Fall 2009
7. Effectiveness of Data Gathering and Analysis Systems
8. Proposal Data Tables
9. Off-Campus and Distance Education Degree Programs
10. Institutional Stipulations
1. Institutional Context
The California state legislature established Sonoma State College in 1960. The college opened in temporary quarters in Rohnert Park in fall 1961 with an enrollment of 265 upper-division students. The college's elementary education, psychology, and counseling programs were the principal offerings. The college grew steadily, developing academic programs based in the traditional liberal arts and sciences as well as in career and professional programs, all the while emphasizing close student-faculty interaction. The college moved to its present 274 acre site in 1966. Located at the foot of the Sonoma hills in Sonoma County, the campus is approximately one hour north of San Francisco and 40 minutes away from the Pacific Ocean. New facilities have been constructed and extensive landscaping has been accomplished over the years, creating one of the most attractive, modern and well-equipped campuses in the state. In 1978, university status was granted and the name was changed to Sonoma State University. The university now enrolls more than 8,000 students and offers 42 bachelor's degrees, 15 master's degrees, 9 teaching, specialist and service credentials, and one joint-doctorate in Educational Administration (with CSU Sacramento and UC Davis). We have five schools: Arts and Humanities, Business and Economics, Education, Science and Technology, and Social Sciences.
SSU's mission is to prepare students to be learned men and women who:
- Have a foundation for lifelong learning,
- Have a broad cultural perspective,
- Have a keen appreciation of intellectual and aesthetic achievements,
- Will be leaders and active citizens,
- Are capable of pursuing fulfilling careers in a changing world, and
- Are concerned with contributing to the health and well-being of the world at large.
SSU is fully accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges since 1963. In addition, individual program accreditation has been granted by the American Chemical Society, the National Association of Schools of Music, the National League for Nursing, and National Association for Schools of Art and Design, and the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. Programs in SSU's School of Education are approved by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education.
The University is also a member of the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (COPLAC), an association of public colleges and universities whose primary mission is ensuring that a fine undergraduate liberal arts and sciences education is available to students in the public systems of higher education. SSU is the only California member of COPLAC.
In the past 40 years Sonoma State University has transitioned from a satellite of San Francisco State University loosely connected to the community to a key resource for the region and the campus of destination for freshmen from all of California. SSU is primarily a traditional age campus, and nearly one-half of the undergraduate student population lives in the residence halls on campus. As the facilities and infrastructure change with the construction of the Green Music Center, the university is poised to become a major cultural resource for the area. The current connection with the community has grown into a dynamic relationship in which students, faculty, organizations and industry benefit from their interactions with the university.
In the early 1990's SSU was primarily a transfer institution, but was increasingly affected by shifting enrollment patterns. Throughout the state and particularly in our region, the number of transfer students decreased. Additionally, because of its location and its local demographics, SSU was unable to recruit a sufficiently large freshman class from its immediate six county region. The university, under the leadership and vision of a new president, shifted to a statewide freshman recruitment effort and began to develop its image as a destination campus with a strong liberal arts and sciences identity. At the same time, the university embarked on an ambitious effort to build new student housing and to enhance the co-curricular activities for student residents. The campus now houses over 2,600 residents, which is one of the CSUs highest percentages of students living on campus. Because SSU is located in a suburban, bedroom community, students have long complained that there are limited activities available to them in the local region. Thus, increased efforts to develop activities on the campus have been made, including the opening of a new recreation center.
In some respects, the curriculum and academic programs have not kept pace with the changing nature of the SSU student body. In the early 1990's the Educational Mentoring Team Program and a freshman seminar course were developed to address the needs of the lower division entry level freshman. However, the general education program has remained relatively unchanged from its original role of primarily serving upper division transfer students and a small freshman student population. Of primary importance to the university at this point in its history is maintaining its excellent tradition of a strong liberal arts and sciences education, while addressing the emerging needs of a expanding, younger student body. General education and its reform is currently a primary topic of interest and dialogue on the campus.
Since the last WASC accreditation visit in 1999, executive and financial administration leadership has remained stable, but academic and student affairs leadership has experienced significant change and restructuring. Dr. Eduardo M. Ochoa became the Provost, Chief Academic Officer and Vice President for Academic Affairs in the summer of 2003. Dr. Rand Link, Vice President for Student Affairs, has announced his retirement after 35 years of service to SSU, in August 2005. He will be replaced by Dr. Katharyn Crabbe, who also oversees the Enrollment and Student Academic Services (ESAS). ESAS and Student Affairs have merged into a new division of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management. Two new school deans have been selected: Dr. James Robertson, Business and Economics, in 2004, and Dr. Mary Gendernalik-Cooper, Education, in July 2005. A new position, Vice Provost of Academic Affairs, has been created, merging faculty affairs, academic programs and graduate studies under the leadership of Dr. Carol Blackshire-Belay, who assumed the new position on July 1, 2005. Finally, a new Vice President of University Affairs, Mr. Dan Condron, began work also in July 2005 and reports directly to the university president.
Instability in state funding over the past two years has resulted in a higher Student Faculty Ratio (SFR) and less academic funding support. This is a potential threat to our mission and values and the way we teach and mentor students. Additionally, SSU is slated to grow by 1,830 full-time equivalent students (FTES) in the next five years. This aggressive growth plan will strain resources, physical plant capabilities, and affect recruitment efforts of students and faculty. There will be need for more residence halls, expanded residential life, co-curricular activities, student development efforts, and recreation. To address the latter, the new state-of-the-art student recreation center opened its doors in the fall of 2004, fully funded by student fees.
The challenges facing SSU will need to be addressed in our university-wide strategic planning process, begun in the fall of 2004. The University Strategic Planning Committee (USPC) will play a key role in addressing the challenges and insuring that SSU's plan for the future embraces the mission and goals of the university by strategically aligning resources to meet the challenges ahead. The USPC has completed its review of the external environment and the internal resources and structure of SSU, for the purpose of assessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing our university. Ten key macro issues have been identified that SSU will need to address in the coming two to five years.
SSU's last re-accreditation visit was in 1999, followed by a 5th year focused visit in 2004. The issues raised by both visits in the commission letters and how SSU has addressed those issues are as follows:
Assessment of Educational Effectiveness
SSU is engaged in assessment of student learning in order to achieve educational effectiveness. The 5th year WASC letter clearly stated the Commission's expectation that the university "build its capacity to integrate results and actions from program review into the design of academic programs and the development of student learning outcomes. To meet that expectation, all academic programs have developed student learning outcomes for the major as well as assessment mechanisms that measure achievement of these outcomes. In the fall of 2004 all departments submitted an annual assessment report. From the data gathered, the Faculty Assessment Coordinator and Associate Vice Provost for Academic Programs developed a rubric that placed departments in one of three categories: beginning, developing, or competent. The initial review placed 25 departments in the beginning category; 14 in the developing category; and 15 in the competent stage. Meetings in each of the major schools were held to discuss the assessment reports, the rubric and how departments could move forward in their assessment activities. Departments were then asked to submit 3-year assessment plans, as well as their second annual assessment report to the Provost. These plans are due at the beginning of the fall 2005 term and will form the basis for assessment activities to support academic program review. The new program review protocol, which focuses on educational effectiveness and student learning, was developed and reviewed by the Academic Senate and the Educational Policies Committee and will be implemented in the fall of 2005. Working in consultation with the School Deans, a schedule of program review has been developed that assures that all departments will undergo program review between 2005 and 2009. The Faculty Assessment Coordinator position, which the 5th year WASC team noted was slated to be eliminated, has been renewed and continues to support departments and schools in their assessment efforts.
Alignment Of Institutional Priorities With Mission
In the 5th year WASC visit letter, the Commission noted an on-going concern: "Will Sonoma State engage in ongoing institution-wide planning and devise ways to measure effectiveness in fulfilling its planning goals?" The Commission was encouraged that the campus was receptive to institutional planning for the purposes of informed decision-making and that Academic Affairs had made progress on developing a division-wide planning process, including a mission, goals and vision statement with accompanying strategic initiatives. After the 5th year WASC visit and receipt of the Commission letter, SSU formed the University Strategic Planning Committee (USPC) and began a serious institution-wide effort to focus on institutional purposes, educational objectives, and appropriate alignment of fiscal and physical resources with long-range planning. The USPC is a university-wide steering committee, chaired by the Provost and the Chief Financial Officer. Membership includes the President; the Cabinet; and key academic, fiscal, student affairs, faculty, and student leaders. Under the expert guidance of an outside facilitator and using the mission statement of the university as a guide, the USPC has developed ten key issues that face the university, which have been circulated widely to the university community for input and feedback. Briefly, these macro issues are: enrollment growth and management; the Green Music Center; human resources issues; the budget; residential campus life; technology; communication and transparency; academic quality; external relations; and diversity. From these ten issues, a strategic plan and initiatives will be developed, which will then be aligned appropriately with resource allocation.
Currently, strategic planning activities are underway in each of the five academic schools (Arts and Humanities, Business and Economics, Education, Science and Technology, and Social Sciences), as well as in the Library, Extended Education, and the newly constituted Student Affairs and Enrollment Management (SAEM) Division.
Improving the Climate for Diversity
As the Commission's 5th year letter notes, SSU "has taken seriously the issue of creating a more welcoming and inclusive community." The work of Enrollment and Student Academic Services and the Campus Climate Committee continues to be pivotal in addressing recruitment, retention, and the campus climate for underrepresented students. One example is the CAMP program that supports the recruitment of nontraditional students from migrant camps. The Commission verified that SSU's commitment and practices in increasing and promoting diversity are compliant with the WASC standards. However, SSU continues to work on ways to further support underrepresented students in both their curricular and co-curricular activities. For example, a Diversity Vision Statement poster was put up in every classroom fall 2005. Activities such as SSU's involvement with the Roseland University Preparatory charter school located in the most highly diverse community of Sonoma County and SSU's partnership with Solano Community College are initiatives that continue SSU's commitment to diversity and to sustained involvement in the diverse communities of our region. These initiatives provide both opportunity to provide outreach to the community and to enhance SSU's diversity recruitment efforts. Additionally, SSU actively seeks to enhance the diversity of its faculty, administration, and staff. One effort that will support SSU's ability to attract a more diverse faculty pool is the faculty housing initiative, which will offer moderately priced housing to new faculty in an increasingly high cost market. This housing incentive can make SSU more competitive in recruiting excellent faculty from diverse backgrounds.
General Education And The "Marks" Of The SSU Student Experience
The 5th year WASC visiting team expressed concern about assessment efforts in General Education but acknowledged the difficult work that SSU has undertaken in the reform effort in GE. SSU's attention has been focused on the reform of General Education (GE) and the implementation of a 6 point plan for full GE reform. The first point of the plan, the development of a first year experience (FYE), will be implemented as a pilot project in fall 2006. This multidisciplinary course combines general education foundation skills courses in critical thinking and written communication with the student development, advising, mentoring, and co-curricular components of the freshman seminar. Students will attend weekly large lectures on topics that cover a range of disciplines under an "umbrella" theme and then break into small seminar classes of 15 to reflect, write, and critically evaluate the lectures and readings. A faculty coordinator and teaching faculty have been selected for the pilot and are developing the curriculum for the course in the fall of 2005. In the spring of 2006, they will receive training in seminar skills, cross-training in writing and critical thinking instruction, and in the area of student development. The faculty coordinator and faculty of the FYE Pilot are also developing assessment strategies and exploring the use of electronic portfolio for assessment of student learning outcomes. The FYE Pilot structure will also be evaluated and the assessment data and evaluation analysis will be reviewed for determining if the first year experience receives full implementation.
SSU has been invited to submit a full proposal for the Ford Foundation's Difficult Dialogues: Promoting Pluralism and Academic Freedom on Campus grant initiative. If successful, the grant will provide substantial funding for the FYE Pilot, including support for curriculum development, faculty training and in-service, and assessment and evaluation. Additionally, SSU has submitted an application to become a part of AAC&U's initiative, Shared Futures: General Education for Global Learning, a national network of 16 colleges and universities. The goal of this initiative is to utilize global issues as an organizing framework for creating coherent, integrated GE programs that prepare students for active citizenship in a world of global change and interdependence. The initiative's goals and objectives clearly match the mission, goals and objectives of SSU's GE Program and support the work that SSU has begun in GE reform and defining the signature of our liberal arts and sciences education.
Dialogue has also begun on the important work of defining the "mark" of an SSU undergraduate liberal arts and sciences education. A team of faculty and administrators attended the AAHE/WASC workshop on institutional assessment in January 2005 and returned with a plan for the dialogue and discussion on the outcomes of an SSU education. A very large team of 20 faculty and administrators, funded by the Division of Academic Affairs, attended the annual AAC&U conference in San Francisco in January 2005. This cohort of faculty attendees will help facilitate the dialogue and discussion around the aims and mission of a liberal education. An academic affairs council retreat in the summer of 2005 centered around a discussion of the AAC&U's publication, Taking Responsibility for the Baccalaureate, in order to begin the dialogue about the mark of an SSU education in the academic schools under the leadership of the school deans. Finally, the Office of Institutional Research piloted the Rand Corporation's Collegial Learning Assessment (CLA) in the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005. The CLA is an authentic assessment of student writing, critical thinking, and analytical reasoning. Freshmen and seniors were sampled.
Institutional Commitment to Sustained Follow-Up
The Commission's 5th year letter expressed concern that insufficient progress had been made in the vital areas of student learning and educational effectiveness. The preceding discussion addresses progress that has been made since the 5th year WASC team visit in these key areas. Clearly, SSU is demonstrating a strong institutional commitment to sustained follow-up through the implementation of permanent institutional structures that ensure on-going strategic planning, program review, GE reform, and commitment to the core mission of the university through the development of a signature liberal arts and sciences undergraduate education. Assessment of student learning has become a key component of academic program review and of the work of the GE reform initiative. Analysis of data, benchmarking and development of key indicators of institutional effectiveness are increasingly a part of informed decision-making at all levels of the university. Some examples include using student-faculty ratios by department at SSU compared to CSU averages, the 2004 National Study of Instructional Cost and Productivity report, the 80% tenure track to 20% temporary faculty goal for each department, and using CIRP and YFCY data compared to other public 4-year colleges and universities.
2. Description of Outcomes
SSU's primary institutional goal for the re-accreditation process is to become an intentional, reflective and evidence-based learning organization. SSU is intent on achieving its core mission of being a premier public liberal arts and sciences university. The university is engaging in strategic planning that is intentional, consistent, and mission-driven, and will result in aligning priorities with resources. The university is utilizing a program review protocol that allows for self-study through student learning outcomes assessment and provides departments with data for making informed decisions about educational effectiveness. The university is engaging the faculty in fulfillment of SSU's mission through all phases of a faculty member's academic life: recruitment, hiring, orientation, RTP, and on-going faculty development that sustains excellence and fosters innovation. The university is using assessment and evidence for reflection and improvement. The university is developing and providing effective means of communication to enhance dialogue, reflection, and understanding of the core values that underlies SSU's educational objectives. Specific institutional outcomes of the accreditation review process include:
Outcome One
Develop and utilize indicators of performance, such as a set of functional categories for budgetary purposes; analysis of student-faculty ratio (SFR) longitudinal data to aid in alignment of resource allocations; and benchmarking of financial and other data from other CSUs and other similar institutions (COPLAC).
Outcome Two
Define the signature of an SSU education, including the roles of GE and the major, by engaging the campus community in conversation and dialogue that takes as its initial texts for discussion AAC&U's Greater Expectations Report and Taking Responsibility for the Baccalaureate
Outcome Three
Conduct program review for all academic programs and develop a comprehensive process for review of co-curricular and other non-academic programs.
Outcome Four
Use assessment data and evidence as a basis for reflection and improvement.
Outcome Five
Develop a faculty orientation and mentoring program for new faculty that provides them with a deeper understanding of the collective mission of the university, that engages them in assessment to support improved teaching and learning, and that supports them in the uses of academic technology in enhancing teaching and learning.
3. Constituency Involvement
In January 2005 SSU sent a team of faculty leaders, administrators, and academic deans to the WASC Workshop for Institutions with Upcoming Reviews. At the opening spring semester university convocation in late January, the Academic Senate Chair, who had attended the workshop, directed her opening remarks to the importance of the accreditation process. At the Convocation, attendees were asked to engage in the "What Really Matters" exercise and their responses were collected, collated and shared with the Accreditation Review Steering Committee (ARSC), which was created in the spring 2005 semester.
The ARSC is co-chaired by Dr. Eduardo Ochoa, Provost, and Dr. Andy Merrifield, professor of Political Science. Also on the committee are two students, five faculty members, the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President for Administration and Finance, three administrators, and one staff member. Faculty members interested in serving on the ARSC were invited to submit applications and selection was made by the Provost based upon recommendations made by the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate. The student positions were selected by the Associated Students, and the staff and administrative members were appointed by the Provost and the Vice President for Administration and Finance. The ARSC met six times during the spring semester 2005 in two-three hour meetings and continued to work throughout the summer via email communications. The ARSC received the following charge:
- Develop a process for community input into the institutional proposal;
- Select a format for the proposal and the themes of the proposal;
- Formulate expected outcomes of the review process for SSU;
- Delegate work on tasks to others and monitor its progress;
- Complete the proposal and meet the submission deadline of October 15, 2005.
The Provost informs the President regularly on progress toward a proposal for WASC. The President also kept the ARSC aware of his primary focus on educating the whole student through retention, graduation, and student satisfaction. The SSU Portfolio was designed during the spring 2005 semester to be an interactive on-line forum and data repository. It is linked directly to the SSU homepage. It will reflect the entire WASC process from the proposal through the Preparatory and Capacity Review and the Educational Effectiveness Review.
The Co-Chairs sent an email in early April to the entire campus community updating them on the progress made to date by the ARSC. The university community was invited to a public forum on April 28, 2005, facilitated by the ARSC Co-Chairs. Over 100 faculty, students, and staff attended the public forum and provided input and comment on the potential themes for the WASC self-study. Updates of the WASC preparations were reported at each spring 2005 meeting of the Academic Senate. The ARSC incorporated the comments from the public forum and selected the theme of "Educating the whole student: Sustaining SSU's mission in a time of change." There are four sub-themes that include the signature of an SSU education; the curriculum; the co-curriculum and residential life; the faculty; and the role of diversity. Over the summer of 2005 two writers selected by the ARSC, the Associate Vice President of Institutional Research, and the Associate Vice Provost for Academic Programs and WASC Accreditation Liaison Officer, were assigned the task of preparing an outline for the institutional proposal and then writing a first draft. The draft of the institutional proposal was commented upon by the ARSC and then a revised draft was posted to the SSU Portfolio for dissemination to the entire campus community.
Attendees at the Fall University Convocation on August 22, 2005 received an abstract of the proposal and information on accessing the full proposal draft on the SSU Portfolio website. The ARSC also solicited comments on the draft from the Academic Senate and its standing committees and subcommittees; the President's Budget Advisory Committee; the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee; the Presidents' Cabinet; the University Strategic Planning Committee; the Campus Reengineering Committee, the Student Affairs and Enrollment Management Division; and the Associated Students. Individuals were invited to submit comments and suggestions directly through the on-line interactive forum on the SSU Portfolio website. The comment period ended on September 15, 2005, and comments were reviewed and incorporated into the second draft of the institutional proposal by October 1, 2005. The ARSC met and reviewed the second draft and the final version of the institutional proposal was submitted to WASC by October 15, 2005.
4. Approach for the Capacity and Preparatory Review
The Capacity and Preparatory Review will demonstrate how SSU fulfills the Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity, that is, the institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures and processes to fulfill its purposes. This is an opportunity to identify and display our culture of evidence through the SSU portfolio, an electronic data base that has been designed to not only fulfill the requirements of accreditation, but to also continue to provide the university community with data and evidence that will support decision-making processes. It is through the capacity and preparatory review that institution will demonstrate the primary outcome of its accreditation process that of becoming a reflective, evidence-based, and intentional organization.
To begin the review process, the university community will complete the exercise, "Worksheet for Preliminary Self-Review under the Standards," during the fall 2005 semester. Using existing university committees and faculty governance structures, the following groups will respond to the standards, paying particular attention to those that appropriately fall within their purview, as illustrated below:
- ARSC, Cabinet, Senate Executive Committee, USPC (ALL)
- Campus Reengineering Committee (CFRs 1.8, 3.5)
- Educational Policies Committee (CFRs 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 4.4, 4.8)
- Faculty Standards and Affairs Committee (CFRs 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9)
- General Education Sub-Committee (CFRs 2.2, 2.5)
- Graduate Studies Sub-Committee (CFRs 2.2, 2.5)
- Professional Development Sub-Committee (CFR 3.4)
- Academic Planning Committee (CFR 4.1)
- Campus Climate Committee (CFR 1.1, 1.5, 2.2, 2.13, 3.2)
- Associated Students (CFR 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14)
The ARSC will identify key areas of concern for improvement in order to develop a work plan to allow the campus community to address these issues before the Capacity and Preparatory Review. The electronic data portfolio "SSU Portfolio" will include all required data exhibits, the Capacity and Preparatory Review Report, elective data exhibits, and appropriate links to data, documents, policies and procedures for each of the Criteria for Review under the four WASC Standards. The SSU Portfolio will illustrate SSU's compliance with the WASC Standards, as well as how the institution utilizes data for continuous improvement and educational effectiveness.
In the Fall of 2006, teams will begin the process of writing reflective essays addressing each of the four standards. This process will be monitored by the ARSC and these essays will form the foundation of the Capacity and Preparatory Review, which will be submitted to WASC in late 2007, prior to the spring 2008 Capacity and Preparatory Review team visit.
5. Approach for the Educational Effectiveness Review
Sonoma State University has selected a thematic approach to the educational effectiveness review. The theme of "Educating the Whole Student: Sustaining SSU's Mission in a Time of Change" provides the university with a compelling lens through which to view the institution. SSU places the student at the core of its mission, and the thematic approach allows SSU to engage the entire university community in the primary enterprise of our institution. This over-arching theme provides an umbrella under which several related sub-themes can be explored, including (1) the signature or "mark" of an SSU graduate; (2) the curriculum and student learning outcomes of GE and the major, which will form the foundation of SSU's signature education; (3) the co-curriculum and residential life, both key components in creating the mark of an SSU graduate;(4) the faculty's roles and responsibilities in teaching, scholarship, mentoring and advising; and (5) the value of diversity in educating the whole student.
Each of the sub-themes lends itself to a series of outcomes that are measurable and achievable in the time frame of the WASC reaccreditation process. They are also outcomes that the University is committed to achieving in pursuit of its intention of fulfilling the goal of becoming a premier public liberal arts and sciences university.
Before selecting a thematic approach to the educational effectiveness review, the steering committee explored all four of the WASC recommended strategies for self-study. The special themes format
- enables the university to explore a major topic that addresses our primary needs;
- focuses on a comprehensive evaluation and review, involving all sectors of the university;
- provides a rich topic for evidence gathering, analysis, reflection, dialogue, and intentional improvement;
- engages in a theme that resonates with the commitment and passion of members of the university community; and
- provides a theme that is of vital importance to the university at a time of change, growth and renewal.
Once the steering committee determined that SSU would use the thematic approach, we systematically began to evaluate several possible themes. At the Public Forum held to solicit campus wide input on the themes, it became apparent that the theme of educating the whole student resonated strongly with the attendees. And, in the final review of the possible thematic approaches, many of the concerns elicited regarding other themes could readily be subsumed under the sub-themes of educating the whole student. As SSU's President Ruben Arminana writes, "This campus is student-centered, and our faculty and staff have three main goals: student satisfaction, retention, and graduation" (SSU Catalog 2004-2006). It is not surprising that the Accreditation Review Steering Committee embraced the theme of educating the whole student and developed a series of sub-themes that address the core components of an SSU education. It is a vitally important time in the history of the university as we poise for substantial growth in our student population in the next 5-10 years. The question that guides the development of this themed approach for the educational effectiveness review is how does SSU sustain indeed, enhance -- its mission of providing a liberal arts and sciences education in our changing environment?
We believe that the thematic approach and our selected theme best suit the university at this juncture in its history and will provide a rich, invigorating process for university-wide engagement.
Educating the Whole Student: Sustaining SSU's Mission in A Time Of Change
Sub-Theme One - The "Signature" of a Sonoma State University Graduate
Outcome One: Engage in campus wide dialogue regarding the meaning of a liberal arts and sciences education. The Academic Affairs Division in partnership with the Academic Senate will engage in focused discussions throughout the 2005-2006 academic year. Utilizing the work of AAC&U's Greater Expectations and Taking Responsibility for the Baccalaureate, the university will engage in a year long discussion regarding the goals and outcomes of an SSU education. Questions for reflection: What does it mean to be a liberally educated graduate in the 21st Century? What are the hallmarks of that education? What should be the primary educational outcomes and how should they be measured? What is the role of general education? What is the role of the major? How do general education and the major complement one another?
Outcome Two: Establish the learning outcomes of an SSU graduate and align those outcomes with those in GE and the majors. Questions for reflection: What are the agreed upon learning outcomes for ALL SSU graduates? How are they aligned within majors, departments, schools? Which outcomes appropriately belong in general education? How can these outcomes best be assessed? What mechanisms already exist for assessment, in departments and at the institution level? How can the assessment data be effectively used to inform decision-making and improvement of educational effectiveness?
Sub-Theme Two - Curriculum and the Roles of General Education and the Major
Outcome One: Implement, assess and evaluate the FYE Pilot 2006-2007. Questions for reflection: What are appropriate themes for the freshman year experience? What should the curriculum include? How can we train and mentor faculty who will teach in FYE? What are the student learning outcomes for FYE? How can these outcomes best be assessed? How will the FYE Pilot be evaluated? What measures and criteria will be used? What are the results of the assessment data? What are the results of the program evaluation? Should the FYE be improved, modified, or changed to assure successful student learning outcomes?
Outcome Two: Develop a GE Plan, which may include expanded choice in the breadth portion of GE; writing across the curriculum; development of a capstone experience; faculty development, information competence literacy, and development and implementation of an assessment plan for GE. Questions for reflection: How does the GE program align with the signature of an SSU education? What assessment strategies will be used to assess the student learning outcomes for the GE Program? What kind of on-going faculty development, mentoring, and training needs to occur to assure a successful GE Program? What structures are in place to insure appropriate oversight and review of GE courses and the GE Program? What will be the structure of a GE Program Review Protocol? How will the assessment results of the FYE Pilot 2006-2007 be incorporated into the GE plan?
Outcome Three: Complete an academic program review cycle by the time of the educational effectiveness visit in fall of 2009. Questions for reflection: How are departments assessing their student learning outcomes? What kind of feedback are they providing to faculty and students? How are they utilizing assessment data in on-going improvement of educational effectiveness? How is academic program review being utilized in the strategic planning process of Academic Affairs and the Schools? How can Program Review be improved to provide departments and schools with appropriate evidence to support decision-making?
Sub-Theme Three - Co-curriculum and Residential Life
Outcome One: Improve advising strategies and practices for general education, the major and career while implementing the CSU Chancellor's Office "Recommended Items for Campus Plans for Facilitating Graduation" that support excellent practices in academic and career advising. Questions for reflection: How can the CMS advising tools best be utilized to support general education and major advising? How can degree audits be utilized more frequently to provide students with timely advising? What campus policies and procedures need to be strengthened to improve strong, timely and mandatory advisement for students? How can institutional data, such as summary statistics on midterm grades, attendance at advising sessions, and student stop-outs on a term-by-term basis be utilized to effect change in advising practices? Do current advising practices meet the needs of students?
Outcome Two: Develop an advising template for the program review self-study to assist departments in assessing advising practices. Questions for reflection: How have departments incorporated CMS advising tools? How are faculty being trained to utilize CMS degree audits to support student advising? How effectively do departments provide goal and career advising to students? How effectively are departments using institutional data to make decisions about advising?
Outcome Three: Develop non-academic unit program review protocols and schedules to insure that the co-curricular and residential life components of the university are evaluated and improved to meet SSU's goals of educating the whole student. Questions for reflection: How do co-curricular programs support student learning? How do co-curricular programs enhance the educational experience of all students? How can we improve the delivery and coherence of our co-curricular programs? How does residential life contribute to the signature of an SSU education?
Outcome Four: Review and restructure as needed the new Student Affairs and Enrollment Management Division to better meet the needs of students co-curricular and residential life needs. Questions for reflection: How can the university engage students in co-curricular and residential life activities? How can co-curricular programming enhance the education of the whole student? How can we more effectively meet the residential needs of our growing student population?
Sub-Theme Four - Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in Teaching, Scholarship, Mentoring and Advising
Outcome One: Continue discussion of the potential revision of the Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Policy to insure coherence between institutional mission and objectives and consensus on performance expectations for faculty at all review levels: department, school, and university. Questions for reflection: What are the expectations for all of the faculty in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service? Are the criteria for RTP articulated at all levels? Are they explicitly stated and understood? For faculty, what is the relationship and balance between meeting department, school, and university objectives and mission? How are faculty best mentored into their roles as teachers, scholars, and members of the university community? What is the relationship between teaching and scholarship in a liberal arts and sciences university? What are the roles of the discipline and of general education in a liberal arts and sciences university?
Outcome Two: Enhance, expand and develop SSU's faculty development program to provide new faculty with a full orientation to the university, on-going mentoring, and access to training and development opportunities. Questions for reflection: What resources need to be made available to new faculty members to support them in their first years at SSU? What kinds of mentoring are needed? What do new faculty members see as their needs and priorities? How can existing faculty development opportunities through the Center for Teaching and Professional Development, RSCAP funding, etc. be better utilized to support new faculty?
Outcome Three: Enhance, expand and develop on-going training and in-service in the key areas of academic technology, assessment of student learning outcomes, academic (GE and major) and career advising, and the goals and objectives of a liberal arts and sciences education for the 21st century, utilizing the Center for Teaching and Professional Development. Questions for reflection: What are the components of an excellent in-service training program? What kinds of training do faculty members need in the uses of academic technology? How can assessment tools and strategies be made available to faculty who are interested in new approaches to assessment of student learning?
Sub-Theme Five - Value of Diversity in Educating the Whole Student
Outcome One: Develop and implement a strategic plan for diversity, building on our diversity mission statement through the work of the University Strategic Planning Committee and the Campus Climate Committee. Questions for reflection: What are the key indicators of diversity? How does our strategic plan for diversity enhance the educational experience of our students and contribute to the mark of an SSU graduate? How can we align resources to achieve the diversity mission of the university?
Outcome Two: Create academic and social forums for cross-constituency conversations and critique. Questions for reflection: How do we develop curriculum that addresses issues of diversity? What are the learning outcomes of a curriculum that focuses on issues of diversity? What pedagogies are appropriate for multiple and different intelligences? How can we develop in our students the habits of mind necessary to problem-solve from multi-disciplinary and diverse perspectives?
Outcome Three: Develop a diversity template for academic program review to assist departments in assessing diversity efforts (hiring, student recruitment, curriculum, pedagogy, etc.).Questions for reflection: What are the measurable outcomes for evaluation of diversity efforts in departments? Where does diversity play a role in the curriculum of the major and general education? How are the learning outcomes regarding diversity aligned within the department and GE curricular offerings? How are faculty recruited, hired, and trained to work with a diverse student population? Does the structure and content of the curriculum encourage student diversity? What impediments to increasing diversity are present? How can they be overcome?
6. Work Plan and Milestones
Spring and Summer 2005
Establish Accreditation Review Steering Committee (ARSC) to:
Identify the educational effectiveness review format;
Draft themes and solicit input from the campus community
Write the Institutional Proposal
Create the electronic portfolio: SSU Portfolio
Fall 2005
Present Institutional Proposal draft and SSU portfolio to campus community in late August 2005
Solicit comments and incorporate into the Institutional Proposal draft: September 15, 2005
Submit 2nd draft of Institutional Proposal for ARSC review: October 1, 2005
Proposal submitted to WASC: October 15, 2005
Develop task-forces as needed to address Educational Effectiveness Sub-themes
Complete "Worksheet for Preliminary Self-Review under the Standards"
Spring and Summer 2006
Receive WASC comments and approval of the Institutional Proposal
Assess the self-review data and develop work plan to address issues and concerns
Add required data exhibits to the SSU portfolio
Charge to task forces on the sub-themes for the Educational Effectiveness review
Fall 2006
Begin reflective essays on Standards for the Preparatory Review - ARSC
Continue updating the SSU portfolio
Begin task force work on educational effectiveness review
Spring and Summer 2007
Complete final draft of the Capacity and Preparatory Review Report
Finish required data exhibits for the Preparatory Review and updates on the SSU portfolio
Receive updates from task forces and committees on EE Review Outcomes
Fall 2007
Review, approve, and submit Capacity and Preparatory Review Report (December 2007)
Prepare for Capacity and Preparatory Review team visit
Spring and Summer 2008
Capacity and Preparatory Review team visit
Begin writing the Educational Effectiveness Review Report
Fall 2008
Review Capacity and Preparatory team visit report
Identify areas that need improvement prior to the Educational Effectiveness Review team visit
Write draft of Educational Effectiveness Review Report
Spring and Summer 2009
Review, approve, and finalize the Educational Effectiveness Review Report
Submit Educational Effectiveness Review report to WASC (July)
Prepare for Educational Effectiveness Review team visit
Fall 2009
Educational Effectiveness Review team visit
7. Effectiveness of Data Gathering and Analysis Systems
SSU has been developing a culture of evidence for assessment of student learning outcomes in general education and the major for the past five years. Every department has identified student learning outcomes and a method for assessing these outcomes. Within the next three years, every department will also evaluate the assessment data and make recommendations, as needed, for the curriculum, and report these findings through the annual assessment report and regular program review. The general education program is currently being redesigned. During the 2005-06 academic year, the curriculum for the new Freshmen Year Experience will be determined along with appropriate assessment. The pilot of the FYE program will start in fall 2006. All of these efforts create a feedback loop using evidence for quality improvement.
Many indices are used to evaluate the overall performance of SSU. The California State University has identified nine Performance Indicators of effectiveness that have been monitored since 1998-99. These indices are monitored on an annual basis, and goals are set for future years. The areas include the quality of baccalaureate degree programs, progression to degree, persistence and graduation, areas of special State need, relationship with K-12, fully prepared new freshmen, remediation, facilities utilization, and university advancement.
The Office of Institutional Research conducts many surveys regularly to inform the campus on vital issues such as SSU's incoming freshmen profile (CIRP), the first college year experiences (YFCY), student attitudes and behaviors (NSSE, SNAPS, CSEQ, and CSS), alumni satisfaction, and faculty satisfaction (FSSE). The 2005-06 report also includes direct assessment of student learning using the Collegiate Learning Assessment, an assessment instrument developed by the Rand Corporation to evaluate general education learning outcomes, which SSU piloted in 2004-05. Each year an annual self-assessment is published that includes the reports generated during that academic year. Whenever possible, SSU compares itself to other CSU campuses and to COPLAC campuses, which share with SSU a strong liberal arts and sciences mission. The annual report is shared with the President's cabinet and the campus community. These reports and data provide a rich basis for dialogue and discussion and an opportunity to identify areas of concern that can be systematically addressed by the institution.
All of these sources of information combine to create SSU's culture of evidence and promote the primary outcome of becoming a reflective and evidence-based institution. SSU is continually trying to identify new ways to evaluate its programs, curriculum, students, faculty and staff in order to promote quality improvement that is data driven and intentional in its outcomes.
8. Proposal Data Tables
The following tables are Data Exhibits to Support Institutional Proposal, Special Visits, and Progress Reports (PDF format):
- Summary of Data
- Degrees Granted by Level
- Faculty Employment Status
- Head Count by Level
- Head Count by Statistics and Location
- Key Finanicial Ratio
9. Off-Campus and Distance Education Degree Programs
10. Institutional Stipulations
Provide an Institutional Stipulation Statement signed by the CEO as indicated in the Proposal guidelines.