What follows is Cal Poly's Self-Study Plan as it was revised and submitted to WASC on March 17, 1998.

The Intellectual Environment

Introduction

If we conceive of Cal Poly as a "center of learning" and if that means learning is the core mission, activity, and value which unites all the members of the Cal Poly community, and around which Cal Poly organizes its activities and resources, then answers to the following four questions should yield valuable information on the quality of the intellectual environment at Cal Poly.

We intend by these questions to look at the quality and centrality of learning for each of the on-campus constituent groups, but we don't mean to attach equal importance to all four questions. We will focus on student learning (question #1) as the "centerpiece" of our investigation and evaluation of the learning environment. We believe that faculty development about learning theory, curriculum development, pedagogy, and assessment (question #2) is almost a subset of the larger question on student learning. It's at least inextricably intertwined, and the purpose of our inquiry about it is to increase and improve student learning. We also believe that faculty scholarship (question #3) is relevant to #1 because faculty can only model for their student's life-long learning and the active pursuit of their disciplines if they are engaged in one or more of the scholarships. Faculty scholarship at Cal Poly is traditionally linked to student learning (sabbatical applications and reports require some exposition on this link), and Cal Poly has never been a Research I or II university that by explicit mission or conscious design subordinates undergraduate to graduate education or teaching to research. For related reasons, staff development (question #4) is also central to student learning. By continuing to learn, staff members improve the quality of services for students, achieve productivities that free resources for student learning, and demonstrate for students that life-long learning is essential for all work and all members of a community (and not idiosyncratic to faculty).

During the June 3, 1998 meeting with Dr. Wolff, our understanding was that his concern focused on the absence and/or underdevelopment of question #1 in our plans, we therefore propose the following plans to address it in our self study:

1. Processes: To what extent do university-wide academic planning and review processes already focus program design and evaluation on student learning?

New (within the last two years) curricular planning/approval processes and program review processes together require that faculty do the following:

1. Define program goals for student learning,
2. Define course goals relative to program goals,
3. Justify pedagogical and assessment practices relative to course goals,
4. Justify sequence and shape of program curricula,
5. Link course and/or other assessment strategies with program goals.

We will describe these processes and include the questionnaires (forms) used for curricular proposals and program review in our web portfolio.

New (within the last three years) planning and approval processes for Cal Poly Plan projects (funded from special student fees) require that project directors do the following:

1. Define, direct, student benefits of proposed projects in terms of enhancing educational quality and/or facilitating progress to degree,
2. Address student needs as determined by multiple on and off-campus constituent surveys,
3. Assess project success in terms of enhancing educational quality and/or facilitating progress to degree.

We will describe the process and include the RFP and assessment questionnaire for these Cal Poly Plan projects in our web portfolio.

2. Programs and Special Projects: Where are we with respect to actual production of useful information about student learning in our programs?

1. GENERAL EDUCATION - In fall 1998, Trudy Banta will visit campus to work with GE area subcommittees on operationalizing learning goals for students into learning outcomes and defining measures to assess them. (The campus has been planning a new general education program for the last two years and, while the outcomes and measures will be defined in 1998-1999, the courses will not have yet been taught prior to the WASC visit so there will be no data available for the team in this matter).
2. MAJOR PROGRAMS (Undergraduate and Graduate)
1. Cal Poly WASC Subcommittee examines self-studies and program review committee reports from 12 program reviews (two per college) completed in 1996-97 and 1997-98 to determine how well programs are identifying learning outcomes, to what extent they can identify the courses and pedagogies in their programs which address those outcomes, and how close they are to producing sufficient sample or aggregated data to inform course and program improvement. (Most departments haven't yet accomplished this final item, so again there will be little aggregated data in the report itself.)
2. In 1998-99, the Academic Programs Office brings in a consultant to work with three to four programs from different colleges on using capstone learning experience of senior project (already exists for all students) as a vehicle for assessing some targeted program outcomes. (As in the case of GE, little actual data will be available for the report, but outcome measures will be in place to begin producing it.) Selected senior projects, illustrative of targeted outcomes, to be included in web portfolio.

3. CAL POLY PLAN AND OTHER SPECIAL TEACHING/LEARNING PROJECTS - Report on goals and progress of assessments of other core and experimental Cal Poly learning projects. Tentative list includes chemistry studio instruction; rendering, modeling, and animation laboratory (art and architecture); cooperative education (significant subset of learn by doing); and new integrated undergraduate or graduate business curriculum; and, perhaps, a living and learning program.

3. Next Steps and Commitments for the Future: What next steps must the campus undertake to move to generate more actual quantitative and qualitative data and to link that data with appropriate curricular and pedagogical improvements, so that the campus can assure its constituencies that program design and evaluation are linked in an iterative process of continuous improvement in student learning?

1. General Education - Next Steps (immediate and long-term)
2. Major and Graduate Programs - Next Steps (immediate and long term). Possibilities include but aren't limited to contracts between program review committee/provost and programs as part of program review cycle about specific improvements in learning and assessment? to include specific timetables?
3. Cal Poly Plan and Other Special Teaching/Learning Projects that are institutionalized - Next steps (immediate and long-term).
4. Clarification between faculty and administration about purposes and audiences for program and project assessments. (Which information is protected and which may be used for University resource allocation decisions and off-campus accountability?)
5. Faculty development with respect to learning theory, curriculum development and design, pedagogy, and assessment. (Refer to Self-Study Question #2 under Intellectual Environment) - Next Steps.
6. Teaching portfolios and faculty reward system - Next Steps.
7. Standing University committee to be chaired by the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Undergraduate Education that will continue to review the University's assessment activities as a whole and make recommendations beyond the life of the self-study and accreditation team visit.

We believe that the strength of this proposal is that it will affirm and advance solid research into student learning at Cal Poly and a carefully conceived infrastructure for continuing to improve student learning at Cal Poly. Its weakness is that the resultant draft next spring will be thin on good actual aggregated data. (There is some, but it is mostly self-reported by students.) Clearly, this proposal outlines a kind of systematic audit of Cal Poly's current status vis a’ vis student learning and assessment, commits the university to actions in 1998-99 that will enable actual research on its general education and major/graduate programs, and moves the University towards a specific timetable for achieving good qualitative and quantitative information that will regularly inform its academic planning.

The Physical Environment

Introduction

This component of the self-study will examine the extent to which campus facilities and processes contribute to making Cal Poly a "Center of Learning". The four research questions originally proposed in this section have been narrowed to three, and some aspects of the omitted question have been incorporated into the remaining three.

Researchable Questions

Question 1: Facilities Design

The motivation for this research area is to allow us to assess whether our facilities are enabling the type of teaching/learning that is appropriate to Cal Poly.

To what extent does the physical environment (facilities and existing processes) facilitate "learn-by-doing"/"active learning"/"application oriented learning"? Are new and remodeled facilities being designed in a way that foster the type of faculty-student and student-student interaction that is essential in a "learn-by-doing" environment? If not, are there ways in which existing facilities or the processes for designing new facilities might be changed to enhance active learning at Cal Poly? To what extent do new facilities and newly remodeled facilities accommodate a variety of accepted or futuristic pedagogies?

A University inventory and evaluation of instructional space on campus will be used to determine whether existing facilities meet discipline specific instructional needs. The process by which new facilities are designed will also be examined to determine the extent to which they support development of functional and flexible instructional space. Information from this part of the self-study will be useful to the University in the development of guidelines for the design of campus facilities that suit Cal Poly’s teaching/learning requirements.

Question 2: Technology

The intent of this research area is to allow Cal Poly to determine the different technologies that are currently being used in the teaching/learning process on campus, to discover what assessment tools are being used to assess methods of teaching and learning, and to establish a systematic approach for assessing methods of incorporating technology in the teaching learning process. To what extent do all forms of technology and the way in which technology is being used enhance or diminish teaching/learning at Cal Poly? In particular, is technology facilitating active learning?

As a result of carrying out this research, Cal Poly will have a better understanding of appropriate mechanisms for assessing the use of technology in the teaching/learning process, and in particular how technology is being used in a learn-by-doing environment. This knowledge will allow Cal Poly to develop recommendations regarding future assessment of technology projects, and to be more proactive in the way it determines strategies for the use of technology in the teaching/learning process.

Question 3: Retention and Progress to Degree

University processes are included as part of the physical environment on campus. One area of interest to the campus is the evaluation and possible redesign of processes that are related to student retention and progress to degree.

To what extent do University policies and procedures enhance or inhibit the ability of our students to be successful in their studies and complete a degree program in a timely manner? What resources would enable students to be more effective in their studies and complete a degree in a more timely manner?

The processes that have an impact on student retention and progress to degree will be identified and the strengths and weaknesses of these processes will be evaluated. Barriers to student progress will be identified. The information gained through this research effort will be used for process improvement.

Next steps

Separate teams are being formed for each of the three research areas, and team leaders have been selected. Each research team will work with a member of the WASC Steering Committee, who will provide oversight and coordination. Before conducting their research, the teams will be charged with refining the research question and developing a research plan, which will be approved by the oversight team and steering committee. It is anticipated that some of the research teams may choose to narrow the focus of the proposed researchable question, particularly in the technology area.

The Social Environment

Introduction

Cal Poly, as a Center of Learning, emphasizes the value of diversity in that "diversity enhances the quality of life and education for all members of the Cal Poly community and enriches the social and professional climate both on and off campus."

This portion of the self-study will focus on learning outcomes relative to how well faculty, staff, students, and administrators understand and function in an increasingly multicultural, multiracial, and international environment by effectively communicating with others and by demonstrating tolerance for and support of constructive ideas, attitudes, and behaviors that differ from their own.

Researchable Question

How does the environment at Cal Poly enable its members (staff, faculty, students, and administrators) to understand and function in an increasingly multicultural, multiracial, and international environment?

Question 1: Campus Climate

• How do the members of Cal Poly demonstrate tolerance for and support of constructive ideas, attitudes, and behaviors that differ from their own?
• How does the environment contribute to effectively communicating with others?
• How does Cal Poly create an environment that welcomes and supports diverse members of the community?

Next Steps

It is anticipated that the self-study will identify strengths and areas for improvement to create and sustain a diverse learning environment. Based on this information, it is anticipated that the committee will propose steps, both long and short term, to strengthen diversity on the campus.