs established a 21-member task force of outstanding leaders on campus who were well respected by their peers. This committee met for eighteen months, and its final report to the vice president recommended the establishment of a university-wide teaching and learning support center. The Academic Senate passed a resolution in support of the task force recommendations [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/RS92-106.htm]. At the recommendation of the task force, the leadership for the center came from the ranks of the faculty; and in January 1993, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching was inaugurated. This was the first centralized approach to a campus-wide focus on teaching and learning.

x
The purpose of the center is to promote and support teaching excellence in an atmosphere of collegiality. Its functions include developing and/or sponsoring programs designed to enhance instruction; serving as a clearing house for information regarding higher education nationally, at San Francisco State University, and within the CSU system; providing opportunities for faculty and staff to discuss philosophies and share ideas; and providing training in development and use of technology to complement instruction and promote learning. The activities of the center were developed in response to the needs of the San Francisco State faculty who teach in an urban environment where diversity is a treasure.

x
Faculty usage of and involvement in CET far exceeded the expectations of the original task force; and in Spring 1996, a proposal to expand the program offerings was presented to the president and his cabinet. The plan embodied a strong vision for the future of teaching and learning at SFSU. The vision, while rooted in the expressed needs of the faculty and staff, was supported by research and projections from national leaders in educational reform and professional development. The university strategic planning process was well underway at the time, and many of the recommendations coming out of the process were integrated into the proposed expansion. The program’s expansion, along with increased space and financial support, was approved; and in the Fall of 1996, CET began offering faculty development opportunities in (1) traditional teaching support, (2) multimedia training, (3) Internet-mediated learning, (4) video-mediated learning, (5) computer-mediated collaborative learning, and (6) new faculty orientation and support. The increased range of offerings resulted in even greater participation in the training provided by CET.

x
Office of Community Service Learning [http://thecity.sfsu.edu/~ocsl/]. While the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching was poised to respond to the strategic plan recommendations in regard to a wide range of options in teaching and learning, the Office of Community Service Learning was established to address another major area of concern: integrating theory into practice while involving San Francisco State students in the broader Bay Area community.

x
In 1995-96, thirty faculty, staff, and students met together in a year-long colloquium convened by Tom Ehrlich, CSU distinguished scholar, to discuss the relevance of community service learning, a national innovative educational reform effort, to San Francisco State. The purpose of the colloquium was to develop a common set of understandings about the goals and methods of community service learning and to draft a plan on how community service learning could become an integral part of the educational experience of our students.

x
At the end of the 1995-96 academic year, President Corrigan announced that San Francisco State University had been awarded a three-year grant totaling $322,000 by the Chancellor’s Office. This grant provided awards to faculty interested in community service learning to transform courses required for the major and/or which fulfilled General Education requirements into community service learning courses. The plan also proposed to create an Office of Community Service Learning, as part of the San Francisco Urban Institute, to support faculty, coordinate campus activities, and help build community/university partnerships. Chancellor Munitz's mandate to the campus envisioned San Francisco State's activities as a model for the CSU system.

x
Office of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development [www.sfsu.edu/~acaffrs/]. The Office of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, in addition to other functions, serves as a centralized dissemination point for various professional development initiatives available for faculty. This allows for a more equitable distribution of funds and the opportunity to provide more consistent support for faculty as they seek to improve their teaching, research, and publication efforts. Examples of the initiatives funded out of this office include:

x
• Affirmative Action Faculty Development Program
• Presidential Awards for Fulbright Scholars
• Presidential Awards for Professional Development of Probationary Faculty
• Professional Development Leave Without Pay Stipends

x
Office of Academic Planning and Assessment [www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/]. Providing direction and leadership in the areas of assessment and evaluation was viewed as a critical component in the process of supporting teaching and learning. In Spring 1990, the SFSU Academic Senate passed a resolution endorsing student outcomes assessment at the university and a plan of action for implementing such assessment [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/RS90-78.htm].

x
Assessment reemerged as a priority item in the context of the SFSU institutional planning efforts, system-wide planning efforts, and beginning campus preparations for its next WASC reaccreditation visit. As a result, in 1997, Provost La Belle established a task force to develop a proposal for a new office to coordinate the institution’s academic assessment activities. The task force began its work by reviewing a number of relevant campus, system, and accrediting agency documents relating to assessment. It concluded that an assessment office, appropriately charged and structured, would serve to assist faculty, departments, colleges, and university committees and offices in maintaining and expanding the work they were already doing in the area of assessment. The task force recommended that an Academic Assessment Office be established within Academic Affairs. This was done and the office has made significant inroads in affecting the teaching and learning process.

x
Task Force on Multicultural Perspectives in the Curriculum. Establishing this task force added to the formalization of a process that was already well underway—that of meeting the academic needs of a diverse student population with rich and varied cultural and experiential backgrounds. The activities of this task force supported a continuing effort and provided opportunities for expansion of the skills and knowledge base of faculty, staff, administrators, and students. The full impact of this task force is discussed in Chapter 11, but deserves mention in this chapter, as the group's efforts have positively impacted curriculum design and implementation. Providing a supportive learning environment for a widely diverse student population requires faculty to re-think their courses in terms of organization, presentation, content, and assessment. The Multicultural Perspectives Task Force provides a forum for faculty to share their ideas and experiences; training and support for faculty who seek to redesign their courses; resources for course development; and guidance in appropriate assessment techniques in a multicultural environment. The group has sponsored initiatives to provide faculty released time to engage in curriculum renovation and to collect teaching and learning resources to support course delivery. It has also served as a forum for faculty to come together to discuss the implications of teaching a diverse student population. This free and open exchange has been critical in fostering a positive attitude toward course revision, infusion of multicultural perspectives, individual learning styles and cultures, and alternative teaching strategies. While there is still much work to be done in this area, the initial steps have helped the university move forward in this arena.

x
Internationalization of the Curriculum Initiative. San Francisco State has the distinction of being located in a city that has long been recognized as home to one of the most multi-ethnic populations in the world. Being a public university committed to recruiting, supporting, and awarding degrees to area high school graduates means that the student body reflects this diversity. This presents two opportunities in regard to curriculum. First, we are challenged to present a curriculum that meets the needs of these students, that respects their multi-ethnic perspectives, and that provides an environment that nurtures communication, collaboration, and cooperation across all cultural and ethnic communities. Secondly, we must extend our existing curriculum to encompass the international perspectives that will be required from our graduates as they enter a world made increasingly smaller by advances in communication, technology, and travel. The university strategic plan acknowledged the importance of this area in establishing it as one of the six thematic foci for institutional endeavor. Campus efforts here are addressed in Chapter 18.

x

Strategic Plan Recommendations

x
While it is impossible to totally segregate teaching and learning from any of the recommendations coming out of the university strategic plan, the foci of this chapter will be on the following sets of recommendations:

x
• Focus Area I: Program faculty should review teaching practices, student learning experiences, and faculty-student interactions within the context of examining content and approaches used in constructing and delivering curricula so that they adequately reflect the characteristics of strong, learning-oriented programs;

x
• Focus Area II: Faculty should develop increased opportunities for interactive learning, including opportunities for small-group interaction, cooperative group learning, special laboratories, and more extensive use of student presentations. All these activities should lead to an increase in the students’ active participation in the learning process;

x
• Focus Area III: Courses should be designed to promote collaborative learning among students and to enhance faculty-student collaboration, and faculty should ensure that courses and course delivery options allow for the joining of theory and practice;

x
• Focus Area IV: Courses should be developed incorporating an element of service learning;

x
• Focus Area V: The university should construct curricular offerings that challenge students in alternative ways such as through honors work and distance learning; and

x
• Focus Area VI: The university should promote and support a variety of teaching and learning strategies. Specifically:

x
• Faculty should receive instruction and support related to the impact of diversity on instructional strategies and the learning process,

x
• A greater emphasis should be placed on interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning,

x
• Faculty support should include strategies and approaches that promote effective teaching of large classes, and

x
• Training and support in the use instructional technology, wherever appropriate to enhance the learning process, should be a part of faculty development efforts.

x
Addressing The strategic plan recommendations

x
The strategic planning process allowed the entire campus community to take time to reflect on where we were, where we wanted to be, how we wanted to get there, what we needed to ensure that we would make our destination, and how we would know we had arrived or that we were making satisfactory progress along the way.

x
FOCUS AREA I

x
Recommendation: Program faculty should review teaching practices, student learning experiences, and faculty-student interactions within the context of examining content and approaches used in constructing and delivering curricula so that they adequately reflect the characteristics of strong, learning-centered programs.

x
Implementation: The first stage of implementation always requires raising the level of awareness. One of the side benefits of the strategic planning process was to engage faculty in discussing teaching, sharing ideas and experiences, and engaging students in a discussion of their learning experiences. The awareness level was extended through the use of surveys asking faculty what effective strategies they used, how they organized their courses, and how they promoted student interaction in their classes. Once the discussions and the results of the surveys were analyzed, faculty discussion groups were formed, brown-bag lunches were hosted, and seminars were conducted for faculty interested in learning effective teaching strategies from their peers. Efforts were made to encourage the integration of these discussions into department meetings.

x
The second stage of the implementation process was to identify on-site experts in various teaching strategies and presentation styles. Many programs at San Francisco State had received national and international attention for their quality and their contributions. This netted a long list of outstanding faculty and programs that emphasized strong faculty-student interactions and provided a rich environment for student learning. The director of the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, in consultation with department chairs, deans, faculty groups, and students, identified outstanding faculty and nominated them for their contributions to the teaching and learning process.

x
Storm Chasing. No one ever convinced meteorology professor John Monteverdi that teaching was an indoor activity. In fact, according to his students, the best learning always takes place outside and is always exciting. John's classroom for teaching meteorology is truly in the "eye of the storm." While an announcement from the National Weather Center of an approaching storm sends most people running for cover, John, instead, calls his students, grabs his equipment, and races out to meet it face to face. The result of these meetings? Photos, research data, publications, and another tool to add excitement to his classes at SFSU. From the rush of the chase to the rush of the class, John manages to maintain his love of meteorology while maintaining outstanding student evaluations for his courses.

x
Recognition came in the form of national television programs highlighting the work that was being done on campus; local, state, national, and international magazines/journals featuring the faculty and students involved in the teaching–learning initiative; rewards and recognition from national foundations and organizations; invitations from professional organizations to keynote and make presentations at state, national, and international conferences; and teaching showcases and "celebrations" on campus that starred outstanding faculty nominated by their peers and students.

x
The student perspective on the teaching of SFSU instructors is provided in several university-wide surveys: Student Pulse, SNAPS, Undergraduate Exit Survey, Graduate Exit Survey, and Alumni Survey. Almost 80% of respondents to both Student Pulse 1998 and Student Pulse 2000 rated the teaching at SFSU as excellent or good. In the 1999 SNAPS survey, over 70% of the respondents rated coursework that is consistent with the instructor’s stated objectives or syllabus, faculty preparation for class, faculty enthusiasm for teaching, and quality of instruction as excellent or good. Over 80% of the respondents to the Spring 1999 and 1999-2000 Undergraduate Exit Surveys were satisfied with the overall quality of instruction at SFSU, and about three fourths were satisfied with their access to faculty. The Graduate Exit Survey measures students’ assessment of faculty awareness of new developments in the field, teaching methods, grading procedures, preparation for classes, and interest in assisting students with their academic work. About 85% of respondents to the 1995-1997, 1997-1999, and 1999-2000 Graduate Exit Surveys rated their faculty as excellent or good in these areas. Finally, alumni in selected areas have rated the quality of teaching at SFSU. Over 80% of School of Engineering alumni and Liberal Studies alumni and almost 90% of College of Behavioral and Social Sciences alumni responding to the survey were satisfied with faculty enthusiasm for teaching and the overall quality of instruction.

x
FOCUS AREA II

x
Recommendation: Faculty should develop increased opportunities for interactive learning, including opportunities for small-group interaction, cooperative group learning, special laboratories, and more extensive use of student presentations. All these activities should lead to an increase in the students’ active participation in the learning process.

x
Implementation: Active participation can be defined in various ways, and the first step in increasing the use of this strategy is to introduce a variety of successful models. This awareness-level step involved presenting workshops for faculty on what constitutes effective student participation, how to design classes that promote student interaction, how to access student participation, and strategies to engage students in their own learning process.

x
Faculty who were effective in designing and conducting courses that resulted in high levels of student participation were identified and asked to serve as models for faculty interested in incorporating those strategies in their instructional program. These faculty presented workshops, allowed other faculty to sit-in on classes, debriefed the process with the observers, and coached them as they tried the strategies in their own classes. The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching hired Dr. Kate Kinsella, a faculty member with a national reputation for ensuring active participation and equal access for all students, to direct the workshops, identify interested faculty, provide support programs, and evaluate the effectiveness of the effort.

x
The interaction/participation strategies used by model faculty range from a History class that actually put students into the past through role playing, complete with full dress costume, the historical figure they chose….

x
History on Stage. When Jacques Hymans, a History professor, ‘staged’ his class, every student became a living part of the history they were studying. Students were required to play the role of a historical world figure and, after researching the background of their subject, present the information to their peers while in full costume. This highly interactive class had students excited about coming to class and giving Hymans outstanding marks as a teacher. The strategies Hymans used in his courses promote greater interest in the subject, deeper knowledge of the content, and more significant learning.

x
…to an Inter-Arts class that incorporates an on-line threaded discussion designed to promote more student participation in class discussions.

x
He said…She said! Paula Levine, a faculty member in the College of Creative Arts, expected her students to engage in lively debate and discussion in her seminar classes, but found that most of the class time was spent formulating the question, defining terms, and responding to student queries. As a result, the class only "scratched the surface" of most topics. Paula’s solution to this dilemma was to introduce a threaded discussion on the web. Each week she posted the next week’s topic and required her students to respond to the topic; read their classmates’ responses; find one response with which they agreed and one with which they disagreed; and then, formulate a supportive statement for the response they agreed with and a rebuttal to the one with which they disagreed. The response of the students was overwhelmingly positive. Students came to class having reflected on the topic, interacted with their peers, formulated an opinion, argued their point of view, and generated a response to a point in opposition. When Paula tried removing the first week’s topic, she met with opposition from her students who insisted they weren’t through discussing it yet! This active engagement in an on-line threaded discussion led to a better understanding of the subject on the part of the students, a more in-depth discussion in the classroom, better writing skills, and more fully developed critical thinking and communication skills.

x
Perhaps the best recognition for effectively engaging students in the learning process is a positive summative course evaluation at the end of the semester; and faculty who design and conduct their courses with active participation as an objective usually are rewarded with high marks for an outstanding class. Other forms of recognition come through presentations at conferences, publications in professional journals, newspaper articles, and televised specials.

x
In a Spring 1999 Faculty, Staff, and Administrator Pulse survey, 82.3% of the respondents agreed that SFSU promotes active learning [www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/fsapulse1.htm]. Since faculty define active participation in a variety of ways, support in this area ranges from:

x
• Presenting university-wide workshops focused on student participatory learning,

x
• Creating a technologically-sophisticated, interactive Collaboratory classroom for instructional use [http://www.cet.sfsu.edu/classrooms/collaboratory/colab.html],

x
• Developing workshops and training on the use of collaborative teaching/learning strategies,

x
• Recognizing outstanding faculty with high levels of expertise in these areas and referring other faculty interested in increasing their skills in this area to the on-site expert,

x
• Creating on-campus, student-operated learning laboratories tied to an academic program.

x
Soup’s On! Students enrolled in the interdisciplinary hospitality management program can literally move up through the ranks from dishwasher to chef in the Vista Room Restaurant, managed and operated by students and serving gourmet lunches four days a week throughout the semester. They quickly put all the theory surrounding running a restaurant into day-to-day practice as they learn how to project customer demand, allocate funds for purchasing and operation, prepare food, wait tables, and assist in clean-up. Janet Sims, a professor in Consumer and Family Studies/Dietetics, supervises her students as they learn the restaurant ropes. In addition to serving lunch daily, the student staff take on catering jobs for parties, celebrations, and off-campus visitors.
FOCUS AREA III

x
Recommendation: Courses should be designed to promote collaborative learning among students and to enhance faculty-student collaboration, and faculty should ensure that courses and course delivery options allow for the joining of theory and practice.

x
Implementation: Collaborative learning can be defined in numerous ways, and the first task toward implementing this recommendation was to develop some common vocabulary among faculty as to what collaborative and cooperative learning means. Faculty were surveyed to ascertain if they considered themselves users of this teaching strategy and if so, if they would share their expertise and experience with their colleagues. Faculty-led seminars, discussion groups, and workshops were conducted to help spread the information to the university community.

x
Keeping abreast of trends and developments in higher education is part of the charge for the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching. The staff researched different approaches to collaborative/cooperative learning and developed strategies for encouraging and supporting faculty who were interested in exploring the different dimensions of this teaching approach.

x
Integrating cooperative and collaborative learning strategies into the classroom requires much planning and rethinking of the curriculum. Faculty and students require a range of support mechanisms in place for this to be viable. Some actions taken to facilitate this change include:

x
• Installing a computer-mediated communication facility (the Collaboratory).

x
• Providing training and support to faculty and students in the use of the Collaboratory to enhance collaboration, communication, and cooperation in classes.

x
Collaborative Learning. The Collaboratory, an innovative classroom at San Francisco State installed in Spring 1997, is specifically designed to enhance student participation. Each student has a laptop computer on a retractable shelf into which he/she can anonymously enter responses to questions, vote on preferences and priorities, and candidly express opinions on sensitive subjects related to their instructional program. On a campus with a diverse student population, there are many obstacles to overcome in promoting student participation in class discussions. Students face language issues, cultural barriers, experiential deficits, and educational shortfalls. If used appropriately, the Collaboratory eliminates the majority of these barriers. To date, classes that have met in this facility have had 100% student participation in class discussions. This actually redefines the concept of student participation. The coordinator of the Collaboratory has compiled a booklet of Models of Excellence to demonstrate the variety of uses of the facility and the successes experienced by faculty and students alike. Faculty may reserve the Collaboratory for three class sessions during a semester and must attend a planning session with the coordinator prior to the class meeting. This planning meeting allows the faculty member to delineate learning outcomes for the Collaboratory session and to develop questions/topics that lend themselves to discussion. Usage statistics on the Collaboratory indicate the popularity of the facility; and the student evaluations of the sessions document its effectiveness as a teaching and learning tool.

x
• Selecting, installing, and supporting web-based discussion and communication options.

x
• Training faculty and students in the use of the web for collaboration and communication.

x
Bridging the Gap. Amanda Lueck, a faculty member in Special Education, teaches in the visually impaired teacher preparation program. This is a low incidence disability, and many colleges and universities have downsized or dropped their teacher education program in this disability area. San Francisco State has an exceptional program and the demand for training is high; however, the students interested in the program are widespread, and coming to campus on a regular basis is not viable for many. The move to keep children who are visually impaired at home and in neighborhood schools, rather than in state residential institutions, has meant that more and more teachers need the skill and knowledge of effective teaching strategies with blind and visually impaired individuals. Amanda designed a distance education program that delivers instruction to eight sites simultaneously through live interactive video/audio transmission (codec). In the design stage of the development of the program, Amanda realized that students needed an effective communication system to ensure they could discuss issues or topics related to the class; share their experiences; engage in collaborative problem-solving; and develop a professional support network. Working with CET and AV/ITV staff, Amanda goes live "on the air" once a week; but her students meet as many times as they want or need to using an on-line threaded discussion tool. This combination of tools, resources, and support has resulted in students reporting a closer relationship with their on-line classmates than they normally experience in a class.

x
• Offering development opportunities for faculty in collaborative and cooperative learning.

x
• Developing workshops and support material on strategies for promoting active learning in the classroom.

x
• Introducing the concept of collaborative/cooperative learning during the new faculty orientation.

x
A very important component of the teaching and learning process takes place outside of courses. The best education in many disciplines, especially in the natural sciences and engineering, is provided by actively involving undergraduate students in research and the solution of real-world problems. Undergraduate research is a student-centered model of academic engagement that requires serious interaction between the faculty researcher and student colleague and focuses more on the student learning process than on the outcome of the research. The participation of undergraduate students in collaborative research with faculty is education of the highest quality that brings to life principles presented in the classroom. Undergraduate research provides students with potentially the most rewarding and significant aspect of their undergraduate experience. It provides an excellent teaching device that can integrate the components of the curriculum of the major into a unified picture and help undergraduates acquire a spirit of inquiry, intellectual independence, sound judgment, confidence, and persistence.

x
The research project revolves around a new question, a new hypothesis, or a new aspect of an old question; and the research leads to a meaningful contribution by the student to the subject of inquiry. Students learn how to use advanced concepts, experimental techniques, methodology, instruments, modeling, and the research literature and other library and online resources. They also learn how to report their results effectively, with spoken and written presentations of their results to peers and researchers in the field, at a local, regional, or national forum. They become more proficient at analyzing, synthesizing, observing, asking questions, and managing their time. They become better technical writers, more effective speakers, sharper critical thinkers, more astute problem solvers, more flexible team players, and often more ethical decision makers. Moreover, students develop a sense of belonging to, connection with, and ownership of the discipline, and they acquire a better appreciation for the culture of the discipline. Participation in undergraduate research provides an excellent background for graduate school and enhances the student’s career prospects.

x
To provide this education, faculty in the College of Science and Engineering are encouraged to carry on research which involves students and which serves the science and engineering community. Faculty members in the college who have supervised undergraduate research have stated that this activity has been the most rewarding highlight of their teaching careers.

x
Mentoring Young Scientists. The mentoring of students involved in scientific research is one of Associate Professor of Biology Leticia Márquez-Magaña’s "most profoundly rewarding activities at SFSU." It is in this capacity that she is able to combine her fascination with scientific discovery and her need to serve the community by becoming a role model for minority students considering a career in science. In fact, she has been profiled in this capacity in several articles and local television programs and was nominated for an AAAS Mentor Award. The undergraduate students involved in her research program are treated as young scientists and not as laboratory technicians. They are integral members of the research team involved in all aspects of the research plan. In fact, three undergraduates have appeared as co-authors with her on published and in-press papers, and a fourth undergraduate is first author on a manuscript in preparation which has two undergraduate authors.

x
Student feedback about interactive teaching and learning is provided by the Undergraduate and Graduate Exit Surveys and the Alumni Survey. Over half of the respondents to the Spring 1999 and 1999-2000 Undergraduate Exit Surveys, representing all colleges, were satisfied with the extent of opportunities to participate in independent project or internships, and with opportunities for useful non-classroom experiences, and perceived that their major program involved the application of theoretical knowledge to practical situations. Graduate Exit Survey respondents rated their assistantship or internship experiences as excellent or good in large numbers (83.2% in 1995-1997; 77.9% in 1997-1999; and 93.5% in 1999-2000). School of Engineering alumni were satisfied with opportunities to participate in independent projects or internships (71%) but less satisfied with non-classroom experiences (46%). Similarly, 88% of Liberal Studies alumni were satisfied with opportunities for independent projects or internships; but only 44% were satisfied with non-classroom experiences. Over three fourths of the alumni respondents from the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences were satisfied with opportunities for independent projects or internships, and 60% were satisfied with non-classroom experiences.

x
FOCUS AREA IV

x
Recommendation: Courses should be developed incorporating an element of service learning.

x
Implementation: San Francisco State has a long and impressive history in the integration of community service learning into the academic curriculum. The recommendations coming out of the university strategic planning process reinforced the notion that this was a viable educational endeavor, and the campus moved quickly to more formally structure a mechanism for faculty and students to get out of the classroom and into the community.

x
The first step in organizing an effort to integrate community service learning into the teaching/learning process was to hire an internationally known expert to spearhead the effort. Tom Erlich quickly established a university-wide task force to develop strategies for promoting the integration of service learning into the academic curriculum; to gauge faculty and student response to the issue; to explore various options on institutionalizing the concept; and to draft recommendations to the administration on avenues to support the expansion of service learning on the campus. Faculty who were already successful in incorporating service learning into their courses were surveyed; their input became part of the planning process; and students were invited to join the task force to ensure that their perspectives were included in the process.

x
Faculty who were successful integrators of community service learning were leaders in the task force planning process. They were able to provide valuable insight into this educational strategy and to suggest how the university as a whole might enter into this arena. One of the recommendations to the administration was that funds be set aside for faculty to receive release time to redesign selected courses that would promote service learning. Many of the faculty already involved served on the review committee for the proposals and were able to provide guidance and input to the recipients of the awards as they began the implementation process. Faculty successfully integrating service learning into their academic programs received certificates and were acknowledged at a reception.

x
The Student Pulse Surveys and the 1999 SNAPS survey provide student perspectives on their experiences with community service learning. One fifth of the students responding to the 1998 Student Pulse Survey had taken a course involving community service learning. The 1999 SNAPS Survey explored respondents’ perceptions of the learning that occurred in a community service learning course. Respondents reported learning more in a service learning course than a traditional class in all three areas included as survey response options: developing civic awareness and responsibility (73.4%), having opportunities to explore career options (67.1%), and mastery of the subject matter (58.2%).

x
Learning by Serving and Interacting. Sharon Johnson, associate professor in the School of Nursing and coordinator of the family nurse practitioner program, developed significant internship and service learning opportunities for her students. The students reported their experiences back to Sharon; but logistics of placement in a broad geographic area made coming together to share these experiences with their classmates exceedingly difficult. Sharon felt the students were not getting the most out of the experience since they were isolated from their learning peers, and their interactions were primarily in reporting form directly to the instructor. Working with the CET staff, she developed on-line assignments that greatly enhanced the learning component of the service learning class. These on-line assignments involved the students creating and sharing a reflective journal related to their internship placement; a threaded discussion to share experiences, challenges, and successes; and on-line group work that they were able to complete in a cooperative effort without having to get together physically.

x
FOCUS AREA V

x
Recommendation: The university should construct curricular offerings that challenge students in alternative ways such as through honors work and distance learning.

x
Implementation: Various strategies have been put in place to ensure that students are challenged in their thinking, their attitudes, and their engagement in the learning process. These strategies include such things as research-driven course work, interactive critical thinking courses, collaborative learning environments, and special programs and support mechanisms for students. The campus not only has expanded the opportunities for students to engage in challenging curriculum but also has addressed the issue of providing this at alternative times to ensure that the scheduling needs of students and faculty are met.

x
The Presidential Scholars’ program is an example of efforts to recruit, promote, and support students in the learning process at San Francisco State. The program was initiated by President Corrigan in April 1995, when he extended the offer of a scholarship covering in-state fees to high-achieving students who had applied and been admitted as first-time freshmen for Fall 1995. The purpose of the program was to recognize the achievements of such students and encourage them to attend SFSU. During the first year of the program, a curricular component (courses taken together as a cohort) and a co-curricular component (a schedule of educational, cultural, recreational, and social events) were implemented. Further, criteria were established for renewal of the scholarship for up to four years total, and an application process was introduced for subsequent classes of scholars.

x
Since the first year of the program, it has grown to include freshman through senior classes of 20-25 highly talented students per class. They receive a special summer orientation, at which they and their families begin to get to know one another. In their first semester, they take a three-unit orientation seminar together, in which they interact with select faculty members and develop academic success skills. They also take two General Education courses (critical thinking and oral communication) together, completing a 9-unit package of common courses during their first semester. Complementing their course work, they participate in a schedule of co-curricular and extracurricular activities (including an overnight retreat) designed to bond them as a group, introduce them to the broad range of resources in and around San Francisco, and enrich their academic experience with cultural, service, leadership, recreational, and social opportunities. Those who live on campus are placed close together in the residence halls, making it easier for them to study and socialize together. Scholars remain in the program for up to four years (as long as they qualify for renewal of the scholarship) and continue to interact, both within and across classes, in a variety of planned events.

x
The program’s reputation has grown steadily, and it attracts high levels of interest from high school students and their counselors. It has also built a significant endowment, notably securing two separate million-dollar donations in 1998-99. In addition to a promotional brochure, information on the program is available via its web site [www.sfsu.edu/~scholars/].

x
Meeting the scheduling needs of faculty and students has resulted in new programs, new partnerships, and a greatly expanded program offering. If San Francisco State is to grow and at the same time offer quality programs at times and in locations that are convenient to faculty and students, then radical alternative strategies must be developed. This is being accomplished by engaging in planning, designing, and testing the viability of off-campus courses, weekend courses, and year-round operation (see below).

x
SFSU is approaching its enrollment cap of approximately 20,000 FTES yet is anticipating continued increases in student demand. The enrollment cap is based largely on issues of physical capacity and environmental impact; e.g., the ability of the campus to handle traffic, parking, noise, utilities use, etc. In 1999 we reached agreement with the Chancellor’s Office that we can exceed the enrollment cap as long as we do it by offering courses at off-campus locations, on weekends both on- and off-campus, and during the summer on state support (in effect creating a year-round operation, or YRO). This agreement was bolstered by the results of our Fall 1998 Student Pulse survey indicating a high level of interest in taking courses on weekends (86%) and during summer (90%)—assuming that summer fees and financial aid would be comparable to fees and financial aid during regular sessions. Additionally, the SFSU data for the Spring 1999 SNAPS Survey indicated that 60% of our students would find a state-supported summer term highly useful.

x
Off-Campus Offerings

x
The first of the efforts to broaden our course delivery options focused on increasing off-campus offerings. During 1999-2000, we increased off-campus activity by over 200 FTES. We equipped and utilized a large theater near campus to house sections of high-enrollment courses. We also taught, for example, criminal justice at the Police Academy; ethics in medicine at San Francisco General Hospital; design courses at a commercial design center; ethnic studies courses at community colleges in ethnically diverse neighborhoods; and numerous courses completely on-line. Surveys of selected courses indicate the overall success of off-campus venues.

x
Neighboring community colleges have responded enthusiastically and have approached us to pursue additional collaborations. As examples, we are expanding articulation and transfer agreements with the City College of San Francisco; facilitating internship placements of SFSU undergraduate and graduate students at the College of San Mateo; preparing to offer two teaching credential programs at Cañada College; and pursuing the possibility of offering the Criminal Justice B.A. at the College of Marin.

x
Pathways: Reaching Out to San Mateo. San Francisco State has been in intensive discussions with Cañada College (one of three colleges making up the San Mateo Community College District) regarding the possibility of delivering SFSU upper division course work at the Cañada campus. The multi-stage discussions started with improving articulation agreements in key disciplines between the two campuses; moved to identifying selected majors to promote formal "2+2" transfer agreements in which Cañada delivers the first two years of instruction and SFSU delivers the second two years (possibly including some upper division courses delivered on-site at Cañada either in person or electronically by SFSU faculty as early as Fall 2001); and may perhaps ultimately result in one or more SFSU degree programs being offered totally on the Cañada campus.

x
Weekend Courses

x
During Fall 1999, we scheduled approximately 50 additional weekend courses for Spring 2000, increasing our weekend FTES from less than 150 to over 350. These courses were selected for specific features: advantage of the "immersion" time frame (e.g., language courses and art courses), high demand (e.g., basic subjects), attractiveness to particular populations (e.g., professional courses), etc. Six of the eight academic colleges were involved in the initiative. As resources become available, the ultimate goal is to expand weekend offerings to the point where we provide a sufficient range of courses to promote a complete "weekend college" opportunity in selected disciplines.

x
Year-Round Operation

x
Also in Fall 1999, we wrote a successful proposal in response to a Chancellor’s Office RFP for money to plan a transition to year-round operation. We were awarded $255,000 in planning money for 1999-2000. Among our planning activities were surveys of students and focus groups of students, faculty, and staff members. Based on the outcomes of those surveys and focus groups, as well as further suggestions from college deans, we selected several teacher preparation programs plus a range of other courses which included an upper division General Education cluster, a Liberal Studies area core, a nursing cohort program, some high-demand broadcast courses, some remedial courses, for conversion to state support in Summer 2000. Significant infrastructure adjustments were made to accommodate summer registration, cashiering, financial aid, faculty appointments, payroll, grade reporting, etc., as well as summer admissions for some graduate students. A web site was established to help provide updated information, and the "summer semester" was included in the College of Extended Learning's summer catalog. Additionally, update reports and discussions took place in the Academic Senate, the Council of Academic Deans, the Advising Center, and individual colleges and departments.

x
The data gathered on Summer Semester 2000 indicate that it was a success. Sixty-seven (67) courses were offered, 640 students participated, and 253 semester FTES were generated. No classes were cancelled, enrollments of matriculated students increased overall in courses previously offered only via the College of Extended Learning, and the average student course load increased from 4.32 units in Summer Session 1999 to 5.93 units in Summer Semester 2000. Based largely on that success, we are now conducting an all-out effort to convert virtually all summer course offerings for matriculated students to a state-supported Summer Semester in 2001 and increase the target FTES to as high as 3000, thus achieving a year-round operation of significant proportions for the first time in our history.

x
In each of the above initiatives, pedagogical considerations have been of paramount importance. We choose courses which can be taught in large classrooms without sacrificing the quality of the teaching/learning environment, so that we can continue to support smaller sections of courses where those are needed for the best educational experience. We support faculty who wish to put their courses on-line with technical assistance aimed at maximizing the students’ interaction with the course material, the instructor, and each other. We take advantage of the enhanced teaching opportunities at real-world locations. In our weekend offerings, we focus on courses in which the time frame contributes to the learning environment. In our state-supported summer session, we are offering a variety of courses and time frames to determine those which are most beneficial to our students and our faculty.

x
FOCUS AREA VI

x
Recommendation: The university should promote and support various teaching and learning strategies. Faculty should receive instruction and support related to the impact of diversity on instructional strategies and the learning process.

x
Implementation: While it is easy to recognize that San Francisco State’s student population is diverse simply by walking across campus or looking around a classroom, modifying instruction to accommodate differences, whether in language, experience, education, preparation, or learning styles, is extremely difficult. Compounding factors at San Francisco State include large class size, commuter-campus status, the number of part-time faculty, and the number of students who work either full- or part-time. Faculty are aware that many SFSU students have difficulty in meeting entry-level standards in mathematics and written English and that they come to the university with a wide range of educational experiences; but few faculty have been trained to teach in ways to address alternative learning styles or to instruct a widely diverse student population.

x
This issue actually encompasses all of the others emanating from the strategic plan regarding teaching and learning. To address alternative learning styles in a diverse student population requires faculty to review teaching practices, increase the use of active participation in the learning process, develop collaborative learning strategies, join theory and practice, and use instructional technology whenever appropriate. The campus has engaged in a variety of activities to support faculty and students in this process, including the following:

x
Providing Faculty Training and Raising Level of Awareness on Issues of Diversity

x
The first step in addressing this recommendation is to make faculty aware of some of the challenges they could face in this situation. This is done through discussions, seminars, workshops, and published literature. All faculty going through the new faculty orientation [http://www.cet.sfsu.edu/new-faculty/resources/index.html] get the benefit of interacting with a panel of students who talk about how they feel in the university environment, what helps them learn, what interferes with their learning, and how the faculty can support them. During the 1999-2000 academic year, the Academic Senate organized a series of lecturer forums. Lecturers who participated in these discussions expressed their concern about not receiving information about the university and its students that would enhance their teaching and interactions with students. One outcome of their recommendations is a new lecturer orientation which occurred for the first time in the Fall 2000 semester. (See Chapter 8 for more details.)

x
Yo! Ya Know??? Let's look back to August 1999. New tenure-track faculty going through a four-day intensive orientation to San Francisco State got their first experience with the diverse student body they will encounter in their classes. A panel of eight students discussed what they think is important for all faculty to know about them. "We’re smart…we’re hungry to learn…we’re going to be in your face to get what we need to be successful!" are examples of their messages. The students talked about their experiences in education and how critical it is for faculty to have high expectations coupled with support for student learning. A major part of the presentation dealt with debunking myths about students, people of color, and what the faculty might expect. New faculty rated the session as "extremely valuable" and "highly recommended for next year’s orientation."

x
Providing Support for Student Learning

x
There are numerous programs and resource centers on campus to support student learning. The faculty and staff in these centers are regarded as experts in meeting diverse needs and accommodating alternative learning styles. Therefore, they get called upon frequently to provide training and support to other faculty and staff. One of the most effective learning resource centers on campus is the Learning Assistance Center (see Chapter 6 for more details); and the staff at this center are an excellent resource to faculty as well as to students. They generously conduct workshops to help faculty address such issues as designing effective writing assignments, providing constructive feedback, constructing tests, and supporting students in the instructional environment. The Learning Assistance Center staff work one-on-one with faculty, provide tutorial services to students, and serve on numerous committees throughout the university to assist the campus community in addressing the needs of the student population. In the Spring 1999 Faculty, Staff, and Administrator Pulse, 72.3% of the respondents agreed that SFSU provides students with necessary learning assistance, such as tutoring, study groups, learning centers, and workshops.

x
Addressing Alternative Learning Styles

x
Any course delivery system that promotes successful learning for all students, requires the faculty to address alternative learning styles. Addressing the learning needs of the student population can take place at the programmatic level as well as at the individual course level. As stated in the introduction of this section, this requires faculty to review teaching practices, increase the use of active participation in the learning process, develop collaborative learning strategies, join theory and practice, and use instructional technology whenever appropriate. In addition to the previously detailed activities developed to assist faculty as they engage their students in active learning, there is also campus support for the development of interdisciplinary programs and assistance for faculty in the development of instructional material.

x
Supporting the Development of Interdisciplinary Programs

x
One strategy for supporting effective learning is to cluster information in a course of study so that it provides a cogent approach to the mastery of the theory and the implementation of the practice. When students are enrolled in a carefully articulated curriculum under the direction of a strong faculty team they are more able to associate learning from the different disciplines to a common situation and can more readily draw inferences from one discipline to another. Interdisciplinary programs are encouraged on this campus and have experienced a high degree of success. See Chapter 2 for more detail.

x
A Glimpse into the Future of Teacher Preparation. Project Include, a dual credential, integrated program that prepares teacher candidates for work in highly diverse, middle-level, general and special education classrooms, offers a glimpse into the future of collaborative teacher preparation. The hallmark of the program is the joint preparation of general and special education teachers accomplished not through the more common route of student enrollment in separate and disparate courses selected from the two programs (general and special education), but rather through the integration of curriculum provided in team-planned and team-taught courses. Project Include's vision is to prepare a new type of teacher who is equipped to take-on the many challenging demands associated with working in inclusive settings.

x
Assisting Faculty in the Development of Instructional Material

x
A very simple, but effective, strategy for addressing alternative learning styles is using a multi-sensory approach to classroom presentations. Even entry-level technology such as PowerPoint has made a tremendous difference for many students. Faculty who outline their lectures, highlight key points, introduce unfamiliar vocabulary, and provide visual references during their class find that their students take better notes, ask more relevant questions, are more organized, and are more engaged in class interactions. CET and Computing Services offer numerous PowerPoint workshops throughout the year. Faculty need electronically enhanced classrooms to display their presentations; and the university has a long range plan for equipping every classroom with projection equipment, Internet connection, and video playback capabilities. The extent to which this is in place is addressed in Chapters 13 and 14.

x
Play and Replay. Mario Laplante, assistant professor of Art, teaches a course in costume design and has collected hundreds of slides illustrating different points in design, construction, presentation, and effect. In a successful attempt to support his students in and outside of the classroom, Mario digitized the slides, added critical information to each one, and uses them in his class to complement his lecture. Once he’s finished a presentation, he puts the slides on the web for students to access at their leisure, to review for exams, and to expand their understanding and appreciation of the course content.

x
Providing Support for Alternative Instructional Delivery Methods

x
A major focus in faculty support has been in the area of multimedia training and on-line teaching. In 1993, Computing Services, based on usage statistics, estimated that fewer than 5% of the faculty used technology to communicate with colleagues and students, to enhance their course delivery, or to increase their own personal productivity. In 1996, when technology training dollars became available, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching initiated a modest training program in multimedia. The overwhelming response from faculty (380 attended the first introductory session) gave rise to the development of a comprehensive training program addressing the use of technology to enhance instruction, communication, and personal productivity.

x

x
The need to support on-line delivery of instruction quickly became a top priority as the faculty recognized the value of this tool to enhance their courses, to promote more effective student learning, and to accommodate alternative learning styles. A survey (Faculty Web Use for Instructional Purposes) to measure the integration of the use of the web into the instructional program was conducted during the Spring and Fall 1998 semesters. The purpose of this survey was to: (a) create benchmarks of SFSU’s web usage for instructional purposes; (b) plan for future Internet needs; (c) compile information necessary to respond to CSU informational surveys and outside evaluators; and (d) recognize faculty using the web to enhance the delivery of their course content. The impact web-based technology has had on almost every aspect of the academic community is reflected in the results of the survey. Forty-two (42%) percent of the respondents on the Spring 1998 survey and forty-one (41%) percent of the respondents on the Fall 1998 survey indicated they had instructionally-related materials on the web, via e-mail, or through electronic conferencing. These surveys also asked faculty to indicate what they needed in terms of support for Internet-delivered classes. This information is factored into the decision-making process regarding software, services, and support.

x
The first fully on-line electronically-delivered course at San Francisco State was developed and taught in the Spring 1996 semester. The method of delivery was via e-mail; and 35 students enrolled in COUN 333, From Classroom to Career, for their first taste of electronic learning. E-mail turned out to be a very cumbersome delivery system, and the campus quickly investigated on-line course delivery systems. Based on input from faculty as to what features were important to them in a delivery system, the decision was made to purchase, install, and provide training on TopClass from WBT Systems, Inc. in Fall 1996. As more on-line delivery tools became available, easier to use, and more accessible, another software product, CourseInfo from Blackboard, Inc., was also purchased and training for faculty and staff initiated. Currently, faculty can choose among three university-supported delivery options (TopClass, CourseInfo, or Web Publishing Tools, an in-house developed product) or create web-based course material on their own. Considering all the options and the nature of the web environment, it is impossible to track all the web-based activity. However, by looking at the number of faculty/courses being offered through the commercially available products during Fall 1999 and Spring 2000, it is easy to see that faculty interest in teaching on-line is increasing.

.

Semester

Fully On-line Courses

Courses with On-line Material

# Faculty

# Students

Fall 1999

10

60

46

1717

Spring 2000

14

55

77

2111

x
Who Knows What? Karen Grove, chair of Geosciences, teaches a lower division GE course with 100 students each semester. Delivering information to a large class is difficult, and knowing whether or not they have read the material to be covered in class beforehand is an important consideration in planning a lecture. Karen has developed an effective strategy to gather this information. Her web site has weekly exercises related to the material they will be covering in class. Students are required to complete the exercises, conduct web searches to gather relevant information, and then take a computer-graded quiz on the material. One hour before class begins, Karen closes the web site, prints out the students’ names and scores, and gets the course delivery software to perform an item analysis on the responses to the questions in the quiz. She goes to class knowing how many students completed the exercises and how well they scored on the test so that she is able to adjust her lecture accordingly. The results? The attrition rate in her class has dropped dramatically; the scores on exams and grades in the course have risen; attendance in class has increased; and, perhaps the most impressive, a significant number of students report that this experience has enticed them to take another higher level course in the discipline.

x
Funding the Development of Alternatively Delivered Course Material

x
The energetic reaction from faculty and the positive evaluations from students have led to more support for faculty who are interested in enhancing their course delivery through the use of technology. The Information Technology Team recommended that $50,000 be set aside each year to call for proposals from faculty seeking time and support to redesign their classes to incorporate technology. These funds are distributed by the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching; and as of the Fall 2000 semester, 83 faculty have received funding under the Technology Enhanced Course Delivery Initiative.

Semester

# Faculty Recipients

Total Funding Awarded

Spring 1997

22

$50,000

Fall 1997

9

$50,000

Spring 1998

12

$50,000

Spring 1999

16

$52,500

Fall 1999

12

$53,500

Fall 2000

12

$50,000

Totals

83

$306,000

x
Providing Faculty Formative and Summative Feedback

x
Formative feedback on web-delivered course organization and presentation is critical if faculty are to respond appropriately to the learning needs of the students. Data are collected on-line from students, summarized, and transmitted to faculty. Support is offered to faculty in the reorganization of their on-line course if modifications are suggested by students. Much of the data reflects how important on-line delivery of course material is to students. In the first on-line student survey, 147 students responded. 129 (88%) indicated that the on-line classroom environment was helpful in the learning of the course content. 54% indicated they would take another class in their discipline offered fully on-line. Students who accessed the course from a home computer comprised 84% of the respondents.

x
Give me more! MATH 60 is a course that students who fail the ELM must take as one of a sequence of remedial courses. Sheldon Axler, chair of the Mathematics Department, offers this course fully on-line through a contractual agreement with the Michigan State Virtual University to 150 students each semester. Knowing that the learning profile of students who fail the ELM does not necessarily match the profile of a successful on-line learner, Axler put a myriad of support structures in place to ensure that students would have a variety of options to seek help. A math lab was installed and tutors hired to be on-call to help students who came to the lab to take the course on-line. Sample tests were placed on-line; and if students scored poorly on the sample, they were required to come to campus for tutoring. A faculty member monitored student progress and was available to tutor, answer questions, and provide guidance to students as they worked through the course material. Students must come to campus for the midterm and final exam and present a photo ID for admission to the tests. Prior to the beginning of the final for the Fall 1999 semester, an informal and formal assessment was conducted of students’ response to taking the course on-line. Out of the 150 students, only 6 indicated they did not like the format and would not take another course on-line. Comments—"It was fantastic…only math, no stories, no wandering, no mindgames…just math! I want all my courses on-line." "This is the first math course that actually made sense to me. I could work the problems over and over again until I understood every point." "The part I like best, other than being able to go to math class in my pajamas, was that it was so focused, so clearly explained, and I knew how much I understood by taking the sample tests." "I missed seeing other people and talking to them about how to work some of the problems that caused me grief." The effectiveness of this on-line course will be evaluated after the first two cohorts take MATH 70.
Their performance in this higher level class will be the objective measuring stick. If their scores match their enthusiasm, then this on-line learning experiment will be considered a tremendous success. (See Chapter 3 for additional information.)

x
Providing Access to Technology for Students Engaged in On-line Learning

x
Student access to technology is a major concern at San Francisco State, and much has been done to ensure that there is equipment available in classes and labs to support the learning requirements related to technology. These efforts are more fully detailed in Chapter 14, but include:

x
• A 24-hour computer lab maintained by computing services located in the library
• College-based labs and classrooms
• A Media Access Center maintained by and located in the library
• An electronic classroom maintained by the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and located in the library
• A computer-mediated communication facility maintained by the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and located in Burk Hall
• Electronically-enhanced classrooms and theaters
• Free Internet accounts for all faculty, staff, and students

x

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

x
During the past three years, administrators, faculty, staff, and students have been involved in planning, prioritizing, operationalizing, implementing, and assessing the way things are done, from classrooms to curriculum and from plant operations to student services. Even while people were taking stock of the current state of affairs, things were being put in place to address many of the areas of weakness discovered in the self-evaluation process. This has resulted in many new and exciting programs, the overhaul of existing programs and processes, planning for innovative approaches to teaching and learning, and the building of an infrastructure that would provide enough support to sustain and be responsive to the increased demand for time, space, resources, and people. Many of the activities have resulted from grass-roots efforts by faculty and students to initiate change. While this results in a significant buy-in from the participants, it does not necessarily mean that the activities can be sustained without a continued commitment from the entire university community.

x
San Francisco State, as do the other CSU campuses, needs to prepare itself for an increase in the number of faculty reaching retirement age; the number of part-time faculty required to maintain and expand existing programs; the demand for technology in the delivery of instruction; the changing face of the student population; and the overwhelming amount of information becoming instantly available to everyone. To meet these challenges requires visionary leadership with a strong support base; a dedicated faculty ready to meet the challenges of change and increased demand; an electronic infrastructure that is designed to be responsive to changing technologies, to the higher level expertise of users, and to increased demand; and a student population that assumes responsibility for its learning.

x
Careful assessment needs to be systematically and consistently applied to programs and to individual components within programs to ascertain their effectiveness and their viability on this campus. Innovative training must be delivered to faculty and administrators to ready them to discharge their responsibilities in this changing world. Expansion of support for student learning must be a high priority if students are to be expected to compete successfully in this rich educational environment.

x
Specific areas of concern and future endeavor include the following:

x
• The technology infrastructure must be upgraded and support expanded as the demand for on-line delivery of courses and course material increases.
• A more coordinated effort at providing support for faculty development must be achieved through cooperative efforts among the various units responsible for initiatives, grants, and service programs (Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, Research and Sponsored Programs, Community Service Learning, Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, and Computing Services).
• Consistent support must be made available for faculty looking to engage in curriculum development and reform.
• The issue of faculty workload must be addressed at the university level (1).
• Continuing and consistent attention to improving teaching must be given at the department level if significant changes are to occur.
• Lecturers and graduate assistants need to have access to training in course development, organization, test construction, and assessment.
• Faculty must be exposed to formative assessment strategies that can be used effectively to make course modifications prior to the summative evaluation stage.
• The recruitment of new faculty should focus on teaching commitment as an important criterion for employment.
• Department chairs and deans must support faculty in their efforts to enhance their teaching.

x
(1) See the comments of President Corrigan on the workload issue in Chapter 8. 

x

Return to Section C: A Learning-Centered University | Return to Accreditation | SFSU Home | Top of page