 3  Undergraduate Education ACRONYM Help Subgoal 1: Continuous Improvement of Undergraduate Education Patterns of Evidence Purposes Resources Accomplishments Continuous Improvement Integrity SWOT Analysis Action Plan |
Continuous Improvement
We expect that the core strengths that have contributed to Michigan Tech's success in the past—its students, faculty, staff, and physical plant—will continue to be assets in the future. Perhaps the most important criterion for continuous improvement is the spirit of cooperation between faculty, staff, and administration and the belief that we can improve. The Goal 1.1 Committee judged that we have not always had this spirit or belief in the past and attributed this progress to the current central administration's attitude of openness and collegiality, the faculty's sense of optimism and pride in the progress of the University, and the staff's cooperative attitude and willingness to adopt TQE principles.
Innovation and new initiatives are welcome. Many accomplishments discussed earlier were the result of a few faculty or administrators who set out to achieve a vision for improved educational programs. Despite the rapid changes required in education today, resistance to change at Michigan Tech has been relatively low. Fortunately, teaching loads at Michigan Tech still allow most faculty time to consider, plan, and implement improvements to courses and curricula (see Chapter 6).
In addition, we believe our new program for assessment of student academic success, anticipated reform of General Education and the academic calendar, the improved teaching evaluation system, and new and renovated facilities (for a discussion of facilities, see Chapter 11) will support continuing improvement. Significantly, these activities take place in a climate of increasing emphasis on quality teaching, learning, and continuous improvement fostered by the central administration.
We take pride in meeting our goal of providing a high-quality undergraduate education at a reasonable cost, which requires us to efficiently administer our resources. As we develop our commitment to critical thinking, integration across disciplines, teamwork, and communication skills, we are learning that teaching in this way involves more student-instructor interaction, and therefore more instructional time per student. Our use of advanced technology in undergraduate education also has a substantial price. Innovations such as the use of undergraduate student assistants has improved student learning while reducing personnel costs. However, as we set more ambitious goals for teaching and learning, we will have to pay more to achieve them. The degree of continued improvement in instruction that can be supported by increased efficiency in non-instructional areas is limited. This is a continuing problem shared by all universities.
Assessment
Our Program for Assessment of Student Academic Success is central to improving our educational programs. We are assessing three broad areas:
- disciplinary skills and knowledge of the major,
- breadth of understanding and skills for life-long learning, and
- acquisition of values and attitudes consistent with the traditions of scholarship.
Degree granting departments are responsible for planning and implementing assessment of student academic success in their majors. Special committees are responsible for assessing General Education and student development.
Our program was developed in three steps:
- building a framework for assessment,
- building unit assessment plans, and
- implementation.
The framework was built by faculty with support from assessment professionals. Dr. Patricia Murphy (North Dakota State University), an authority in assessment recommended by NCA, critiqued unit assessment plan drafts developed by faculty in June 1996 and came to campus in early November 1996 to conduct assessment workshops and discuss revised plans. Implementation began in November 1996, and the first full cycle was completed in November 1997. The annual assessment cycle will be directly linked to the strategic planning and budgetary decision making process (discussed in Chapter 2), which will enable the University to use assessment findings to make decisions about strategic initiatives proposed by colleges, schools, and academic support units.
A complete discussion of our Program for Assessment of Student Academic Success and unit plans is available in our Resource Room [2.7]. We expect our assessment program to provide more precise and accurate information on student learning, which will help us evaluate and improve curriculum and teaching practices with greater confidence.
Continuous Improvement of General Education.
In 1988, the NCA Evaluation Team expressed a concern that Michigan Tech's requirements for General Education did not reflect a coherent program, and that no University-wide commitment to a well-defined program existed [6.1A, page 74, item 5]. We have responded to this concern in Chapter 1 (Response to Concern 5).
Although the Committee on General Education continuously evaluates proposed changes to thematic clusters, no one individual or group has had responsibility for assessing and improving the General Education program. Faculty and academic administrators tend to view general education from their own disciplinary perspectives. This situation will improve under the leadership of the new Vice Provost for Instruction, who has a mandate to reform General Education. Anticipating this mandate, three academic administrators and faculty participated in the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) workshop on reform of general education in February, 1997.
When we began building our assessment plan, we discovered that our General Education program was not described in terms that allowed assessment. The description provided in the 1995-97 Undergraduate Catalog [1.3A] was intended more to inspire the reader than to provide a statement of broad philosophy or specific goals:
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.
An ad hoc committee of faculty and academic staff working during the Winter term of 1996/97 drafted a new statement of philosophy and goals for general education:
Philosophy
The MTU General Education Program is designed to provide graduates with the skills, knowledge, and intellectual habits necessary to support their personal, professional, and public lives as university-educated persons and to provide for their continuing growth and development.
Goals
Upon successful completion of the General Education Program, MTU students will have
- foundational communication and quantitative analytical skills,
- an understanding of the principles and methodology of scientific inquiry,
- knowledge and appreciation of the human experience from the perspectives of the arts and humanities and social sciences, and
- the experience of in-depth advanced-level study in an area of interest distinct from their majors requiring the integration of knowledge and perspectives.
These goals are stated in terms that allow us to assess whether or not they are being achieved, and we can map each goal directly to course requirements to show where in the curriculum each goal will be supported. A general education assessment pilot project based on senior essays was implemented in Spring 1997. Additional assessment measures are planned for the future.
Continuous Improvement of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development.
Developing and implementing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system that encourages the growth and development of faculty and thereby supports student learning is a long-term project that requires faculty collaboration. The generally low regard for the current system for student evaluation of teaching prompted the piloting of the IDEA instrument by the new CTLFD and led to its approval by the University Senate in Spring 1997. The current system will remain in place for one year for evaluative purposes during the transition period, but all teaching personnel will receive regular, specific, and constructive feedback for developmental purposes on their instructional efforts from this new instrument beginning in Fall 1997. Because the CTLFD will begin to access evaluation data, it will be able to foster a climate where improvement and refinement in teaching are encouraged and supported.
Improved evaluation of teaching will make our annual Distinguished Teaching Awards more meaningful. Finalists are now selected by ballots cast by a small percentage of the student body. The IDEA instrument will allow us more accurately to identify Michigan Tech’s best teachers.
Other CTLFD resources or activities which will improve undergraduate instruction include [2.6F1]
- a pedagogical resource center for faculty and TAs,
- a WWW page devoted to instructional improvement,
- student academic achievement assessment tools and feedback processes,
- Faculty Development Grants focussed on teaching and learning,
- a needs assessment and the coordination of Learning Centers,
- the administration of the Upper Midwest Faculty Forum (formerly administered by Educational Opportunity), and
- the coordination of the faculty and TA orientation and weekly teaching seminars.
Integrity
Over the last decade, University processes have become more open and their integrity more widely recognized. Michigan Tech has established policies and practices that clearly define the rights and responsibilities of diverse members of the University community. [2]
Administrators, faculty, staff, and student leaders have become increasingly active in efforts to make undergraduate students aware of their rights and responsibilities.
Three publications clearly describe student rights and responsibilities:
Student Affairs enforces student academic standards. In 1995, a new formal procedure to adjudicate student integrity issues was implemented to provide more due process and to guarantee that a disinterested party makes the final judgment about student academic-integrity issues. Individual faculty are no longer expected to decide on issues of student academic integrity on their own. The Student Affairs Self-Study [2.6H11] concluded that this new procedure is providing timely decisions based on clearly articulated standards, and has significantly improved student attitudes toward the process.
Faculty performance in fulfilling their teaching roles and responsibilities is evaluated annually (see Chapter 6). Department Chairs identify faculty who are not meeting expectations and develop plans for addressing shortcomings. Continuing failure is rare, as are formal student complaints, which suggest that faculty are doing a good job in their roles as teachers.
Scheduling specific classes, particularly for general education, can be a problem for students whose degree requirements leave them with little flexibility in their schedules. In response, the University has added sections of classes to accommodate student needs. Humanities now guarantees its students timely scheduling of classes needed for degree completion. Scheduling examinations is also sometimes a problem. Although University policy prohibits scheduling final exams during the last week of the term and restricts scheduling evening exams, this sometimes occurs.
The time required to complete a degree concerns many at Michigan Tech. Common wisdom says our engineering majors take on average five years to complete a four-year baccalaureate degree. Data compiled by Institutional Analysis revealed that students enrolling since 1990 with no transfer credit completed baccalaureate degrees in 13.2 terms (College of Sciences and Arts) to 13.4 terms (College of Engineering), only slightly more than four years. Many of these students enrolled for a summer term to retake courses for a better grade. This time-to-degree is comparable with other universities' engineering programs and indicates that public expectation of a four-year degree is being met.
Michigan Technological University transcripts follow the guidelines prepared by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Our most recent internal audit of the Registrar's procedures states that we are in compliance with applicable MTU policies.
We conclude that Michigan Tech demonstrates a high level of integrity in its assertions about and delivery of undergraduate education. Nonetheless, public expectations for accountability in higher education are increasing. Our Program for Assessment of Student Academic Success will play a pivotal role in meeting these expectations.
NEXT
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/nca/report/ch3/ch3p4.htm
© 1997. Michigan Technological University. All Rights Reserved.
Send comments and questions about this page to nca-comments@mtu.edu.