Appendix AResponse to Previous Team and Commission Observations & Recommendations
Context for the SJSU response: The campus has had two presidents since the last visit. The WASC self-study and site visit took place during Handel Evans’ term as interim president (1991-1994). The WASC letter and final report were received by the newly-appointed president, Robert Caret. The period that is covered in the campus’ response to the issues raised by the WASC letter and report coincide with Robert Caret’s term as president (1995-2003). These years began with a new president getting acquainted with the campus and ended with his resignation and departure after a successful eight-year tenure. As this response is being written, Interim President Joseph Crowley is the presiding chief administrative officer, and President Paul Yu will replace him on July 15. In 1995, the commission, after reviewing the evaluation team's report, highlighted the following areas and encouraged San Jose State University to give them full consideration:
Technology and Library Development:
The appointment of a Director of Assessment in spring of 1998 and the creation of an assessment committee in 2001 have raised the visibility of assessment on campus. Both of these serve as a resources to share assessment strategies and data, and to guide policies and procedures. The Director of Assessment and the Office of Undergraduate Studies in conjunction with the Center for Faculty Development and Support have organized a number of workshops and round table discussions to assist with assessment and to share outcomes and best practices. During the preparation of the self study for program planning, a program may request funds from the Office of Undergraduate Studies for a 0.2 re-assignment from teaching for a faculty member to work with the Director of Assessment on the assessment plan for the program. The General Education program has provided a vehicle for working on disseminating assessment information broadly across the campus through the 1998 GE Guidelines which were designed around course embedded assessment. From 1998-2001, all GE courses (260+) were reviewed for certification under the new guidelines, requiring the submission of course materials including an assessment plan. From 2001-present, continuing certification materials that have been submitted include a summary of assessment data and recommendations for course improvement based on these data. Courses have been and are being modified/revised as the GE assessment results have indicated. With respect to learning outcomes assessment, the Program Planning Guidelines have been revised with an emphasis on assessment and planning. During the first five-year cycle of the new guidelines, all programs going through Program Planning were encouraged to develop learning outcomes and an assessment plan and, if possible, report data. During the second cycle starting in Fall 2003, all programs are expected to report data. Some programs such as Business, Nursing and Linguistics and Language Development, have been effective in describing course and major learning objectives and connecting them to measures of learning outcomes and assessment. A compilation of mission statements and learning outcomes for programs and colleges is available on the SJSU web site. With respect to the link between outcomes and departmental review processes, over the last two years, departments have been asked to address this issue in their Self Study which is the first component of the Program Planning Process. External reviewers have been asked to specifically comment on this issue in their reports. Some modest efforts have been made in the Self Studies, but external reviewers have been very reluctant to comment outside their disciplinary expertise. The responsibility for monitoring the link between GE goals and the outcome assessment activities of departments may need to reside with the college committee that reviews the Self Studies. With respect to integration with professional courses matrices have been prepared by some departments, and others are being encouraged to do so. Courses such as ENGR 100w that integrate two GE areas with topics specific to engineers provide a model that may be used by some other departments, however, there is more support for an approach that coordinates across departments. This will be pursued more extensively when the entire GE program is reviewed by the Academic Senate in 2005. With respect to the recommendation regarding implementation of the
resolution emanating from the San Jose State Unviersity Academic Senate
related to diversity, in Spring 1995, the Academic Senate passed Sense-of-the-Senate
Resolution SS-S95-5
which declares that it “should be SJSU’s highest aspiration
to create and maintain a supportive learning environment that serves
all our diverse students equally well.” By this resolution, the
Senate also accepted the report and endorsed the recommendations of
its Curriculum and Research (C&R) Committee on actions to be taken
to foster appreciation and understanding of diversity at SJSU. The work
leading up to this resolution stemmed from a proposal for an “ethnic
studies” graduation requirement, the work of a task force on Ethnic
Studies and Cultural Pluralism, a campus climate survey, and a variety
of concerns voiced by members of the campus community that were expressed
to the WASC accreditation team and summarized in the 1995 WASC report. The recommendations endorsed by the Senate with SS-S95-5 were framed
around a “guiding vision.” That vision was that “SJSU
needs to take a broad approach to promoting an understanding and appreciation
of social diversity, and should not expect the curriculum alone to produce
social progress. Instead, SJSU should strive to transform the campus
into a supportive learning environment in which students, staff, and
faculty from all walks of life, from the entire spectrum of the rainbow,
from whatever cultural or language group, regardless of socioeconomic
class, age, or religious belief, whatever their sexual orientation,
gender, or disability are equally welcomed into a single university
community as full participating members.” With respect to the proportion of full time faculty at San Jose State University (SJSU), in 1994, 860 of 1673 faculty (51%) were part-time. As of fall 2003, 50% of the faculty (809 of 1630) were part-time. The faculty and administrators, both here at SJSU and throughout the system share the commission's concern that this exacerbates the heavy workload for full-time faculty and affects morale issues, advising of students, and committee work. In fact, a concerted effort was made at the system level to examine and address the problem following legislation (ACR73) calling upon the Trustees of the California State University, the Academic Senate of the California State University, and the California Faculty Association to jointly develop a plan that would, among other things, raise the percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty to at least 75 percent. The groups identified did in fact work together and in July of 2002 produced a report describing a plan to increase, system-wide, the proportion of permanent (tenured/tenure track) faculty to 75 percent over an eight-year period. Given present fiscal constraints, the challenge is significant. The proposed plan creates the need for expanded state funding on an annual basis ranging from $4.8M to $35.6M per year. Clearly, this issue is a high priority and all parties are committed to facilitating change in this area. Full Time & Part Time Faculty Summary
*Note: FERP refers to faculty in the early retirement program Since the last review, the SJSU Foundation and the Office of the Provost through the AVP for Graduate Studies and Research have encouraged applications for grants and contracts through workshops and the addition of Foundation staff assigned to each college to identify and match individual research interests with funding opportunities. The staff also assists with the grant-writing process, which is a major hurdle on a campus where the normal teaching load is four courses per semester. A more favorable distribution of overhead funding with the principal investigators, departments, and colleges was established to encourage grant getting. As a result of these efforts, in fiscal year 2002-03, SJSU was awarded a total of $41,727,743 in grants and contracts, up from $28,646,096 in 1995—a 45% increase. While grant activity at the program and college levels continues to be successful, the University has also taken steps to facilitate acquistion of federal funding. A position of Assistant to the President for Governmental and External Relations was created in 2002, and in 2003, SJSU engaged a firm to advocate for federal earmarks in Washington, DC. Collaboration with other CSUs, UC and other university affiliates (e.g., SJSU Metropolitan Technology Center at the NASA/Ames Research Park) have increased our effectiveness in obtaining federal funding. Additionally, the Provost and the Dean of International and Extended Studies (formerly the University Continuing Education division) have aggressively marketed courses and programs throughout the Silicon Valley region. In addition to the Study Abroad Program in Bath, England, international partnerships with educational institutions in El Salvador, Taiwan, France, and India have been established to encourage student and faculty exchange. Income from the courses and programs offered through International and Extended Studies is shared with the colleges and departments that offer them. Technology and library development The University has indeed made both a high priority. While the preparatory review report draws out details regarding our new library, here it should suffice to say that a stroll to the northwest corner of our campus brings you to the extraordinarily fine product of a sustained collaborative effort between SJSU and the city of San Jose to develop and jointly operate a new library. With respect to technology, SJSU has been remarkably adept at utilizing both campus and system resources to enhance its infrastructure in particular. Beyond the attention to infrastructure, two significant developments typify the university's commitment to improvement in the area of information technology. The first was the creation of the Academic Technology Department within the Academic Affairs Division, headed by an Associate Vice President who reports directly to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The position of AVP for Academic Technology is filled by an individual with an academic background, and works closely with the university's faculty, departments, and colleges. Second, the university's commitment to information technology as an institutional priority is reflected in the Academic Senate's creation of the University Information Technology Board, which is comprised of a combination of faculty, staff and administrators and reports in an advisory capacity directly to the President of the university. The combination of an enhanced technical infrastructure, restructuring of administrative oversight, and support for faculty has led to increased faculty engagement in the development and implementation of information technology on campus since 1995. With respect to distance education, SJSU has been extremely active in developing online courses during the last six years. During 2002-2003 5636 students were enrolled in online courses, and of these 5299 were enrolled under state support which is 55% of the students enrolled under state support from all 23 CSU campuses. During this period 199 online sections were offered, and the number has been growing every semester. For an expanded presentation of responses to the recommendations and observations made by the evaluation team a supplemental report has been constructed.
|