Goal 1: Sustain and Enhance the Quality of Undergraduate Education.

Subgoal 1: Continuous Improvement of Undergraduate Education.

Committee Members:
Chair: Stephen Bowen - Associate Dean: Sciences and Arts
Co-chair: William Kennedy - Director: Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development
Carl Anderson - Associate Professor: Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics
Bradley Baltensperger - Professor: Social Sciences
Harold Evensen - Professor: Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics
Karl Markgraf - Director: Office of Research and the Graduate School
Cynthia Selfe - Professor and Department Chair: Humanities
Thomas Snyder - Associate Professor: Biological Sciences
Heidi Vizina - Undergraduate Student Government: Student Representative

In this part of the self-study, we will characterize, document, and evaluate the instructional programs at Michigan Technological University with special attention given to plans for their continuous improvement through Assessment of Student Academic Success. Our society is changing faster than at any previous time in history. Many career paths thought to be fundamental two decades ago are not viable today. Information-access skills that were undefined ten years ago are essential for university graduates today. To cope with this change, the public needs and expects more and different support from higher education. But at the same time, core general and disciplinary knowledge and skills are every bit as important today as before. In such a dynamic and turbulent environment, continuous improvement of our curricula and their delivery is required just to maintain the quality of our programs. Of course, we are not content with just maintenance. Long-term, net improvement is our goal. See Attachment 1 for a more detailed explanation of this committee’s charge and responsibilities.

The purposes of Michigan Technological University derive from its mission as it has evolved over the last 112 years, and are clearly stated for different publics via diverse media.

Michigan Technological University is a state-assisted, public institution of higher education whose primary purpose is the education of students leading to baccalaureate degrees in science, engineering, and related fields. This status is clearly articulated on page one of the 1995–1997 University Catalog [1.3A] which has been distributed to 12,500 prospective and enrolled students and their families, and other friends of the University in each of the last two years. MTU’s courses of study consist of two parts: General Education and study in a Major. The purpose and specific goals of the University-wide General Education program are described in a catalog section specifically on that subject [1.3A page 189] and purposes more particular to each Major are described in the introductory paragraph for each relevant section. With each biennial edition, these statements have been updated to reflect the evolution of our educational purposes and to re-state our purposes in language and formats that best communicate with contemporary audiences.

The MTU Catalog describes a clear, unambiguous approach to undergraduate education that distinguishes Michigan Tech from most other universities in the nation. We are neither a technical training institute focused narrowly on disciplinary details, nor a comprehensive university that provides education for all possible interests that include science and engineering. Instead, MTU provides discipline-oriented curricula in sciences, engineering, and related fields, broadened by course work that provides knowledge and skills necessary for

1. understanding the social, cultural, environmental, and economic contexts of science and engineering and
2. continued personal and professional growth [1.3A page 1, 189].

The Catalog makes it clear that this focused balance between technology and its contexts, specific skills and broad knowledge, is sustained in curricula traditionally considered central to technological universities and also in those curricula whose technological import is more recently appreciated. Thus, the primary major supported by the Department of Humanities is Scientific and Technical Communication. The undergraduate degree offered by the Department of Social Sciences focuses on issues in science, technology, and society (STS). Departments of Mathematics and Physics offer applied as well as basic degree options. The newest baccalaureate degree to be offered by MTU is Applied Ecology in the School of Forestry and Wood Products.

Among Michigan’s fifteen baccalaureate institutions, Michigan Tech is by far the most focused. Whereas MTU offers 30 baccalaureate degrees, others offer from 40 to 216 different baccalaureate programs (see Table 1). This high degree of focus contributes to MTU’s resource efficiency as discussed below.

TABLE 1. Michigan Public Universities Undergraduate Degree Programs

University	Associate Degree	Bachelor Degree	Total
Michigan Tech	6	30	36
University of MichiganDearborn	0	47	47
Lake Superior State	14	40	54
Grand Valley	0	57	57
Saginaw Valley	0	57	57
University of MichiganFlint	0	58	58
Oakland	0	73	73
Northern Michigan	17	57	74
Central Michigan	0	74	74
Ferris State	54	63	117
Michigan State	11	126	137
Eastern Michigan	0	137	137
Wayne State	0	153	153
Western Michigan	0	156	156
University of MichiganAnn Arbor	0	216	216

All degrees share General Education requirements that provide breadth and balance. The importance of this part of our curriculum is the central message in the President’s brief welcoming message to students published in the Student Handbook which every student receives [1.2C page 3].

MTU’s Mission and Vision Statements will appear for the first time in the 1997–1999 Catalog which is now in press. Page one also includes, for the first time, a list of the President’s ten expectations for the University. The vision statement was developed in 1991 by the University Long Range Planning Committee [2.1A] through an open process that spanned several months with extensive input from the entire MTU community. Drafts were circulated to all academic departments and published in Tech Topics (internal MTU weekly newsletter). Consistent with and building on the Mission Statement, our Vision Statement projects MTU’s continued strength in education in science and technology together with a growing emphasis on environmental, social, international, and economic contexts of science and technology. A national consensus currently believes that such an contextual emphasis is vital to the continued professional growth of today’s university graduates. Leaders in business, industry, and government repeatedly emphasize their need for more broadly educated engineers and scientists with communication and interpersonal skills. Policy discussions during the last decade under the auspices of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the American Association for Higher Education, and the American Association for Engineering Education and in the Chronicle of Higher Education all affirm that this emphasis is appropriate to an institution of higher education.

Michigan Technological University’s human, financial, and physical resources are effectively organized for the most part. Deficiencies in advocacy for academic issues that span all colleges and schools, in the academic calendar, and in space especially for special functions are currently being addressed.

Human Resources

Responsibility for undergraduate programs rests with the Provost and Executive Vice President, to whom the Deans of the Colleges of Engineering and Sciences and Arts and the Schools of Business and Economics, Forestry and Wood Products, and Technology report. The Director of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development (CTLFD) also reports to the Provost. Department Chairs report to their Deans and supervise the departmental faculty who deliver the University’s undergraduate curricula.

The academic structure at the college/school level has been modified a few times since 1988 to improve program delivery for students. One useful change involved transfer of the Department of Chemistry from the College of Engineering to the College of Sciences and Arts. This brings together all the basic sciences in one College where they share interests in both teaching and scholarship. A new Department of Fine Arts was formed from the fine arts faculty in the large Department of Humanities to allow them to focus more clearly on non-degree activities and classes for MTU students. The Department of Education was established to support the growing number of students who seek certification in teaching science and math at the secondary level. These students had previously been supported by a few staff in the Division of Education and Public Services.

The traditional academic structure described above has supported continued growth of academic programs in both teaching (see below) and scholarship (Goal 3 report) within disciplines. It has been much less conducive to the development of interdisciplinary programs and curricula that span the entire academic community such as General Education. Occasionally, a few faculty, determined to make an interdisciplinary course succeed, have taught it as an overload. But a broad-based faculty initiative to establish a set of three interdisciplinary courses on environmental issues as a "thematic cluster" for the General Education program languished without administrative support at any level. Recent efforts to assess and reform General Education have been confounded in part because, although many faculty are interested, no single group or individual has responsibility for that part of our curriculum. The Faculty Development Committee invited requests for funding from faculty for any kind of University-wide activity and received no response. The appointment of a new Vice Provost for Instruction, for whom a search is currently underway, will address the problem. General education will be at the top of this administrator’s list of responsibilities.

MTU faculty have responsibilities for teaching, scholarship, and service to the MTU and the professional communities. The makeup of the faculty, their credentials, and statistics that concern their teaching role are addressed in the Goal 2 report. Although teaching is first among these for the faculty as a whole, expectations differ across individuals, departments, and colleges or schools. In particular, scholarship is emphasized more in departments with significant graduate enrollments. Each academic department operates within its Departmental Charter [3.4] that typically provides guidelines for teaching load and a process for review and evaluation of departmental curricula.

The academic calendar plays a significant role in organization of human resources. MTU currently operates on an early term system with three eleven-week terms (ten weeks of instruction followed by one examination week) with an academic year that begins immediately after Labor Day. Considerable dissatisfaction exists among faculty and administrators with the Winter Term that begins after Thanksgiving. Winter Term is interrupted for two weeks with the Winter Holidays break and is interrupted again for nominally two and a half days by Winter Carnival. In truth, student enthusiasm for Winter Carnival traditions tend to take them away from traditional educational pursuits for at least a week. The faculty’s efforts to maintain continuity in student learning with this schedule is problematic. The Retention Task Force recommended we change to a semester system [5.4A]. The possibility of such a change has been the subject of more than one campus poll and has been discussed in the Senate. As of March 1997, interest in fundamental revision of the academic calendar has been renewed and both the Senate and the administration are taking polls and considering how to proceed.

Financial Resources

Over the last ten years, MTU has shifted financial resources from non-academic areas to support of instruction. This has been accomplished in large part through a program of 1% annual budget reductions for all University departments, followed by a competition for new financial support from the 1% pool. Four years ago, we began an Annual Strategic Plan Update process in which departments and colleges/schools develop proposals for new funding. This new process has formalized and opened up the competition for funds to a considerable degree. The outcome has been a net transfer of funds to academic programs. Thus, in FY1990, instructional expenditures were 36.7% of the total University budget but grew to 39.6% in FY1996. Within this category, the greatest growth was in instructional technology and faculty. In particular, data provided by MTU’s Office of Institutional Analysis show tenure-track faculty were increased from 279 in fall of 1990 to 349 in fall of 1996.

A new administrative policy reorganized the way we handle student laboratory fees, greatly improving the management of the financial resources that support teaching laboratories. Laboratory fees paid by students are now credited to departments that teach the laboratory courses rather than going to a central fund. Departments are allowed to adjust fees for individual classes: provided they document adequate financial justification and subject to the Provost’s approval. This approach allows academic departments to make multi-year plans for the replacement or upgrade of teaching equipment as well as recover the direct cost of laboratory supplies.

Physical Resources

Laboratories and associated preparation, storage, repair, and fabrication rooms are the responsibility of academic departments. In addition, most departments have their own space for such facilities as a Learning Center, a student advising room, and/or a small group meeting or conference room that may be used for undergraduate seminars. In contrast, lecture rooms are generally University-wide resources although scheduling priority is customarily given to a particular department for each room.

The most recent comprehensive Space Needs Assessment was conducted in 1990 by Paulien & Associates of Denver, Colorado [2.2D1]. By using guidelines set by the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, these consultants found that space for all colleges and schools at MTU was below the guideline values. Deviations were:

• College of Engineering 61%,
• School of Forestry and Wood Products 56%,
• School of Business and Economics 45%,
• College of Sciences and Arts 16%, and
• School of Technology 14%.

Total need was calculated to be an additional 210,300 assignable square feet (ASF). On the whole, it is difficult to apply these findings to today’s need because both enrollment in specific disciplines and the balance of faculty efforts in teaching and scholarship has changed. However, the University has little reason to believe that the need for space in any college or school has declined. Since 1991, the Materials and Metallurgy building was completed; this makes up about half the need for space identified in the College of Engineering. Completion of the Environmental Sciences and Engineering Center (92,360 ASF) and the expansion of the Noblet Forestry Building (27,245 ASF) will both provide needed space.

The way we have organized responsibility for the improvement of teaching facilities reflects both tight budgets and a move in the direction of responsibility-centered budgeting in the last decade. Individual academic departments are responsible for renovating and updating all their space, except shared lecture rooms. Because no regularly available University budget exists for this purpose, departments are left to arrange what they can. Civil and Environmental Engineering raised over a million dollars from alumni and corporations for an extensive laboratory upgrade. Biological Sciences accumulated their share of research overhead redistributions to paint walls and extend wiring for power and computer connections. Physics has just begun a $650,000 revamping of all their teaching labs supported by a combination of lab fees, allocations from the general fund, and an NSF equipment grant (anticipated). A benefit of this approach is that funds are not spent on non-essential maintenance just because there is a maintenance budget. However, it does result in a patchwork approach in which conspicuous locations on campus are neglected. For example, some areas in the Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics building appear not to have been painted since the building was commissioned in 1971.

Basic technology in support of classroom instruction is provided by the Instructional Resources Services office, a component of the Information Technology division. Overhead, slide, videotape, and opaque projectors are available on request for every classroom. Because software and hardware requirements differ considerably from one discipline to another, computer projection equipment has been made the responsibility of the departments. Nearly all classrooms have network connections. A few lecture halls on campus have been equipped with multimedia capabilities funded jointly by departments and other offices on campus. Many faculty would like to see the number and size range of multimedia classrooms increased.

The traditional measures of student success and the diverse supporting programs in which students are involved all give evidence that MTU’s students are achieving the learning goals set out for them in our University Catalog. Our Program for Assessment of Student Success [2.7A] will complete its first academic cycle in October, 1997. As described below, we expect our assessment program to let us evaluate and improve our instructional programs with greater precision and accuracy.

Keeping Costs Low

Although we have steadily increased funding for instruction described under Criterion 2 above, our absolute instructional expenditure is relatively low compared to our benchmark institutions. Both IPEDS Finance and Fall Enrollment Survey (1994), and the US News Educational Rankings (1996) report that MTU’s instructional expenditures per FYES (1996: $5,800) remain one of the lowest among our benchmark institutions (1996 range: $4,800-$14,200). Our use of faculty resources is equally parsimonious. At nearly 19:1 (FYES per full-time-equivalent-faculty, FTEF), our student-to-faculty ratio is the highest among our benchmark institutions (1996 range: 13:1 - 19:1, IPEDS 1994). This level of expenditure has allowed us to keep tuition costs low. Combined with the quality of our programs, this efficiency has earned us "Best Buy" citations in the national news media.

Traditional Measures: Retention, Graduation, and Placement Rates

What effect does this distribution of resources have on our effectiveness in educating students? Traditional indicators suggest we are accomplishing at least as much as our peers, with less. MTU’s retention rate from first to second year is 84%—similar to that at our public and only slightly below that at our private benchmark institutions. As part of their comparisons of national universities, US News calculates six-year expected graduation rates based on standard test scores of the 1989 entering class and the school’s educational expenditures and then compares those to the actual observed graduation rates. Of our seven national benchmarks, only Lehigh’s graduation rate exceeded the expected (+10%). Clarkson and MTU had graduation rates exactly as predicted, while the five others fell behind the expected by -9 to -13%. This evidence argues forcefully that our resources are very effectively organized and we are indeed accomplishing our purposes.

Such data as are available provide evidence that MTU graduates are finding career positions relatively easily. The Graduate School has information on 1995 and 1996 Ph.D. graduates. For both years, all graduates whose whereabouts are known (78% of 1995 and 60% of 1996 classes) have full time employment pertinent to their degrees. The MTU Career Center surveys recent graduates to determine their employment status. Survey response rates in the last four years ranged from 45 to 75%. Of those responding, more than 90% reported full-time employment or enrollment in graduate school. The number of employment interviews per graduate increased from six in 1993–1994 to eight in 1995–1996. Salaries offered to Mechanical Engineering graduates, the most heavily enrolled major at MTU, averaged $37,226 ($23,040 – $48,600) for 1995–1996.

The Department of Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics surveyed its students who graduated from 1984–1990 to determine how well their educations had served them in their careers. Of 1,960 graduates sent questionnaires, 457 responded. When asked to rate their MTU education as preparation for their current job, in comparison to co-workers who graduated from other universities, 73% rated it as either much better or slightly better.

Elements of Success—Investments in Support of Student Learning

The successes described above are supported by a diverse set of programs and initiatives that take advantage of new understandings of how students learn and also respond to the evolving needs of faculty in supporting student learning. The ideas for these actions and the energies it took to implement them came from many different segments of the MTU community: administration, faculty, and staff. The fact that administrators, faculty, and staff have worked together in a climate of collaboration has allowed us to develop many of these programs while allowing us to keep costs relatively low. Although these are inputs rather than products, the high level of student participation attests their importance for student learning. Described below are those investments that we believe have had the greatest positive impact on student success. Perhaps the most important of these is our system of Learning Centers.

The MTU Learning Centers

These Centers convey the message that MTU expects high academic achievement and promotes student success. The Centers are founded on Vygotskian learning theory that emphasizes the importance of human relationships in learning. By providing social and interactive support for learning, the Centers encourage the development of metacognitive skills, personal motivation, and interdisciplinary understandings.

The Centers provide a variety of options for students which include long-term weekly appointments, walk-in hours, and team learning. To create inclusive environments, the Centers make an effort to include students from under-represented groups on their staff, to involve them in research partnerships, and in use of Learning Center services. The Centers are the chief source of support for students with learning disabilities and have continued to develop resources toward this end. Perhaps most importantly, its is clear that in the minds of students the Learning Centers go well beyond the "remedial boundary". A survey of graduating seniors showed that the use of our Learning Centers has grown from 19.5% of enrolled students in 1988 to 60.7% in 1995.

It is important to note that Learning Centers began as departmental initiatives led by dedicated faculty without additional support from the central administration. Modeled on the successful Writing Center begun twenty years ago, subsequent Learning Centers have been developed by the faculty in Mathematics (1989), Chemistry (1989), Physics (1990), Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics (1990), Computer Science (1995), Biological Sciences (1995), and Electrical Engineering (1996). In this case, effective organization meant allowing the faculty the latitude to take risks and invest their energies in innovative approaches.

Study of Learning Centers has provided abundant evidence that the Centers have a strong impact on students. Retention has improved. In a 1991 study, we found 93% of the students who had enrolled in HU010 (weekly Writing Center appointment) were still enrolled in MTU at the end of the year compared to 78% of the students in the same ACT range who did not take the class. Students consider the Learning Centers to be important to their academic success. In the American College Testing (ACT) Student Satisfaction Survey, our students gave the MTU Learning Centers the second highest rating of 23 listed items, second only to recreation and intramural services. The Senior Class of 1996 named the Learning Centers as the beneficiaries of their class gift.

The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development

This Center has taken the lead in the improvement of our system for evaluating instruction. Established in the fall of 1996 to supersede the smaller Center for Teaching Excellence (which was established in 1985), this unit now includes two full-time staff and a larger budget. The new Director was recruited through a national search. The Center’s first efforts have focused on improving student evaluation of teaching.

Our present system for student evaluation of teaching is simple (five questions) and provides data to the department chairs for evaluative purposes, but it provides little information to teachers or chairs for the purposes of improving instruction. Nor does the present system take into account the discipline, size of class, level of the class, or the student’s level of motivation—all factors demonstrated to bias student ratings. A more serious shortcoming of the present evaluation process is that the Center is prohibited by policy from reviewing or retaining any data gathered in the evaluation process and, therefore, has no information upon which to base outreach or programmatic efforts for instructional improvement. This shortcoming can be viewed as a resource-organization problem and needs to be addressed.

Teaching Assistant Training

The departments of Humanities, Chemistry, Computer Science, and Mechanical Engineering have established a formal program of Teacher Assistant training. In academic year 1995–1996, 17% of credit hours were taught by graduate or undergraduate Teaching Assistants (Goal 2 report), and we consider it vitally important that these instructors maintain the teaching standards set by the faculty. The training program developed by Mechanical Engineering is typical, it consists of 15 hours of preparation before the Fall term, 15 hours of "just in time" skills development during the Fall term, and an evaluation of the impact of this training. Subjects covered included learning styles, cognition theory, human development theory, diversity, and techniques for organization and presentation. When the faculty compared student responses to the fifth question on the standard University questionnaire ("Taking everything into account, I consider this instructor....") for TAs with and without training, scores were consistently higher for those with training. Training made the greatest difference for first time TAs. Two of the departments which make most intensive use of TAs for classroom instruction also closely monitor their performance and report that TAs consistently earn student evaluation scores that are higher than the University average. The CTLFD will be leading the development of similar programs for other departments or groups of departments.

General Education

Relatively recently, MTU has added a General Education component to its curricula. For its first 100 years, MTU’s focus was almost exclusively on disciplinary education. Our first University-wide General Education program was implemented in 1985 after six years of planning, discussion, and debate that represented a considerable investment of faculty and staff time, energy, and concern. It comprises 64 credits of the approximately 192 credits required for graduation (1/3). Its purpose and goals are stated in the University Catalog and discussed in more detail under Criterion Four below. Specific requirements are described beginning on page 189 of the Catalog. A four-page history of MTU’s General Education program written by faculty member B. Baltensperger is provided as a supporting document in the self-study reference library [2.6I1].

In addition to the baccalaureate-level skill and broadening course work requirements common to most General Education programs, MTU’s program contains a unique requirement for a thematic study. Similar in some ways to a "minor", the requirement consists of nine credits of upper-division (300–400) courses that, taken together, address a theme. The courses and theme are to be outside the student’s Major, and are intended to provide in-depth, advanced-level study that compels students to integrate learning across courses. Initially, scheduling thematic studies courses was a major difficulty for students in curricula with sequenced course requirements and few or no electives. Subsequently, those departments most involved in teaching thematic courses substantially revised their offerings to support thematic studies, and scheduling these courses is no longer a problem for most students.

Scholarship on Teaching and Curriculum Development

Instruction has improved in several curricula due to scholarship on teaching and curriculum development. Since 1992, MTU faculty have received seven grants from NSF for improvement of undergraduate curriculum for a total of $634,261 (see Table 2).

TABLE 2. Research Projects Funded by the NSF since 1992 in Support of Improved Undergraduate Education.

Principle Investigator	Project Title	Ammount of Award
Marlor	The Development of Visualization Skills in Egineering Students	$70,000
Schonnard	In Situ Subsurface Remediation Technologies: Integration into an Interdisciplinary Engineering Curriculum	$279,900
Chesney	Process Analytical Chemistry for Undergraduates	$37,425
Grimmestad	A model Computer Laboratory for the Teaching and Learning of Undergraduate Mathematics by Preservice Secondary teachers	$36,073
Goel	Undergraduate Research Site on Design, Modeling, and Measurements of GaAs-Based High-Speed Integrated Circuits	$70,709
Holt	Revitalizing Undergraduate Number Theory	$79,542
Shene	Geometric Computing in Undergraduate Computer Science Curricula	$98,000
	Total	$634,261

Curricular Innovation

Faculty-initiated curricular innovation produces much of what makes MTU a dynamic and exciting learning community. Many departments have instituted capstone courses during the last ten years for pedagogical reasons that anticipated our assessment of student outcomes. Orientation courses help students plan their careers as scholars and professionals. Many courses now include emphasis on communications in the major, critical thinking, teamwork, and/or interdisciplinary perspectives. Undergraduate Student Instructors have been especially effective in teaching laboratories. Most departments have instituted new degree options in response to student interests and career opportunities.

Among departments in the College of Engineering, improvements and innovations have centered around professional skill requirements (e.g., communication, teamwork, problem assessment techniques, interdisciplinary efforts), capstone courses, an increase in design requirements, the development of specific courses, and the adoption of new performance measures.

Since the last NCA visit, Electrical Engineering and Metallurgical and Materials Engineering have instituted major curricular revisions. Geological Engineering and Sciences and Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics are now in the process of undergoing curricular revisions. Teamwork and hands-on learning have gained new emphasis through the further development of design courses throughout the College. Engineering faculty have developed new courses, such as Creative Problem Solving, 3-D Visualization, and Engineering for the Environment.

The School of Business and Economics has undertaken a complete redesign of its undergraduate curricula that includes the development of a new degree program (BSBA) which will take better advantage of the technological environment provided at MTU. To provide resources for this new degree, they eliminated two other degree programs (BSEM and MSOM). The School has also taken bold steps to bolster its emphasis on the improvement of undergraduate instruction. The new curriculum also includes two one-hour courses specifically aimed at the assessment of student academic achievement. Support for the new curriculum also includes enhanced student advising and a student advising board, as well as an executive-in-residence program to improve contact between students and business leaders.

In the College of Sciences and Arts, Biological Sciences has undertaken a thorough curricular revision; this includes separate introductory-level courses for majors and non-majors, laboratory innovations to improve students’ critical-thinking skills, undergraduate involvement in research, new degree options, and new courses. Chemistry has updated their curriculum, reorganized the first-year program, developed interdisciplinary degree options, and has developed programs to encourage undergraduate research. Mathematics has redesigned four courses in the math education program, developed a first-year program, and has integrated technology into the educational program.

Physics recently completed a comprehensive evaluation of the Physics and Applied Physics program. This review has resulted in the addition of several new courses to enhance individual and team learning. A draft curriculum for an undergraduate minor in remote sensing and supporting course work has also been developed.

Humanities has developed an annual process of curriculum review which has resulted in 58 curricular changes since 1988. Examples of change include the addition of an advanced-area certificate in modern languages and updating the liberal arts and scientific and technical communication degree requirements. In 1993, the Humanities Department undertook a three-year review of the 18 disciplines represented in the Department which resulted in the amendment and/or addition or deletion of 57 courses.

In 1988 the Social Science Department began a major modification of courses offered in support of undergraduate education. Five cross-disciplinary courses were added to two existing courses which now form the core of Social Science courses elected by students to fulfill that component of the General Education requirement. Through this effort, the department reduced the number of lower-division courses from 36 to 9, increased its upper-division offerings from 54 to 66 while establishing prerequisites for the vast majority of upper division offerings.

The School of Forestry and Wood Products significantly revised its undergraduate curriculum in 1993 by implementing, among other changes, a three-term capstone sequence designed to help students integrate knowledge gained in a wide variety of other courses. Field experiences have been reexamined and updated. In response to student interest and growing employment opportunities, a new baccalaureate degree in Applied Ecology has been approved for students who will enter MTU in the fall of 1997.

More Scholars in the Classroom

As a continuation of priorities set in the late 1970s, we sought to add to MTU’s faculty academics who are both effective teachers and active scholars. The number of tenure-track faculty was increased during the last ten years from 278 in the fall of 1988 to 349 in the fall of 1996. We accomplished this by converting instructor positions to tenure-track positions and by creating new tenure-track positions. Although active in research and scholarship, these faculty are also active in the classroom. In 1992–1993, the most recent year in which records have been kept specifically for tenure-track faculty, 69% of student credit hours were taught by tenure-track faculty. In 1995–1996, the percentage remained at 69%. Thus, the character of the instructors with whom students interact has changed substantially with more active scholars in the classrooms.

Styles and Approaches to Instruction

Ten years ago, most instruction was provided by a teacher in the front of the classroom who lectured to silent, note-taking students. The styles and approaches to instruction currently used in many of MTU’s departments have become more complex and more challenging for students during the last decade. Today, in-class cooperative learning and discussion are much more common. In-class assessment is used by many faculty to make mid-term adjustments to the material being covered and the way it is presented. A greater diversity of visual aids is used such as video tapes and projected computer images (including web pages) in addition to sheet transparencies (overheads) and the chalk board. Out-of-class team assignments have become common.

Many departments have added critical thinking, integration of knowledge across classes, and written and oral communication to their lists of goals for specific courses. Achieving these and other goals has been facilitated by a reduction in class (section) sizes (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1._ Frequency of Section Sizes in Undergraduate Classes.

Source: Institutional Analysis

Initially, first- and second-year classes were targeted for section size reduction to facilitate students’ transitions to university study and to allow more effective instruction in basic, baccalaureate-level skills courses. Fourth-year courses were reduced in size as capstone projects became more common. Third-year courses are also significantly smaller. Note that although student numbers declined somewhat between 1993 and 1995, the changes in section size began in 1990–1991 as part of a concerted plan to improve student learning (see Figure 2). Compared to 1988, we have both smaller and more sections that serve a smaller number of students (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 2._ Section Sizes by Level in Undergraduate Classes.

Source: Institutional Analysis

Some faculty provide class notes and other materials via web pages so that students spend less time taking notes and more time thinking about what they are learning. E-mail communications among students, and between the instructor and students, greatly facilitates communication. Instructors sometimes find that students who were hesitant to ask questions in class are more willing to do so through a more anonymous medium. Some instructors require work to be submitted via e-mail.

Not all faculty take advantage of opportunities for diverse approaches to instruction that would, on the whole, improve student learning. One of the goals of the CTLFD is to help faculty learn more about and become more adept in using a variety of teaching approaches (discussed under Criterion 4 below).

Computer Technology

The effort to support teaching with the appropriate computer technology has been a major expenditure during the last decade. Currently, all students are ensured, at a minimum, ready access to word processing, spread sheets, e-mail, the Internet, and printing. Many departments provide and make extensive use of specialized software for mathematics and statistics, geographic information systems, image analysis, graphics, multimedia, and engineering. Staffed computer labs now provide one computer for every 10 students and are open early in the morning and late into the evening to maximize the convenience of student access.

Efficacy Seminars

The staff of the Efficacy Institute, an educational consulting firm in Lexington, Massachusetts, facilitates efficacy seminars which were attended by 94 full-time MTU faculty. Offered in both two-day and three-day formats, the seminars promote a development model rather than an innate ability model of learning. The development model encourages a variety of educational attitudes and practices more conducive to success of students from diverse economic and cultural backgrounds. This training significantly affected educational policy in some departments. For example, the Department of Biological Sciences established the policy that all course grades reflect student achievement of learning goals set out in the course syllabus, and grades are not to be used to discriminate among more able and less able students. This policy is provided to first year students in the introductory biology seminar (BL158), and the value of the development model for them as individual students is the subject of one class lecture. The University-wide average GPA of 3.09 is consistent with the broad application of this grading policy.

Academic Advising

Each department handles its academic advising somewhat differently. In some, only a few faculty do advising. In others all faculty are involved, and in others an expert staff person does all advising. Academic advisors are supported by the Dean of Students office with seminars each term and with a regularly updated Advisor’s Handbook that supplies authoritative information—especially on academic policy and student services. MTU’s Retention Task Force considered our advising system in their study [5.4A]. From information contained in the ACT Student Opinion Survey (587 students in February, 1995), they found that students reported

• an increased use of academic advising services since 1988 and
• a satisfaction-level index of 3.53 that indicated students did not consider academic advising to be a problem.

These encouraging indications notwithstanding, we sense an underlying dissatisfaction among MTU’s faculty and students with regard to advising. We suspect that, from some students’ perspective, having different advising schemes in different departments makes advising look patchy and disorganized. The Advisor’s Handbook is a complete reference, but is not something faculty are willing to consult frequently. Thus, faculty are often uncertain where to send students for correct information on such fundamental questions as course requirements and scheduling, especially if it involves departments other than their own. This uncertainty must be part of the reason why many students are peer-advised; they get the information they need from other students. Although peer advice is not all bad, it is not adequate.

The Retention Task Force recommended that advising become a centralized function at the college or university level. A Total Quality Education team on undergraduate advising suggested that advising be administered centrally, but conducted at the college level for first-year students and at the department level for second- through fourth-year students (report in draft form only). Neither recommendation involved benchmarking to determine which advising systems at other comparable universities are effective and efficient, and no action has been taken on these recommendations as yet. On a schedule determined among competing priorities, we need to

• conduct a systematic review and evaluation of student advising to determine if it is meeting student needs effectively and efficiently,
• compare our system to those at other, similar institutions and to "best practices" inasmuch as they can be identified, and
• make specific plans for how our advising system can be improved.

Century II Equipment Endowment

The Century II Equipment Endowment provided $110,165 in grants to faculty and departments from 1988 through 1996 for the purchase of equipment to be used in either classroom instruction or undergraduate research (Attachment 2).

Undergraduate Research

Research performed at the undergraduate level has become an increasingly important part of many students’ educations. The Department of Biological Sciences established in 1993 a senior Honors Program that is centered around a year-long research experience. Several faculty have won NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates grants that support student research during the summer. MTU is now an Institutional Member of the Council on Undergraduate Research and plans to build on opportunities made available by this organization.

Student Clubs and Project Teams

Both University financial resources and substantial investments of faculty time and effort support student clubs and project teams. Currently, 19 student clubs are centered on specific professional interests (student chapter of Society of Environmental Engineers, Phi Sigma Biological Honorary, student chapter of Audio Engineering Society, student chapter of the Society for Technical Communication, etc.). These organizations hold regular activities such as evening programs with guest lecturers, sponsoring trips to off-campus sites or professional interest, social events, and service projects in the local community. In the last few years, MTU has sponsored student teams to participate in 14 regional/national competitions, many of which are annual events. Examples include the FutureCar Challenge, the National Plastics Council Plastics Recycling Competition, and ASCE Timber Beam Competition. These competitions typically involve design, fundraising, fabrication, testing, and representing MTU off-campus at the competition site.

Office of International Programs

The Office of International Programs (OIP) facilitates participation by MTU undergraduate and graduate students in traditional study abroad programs and direct reciprocal exchanges. OIP was established in July, 1994, and is currently supported by with two professional and two clerical staff. A two-year-old initiative in international-student recruiting has lead to an increase in international students enrolled at MTU (34 new students in 1996, 102 in 1997), which significantly enhances both the cultural diversity and the external revenues of the institution.

The range of overseas opportunities available to students has expanded as a result of MTU’s recent membership in the National Student Exchange and the International Student Exchange Program, the Council on International Educational Exchange, and the Institute for International Education. Participation in international study increased to 22 students in 1995–1996, and 43 in 1996–1997.

Advisory Boards

Departments, schools, and colleges derive valuable support from advisory boards made up of alumni and friends. These boards furnish contacts for fundraising, help set priorities for curriculum development, and serve as ambassadors to off-campus constituencies.

Specialized Accreditations

Specialized accreditations provide assurance that specific programs meet or exceed criteria established by agencies which represent disciplinary experts. All degree programs in the College of Engineering are accredited by ABET. The established degree programs in the School of Technology are accredited by ABET or by the Society of American Foresters, while the new degree programs are actively working toward accreditation. The School of Forestry is accredited by the Society of American Foresters. During the 1998–1999 academic year, the School of Business and Economics (SBE) will enter its third year of candidacy for accreditation by the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). AACSB accreditation will add prestige to degrees granted by the SBE and MTU because only about one in five American university business programs is currently AACSB-accredited. Further, MTU will become one of about twenty universities with AACSB-accredited business programs that focuses exclusively upon undergraduate business education. Our B.S. degree in Chemistry is certified by the American Chemical Society (ACS). In addition, our B.S. options in Chemical Physics, Chemical Education, Polymer Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Environmental Chemistry are certified by the ACS.

The above information provides considerable evidence that MTU is accomplishing its educational purposes, but the data are not fully adequate. The efficient conferring of degrees is important, but does not tell us about the value of students’ educations. Successful job and graduate-school placement are among the benefits of an MTU education, but these do not tell us all we want to know about student success in learning as called for in our mission, vision, and General Education statements. We expect to gain much more precise information on student learning from our MTU Program for Assessment of Student Academic Success [2.7A], which we began to implement during the Fall term, 1997. The Program is described under Criterion 4, and a bound volume that contains an account of how the Program was built and each of the individual-unit assessment plans as of March 1997 is included among the self-study reference documents.

We expect that the core strengths that have contributed to MTU’s success in the past, its students, faculty, and physical plant will continue to be assets in the future. In addition, we believe our new programs for assessment of student academic success, evaluation and improvement of teaching, reform of General Education and the academic calendar, and new and renovated facilities will support our continued improvement well into the future. Most importantly, these developments will take place within the context of two long-term trends cultivated by MTU’s central administration: an increasing emphasis on learning, especially of undergraduate students and an attitude that acknowledges the need for continuous improvement.

Increasing Emphasis on Undergraduate Student Learning

About five years ago, MTU made a transition to a "flat" management structure in which we combined the roles of chief academic officer and executive vice president in the office of the Provost. The intent was in part to establish academic priorities as paramount in the decision-making process and in allocation of resources. The increased proportion of our university budget assigned to academic programs gives evidence of success. At the same time, the demands of day-to-day executive responsibility have made it impossible for the Provost to give much attention to long-term academic issues. The Provost recently announced he will appoint a Vice-Provost for Instruction to begin July 1, 1997 with responsibilities for many academic areas which will include program review, faculty development, general education, and student-outcomes assessment. Thus, we expect increased attention to be given to MTU’s undergraduate programs in the future.

Although criteria for promotion and tenure in each department include consideration of the quality and quantity of undergraduate instruction, until recently only scant evidence existed to suggest these contribute significantly to decisions. At the end of the 1995–1996 academic year, two faculty were promoted to full Professor rank based entirely on their contributions in high-quality teaching. In the absence of other scholarship, the time require to earn promotion based on teaching alone remains considerably longer. Also within the last two years, tenure-track faculty have been denied reappointment because of deficiencies in teaching. We suspect that many faculty do not know about these decisions, and that there continues to be suspicion in the minds of many faculty that "good teaching does not count". The CTLFD will be more able to address this concern if an improved system of teacher evaluation is adopted at MTU as discussed below. In addition, some evidence of ability to teach well will continue to be required in support of new faculty appointments (see Goal 2 self study).

A Community that Welcomes and Supports Improvement

We expect many of the strengths that have made possible our success to date will continue to support our success in the future. Chief among these is the sense within MTU’s community that innovation and new initiatives are welcome and will be supported. Many of the enhancements of our educational programs described under Criterion 3 came about because one or a few faculty or administrators had a vision of how our educational programs could be improved and set out to achieve it. Resistance to change is not unusual, however, the level of resistance at MTU during the last ten years has proven to be relatively low. MTU faculty have teaching assignments that still allow them time to consider, plan, and implement improvements to courses and curricula. A State of Michigan reference datum is that faculty should, on average, be responsible for 750 credit hours of instruction per year. As a result of our having added new faculty, our average credit-hour production declined from a recent high of 685 in 1991–1992, to 526 in 1994–1995. With continued hiring, it has clearly declined further since then although exact values are not available at this time. Although never sufficient to all needs, our financial resources have allowed us to support many new undertakings.

Perhaps most important to our success has been the sense that we can improve student learning and the benefits of an MTU education, and the spirit of cooperation within and among faculty, staff, and administration that enables and supports these improvements. The campus climate has not always been like this. The current atmosphere is at least correlated with

• an attitude of openness and collegiality in the current central administration and
• a more cooperative and engaging attitude on the part of staff.

Our self study group attributes this second condition, at least in part, to the MTU Total Quality initiative.

Expanded and Improved Facilities

Expansion of our physical plant will provide important opportunities for program growth and improvement. The Dow Environmental Sciences and Engineering Center will be opened in the summer of 1998, which will provide an additional 92,360 ASF of lecture, lab, and office space. A major expansion of the Noblet Forestry Building will make available an additional 27,245 ASF. Construction of the 1,200 seat Performing Arts Center is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1998. The Department of Physics has begun a five-year, $650,000 complete renovation of all its teaching labs. Each of these facilities will let us provide a wider range of educational experiences to our students.

Assessment of Student Academic Success

We expect our Program for Assessment of Student Academic Success [2.7A] to be central to improvement of our educational programs in the future. MTU’s ongoing program for assessment was created in three steps:

1. building a framework for assessment,
2. building unit assessment plans, and
3. implementation.

The framework consists of assessment in three broad areas:

1. Disciplinary Skills and Knowledge of the Major,
2. Breadth of Understanding and Skills for Life-Long Learning, and
3. Acquisition of Values and Attitudes Consistent with the Traditions of Scholarship.

Degree-granting departments were to be responsible for planning and implementation of assessment of student academic success in their majors. Special committees were to be responsible for general education (2) and student development (3).

Our Program for Assessment of Student Academic Success [2.7A] has been built directly by faculty with responsibility for teaching the cognate curricula, and with support from assessment professionals. First drafts of most assessment plans were critiqued in June of 1996 by Dr. Patricia Murphy of North Dakota State University, an authority in assessment recommended by NCA staff. After each plan was revised, and Dr. Murphy was invited by the faculty to visit MTU’s campus in November 1996 to conduct workshops and discuss further the revised plans prior to their implementation. Thus, ours is a faculty-owned program expected to lead directly to improvement in student learning. The annual assessment cycle is linked directly to budget decisions [2.7A, page vii], and thus priority can be given to support of initiatives built on assessment findings. As of March 1997, we are seven months into the implementation step and will have completed the first annual assessment cycle in November 1997 when results are used to argue for budgetary support.

Development of General Education

In the report on their visit to MTU in 1988, the NCA Consultant/Evaluators suggested that our General Education requirements did not reflect a coherent program, and that no University-wide commitment to a well-defined program existed [6.1A, page 74, item 5]. The fact that no one individual or group has responsibility for General Education has been an obstacle to its assessment and improvement. Faculty has a tendency to view General Education from their own disciplinary perspectives, which overlooks the larger goals of the program. We are hopeful that the Provost will empower and support the new Vice Provost for Instruction to lead assessment and possible reform of General Education from a University-wide perspective. In anticipation of this work, three persons from MTU participated in the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) workshop on reform of General Education in February, 1997. MTU recently joined AAC&U as an institutional member.

In building our assessment plan, we discovered that MTU’s General Education program was not described in terms that allowed assessment. The description provided in the 1995–1997 University Catalog was intended more to inspire the reader than to provide a statement of broad philosophy or specific goals. It is as follows:

The General Education Requirements stated here, when combined with the major support courses and electives, assure that each graduate of the University has made significant progress toward becoming a truly educated person capable of lifelong learning. In particular, the purpose of these requirements is to provide the means by which graduates will have

• a principle-oriented education in the area of specialization;
• the development of the habits, skills, and basic foundations needed for continued education;
• the development of effective written and oral communication skills;
• an exposure to literature, the arts, world cultures, and social problems with an historical and contemporary perspective; and
• an appreciation for the methodologies, issues, prospects, and the social impact of the sciences and technology.

A group of faculty and academic staff working during the Winter term of 1996–1997 re-described the program as follows.

Not only are these goals stated in terms that allow us to assess whether or not they are being achieved, we can map each goal directly to course requirements to show where in the curriculum each goal is to be supported. We have developed a plan for a General Education assessment pilot project based on senior essays to be implemented during the Spring term of 1997, and will phase in additional assessment measures in subsequent terms.

Continuing Development of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development

The University’s development and implementation of a comprehensive faculty evaluation system that encourages the growth and development of faculty in their ability to support student learning is a multi-year project that requires the building of trust through constructive, collaborative interaction. Such a system must have the backing of the faculty and must fit within the culture of the institution. Because the present means of faculty evaluation is held in generally low regard, we have an opportunity to begin the implementation of a better system.

The first stage of this process involves the identification and pilot testing of an improved instrument for student rating of instruction that will serve the developmental needs of the faculty as well as the summative needs of the administration. MTU’s newly established CTLFD, after surveying several instruments, began pilot testing the IDEA evaluation tool from Kansas State University during the 1996–97 winter term. Fifty eight instructors volunteered to participate. After the trial run, the participants will be polled to assess the desirability of adopting the new student rating instrument. If the effort to adopt a new instrument is successful and such an instrument is adopted by academic units across the campus, all teaching personnel at MTU will receive regular, specific, and constructive feedback on their instructional efforts beginning in the Fall of 1997. Coupled with policy changes to allow the CTLFD access to the evaluation data, results of IDEA evaluations will allow the Center to foster a climate where improvement and refinement in all aspects of university teaching are encouraged and supported.

Improved evaluation of teaching will also help us make our annual Distinguished Teaching Award (two categories) more meaningful. Currently, finalists are selected by ballots cast by a small percentage of the student body. The degree of resolution offered by the IDEA instrument should provide greater precision and accuracy in identification of MTU’s best teachers.

In addition to the comprehensive reform of teacher evaluation at MTU, the CTLFD is responsible for

• establishing of a pedagogical resource center for faculty and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) that includes the creation of a web page devoted to instructional improvement;
• developing student academic achievement assessment tools and feedback processes to improve the MTU educational enterprise;
• redefining the focus of the Faculty Development Grant Committee, which traditionally administered awards from the Faculty Development Fund to support workshops, seminars, and speakers, to include support for instructional improvement and the development of graduate teaching/research assistants; and
• performing on-going needs assessment and coordination of additional support for MTU Learning Centers.

Other functions assumed by the Center during the 1996–97 academic year include a variety of programs that have been initiated by various members of the staff and faculty of MTU. Most of these programs started in the last few years, many as a result of the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching and other groups of faculty concerned with the quality of teaching at MTU. For example, the CTLFD will assume the role of organizing and supporting the Northern Michigan University/Michigan Technological University Joint Retreat for department chairs and administrators and will coordinate the Upper Midwest Faculty Forum. The Center is also charged with developing the on-going faculty and GTA orientation programs, the weekly teaching seminars, and the Distinguished Teaching Award Program.

The Center reports directly to the Provost and is assisted in program development and implementation by an advisory board that consists of faculty, staff, and administrators from various academic departments and university offices.

New Programs in Carefully Focused Areas

Consistent with Michigan Tech’s focus on Sciences and Technology, we have added new programs or expanded existing programs to meet our students’ needs. The School of Technology recently added a two-year associates program in Chemical Engineering Technology and added four-year baccalaureate options to its other technology degrees. In November of 1995, the office of Teacher Education and Development was upgraded to the Department of Education and new faculty lines were added to allow this department to better meet the needs of students who are seeking secondary certification in math and sciences. The School of Forestry and Wood Products is now admitting students to its new baccalaureate degree program in Applied Ecology for the Fall of 1997. We are currently making plans for a new undergraduate program in Bioengineering. Given the considerable demand for resources that accompanies any new program, we have been careful to develop only those new programs that can be supported efficiently within the context of MTU’s other programs, and that meet clearly identifiable needs.

The Limitations of Efficiency

Most members of the MTU community appear to take pride in our tradition of efficiency—our ability to provide a high quality education at a reasonable cost. Our "Best Buy" designations in the national news media reflect a positive value-per-cost ratio, and we frequently cite this distinction in University publications. At the same time, our goal is not efficiency for its own sake, but rather a high-quality education provided efficiently.

Just as costs of education change, our vision of what constitutes a high-quality education also changes. In the last decade, a growing emphasis has been placed on the "deeper learning" of critical thinking, integration across disciplines, teamwork, and communication skills. Many faculty believe that these are very important types of learning for our students, but teaching in these areas often takes more student-instructor interaction. Expertise in use of advanced technology, especially that based on computers, is also of growing importance in the education of undergraduates but comes at a substantial price.

Existing resources can provide opportunities for increased efficiency. At other universities, the use of undergraduate Student Instructors has improved student learning and reduced personnel costs of instruction. But on the whole, it remains a fact that the more ambitious goals we and others set for our students will be achieved only at additional expense. The increasing commitment of funds for instruction supported in recent years by the 1% reallocation program reflects MTU’s commitment to support of high-quality education. This trend will need to be sustained in one way or another if we are to continue to meet our students’ needs. We recognize that increased efficiency in non-instructional areas has only a limited potential for more improvement in instruction. This is a problem shared by all universities and needs to be understood by the university community.

Michigan Technological University has established and assiduously follows policies and practices that define the rights and responsibilities of diverse members of the MTU community. Over the last decade, University processes have become more open with the result that their integrity is more widely recognized. In addition, administrators, faculty, and professional staff have become increasingly active in efforts to make students aware of their rights and responsibilities.

MTU has developed and implemented a comprehensive set of policies and practices that define and support faculty, student, and administrator roles in undergraduate education. Although most students apparently would prefer to learn about these on an "as needed" basis, new-student orientation leaders and many faculty are aggressive in bringing these to students’ attention through a variety of materials prepared for that purpose. Academic Standards and Procedures, which includes a section on students’ rights and responsibilities, are published in the MTU Undergraduate Catalog [1.3A pages 10–14]. Student Rights and Responsibilities are also summarized in a brochure [1.5C3] prepared for distribution to classes and other groups. The latter document includes a policy established in 1995 on disruptive or disorderly conduct in the classroom. A much fuller presentation of this material, together with information that lets each student know her or his legal rights to access academic records and the appeals procedures for a variety of academic issues, is found in the Student Handbook [1.2C pages 129–153] which is presented to each student at the beginning of the academic year. The Student Handbook also provides information on services for students with disabilities. Printed as a spiral-bound volume 5 by 82 inches in size, this document was specifically designed to be a student-friendly resource. Use of the Student Handbook and the information it contains is stressed during new-student orientation prior to the Fall Term, and in many departmental orientation courses.

As described in the above documents, the Dean of Students/Office of Student Affairs has responsibility for enforcement of student academic standards. The Student Affairs self study [2.6H11] provides an evaluation of our current system adjudication. In 1995, a new, formalized procedure was implemented to provide more due process and to guarantee that a disinterested party makes the final judgement especially in cases that involve student academic integrity. The new procedure also reduces faculty liability because individual faculty are no longer required to decide on issues of student academic integrity on their own. In their self study, the Student Affairs professional staff conclude that the new procedure is providing timely decisions based on clearly articulated standards and has significantly improved student attitudes toward the process.

The roles and responsibilities of faculty in teaching are outlined in the Faculty Handbook [1.2A pages 3-12 through 3-31]. After a lengthy period of development, the most recent version of the Handbook published in October, 1996, provides faculty with clearer and more detailed guidance. Its format makes information more accessible and is more readily updated. Although it is too early to know with certainty what effect the new Handbook will have, we anticipate that the increased ease of use and reduced ambiguity will be helpful.

Faculty performance in fulfilling their teaching roles and responsibilities is evaluated each year. For untenured tenure-track faculty, results of a formal evaluation are reviewed at the departmental, college and Provost levels. Tenured faculty are evaluated each year with departmental procedures and more formally with university procedures when promotion is being considered. Department Chairs identify faculty who are not meeting expectations and develop plans for addressing shortcomings. Involvement of the Dean or Provost may be sought in cases where adequate progress is not being made, but the fact that such are very rare attests to the integrity of our system. The relatively high retention rate (84% from first to second year), and the rarity of student complaints further indicate that the faculty are doing a good job in their roles as teachers.

A consequence of our tradition of independence is that specific policies are sometimes interpreted and enforced idiosyncratically. Based on our individual interactions with faculty and staff, our self-study group suspects this applies to policies on scheduling of exams. Student complaints about exams scheduled during the last week of the term or in the evenings are not common, yet each of us has heard several over the last few years. This is an issue that may be addressed by the new Vice Provost for Instruction.

One source of frustration on most university campuses is students’ difficulty in scheduling specific classes. Each term, MTU adds sections of classes to accommodate students’ needs. One department, Humanities, has gone so far as to guarantee, in writing, students’ opportunities for timely scheduling of classes needed for degree completion. Their policy is posted on the doors to the Walker Arts and Humanities building during each scheduling period.

An issue of integrity that has been of concern to many at MTU is the time required to complete a degree. The putative wisdom has been that MTU’s engineering students take, on average, five years to complete their baccalaureate degrees. If this were true, we would be concerned that the public expectation of a four-year baccalaureate degree is not being met. Data provided by Institutional Analysis paints a different picture. After six years, students who entered MTU with no transfer credit in the fall of 1990 required on average 13.4 terms to graduate with a degree from the College of Engineering (471 students), and 13.2 terms to graduate with at degree from the College of Sciences and Arts (116 students). Many of these students enrolled for a summer term to re-take courses for which they wanted a better grade. Thus, the available information indicates that MTU students do indeed complete baccalaureate degrees in an appropriate period of time.

We conclude that MTU demonstrates a high level of integrity in its assertions about and delivery of undergraduate education. At the same time, we believe that public expectations are changing and MTU needs to prepare now to demonstrate a higher level of accountability in the future. The MTU Program for Assessment of Student Academic Success [2.7A] can play a central role. To have an impact, it must be aggressively promoted and supported by the Provost, and the Vice Provost for Instruction. It must be actively managed so that assessment activities

• are adapted to curricular needs and
• assessment products and processes are harnessed to serve curricular improvement.

It appears that MTU’s assessment program is well along this path, but it is too early to be confident in its long-term impact.

Strengths

During the last decade, our programs of undergraduate instruction have responded to changing student needs, taken advantage of opportunities provided by evolving technology and pedagogy, and generally grown in diversity and quality. In large part, this responsiveness has been accomplished by the initiative of faculty, and encouraged and supported by the administration. The strengths of MTU’s undergraduate educational efforts include

1. Learning Centers;
2. the introduction of technology (especially e-mail and Internet access);
3. a high level of activity in faculty-generated curriculum reform that is focused on
   • relevance and timeliness,
   • critical thinking,
   • communications,
   • teamwork,
   • interdisciplinary approaches,
   • new degree options,
   • capstone experiences,
   • orientation courses, and
   • thematic clusters;
4. an improved catalog which is more student friendly;
5. improved teaching and laboratory facilities that are directly supported by lab fees and extramural fundraising;
6. an undergraduate/graduate synergism;
7. physical plant improvement in both lecture and lab facilities;
8. professional extracurricular activities that are supported by competition teams and student organizations;
9. industrial and alumni advisory boards;
10. the training of GTAs at both departmental and university levels;
11. International Program developments—area and language certificates;
12. improvement in the MTU infrastructure that supports undergraduate education, specifically
    • the CTLFD,
    • library technology,
    • the Career Center and Co-op/Internship program,
    • the Office of Educational Opportunity (which supported the Efficacy Workshops), and
    • the Physical Education Program (which enjoys a high level of participation in its wellness program);
13. increased undergraduate-student research (assisted by Century II Equipment Endowment grants for equipment used in teaching); and
14. a supportive University administration that
    • is responsive to faculty proposals,
    • demonstrates more of a partnership attitude, due to MTU’s TQE/CQI initiative, and
    • provides leadership through the Initiative for the Environment.

Weaknesses

To the extent that weaknesses exist, these may be traced in part to the hesitation of the central administration to impose leadership on the faculty in issues of instructional policy. As a result, issues of interest shared across the disciplines have received less attention than they require. General Education and interdisciplinary teaching and scholarship are examples. Weaknesses that MTU can improve upon include

1. a vigorously defended tradition of independence (faculty within departments, departments within colleges, colleges within the university) and an expectation of a low level of accountability that is antithetical to consideration of the broad needs of students and the university as a whole;
2. faculty antipathy towards committee work that derives in part from issues that are related to item one;
3. narrowness of vision (some members of the MTU community still think in terms of a technical-training-institute model);
4. class sizes that are too large in some departments;
5. an inadequately organized system of support for technology in teaching, especially computer systems administration (we currently lack a coherent plan for purchase and maintenance of teaching and research computing systems);
6. ineffective rewards for teaching that need reform e.g.,
   • a new system for the evaluation of teaching (it is currently under development),
   • the Distinguished Teacher Award needs to be based on more appropriate criteria and better recognized on and off campus,
   • there needs to be a clearer link between teaching and salary increases, and
   • there needs to be a a clearer link between teaching and promotion and tenure;
7. a campus-wide lack of consensus with regard to the role of scholarship in teaching (this consensus must be developed and supported);
8. a lack of consensus and open understanding with regard to appropriate teaching loads;
9. the current quarter system (the current academic calendar results in a split winter term that is educationally ineffective and keeps us out of sync with other campuses throughout the state and nation);
10. a low level of interdisciplinary teaching; and
11. an uneven development of GTAs (the GTA training programs need to be extended to all departments).

Opportunities

External pressures provide additional motivation for the MTU community to address difficult issues that will require significant change. Some of these issues are

1. a growing national emphasis on importance of undergraduate education in the balance of university programs;
2. an emphasis (especially within the business and corporate communities) on fundamental baccalaureate-level skills such as communication, teamwork, cultural, and environmental awareness;
3. a growing expectation of accountability in higher education that will compel faculty and administrators to work together to better define and refine the institution; and
4. an increased public expectation of accountability in higher education that will help motivate faculty to work together, outside disciplinary boundaries, to improve student learning.

Threats

The needs and interests of students will continue to change, and we must anticipate and prepare to respond appropriately. These threats to our goals for our undergraduate students are

1. a declining level of preparation of incoming students in both knowledge and skills and
2. a lower total tuition revenue with declining enrollments in some curricula.

We recommend that the University take action to secure the future success of our institution and, more importantly, of our graduates in their post-MTU endeavors. This future can be secured, in part, by

1. changing our current academic calendar to improve student leaning, especially during the Winter Term;
2. beginning a new, campus-wide dialog on the purposes and structure of our General Education program to build consensus in support of the current program or implement a new program that will be supported by the majority of faculty;
3. continuing to work with our Assessment Program to improve its efficiency and effectiveness (our university community must come to understand assessment of student learning as an appropriate activity necessary for the success of their instructional programs);
4. determining the need for various types of multimedia classroom technologies, and developing and implementing a plan for making them available);
5. adopting and implementing a new, more informative system for student evaluation of instruction that is supportive of improvement of instruction;
6. recognizing and rewarding effective teaching with salary increases, promotion, and tenure; and
7. actively addressing the weakness of our current organizational structure for support of interdisciplinary teaching and scholarship.