1
October 2004
The MUSE Program
San José State University
Assessment Report
__________________________________
Background
In fall 2002, San José State University launched a first year experience program called
the Metropolitan University Scholar’s Experience (MUSE). The program title clearly reflects a
philosophy combining the concept of “metropolitan university”, with those skills necessary for a
student to succeed as a scholar. This approach was designed to focus students on the value of
scholarship and the role of engagement in and responsibility for personal learning. MUSE
weaves a community of faculty, staff, and peer mentors brought together to deliver a set of
interdisciplinary seminars. MUSE is a fall program since most data regarding success of first
year students implies that students must be “hooked” in the first six weeks of the transition or
they dropout.
A Peer Mentor Program supports MUSE with approximately 30 peer mentors a year. Peer
mentors are trained each spring during which time they select a MUSE seminar to regularly
attend, and they work in a Peer Mentor Center. All students at the university are welcome to use
the Peer Mentor Center. Peer Mentors provide subject matter information, writing skills
assistance, emotional and social support, and referrals to other campus resources to incoming
students.
MUSE is housed in the Office of Undergraduate Studies. MUSE seminars are proposed
from across the campus by faculty interested in teaching in the program. Faculty are encouraged
to develop seminars focusing on specific disciplinary topics about which they are passionate, and
they can clearly articulate the objectives of general education in a specialized area of scholarship.
MUSE faculty-developmental workshops are held throughout the year, including a mandatory
workshop for new faculty each January, with returning faculty also being invited to attend and
participate.
A link to MUSE seminar titles and a MUSE course catalog can be found from the
seminar link on the MUSE homepage (http://www.sjsu.edu/muse/). MUSE also supports a
workshop schedule (see homepage) for students that links academic and student affairs
approaches. MUSE workshops provide academic and social/emotional support for students as
they transition to college. MUSE workshops have been offered by a variety of student affairs
professionals, faculty, peer mentors, as well as the Provost and the President. Students can
register for workshops of their choice on the MUSE website through a web-based registration
system developed by a faculty member in the Department of Management Information Systems.
The web-based registration provides students with an efficient technologically appealing system
2
MUSE Assessment 10/04
for determining the availability of workshops and also helps with tracking attendance in a variety
of ways for the program. Though some faculty require students in their seminars to attend
specific workshops, most allow students to pick a minimum of two workshops to attend.
MUSE seminar enrollments are intended to have a maximum of 17 students per section,
but some sections enroll as many as 20 students. The seminars are held in newly renovated
classrooms (fall 2002), designed to facilitate seminar interaction with flexible seating and
technology access. Each seminar classroom is equipped with a Dell laptop with floppy, zip,
CD/DVD drives; VCR; LCD projection system; and interconnectivity to the internet by Ethernet
connection and wireless capabilities. Peer mentors became part of the wireless laptop project on
campus in spring 2004 and now use Mac laptops in the MUSE classroom.
MUSE seminars currently satisfy general education objectives in GE Areas B1, B2, C1,
C2, D1, and E. Due to enrollment issues in general education Areas D2 and D3, the most current
MUSE Policy S04-2 (see http://www2.sjsu.edu/senate/S04-2.htm) reduced the areas MUSE
seminars are offered from eight to six.
The original vision for implementation was that students would pick a MUSE seminar
based upon their interest in a topic that would arouse their passion for and about a liberal
education. In the first year of MUSE, the recruitment process was difficult and students were
assigned to a seminar rather than self selecting one. The evaluation data from the 2002 cohort of
students and faculty may be skewed by this problem. SJSU has since transitioned to a
mandatory orientation, Making Connections. This new orientation system, in which students,
parents, and families learn more about MUSE, works more effectively for MUSE registration
than the previous system in which advisors determined students’ schedules for them. The
recruitment pitch to the incoming students has been refined based upon feedback received from
students, faculty, academic services staff (including academic advisors), and student affairs
professionals. An introduction to MUSE is incorporated in all recruitment and orientation
activities. Brochures and handouts are used to assist students as they select courses during
registration for their first semester. MUSE faculty and peer mentors participate in most of the
recruitment activities. The MUSE website and its usability have been improved since its
inception as a result of feedback from the campus community (http://www.sjsu.edu/muse/).
In the following section on findings, several forms of data are presented which have been
used to assess the MUSE program, including: descriptive data about MUSE offerings; student
retention data; evaluations of individual MUSE workshops; student responses to a paper and
pencil survey regarding their perceptions of the first year experience; a qualitative study of
faculty conducted as a master’s thesis (Raggio, 2004); anecdotal information from students,
faculty, staff, and peer mentors.
Findings
MUSE Seminar Descriptives
Since its implementation in fall 2002, 197 sections of MUSE seminars have been offered
over a three year period (2002, 2003, and 2004). Perusal of Table 1 indicates that the number of
3
MUSE Assessment 10/04
seminar sections offered in any year was reduced from 2002 to 2004 as a result of severe budget
cuts and the expense of offering these seminars. Attempts have been made to maximize
enrollment in each seminar to improve median and average enrollments in seminars. By
increasing these numbers the program is able to serve nearly the same number of students with
fewer seminars. Until MUSE becomes a mandatory program it will have to determine the
appropriate number of seminars to offer each fall based on demand and available budget.
Table 1. MUSE seminar offerings and enrollment history*.
*Fall Courses Only
Number of Seminars
Total Number of Students
Average Students per Seminar
Median Students per Seminar
2002 Cohort
85
984
11.58
11.96
2003 Cohort
60
893
14.83
16.00
2004 Cohort
49
799
16.31
16.00
*Data include fall seminars only.
Depicted in Table 2 are the frequencies of MUSE seminars offered by faculty in each
college. The majority of MUSE seminars are developed by faculty from three of the eight
colleges with participation from all colleges throughout the three years of the program. In the
second and third cohort of MUSE, several student affairs professionals proposed and taught
seminars (including, the VP for Students Affairs and the Director of MOSAIC Cross Cultural
Center). All MUSE faculty must have a minimum of a master’s degree to teach in the program;
most tenure track full time faculty have doctoral degrees in their specialty areas.
Table 2. Frequencies of MUSE seminars by college and academic year*.
MUSE Seminars by College
Business
Applied Sciences & Arts
Education
Engineering
Humanities & Arts
Science
Social Science
Social Work
Other
Total
2002-2003
4
17
6
3
25
9
20
3
0
87
2003-2004
2
19
2
4
14
5
10
1
4
61
2004-2005
2
17
0
2
10
3
7
2
6
49
*Data include fall and spring seminars; no seminars will be offered in spring 2005.
Presented in Table 3 are the data for MUSE cohorts by general education areas. These
data compare the number of seminars proposed and those actually offered. Several reasons exist
for the discrepancy, including: faculty departures from the university, low enrollment and
cancellations, alternative faculty assignments, retirements, and changing roles of faculty in the
university. As of fall 2004 MUSE seminars are no longer offered in GE Areas D2 and D3 due to
the difficulty in filling seminars in these areas; students can also fulfill US History, Constitution
and California Government requirements with other core general education courses in areas D2
and D3 and thus students were hesitant to take MUSE courses in these areas.
4
MUSE Assessment 10/04
Table 3. MUSE seminars by general education area by academic year*.
MUSE Seminars by
GE Area
Physical Science
Life Science
Humanities/Arts
Humanities/Letters
Social Science/ Human
Behavior
Comparative Systems,
Cultures, &
Environments
Social Issues
Human Understanding
& Development
TOTAL
2002-2003
Proposed Offered
2003-2004
Proposed Offered
2004-2005
Proposed Offered
8
6
3
20
21
6
5
3
18
15
5
4
2
14
23
5
4
2
13
16
3
4
3
11
16
3
4
3
11
15
7
6
1
0
*
*
14
21
13
21
2
24
1
20
*
14
*
13
100
87
75
61
51
49
* MUSE seminars in Areas D2 and D3 are no longer offered beginning in 2004-2005 as per the MUSE policy
passed by the Academic Senate in spring 2004.
Student Retention
Based upon the results of placement tests (e.g., English Placement Test, Entry Level
Math Test), many first year students at San José State University are placed in remedial math or
English (or both) courses to bring their skills up to college level. Depicted in Table 4 are the
percentages of fall 2002 cohort first time freshmen still enrolled at SJSU in fall 2003. When
examining the variables, type of student and remedial requirements, students who took MUSE
seminars had substantially better retention rates when they entered with math remediation than
those who did not take MUSE. One interpretation of this finding might relate to the requirement
to take few courses requiring math skills across one’s college career, exempting specific heavy
math majors, while English skills are needed across all courses at the university. Weak English
skills likely will have a negative impact on grades in most of the courses students take.
5
MUSE Assessment 10/04
Table 4. One year retention of fall 2002 cohort by remediation group measured in fall 2003.
Fall 02 First Year
Students
Not
MUSE
Enrolled in
Cohort
MUSE
No Remedial
Courses
BOTH
Math & English
Remediation
English
Remediation
Math
Remediation
Undeclared
Declared
Not
Enrolled in
MUSE
MUSE
Cohort
Not
Enrolled in
MUSE
MUSE
Cohort
82%
76%
81%
69%
83%
79%
71%
76%
71%
74%
71%
77%
78%
80%
79%
73%
77%
82%
73%
84%
72%
92%
74%
82%
77%
78%
76%
74%
77%
79%
TOTAL
Depicted in Table 5 are one semester retention data for the fall 2003 cohort . A 3.6
percent greater retention rate was found for MUSE students than non-MUSE students. These
data are in line with most first year retention findings across the nation.
Table 5. Retention of fall 2003 MUSE cohort in spring 2004.
MUSE Students
Non-MUSE Students
Total
Students Enrolled
Fall 2003
886
1178
2064
Students Enrolled
Spring 2004
839
1073
1929
Retention
Rate
94.7%
91.1%
93.5%
In fall 2003, 2103 of the 2720 Fall 2002 first time freshmen, were still enrolled at SJSU.
Tracked in Table 6 are the cumulative grade point averages (GPAs) of these 2103 students over
three semesters. The cumulative GPA’s of MUSE students were consistently higher than those
of students who did not enroll in MUSE. While the difference in GPAs is not large, the trend is
certainly encouraging.
Table 6. Average cumulative GPAs of 2002 cohort in fall 2003.
Fall 2002 MUSE
Cohort
Not Enrolled in MUSE
Number of
Students Enrolled
in Fall 2003
Fall 02
Spring 03
Fall 03
746
1357
2.83
2.75
2.72
2.64
2.66
2.61
Average Cumulative SJSU GPA
I
6
MUSE Assessment 10/04
Depicted in Table 7 is the distribution of cumulative GPAs in spring 2003 for this same
group of students. The distributions are quite similar, but a smaller percentage of MUSE
students have averages below a C (2.0).
Table 7. Fall 2002 MUSE cohort average cumulative GPAs in spring 2003.
0 to 1.0
Fall 2002 MUSE Cohort 3.9%
Not Enrolled in MUSE
5.5%
Total
5.0%
1.01 to 2.0
13.4%
16.8%
15.6%
Spring 2003 GPA
2.01 to 2.5
2.51 to 3.0
20.5%
29.6%
19.2%
27.8%
19.6%
28.4%
3.01 to 3.5
22.5%
20.6%
21.3%
3.51 to 4.0
10.1%
10.2%
10.1%
Student Survey Responses
The data presented in Table 8 depict the responses of students to a survey regarding their
MUSE experience. These data indicate that students either agree or strongly agree that their
MUSE seminar is helping them with their transition to the university. When compared to other
first year programs at San José State University (e.g., Engl 1A, Sci 2, Bus 10, ENG 10, Hum 1A,
LLD1 and LLD 2) MUSE students on average responded more favorably to feeling excited about
a subject, participating actively in class, and learning to identify reliable information.
Table 8. Fall 2002 and fall 2003 MUSE cohort responses to survey.
My MUSE class helped me to….
Feel excited about a subject
Understand my learning style
Manage my time better
Learn about campus resources and facilities
Improve my writing skills
Develop a sense of campus community
Plan my coursework for the future
Stay motivated about being an SJSU student
Work effectively on my own
Learn effectively on my own
Participate actively in class
Accept responsibility for my learning
Identify reliable information when doing research
Explore my major and career options
Work effectively with others
Consider issues/concepts from more than one perspective
I would recommend this MUSE course to other students.
Agree or Strongly
Agree
2002
2003
Cohort
Cohort
47%
56.%
42%
71%
50%
52%
45%
49%
58%
57%
69%
69%
65%
-----
55%
57%
50%
71%
52%
53%
49%
47%
56%
-66%
65%
70%
71%
65%
66%
67%
7
MUSE Assessment 10/04
As shown in Table 9, of 638 students in MUSE seminars who responded, a majority
(61.1%) indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, (“The MUSE
workshops you attended provided you with useful information”) and 10.3% disagreed or
strongly disagreed. The last column of Table 11 renormalizes the responses when the Did Not
Attend responses are removed.
Table 9. Reponses of fall 2003 cohort to survey question,” The MUSE workshops you attended
provided you with useful information”.
# Responses
123
267
139
36
30
43
638
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Did Not Attend
Total
Percent
19.3
41.8
21.8
5.6
4.7
6.7
100.0
Percent Excluding
“Did not Attend”
20.7
44.9
23.4
6.1
5.0
------100.0
Presented in Figure 1 is student satisfaction reported in the surveys with the fall 2003
MUSE seminar as a function of whether they were assigned to or chose the class. These data
indicate that students are more satisfied if they can choose the topic of their seminar.
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
CHOSE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
NEUTRAL
AGREE
ASSIGNED
STRONGLY
AGREE
% Responses
Would Recommend this MUSE Class
to Other Students
Figure 1. Fall 2003 cohort satisfaction of students with MUSE seminar by whether the student
chose the seminar or not.
Faculty Perspectives
A qualitative study conducted on MUSE faculty indicated many important findings
related to faculty attitudes about the program. Concerns included the extra workload incurred by
teaching a MUSE seminar that might continue for several years as the MUSE faculty become
8
MUSE Assessment 10/04
mentors for students throughout their college experience; the political beliefs of departments and
colleges regarding the MUSE program in general; the role of MUSE in the retention, tenure, and
promotion process; the increased requirements placed on faculty when teaching a general
education course and participating in MUSE Peer Review Groups. Benefits of the program
included: getting to meet great first year students; working across departmental and college
boundaries; learning more about campus resources; having the opportunity to work with
colleagues across campus; and participating in MUSE workshops and social events. Further,
faculty remarked about the ability to teach specialized and alternative topics in an era of fewer
academic course offerings.
MUSE Workshops
The data illustrated in Figures 2- 4 represent the data from MUSE workshops that were
compiled and evaluated at the completion of the fall 2003 semester. MUSE workshops were
offered to students throughout the fall semester to complement their seminar experience.
Workshop presenters included both faculty and staff. Overall, the responses to MUSE workshop
topics and presenters were overwhelmingly positive. For example, 76% of students who attended
MUSE workshops agreed or strongly agreed that the topic was relevant and useful to them (see
Figure 2). In addition, 85% of students who attended MUSE workshops agreed or strongly
agreed that the presenter knew his or her topic and communicated the points well (see Figure 3).
Figure 4 provides an illustration of an individual MUSE workshop assessment that measured the
time of the workshop, location, content/topic, materials, visual aids, and workshop presenter(s).
Quality of MUSE Workshop Topics (2003)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 (low)
2
3
4
5 (high)
N/A
TOTAL
Topic Rating (N=179)
Figure 2. Fall 2003 cohort ratings of MUSE workshop topics.
9
MUSE Assessment 10/04
Quality of MUSE Workshop Presenters (2003)
100
1 (low)
80
2
60
3
40
4
5 (high)
20
N/A
0
TOTAL
Presenter Rating (N=179)
Figure 3. Fall 2003 cohort ratings of quality of MUSE workshop presenters.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 (low)
2
TE
R
S
PR
ES
EN
AI
D
VI
SU
AL
IA
LS
NT
M
AT
ER
NT
E
TI
LO
C
CO
AT
IO
N
3
M
E
Responses
Leadership and Development at SJSU
4
5 (high)
Total Number of Students = 22
Figure 4. Fall 2003 cohort ratings of MUSE workshop, “Leadership and Development at SJSU”.
Peer Mentors
The fall 2003 MUSE cohort survey included evaluation of the peer mentors. Tables 10
and 11 summarize responses from students who were in MUSE courses that were assigned a peer
mentor. A majority of students indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
“Working with a peer mentor helped me to succeed in my first semester” and only 7% disagreed
or strongly disagreed with this statement. The 51 not-applicable responses are difficult to
interpret, but a possible explanation might include: the students did not work directly with a peer
mentor. The option to work with a peer mentor in the classroom or the Peer Mentor Center is a
student’s choice. Some students might opt not to take this option.
Demonstrated in Table 11 are the top two ways that peer mentors helped freshmen
academically and in communicating with their professors. It is difficult to interpret the 75
students who replied not applicable to this question. Thirty-one were students who indicated that
10
MUSE Assessment 10/04
they were neutral, disagree, or strongly disagreed that Peer Mentors helped them to succeed on
their first semester, and 42 responded not-applicable to that same question.
Table 10. Reponses to Fall 2003 survey question “Working with a peer mentor helped me to
succeed in my first semester” (only includes responses from courses with an assigned peer
mentor).
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Total
Not Applicable
# Responses
43
78
92
11
5
229
51
Percent
18.8
34.1
40.2
4.8
2.2
100.0
-----
Cumulative Percent
18.8
52.8
93.0
97.8
100.0
---------
Table 11. Reponses to fall 2003 survey question “Working with a peer mentor supported me in
the following ways” (only includes responses from courses with an assigned peer mentor).
Not Applicable
Academically
Socially
Emotionally
With Survival Skills
Communication with my
professors
Other
Total Students Responding
# Responses
Percent
75
153
47
22
50
26.2
53.5
16.4
7.7
17.5
56
32
286
19.6
11.2
Improvements Based upon Findings
MUSE has experienced good support and stability over a period of three years.
Approximately 2,670 students have been served by this academic seminar program. The
program is known and promoted throughout all areas of the university.
The difficulty in recruiting students in the first year of the MUSE program forced us to
step back and consider how we could garner support by creating partnerships with academic and
student affairs departments throughout the university. The new mandatory orientation for first
year students has assisted us in meeting our objective of students selecting their own seminars.
Also we have used the feedback provided by many professionals and students on campus to
improve our program and our relationships across the university. By maximizing our enrollment
in each section our reputation with the College Deans and Department Chairs has improved since
MUSE seminars generate FTES for the departments/colleges and no MUSE sections were
cancelled in fall 2004.
11
MUSE Assessment 10/04
MUSE faculty development workshops are held throughout the year to assist faculty
while they are teaching their MUSE seminars and in January for a longer mandatory workshop.
Each year the faculty workshop schedule is created based upon the needs of the faculty and their
feedback. For example in the second and third year of the January workshop we brought back
panels of returning faculty and peer mentors to help new faculty design seminars that balance
general education and MUSE content and goals, what to expect from first year students, and
what we know from our experience. Assistance is also provided specifically regarding working
with first year students, e.g., engaging strategies, and student writing skill assessments.
Based upon extensive feedback from the Board of General Studies a new policy
statement regarding MUSE and its offerings was developed in spring 2004. Changes to the
program included reducing the general education areas for offering MUSE courses and a tighter
peer review process.
The MUSE workshop calendar that complements our seminars has been changed to
facilitate student participation, workshop location, and times. We have used the feedback from
students and presenters to reorganize after the first year of implementation. We determine the
number of workshops needed based on the total number of students enrolled and expected to
attend a minimum of two workshops. Most workshops are scheduled in the Peer Mentor Center
for a central meeting location and to get the students more familiar with coming to the Peer
Mentor Center. Also the new website registration system makes it easy for students to find the
workshops and to provide an email reminder a day or two before the workshop. Several peer
mentors are always available in the Peer Mentor Center during each workshop.
12
MUSE Assessment 10/04
Members of the MUSE Assessment Committee
Thalia Anagnos
Steve Branz
Robert Cooper
Gail Evans
Toby Matoush
Ashley Raggio
Maureen Scharberg
Richard Sedlock
Jill Steinberg
Amy Strage
Emily Wughalter
Director of Assessment; Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Department of Chemistry
Associate Vice President, Office of Undergraduate Studies
Associate Dean, Office of Undergraduate Studies
Reference Librarian (MUSE Library Liaison), Martin Luther King Jr.
Library
MUSE Program Coordinator
Department of Chemistry
Department of Geology
Director, Peer Mentor Program
Department of Child and Adolescent Development
Director, The MUSE Program; Department of Human Performance