Overall Themes:

Following is a compilation of all feedback received through the discussion groups at the Academic Conference during Session B, Task Force #1. This is an initial summary of comments received from nearly twenty separate groups, so there are some inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly in "tone" or "voice". The comments have been grouped by topic since many groups discussed different issues than the questions posed to them. A more detailed analysis of the feedback will follow.

In every group there was a concern about how the recommendations will impact faculty workload, time, reward structures or roles. In the interest of brevity, these concerns have not been listed under every question, but it should be noted that this is a predominant and major concern. All comments from the group that was assigned to discuss faculty incentives/rewards have been included, since these comments went into more depth than other generalized concerns about workload.

Other overall concerns expressed by most groups include:

• A desire for further research on several subjects so we do not "reinvent the wheel."
• A desire to learn from other campuses or systems.
• A concern about the costs of many of these proposals.
• A general support for increased flexibility, with caveats for how it will affect workload.
• Mixed feelings about newer pedagogies, with some groups strongly supporting more active and student-centered forms of learning, and some reacting with skepticism to these proposals.

Topic:

Demonstrated Learning:

• The credit system should not be abolished, and there should not be a move away from courses/
• That the only assessment of students be by testing (paper and pencil)
• It was agreed that credits reflect that a student learned a certain amount of material, and that the grade reflect how well the material was learned.
• Assessment (including examination) is part of the learning process.
• The group concluded that time is well spent in the classroom.
• Is "demonstrated learning" simply an educational fad based on jargon that the legislature and corporate officers can understand? Since many students apparently can't do what they want, isn't this the ultimate assumption that the responsibility for learning lies with the faculty rather than a shared responsibility with students?
• How do we know what we are doing now, what our best practices should be? What does a CSU degree really stand for?
• Assessment needs to be a continuous process.
• Education provides a necessary structure- demonstrated learning just provides a way to get out of courses.
• Need to measure two things: what a student knows (content) and what the student can do with the content (application).
• Utilize extra-class measures, such as research papers, senior theses, competency exams over multiple areas.

Topic:

Granting Credit for Demonstrated Learning:

• Grade inflation and external elements of change (such as race, class, ethnicity, etc.) are reasons for investigating non-standard assessment mechanisms.
• Formative assessment is as important, if not more important, than summative assessment, and should be used to check the measures and objectives a department sets for itself.
• Some techniques which are currently being used successfully: portfolio presentations, competency exams (nursing, pass/fail), entrance/exit exams, capstone courses.
• As a system, we have a wide diversity of students, from the traditional 18-23 year old's and to the 35 year old who might be returning after raising a family or working for a number of years. The latter will bring with him/her a variety of experiences such as on-the-job training.
• There is agreement that, credits can be, and are being given for the specific, measurable skills/competencies, such as language skills.
• We are not talking about testing out of a whole degree program. Specific courses may be waived or unit credit given towards a particular degree or GE requirement but not towards a whole degree. This way, students will still have the experiences provided by on-campus interaction which is considered valuable.

Topic:

CSU-wide standards of demonstrated learning

• Yes, there are areas of knowledge, skills, and competencies that can be assessed, but not piecemeal but holistically.
• It may not be possible to create a CSU-wide instrument, given the diversity and differences in student body make-up across the campuses. Assessment must be local and perhaps unique to each institution.
• Emphasis was placed on communication skills, especially writing as being critical areas for assessment. But ethics??
• We agreed that assessment may be useful to enhance our instruction, perhaps to demonstrate accountability, but should it also be used for testing students out?
• The process for developing standards for these categories should cut across disciplines, avoid fragmenting assessment into discrete disciplines, and be developed by faculty on each campus.
• One group reached consensus to support the following systemwide learning objectives:
  1. The ability to communicate effectively, through a variety of means.
  2. The ability to read analytically and think critically at a high level.
  3. The ability to locate, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information.
  4. The ability to integrate knowledge across discipline boundaries.
  5. The ability to make both qualitative and quantitative assessments.
  6. The ability to work effectively in group setting
  7. The ability to appreciate and value cultures other than one's own. (recommended rewording to 'The ability to understand and compare cultures other than one's own.')
• This group suggested adding a few systemwide learning objectives:
  1. career competency and participation.
  2. creativity and aesthetics
  3. leadership in the context of group learning, collaboration, teamwork and team management.
• This group did not reach consensus on the following systemwide learning objectives:
  1. The ability to participate in a democratic society.
  2. The ability to speak, read, and write in a language other than English.
  3. The ability to value one's own self and the communities of which one is a part, to make moral and ethical decisions, and to act in a socially responsible manner.

Topic:

Learning Objectives for each degree program:

Benefits:

• General agreement that determining learning objectives would be helpful for students. This would help faculty clarify their teaching goals and strategies while better education students.
• This forces an evaluation of courses, and may allow faculty to see "holes" in their course plan.
• Forces faculty to take a broader look at objectives and how they relate to specific programs.
• Would help define what CSU is to external constituents

Drawbacks:

• "One size" objectives do not fit all.
• It is difficult to get consensus among faculty on these objectives
• This could limit the creativity of students and instructors
• "Learning objectives" rather than "core competencies" are too shallow -- Needs to be more specific.
• Updating catalogs are a continual problem
• Many outcomes are not evidently achieved by students until well after the end of class and in encounters with "real life" situations.

Topic:

Active Learning

• The [Cornerstones] report devalues and misunderstands what occurs in a "lecture-discussion" class. Active learning takes place through reading and writing assignments and lectures and discussions supplement other activities.
• New pedagogies are supported uncritically as a panacea for all educational problems. The report needs to recognize the value of multiple pedagogies.
• Language like "seat time" used negatively needs to be rethought. The Monterey campus found that seat time is essential to the educational process.
• Faculty should be involved in changing the manner of teaching from lecture mode, if necessary they should be required to attend workshops or share research or have demonstrations of techniques.
• We should encourage a student committee or group to summarize the best practices of courses they have taken with active learning and an evaluation of the process by students.
• Active learning should be all through the curriculum, "as appropriate".
• Need to reduce the risk or exposure of faculty when trying new things, for evaluations by students, because students may have to do more work and even though they learn more they may rate such courses lower.
• There should be continuous objective assessment of all forms of active learning to see which have better results, including assessment by both faculty and students.
• That the CSU should provide opportunities for active learning, and is in fact already doing so, often in the major or field of study. Nevertheless, the group agreed that such opportunities should not be made a requirement.

Topic:

How best to provide students active learning experiences.

• Techniques: higher ordered thinking, involvement, schedule laboratories, structured changes. Getting students to participate. Not as much lecturing. Do they learn as much in lecturing as with other methods?
• Educate faculty in techniques of problem-based or active learning in workshops like those the CSU held last summer.
• CSU Learning Institutes were good in teaching faculty problem based learning.
• Faculty must be able to experiment without risk. (RTP consequences, etc.)
• Student group member recommended that a group of students work with faculty in developing active learning classes (best practices). Some liked idea.
• Involve students in "best practices" active learning discussions
• Consensus was that we should encourage students to take a more active role in their learning.
• Must focus on advising as a necessary component for such efforts.
• Self-paced and self-directed study could be appropriate for certain competencies within disciplines more than others.
• Consensus that negotiating an academic plan is a good idea.
• Disagreement with a perceived philosophical viewpoint that students are "customers" or "consumers."
• Acknowledgment that faculty can be traditional and reluctant to change.

Topic:

Student Community Service Learning and Capstone Courses

• Service learning should be encouraged, but may or may not be related to the field of study and would require resources at the university level.
• Projects are very valuable. Writing a report, making a presentation, dealing with current issues, are all important. Departments can decide which kinds of activities will qualify. Students should do more than one project.
• There was agreement that a capstone would be desirable within the major with no new units if there is assurance of adequate financial backing, with a choice of project as appropriate. Not one thing for everyone in every discipline.
• Graduate programs must have a capstone course. Undergraduate programs don't need them.
• Problem: 18 - 22 year olds may need to do community service. What about an engineer at Intel, or a housewife who has been a Girl Scout leader? Is this age appropriate?
• Students should be encouraged in a community service learning project prior to graduation, not necessarily related to their field of study.

Topic:

Funding, Roles, and Rewards

• Many comments on the state of our buildings- the lack of proper heating, lighting, or technology.
• The current reward system emphasizes research and publications and not creative or innovative teaching. Consequently, faculty often pay less attention to student concerns than are needed. Faculty attitudes need to be changed.
• There are not enough established ways to help faculty learn new pedagogies. Reassigned time, workshops, and summer programs require money.
• CSU has not remained competitive at a time when enrollment in higher education is growing. Others seem to deliver education more compatible with student needs.
• The state will have to address its higher education needs at some future time. Yes, we can do more with less but only up to a point. It is unrealistic to expect us to meet the demand with available resources.

Topic:

Access and Partnerships with the Community Colleges

• Create broader partnerships with industry, with community colleges, and government.
• CCC's must be the remedial education vehicle, not the CSU
• CSU needs to offer classes more accessible to students who work.
• The process must be faculty driven
• Change the faculty mix by creating incentives for early retirement- not the current policy which is destructive to programs-- but encourage total retirement. Hire back only tenured faculty who can meet today's challenges.
• Embrace year-round scheduling.
• Cluster some CSU campuses to offer joint degrees,
• Early admission of high school students at CSU
• As long as FTES is the driving force for funding, partnerships are not feasible.
• There is a great potential to use extended/continued education to increase flexibility for students. Even though fees may be higher for students, it may be worth the needed time to degree and increased access that results.
• We must break out of the rigid structures that inhibit movement toward increased flexibility and student-oriented learning because change is necessary to accommodate the expected wave of students.

Topic:

Flexibility

• Embraces funding flexibility, including differential fees.
• Yes- programs should be allowed more flexibility of scheduling to meet student needs.
• There is a great deal of flexibility within the CSU system: it varies from program to program or campus to campus.
• Faculty/departments/schools that are innovative should be rewarded. We need incentives/ rewards.
• System needs to support flexible scheduling. Student services and other non-teaching personnel must be supported if they are to assist implementation of flexible scheduling.