SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Introduction to San José State University’s Educational Effectiveness Report
Introduction (CFR 1.1)
This report presents the process, results, and impact of San José State University’s Educational
Effectiveness (EE) self-study, the third component of our accreditation review by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The report provides evidence and reflection on our core
commitment to educational effectiveness; the appendices, institutional portfolio, and supplemental data
document a solid foundation of effective educational programs and highlight examples of curricular and
co-curricular initiative, innovation, and renewal. The three reflective essays explore issues of critical
importance as the university builds upon this foundation: (1) integrative learning, (2) inclusive excellence,
and (3) community connections. Cross-cutting each thematic essay and the conclusion that brings them
together is evidence of a transformative shift underway as SJSU continues to develop its culture of
assessment and proactive organizational systems aligned to serve our mission. The university’s Vision
2010 guides strategic planning, assessment of student learning, enrollment management, and institutional
research. Our institutional evolution is informed by the national dialogue on the purpose and
accountability of contemporary higher education, the priorities of the California State University (CSU)
system, and our own efforts to “guide our fleet of small boats”1 to achieve our common objectives for the
21st century.
San José State University is located in the City of San José, the heart of Silicon Valley, and within 50
miles of three major research universities, three CSU campuses, several private universities, and 12
community colleges. We are part of one of the most diverse and dynamic economies and cultures of the
region, indeed the world. Our mission and setting require vision and responsiveness, sophisticated and
contemporary education at undergraduate and graduate levels, and state of the art scholarship and
research. Our vision and Goals 2010 require an inclusive, supportive environment for a student
population highly diverse in race, ethnicity, language, and culture; educational background and academic
preparation; religion and values; economic status, life experience, and career aspirations. Our ultimate
objective is educational effectiveness in and for this unique time and place.
Our Approach to Educational Effectiveness (CFRs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.9)
We define educational effectiveness as achievement of our university goals for all students:

In-depth knowledge of a major field of study,

Broad understanding of the sciences, social sciences, humanities, and the arts,

Skills in communication and in critical inquiry,

Multicultural and global perspectives gained through intellectual and social exchange with
people of diverse economic and ethnic backgrounds,

Active participation in professional, artistic, and ethnic communities,

Responsible citizenship and an understanding of ethical choices inherent in human
development.
At the baccalaureate level, these goals are achieved through the General Education Program Objectives
and the student learning outcomes of SJSU’s 69 baccalaureate degree programs and 81 concentrations.
The goals are also reflected in the learning outcomes of our 65 master’s degrees with 29 concentrations,
specialized and/or certificate programs.
Our approach to educational effectiveness focuses on both student and institutional learning. Our
campus-wide system of ongoing student learning assessment, including a common reporting format, has
led to greater appreciation of what is effective and identification of areas needing further development.
The iterative cycle of planning-action-assessment-improvement, long established in our General
Education program, now also occurs within degree programs based on program-specific educational
objectives and indicators of student achievement. Institutional learning is enhanced by ongoing
1
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
assessment of a set of internally and externally derived benchmarks of effectiveness and the new
administrative position of Associate Vice President for Institutional Research, the first in campus history.
Key to institutional learning has been our evolution beyond merely collecting data to using data as a
critical resource for understanding and improving our educational effectiveness.
Building upon this foundation and looking to the future, we have identified integrative learning, inclusive
excellence, and community connections, the themes of our three reflective essays, as central to our vision
and Goals 2010 and critical to achieving our educational objectives. As such, they are on the leading
edge of the university’s strategic planning and development. We are committed to expanding the range
and effectiveness of curricular and co-curricular programs that emphasize integrative learning “across
courses, over time, and between campus and community life.”2 The national dialogue on inclusive
excellence has broadened our understanding of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and other forms of diversity, of
the institutional support needed for all students’ achievement, and of the myriad ways that individual and
group differences can be proactively engaged in the service of learning. We are committed to measures
of educational effectiveness that encompass not only indicators of access and equity, but also disparities
in experience and achievement between groups. We are committed to continued development of a safe,
welcoming, and inclusive campus climate and to opportunities for learning that engage the diversity of
our students and our region. Finally, we committed to continuing our long tradition of community
connections, more explicitly linking the many initiatives across campus as a key strategy for preparing
students to be productive contributors to a dynamic and global future. Infused throughout the essays and
our approach to educational effectiveness is a growing commitment to the relationship between learning
and belonging, and a continually renewed commitment to investment in faculty and staff - the stewards of
our university and our mission.
The Educational Effectiveness self-study was extremely helpful to San José State University. We used the
opportunity to stimulate and support focused planning, assessment, reflection, and improvement at
department, college/division, and institutional levels. We actively sought to engage the campus in
discussions of the evidence of our educational effectiveness, recognizing successful efforts and
identifying areas needing improvement. Our mission, vision, and goals 2010 were the framing documents,
but our growing confidence and enthusiasm stimulated new conversations and possibilities. The
university’s strategic planning process encouraged collaboration across traditional boundaries and
resulted in funded initiatives aligned with our educational goals.
The progress between each of our three accreditation reports – Capacity and Preparatory Review, Special
Visit, and now Educational Effectiveness – reflects our enhanced capacity to plan, act, assess, reflect, and
improve within programs and across the divisions of our university. During the assessment of each phase
and the development of each report, we became better able to articulate who we want to be and to
properly ask the questions and reflect on the data that will help us get there. Our progress is not uniform
nor is it yet comprehensive. But it is real, it is sustainable, and, as presented in this report, is evidence of
the nature and measure of the educational effectiveness of a mature and complex university. This report
describes our process, findings, challenges, and commitments. It is an early chapter of an evolving story
that will continue well beyond this review.
The Educational Effectiveness Report in Context
A brief chronology of our accreditation experience to date traces the evolution of our Educational
Effectiveness Report from the proposed comprehensive self-study of student development and success to
a theme-based inquiry into specific areas we came to see as critical to gathering and understanding the
evidence of our effectiveness and planning for our future. While the focus elements changed, our
underlying core commitments and the spirit of our inquiry never wavered.
Institutional Proposal, 2002 (CFRs 1.3, 1.9, 4.1)
SJSU’s institutional proposal, submitted to WASC in May 2002, revised and re-submitted in July 2002,
specified the comprehensive model for the accreditation review. The proposal identified a large set of
issues facing the campus, noting that an expanded Steering Committee, with broad campus consultation,
would select a smaller subset of issues and the specific foci for the Capacity and Preparatory and
2
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Educational Effectiveness Reviews. The Proposal Steering Committee noted that the two reviews would
be conducted simultaneously and needed to be linked by a “bridge concept” that would facilitate
congruence between use of resources and overall academic effectiveness.
Capacity and Preparatory Review, 2003-2004 (CFRs 1.3, 1.9)
Intensive dialogue within the Steering Committee and summary reports from a series of campus forums in
spring 2003 revealed a broad-based desire that the university engage in more comprehensive planning.
Consistent across constituencies was a call for alignment of mission, vision, priorities, and resources. The
Accreditation Steering Committee selected institutional planning, particularly enrollment management, as
the focus of the Capacity and Preparatory Review (CPR) Report. Student development and success,
including the planning systems necessary to ensure effectiveness, was selected as the focus of the
Educational Effectiveness (EE) Report. Teams representing faculty, administration, staff, and students
were formed for both reports. The now expanded Accreditation Steering Committee coordinated their
work.
The CPR Report and Institutional Portfolio were submitted to WASC in July 2004; the Site Visit took
place in October. During the exit interview, the Visiting Team identified four capacity-related areas in
which further work was needed: (1) assessment of major and general education objectives, (2) enrollment
management, (3) institutionalized planning, and (4) institutional research. A working outline of the
proposed EE Report was shared with the Visiting Team, who questioned its comprehensive focus. The
Team advised the Steering Committee to consider enrollment management and student development and
success as connected, and to address this connection in the EE report.
Phase 1 of the Educational Effectiveness Review, 2004-2005 (CFRs 1.3, 1.9, 2.10, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.6)
The EE Committee began working in essay teams in AY 2003-04. One team worked to identify evidence
of effectiveness related to the university goals that students become intentional, lifelong learners and
engaged citizens of a global society. Another team had responsibility for gathering data from multiple
sources on students’ perceptions of their educational experience at SJSU and the factors they feel
influence their personal and professional development and success.
The team attempting to identify educational effectiveness data was challenged by the same issues that had
been raised by the CPR Visiting Team, particularly the poorly defined relationship between program
objectives and the university mission, vision, and strategic goals; resource allocation that was more
reactive than proactive; and scattered and inconsistent assessment processes and data regarding student
learning in curricular and co-curricular programs. These challenges had been exacerbated by the very
difficult 1998 – 2004 state budget crisis, the dramatic shift in enrollment patterns due to the changing
economy of the Silicon Valley, the transition to a new student records database, and the university’s lack
of institutional research capacity. Too often, critical data simply had not been collected or could not be
retrieved or linked to other datasets. The available data were frequently based on small samples
inadequate for understanding a university of our size and complexity, and were hard to compare across
units or over time. Our common measures of effectiveness were the readiness with which our graduates
were hired in every discipline, the scholarly standing of the faculty as evidenced by growing extramural
support, individual program accreditation, our long-term relationship with the local community, and the
abundant anecdotal success stories of individual graduates. However, with the exception of our General
Education program, there were no common systematic measures of student learning at either
undergraduate or graduate levels, nor a shared definition of educational effectiveness.
The results of the Student Experience Study were equally sobering. The essay team responsible for this
inquiry had designed a triangulated investigation of student perspectives gathered from upper division
classroom-based interviews and surveys analyzed in relation to local and national datasets (e.g., the 2002
and 2004 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the 2004 Student Needs and Priorities Survey
(SNAPS), a 1999 senior exit survey, and a 2005 alumni survey). Using multiple methods and sampling
strategies, the study ultimately involved responses from over 3,000 SJSU students and recent graduates.
The data, collected in spring and fall 2005, clearly indicated that the student experience of SJSU was
decidedly mixed and far more complicated than the essay team had anticipated. Five cross-cutting
3
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
tensions emerged from the analysis: (1) convenience and inconvenience, (2) individual responsibility and
institutional accountability, (3) opportunity yet inaccessibility, (4) persistence and change, and (5)
struggle and liberation.
The findings and implications of the Student Experience Study were further validated by rich anecdotal
reports from students, faculty, and staff. Members of the Steering and Educational Effectiveness
Committees were particularly moved by the depth of students’ feelings about the tensions reported in the
qualitative portion of the study. Through the accounts and examples provided by study participants, the
EE Committee realized that our students present, and profoundly experience, a variety of significant and
intersecting challenges to the university’s broad goal of student development and success. The data led to
new questions about our effectiveness and, ultimately, the desire for a sharper focus for the final phase of
the EE Review.
The American Association of Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) 2002 Greater Expectations Report2
provided the conceptual framework for the focused review we needed. The SJSU team that attended the
summer 2005 Greater Expectations Conference returned with great enthusiasm for integrative learning
across the curriculum, discussion of the movement from diversity to inclusive excellence, and exploration
of the relationship of learning and belonging. A Fall 2005 discussion group co-sponsored and facilitated
by the University President of the book Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter3
provided further development of and support for these ideas, as did ongoing and lively email and brown
bag discussions of what it means to be an educated person. Our own SJSU Achieving Greater
Expectations Institute, hosted by the President and Provost in January 2006, involved over 60 faculty,
staff, administrators, and students in a three-day exploration of this framework, examination of national
and local data, and collaborative development of proposals to improve our educational effectiveness in
line with our Vision and Goals 2010. As members of the Accreditation Steering and EE Committees
participated in many of the discussions, a new framework for our Educational Effectiveness review began
to emerge.
The Special Visit, 2005-2006 (CFRs 1.3, 1.9, 4.1, 4.6)
In March 2005, the Commission announced its decision that SJSU would have a Special Visit focusing on
three areas of concern: strategic planning, enrollment management, and assessment in general education
and the major. While preparation of the Special Visit Report, submitted in December 2005, and the
March 2006 Site Visit took a toll on EE momentum for several months, it ultimately strengthened the
final phase of the self-study by dealing with the capacity concerns raised by the Commission and our
early EE self-study efforts. Substantial progress in the areas identified for the Special Visit had direct
benefits for the framing and assessment of SJSU’s educational effectiveness. Upon review of the plans
for the EE self-study, the Special Visit Team encouraged the University to move beyond that
comprehensive outline and, instead, “to focus our efforts around key issues related to educational
effectiveness rather than attempt broad coverage” 4 of student development and success. They further
encouraged us to focus on inquiry, evaluation, and analysis of the concepts that clearly had such
resonance for our university context and imagination. We embraced their recommendations with renewed
enthusiasm.
Phase 2 of the Educational Effectiveness Review, 2006 (CFRs 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.9, 4.1, 4.2, 4.6)
In January 2006, the Accreditation Steering Committee and the Educational Effectiveness Committee
merged into one entity – the EE Report Team – that worked closely together to design and develop the
final EE Report. New members were added to represent diverse perspectives. The subsequent 20-member
committee consisted of faculty, staff, and administrators, many of whom had been involved in previous
aspects of the current accreditation effort and others new to the process.
After the discussion with the Special Visit Team, the EE Report Team reformulated the original student
development and success focus into an inquiry more finely attuned to the university’s current questions
regarding our educational effectiveness. Much had changed since the 2002 commitment to a
comprehensive review of student development and success. The EE Team decided that a theme-based,
reflective review would better serve our needs in the current context; approval from WASC for this
4
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
approach was secured in August 2006. Through extensive discussion and deliberation, integrative
learning, inclusive excellence, and community connections emerged as our three themes. These themes
were selected for their alignment with the campus Vision and Goals 2010, their power to organize the
myriad but independent initiatives and innovation across our complex university, their relevance to the
findings of the Student Experience Study, and their centrality to the kind of institutional learning that
facilitates student development and success. In short, the EE Report Team, in consultation with the
President and Provost, determined that these themes, and the inquiry they would inspire, were critical to
educational effectiveness as we had come to define it at San José State University. The themes were
endorsed in the Commission’s August 2006 letter that authorized proceeding to the Educational
Effectiveness review scheduled for March 7-9, 2007.
From March through December 2006, three essay teams worked on coordinated inquiries into integrative
learning, inclusive excellence, and community connections. Each inquiry involved (a) review of existing
evidence of effectiveness, (b) extensive outreach for additional sources of evidence, (c) analysis of
unanalyzed data, and, when appropriate, (d) new data collection to address emerging questions. Findings,
challenges, and the emerging essays were reviewed and discussed by the full EE Report Team at its
weekly meetings. The framework, process, results, and recommendations were actively disseminated
through formal campus channels (e.g., Academic Senate, the Council of Deans, the Associate Deans
Council, the University Council of Chairs and Directors), theme-based review panels that involved over
75 people in discussion of particular essays, and a month-long public comment period during which the
full draft report was posted on the SJSU website. The second annual SJSU Achieving Greater
Expectations Institute will be held in January 2007, with a focus on inclusive excellence and educational
effectiveness. A campus forum on the EE Report and its recommendations will be held on February 21,
2007. A poster announcing all of the key dates and opportunities for input into the Educational
Effectiveness Report has been displayed throughout the campus since October 2006.
Developments since the March 2006 Special Visit (CFRs 1.3, 1.9, 4.1, 4.2, 4.6)
Institutional learning over the nearly five years of this accreditation review has brought new capacity and
re-alignment of resources evident in the period since the Special Visit. In September 2006, the first full
cycle of our new strategic planning and resource allocation process was completed, resulting in the
funding and prioritization of several important initiatives based on our educational effectiveness goals.
Key among these initiatives is an expansion of integrative learning programs: first year experiences for
freshmen and transfer students; Team SJSU Studies in the upper division, and SAIL – Students Actively
Integrating Learning- which spans the undergraduate curriculum. Also funded through the strategic
planning process is time for 10% of the tenured and tenure track faculty per year to pursue planned and
evaluated projects related to educational effectiveness, specifically student development and success,
beginning spring 2007. Each of these initiatives is discussed later in this report.
Organization of the Educational Effectiveness Report
The Reflective Essays (CFRs 1.1, 1.9)
This introduction provides an overview of our approach to educational effectiveness and the development
of the report. The essays that follow explore our three themes: 1) integrative learning, 2) inclusive
excellence, and 3) community connections. Each essay introduces the inquiry and its relationship to
educational effectiveness, presents and discusses the evidence of our effectiveness, and identifies
challenges and opportunities for action. The final integrative essay weaves together the themes and their
unique perspectives, reflecting on their centrality to our shared values, vision, and Goals for 2010. We
conclude with recommendations and priorities critical to sustaining and deepening our core commitment
to educational effectiveness and fulfillment of our mission.
Appendices, Institutional Portfolio, and Supplemental Data (CFRs 1.2, 1.9, 4.5)
Appendix A provides our response to concerns and recommendations from the last WASC review and
links to the Special Visit Report. The Appendix provides updates in five areas critical to SJSU’s capacity
for educational effectiveness: assessment, institutional research, strategic planning (including enrollment
management), and substantive change. The Institutional Portfolio provides all of the required data
5
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
elements. The Supplemental Data section provides background to the report, including the Student
Experience Study.
This report was developed to address the 2001 WASC standards and criteria for review, but was driven by
a growing spirit of determination and our own greater expectations as our campus began exploring
contemporary meanings and measures of educational effectiveness. We recognize that we are part of a
cultural shift occurring in higher education. This shift must be linked to our own history, mission, and
vision, and reflected in our core values, priorities, and resource alignment if we are to play the responsible
leadership role that our status as a complex and mature institution dictates. Our progress may be
incremental but will be steady and sustained. As we prepare to celebrate our 150th anniversary, we look
back with appreciation on the challenges we have faced and the perspectives that have been offered,
proud of the choices we have made, and excited about the future of San José State University.
6
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Reflective Essay #1: Integrative Learning
Introduction
Integrative learning has long been central to San José State University’s educational objectives, although
definitions, strategies, and indicators of effectiveness have changed with the times. For nearly half of our
150-year history, the university’s mission was the preparation of teachers. In that context, “integrative
learning” meant curricular integration of fundamental skills into diverse content areas. As SJSU began to
offer baccalaureate degrees in the mid-1920s, curricular goals were established for general education and
the new majors, assuming that students would make the necessary connections between them. The first
focus on structured integrative learning emerged in the early 1980s with the advent of a comprehensive
California State University General Education Plan, developed under the leadership of SJSU Academic
Vice President Hobert Burns. At that point, “integration” was still conceived as a by-product of
structured variety within the GE curriculum. It was assumed that students who were broadly taught across
disciplines would themselves make connections across content areas, and in turn use those connections to
link the specific learning goals of their majors to broader academic and social issues. Our 21st century
context calls for development of more explicit integrative learning goals and reinforcing strategies for
integrative teaching and learning. In today’s world, information flows freely and continuously from one
domain of knowledge to another. More than ever, students need to be prepared to adapt to rapidly
changing and complex environments. The successful graduate, the one for whom SJSU’s educational
approach has been effective, will be both comfortable and adept as boundaries change.
Context for Integrative Learning at San José State University (CRFs 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 4.8)
Drawing from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), we define integrative
learning by the characteristics of intentional learners who can adapt to new environments, integrate
knowledge from different sources, and continue learning throughout their lifetimes.2 Evidence of
integrative learning is found throughout the campus in the many examples of exemplary student research;
faculty and student research collaboration; interdisciplinary, community-based research and development;
internships; regional, national, and international creative competition; entrepreneurship; service learning;
community service, global studies, culminating experiences based on real-world problems, and
commitments upon graduation. Integrative learning is also evidenced in the discipline-specific
accreditation or approval of over 50 degree or credential programs. Following the leadership of
professional organizations such as ABET (Engineering), AACSB (Business), and NCATE (Teacher
Education), discipline-based program accreditation increasingly requires evidence of rigorous assessment
of students’ abilities to integrate theoretical and practical knowledge. As we approach our 150th
anniversary, we reaffirm that effectively serving our mission requires intentional, interdisciplinary, and
continuous - integrative - learning by students, programs, and our institution as a whole.
Our commitment to integrative learning is stated in the goals of Vision 2010: Goal 1.1, which calls for
implementation of a curriculum that effectively integrates theoretical and applied knowledge, as well as
liberal and professional education, and Goal 1.2, which specifies ongoing evidence-based assessment of
students’ integrative learning abilities. Integrative learning has also been codified in the 2005 General
Education Guidelines and SJSU Program Objectives. Our goals for 2010 and corresponding resource
commitments have stimulated more systematic infusion of integrative learning strategies and assessment
throughout the curriculum – within and across general education and the majors, within and beyond the
classroom, and linking curricular and co-curricular activities. Our emerging institutional approach to
integrative learning as a teaching and learning strategy is developmental, based on planning, assessment,
and use of findings to deepen and extend institutional learning about what is effective. Our approach to
integrative student learning is similarly developmental, as we establish integrative learning objectives for
first year freshmen and transfer students, extending both horizontally across course areas (GE and the
major) and vertically over time and with increasing cognitive complexity. Our commitment requires
investment in faculty so that integrative teaching and learning strategies are embraced, supported,
assessed, and sustained. Increasingly, our “fleet of small boats”1 is heading in the same integrative
direction, with all of the local initiative, resistance, and varied learning curves that would be expected in
7
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
an institution of our size and complexity. The WASC accreditation process has been invaluable in
helping align our fleet.
The inquiry and reflection on integrative learning (CRF 1.9)
This essay describes the findings and outcomes of the EE Report Team’s examination of integrative
learning at San José State University and its relationship to our ability to meet our core commitment to
educational effectiveness. Addressing both student and institutional learning, the team’s inquiry was
designed (1) to assemble evidence of the extent, design, assessment, and effectiveness of integrative
learning programs and activities across our large and diverse university, (2) to uncover information with
which to more deeply engage the discussion of effective methods of instruction, integration, and
assessment of student learning, (3) to generate evidence-based observations and reflections that can be
used in the design and evaluation of new and continuing integrative learning efforts, and (4) to advance
the institutional shift well underway that uses assessment and reflection for continuous improvement of
our educational effectiveness.
We begin by reviewing the role of integrative learning in the undergraduate curriculum, examining
evidence of curricular integration and student achievement of integrative learning objectives in general
education and the major. Next, we examine evidence of the effectiveness of our efforts to assist first year
students in becoming integrative learners, particularly intentional learners, as they transition to college.
We review integrative learning in our graduate programs, highlighting useful assessment strategies and
results at university, college, and department levels. Finally, we explore preliminary results of efforts to
integrate student learning outcomes with co-curricular programs. We conclude with a discussion of
challenges and opportunities for action to support integrative learning by our students and our institution.
Integrative Learning in the Undergraduate Curriculum (CFRs 1.1, 1.2)
The undergraduate curriculum was the starting point for the EE Report Team’s exploration of campus
progress towards the integrative learning goals of Vision 2010. With assessment of student learning
outcomes now fully underway in both general education and the major, the EE Report Team was able to
assess our efforts and student achievement in both arenas.
Developing a culture of assessment through the General Education program (CFRs 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 2.6,
2.7, 3.11, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7)
An early activity of the EE self-study was a thorough review of the process and results of two decades of
general education assessment at SJSU, with particular attention to the role of GE in introducing a culture
of assessment to the campus. Our university was an early leader in the utilization of assessment in general
education. The SJSU model has been shared at national meetings, 5-10 adopted by other CSU campuses
(e.g., CSU Dominguez Hills, CSU Sacramento), and recognized as an effective strategy for evidencebased assessment of student learning in a large and diverse public university.11-12
Our current assessment model derives from the 1998 Academic Senate policy that articulated seven broad
objectives of the SJSU General Education program and identified specific student learning objectives,
content and activity requirements, and instructor qualifications in each of 17 GE areas (e.g., Critical
Thinking; Mathematical Concepts; Written Communication; Human Understanding and Development;
Earth and Environment; Self, Society, and Equality in the U.S.; Culture, Civilization, and Global
Understanding). The policy mandated that assessment plans be developed and approved for initial GE
course certification; continuing certification required evidence of ongoing assessment of student learning
outcomes, instructor analysis of the findings, and related course adjustment. The Board of General
Studies, a faculty administrative agency authorized by the Academic Senate, was charged with
implementing the policy, as well as developing certification protocols, analyzing aggregate evidence, and
taking action to ensure that the GE program meets its educational goals. The Board’s decisions are based
on data from course-embedded assessment across multiple sections, and course coordinator
documentation of ways in which the data have been used to improve course structure, pedagogy, or
assessment methods to enhance educational effectiveness.
Introduction of these elements of a “culture of assessment” was definitely challenging. The report
Assessment as a Path to a Learning-Centered Campus describes early reactions, including faculty
8
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
concern about workload and academic freedom. However, within just a few years, assessment was firmly
embedded in GE courses with over 500 tenured and tenure track faculty and lecturers involved in
collecting, reviewing, and reporting data on student achievement of learning outcomes and the related
ways in which they were improving their courses. Support was provided to faculty through the Director of
Assessment and a designated GE expert in the Center for Faculty Development. By 2005, multi-layered
and reinforcing processes using data for continuous educational improvement, and the sustainable
infrastructure to support them, were firmly established in general education at San José State University.
Integrative learning across the General Education program (CFRs 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 2.4, 2.6, 3.11, 4.3, 4.5)
The Board of General Studies’ongoing review of assessment data from over 280 GE courses between
1998 and 2005 identified the need for an overarching structure that would provide overall goals for
undergraduate student achievement by point-of-graduation. The Board also identified the need for
explicit integrative GE learning objectives in the areas of ethics and values, intercultural communication,
and information literacy. Campus-wide review of the GE Guidelines and assessment data, reflection on
the AAC&U Greater Expectations Report,2 and engagement of campus leaders in the national dialogue
on assessment in general education led to the revised GE Guidelines and SJSU Program Objectives,
adopted unanimously by the Academic Senate and signed into policy by the President, effective fall 2005.
Establishing integrative graduation goals for all students (CFRs 1.1, 4.7)
The new GE Guidelines reflect a growing campus consensus on the skills and characteristics of an
educated person: critical thinking, ethical behavior, readiness for lifelong learning, integration of learning,
evaluation of the credibility of information, assumption of societal and professional responsibility within
the broader community, trans-cultural understanding and respect, analysis and solution of complex
challenges, and focused and informed communication. They are based upon but go beyond the six goals
for all students derived from our mission. The nine overarching graduation goals are intentionally broad,
designed to cut across and integrate the specific objectives of the 17 GE areas and provide a vehicle for
visible integration of general education objectives and the learning objectives of the major. The goals are
to be met through successful completion of requirements within the lower division GE skills and
knowledge courses, the analytic upper division courses now called SJSU Studies, and the major field of
study. An expanded GE Program assessment plan has been designed to better address the overall goals of
the GE program. Pilot components of the plan are described below as part of our attention to integrative
learning.
Mapping the graduation goals (CFRs 1.2, 1.5)
Evidence of visible and deliberate curricular integration within General Education is found in the
mapping of the nine broad GE Program objectives to their related GE content area learning objectives.
For example, GE Program Objective #7 requires that specific course objectives address multicultural and
global perspectives gained through intellectual and social exchange with people of diverse backgrounds
and experiences. This broad objective is addressed through 12 area-specific learning objectives, including
the lower division compare and contrast two or more ethnic groups, cultures, regions, nations, or social
systems (Area D2) and recognize the accomplishments of and issues related to women and diverse
cultures reflected in works of art (Area C1). In the upper division, this broad objective is addressed
through area-specific learning objectives such as examine how different identities are shaped by cultural
and societal influences within contexts of equality and inequality (Area S) and increased understanding of
how traditions of cultures outside the U.S. have influenced American culture and society (Area V).
Integration of knowledge and skills across courses, time, and experience is assumed by successful student
achievement of each of the 12 learning objectives that coalesce to meet the specific GE Program
objective.
Assessing student achievement of the goals through SJSU Studies (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 3.11, 4.4)
Review of the aggregate results of course-embedded assessment provides a measure of our effectiveness
in integrative learning in general education. This assessment strategy is most useful within SJSU Studies,
the 12-unit upper division GE component taken by all SJSU students. It is also the site of the most visible
and deliberate horizontal integration in the undergraduate curriculum. SJSU Studies courses build upon
satisfaction of lower division learning outcomes in an upper division context in which students apply
9
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
concepts and foundations learned in one area to problems and problem-solving in other disciplinary areas.
The learning objectives are explicitly designed to help students become integrative thinkers, able to see
connections between and among a variety of concepts and ideas. As stated in the GE Program Guidelines,
SJSU Studies courses help students to live and work intelligently, responsibly, and cooperatively in a
multicultural society and to develop abilities to address complex issues and problems using disciplined
analytical skills and creative techniques. To facilitate integration of multiple perspectives and
experiences, courses from three of the four areas (Areas R, S, and V) must be taken from different
departments.
The institutionalized process of regular assessment and use of data for course improvement ensure that
courses are continuously monitored and adjusted to enhance overall student achievement of the
designated learning objectives. Analysis of aggregated course-embedded assessment data over an eight
year period (21,000 students) provides a measure of the effectiveness of this approach. For example,
SJSU Program Objective #3 – capacity for critical and creative thinking –is addressed in all four areas R,
S, V, and Z. Assessment reports from the 60 certified courses between spring 2002 and fall 2003 show
faculty adherence to the content and activity objectives, assessment in all 694 course sections, faculty
reflection on assessment results, and continual course improvement. Students achieved the learning
objectives at consistently high rates: 90% in Area S, 88% in Area Z, and 86% in both Areas R and V.
The levels of student achievement of all of the GE Program objectives (86 – 91% across the full range of
courses) as determined through course embedded assessment and rolled up to address the broader GE
objectives, indicate that SJSU undergraduates overall are meeting the integrative learning goals of SJSU
Studies. The data also reflect the university’s effective transition, strongest in general education, to a
culture of assessment in support of student learning and educational effectiveness.
New strategies for assessing integrative learning in General Education
Reflection on the cumulative assessment data stimulated exploration of ways to assess integrative
learning at strategic and developmental points on a student’s academic path, independent of and
transcending specific courses. Two new assessment strategies were introduced in 2006. These new
assessment methods provide valuable evidence of student abilities – and challenges – in applying basic
knowledge and skills to problems posed outside of specific courses. Administered mid-career, the
information literacy and WST results will be useful in assessing student mastery of integrative learning
and the impact of institutional improvements over time.
Information Literacy Test (CFRs 1.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.10, 2.13, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7)
As a result of a campus-wide conference on information literacy, the National Information Literacy
Standards were integrated across the GE curriculum with the 2005 GE Program Guidelines. A variety of
strategies are being employed to support students in further developing information literacy skills,
including librarian consultation with faculty on information literacy objectives and course design, a
website that includes links to activities which can help support information literacy teaching and learning,
and a series of online tutorials designed for SJSU students. Our plagiarism tutorial was designated an
open-source resource in Summer 2005. Since that time, 73 institutions from around the world have
accessed and downloaded the tutorial for their own adaptation and use. A checklist of information
competencies for college students by level, developed by an SJSU Outreach Librarian, has been adopted
by the CSU Information Literacy Initiative office and is available at the CSU Chancellor’s website.
In order to assess the effectiveness of our combined information literacy efforts, the campus participated
in the spring 2006 beta testing of the Educational Testing Service’s (ETS) standardized Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy Assessment Test. This assessment uses real-time, scenariobased tasks to measure research/information literacy skills in seven information-related areas: define
need, access, evaluate, manage, integrate, create, and communicate information. The test also measures
computer technology skills. The test was administered to 639 students. The results indicate that SJSU
students performed somewhat below the average of all students taking the ETS test (SJSU mean was 455
out of a possible 700 points; overall ETS mean was 550). Upper division students who attended SJSU as
lower division students performed better than students who transferred to SJSU. Our students were
10
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
strongest in management of information, though still below the average of the ETS reference group.
SJSU students had the most difficulty with integration and evaluation of information.
These results have been extremely useful to the campus. The spring 2006 sample was large enough
(N=639) and diverse enough across several key variables (class level, gender, race/ethnicity, gender,
native or transfer, primary language) to enable within-group comparisons; the reference group
comparisons help place our scores in context. Overall, the results provide baseline evidence against
which to analyze curricular needs and assess future student outcomes. SJSU scores are anticipated to
improve as new information literacy activities are integrated into first year experience and general
education courses.
Writing Skills Test (WST) (CFRs 1.2, 2.6, 2.10, 4.3, 4.5)
All SJSU students are required to pass the university Writing Skills Test (WST) prior to enrolling in SJSU
Studies courses. New WST writing prompts have been constructed to draw out evidence of student
integration of skills and content from the lower division GE courses. A new rubric, parallel to that used
to evaluate student writing skills, was developed and used to assess integrative learning; samples of
student writing were scored independently of the WST evaluation. The first prompt was piloted in
November 2006. We plan to use different prompts to evaluate additional GE program objectives in future
WST administrations. Results of the GE-related writing analyses will be used to improve integrative
teaching and learning within lower division general education courses.
Participation in national studies (CFRs 2.10, 4.7)
Participation in two national studies provides the campus with comparative assessments of our students’
integrative learning abilities. Results of the spring 2006 Collegiate Learning Assessment indicated, based
on comparison to similar universities, the integrative learning scores for SJSU entering freshmen and
graduating seniors, and the improvement scores based on the difference between the two, are at or above
expectations on all measures. The large scale, longitudinal Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts
Education will provide quantitative data over a four year period; in addition, SJSU was selected as one of
six institutions to participate in an annual student interview component. The combined quantitative and
qualitative data should be particularly useful to the campus.
Students Actively Integrate Learning (SAIL) Plan (CFRs 2.13, 3.4, 4.2, 4.7)
One of the proposals funded through our new strategic planning process is designed to help students
assess, develop, and guide their own integrative learning through individual learning plans. The SAIL
plans will be based on reflection, planning, and assessment during the first year, at the mid-point of their
studies, and in an integrative culminating experience. The SAIL pilot will also help disseminate the
concepts and processes of integrative learning throughout the campus, offer opportunities for faculty to
participate in curricular innovation, and generate data for institutional learning about the process of
integrative learning across time, between the major and general education, and with diverse students.
SAIL will be piloted in selected first year experience courses in fall 2007, with baseline evaluation data
available during that semester. The pilot cohort will be engaged in further integrative activities through
graduation, with assessment data available at each point for improvement in this and other structured
integrative learning initiatives.
Team SJSU Studies (CFRs 1.2, 2.6, 3.4,4.2, 4.7)
Team SJSU Studies, also funded through the first round of strategic planning, will begin in fall 2007 as
well. This pilot program will place cohorts of upper division students in integrated two-course sequences
that meet all of the SJSU Studies learning objectives. Each cohort will focus on a particular theme, such
as global warming or social justice; a culminating project will require integrative problem solving and
community involvement. Team SJSU Studies will also provide students and faculty with a year-long
opportunity to explore learning activities and assessment methods that transcend course-embedded
objectives. Formative assessment data will be available in January 2008, with full assessment completed
that summer.
11
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Assessment of integrative learning in the major (CFRs 1.2, 1.7, 3.4, 4.2)
SJSU has come a long way in a short time in its commitment to extend the discipline and benefits of
ongoing assessment in general education to the majors. As of fall 2006, nearly all 148 academic
programs have identified and published student learning objectives; 11% have collected data on all of
those objectives and 76% have collected data on at least some of them. A productive and sustainable
infrastructure has been developed that keeps assessment front and center for college deans, school
directors, and department chairs. Under the guidance of the Director of Assessment, college assessment
facilitators (2 per college, one a faculty member with 20% release time, the other the associate dean) work
with schools and departments to ensure that assessment is ongoing and results are being used for
continuous program improvement. Reflection on the aggregate data from AY 05-06 led to the
development of a common reporting form which is designed to facilitate assessment within programs and
sharing of results across academic units. An Assessment Committee of the Academic Senate, support
from the Center for Faculty Development, monthly meetings of the college facilitators, and college-level
review of assessment reports each semester all provide the kind of reinforcing support necessary to extend
the culture of evidence of student learning to the majors.
While integrative learning within the major is not yet a campus priority, the data from our now universitywide assessment process will be critical as we move towards our broader integrative learning goals for
2010. Similarly, the spring 2007 campus pilot of e-portfolios, the fall 2007 learning plans from Project
SAIL, and the spring 2008 culminating projects of Team SJSU Studies are certain to stimulate broad
interest in integrative learning in the major among students and faculty alike.
Integrating GE graduation goals with the objectives of the major
The learning goals of the major and general education are intended to intersect with and reinforce each
other, although the mix and degree of integration will be different across the diverse majors on our
campus. The GE program goals now provide a framing structure within which to analyze and improve
integration within the undergraduate curriculum. Once again, our approach is both incremental and
developmental, engaging departments through special opportunities for faculty development and program
planning, nurturing the culture of assessment through supportive infrastructure and opportunities for
dialogue and innovation, and use of data to inform the next steps.
Exploring degree of integration: GE goals and learning outcomes of the major (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 3.6, 4.7)
The EE Report Team reviewed the posted student learning outcomes (SLOs) of all of the undergraduate
programs to find major objectives that correspond to the graduation goals outlined in the GE Guidelines.
The Team approached this with more curiosity than expectation, as departments are not required to so
explicitly align their major SLOs with the new graduation goals. The Team selected three majors for the
analysis: Anthropology, Biology , and Justice Studies.
The results provide useful insight into the ways in which students may experience reinforcing
opportunities to integrate the in-depth knowledge and skills of their specialized field of study with life
skills and characteristics of an educated person as developed through their general education courses.
These preliminary data also highlight the ways in which information from ongoing assessment of student
learning can be used as a resource for program improvement and quality assurance. For example, both
Anthropology and Justice Studies have major objectives that map to SJSU Program Objective #8 –
characteristics of intentional learners who can adapt to new environments, integrate knowledge from
different sources, and continue learning throughout their lifetimes. In Anthropology, 90% of the 29
students assessed during AY 05-06 met the corresponding major outcome – ability to describe
connections and influences of other disciplines on anthropology and communicate this information.
Similarly, 97% of the 77 students assessed in Justice Studies in the same time period met their related
objective – capacity for professional development in the Justice Studies field by demonstrating oral and
written communication skills sufficient for a justice professional within a justice studies internship
placement. These data indicate that students are developing and using integrative learning skills in ways
appropriate to the cultures and required competencies of their respective fields of study.
12
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
This kind of analysis can also identify places where the intended curricular integration may not be
adequate or students are not making the desired connections between concepts and skills encountered in
different contexts. For example, the Anthropology major includes a student learning objective requiring
ability to identify history of ethical engagement in anthropology, which maps to SJSU Program Objective
#4 – understanding of ethical choices inherent in human behavior. The reported finding that only 68% of
the 37 students assessed met the major objective highlights the crucial role of routine assessment of
student learning outcomes in spotting missed integrative learning opportunities and making program
adjustments to improve effectiveness.
Although San José State University is in the very early stages of this kind of integration, the EE Report
Team was encouraged by the analysis and its potential for uniting our curricular efforts in a way that both
retains local program vision and ownership while, at the same time, organizing our diverse efforts under a
common framework. In order to create a visual picture of the relationship of general education and the
major in meeting the university’s graduation goals for all students, the EE Report Team developed a chart
that maps the published student learning objectives of one major in each college to the university
graduation goals. The results were informative. Although the Team found no major that fully addresses
all 9 SJSU goals within its published SLOs, it did find majors within each of the seven colleges with
learning outcomes that utilize or reinforce the knowledge and skills developed through general education.
The number of university goals addressed by major learning outcomes within the programs highlighted
ranges from three to five. The Team also found that, when queried about the accuracy of our analysis of
their programs, faculty often engaged in spirited explanations of the ways in which their programs
actually address more of the SJSU graduation goals than their published documents suggest. Clearly,
there is work to be done in broadly disseminating the implications of the university’s adoption of “goals
for all students,” orienting program directors and department chairs to the mapping process, and using
assessment data for curricular enhancement so that we meet our goal of a truly integrative curriculum by
2010. But the evidence from our ongoing assessment process and this part of our EE inquiry
demonstrates that we are clearly on track and moving forward.
Integrative Learning in the First Year Experience
The transition from high school to college is neither easy nor familiar for most freshmen. This is
particularly true for a freshman class as diverse as that which begins San José State University each year.
The campus commitment to the first year experience expressed in emerged from several sources,
including individual college concerns about freshmen success and retention, long standing but
decentralized traditions of departmental programs and activities for first year students, campus leaders’
participation in the national dialogue regarding early success in college, and university-wide planning for
arrival on campus of the largest-ever, residential freshman cohort when the new Campus Village opened
in Fall 2005. As campus constituencies began talking with one another, a shared conceptual framework
for first year experiences began to emerge based on the concepts of learning and belonging and the
structures and experiences that establish patterns of integrative learning. The EE Report Team found
evidence of this framework and its effectiveness in both academic programs and co-curricular support for
freshmen and their first year experience.
First Year Experience courses and academic programs (CFR 1.1, 4.3)
San José State University currently has three well-established academic programs designed to facilitate
transition to college through activities that integrate learning and belonging: Humanities Honors, MUSE
(Metropolitan University Scholar’s Experience), and Science 002 Success in Science. All three support
Goal 1.3 of Vision 2010, which aims to expand first year experience programs to include all freshmen.
The EE Report Team reviewed data from these three very different programs, as well as a summary First
Year Experience Report, for the insight they could provide into the process of assisting students to
develop integrative learning skills, particularly intentional learning, through academic courses and related
activities in the freshmen year.
Humanities Honors Program (CFRs 1.2, 1.5, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.10, 2.11)
The Humanities Honors Program in General Education is based on the learning community model. To be
eligible for Humanities Honors, entering freshmen must have a high school GPA of 3.0 and a minimum
13
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
580 verbal SAT score. Students work together, in teams of 120-130 and seminar sub-groups of 30, over a
four-semester sequence of six-unit courses designed to integrate core competencies in written and spoken
communication, critical thinking, comparative social systems, humanities and arts, and American
institutions. The interdisciplinary faculty, many of whom have been recognized for outstanding teaching,
work together to team teach the large lectures and rotate among the smaller seminar groups. As of AY
2005-06, students in the Humanities Honors Program also have the option of living in a theme
community, Spartan Honors, on a dedicated floor of one of the residence halls. The Humanities Honors
Program has been in continuous operation for 50 years, with its current structure established in 1999.
The EE Team’s review of data from the Humanities Honors Program indicates that this model is highly
effective in providing students with reinforcing opportunities to become intentional learners, beginning
with the decision to join the program. Outreach promotes the benefits of an accelerated, integrated
approach to fulfilling the university’s Core GE requirements and the lifelong learning skills to be gained
from the opportunity. Assessment reflect the benefits of this approach. Students note the program’s
impact on their way of approaching learning - These courses played a significant role in shaping a more
open-minded outlook on the universe - and the program’s attention to the relationship of learning and
belonging - Humanities Honors helped me make friends, have close relationships with professors and
gain a broad foundation of knowledge about early civilizations. Another indicator of the effectiveness of
this first year experience is found in data on progression to graduation. Data from the cohort that entered
as first-time freshmen in fall 1999 and finished the program (N=83) show that 85% graduated within six
years, a rate more than twice as high as our general student population. The rate is likely influenced by
the program’s selective eligibility criteria. However, special cohorts were begun in Spring 2003 and
Spring 2005 with students who, while not initially meeting the eligibility requirements, had enrolled in
another of the first year experience courses and felt adequately prepared and confident enough to join
Humanities Honors in their second semester. Several of the students from the Spring 2002 cohort
graduated in four years; most are on track to graduate within six, despite the fact that many were in
remedial courses during their first freshman semester. Additional data on their experience, and that of the
Spring 2005 cohort as they progress to graduation (anticipated for most by 2010) will provide useful
information regarding the development and role of integrative learning, particularly intentional learning
skills, during the early transition from high school to college.
The Humanities Honors program demonstrates the impact of a focused, integrated approach to
establishing skills and enthusiasm for intentional learning among highly motivated students during their
first semesters at the university. During fall 2006, three faculty teams served 310 students, the great
majority (82%) from majors outside the College of Humanities and Arts, showing that the program is
giving students across the university an opportunity to complete much of Core GE through an explicitly
integrated curriculum. From the data available, we can not determine the relative contributions of
selective eligibility, an intentional application, exceptional teaching faculty, and the added value of a
program-specific learning community as a first-year housing option. As the university deepens and
extends its commitment to first year experiences – for freshmen, transfers, and graduate students – these
aspects of the Humanities Honors program may bear further exploration.
Success in Science (Science 002) Program (CFRs 1.2, 1.5, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.10, 2.11)
Science 002, Success in Science, is a very different kind of first year experience program. This one
semester, college-based course is intended to assist incoming freshmen, especially those who plan to
major in the sciences and engineering, to be successful at SJSU. In contrast to the intensive and transdisciplinary integrative learning objectives of Humanities Honors, Science 002 was explicitly designed to
(1) decrease the percentage of freshmen on academic probation in their first and second semesters, (2)
increase freshman retention in the College of Science, and (3) assist students in obtaining the academic
skills to obtain an overall GPA of 3.0 or above after their first semester at SJSU. Integrative learning is
key to their approach. Science 002 combines lecture, activity, peer advisors, study teams, and campus
events to provide a realistic view of what it takes to succeed in science, help students to develop study
skills, and orient them to university life. Learning objectives emphasize learning how to learn,
14
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
appreciating the diversity of SJSU, becoming part of the university community, developing
communication skills, and understanding group dynamics while working in teams.
The EE Report Team’s review of the program’s assessment reports indicate that this first year experience
model is also highly successful in helping students begin their academic careers as intentional learners. A
2002 analysis analysis of the 1999 entering cohort provides evidence of the effectiveness of this
integrated approach: (1) at the end of the first semester, only 7% of those who passed Science 002
(N=149) were on academic probation compared to 19% of College of Science freshmen not enrolled in
the course (N=157), (2) the retention rate in a College of Science major for students who had taken
Science 002 as freshmen was 34% at the end of the seventh semester, compared to 25% of students
intending to major in a science as frosh but who had not taken Science 002, and (3) the first and seventh
semester GPAs of Science majors who had passed Science 002 (3.10 and 2.74, respectively) were higher
than the GPA of Science majors who had not enrolled in the course (2.58 and 2.57).
In contrast to Humanities Honors that traditionally recruits highly accomplished freshmen, Science 002 is
designed to reach out to all students, including those without background skills for intentional learning in
the university, especially the science, environment. The EE Team’s reflection on the two programs
sparked additional interest in the multiple components of Science 002, the ways in which they reinforce
and integrate learning and belonging, and their impact on participating students, faculty, staff, and peer
advisors’ academic and professional development and success. Qualitative data on the effectiveness of
this program from multiple “insider” perspectives could provide valuable insight into the statistics that
demonstrate the effectiveness of this model.
The MUSE Program (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7)
The third model examined by the EE Report Team was MUSE (Metropolitan University Scholar’s
Experience). This university-wide program, initiated in 2002, is designed 1) to establish a strong
foundation for becoming a university student and scholar, and 2) to acclimate first semester students to
the intellectual and social activities of university life. The seminar component of the MUSE program
offers an average of 60 three-unit courses for first semester freshmen each fall. The semester-long
seminars are designed and taught by faculty from throughout the campus on integrative topics of their
own choosing. Fall 2006 course titles included: The Nexus of Art and Science, Creepy Crawlies and
Weebeasties: How Bugs Impact our Lives, Beyond the Headlines: The Middle East and North Africa in
Literature and Film, The Culture of Patriotism, You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby: From Bloomers to
Sports Bras, and Community Connections in a Diverse Society. Each MUSE course meets General
Education requirements in one of six areas. MUSE seminars are also supported by a full workshop
schedule focusing on academic and social transitions and Peer Mentors working through the Academic
Success Center. Faculty teaching MUSE seminars have represented 47 departments in all colleges and 12
administrative and student affairs departments.
Because it is the largest and most complex of SJSU’s first year experience programs, the EE Report
Team’s review of the data from MUSE focused on both process and outcomes related to intentional
learning. The MUSE program engages faculty from across the campus in seminar development that is
both highly structured (per GE guidelines) and unusually free (the opportunity to teach topics of personal
interest). Faculty are required to include integrative learning objectives and activities in their seminar
designs and to attend annual workshops and peer review groups designed to support their skills in
integrative teaching and learning. In addition, faculty receive group training and individual consultation
on the often new pedagogy of teaching students to become intentional learners and the integration of life
skills into course content.
Assessment results indicate that faculty from diverse backgrounds are learning to do just that. Results of
the survey of faculty attending a January 2006 MUSE Workshop (N=18) reflect that 94% agreed or
strongly agreed that they gained a sense of community and created positive relationships with other
faculty across disciplines and 100% agreed or strongly agreed that they gained knowledge of active
learning strategies and how to implement them in MUSE. Academic Senate Policy requires that a MUSE
seminar be assessed prior to the fourth time it is taught. Of the 14 MUSE courses that have been assessed
15
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
by the Board of General Studies to date, 13 received three-year continuing certification based on course
design and evidence of achievement of student learning outcomes; one was not re-certified. Combined,
these measures suggest that MUSE is an effective vehicle for increasing faculty engagement, capacity,
and achievement in integrative teaching and learning.
Assessment of individual MUSE seminars (N = 1664 students) provides evidence of the effectiveness of
the integrative learning strategy in meeting MUSE and general education student learning objectives. Of
the 86 learning objectives across the 14 MUSE courses reviewed by the Board of General Studies in 2004
and 2005, student achievement on only six objectives (7%) was below 80%; student learning achieved
90% or higher on 35 objectives (41%) across the 14 courses. Two student learning objectives are specific
to MUSE and required in all course designs: (1) Students will understand the learning process and their
role and responsibility in it, and (2) Students will know what it means to be a member of a metropolitan
university community. Assessment of these two MUSE-specific objectives, which explicitly integrate
learning and belonging, revealed an even higher pattern of student achievement (88% and 93%
respectively).
The 2004 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results can be disaggregated to compare first
year students who participated in MUSE from those who did not. The results from this relatively small
sample (n=145) are mixed. Students who had participated in a MUSE seminar were slightly more likely
to say that they often or very often make class presentations in their courses (49.7% MUSE, 44.4% nonMUSE) and that they often or very often prepare two or more drafts of an assignment before turning it in
(50.1% MUSE, 42.6% non-MUSE). However, although 39.2% of respondents who had had a MUSE
course reported that they often or very often asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions,
the percentage was actually higher – 46.3% - among the non-MUSE group. Our own university data
provide another point of comparison with a larger sample size. Among students taking the remedial
English courses (LLD 001 and LLD 002) between 2002 and 2005, those in the MUSE program had a
slightly higher pass rate (73%, N=1620) than those who took the LLD courses only (68%, N=3357).
Comparison of MUSE and non-MUSE groups is limited by possible participation of those considered
non-MUSE in other first year experience courses (e.g., Science 002, Humanities Honors). The ambitious
MUSE undertaking is further challenged by the complexity of a first year experience without the
eligibility requirements of Humanities Honors or the common interest focus of Science 002. However, the
EE Report Team’s reflection on the available data suggests that this is also its greatest strength. MUSE
has the potential to disseminate strategies and impacts of integrative learning beyond and across all
disciplinary boundaries on a scale not possible in smaller programs. Continued and focused evaluation of
MUSE and other first year experience programs will provide crucial information as we extend our
commitment to effective integrative teaching and learning appropriate to the various developmental stages
of San José State University’s diverse student body.
The Peer Mentor Program (CFRs 1.5, 2.5, 2.11, 2.13, 4.2)
Both Science 002 and MUSE include peer advisors/mentors in their programs. The most extensive
evaluation data come from MUSE, where the program has expanded from 25 to 40 Peer Mentors.
Freshmen in the MUSE program benefit from working with peer mentors; over 50% agree or strongly
agree that “working with a Peer Mentor helped me succeed in my first semester.” In addition to their
MUSE class and Peer Mentor Center responsibilities, Peer Mentors become involved in many important
university committees and working groups, including the First Year Experience Panel (SJSU strategic
planning), the SJSU Black Student Union, the CSU Civic Learning Institute, the SJSU 2006 Greater
Expectations Institute, and WASC accreditation. Peer Mentors are widely recognized for their
achievements, receiving honors and awards such as Resident of the Year, AS 55 Leadership Award,
PFLAG scholarship, EOP Awards, and Dean’s Scholarships. Upon graduation, Peer Mentors have gone
on to graduate programs, international study, and employment in their area of study. Clearly, this is an
extraordinary group of students engaged in facilitating learning and belonging for those just beginning
their SJSU careers.
16
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Summary and Next Steps (CFR 1.1)
Review of the evidence from SJSU’s first year experience programs provides evidence of effectiveness
and great potential. Aligned with Goal 1.3 of Vision 2010, the first round of the new strategic planning
process resulted in expanded support for first year experiences for freshmen and transfer students.
Continued and focused evaluation of Humanities Honors, Science 002, MUSE, the Peer Mentors, and
other first year experience programs will provide crucial information as the campus extends its
commitment to effective integrative teaching and learning appropriate to the various developmental stages
of San José State University’s diverse student body
Integrative Learning in the Graduate Programs (CFR 1.1)
Graduate degree programs at SJSU, as at most institutions of higher education, are expected to meet only
a few university-wide requirements. In most cases, graduate programs are designed at the college, school,
or department level based on the needs of the discipline. As advanced study, graduate degrees are by
nature integrative, designed to build upon previous knowledge, integrate domains, and, in most cases at
SJSU, apply what is being learned to real-world situations. The campus commitment to the appropriate
balance of undergraduate and graduate programs, part of Goal 2.0 in Vision 2010, along with greater
involvement of the SJSU deans, chairs, and faculty in assessment activities in the undergraduate degree
programs have brought attention to the value of assessing educational effectiveness, including integrative
learning, at the graduate level.
Integrative design of graduate programs (CFR 1.2)
The EE Report Team reviewed the requirements of all SJSU graduate degree programs for evidence of
integrative learning. The Team found evidence of integration in all but a few of the 70 graduate degree
programs and more than 16 additional concentrations reviewed. The Team also reviewed the learning
outcomes for 55 graduate degree programs. Outcomes were classified as are either horizontal, where
integration is across disciplines, or vertical, where integration is within the degree program. The results
indicate that 51% (n=28) of the 55 programs include both horizontal and vertical integrative learning
outcomes; that a few have integrative learning outcomes that are primarily horizontal (9%) or vertical
(11%), and that 16 graduate programs (29%) do not address integrative learning in their curriculum as
evidenced from their posted student learning outcomes. As assessment continues, including reflection
and discussion, at department and college levels, it is anticipated that more and more departments will
realize that they are in fact involved in integrative learning, and that many will incorporate integrative
learning objectives into their program plans.
Assessment of integrative learning in graduate programs (CFRs 1.2, 2.6, 2.7, 4.8)
One third of our graduate degrees come from professional preparation programs. Typically, accreditation
bodies require evidence of integration of core values into individual courses, across the curriculum, and in
the organizational setting. For example, the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) requires that
the master of public health program infuse public health values and goals into all aspects of the program’s
activities, function as a collaboration of disciplines, and provide a special learning environment that
supports interdisciplinary and integrative learning. CEPH also requires a minimum of 400 hours of
fieldwork for all MPH candidates. These integrative requirements are incorporated into the program
outcomes of SJSU’s Master of Public Health program. The accreditation board for engineering and
technology (ABET) requires that undergraduate engineering programs demonstrate their students’ ability
to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as
economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and
sustainability. Other integrative criteria include an understanding of professional and ethical
responsibility; an ability to communicate effectively; the broad education necessary to understand the
impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context; recognition of
the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning; and knowledge of contemporary issues. While
ABET is an undergraduate accreditation board, application of “ABET-like assessment” to the graduate
programs is prioritized in the College of Engineering’s Strategic Plan.
College-level assessment of the educational effectiveness of graduate programs is in the early
implementation stages, with some colleges further ahead than others in developing assessment plans and
17
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
using data to inform college-level strategic planning and resource allocation. As one example, the 5th
Year Maintenance Report of the College of Business includes a section on Assessment Tools and
Procedures. The document describes tools, procedures, and findings that can be used to assessing the
College’s progress in achieving its internal mission and goals. The assessment plan, developed with
active involvement by faculty on an Assessment Committee, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, and
Graduate Curriculum Committee, is described for each of the four Master’s in Business Administration
(MBA) degree programs. The goals, objectives, assessment tools, and assessment schedules of each
program are delineated. The plan also identifies future plans for “closing the feedback loop in the
assessment process so that results are effectively utilized,” and “incorporating more formative
assessments into the overall procedure.”
The School of Nursing, accredited by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) has
begun collecting assessment data through its AACN/EBI Master’s Level Nursing Exit Assessment
survey. The survey report provides assessment data on each of the program’s learning outcomes, with a
focus on the effectiveness of the core master’s courses. Results of the 2006 assessment indicate that
students strongly agree that integration of core master’s courses prepared them in content areas such as
competency in socio-cultural diversity and culture, making ethical decisions related to patient care,
effective communication, and understanding of professional role issues.
The College of Engineering (COE) has also developed a Graduate Engineering Programs Assessment
Plan. The plan describes program outcomes, assessment activities, and assessment instruments. The COE
also collected student data in 2004 from each degree program; aggregated data for the college are
summarized in the “Graduate Students Survey Report 2004”. The data indicate that 60% of students
surveyed were satisfied or very satisfied with the extent to which the program provided a well integrated
set of courses, and that 62% were satisfied or very satisfied that they had gained a broad general
education in different fields of knowledge. This information was used by the College to make specific
program adjustments, particularly in curriculum integration.
Summary and next steps
In summary, results from the EE Report Team’s preliminary assessment of effectiveness in integrative
learning at the graduate level are encouraging. Our best outcome measures are the professional
accreditation reviews that increasingly require evidence of curriculum integration and integrative
learning. Our campus commitment to an ongoing, sustainable, and useful assessment process has resulted
in additional data that indicate sites of integrative learning in graduate programs, assessment tools and
processes that can be widely shared among programs, and data on the educational effectiveness of our
efforts.
Integrating Curricular and Co-Curricular Activities (CFRs 1.1, 1.5, 2.11, 2.13, 4.6, 4.7)
Co-curricular activities, broadly defined as living or working on campus, community involvement, or
studying abroad, are the theater in which classroom knowledge is applied, enriched, embellished, and
integrated. San José State University is a rich laboratory in which students can apply their skills and
integrate their learning. With over 200 discipline or interest-based clubs and organizations, SJSU students
have many opportunities to integrate curricular and co-curricular activities. Goal 4.0 of Vision 2010 calls
for a purposeful program of coordinated campus activities and events that contribute to student success
and create a sense of belonging. One of the desired aims of this goal is to promote student learning,
development, and leadership.
Collaboration between the divisions of Student and Academic Affairs has grown stronger through the
strategic planning process. For years, Student Affairs has been implementing programs and services that
promote the integration of classroom learning into applied settings in support of the university’s mission
and goals and goals. One result of the new level of collaboration between units of the university is
utilization of learning outcomes in Student Affairs program planning and assessment. The EE Report
Team reviewed the programs and their assessment plans. The Team found that, while some are further
along in integrating assessment of learning outcomes in the design and improvement of programs, all are
18
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
moving in the right direction. Four of the many programs, including their preliminary results and use of
findings, are highlighted below.
Study Abroad (CFRs 1.2, 1.5, 2.11, 4.3)
With our mission and goals to create informed, responsible citizens and professionals both globally and
locally, increased attention has been directed to opportunities to study in other countries. Such
opportunities have been available since 1963 when CSU started a system-wide International Program.
From a modest start, we now have a variety of international options: bi-lateral programs, student
exchanges, and faculty-led programs associated with 332 universities in 42 countries.
Traditionally, evaluation of the Study Abroad program has been limited to student satisfaction surveys
and rich anecdotal accounts of the value of the experience. However, as part of the campus engagement
in learning assessment, the Study Abroad staff piloted a learning-oriented survey with students returning
from international study in 2005. Staff report that the 17 students who returned the survey indicated the
effectiveness of Study Abroad programs in helping students integrate classroom and life learning: 72%
agreed that classroom learning came to life while studying abroad; 92% agreed that they were able to
apply what they learned at SJSU while studying abroad; and all 17 agreed with the statement that they
gained a global perspective and had an enriching experience while abroad. When asked about the most
significant learning of their study abroad experience, the most common responses are reflected in
statements such as: The world is bigger, more diverse, and more interesting than most people think; I can
make it on my own, and I know that I can help someone. Other students said: It makes me want to learn
more about the world we live in; It has given me a broader point of view; and I learned that people from
other countries know more about my country than I do.
Encouraged by these preliminary results, the Study Abroad staff is now identifying more specific learning
objectives for their programs. They are also using the information from the 2005 survey to modify their
orientation and re-entry activities to provide context and support for students’ integrative learning during
and after their study abroad experience.
University Housing (CFRs 1.1, 1.5, 2.10, 2.11, 4.3, 4.7)
University Housing has adopted the notions of learning and belonging as part of their overall conceptual
framework, identifying five learning outcomes for all Housing Services programs: 1) multi-cultural
competence, 2) exploration and articulation of values and identity, 3) development of interpersonal
communication skills, 4) commitment to lifelong learning, and 5) participation in community as part of
civic engagement. Each of these outcomes reflects a GE program objective. As of 2005, all Housing
programs must address at least one of these learning objectives, supporting, complementing, and/or
integrating co-curricular activities with the learning objectives of the university.
Review of recent evaluations of Housing programs indicates that great strides have been made in
identifying learning goals and objectives, and beginning to integrate assessment into program activities.
In addition, Housing’s participation in a national on-line survey using the Educational Benchmarking
Instrument (EBI) creates the capacity to benchmark our own integrative learning outcomes with those of
similar universities. The 2004-05 EBI survey, sent to 1549 SJSU students, was completed by 1056
students (a 69% response rate). Preliminary results indicate that students perceive that their experience in
university housing has a positive impact on their multi-cultural competence, communication skills, sense
of identity, and, to a lesser extent, civic engagement.
Based on reflection of their first assessment results, University Housing staff is implementing
several new initiatives in 2006-07, including 1) Resident Advisor training modules designed to clearly
articulate the learning and belonging programming model and desired learning outcomes, 2) on-line
program evaluations that specifically assess learning outcomes, and 3) re-design of the personalized
questions within the EBI tool to better assess longitudinal learning outcomes and institutional
improvement.
19
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Associated Students (CFRs 1.1, 2.11, 4.3, 4.7)
A third example of demonstrated effectiveness of integrative learning in co-curricular programs comes
from the Associated Students (AS). As part of the division-wide initiative to assess learning outcomes,
AS decided to focus on their large group of student employees who are an integral part of Associated
Students’ operations. Realizing that they had an opportunity to enhance and enrich classroom learning,
staff managers established a learning outcome for their student employees in 2005: As a result of
development opportunities, training, and work experience, Associated Students’ student employees will be
able to demonstrate effective written communication skills.
Student employee writing samples were gathered and analyzed by the senior administrative staff during
fall 2005. Samples were drawn from routine written reports, including accident reports (Child
Development Center), thesis hardcover orders (Print Shop), and incident reports (Campus Recreation),
among others. Two or three samples were analyzed for each of approximately 50 student employees (127
reports total) against a rubric addressing structure, clarity, accuracy, and grammar. Overall, grammar was
found to be stronger than structure in the student employees’ writing. Managers then assisted student
employees in developing their written communication skills through attention to these four elements of
their routine incident reports. Writing samples were taken and evaluated again the following semester
(spring 2006). Assessment results indicated that the students’ writing skills had improved. In particular,
student reports were clearer and contained more details. The AS staff leadership is planning future
assessments of verbal communication and problem-solving skills. On an on-going basis, student learning
outcomes and assessment results will be used for planning student employee orientation and training.
Frosh Orientation (CFRs 1.1, 1.5, 2.11, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7)
Collaboration between Student Involvement (Division of Student Affairs) and Enrollment and Academic
Services (Division of Academic Affairs) has led to implementation of a mandatory freshman Orientation
program, Frosh Orientation. Approximately 98 percent of all freshmen now attend one of the nine twoday orientations held on campus between June and August. Concurrent sessions are available for
parents/guardians.
Among the many objectives of Frosh Orientation are (1) establishing a sense of comfort and belonging on
campus and in the area, and (2) beginning the process of becoming intentional learners able to integrate
new experiences and knowledge. The EE Report Team’s review of the evaluation results from 2003
(N=1439) indicate that the program is effective in helping students develop a better sense of the purpose
of higher education (mean score of 4.0 on a 1-5 scale), a better understanding their responsibilities as an
undergraduate student (4.04), and becoming more familiar with the SJSU campus and surrounding area
(4.08). To enhance family comfort and belonging, and in response to requests in the orientation
evaluations, parent sessions have been offered in Spanish since 2005 and will be offered in Mandarin in
2007. In addition, a Spanish language Orientation newsletter was added in 2006. A growing calendar of
Welcome Week activities, including department and college events, officially begins with the Welcome
Convocation in which the theme for the year – one of the university’s shared values – is introduced to the
campus community. The theme for AY 2006-06 is diversity.
Summary and next steps
Reflection on the evidence of the cultural shift in Student Affairs, as indicated by the integration of
student learning outcomes into co-curricular programs, development and application of a variety of
integrative learning assessment tools, and use of results for program improvement, indicates that the
Division is clearly engaged in the early stages of a fast learning curve. The growing partnership between
Student Affairs and Academic Affairs will result in deeper understanding for the campus as a whole about
the role of integrative learning in our ability to meet our core commitment to educational effectiveness.
Summary, Challenges, and Opportunities for Action
This inquiry into our effectiveness in achieving integrative learning goals for all students examined first
year experiences, general education, integration across the curriculum, graduate education, and cocurricular activities. We found movement and potential everywhere, innovation and emerging evidence
of effectiveness in many places, and, in some cases, well-documented and long-term patterns of
20
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
consistent evidence of educational effectiveness in relation to integrative learning. There is no doubt that
the national dialogue on integrative learning has provided a conceptual framework that resonates with
faculty, staff, and campus leaders. But it is also clear that the most effective strategies are those which
come from the people, challenges, and possibility of San José State University.
Our reflection on the evidence we have considered and the context in which it resides leads us to identify
the following challenges and opportunities as we strive to meet our integrative learning goals:
1. Continue to support faculty engagement in integrative learning, including support for innovation and
faculty development; assessment of effectiveness, dissemination of lessons learned and best practices,
and celebration of achievement;
2. Extend our vision and resources for integrative learning to include undergraduate and graduate
programs, general education and the majors, curricular and co-curricular programs, and to continue
the dialogue and exchange that integrate experience and insight from these diverse perspectives with
current campus integrative learning initiatives and priorities; and
3. Continue to build the culture of evidence with questions, methods, and opportunities for integrative
learning that resonate with San José State University interests and insights.
Our context is inherently integrative. As will be clear in our third essay on community connections, our
students daily integrate their education with their work, family obligations, and social commitments. The
gift of a “commuter school” is that faculty, staff, and students bring the outside world with them when
they come to campus, for they are very much “of” that outside world. Integrating what they know and
learn across multiple contexts is natural and daily; our challenge is to structure and support that
integration so that they experience the university as intentional learners, with skills and enthusiasm for the
contributions they will make to a dynamic 21st century society.
Our context is also extraordinarily diverse, which makes early attention to integrative learning, especially
that which fosters learning and belonging, particularly important. Our next essay on inclusive excellence
examines the opportunity we have to fully engage our diversity in the service of learning. To do that
effectively, we need a strong foundation of reinforcing values, planned experiences, and evaluation
strategies that are both bold enough and nuanced enough to be truly inclusive, welcoming of new insights,
and respectful of difference. We must all be intentional learners, able to “adapt to new environments,
integrate knowledge from different sources, and continue learning throughout our lifetimes.” Our
mission, our setting, and our students deserve nothing less.
21
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Reflective Essay #2: Inclusive Excellence
Introduction (CFRs 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, 3.11)
The concept of Inclusive Excellence is being developed through a series of discussions and documents
supported by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U).12-15 In short, inclusive
excellence recasts the traditional approach to diversity as an enumerated outcome into multi-layered
institutional processes in which diversity is situated at the center of the university’s mission, the range of
human diversity is fully engaged as a process toward better learning rather than an outcome measured by
access, and all students have true and equitable opportunities to succeed and excel. Many faculty and
administrators at San José State University are tremendously interested in this dialogue.
Our university has been in the enviable position of having deep and extensive campus diversity of every
kind for many years. For more than a decade, SJSU has ranked nationally among schools graduating the
greatest number of Asian Americans, Latino/a students, and under-represented minorities overall. The
inclusive excellence dialogue invites us to contribute our best practices in structuring and integrating
diversity into the formal and informal curriculum. It also directs us to collect new student outcome data,
to study our current data in new ways and for new purposes, and to improve our programs with the
intention not only of including all constituents but also of seeing that all have an equal likelihood of
success. Our University's mission, shared values, and vision for the future; its history and concern for
social justice; its diverse student body, and extraordinarily diverse setting all help position SJSU to
become a leader in inclusive excellence. The deep reflection stimulated by the accreditation process,
particularly the Educational Effectiveness Review, has both challenged and encouraged us to transform
our understanding of and commitment to diversity into a commitment to inclusive excellence.
San José State University’s commitment to diversity derives from our mission and is explicitly stated as
one of our goals for all students: Multi-cultural and global perspectives gained through intellectual and
social exchange with people of diverse economic and ethnic backgrounds. As one of the university’s
shared values, along with learning, student success, excellence, integrity, and community, we state that
valuing our diversity means that “We value and respect diversity, inclusion, civility and individual
uniqueness and recognize the strength these factors bring to our community and learning environment.
All of our interactions should reflect trust, caring and mutual respect.” By policy, our campus is
committed to "nondiscrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, gender status, marital status, pregnancy, age, disability or covered veteran status consistent
with applicable federal and state laws." This policy applies to all SJSU student, faculty, and staff
programs and activities. Diversity-related statements appear in the faculty union agreement and the listing
of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Our commitment to diversity is further elaborated in the vision,
value statements, or affirmations of colleges and schools such as the College of Education, the College of
Social Science, the School of Social Work, and the departments of Philosophy and Health Science, to
name just a few. These commitments are aligned with those of the other campus units, most notably the
many programs of the Division of Student Affairs, including Housing and the MOSAIC Cross Cultural
Center.
Ten years ago, the SJSU Academic Senate passed a Sense-of-the-Senate Resolution that had the intent of
fostering appreciation and understanding of diversity at San José State University. This resolution laid out
specific recommendations "for creating 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." Over the years, these recommendations have led to improved curricular and co-curricular
programs, assessment of campus climate, faculty and staff development, and resource allocation in
support of our commitment. In some areas, such as General Education, these developments have been
planned, coordinated, appropriately resourced, and carefully evaluated. Other efforts have been initiativebased, spontaneous, and informally funded. While often effective in meeting their goals, these efforts
have not been part of an explicit conceptual framework for the campus. Once again, many in our “fleet of
22
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
small boats”1 have moved with zeal and inspiration but without the support of a unified vision for our
efforts or the indicators we would use to measure our success.
The inquiry and reflection on inclusive excellence (CFR 1.9)
This essay describes the findings and outcomes of our examination of inclusive excellence at San José
State University and its relationship to our ability to meet our core commitment to educational
effectiveness. Addressing both student and institutional learning, our inquiry was designed to (1)
document the diversity of San José State University, specifically the diversity of our context and our
students, (2) assemble and review evidence of the effectiveness with which we have operationalized our
commitment to diversity, and (3) challenge ourselves by assessing our evidence against some of the new
hallmarks of an institution in which excellence is inclusive. We begin by describing our diversity; our
setting in Santa Clara County and the City of San José, the diversity of our faculty and staff, and then, in
greater detail, the diversity of our students. We then pose and address three questions designed to
advance our own institutional transformation by assessing ourselves from the perspective of inclusive
excellence:

Are success and excellence equitably achieved among all students at SJSU?

Is the campus climate perceived as supportive by all students?

Is there continuing and ongoing engagement with human diversity in the curriculum and the cocurriculum?
We conclude with a discussion of challenges, opportunities, and future directions as we integrate
inclusive excellence into our commitment and approach to educational effectiveness.
Diversity at San José State University
San José State University is rich with “individual and group differences that can be engaged in the service
of learning.”6 Our campus community has always drawn from and been part of the community around us.
As this context has changed rapidly over the past 35 years, we, too, have changed.
The context of our diversity (CFR 1.5, 4.5)
Our geographic location situates us in one of the most diverse parts of the western United States. As a
public institution, our campus diversity has changed and grown with the history of the region. Although
our campus community draws from an increasingly wide area, the extraordinary diversity of Santa Clara
County and the City of San José provides the primary context for our students, faculty, staff, and
community connections.
The diversity of Santa Clara County and the City of San José
The 1.7 million residents of Santa Clara County are 44% non-Latino white, 26% Asian, 24% Latino, 3%
African American, and 3% identifying as two or more races. The county has had a pluralist majority for
many years, with more Asian and Latino immigrants than any other Bay Area county. Within the past
decade, 200,000 immigrants from 177 countries entered Santa Clara County, with the largest groups from
Mexico, Vietnam, the Philippines, the People’s Republic of China, and India. The county is also home to
some of the largest refugee resettlement populations, including groups from Vietnam, Bosnia, Iran, and
Somalia. Within 15 years, the county’s population will have roughly equal number of whites, Latinos,
and Asians. Five of the 10 school districts in the region with the highest proportion of students with
limited English proficiency (LEP) are in Santa Clara County. San José, the 11th largest city in the United
States, is also a majority minority population. In just 30 years, the white population has decreased from
70% to 30%. In addition to its large Latino, primarily Mexican, population, San José has more people
from Vietnam and India than any other city outside of those two countries. Among its largest school
districts, the proportion of LEP students ranges from 26 – 55%.
The diversity of SJSU’s faculty and staff
Profiles of faculty and staff by gender and ethnicity were constructed in spring 2006, in part to respond to
a student perception, mentioned on the 2005 Student Needs and Perceptions Survey (SNAPS), that
campus employees do not “look like us.” In 2005, SJSU employed 1862 full-time regular employees,
23
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
including 674 full-time faculty, 28 coaches, and 1160 support staff. The profile indicates lower
proportions of racial/ethnic minority and female faculty members than are represented in the student
population. The staff profile indicates that SJSU is approaching the broad demographic makeup of the
region; 52% of the staff are female and 43% racial/ethnic minority. By comparison, the 1999 profile was
50% female and 36% minority. SJSU administrators, particularly the executive leadership, deans, and
associate deans, are diverse across all of the key demographic variables.
A full examination of inclusive excellence would include a multi-layered analysis of the campus as a
whole, further disaggregating the numbers and using multiple methodologies to understand the
experience, challenges, success, and educational contributions of diverse faculty, staff, and administrators
to the educational effectiveness of the institution. However, our focus in this inquiry was the educational
experience of SJSU students as it unfolds within our diverse context. The EE Report Team took the
opportunity of our accreditation self-study to explore multiple data sources that describe the diversity of
SJSU students as a backdrop to addressing key questions raised in the conceptual shift from access and
diversity to inclusive excellence.
Student diversity at San José State University (CFR 1.5, 4.5)
Among the myriad individual and group differences that can be engaged in the service of learning, the EE
Report Team sought data on eight dimensions of student diversity that team members felt shape the
experience of our large and comprehensive university in important ways: gender, race/ethnicity, language
diversity, age, need for accommodation, class level and enrollment status, socioeconomic status, sexual
diversity, and religion. Data came from CSU records, institutional research, campus communications, and
student surveys (e.g., NSSE, SNAPS). The results vividly illustrate the diversity and possibility of San
José State University.
Gender
In Fall 2005, the SJSU student population was 54% female and 46% male. The relative percentages are
closer at the lower division level (49% male, 51% female) and the same at the upper division level (48%
each for males and females). There is a larger difference between males and females in postbaccalaureate programs (35% and 65% respectively) and among graduate students (40% and 60%).
Race/ethnicity
In fall 2005, 58.7% of the SJSU population of 29,975 students was from racial/ethnic minority groups.
The Simpson Index, used for calculating biodiversity, rates us as one of the three most ethnically diverse
campuses in the California State University system. A “majority minority” campus for more than a
decade. In 1995, the largest ethnic group was Asians (39%), and the second largest was whites (27.5%).
The Latino/a group (14.7%) combines Mexican Americans (10.7%) and other Hispanics (4%). African
Americans were 4.5% of the student population and American Indians/Alaskan Natives were .4%. A total
of 13.8% declined to state their ethnicity. Although the data indicate that our diversity is not evenly
distributed across all departments or colleges - for example, a high percentage of the degrees awarded by
Engineering are to Asian males, Administration of Justice graduates many Latino/a majors, most English
graduates are white – it is also evident that nearly every major, no matter how small, graduates students
from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Language diversity
A large proportion of SJSU students speaks more than one language; a smaller proportion, but still a
significant number, reads and writes two or more languages. The linguistic range includes English,
Spanish, and Chinese (including both Mandarin and Cantonese; Vietnamese; Tagalog and other Filipino
dialects; Hindi and Punjabi; Farsi; Arabic, and countless languages, dialects, and mother tongues from
throughout the world. Over 60% of SJSU undergraduates report that English is not their native language;
26% of SJSU juniors report that English is not their native language and is still not their primary
language.
Age
In fall 2005, 64% of the SJSU student population was between 20 and 29 years old. Freshmen and
sophomores tend to be of "traditional" college age (18.7 and 19.9 years respectively), but juniors and
24
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
seniors are older, averaging 23.7 years and 26 years respectively. SJSU graduate students are also older,
with an average age of 32.4 years.
Students needing accommodation
In fall 2005, the SJSU Disability Resource Center (DRC) served 900 students, as well as faculty and staff.
The DRC provides service to students needing accommodation due to communication, hearing, vision,
mobility, learning, or other functional differences.
Class level and enrollment status
San Jose State University has a large undergraduate population, a smaller proportion of graduate students,
and considerably larger junior and senior classes. In spring 2006, for example, SJSU enrolled 3595
freshmen (17.2%), 2157 sophomores (10.3%), 6602 juniors (31.7%), and 8494 seniors (40.7%). About
half of the undergraduate population transfers into SJSU (average over the last seven years 51.25% by
headcount, 47.47% by FTES), primarily from local community colleges but also from other four-year
institutions. A majority of SJSU juniors and seniors are enrolled in fewer than 15 units of coursework in a
given semester. Fewer than 10% of all students live on campus.
Socioeconomic status
The Financial Aid Office reports that 44% of undergraduate and 27% of graduate students qualify for
some kind of financial aid (loans, grants, etc.). Nearly half of all aid recipients, 26% of undergraduates
and 1.5% of graduates, qualify for Pell grants. This is a lower proportion than most CSU campuses,
perhaps because Pell eligibility is tied to Expected Family Contribution, which may be higher in our
relatively higher wage, but similarly higher cost, economic region.
Other categories
Data on religion and sexual orientation can not be collected on a systematic basis for all students, yet we
know that they can be important components of individual identity and social experience. The presence
and activities of support/interest groups and student clubs focused on sexual orientation and religion
provide important glimpses of the numbers and experiences of students who wish to identify these key
variables with peers. They also serve as indirect indicators of these additional dimensions of our campus
diversity.
Next steps
Our analysis of the eight dimensions of diversity selected for this inquiry is only a beginning. We know
that additional individual and group experiences and differences similarly add to the social, intellectual,
and aesthetic mix that makes up our campus. Key among these additional dimensions are work while in
school, parenting and family relationships, immigrant experiences, high school preparation, family
college history, veteran status, and many more. As we become both more precise and more nimble in our
observation of potentially important differences, we have the opportunity to create formal and informal
methods of appropriate data collection. Our enhanced institutional research capabilities and the growing
enthusiasm on campus for the inclusive excellence framework create just the combination necessary to
collect, analyze, and use data on diversity in ways that will make a difference.
A campus in which excellence is inclusive would measure up well when posed with the following
questions: 1) Are success and excellence equitably achieved among all students? 2) Is the campus climate
perceived as supportive by all students? 3) Is diversity engaged in the service of learning such that
students develop knowledge of diverse groups, intercultural communication skills, and the ability to
contribute to a diverse society? The EE Report Team asked these questions of our own campus. As
reflected in the sections that follow, we found evidence of commitment, innovation, and effectiveness.
We also found evidence that we have important work ahead if we are to live up to our own expectations
and responsibility.
Are success and excellence equitably achieved among all students at SJSU?
In order to address this question, the EE Report Team explored several indicators of academic success
and excellence, disaggregating data whenever we could and experimenting with new ideas that might turn
into useful indicators of the academic experience of diverse groups on our campus. The team began with
25
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
retention and graduation rates, disaggregated to compare racial/ethnic groups, gender, first time freshmen,
and transfer students. The team also examined the impact of English language ability on writing skills and
ability to proceed towards graduation by disaggregating the results of the required junior-level Writing
Skills Test by self-reported English proficiency. Finally, we reviewed the students and faculty who have
received the university’s highest awards for excellence as an unusual but highly visible indicator of the
degree to which all groups are succeeding – and excelling – at San José State University.
Retention and Graduation Rates (CFRs 1.1, 1.5, 2.10, 2.12, 2.14, 4.5)
One of the traditional approaches to assessing educational effectiveness and accountability within the
CSU system has been analysis of retention, persistence, and graduation rates. Over the last several years,
the campus has actively tried to better understand its retention and graduation patterns, but was
challenged by the limited capabilities of its data management system. The fall 2006 hiring of the
Associate Vice President for Institutional Research and the new information management capabilities of
the Common Management System (CMS) and Cognos (business intelligence software), provided the
opportunity and the capacity to begin exploring these data more deeply. Such analysis is critical if we are
to meet Goal 2.3 which calls for increasing graduation rates (time to degree) by five percentage points.
Retention
The Educational Trust assesses our freshman retention rate (82.0 for 2004) as at the level expected for an
institution of our size and with our median freshman SAT score. Interpretation of retention rates beyond
the freshman year is limited due to differences between the assumptions in the calculation (full-time
students, continuously enrolled) and the characteristics of SJSU and other campuses with relatively large
part-time student populations. One of those characteristics is the number of students who “stop out” for a
semester or more. For example, although our one-year freshman retention rate is 82.0%, the EE Team’s
stop-out analysis shows that 19-22% of first time SJSU freshmen stop out - but then return - within a sixyear period. The analysis also revealed that SJSU students overall stop out for an average 1.2 semesters
prior to graduation. When retention is measured as continuous enrollment, a high stop-out rate will cause
variable changes from semester to semester.
Graduation Rates for First-time Freshmen
The EE Report Team examined 4- 6- and 9-year graduation rates for first time freshmen disaggregated by
gender and race/ethnicity. The racial and ethnic groups included in the analysis were African American,
Asian, Latino/a, White, and, for the 9-year graduation rates, the group who “declined to state”
race/ethnicity. Because Native Americans represent only .4% of the SJSU student population, they are
excluded from comparative analysis. Freshman 4- and 6-year graduation rates are calculated for the firsttime, full-time freshman cohort that began in fall 1997.
4-Year Graduation Rates
The Educational Trust reports SJSU’s overall 4-year, first-time freshman graduation rate as 7.1%, ranking
the university 15th out of 16 comparable institutions nationwide and last among 6 comparable CSU
campuses. Before reviewing 6- and 9-year freshman graduation rates, which are more encouraging, it is
helpful to take a closer look at the comparisons provided by the 4-year data for the information they
provide about disparities between groups at San José State University and how we compare to other
institutions.
While the overall 4-year graduation rate is 7.1%, important differences emerge when the data are
disaggregated by gender and ethnicity. For example, the 4-year freshman graduation rate for white
students is 9.4%; the rate for under-represented minorities is half of that, 4.5%. The group with the
highest 4-year graduation rate is white females, 13.0; the rate for African American males is sadly 0%.
The rate for under-represented females is 6.5% (9.6% for Asian females, 9.2% for African American
females, and 5.7% for Latinas). And although white males have the highest 4-year graduation rate, 5.7%,
among male students, it is less than half the rate for white females (13.0%) and twice the rate for all
under-represented males (2.2%). The rates for Asian and Latino males are 4.5% and 3.3% respectively.
Comparing our 4-year graduation rates to those of the comparable institutions in the Educational Trust’s
analysis is useful, both for context and potential guidance. Our best 4-year graduation rate, 13.0%, is
26
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
among white females. The best white female graduation rate in the nationwide reference group comes
from Western Kentucky University where the rate is 29.7%; the best in the CSU comparison group is
California State University Fullerton, whose white female graduation rate is 22.1%. Western Kentucky is
also the national group leader in 4-year graduation rates for African American males, with a rate of
13.7%; Fullerton is again the leader among the 6 CSU campuses, with a rate of 5.7%. Although it offers
no consolation, SJSU is not so different from the remaining 4 CSU campuses in the group on this
particular statistic. Indeed, Cal Poly and San Francisco State University have the same African American
male 4-year graduation rate, 0.0%, as San José State University. Our 4-year graduation rate for males
overall is 4.5%, higher than the rate for San Francisco State University (3.5%) and close to the rate for
CSU Sacramento (4.7%), but behind CSU Long Beach (6.5%), Cal Poly (6.8%), and CSU Fullerton
(7.2%). Our 4-year female graduation rate is 9.9%, slightly ahead of the San Francisco State University
rate (9.7%) but behind CSU Sacramento (12.8%), Cal Poly and CSU Long Beach (13.0% and 13.1%
respectively) and CSU Fullerton (16.9%).
Persistence and Graduation Rates
At least three factors contribute to SJSU’s low 4-year freshman retention rate: (1) Since 67% of arriving
freshmen need remediation in math, English, or both, some of the initial units that students earn do not
count toward graduation; (2) Although on average, SJSU students stop out for 1.2 semesters prior to
graduation, some stop out for much longer periods; (3) SJSU has a very high rate of part-time students
with the average unit load ranging between 10 and 11 units. To account for some of these confounding
but very real enrollment patterns, the concept of persistence was developed by the CSU to include all
students who are either retained or graduated within a specified period. Thus, for first-time freshman, 4year and 6-year graduation rates are reported; 3-year and 6-year rates are reported for junior-level transfer
students.
SJSU has begun to look more systematically at the educational trajectory of students who persist even
beyond six years for freshmen and three years for transfers. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that
students who do not graduate in six years are unlikely to graduate at all, at SJSU more than 20% of the
graduates who began as freshmen take more than six years to graduate. As an example, 23.6% of the
1996 entering cohort graduated in years 7, 8, and 9. Among transfer students, this calculation is equally
enlightening: many transfer students do not graduate in three years, but do in six. However, after six
years, only about 4% more students graduate in nine years.
6-Year and 9-Year Freshman Graduation Rates
In comparison to SJSU’s 4-year graduation rate of 7.1%, our overall freshman rate at six years is 38.1%.
The 6-year comparisons provided by the Educational Trust rank SJSU 13th of 16 comparable institutions
nationwide and very close to CSU Sacramento (39.7%) and San Francisco State University (40.3%). CSU
Fullerton again has the highest rate (49.5%) among the six comparable CSU campuses. Although we
remain 6th of the six CSU institutions for overall female (43.4%) and male (33.1%) graduation at 6-years,
our ranking in the nationwide comparison of 16 institutions moves up to 10th and 12th, respectively.
Under-represented minorities at SJSU graduate at a rate of 30.0 overall at six years, with a gap between
the rates for females (36.3%) and males (22.8%).
Although our 6-year graduation rates for under-represented minorities place SJSU fourth of the six
comparison CSU campuses (ahead of CSU Sacramento and San Francisco State University), there are
important differences between groups on our campus. Asian females have the highest 6-year graduation
rates (48.2%), followed by white females (45.8%) and African American females (38.5%), all above the
SJSU overall 6-year freshman graduation rate of 38.1. The rate for Latinas is slightly below the overall
rate at 35.8%. Rates for male students show disparities between groups and in comparison to females.
The 6-year freshman graduation rate for Asian males (38.0%) is nearly the same as the university overall.
However, the rates for all other male groups decline steeply: white males (31.6%), Latinos (28.9%), and
African American males (11.0%).
The EE Report Team went one step further and analyzed our own 9-year freshman graduation rates. This
analysis showed that, at 9 years, the best graduation rate (50.2) is achieved by Asians. At 9 years, the
27
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
freshman graduation rate for Latino/a students matches that of the university overall (38.7). But the
freshman graduation rate for African Americans at 9 years is still only 24.7.
Examining persistence over time, the EE Report Team found that African American and Latino/a students
show the steepest drop over the first two years; Latino/a students then diverge from African Americans
who show a moderately steep decline over the next two years, whereas Latinos overall show a more
shallow decline. Over the first four years, Asian students exhibit the least drop-off, with other ethnic
groups in between. After four years, all under-represented groups show a very shallow rate of decline in
persistence. This disaggregation clearly identifies the need to better understand and prevent differential
attrition and to improve retention in the critical early years.
As Essay 1 describes, we are taking steps to provide freshmen with an interesting, relevant, and
supportive transition to college in our effort to achieve strategic Goals 1.2 and 2.2. . By 2010, the First
Year Experience will include individual assessment in mandated first semester courses for all freshmen.
As this policy is finalized through the strategic planning process, these data must guide the shape and
support of first year experience programs, staffing, and assessment. Continuing to disaggregate the data
by gender and race/ethnicity, and taking action upon the findings, will be critical to closing the gaps that
currently exist between groups who start as freshmen at San José State University.
Retention and Graduation Rates for Transfer Students
Transfer students account for approximately 62% of SJSU’s baccalaureate degrees each year. Data from
transfer cohorts beginning in 1993 show a small but steady increase in 6-year graduation rates, from 53.2
for the 1993 cohort to 60.0 for the 1999 cohort. Despite the increase, the rates are still below the 6-year
transfer graduation rates of comparable CSU campuses. These data also show that the percent of
incoming transfers who began ‘part-time’ was highest at SJSU among comparison campuses, thus
explaining to some extent why SJSU transfers are taking longer to graduate.
Review of the data disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity identifies persistent disparities between
groups. The 6-year transfer graduation rate for females in the 1998 cohort is the highest of all SJSU
transfer groups (68.5); the rate for males in that cohort (57.4) is over 10 percentage points below. White
students had the highest graduation rate among the 1996 cohort (58.1) and experienced the greatest gain,
slightly over 8 percentage points, with the 1998 cohort’s rate (66.5). Asian, Latino/a, and “ethnicity
unknown” students all show average 6-year transfer graduation rates between 55.9 and 59.6 during the
period under review, and each experienced modest gains. Rates for the transfer cohorts from 1998 are
61.3 for Asian students, 60.1 for “ethnicity unknown”, and 57.8 for Latinos. Although showing an
increase from 33.8 to 42.3 between the 1996 and 1998 cohorts, the 6-year graduation rate for African
American transfer students is markedly below that of the other groups. It should be noted that, although
the total number is too small (.4%) for rigorous comparison, the 6-year graduation rate for SJSU’s
American Indian students was close to the overall rate for the 1996 cohort but is the only group whose
graduation rate decreased over the three year period. All under-represented minority transfer students at
SJSU exhibit persistence that is below that of other transfer students at similar institutions. However,
when only full-time transfer students are examined, SJSU’s persistence rates are similar to those of
comparable institutions.
These data clearly show that SJSU must create programs and strategies to retain transfer students,
particularly those who begin part-time. It is also clear that SJSU must determine why there is such a
persistent gap between the graduation rates of African American and all other transfer students. Several
promising efforts are underway in this regard, but assessment of their impact and continuous
improvement based on carefully selected process and outcome indicators will be critical.
The FYE Planning Panel is in the process of developing an expanded version of the Transfer Information
Program to help reduce the first year dropout rate of transfer students. The issues of part-time enrollment
uncovered in the EE Report Team’s graduation analyses will be an important part of the planning.
A new course, Science 96T, Success as Transfer Students, was offered for the first time in fall 2007.
Extending the successful Science 002 Success in Science model described in Essay 1, the 2-unit course is
28
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
intended "to assist transfer students in becoming successful scholars at San José State University. [It]
introduces students to university faculty, campus administrators, and campus resources [and] provides
students with a wide range of information regarding various university policies and procedures as well as
practical study stills." The course integrates weekly lecture and activity sections, peer advising, and
extracurricular campus events. Specific topics include faculty expectations, determining learning styles,
note taking and test taking strategies, time management, and mapping a plan for graduation.
A related program, tentatively called the Student Transfer Experience Program (STEP), is in development
for 2007. The Success as Transfer Students course piloted in fall 2006 will provide important insights for
developing the program, which may be structured around a series of seminars similar to those offered to
first-semester freshmen through the MUSE program. The goal of the STEP program will be to introduce
transfer students to content in their discipline, university-level expectations and opportunities, and
specific academic success skills without adding time to graduation.
Our increased capacity for purposeful institutional research is critical to our ability to increase the
graduation rates for all students and close the gaps between groups. As one example, a newly developed
information set now provides data on how many students graduated in the major in which they entered,
how many graduated in other majors, and how many entered but did not graduate. These system-level
“maps to graduation” are being disaggregated into gender and ethnicity maps which may reveal additional
commonalties and differences between groups.
Primary Language and Writing Skills (CFRs 1.1, 1.5, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.4, 4.5, 4.7)
One of the university’s most important evidence-based inquiries into differential academic success rates
was the 1999 Writing Skills Test (WST) Study, sponsored by the University Writing Requirements
Committee. The retrospective study analyzed the results of the junior-level Writing Skills Test over a
five-year period covering over 30,000 students. Results of the study revealed significant differences
between groups based on English language proficiency. Only 1 in 20 students, 5%, who reported English
as their native language failed the WST on their first attempt. In contrast, 18% of those who reported that
English was now their primary, although not native, language failed the test, a rate of three times that of
native speakers. Most significantly, however, over half (52%) of those who report that English is not yet
their primary language failed the WST on the first attempt, a rate three times higher than non-native
speakers now using English as their primary language and fully 10 times higher than native English
speakers. Indeed, the key predictive variable for passing the test, and thus being allowed to progress
toward graduation, was whether or not English was the student’s primary language. This single variable
proved more powerful than gender, ethnicity, and, for transfer students, community college of origin.
The results of the WST Study were shared with the campus, stimulating or supporting various initiatives
to improve student writing. However, the spring 2007 opening of the Writing Center, a component of the
new Academic Success Center, provides an opportunity to approach the 1999 data and what we have
learned in the meantime from the new and fuller perspective of inclusive excellence. At a conceptual
level, this means recognizing that the very students who are having such trouble passing the WST may
also be among those with the greatest capacity for understanding multiple perspectives, a 21st century
goal, precisely because they are learning to experience the world through two different language systems.
These students may also possess advanced skills in intercultural communication if they have learned to
navigate in a language and culture they do not yet consider primary. An inclusive excellence perspective
means proactively embracing the reality that these are the students seeking higher education in California
at this time and learning, as an institution, how we can best support them in meeting our shared
educational goals. As a result, along with faculty expertise in teaching and learning writing from the
English Department, the new Writing Center will draw on faculty expertise in language acquisition from
the Foreign Language and Linguistics Departments. All upper division and graduate students will be able
to participate in group sessions or one-to-one peer mentoring to improve their English writing skills. The
Center will also provide technical assistance and support to faculty in designing effective assignments and
responding appropriately to student writing, particularly in classes with mixed English ability. Ongoing
assessment of improvement in teaching and learning writing, and their relation to academic success and
educational effectiveness, will be critical as the new Writing Center gets underway.
29
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Recognition and Awards (CFRs 1.5, 2.5, 2.8, 2.10, 3.3, 4.5)
The EE Report Team knew that there is a good deal of informal evidence that the SJSU students who are
achieving excellence are not predominantly from any one or two ethnic groups. Even in cases where we
do not have data disaggregated by ethnicity, names and photos suggest that minority students are serving
as campus leaders, earning university awards, graduating with honors, representing us on teams and in
competitive internships, and being recognized in the community for their contributions while at San José
State University. Likewise, when we select leaders for student activities and present scholarships to
students, informal evidence abounds that we are including students of both genders and from a range of
age and ethnic groups.
The EE Report Team also recognized that informal evidence is not good enough. The new capabilities of
CMS and Cognos, our information management systems, now allow multivariate studies of all student
populations across a wide range of indicators of educational effectiveness. For example, in summer 2006,
a first group of staff members was trained to write “queries” that can be run by department chairs and
program directors to determine GPA, retention, graduation, and other success measures of their students
as influenced by a wide range of possibly predictive variables. This training is continuing during fall
2006 and will include an ever-widening circle of SJSU faculty and staff. If we discover that not all
subgroups are performing equally well, or identify early warnings of emerging gaps, appropriate campus
units can initiate planned and coordinated interventions.
Academic Excellence (CFRs 1.5, 2.5, 2.8, 2.10)
The EE Report Group analyzed the race/ethnicity of students who were recognized for academic
excellence by the university over the past 10 years. The measures of excellence that were selected for the
analysis were the President’s Scholars (students who earned in two consecutive semesters 4.0 GPA's),
Dean’s Scholars (those who earned in two consecutive semesters 3.65 GPAs), and those who graduated
with honors (cum laude, magna cum laude, or summa cum laude). The data show that, although minority
students comprise 58.7% of the student body, they represent only 37.5% of those with the highest GPAs,
and only 42% of those graduating with honors. Standardized test scores provide another potential
indicator of the degree to which all groups are achieving excellence. For example, the College of Business
(COB) administered the ETS Major Field Test in 2002. Of the SJSU students scoring among the top 4%
nationally, 44% were Asian, 20% were Latino/a, 23% were white, and 13% were from other
groups/decline to state. This distribution is quite similar to the ethnic distribution for all students in the
College and indicates that the programs are effectively offering opportunities for all (COB) students to
excel. Our growing institutional research capability will make producing reports that disaggregate data in
this way easier and more common.
Even with CMS and Cognos, some data that we wish to examine will not be available. For example, a
widely recognized measure of educational effectiveness is the proportion of students who participate with
faculty in out-of-classroom educational experiences. These may be in research, scholarly reading,
performance, community service, or in many other avenues of academic endeavor. Analysis of
enrollment data will allow us to ascertain how CMS-identifiable subpopulations do, or do not, partake of
formal individual study opportunities. However, it is still a challenge to identify whether or not there are
differences between sub-populations in participation in out-of-class activities reflecting excellence, such
as musical ensembles, conference presentations, theatre performances, research competitions, art
exhibitions, competitive internships, political service programs, and the like. This type of student/faculty
interaction is a basis for the excellence in “hands on” learning that SJSU faculty repeatedly refer to as a
point of campus pride at both undergraduate and graduate levels, yet it has not been systematically
documented or analyzed for its contribution to equity in student success and the university’s educational
effectiveness. As the campus understanding of diversity evolves to inclusive excellence, our data
collection methods will, and will need to, similarly evolve.
Role Models of Faculty Excellence (CFRs 2.8,3.3, 4.5)
One of many indicators of a campus in which excellence is inclusive would be the opportunity for
students to see diverse faculty recognized with the university’s highest honors. The EE Team developed
a profile of the recipients of the three top faculty awards over the six academic years between 2000 and
30
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
2006. Disciplinary diversity was evident as honorees for the three awards came from five colleges and
fifteen different departments. Regarding gender, the results were both encouraging and interesting; 9 of
the 17 awards were given to women, and 8 to men; however women were over-represented as recipients
of the Outstanding Professor and Distinguished Service awards (4 of 6 and 4 of 5, respectively) and
under-represented as President’s Scholars (1 of 5). The recipient profile by race and ethnicity was quite
different. Of all 17 awards, only two have gone to minority faculty and both of those were President’s
Scholars.
Support Programs (CFRs 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 2.13, 4.7)
Despite their long-standing presence at San José State University, we do not have a coordinated or
cumulative campus record of how the students who have participated in programs as Minority Access to
Research Careers (MARC), Minority Biomedical Research Support (MBRS), McNair Scholars, Alliance
for Minority Participation (AMP), Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achievement (MESA),
MESA's Engineering Program (MEP), Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) or others
have – as a group –demonstrated enhanced retention and graduation rates, or achieved measures of
excellence. The contributions of these programs have been assumed, based on anecdotal accounts and
repeated external funding that requires some measure of effectiveness. However, the little that we do
know is encouraging. For example, the AMP program that serves Latino/a, African American, American
Indian, Alaskan Natives, and Pacific Islanders through tutoring, workshops, and intensive summer
programs has produced retention and GPAs in science classes that exceed those for the overall averages
for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) students. The average GPA of students served by
the Disability Resource Center is consistently at or above the university average. Data for deaf students
show GPA and graduation rates comparable to other students and the highest in the CSU system. The
College of Engineering can show that the retention of students in the MESA Engineering Program is
higher as a result of the student advising program instituted in spring 2001. Chemistry reports that the
students who take the Chemistry Preparatory Course the summer before enrolling in Chemistry 1A
succeed at a significantly higher rate than the students who do not (90% vs. 65%). Data are needed to
understand how such intervention programs affect students overall and in different ethnic, gender, age,
cultural and socio-economic groups both while at SJSU and after graduation. Each of our support
programs could be a mini-case study of the best practices and lessons learned in an institution committed
to inclusive excellence.
Summary and Next Steps (CFRs 1.1, 4.5, 4.7)
In sum, the answer to our first question – are success and excellence equitably achieved at San José State
University – would have to be no, not yet. Despite our impressive national diversity rankings, our
institutional data reveal stark and persistent disparities between men and women, and between
racial/ethnic groups, for freshman and transfer graduation rates, for retention in the early years, and in
contrast to comparable institutions. Among those who succeed at San José State University, our data
show that students from all backgrounds earn academic awards and recognition, but not necessarily in the
proportions we desire. Students who notice that faculty awardees held up as role models "do not look like
us" are correct. We have invested years of heart and effort into minority access programs, yet have not
developed common measures for assessing their educational effectiveness. The contradiction between
our national ranking and our local data vividly illustrates the challenges facing American higher education
in the 21st century. We can leverage our visibility as national leaders in diversity to provide true
leadership in inclusive excellence. But first, we have more work to do in establishing a creative and
strategic portfolio of assessment methods that will continuously identify institutional trends, including
disparities between groups and effective support strategies; and we have enormously important work to
do to learn from the data and then use it to ensure that success is equitably achieved by all groups at San
José State University.
Is the campus climate perceived as supportive by all students? (CFRs 1.1, 1.5, 3.3, 4.2, 4.5)
The campus Policy of Commitment to a Campus Climate that Values Diversity and Equal Opportunity,
approved by the Academic Senate and signed by the President in 2001, articulates key characteristics of
the environment described in Vision 2010. The most recent Campus Climate survey, administered in
31
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
spring 2006 to students, faculty, and staff, is being thoroughly analyzed this academic year. Support for
the analysis is provided the new Office of Institutional Research and dedicated release time (.20) for two
faculty members. An Executive Summary of student responses was provided to the EE Report Team for
this inquiry.
Student perspectives on campus climate (CFRs 1.5, 2.10, 4.7, 4.8)
The overall picture from the preliminary results is of a healthy campus climate. The SNAPS and NSSE
surveys and the multi-method Student Experience Study, which also included recent alumni, all
corroborate this finding. Participants in all four studies note diversity of the campus and the value of
interacting with diverse peers.
The recent campus climate study offers more detailed insight into student experience of our uniquely
diverse campus. Specifically, students’ overall perception of SJSU is of a community that is respectful,
non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic, and hospitable to the disabled (means >5.0 on 1-7 scale, with 4
being neutral). Rated only slightly lower (means 4.9-5.0) were the characteristics safe, supportive, and
welcoming. Students rated their majors even more highly on these dimensions of campus climate (all
means 5.5 – 5.8) and agreed that their majors “emphasize the importance of diversity in my field” (mean
4.4 on a 1 – 6 scale). Among the things noted as not being the target of discrimination for responding
students were body art, sexual orientation, and disability. Gender, political views, race/ethnicity,
language/accent, religion, age, and physical size were slightly more likely to be reported as targets of
discrimination. Areas that were rated as important for SJSU include, “Helping students learn how to
bring positive change in society” (mean score 4.30 on a 1 – 5 scale), “Developing a sense of community
among students, staff, and faculty” (4.20), “Developing an appreciation for a multicultural society on
campus” (4.13), and Promoting and celebrating diversity (4.06). Two areas in which the overall means
indicate improvement is needed were “[Knowing] how to report officially racist, sexist, or other
discriminatory behaviors” and learning more in classes about discrimination based upon disability,
homophobia, sexism, and racism. Students agreed with the statements “SJSU is preparing me to live and
work in a diverse society” (mean 4.5 on a 1-6 scale) and “I value the work that SJSU is doing to promote
diversity” (mean 4.3).
Perspectives by gender (CFR 2.10)
Some important gender differences emerged from this preliminary analysis. For example, although both
men and women report that the general climate at SJSU is positive, women are slightly more likely to
experience it as sexist. Although reports of gender discrimination were very rare for both men and
women, women reported it slightly more frequently (average rating 1.52 on a 1 – 5 scale, where 1 is
never). Both men and women reported that they learned about issues such as discrimination based on
disability, sexism, and homophobia in their classes; however, women reported learning more. Male
respondents were less likely to report feeling that they had role models on campus (mean 3.64 compared
to female mean of 4.18 on 1-6 scale) and female respondents more highly valued SJSU’s work to promote
diversity (4.44 vs. 3.87).
Perspectives by race/ethnicity (CFR 2.10)
Disaggregating the data by race/ethnicity reveals patterns than need further exploration. While the means
scores for all groups across all dimensions of the general campus climate are favorable (ranging from 4.12
– 5.92 on a 1-7 scale), important differences can be observed. For example, Asian students rate all
dimensions most favorably (means 5.05 – 5.45). White students also tend to rate all dimensions favorably
(means 4.32 – 5.36). Mexican American students’ ratings are consistently lower (means 4.12 – 5.08), and
most of the ratings from African American students are very positive (means 5.52 – 5.90) with the
exception of safe (4.75) and supportive (4.83). All students endorsed the importance of “developing
leadership ability among students”, “helping students learn how to bring about positive changes in
society”, and “promoting a climate where differences of opinion are regularly aired openly”. However,
students of color rated three items as more important than their white counterparts: “Increasing the
representation of minorities in faculty, staff, and administration,” “developing an appreciation for a
multicultural society on campus,” and “promoting and celebrating diversity.” Although all students
report a low rate of experiencing discrimination, white students report a higher rate of discrimination
32
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
based on political views and religion, whereas students of color report more discrimination based on
race/ethnicity and language or accent. All groups reported relatively low perceptions that “there are role
models for me on campus” (means ranging from 3.81 – 4.18 on a 1 – 6 scale, with 3 being disagree
somewhat) and students of color were less likely than white students to agree with the statement “SJSU
staff are sensitive about ethnic/racial issues”. All groups expressed some uncertainty about reporting
procedures for incidents of discrimination.
In the current survey, services such as cultural activities and educational equity programs are rated as
good by those who use them, although a surprising number of students rate them as not applicable. A
majority of students agree with the statement, “I am pleased with my overall experience on this campus.”
When asked if they had ever seen or experienced a negative incident with respect to a variety of issues, a
strong majority reported “never” for incidents regarding disability, 84.7%; learning difficulty, 78.8%;
sexual orientation, 76.4%; age, 75.2%; gender, 72.8%; race or ethnicity, 69.0%; and religion, 67.8%.
However, when disaggregated by ethnicity, the data reveal that students of color experience or observe
more negative events. For example, regarding negative events with respect to race or ethnicity, only 50%
of African American students report “never,” 33.3% report “rarely”, and 16.7% report “occasionally."
Summary and Next Steps (CFRs 1.3, 1.5, 2.10, 3.4, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6)
The data indicate that the answer to our second question – is the campus perceived as supportive by all
students – is a qualified yes. Students recognize the diversity around them and seem to value it for the
experience and career preparation it offers. They perceive the campus as generally respectful along a
variety of key dimensions, and as generally supportive and welcoming. There is a low rate of reported
discrimination and students agree with the importance of developing leadership among students and
helping them learn how to bring about positive change in society. The Student Experience Study taught
us the value and feasibility of giving students a chance to respond to open-ended questions about their
experiences, individually and in groups. Similar exploration on a regular cycle will yield similarly
invaluable evidence of the processes and outcomes of inclusion and exclusion, as experienced and
understood by students, in their own words. The 2006 campus climate survey offers the opportunity to
explore student experiences across a wide set of variables, with attention to differences between groups.
Further analysis of the Spring 2006 data can disaggregate responses by gender within race/ethnic groups,
as well as compare student perceptions of the campus climate with those of the faculty and staff. These
data will be critical background for the January 2007 Inclusive Excellence Institute, to which each dean is
sending a faculty-staff-student team. The projects resulting from this 3-day retreat and the further
research directions emerging from the continued analysis of our various surveys of student experience
have the potential to make important, evidence-based contributions to creating and protecting a campus
climate that all groups find equally inclusive and supportive of their educational goals.
Is there intentional and ongoing engagement with human diversity in the curriculum and cocurriculum?
San José State University has long reflected the interests and needs of its students and the communities in
which they reside and work. Our geographic and cultural context has brought diversity squarely into the
curriculum and co-curriculum for decades. The result is a varied and reinforcing network of courses and
activities across the university that is both mature and innovative in its intentional engagement of
diversity.
Diversity in the Co-Curriculum (CFRs 1.3, 1.5, 2.8, 2.11, 2.13, 3.4, 4.1, 4.7)
From over 200 clubs with varied foci – cultural, hobby, religion, scholarship, service, academic or
professional discipline – to intramural and recreational sports; award-winning student-run media,
including a radio station, news broadcast, magazine, and print and online newspaper; leadership
development opportunities; and a full calendar of public lectures, films, meetings, and workshops, San
José State University reflects the interests and contributions of our diverse campus community. The
Phyllis Simpkins International House, themed living communities in the residence halls, and two dozen
fraternities and sororities add yet another dimension to the co-curriculum, as do opportunities to study
abroad and participate in shorter educational trips such as Alternative Spring Break. The Cultural
Heritage Center in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library houses the Africana, Asian American, and Chicano
33
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
collections and is dedicated to fostering a deeper understanding and pride in our diverse heritage across
the SJSU campus community.
The Campus Reading Program provides a co-curricular example of how diversity and the experiences of
diverse groups are intentionally structured into ongoing opportunities for students, faculty, and staff to
learn together. The Campus Book for AY 2006-07 is The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. A year-long
schedule of public events including discussions, book groups, public lectures, an essay contest, a stage
adaptation, and a reading and book signing with the author have already involved hundreds of people
across the campus in exploration of the novel’s themes of the immigration experience, family bonds, and
the recent history of Afghanistan and the South Bay. Another activity of the Campus Reading Program is
the President’s Fall 2006 Reading Group on Diversity, attended by faculty and staff who engaged in
weekly focused study of interdisciplinary reading on diversity and higher education. Yet another example
is the MOSAIC Cross Cultural Center, established in the mid-1990s, whose mission is to provide a safe,
educational environment fostering personal growth and development for all SJSU students, faculty, and
staff. Operating throughout the year, MOSAIC offers guidance, academic support, and leadership
opportunities that focus on creating mature, aware, and socially responsible individuals who advocate and
dialogue for equity and social justice. One of our newest and most ambitious projects is the Difficult
Dialogue series, supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The goal of this project is for campus
participants to engage each other in deep conversation about significant and controversial social issues
facing our university and our world. Religion, class, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation are
topics for the early dialogues.
Diversity across the Curriculum (CFRs 1.5, 2.10, 2.11)
The current SJSU Catalog lists courses across every college and many departments that include diversity
in their course description. Some examples include English 22 Fantasy and Science Fiction which
explores the historical and cultural contexts and diverse cultural traditions of literary fantasy and science
fiction; Kinesiology 169 Diversity, Stress, and Health which examines the impact of structured
inequalities on stress and health of diverse populations; Dance 102 Dance in World Cultures which
surveys the role of style, historical background and religious/cultural influences on dance throughout the
world; Library 271 Library Services for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Communities which focuses on
programs for racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse communities; Geography 10: Cultural
Geography which studies the human population through the perspective of cultural groups;
Communications Studies 174 Intercultural Communication which includes the influence of varying
values, norms, belief structures, and role on communication among persons from different U.S. and world
cultures, and Business 133A International Marketing which emphasizes development of a global
perspective and cultural sensitivity for use in the international business environment.
Some of the academic programs at SJSU were initiated on the basis of student demand and born of both
social movements and growing academic interest in cultural studies. For example, the Mexican American
Studies Department grew out of the Civil Rights and Chicano movements of the 1960s. The African
American Studies concentration, the Asian American minor, the Women's Studies minor, and the
comparative religion program had similar beginnings and all have become formal courses of study within
the university. Students from diverse populations have prompted adaptations in the curricula of SJSU’s
academic programs in engineering, business, engineering, science, social services, health professions,
politics, the arts, K-12 education, and many others.
Engagement of Diversity in General Education (CFRs 1.2, 1.7, 2.6, 2.7)
Twenty years ago, the SJSU faculty began to integrate cultural and diversity requirements into its General
Education policy, beginning with a required course in cultural pluralism. That requirement evolved into a
universal charge across all GE areas, with specific mandated learning outcomes in two upper-division GE
courses that emerged from, and transcended, student requests for an ethnic studies requirement. Ten years
ago, the Academic Senate’s Sense-of-the-Senate Resolution on diversity led, among other things, the
inclusion of Self, Society and Equality in the U.S. as a general education requirement separate from
Culture, Civilization, and Global Understanding. The university received national attention for this
34
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
curriculum.7 The new GE Guidelines further extend our commitment by the addition of the intercultural
communication student learning goal.
From the beginning, our engagement with diversity in general education has been both intentional and
ongoing. The current 12 unit SJSU Studies upper-division culmination of GE, taken by all SJSU
graduates, mandates not only content mastery but active interaction with others on matters of equality and
inequality (Area S) and cultural and global understanding (Area V). As described in Essay 1, student
achievement of the learning outcomes for these two critical areas is measured through course-embedded,
pre-approved assessment plans, the results of which are discussed among faculty teams and summarized
by a course coordinator whose reports are then evaluated by the Board of General Studies as it considers
courses for continuing certification within the GE program. Engagement with diversity in general
education is thus structured and sustained. It is also continuously assessed and improved based on
evidence of student learning.
Diversity as Subject Matter in the Majors (CFRs 1.2, 1.5)
It goes without saying that the students who major in Global Studies, International Business, and Foreign
Languages, as well as those who study abroad, are formally engaged in increasingly sophisticated study
and experience of diversity. In order to assess these opportunities more broadly, the EE Report Team
conducted a survey of posted student learning outcomes in the major that clearly engage diversity in the
process of learning. The resulting list documents the extent of our campus commitment to developing the
cognitive complexity and academically-related competencies that would be a hallmark of an inclusively
excellent university.
Two courses provide examples of learning outcomes and evaluated activities that demonstrate that
students are developing cognitive complexity by learning about human diversity and its social context.
The College of Business requires all majors (some 5000+ students) to complete Business 187 Global
Dimensions of Business that "provides an overview of economic, social, cultural and political/legal forces
and factors influencing crossborder business and an introduction to international dimensions of business
functions and operations." Specific student learning outcomes include the ability to: 1) Explain how a
better understanding of one's own culture can help to understand other cultures, 2) Identify/demonstrate
social/behavioral knowledge/skills vital for effective intercultural interaction, and 3) Assess factors/issues
internal and external to the firm that affect staffing decisions in international organizations. In another
example, RTVF 110 Electronic Communication and Culture “provides a critical survey of the roles
played by the electronic media in shaping the culture…Special attention is paid to improving cultural and
media literacy in order to illuminate cultural structures that lead to identifiable inequalities, the "benefits"
accrued from them, the harm they normalize, and their solutions”. One of the learning outcomes is that
students "acquire a fundamental knowledge of some of the ways to participate in various 'dialogues' of
race, gender and class." Evaluated learning activities require that students analyze their own cultural
identity by keeping a media and product consumption diary and that they research a cultural perspective
different from their own. Ongoing assessment of student achievement of these learning outcomes
provides evidence of the degree to which the activities are effective, as well as critical information for
adjustments to better meet the educational objectives of the major.
Summary and Next Steps
The evidence indicates that the answer to our final question – is there intentional and ongoing
engagement with diversity in the curriculum and co-curriculum – is decidedly yes. Students have multiple
and reinforcing opportunities to experience, learn about, and contribute to human diversity through
unstructured self-discovery activities, public events and cultural experiences, interactions with peers and
classmates, recreation and social groups, and personal exploration of the multicultural resources so
abundant on our campus. Students learn about diversity and its related constructs – context, culture,
expression, power, privilege, communication, change, and social action – through general education
courses, particularly SJSU Studies. Courses and activities in many of the majors also engage diversity in
their learning outcomes and academic competencies. Due to our geographic setting and community
partnerships, students who participate in community service, through service learning or volunteer
activities, are able to integrate what they have learned on campus with their experiences in our
35
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
extraordinarily diverse region. Our experience with GE assessment provides evidence that diversity can
be structured into a wide variety of disciplinary perspectives and across all levels of undergraduate
education. As the university reaches the milestone of its first full set of evaluated learning outcomes for
all majors, anticipated in summer 2007, those relating to diversity and inclusion can be analyzed
separately for insights into best practices and lessons learned as pedagogy is continuously refined. These
results will be particularly helpful as we design specific assessments for the cognitive complexity
associated with the concepts and competencies of inclusive excellence within the majors, in first year
experiences, and for the new integrative learning programs discussed in Essay 1. The inclusive excellence
framework draws our attention to potential variations in the strategies, sequences, and structures that are
most effective for different and diverse groups. Our co-curricular initiatives, particularly the Difficult
Dialogues Project, and our community-based learning, such as CommUniverCity which is discussed in
Essay 3, provide additional venues to assess and enhance our effectiveness in fully engaging diversity in
the service of learning.
Summary, Challenges, and Opportunities for Action
This inquiry into our effectiveness in the new area of inclusive excellence examined evidence of
curricular integration of diversity, student perceptions of campus climate, and indicators of student
success and achievement, specifically retention and graduation rates, university honors and recognitions.
We found evidence of deep commitment to diversity, intercultural communication, and the skill sets and
habits of mind that will prepare all students to be productive contributors to diverse and dynamic 21st
century societies. However, the structure of our inquiry also placed those points of pride next to very real
disparities in academic success, graduation, and achievement of excellence associated with race/ethnicity,
language, and gender on our campus. Despite our decades of commitment to excellence and diversity, we
are not yet an institution in which excellence is inclusive.
However, the drivers of change are within our hands. San José State University has a long and sustained
commitment to diversity and social justice. It is central to our mission, evident in our shared values, and
integrated into our 2010 vision, goals, and objectives. It is supported by our strategic planning process
and integrated into our general education curriculum and its assessment of student learning outcomes. It
is reflected in our diverse students’ perceptions of our campus climate as safe and non-discriminating, and
their desire for a greater sense of community. And it is symbolized in our newest piece of public art, the
statue of 1969 SJSU student athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith, fists raised and Olympic medals
around their necks, in the center of our campus. The transformation from understanding diversity as an
outcome to using it as a central process for student and institutional learning, and equitable and inclusive
excellence, should be most possible at an institution such as ours.
Our reflection on the evidence in the context of the emerging discussions of inclusive excellence in higher
education leads us to identify the following challenges and opportunities as we strive to make SJSU a
place in which educational effectiveness is realized, in part, through full engagement of our diversity:
1. Continue to pose the questions that reveal and illuminate differences hidden within otherwise
reassuring indicators, using the new tools of CMS and Cognos, as well as the expertise and resources
of our new Office of Institutional Research, and routinely disaggregate our data by both traditional
and emergent variables to determine differential perceptions, experiences, success, and achievement
among groups of students;
2. Extend our examination of equity and inclusion to the experience of faculty and staff, as their
engagement, success, and confidence in our ability to be an inclusively excellent university are both
hallmarks and champions of our effectiveness;
3. Further develop our capacity to fully engage diversity in the service of learning, particularly in the
majors, in advising, and in our support programs, and likewise develop the assessment strategies that
hone in on what works and why;
36
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
4. Use our data to take action quickly, strategically, and boldly when needed, regularly assessing the
results of our actions, and adjusting our efforts so that we make consistent progress towards a more
equitable level of educational effectiveness; and
5. Work together to establish new benchmarks, strategic plans, and assessment methods that transform
our institutional commitment from diversity to inclusive excellence.
The university is poised to take action on these challenges and opportunities through our strategic
planning process, our assessment of student learning outcomes, and our new capacity for institutional
research. Our commitment to integrative learning, discussed in the previous essay, draws from and
nurtures the principles of inclusive excellence. Our next essay brings diversity and integrative learning
together in an exploration of our community connections and their impact on educational effectiveness.
The EE review process has brought into relief new evidence and new ideas that support our commitments
while broadening our vision and challenging our assumptions. Nowhere is that more true than in the area
of diversity and inclusive excellence. Action, accountability, and persistence are the next steps.
37
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Essay #3: Community Connections
Introduction (CFR 1.1)
In their monograph The University and the Creative Economy26, Richard Florida and his colleagues
examine institutions of higher education against “the 3 T’s of economic development” – technology,
talent, and tolerance. The authors argue that, while a university’s contribution to technological advances
in its local region is easily evident, its roles in “generating, attracting, and mobilizing talent” and
establishing a social climate that is “open, diverse, meritocratic, and proactively inclusive of new people
and new ideas” are equally, if not more, important. San José State University is fortunate to be located in
a community that is, itself, technologically advanced, talented, and tolerant. The synergistic intersection
of university and community, and the reciprocal relationships that begin where they meet, are an asset to
us all. Our ability to achieve our core commitment to educational effectiveness is greatly enhanced by our
community connections, particularly those engaged in the service of learning.
Connections between the campus and the community (CFRs 1.1, 2.9, 2.11, 4.8)
For decades, San José State University has lived by a mission of civic engagement and community
involvement. Indeed, community connections are central to the campus vision of a metropolitan
university. It is to this long-held strength that the EE Report Team looked for ways to grow and
strengthen the connections between our campus and the community, and to more formally understand the
ways in which they contribute to student, university, and community development and success.
There are many indications that our community connections are many, sound, and productive.
Community leaders, asked at a September 2004 Community-University Connections Forum to list three
words that describe San José State University, offered “community resource, historical, diversity
incubator”, “committed, talented, enthusiastic”, “education, unity, opportunity”, and “leader, innovator,
trust.” In the same forum, the community leaders cited SJSU students as an enormous resource to
community organizations: “SJSU students are quality: smart, capable, responsible, self-directed, with
invaluable language skills. Student resumés are a notch above other area school resumes. Students are
team oriented and work hard.” The inauguration of a new Cesar E. Chavez Community Action Center,
completely funded and staffed by students, speaks to the commitment of SJSU students to the greater
community. More formal connections through the curriculum show growth every year. During the 20052006 academic year, 88 faculty members reported that their classes included a service learning
component. Service learning enrollment nearly doubled from 2697 students in AY 2004-2005 to 4762 in
AY 2005-2006. And recently, San José State University was named to the President’s 2006 Higher
Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction for General Community Service.
The inquiry and reflection on community connections (CFR 1.9)
This essay describes the findings and outcomes of our examination of community connections at San José
State University and their relationship to our ability to meet our core commitment to educational
effectiveness. Addressing both student and institutional learning, our inquiry was designed (1) to
document the extent and range of community connections as they are engaged in the service of learning at
SJSU, and (2) to assemble and review evidence of the effectiveness of community connections as an
educational strategy. The Team began by reviewing all available data that provided a sense of our
community connections and creating a capacity inventory of the findings, a beginning list of the myriad
ways in which the campus and community are mutually engaged. Team members reviewed assessment
data for courses with measurable community-based learning objectives. The Team conducted a survey of
department chairs and program directors, a survey of campus leaders in community-based learning, and
conducted focus groups and interviews with students and faculty regarding their assessment of
community connections at SJSU. All quotes from students and faculty in this essay are taken from
interviews and focus groups conducted as part of the inquiry.
We begin by describing the many ways in which students and faculty are involved in community-based
learning. We then present five case studies from across a spectrum of engagement. We conclude with a
discussion of challenges and opportunities for action as we continue to develop our community
connections as a hallmark and result of SJSU’s educational effectiveness.
38
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
The extent of community connections and their impact on learning (CFRs 1.1, 2.10, 2.11, 4.7)
SJSU students participate in community-based learning across a wide spectrum of “engaged activities.”
Beyond community-based experiences, which can be educational and contributive in their own right,
“engaged activities” are more structured, intentional learning experiences, involving action, reflection,
and integrative learning. The EE Report Team’s inquiry into community connections revealed an
abundance of opportunities for community connections across that spectrum. More than 50 formal
programs were entered into our growing Community Connections inventory of community-engaged
programs, many of which offer several different types of involvement, locations, or populations with
which to work. The university’s Center for Service Learning hosts numerous campus-wide service
learning programs and also facilitates service learning with hundreds of community partners and faculty
colleagues. More than 2500 students participate in service learning and other community-based learning
activities each semester; one in six SJSU students is involved in some kind of community-based learning.
The National Survey of Student Effectiveness (NSSE) 2004 Benchmark Report revealed that over half of
SJSU seniors had participated in both internships and volunteer community service activities, while more
than 20% planned to do so while at SJSU. Clearly, our community connections for learning are strong.
As the 2000 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) study has reported, student participation in
community learning activities leads to positive growth along the following outcome measures: improved
academic performance (GPA, writing skills, critical thinking skills), articulated and enacted values
(commitment to activism, commitment to promoting racial understanding), a more developed sense of
self-efficacy, leadership (leadership activities, self reports of leadership ability, interpersonal skills),
choice of a service career and plans to participate in service after college. Our own qualitative data on the
effectiveness of our service learning minor demonstrate that students in a comprehensive service learning
program became a strong community, developed leadership roles and skills, and increased their
understanding of diversity. Data from SJSU further show that service learning develops the sociological
imagination of students of color, leads to a deeper understanding of multiculturalism and their own
identity, makes sociology relevant to their lives, increases interest in the discipline, and leads to a
structural analysis, even when performing a one-on-one service role. These impacts reflect our
university’s shared values and our goals for all students.
Case Studies in Community Connection
In order to explore the educational effectiveness of community connections on a campus-wide level, the
EE Report Team examined several projects in greater depth from the many included in the Community
Connections Inventory constructed during this inquiry. Evidence and reflection on five of those projects
are presented in the following brief case studies: (1) the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, (2) our General
Education course in Community Action (EDUC 157), (3) a city/university project: CommUniverCity; and
(4) exemplary engaged colleges, and (5) engaged departments and schools.
The Martin Luther King Jr. Library (CRFs 2.8, 2.11, 3.7)
One of the most prominent city-university collaborations is the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library.
Located on a corner of the SJSU campus, the MLK library is the library for San José State University and
the Main Branch of the City of San José Library System. The King Library, the first collaboration of its
kind between a university and a major U.S. city, received the Library Journal’s prestigious 2004 Library
of the Year award, the publication’s highest honor. The 475,000 square foot building was dedicated on
August 16, 2003. The idea for the collaboration began in 1996 and was nurtured by the president of SJSU
and the mayor of San José. In the ensuing years, the San José City Council, the SJSU Academic Senate,
and the CSU Board of Trustees played significant roles in bringing the project to fruition. City and
University employees (represented by their respective collective bargaining units) worked together to
provide public access to all of the collections of San José State University and the City of San José Public
Library System. As the high volume of patron traffic attests, the King Library has proved an invaluable
community resource and is a physical symbol of the sustainable relationship between SJSU and the City
of San José.
The King Library is a place for service learning. Students, faculty, and staff volunteer in various
programs at the Library: in administration, in volunteer services, as docents, as partners in reading, in
39
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
youth services, and in the library bookstore. In focus groups, students frequently cited the Martin Luther
King Library as an example of the university’s link to the community: “The campus is making a sincere
effort to reach out to the community with the library.” One senior echoed the experience of many who
have witnessed the effect of the library’s inauguration on downtown: “The library has a lot to do with
how the outside community and SJSU students are involved… it does connect us to the downtown
community.” Multiple sources of data demonstrate the library’s educational effectiveness: gate counts in
the library show more than 2.5 million visitors per year. Circulation statistics predict 50 million items
checked out by December 2006. Although the academic community checks out more materials from the
public collection than community patrons check out from the university collection, both groups check out
more materials than when the libraries were separate facilities.
EDUC 157: Community Involvement (CFRs 1.2, 1.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.11, 4.8)
EDUC 157: Community Action and Service is based in the College of Education and cross-listed with
Applied Science (APSC), Communication Studies (COMM), Engineering (ENGR), Humanities & Arts
(HA) and Science (SCI). It has also been certified for over 12 years in Area S (Self, Society and
Equality) of SJSU Studies. Instructors of this course engage approximately 200 students per year in
community-based learning. Students typically provide service in one of four community organizations:
the John XXIII Center, where they work with Vietnamese and Chinese seniors on citizenship and
computer literacy; Sacred Heart Community Center, where they work with low income and homeless
families of very diverse ethnicities; The Health Trust, where they address adult and family health issues;
and the Third Street Community Center, where they tutor low-income children and adult English
language learners. This course foregrounds critical reflection on these experiences and asks students to
consider how their learning—the theories, methods, and skills they have learned in their majors and in
other GE courses—and their experiences in the community are mutually informing. Ongoing assessment
of this course demonstrates that it is highly effective in helping students develop nuanced understandings
of the complex issues, particularly regarding diversity and inequality in our local community.
The most recent assessment summary for EDUC 157 reports that 98% of students met the following
course learning objectives: (1) the ability to “describe how religious, gender, ethnic, racial class, sexual
orientation, disability, and/or age identities are shaped by cultural and societal influences in contexts of
equality and inequality”; (2) the ability to “describe historical, social, political, and economic processes
producing diversity, equality, and structured inequalities in the U.S.”; (3) the ability to “describe social
actions by religious, gender, ethnic, racial, class, sexual orientation, disability, and/or age groups leading
to greater equality and social justice in the U.S.”; and (4) the ability to “recognize and appreciate
constructive interactions between people from different cultural, racial, and ethnic groups in the U.S.”
The assessment data for this course are collected through written assignments in which students
demonstrated these abilities, large group discussions, focus groups, and journals kept by students and
turned into site coordinators for feedback. Instructors and course coordinators evaluate student oral and
written reflection as a measure of assessment of student achievement of the course’s community-based
learning objectives. Although these are self-reports of effectiveness from the course coordinators, it is
important to note that these observations reflect the instructors’ interactions with students, the students’
own accounts of their learning in the community setting (via reflective writing and speaking
assignments), and the input of the core community partners. Student assessment forms reveal that these
very high rates of student achievement of the learning objectives might arise from the profound
connections students establish with community organizations and the people with whom they interact.
Indeed, the course coordinator notes on the 2005 GE assessment report that: “students report this course
as a transformative experience in their educational careers at SJSU.”
Studies such as Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) 2000 attest to the power of the sustained and
structured reflection students engage in as part of these experiences as a means of connecting the service
experience to the academic course material. What makes EDUC 157 an important example of community
connections at San José State University is its sustainability: core community partners return each
semester, students continue to enroll in the course as part of their programs of study each semester, and
the course has been reviewed for general education certification three times in the past five years, making
40
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
it a studied and familiar component of our community involvement at San José State University. It also
provides a model of assessment strategies that are do-able in the busy context of a course with a
significant community-based component, sustainable across sections and over time, and informative of
the contribution of community-based learning to educational effectiveness. Our full university
engagement in assessment of student learning outcomes, still new but definitely underway, provides
opportunities and incentives for instructors of community-based courses, or those with significant
community connections, to share methods and findings as they relate to understanding the role of
community connections as a learning strategy.
CommUniverCity San José (CFRs 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 4.7)
CommUniverCity San José is a collaboration among the community, San José State University, the City
of San José, and partnering non-profit organizations to address important issues in the Five Wounds /
Brookwood Terrace Neighborhood. Neighbors, professors, students, city staff, and non-profit partners
work together on projects that focus on three important themes: community health, education, and
neighborhood environment. In its first year (2005), CommUniverCity San José “generated over $105,564
in volunteer labor...organized 8,797 hours of volunteer labor in the FWBT neighborhood...involved 1,103
[neighborhood] residents and 340 SJSU student service–learners in programs...collaborated with 24 SJSU
faculty and staff members, 14 San José State University Departments and Institutes, three City of San
José Departments and three non–profit community partners...outreached to ten grassroots groups, ten
social service providers, nine businesses and three schools, all located in FWBT and previously
unfamiliar with CommUniverCity.” In addition to three SJSU commendations, CommUniverCity also
received a commendation from Mayor Ron Gonzales and the San José City Council. Resident
participation more than doubled since the first round of goal-setting in 2001, and the Five Wounds /
Brookwood Terrace neighborhood was the first of 19 City of San José Strong Neighborhood Initiative
groups to update its action plan.
CommUnivCity projects involve students in departments as diverse as Chemistry and Urban Planning. In
AY 05-06, students used notebook computers and digital cameras to document the “walkability” of
CommUniverCity neighborhoods, generating data to be used in future Strong Neighborhood planning. A
social capital survey project, undertaken the same year, involved students in door-to-door and phone
interviews with neighborhood residents. The survey engages community members’ perceptions about
barriers to community involvement, including language barriers, and access to childcare. It also begins to
establish data with which to measure the mutual influence of the students and community partners over
time.
Though in its initial stages, CommUniverCity appears to be developing a reciprocal, mutually sustaining,
and ultimately assessable relationship between campus and community. In the 2005-2006 Progress
Reports, SJSU students reported gaining experience working with residents and summarizing quantitative
and qualitative data. Community feedback also reflects effective partnerships: For example, students
presented Intimate Violence Prevention workshops to 86 residents at various neighborhood locations.
According to post-workshop evaluations, 97% of participants believed that the information provided at
the workshop was valuable, and 92% reported that they would recommend the workshop to others.
Engaged Colleges: Applied Sciences and Arts, Education
Several SJSU colleges are fully engaged in community-based learning. The EE Report Team identified
two whose assessment efforts most effectively demonstrate the value of community connections as a
strategy for learning.
College of Applied Sciences and Arts (CFRs 1.1, 1.2, 2.4, 2.8, 2.11,2.12, 4.8)
The mission of the College of Applied Sciences and Arts (CASA) is to empower graduates to be
exemplary members of a diverse and global community. CASA’s mission is supported by eight core
values, the first of which is service for the greater good. Additional core values with community
connections include: learning by doing, and partnership and collaboration. All students in the college
engage in a community-based experience. Clinical programs, such as those of the School of Nursing, the
Department of Occupational Therapy, and the Athletic Training Program integrate community-based
41
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
learning throughout their curricula. Nursing students receive clinical experience in local hospitals and
clinics, nurse-managed centers, and community health agencies under the supervision of university
faculty. Occupational Therapy students complete practica in specialty clinics for geriatrics, mental
disabilities, physical disabilities, and pediatrics. Athletic training students work in clinical sites serving
the campus community and local community agencies.
Even non-clinical programs, such as public health and dietetics, include extensive and evaluated
internships in community-based settings. Although most students complete their fieldwork in the local
community, MPH students have been able to work in Nepal, Mexico, Australia, and France in recent
years, due to the ever-expanding network of partnerships between MPH faculty and public health
professionals around the world. The capstone field course in the Department of Nutrition and Food
Science, NuFS 192: Field Experience, places approximately 20 students each semester in local
community agencies such as hospitals, the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, food banks,
natural food stores, and foster care facilities. Community-based learning objectives include: educating
community groups on diets for disease and health, promoting nutrition, and advocating for consumers.
Like all formal internships, the community-based fieldwork of both departments is carefully assessed and
continually adjusted to make sure that all students meet the designated learning objectives and that
community needs, including those of the partner agencies, are being addressed in the process.
Community-based research is another way in which CASA students in many departments and schools
apply what they are learning in class through community connections. Students in Justice Studies,
Nutrition and Food Science, Public Health, and the School of Library Science are encouraged to conduct
Graduate Projects or Master’s Theses in community settings, addressing issues community members
identify as priorities.
Students in all CASA departments and schools have opportunities to engage in community-based learning
through course assignments. For example, NuFS 139: Science and Hunger, is an upper-division general
education course (Area R - Earth and Environment) with learning objectives that include community
involvement. All students enrolled in the course must participate in 12-15 hours of service learning during
the semester. Through this course, students from throughout the campus have partnered with community
organizations including food banks, community centers, and adult care programs. Another NuFS course,
NUFS 114: Community Nutrition, challenges students to address nutrition problems; public policy,
advocacy and legislation; government programs; needs assessments; and management of community
services through planned and evaluated community projects. As part of this course, students are required
to participate in 25 hours of service learning at community organizations such as Rainbow Recovery (a
home for mothers recovering from addiction), the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Clara County, After
School All Stars, and the Pediatric Lifestyle Clinic. Student reflections show that students not only draw
upon the lessons learned in earlier courses in the major, but that they also explore their own personal and
professional development in light of the unique contexts of the community groups with which they
become involved. Through community-based learning, nutrition becomes less a matter of abstract theory
and method, and more concrete and intimate involvement with people who must meet a number of
challenges in taking care of themselves and their loved ones.
College of Education (CFRs 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 4.7, 4.8)
The mission of the College of Education at San José State University is to prepare educators for teaching
in a culturally diverse, technologically complex global community. A significant part of teacher
preparation takes place off campus, the result of a dense web of respectful and reciprocal relationships
between the university and many schools and their communities. The College has successfully placed
over 12,000 alumni, most of whom received their practical training (student teaching, class projects,
internships, research, volunteer experiences) in the extended community of San José State University.
The College of Education’s mission emphasizes the importance of assessment in ensuring equity and
excellence. Indeed, the College is a campus leader in experimenting with contemporary assessment
methods, such as e-portfolios through Taskstream. Many of the strategies and tools the College has
employed are particularly well-suited for assessing community-based learning. Two examples of the
College of Education’s community-based learning initiatives are the introductory course in the Childhood
42
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
and Adolescent Development (CHAD) Department and the “It Takes a Valley” program.
Faculty in the Department of Childhood and Adolescent Development (CHAD) have published studies on
the effects of infusing a 20-hour per semester service learning requirement into a large Introductory Child
Development lecture course. Analyses of student outcomes on course assignments revealed that the 166
students in the service learning cohorts (2 classes) out-performed the 309 students who took the course
during the 32 semesters prior to the introduction of the service learning requirement. According to the
research, the difference between groups appeared in the stronger performance of the service learning
students on narrative assessments incorporated into the midterm and take-home final essay exam and
became evident only later in the semester.
The “It Takes a Valley” project located in the College of Education, is a cohort model built on “the
concept that preparing and retaining successful teachers for our village (California’s Silicon Valley)
requires the substantive contributions of many stakeholders – not just the formal teacher preparation
programs in schools where the teachers will serve, but the businesses and resources that make up our
broad community as well.” This project involves 12-16 undergraduate students a year who participate in a
sequence of semester-long service learning practica. Students keep structured journals and engage in
collaborative reflection with their peers and mentors, and then complete their formal training in the
multiple-subjects credential program. Assessment data from this project demonstrate benefits for the
multiple stakeholders involved: the mentor teachers and the children in their classrooms, the social
service partners, and the SJSU students. Data revealed student growth along the following themes: new
understanding about the strengths, resiliency, and vulnerability of young children in the face of extreme
challenge; new understanding of issues of diversity and equity; new understandings about their own
erroneous preconceptions and stereotypes; and new understandings about their role as the teacher, an
engaged and committed educator and advocate for the children.
Engaged Departments and Schools (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6)
Three SJSU departments have participated in 3-day Engaged Department Institutes conducted by Campus
Compact: Anthropology, Communication Studies, and Health Science. Moreover, eight departments and
one school participated in half-day “Engaged Department” workshops, with follow-up discussions
regarding implementation: Kinesiology, Management and Information Systems, Nutrition and Food
Science, Occupational Therapy, Psychology, Recreation and Leisure Studies, Social Work, Sociology,
and Urban and Regional Planning. Among the results of this broad-based participation is a continuum of
engagement modell now the basis of at least one department’s organization of its community connections.
Learning at San José State University clearly extends beyond the campus. The EE Report Team’s
examination of program objectives university-wide revealed that all programs in the seven colleges
include learning objectives that establish community connections. These community-based learning
objectives can be organized into three categories: professional preparation, community involvement, and
social responsibility. Below are highlights of the effectiveness of some of these efforts in engaged schools
and departments: the School of Social Work and the departments of Anthropology, Psychology, and
Political Science.
School of Social Work (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.11, 4.8)
The mission of the School of Social Work is to prepare social workers for effective, ethical social work
practice from a transcultural perspective with individuals, families, groups, and communities who are
disenfranchised, oppressed, or marginalized. The SJSU Social Work Curriculum Committee conducted an
assessment of student learning in spring and fall 2005, focusing on the following learning objectives: 1)
students will demonstrate skills in empowering and working competently with people from diverse
backgrounds in the context of transcultural generalist social work practice, and 2) students will
demonstrate competence in working within the structures of a social work agency and social work service
delivery systems under supervision. Community-based learning, including extensive internships, is a
central strategy for achieving the school’s student learning objectives.
Assessment activities to date have used indirect measures of student evaluation of their learning
experience midpoint through the program, upon completion of the program, and after the program.
43
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Professionals directly supervising the student interns also conduct assessment of student learning through
measures of student performance in field settings. Student performance improved in all areas measured
over the course of two semesters in field placement, including areas related to the capacity to work with
diverse clients and to work effectively in social service agencies. Narrative comments of instructors were
congruent with quantitative findings documenting student practice skills that were generally good to
excellent. Approximately 70% of students were ranked “very good” or “excellent” in the first semester
and approximately 90% of students were categorized as such in the second semester. Overall, the Social
Work faculty determined that their students functioned well in both areas and improved over the course of
the academic year.
Anthropology Department (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.11)
As their department chair observes, “service learning cross-cuts the production of knowledge, the mastery
of anthropological skills and the need for professional engagement with the community.” Communitybased learning permeates multiple courses and assignments in Anthropology, necessitating a
comprehensive assessment that requires instructor collaboration. The department’s two-year assessment
of relevant community-based learning objectives (i.e., Understanding culture as the distinguishing
phenomenon of human life, and the relationship of human biology and evolution; Awareness of
importance and value of anthropological knowledge in contemporary society and the ability to apply it to
social issues; and Knowledge of political and ethical implications of social research) found that
community-based learning was particularly effective in strengthening students’ ability to link
ethnographic observations with theoretical analysis. Moreover, students’ participation in community
organizations as part of their coursework in anthropology resulted in increased professionalism and a
more nuanced understanding of the relevance of anthropological theory to concrete issues and problems
in our local community.
Psychology Department (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.11)
As part of their role as an “engaged department,” the Department of Psychology maintains a service
learning program aimed at understanding and addressing intimate violence. Students enrolled in Psych
190, the current issues capstone course in Psychology, explored “Sex, Violence and Power” via a variety
of service learning experiences, including developing and providing domestic or intimate violence
workshops to different community groups. Faculty in Psychology assessing the course found that students
in Psych 190, but not the upper-level statistics course offered in Psychology, significantly decreased
domestic violence myth acceptance, decreased rape myth acceptance, decreased support for interpersonal
violence, and increased their academic engagement (sense of connection to learning and to the
University). These findings demonstrate that community-based learning is effective with our students, and
perhaps more effective for our students at accomplishing social justice and relevant context-related
objectives than non-service learning offerings.
Political Science Department (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.11)
One of the Political Science Department’s student learning objectives is that students acquire an
understanding of the role of the citizen in local, state, national and global contexts and appreciate the
importance of life long participation in the political process. In a joint venture with CommUniverCity,
students in the spring 2006 semester of Poli Sci 103: Local Government and Politics planned and
implemented a Voter Registration Day, in which they worked in teams in the community to encourage
local residents to become registered voters. Not only did the students surpass their projected registration
goal, but they were also able to articulate reasons for low voter registration (e.g., language barriers,
complicated forms, etc.) and make recommendations for how future voter registration activities might be
more effective (e.g., they learned fixed registration sites were more effective than door-to-door efforts).
Students’ reflective comments about their experience indicate that they effectively met the departmental
citizenship learning objective. Moreover, their comments suggest that they also developed a more
nuanced understanding of power and privilege in relation to citizenship as it affects residents in San José.
Summary, Challenges, and Opportunities for Action (CFRs 1.1, 2.11, 3.3,
“I will never go backward. Community involvement will always be a part of my life now, both by action
and by how I view the world. I have become a better person…” This statement from a student involved
44
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
in an SJSU interdisciplinary teams service learning project illustrates the power and potential of
community-based learning. This inquiry examined evidence of university-community connections
through shared resources, interdisciplinary initiatives, and partnerships between community organizations
and SJSU departments, schools, and colleges. The EE Report Team found ample evidence of productive,
thriving, and innovative community connections. As the case studies demonstrate, San José State
University faculty and students are engaged in a wide variety of community-based learning activities. We
are effective at engaging a broad array of students each year in courses ranging from general education to
the majors, undergraduate to graduate programs. We have a long history of stable community
partnerships, which indicates reciprocity and the quality of our students’ contributions. Our efforts receive
recognition and funding from outside organizations and have been published in the professional literature.
Over and over, the picture that emerges is one of vibrant activity, respectful engagement, and authentic
community contributions – things that everybody agrees enhance student learning. Increasingly, we also
have important data that identify the specific ways in which our community-based activity enhances our
educational effectiveness and serves our university mission.
Community connections may play a unique and somewhat unexpected role in our particular context. As
data from the 2004 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE ) show, we struggle more than
comparable institutions to create a sense of community and integrated campus culture. Our 2005 Student
Experience Study illuminates the mixed blessings of our location, size, and diversity, particularly the
high proportion of part-time, working, and commuting students. The 2006 Campus Climate survey results
show that all student groups agree that developing a sense of community among students, faculty, and
staff is important. Working and learning together in the community may be one way in which San José
State University’s busy students experience and create community – a sense of belonging – together.
It is no surprise that, when asked about the challenges to community connections, students, faculty and
administrators all cite our status as a “commuter campus.” Student comments in focus groups cite lack of
time as a primary factor limiting their ability to get involved. However, while our efforts to create
community on campus are challenged by the commuter status of a majority of our students and faculty,
other kinds of community connections are made precisely because students make connections between
their local communities and their university. While projects such as CommUniverCity or the San José
Flea Market Open Air Health Fair must be located near the campus, many internships and service
learning projects take place miles away, in the communities where our students already live and work.
Thus, while our primary community is the City of San José, our reach, our partnerships, and the
community setting for student learning is much broader.
The EE Report Team’s research with faculty identified additional challenges that impact communitybased learning. One challenge is always funding. One faculty member notes that while we are in Silicon
Valley, a location laden with potential resources, community-based learning initiatives are not supported
at the level they could be. Some faculty note a perceived lack of institutional support in relation to the
retention, tenure and promotion process, with some departments valuing community-based learning, and
the faculty investment and expertise it requires, more highly than others. In addition, the very real
constraints of university funding formulas and teaching loads add another challenge to the time and
energy required to establish ongoing and meaningful connections with community partners. Yet, despite
the resource and contextual challenges, many SJSU faculty and staff find ways to make community
connections, involve their students in community-based learning activities, and get their projects funded
through a rich and eclectic mix of federal, state, foundation, and community sources. Examples of their
resourcefulness and its contribution to our educational effectiveness are honored each year by the
Provost’s Awards for Service Learning.
With assessment front and center for the university overall, assessment of the community-based learning
components of courses or programs should become a routine part of curriculum review and renewal.
Faculty development support, both for planning and implementing community-based learning and for
assessing its educational effectiveness, is critical. The first round of our full strategic planning process
resulted in release time for 10% of the tenured and tenure-track faculty to engage in student-oriented
projects each year; a required element in the faculty proposals was at least one student learning objective
45
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
and a related assessment plan. Many of the projects that were funded for spring 2007 involve communitybased learning and will result in a wealth of evidence-based information about the role and requirements
of this approach in our core commitment to educational effectiveness.
Our commitment to inclusive excellence is also relevant to community connections. If we believe that
community-based learning is a value-added element to an SJSU education, we must include measures of
access and equity to the traditional indicators of effectiveness. If we find that certain groups of students
are unable to participate in community-based activities or do not feel comfortable, welcome, or useful in
the mode or menu we currently offer, we need to find out why and how we can adjust our offerings to
engage the diversity of our student body. The campus emphasis on outcomes assessment and the growing
momentum of the engaged departments, schools, and colleges will no doubt contribute to increased
momentum – and results – in this area.
Our reflection on the evidence of our community connections and their contribution to our core
commitment to educational effectiveness leads us to identify the following challenges and opportunities:
1. Explore and celebrate the myriad ways in which San José State University is connected to the
community, encouraging cross-disciplinary collaboration and innovative partnerships within the
campus and in the broader community;
2. Find additional ways to support the passion, initiative, and artful pedagogy of faculty and staff who
extend themselves to create opportunities for students to learn in community-based settings, and
ensure that, if this effort is valued by the university, RTP policies and other systems of faculty and
staff reward and recognition reflect that value;
3. Add the contribution of community connections to the focus of our student learning outcome
assessment so that learning objectives, activities, assessment methods, and findings from
community-based learning are more consistently examined and more broadly shared;
4. Develop simple qualitative and quantitative assessment tools for each educational context or
methodology through which community-based learning occurs, from informal class field trips to
structured internships, promote their use, and support dissemination and use of findings to more
explicitly link community activities to achievement of student learning objectives; and
5. Establish and support a repository of data on community-based learning that is specific to this
campus, this student body, and this geographic region so that we can learn from our own best efforts
and contribute what we know and what we do to critical 21st century dialogues on higher education
and civic engagement.
Among the many contingents in our “fleet of small boats”1 is a large but loosely organized group of
students, faculty, and staff engaged in the dynamic and unpredictable endeavor of community-based
learning. These community connections provide a rich setting for integrative learning and offer yet
another way for students to experience and explore our diverse and multicultural society. Our attempt to
firmly establish regular assessment and shared methodologies must be careful not to stifle the
entrepreneurial and responsive spirit of so many of these efforts. Our connections to the community
begin with the opening words of our mission - In collaboration with nearby industries and communities,
SJSU faculty and staff are dedicated to achieving the university's mission as a responsive institution of the
State of California- and are realized with each group of students we graduate. In between and all around
are opportunities for this unique kind of learning that contributes to student development and success
while offering the resources of the university – including its talent, technology, and tolerance - to the
community in which it thrives.
46
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
Integrative and Concluding Essay
Introduction (CFRs 1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)
This Educational Effectiveness Report comes at an interesting and exciting time in San José State
University’s history. This accreditation cycle was begun under President Robert Caret, progressed during
a period of leadership transition, and culminates during the third year of President Don Kassing’s tenure.
It is also being completed in the year that SJSU will celebrate its 150th anniversary, a time to reflect on the
past and plan the future, even if the anniversary did not coincide with our WASC accreditation cycle.
That these two events overlap has been both fortuitous and productive.
In the course of preparing the EE report, the campus has come to appreciate more fully the great strengths
of the University and to identify more clearly areas of challenge in which focused future efforts are
needed. In the four years since the preparation of the proposal, some of the activities that have been
undertaken to improve student learning are bearing fruit. The strategic planning process, begun in 2004,
and the Resource Planning Board and Budget Advisory Committee that preceded it, have fostered the
planning and funding of a number of crucial activities, infrastructure improvements, and the development
of a system of monitoring and assessing the success of these activities to guide their future course.
Opportunities to reflect on the improvements in educational effectiveness that the campus has made and is
making, and to plan for future improvement, provide a rewarding culmination of the accreditation
journey. But for the journey of San José State University, it is merely a waypoint. The next major point
on our horizon is 2010, the target set by Vision 2010 for the accomplishment of the goals it sets forth.
However, the SJSU Strategic Planning process and the discipline required by the current WASC
Accreditation Handbook have made clear to SJSU that each of these waypoints marks a local goal in a
process of continuous improvement for a learning institution. The progress the University has made in
the last four years has been dramatic, and, as the trajectory continues for the next four years, will position
us to develop challenging new goals beyond Goals 2010.
Context for the Reflective Essays (CFRs 1.2, 1.3, 2.4, 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5)
The core educational activities and programs at SJSU have not changed in dramatic ways during the
accreditation review process. However, the improvement in assessment and the sharing and use of
assessment data have led to a much broader appreciation of the strength of the core educational activities.
In addition, the explicit defining and sharing of goals and student learning outcomes, examining the
components of the curriculum and co-curriculum where they are to be learned, and discussing the variety
of venues in which they are or might be assessed have led to a much more integrated view of our
educational mission. Our confidence in the basic educational effectiveness of SJSU’s programs should
not be misinterpreted to mean that we believe that all programs (majors and GE) are equal and excellent.
Rather, we know that many are excellent, all aspire to improve, some have significant challenges, and the
systems are in place to identify areas in need of improvement. These judgments based on assessment of
student learning are supported by overall evaluations such as retention and graduation rates that show that
SJSU is in the range of similar universities. They are also supported by recent Collegiate Learning
Assessment (CLA) results that indicate that SJSU is at or above expectations on all measures compared to
comparable universities. Additional support comes from NSSE, SNAPS, HERI, and our own Campus
Climate Survey. Particularly important to the campus are measures like retention and graduation rates
and the campus climate survey results that indicate campus improvement. These data both support
campus pride and provide motivation to do better.
The development and modification of degree programs has traditionally been bottom-up at SJSU, starting
at the department or college level, with oversight at the university level through the curricular approval
and Program Planning processes. The need for effective strategic planning and enrollment management
requires a more disciplined approach to data collection and analysis that supports and guides such
development and the processes and procedures that allow it to occur. For example, the new Program
Planning Guidelines define a common set of required data elements and reporting format for learning
assessment. The assessment processes that have been enhanced during this accreditation cycle, and the
common annual reporting, provide further indication of the campus’s commitment to transparent data47
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
based decision making. We are establishing a new balance between the independent entrepreneurial spirit
that has produced high-quality programs in the past, and the need for systematic processes and assessment
data to guide the development of the University as a whole.
Reflective Essays (CFRs 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.9, 2.4, 2.9, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5)
The Enhancing Academic Quality theme of the Goals 2010 provides an overall framework to integrate the
essays. Each essay topic has been addressed within the strategic planning process, although only
Integrative Learning is specifically listed under Enhancing Academic Quality. In addition, among the six
University Values (learning, student success, excellence, integrity, diversity, and community), diversity is
the value for AY 06-07 and is the topic of the president’s reading group; inclusive excellence is the theme
for the January 2007 SJSU Achieving Greater Expectations Institute. Focusing on topics that are on the
cutting edge of the University’s planning and development process has provided an opportunity to
investigate issues that are complex and dynamic, and that need further examination, discussion, and
refinement. This examination revealed more coherence to the path that SJSU has set for itself than had
previously been appreciated.
The three essays represent distinct perspectives on educational effectiveness, but because the topics are
complementary and synergistic, many of the examples that provide evidence of educational effectiveness
could be used in more than one of the essays. For example, the capstone experiences used in the College
of Engineering were described in the Integrative Learning essay, but also illustrate issues raised in the
discussion of community connections. The integrative learning strategies used in MUSE, SAIL, and
Team SJSU Studies are thought to be effective strategies for increasing retention and graduation rates
among students who are less well served by traditional curricula and thus could have been included as
part of the essay on Inclusive Excellence. Finally, applying knowledge by participating in the diverse
communities around the campus is part of Community Connections, but using the diversity of SJSU and
the community to increase educational effectiveness is a key component of Inclusive Excellence.
We have learned a great deal about our assessment strengths and weaknesses from examining our
educational effectiveness. Through its strategic planning process, its participation in the AAC&U Greater
Expectation Institutes, and its own Achieving Greater Expectations Institutes, the campus has expanded
its educational ambitions and its commitment to achieving them. This growing commitment to
integrative learning, inclusive excellence, and community connections is based on a belief by many that
these constructs are critical in preparing educated persons. There are significant and often deep pockets
of information at SJSU to support this belief, but the data are not as systematic and comprehensive as the
more highly refined assessment of GE and degree program goals and outcomes. If we are to assure that
we are fostering student success with respect to the last three goals of the University mission statement
(i.e., multi-cultural and global perspectives gained through intellectual and social exchanges with people
of diverse economic and ethnic backgrounds; active participation in professional, artistic, and ethnic
communities; and responsible citizenship and an understanding of the ethical choices inherent in human
development), we must expand the range and sharpen the focus of our systematic assessment. As
indicated in the essays, this has already begun. In the immediate future, the University’s participation in
the Wabash longitudinal study that focuses on acquisition of baccalaureate skills (enhanced by our
participation in the qualitative interviews) will provide systematic assessment. The SAIL program,
described in the Integrative Learning essay, and the implementation of e-portfolios may provide
mechanisms for a sustainable assessment system. Alternatively, modifying SJSU Studies to have one
course designated as a capstone experience is another potential strategy. What is clear is that to assure
that we are fulfilling our mission and to monitor our progress towards Goals 2010, SJSU needs to
continue to develop its assessment system and the supportive culture it requires.
Two key components of Inclusive Excellence at SJSU were addressed in the essay: How well all students
at SJSU, however disaggregated, are being served by the University; and in what ways and how well is
the campus making use of its diversity to offer a deeper, richer, and higher-quality education. Each
examination revealed some real strengths and a pattern of overall health of the University, but each also
revealed gaps in our data and areas in which the data show that we need to work hard for continued
improvement. We are attracting, admitting, and graduating a diverse set of students at overall rates that
48
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
are comparable to similar institutions. However, we need to improve, and we particularly need to
improve our success rate with African American and Latino males. We also need to improve the
systematicity of our data with respect to other important categories, such as disability status, religion and
value systems, sexual orientation, generation of immigration, economic status, and political philosophy.
Many excellent examples of using diversity to enhance educational effectiveness for all students emerged
through this self-study and can be used as models to develop others. The only campus-wide organization
for this kind of effort is the diversity requirement throughout GE, and others need to be developed.
The request following the submission of the Institutional Proposal that the campus focus on a subset of
the issues raised in the proposal led to the development of the concept of Student Development and
Success, and its identification in the Capacity and Preparatory Report as the focus of the Educational
Effectiveness Report. The concept has continued to develop in the variety of forums that have fostered
reflection (e.g., Educated Person Dialogue, Greater Expectation Institutes, President’s Reading Group).
One emerging view that informed the essays is that integrating learning and belonging foster student
development and success, and student development and success is SJSU’s model of educational
effectiveness. Specific projects such as expanded First Year Experience programs for freshmen, the
development of first-semester programs for transfer students, SAIL (Students Actively Integrate
Learning) throughout the undergraduate program, Team SJSU Studies sequences of courses (an integrated
approach to advanced GE), and support for faculty working directly with students outside traditional class
structures all are indicators of this evolution. Likewise, CommUniverCity and more generally the Center
for Service Learning are examples of the University’s response to the data that show that applied learning
is motivational and better retained. Further, such learning opportunities have been shown to be
particularly effective for increasing retention and graduation rates for ethnic minority and first-generation
college students. As we come to the end of the self-study process, the circle of student development and
success, learning and belonging, is clearly central to our past and our future.
Reflections
SJSU is continuing to refine its model of educational effectiveness and what it means to be an educated
person. When the Special Visit Team was on campus in spring 2006, they found great enthusiasm around
the concepts of learning and belonging. We are differentiating and analyzing both learning and
belonging, and the essays each report pedagogical efforts in each domain that have been developed based
on this examination. It is important to continue and evolve both.
SJSU has become more intentional in using the national higher education discussion (e.g., AAC&U),
national data (e.g., NSSE and CLA), and the community beyond the university as resources in evaluating
and improving the educational effectiveness of the campus. Individual departments, some colleges, and
co-curricular programs have long made use of such perspectives and resources, and the essays document
their increasing use at the university-wide level. Although campus and CSU contexts are important, it is
also important to continue to consider broader perspectives.
SJSU is becoming more student learning focused. The current focus on assessment of each student’s
attainment of educational goals and learning outcomes had already moved SJSU down this road, but the
essays document a variety of ways in which individual student’s characteristics and individual student’s
actions are key components in the educational process. The examination of disaggregated student
performance data is an example of this change. The increased encouragement of activities that connect
students with a variety of communities is another. The reflections that students will be asked to make as
part of the SAIL project are a third. The higher education literature and the data from SJSU document
that educational effectiveness is enhanced when students are engaged intentional learners within a
supportive, respectful learning environment. It is important to maintain the progress that SJSU has made
and to continue to develop new opportunities to enhance student learning.
SJSU has become much more systematic in its assessment of student learning and in using data to guide
improvement. The Integrative Learning and Community Connections essays indicate that the
comprehensiveness of the assessment, the infrastructure for compiling and analyzing the data, and the
systems for assuring that results are disseminated and used to guide improvement need enhancement. The
49
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
framework that has been developed for assessment of GE and within degree programs provides a model
of a common campus-wide system. The framework being developed for student self-assessment within
SAIL provides one model for assessing a broader set of goals and student learning outcomes. Finding
common rubrics for assessing the educational impact of community connections is more challenging, but
clearly warranted. It is important that SJSU continue to evolve this component of its assessment system.
SJSU celebrates its diversity and is committed to the educational success of all students. However, despite
a pattern of improvement, there are disparities between the academic success of some subpopulations.
Current efforts to make the curriculum and co-curriculum more engaging and relevant are a component in
addressing this issue. Current and proposed support services (e.g., the Writing Center, a new advising
system, and first-year experience programs for freshmen and transfers) are also crucial. The positive and
improved campus climate provides a context in which progress is possible, and perhaps likely. It is
important that SJSU continue to assess, monitor, and develop strategies to enhance its educational
effectiveness for all subpopulations of students.
SJSU is continuing to expand creative uses of diversity to enhance educational effectiveness. The
curriculum itself includes content and student learning outcomes that emphasize diversity in all its
complexity and challenges. However, the use of the campus diversity to foster the achievement of these
learning outcomes is not well documented and probably not as widespread as it should be. Successful
models of inclusive excellence as pedagogy need to be disseminated to develop broader use of this
powerful instructional approach.
SJSU has a wide and expanding range of programs that foster students’ connections to the community
and use these connections to foster educational effectiveness. Continued progress is needed in four areas:
the assessment of the educational effectiveness of these programs, increased resources to support the
programs, enhancing the visibility of the programs, and developing more systematic faculty rewards for
participation. It is important to continue to enhance these forms of support.
Concluding Comments
San José State University is in very good shape as it moves into its second 150 years. The broad campus
conversations, the inquiries into our selected essay themes, the pulling together of campus information,
and the deep reflection that the WASC accreditation process has fostered have had a synergistic
relationship with the strategic planning efforts that were stimulated by campus and CSU constituencies.
The campus community has become more broadly knowledgeable about SJSU’s many strengths,
particularly with respect to its educational effectiveness, and has also become more knowledgeable about
areas in which improvement is still needed. This broader knowledge has provided a more unified base for
establishing and continually examining the University’s goals, vision, and values. Developing our
concept of educational effectiveness, as fostering the development of educated persons, has stimulated
animated discussion. The themes of the reflective essays provided three lenses for examining these
developments. There are others, and our strategic planning process will guide us in our ongoing
exploration and development. The improvements in the data and information available to guide planning
will continue. During this accreditation cycle, our goals, vision, and values have become clearer; our
processes and procedures for acting on them have been refined, improved, and inclusive; and our
understanding of our strengths and weaknesses has grown. We are acting and will continue to act to
improve our core commitment to educational effectiveness as our fleet of small boats1 moves forward
together in the 21st century, more intentional and better prepared to serve the mission of our university.
50
SJSU WASC Educational Effectiveness Report
References
1. Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of teaching and learning: Building the
teaching commons. Carnegie Foundation Report on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, p.90.
2. American Association of Colleges and Universities (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for
learning as a nation goes to college. Washington D.C.: AAC&U.
3. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
4. Evans, G.G. & Veregge, S. (2006). Learning centered general education reform for inclusive
excellence: A success story in progress. American Association of Colleges and Universities
General Education Conference, Phoenix, AZ, March 9-11.
5. Evans, G.G., Wughalter, E., & Nellen, A. (2005). What does it mean to be an educated person?
Essential dialogue for general education reform. American Association of Colleges and
Universities General Education Conference, Atlanta, GA, February 17-19.
6. Evans, G.G., and Anagnos, T. (2004). Embedded assessment of student learning in general education.
American Association of Colleges and Universities General Education Conference, Long Beach,
CA, March 4-6.
7. Anagnos, T., Dorosz, L, & Evans, G. (2001). Embedding assessment in General Education: What have
we learned? Fifth Annual Assessment Conference, Fullerton, CA.
8. Dorosz, L, & Anagnos, T. (2001). Embedded GE assessment in a large, diverse metropolitan
university. CAPS 2001 Conference. Fort Mitchell, KY.
9. Anagnos, T., Dorosz, L., & Wheeler, G. (2002). Course-embedded assessment in large diverse General
Education programs. AAHE 2002 Assessment Conference. Boston, MA.
10. Allen, M.J. (2006). Assessing general education programs. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
11. Washington, H.D. (2002). Taking stock of the curriculum: San Jose State University develops and
assesses its diversity gains. Diversity Digest. Washington DC: American Association of Colleges
and Universities, Fall/Winter
12. Williams, D.A., Berger, J.B., McClendon, S.A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and
change in postsecondary institutions. Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
13. Bensimon, E.M. 2004. The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change 36 (1): 45-52.
14. Clayton-Pederson, A. and Musil C.T. 2005. Introduction to the series Making Excellence Inclusive:
Preparing students and campuses for an era of greater expectations. Washington D.C.:
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
15. Washington, H. 2002. Taking stock of the curriculum: San José State University develops and
assesses its diversity gains., Diversity Curriculum Transformation, Winter 2002, pp. 8-9, 11
16. Florida, R., Gates, G. Knudson, B, & Stolarich, K. 2005. The university and the creative economy.
Unpublished manuscript.
51