CSUS Home Page

WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

SELF-STUDY FOR REACCREDITATION

California State University, Sacramento

Phase II Report

March 15, 1997

Table of Contents

Preface

Responses to Review Team Requests for Additional Documentation

Desired Student Outcomes
Survey Instruments

ACT-COS Graduating Student Teaching and Learning Survey
ACT Alumni Survey
Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS)
ACT-COS Non-Returning (Withdrawing) Student Survey
General Education Survey on Teaching and Learning
CASPER Surveys
Assessment of General Education Race and Ethnicity Courses

Non-Survey Sources of Data
Remaining Issues

Desired Student Outcomes
3.1 Overall Perception
3.2 Perception of General Education
3.3 Perception of Major
3.4 Perception of Faculty Teaching Practices
3.5 Perception of Intellectual Stimulation
3.6 Perception of Library and Information Resources
Concluding Thoughts

Desired Student Outcomes
4.1 Critical Thinking Skills
4.2 Information Skills
4.3 Communication Skills
4.4 Quantitative Skills
4.5 Pre-professional Skills
4.6 Retention and Graduation
Concluding Thoughts

Desired Student Outcomes
5.1 Cultural Diversity
5.2 Intellectual Tolerance
5.3 Racial Integration
5.4 Non-Discrimination
5.5 Sense of Belonging
5.6 Access to Faculty
5.7 Administrative/Student Support
5.8 Career Assistance
5.9 Facilities and Services
5.10 Advising
Concluding Thoughts

The Institutional Commitment: University Assessment Model
Link Among Assessment, Planning, and Budget
Using Evidence to Build Institutional Effectiveness:
Actions Taken in Response to Assessment Findings

Teaching and Learning Theme

Class Schedule
Learning Communities
Technical, Communication and Research Skills
Use of Technology in Teaching
Service Learning
Other responses

Campus Life Theme

Student/University Relationship
Student Centeredness
Information on Campus Events
Student Input to Decision-making
Campus Environment
Student Support Services

Enrollment Planning Theme

University enrollment management
School-based retention
Entrance requirements
Writing Proficiency Examination
Schedule Improvements

Pluralism Theme

Retention
Campus climate
Staff development

Academic Programs Theme

Distance education
Outcomes assessment
Regional emphasis of programs

Public Life and Capital Campus Themes

Intercollegiate Athletics
Regional partnerships
State capital partnerships

Faculty Scholarship Theme

Academic Program Assessment Initiatives

Government
French
German
Spanish
Biological Sciences
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology

Nonacademic Program Assessment Initiatives

Procurement Services

Faculty Evaluation
Current Infrastructure to Support Student Outcomes Assessment in Academic Programs

Role of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
Role of Institutional Studies
General Education

The Infrastructure: Additional Plans for the Future

Preface

The history of accreditation on this campus, as is probably the case with most others, is a

history of compliance, not culture change. What usually happens is that a comprehensive

inventory of the thousands of parts of the whole is submitted in a report approximating the

size of a large metropolitan telephone directory. Everyone treats the exercise with the

gravity usually accorded a major IRS audit, but this is pretense--which all parties to the

ritual charade understand at least at some level. Absent huge and unmistakable felonies, the

accrediting agency accepts the document with the implicit understanding that reaffirmation

will be forthcoming along with a few recommended tweaks in academic policy that do no

serious damage to deeply vested interests. After much self-congratulation all around and a

decent interval, everything settles back into pleasant slumber for another seven or so years.

For whatever reasons, WASC and CSU, Sacramento entered into a highly unusual

bargain for the current accreditation effort, one that could not come at a more critical

moment in the history of higher education. The terms of the agreement, simply put, are

that the campus could forego "writing to the nine standards" that have been at the heart of

the compliance model for decades, and which usually produce a counting house document

presenting a detailed picture of a good many trees, while leaving the forest virtually

unexamined.

By sharp contrast, this campus was permitted to design its own approach centering on

several "pressure points" within the academic enterprise and to write a relatively brief

document that focused on highlights and left detail to an Appendix. This represents

nothing less than a paradigm shift in accreditation.

The assumption was that in accreditation reports, not unlike architecture, less is more. By

identifying and trying to develop a deep understanding of those aspects of the university

that are at the center of a student's intellectual development, we would be doing something

more worthwhile than the traditional effort, which can be likened to the Powder River in

that it is three miles wide and only about an inch deep. Beyond anything else, our

experimental approach was to move toward building a culture of evidence that presumably

could serve as the foundation of cultural change in the broadest sense.

This experimental path, we have discovered, has not always been smooth. Those

doubtful of the approach, while not huge in number, are nonetheless vocal. There are

those who feel that the Self-Study slighted their particular areas of interest (research and

scholarship come to mind). Others are concerned about the report's extensive use of survey

data, which, measures attitude and perception rather than behavior, not to mention those

who feel the draft report did not sufficiently address our academic programs, the center of

the campus enterprise. There is some concern about the prospects for lasting change on the

campus from a focus on building a culture of evidence for WASC Self-Study, a concern

also raised by some members of the WASC team.

For those who feel that important areas of university life were left unexamined, one can

only argue that what we have done at the macro level will pave the way for a far more

useful inquiry into the micro than has usually been the case in the past. For instance,

scholarship and research, at least at a teaching institution such as CSU, Sacramento,

probably is most usefully explored within the context of larger questions, such as how well

students are served on the campus. We have now begun to answer some of those

questions and to do so in ways that may move us beyond the usual terms of debate over

research/scholarship vs teaching, an intellectual cul de sac that has served no one well.

As for the survey methodology which is at the heart of the current study, one has to

begin somewhere if we are to get beyond the culture of anecdote that prevails on this

campus, particularly in the realm of teaching effectiveness. The WASC survey of

graduating seniors, to take only one example, is the first such survey in the university's

history. Already it has provided useful data to departments undergoing review and to a

working group of faculty exploring the effectiveness of teaching at CSUS, and it will

provide a benchmark for future surveys, which is the first step in building any culture of

evidence. To be sure, such surveys measure perception not reality, but to the degree that

what is believed is thought to be true, perception becomes reality--and therefore we'd best

be aware of what our students and alumni think is true. Finally, in this regard, if we

understand the dominant anthropological approach correctly, assessment of culture must

precede any attempts to plan for change. We have begun that assessment.

The absence of judgments about quality of programs in the draft report is not an

inconsequential complaint. That said, we had neither the resources not charge to judge

program quality in any meaningful sense at the macro level. We did feel we had sufficient

resources and information to raise significant questions about our programs and

performance that cannot help but lead to questions of quality in future inquiry, and these are

included at the end of each chapter. At the micro level, we assumed that including student

outcomes assessment in our program review process, for which the current WASC process

was directly responsible, would bring into sharper focus questions of programmatic

quality.

Although they are not always readily apparent, perhaps most exciting about the WASC

experience are the prospects for cultural change which it has made possible. Where

previous accreditations have led to changes in specific programs (e.g., General Education),

there is every reason to believe that the one now underway could lead to much broader

cultural change. In this regard, the experimental WASC approach has served as an

incubator for some insignificant and long overdue initiatives.

Whether or not these "ripples" are sufficient to impress the WASC team, what must be

understood is that "ripples" they are, and far greater so than any of which I'm aware from

past accreditation efforts. One "ripple" effect that may prove the most important of all in

the long term, yet is virtually impossible to demonstrate, is the reality that the experimental

approach has profoundly changed the nature of the conversation at CSUS. For instance,

instead of asking whether we have enough computers and parking spaces, we're beginning

to ask whether there is any evidence that we've made a substantive difference in the lives of

our students. I think we've taken some important steps to make certain the conversation

continues, but, finally, whether it continues or not will have far more to do with the

willingness of people to engage in change than whether we can create new agencies for

affecting it. We've got more of a chance now than we had before the most recent WASC

exercise, and I'll settle for that. After all, life's not an insurance company.

Comments of Professor William Dorman
WASC Steering Committee Member
January 1997