|
Report On CSU English Meeting
David Fite, Cal Poly Pomona
June 1, 1999
Project Overview
With support from the CSU Office of the Chancellor, three collaborating CSU campuses, Pomona, Northridge, and San Bernardino, organized a systemwide meeting on student learning outcomes in English on April 23-25 at the Kellogg West Lodge and Conference Center on the Cal Poly Pomona campus. The meeting was attended by over 55 faculty from eighteen CSU Departments of English, representing three fields or subdisciplines: 1. literature, criticism, and theory; 2. composition, rhetoric, and creative writing; 3. teacher education and linguistics. Participating faculty engaged in conversations about student learning and their goals as educators of English, shared information, ideas, and resources, and learned how other campuses have developed statements of expected student learning outcomes and assessment methods and plans for the major in English. Faculty returned to their departments with new ideas, a common inventory of helpful materials on assessment, and a network of supportive, interested colleagues from other CSU campuses. Follow-on activities will be coordinated through the CSU English Council, which unanimously endorsed the meeting on student learning outcomes in English.
Project Goals
Our goals for the meeting were to:
1. explore the meaning and value of the English major, and our goals as educators of English.
2. engage in conversation about student learning in a comprehensive manner, examining not just what a student learns in one course, but how students develop and grow over the span of a baccalureate career, looking beyond our own courses to examine the goals and outcomes of entire programs, and beyond our programs to learn what colleagues in the CSU and elsewhere are offering.
3. examine the ways in which the outcomes we value may be measured, and the means by which they might be more clearly and persuasively explained to our students and external audiences, making the case for the complex value of study in English in a time hostile or indifferent to the claims of the liberal arts.
4. develop a draft statement of expected student learning outcomes for the undergraduate major in English and its subdisciplines to be distributed to CSU Departments of English and the CSU Office of the Chancellor.
The conference achieved its first three goals. Participating faculty voted unanimously on the first day of the meeting not to develop the draft statement of outcomes specified as a conference "deliverable." Instead, the group composed and approved (with one abstention) a statement to the CSU Office of the Chancellor.
Preparation for the Meeting
In preparation for the CSU Meeting on Student Learning Outcomes in English, the project coordinators undertook the following tasks:
1. Established collaboration of campuses/coordinators, and secured the support of the CSU English Council.
Representatives from three CSU campuses, Pomona, Northridge, and San Bernardino, decided at the Fall Meeting of the CSU English Council in San Diego on November 11-13, 1998 to present a collaborative proposal for a systemwide meeting on student learning outcomes in English, taking advantage of the strengths of the sponsoring institutions and presenting a persuasive unified appeal to prospective participants. Cal Poly Pomona was designated as the host campus because of the excellent conference facilities at Kellogg West. The proposed collaborative project was endorsed unanimously by the CSU English Council at the final session of the Fall Meeting. Following approval of the proposal by the CSU Office of the Chancellor, coordinators from the three collaborating campuses met at Cal Poly Pomona on December 17 to begin preparations for the meeting on student learning outcomes in English on April 23-25, 1999.
2. Contacted departments and recruited participants.
Building on initial contact with department chairs, composition coordinators, and English education faculty at the Fall Meeting of the CSU English Council, the coordinators sent an email invitation and hard copy letter to CSU English department chairs and composition coordinators in mid-January. Departments that did not respond by early February were contacted by phone and email. Twenty CSU Departments of English agreed to participate in the proposed conference, sending from one to four faculty in the specified subdiscipline areas.
3 Arranged conference/lodging site and participant lodging and meals.
CPP campus coordinators worked closely with Kellogg West from December through April 23-25, arranging rooms for the conference sessions with suitable set-up and technical support, and lodging and meals for conference participants. (Instructions for conference travel and reimbursement for travel expenses were also sent to participants.) CPP campus coordinators consulted extensively with organizers of the CSU meeting on student learning outcomes in Kinesiology held at Kellogg West in 1998, and attended the follow-on CSU meeting on assessment of student learning outcomes in Kinesiology held at Kellogg West on March 5-7, 1999.
4. Defined and revised the meeting agenda and sessions, and arranged speakers, facilitators, and presentations.
A preliminary agenda and statement of goals drafted by the conference coordinators was sent to prospective participants in an informational mailing in early March. A revised agenda, responding to comments and suggestions from participants, was mailed with a preconference packet of background readings in early April. The agenda was revised again before the meeting on April 23-25 to include a "group discussion" on "issues of outcomes assessment and our goals as educators of English," in response to participants' concerns over the imposition of the contract by the CSU Chancellor, the approval of the Revised Cornerstones Implementation Plan by the Board of Trustees, the subsequent declaration of a state of strike by the CFA, and resolutions of noncompliance with Cornerstones by the CSU Academic Senate and faculty senates on CSU campuses.
5. Compiled and disseminated background readings and materials, and prepared a preconference draft summary of expected student learning outcomes in English.
The CPP campus coordinator conducted an extensive literature search of textual and electronic resources, gathering helpful documents on department goals and student learning outcomes in English from CSU and other university websites, and materials on assessment and English from the AAHE, ADE, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and California Education Roundtable. Dr. Fite prepared a 19-page preconference draft summary of expected student learning outcomes in the major of English and its subdisciplines, synthesized from conference background readings and materials, on the model of the draft summary of goals and learning outcomes in psychology prepared by Dr. Mary Allen, CSU Bakersfield, for the CSU meeting on student learning outcomes in Psychology on February 25-26.
The Meeting
The CSU meeting on student learning outcomes in English began with registration on Friday morning, April 23, and ended with lunch on Sunday, April 25. At registration participants were given a revised agenda and additional meeting materials, including the 19-page draft summary of student learning outcomes in English, offered as a possible starting point or guide. Participants discussed the political contexts and questions impacting the conference in the opening session at 1 p.m., agreeing to defer deliberation on options for response and action until the "group discussion" at 4 p.m. In the sessions that followed, keynote speaker Dr. Ed White addressed the "threat" of assessment while arguing for its greater "promise," and faculty panelists from Northridge and San Bernardino described their department assessment plans and the benefits brought to students, faculty, and programs.
In the group discussion at 4:00 p.m. participants considered the solicitation from several participants in the previous week to engage in strike-related actions at the meeting on student learning outcomes, and the resolutions of noncompliance with Cornerstones passed by the CSU Academic Senate and faculty senates on CSU campuses. Representatives from two campuses, Hayward and Fresno, had withdrawn from the conference in the week before, citing the state of strike declared by the CFA and the Senate resolutions of noncompliance with Cornerstones. But other participants observed that the meeting was organized by faculty for the benefit of faculty and departments. Student learning outcomes assessment in the CSU antedated Cornerstones and might be done, as the plans from Northridge and San Bernardino showed, to good effect and for better reasons. After a lengthy discussion, participants decided to proceed with the conference as planned, including the Saturday breakout sessions.
The unanimous vote not to compose and share a draft statement of student learning outcomes in English represented strong faculty opposition and resistance to: 1. the perceived attempt by the CSU Office of the Chancellor to impose academic policies and practices such as outcomes assessment on CSU faculty and departments through the Cornerstones Plan, without consultation consistent with accepted precepts of shared governance; 2. the apparent corollary attempt by the CSU Office of the Chancellor to impose centralized control of academic programs and policies, in violation of the principle of autonomy of individual campuses and departments cited in the Cornerstones Plan; 3. the perceived attempt by the CSU Office of the Chancellor to reduce the complez goals of higher education and the liberal arts to lists of measurable"outcomes" by which departments and programs would be assessed and faculty held "accountable"; 4. the apparent corollary attempt by the CSU Office of the Chancellor to standardize curriculum via learning outcomes assessment across CSU campuses and higher education segments, robbing departments, programs, and campuses of their distinctive identities and missions, and reducing the diversity of college education and student experience; 5. the apparent "corporatization" of the CSU and higher education represented by the above, and by the contract rejected by the CSU faculty and imposed by the Chancellor, advancing a controversial merit pay plan to promote faculty productivity and institutional accountability.
The breakout sessions on Saturday morning and afternoon moved from small group discussions of the goals and outcomes of the subdisciplines to mixed groups considering the goals and outcomes of the English major. Faculty at the final meeting on Sunday morning extolled the accomplishments and praised the pleasures of the breakout sessions, rich with purposeful dialogue on the manifold goals and values of departments and programs in English--and with provocations to greater clarity, self-scrutiny, and improved educational practices, focused on student learning outcomes and experience. Participants said they would return to their departments with new ideas and helpful materials, and a support network of colleagues from CSU campuses, to consider their department missions and goals and student learning outcomes in English and develop assessment methods and plans. Particularly useful were the drafts of goals and learning outcomes brought by departments from San Diego State and Monterey Bay, which offered principled, capacious statements of the goals of educators in the liberal arts, countering the corporate vision of education as job training and reduction of learning to skills of the CSU Cornerstones Plan and Office of the Chancellor.
Participants at the final meeting discussed issues of academic programs and policy in English education raised by the breakout sessions, including the Cal Teach and Blended Curriculum Initiatives proposed by the CSU Office of the Chancellor to expedite and enhance the training of prospective K-12 teachers. Such initiatives highlighted the need for more active and informed engagement by CSU English faculty in public policy and government and political processes which impact higher education and departments and programs in English. Profs. Robert Coleman-Senghor, Sonoma, and Paul Douglass, San Jose, proposed linking to or forming a policy studies body serving the discipline and departments of English.
Participants at the final meeting composed and approved (with one abstention) the enclosed statement to the CSU Office of the Chancellor, thanking the CSU for the opportunity to meet and explaining why participating faculty did not develop or distribute a specified draft of student learning outcomes in English.
Post-Meeting Events and Plans
Dr. Fite presented a report on the meeting on student learning outcomes in English at the Spring Meeting of the CSU English Council in Sacramento on April 28-30. Participants from the meeting on learning outcomes offered testimony to its success, and accounts of their return to departments with ideas and materials. Copies of the statement to the CSU Office of the Chancellor and the preconference draft summary of student learning outcomes in English were distributed to English Council members.
Responding to the crisis in the CSU and to questions and issues emerging from the CSU meeting on student learning outcomes in English, the English Council determined that it must find ways of becoming more active (or proactive) and politically connected. The Executive Committee will try to schedule a session at next year's Spring Meeting of the English Council in Sacramento focused on policy issues and English Council activities and public/roles, with possible guests including Gary Hart. The Council expressed support for the efforts of Profs. Coleman-Senghor and Douglass to link to or form a policy studies body serving the English Council and CSU English faculty. The Council discussed the attempts of the CSU to reduce the five-year single subject phase program, and decided to revisit the problem at its Fall Meeting in San Diego, focused on teacher preparation issues in English.
After the Spring Meeting of the CSU English Council, Dr. Fite sent a lengthy email report to participants from the meeting on student learning outcomes in English, concluding with a brief summary of possible follow-on plans. The email list of meeting participants will enable faculty to communicate and collaborate in the year ahead, sharing experiences and approaches as their departments define goals and student learning outcomes for the major in English and develop assessment methods and plans. Faculty may share helpful documents and materials through the email list and the CSU Website on Student Learning Outcomes. Possible plans for a follow-on meeting on assessment of student learning outcomes in English will be sent through the email list to all participants and through the English Council list-serv to English department chairs and composition coordinators.
Evaluation of the Project/Lessons Learned
Despite the crises surrounding the event, the CSU meeting on student learning outcomes in English was a success, realizing three of four goals and establishing a basis for significant follow-on activities. "The most important thing about assessment is that it promotes dialogue among faculty," Mary Senter observes. The dialogue at the plenary and breakout sessions of the meeting on student learning outcomes in English was by all accounts rich, thoughtful, and energetic--and energizing to faculty participants, returning to their colleagues and departments with new ideas and approaches, helpful materials and models, and a network of faculty contacts and collaborative support.
A key principle and strategy of successful assessment is to promote sharing and collaboration. Trudy Banta notes that this requires: 1. leadership committed to facilitating collaboration; 2. opportunities to work together on important matters over time, and to meet informally in relaxed environments; 3. opportunities for group training and development; 4. institutional grants for collaborative activities. The CSU meeting on student learning outcomes in English, funded by an institutional grant from the CSU Office of the Chancellor, was successful because it offered an opportunity for faculty to meet informally and work together over the span of several days' time, in a relaxed, collegial environment established by conference coordinators and facilitators committed to promoting collaboration and amity in a time of potentially divisive crisis.
Yet the successes of the meeting were circumscribed by the contexts in which it was held, and by the conditions and consequences of surrounding crises. Effective learning outcomes assessment both promotes and presupposes a culture of collaboration, reciprocal respect and trust, sustained support, and shared purposes. Implementation of outcomes assessment on CSU campuses will continue to be compromised by an institutional culture marked by: 1. adversarial relations between faculty and administration; 2. crises of confidence over issues of shared governance, campus autonomy, faculty compensation, and merit pay plans; 3. lack of consensus on conceptions of educational quality, faculty productivity, and institutional accountability; 4. low morale and high workload of faculty and departments, facing larger classes with lower standards for less prepared students, with inadequate resources and support; 5. lack of incentives and rewards for teaching, and of consensus on quality and merit in teaching; 6. lack of a culture of reflective inquiry and scholarship on teaching, and persistence of a culture of disciplinary emphasis and specialization; 7. faculty fatigue and cynicism over existing forms and procedures of program and personnel review and assessment, often time-consuming and unnecessary, redundant, inconsequential, or irrelevant.
To counter the above, and define campuses as learning communities based on shared commitment to educational effectiveness and a culture of evidence, the CSU Office of the Chancellor and campus administrators must adopt strategies for promoting institutional change featuring values-based leadership, the use of incentives and rewards, and faculty training and development to shape an emergent culture and consensus. In this transitional stage, assessment for accountability must be decoupled from assessment by faculty and departments to improve student learning and academic courses and programs, and the latter given strategic emphasis. Proposed follow-on meetings of CSU departments and faculty on assessment of student learning outcomes in arts and sciences disciplines will be most effective if they: 1. focus on assessment to improve teaching and learning;
2. connect assessment to real questions, concerns, and problems of participating departments and faculty. |
|
