In a recent strategic planning exercise, the Division of Academic Affairs articulated three ideas in a Vision for Excellence–a core purpose, core values and an identity–that express important dimensions of CSULB’s goals and aspirations. These ideas continue to be the focus of campus discussion. In the document’s vision of the future, “CSULB is committed to being an outstanding teaching-intensive research-driven university that emphasizes student engagement, scholarly and creative achievement, civic participation, and global perspectives.” (Please see Appendix A.)
Our core purpose, “To Graduate Students with Highly Valued Degrees,” expresses our acceptance of responsibility beyond merely delivering instruction to doing all that we can to see that students learn well. The core purpose further emphasizes that our responsibility includes being attentive to many curricular and logistical issues to ensure that the coursework completed by students leads to a timely degree. Finally, and importantly, this phrase expresses the idea that CSULB degrees will be highly valued by students, by the faculty who award the degree, by employers, by graduate schools, by specialized accrediting bodies, by the public, and by the state legislature that provides funding for the campus. CSULB has embarked on a campaign to enhance student success, defined in terms of specific learning objectives, demonstrated persistence, timely graduation, campus life engagement, participation in faculty-directed research, and development of lifelong learning.
Our core values, “Opportunity, Diversity, and Excellence,” express our pride in academic excellence and recognition as a top public masters university. This has been recently demonstrated by US News and World Report which ranked CSULB as a first tier regional master’s university, and by Princeton Review as the third best value public institution in the nation. CSULB is also proud of the opportunity it provides as a pathway to success for a diverse student population, many from underrepresented and first-generation backgrounds.
“A Teaching-Intensive, Research-Driven University” captures our sense of identity. We are keenly aware of our core responsibility for teaching a diverse population of students. Our excellent faculty teacher-scholars enact vibrant scholarly and creative agendas that enrich our classrooms and add high value to the degrees we award. We believe that excellent teaching at the university level requires a faculty of active scholars. At the same time, we understand that we are the pathway to education and opportunity for many diverse young Californians and that these young people do and will continue to command our time and attention.
In 2002, the WASC visiting team noted that CSULB displays a remarkable atmosphere of collegiality and trust. The team noted that this sense of shared identity and feeling of community is especially noteworthy as it exists within a very large university with a highly diverse environment: “The focus on students, expressed in multiple ways, is an institutional strength. The senior administration is clearly in touch with student concerns.”1 In the Action letter of July 8, 2002, the Senior Commission reaffirmed accreditation and endorsed the recommendations of the visiting team's report. This Proposal contains three core commitments, two of which respond directly to the recommendations contained in WASC’s Action Letter.
The visiting team encouraged the campus to be more systematic in its approaches to assessing student learning and use data to support change where needed. “While there are academic areas on campus that have defined student learning goals and developed approaches to assess the attainment of such goals, such activities are not yet widespread or part of campus academic expectations.”
The Commission noted that the work the University has done to create a new General Education program organized into three levels: Foundations, Exploration, and Capstone. The Action Letter noted, “The model is convincing and has a strong underlying rationale.” At the same time the Commission reminded the University that “…it must also incorporate learning goals and assessment into the evolving program to help ensure that it meets its potential.”(Letter from Ralph Wolff, Executive Director of WASC, to Robert Maxson, then-President of CSULB Dated July 8, 2002 )
These two issues relate to program review and assessment, especially the inclusion of learning outcomes as part of an ongoing process. CSULB has completely reorganized its program review processes and procedures to ensure that every program review is followed by a Memorandum of Understanding between the academic unit, the college dean, and the Office of Academic Affairs. These Memoranda of Understanding specify exactly what actions will be taken by which parties along a predetermined time line. These subsequent actions always include learning outcomes assessment. Every college has been provided funds for an Assessment Coordinator, and departments are encouraged to apply for resources to develop learning outcomes assessment processes, including General Education outcomes. Learning outcomes for General Education, as well as a plan for assessment of learning in the General Education program, are central components of a major revision of the General Education policy that will come before the Academic Senate in 2006-2007. The Office of Academic Affairs links program review, the actions specified in the Memoranda of Understanding, and increased learning outcomes assessment to resource allocations, particularly to the authorization for new faculty positions. Thus the first two issues, as defined in WASC’s Action Letter, have been addressed. The thrust of one part of our self-study will be to assess the effectiveness of our revised processes and procedures in the key areas of General Education, student learning outcomes, and assessment.
Pursuant to the concerns expressed in the Action Letter, the Office of Academic Affairs conducted extensive consultation with the academic community and reorganized its structure to better focus on learning outcomes. In addition, the Office revised its goals and developed its own vision statement. Further, the Academic Senate reviewed its governance structure and, following a two-year extended discussion, restructured its councils and committees to better reflect the needs of the campus. Specifically, councils engaged in program review have been combined and reorganized to make these reviews more effective, and cross-membership between councils and the Academic Senate has been institutionalized. The challenge to our self-study is to devise ways to measure whether focus on the improvement of both learning these changes in structure have been effective in aligning its systems and structures to better carry out and evaluate decisions. In an institution of our size, the challenge is to allow sufficient flexibility to academic units to develop their own individuality while, at the same time, ensuring that all units focus on the improvement of both learning outcomes and learning outcomes assessment. We address the recommendations from the Visiting Team Report, Page 43 in Appendix B.
