Report #1 on Theme I, Issue No. 5: Student Learning and Program Effectiveness

How satisfied are our graduates with their educational experience? How do they rate themselves in key areas of competence?

Periodic Program Review Process. The CSUSB campus has for many years carried out systematic reviews of each degree program every five years. As part of this process, the program presents a self-study describing and analyzing the programs response to recommendations made in the previous review, the describing the nature and operation of the department, the curriculum, modes of instruction, faculty, students, library, computer, facilities, staff and financial resources, and the strengths and weaknesses found in the self-study. The guidelines for the review were revised in 2000 to request more focus and information on results of student learning outcomes assessment, additional emphasis on graduate study and research, university-wide contributed and service, fundraising and development activities and off-campus programs and engagement with the community. (See http://academic-affairs.csusb.edu/progs/policy/FSD99-03.htm.) Copies of the voluminous self-studies, reports from outside consultants/reviewers, the summary analyses and recommendations of the University Self-study Committees from each program are available for perusal in the Office of Academic Affairs. The revised guidelines also call for much more detailed follow up reports and plans of action from the department following the self-study review year.

As part of the self-study process surveys are administered to current students in the program and alumni who have graduated in the past five years. The results of these surveys reveal a good deal of comparative information about key issues across the programs in the college under review. This data is increasingly used for program improvement, though the smaller programs feel the percentage rating are not reliable or useful due to small numbers of students and graduates involved-and some programs even question the reliability of the enrollment data and number of majors and graduate reported by Institutional Research as they do no gibe with their internal files and records. This was largely due to underreporting in the past of students with a second major or degree objectives and the fact a student may not have been enrolled during the term the official data was collected but still is considered active by the department. We have now changed our data collection system to solve this dilemma by expanding our data system to capture several degree and program objectives.

The surveys of students and graduates reveal a very high degree of overall satisfaction with the institution, their department and the degree program and corroborate the findings from our graduating student surveys. The great majority indicates that they would recommend the program to others and would enter the institution and program again themselves. Respondents rate most highly the level of instruction, the preparation and knowledge of their instructors, and the helpfulness of the faculty. There are, of course, areas of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the program and services. The most prevalent complaints are availability of parking, availability of classes at "convenient" times, level of career planning assistance and advising, the amount of out-of-class activities and access to faculty and services at times needed, adequacy of lab facilities and temporary classrooms and the availability of needed computer and library resources. A good deal of progress has been made in response to these concerns especially in terms on providing additional computer labs and equipment, vastly expanded on-line access to library information, and new teaching and lab facilities. Advising continues to be a problem that will be addressed in more detail elsewhere in this report, but we have now revised our approach to advising to be much more intrusive and to require more orientation and transition to the university, to make advising mandatory in many departments, provide specialized advisors and peer advisors, and provide better (and more quickly accessible) transfer evaluations and on-line degree audits and progress reports. Faculty members believe these new resources, along with enforcing course prerequisites and sequencing with computerized checking during the on-line registration process, would alleviate many of the problems students encounter. We are working on modifying programming, installing new software and providing hardware to make information about student records, progress toward degree, and grad checks, petitions/waivers, etc, more easily accessibly on-line to allow faculty and staff to focus attention on the more difficult matters of career counseling and solving of personal and individual problems.

The campus is committed to ensuring that students can graduate in four years, if they desire, and has had for many years a 4-year Degree Pledge Program that encourages student to commit to full-time study, guarantees students they will graduate on time, if they have no deficiencies on entrance, take 15 units each quarter, receive advisement every term, take needed courses in the recommended proper sequence and when they offered, and maintain a 2.0 GPA. Those following the program and not graduating due to the fault of University will receive free tuition for any remaining coursework. (See Four-year Degree Pledge on Page 2 of the 2003-04 University Bulletin. http://catalog.csusb.edu/cat03-04.pdf ) Unfortunately, very few students avail themselves of this program, which is offered at freshman orientation. Many students must work and cannot go to school full-time and thus take longer to graduate. We are now developing four-year and six-year course sequences and scheduling plans for each major to assist both full-time and part-time students. We also now show in our quarterly class schedule a projected listing of courses to be offered in the next two terms.

Surveys of Graduating Seniors

Students graduating in 2001 were surveyed on 132 questions. Twenty-three percent of the 4,853 students receiving the instrument completed the surveys. Conclusions were broken down by the Office of Institutional Research into several categories: (1) The CSU San Bernardino Campus Environment, (2) General Attitudes, (3) Educational Achievement to Date, (4) Current Level of Achievement, (5) CSUSB's Contribution to Your Achievement, (6) Experience of Inappropriate Treatment, (7) Satisfaction with Educational Experience, (8) Supplemental Survey for Graduating Master's Students, and (9) Professional Goals and Activities. In each category, data from a similar survey conducted in 1992 was presented in comparison with that recorded in 2001, thereby allowing for a longitudinal comparison. The survey report ends with an analysis of those students participating in the survey. For the purposes of this summary, the last item will be examined first.

Within the College of Arts and Letters, more Liberal Studies majors responded than any other major. In fact, well over half of the Arts and Letters undergraduate respondents were Liberal Studies majors. In Natural Sciences, Nursing majors responded more than any other group, however in this instance they amounted to only about one-fifth of the Natural Sciences survey completers. In Social and Behavioral Sciences, Psychology majors responded more than any other undergraduate group and constituted about a quarter of all respondents from that College. Among the graduating Master's degree students, about half of the respondents were from the College of Education.

Seventy percent of the respondents were female. Almost half of all respondents were White. Hispanic respondents, the next largest group, constituted one-quarter of all those completing the survey.

The first category of the survey was "The CSU San Bernardino Campus Environment." On most questions in this area, students in 2001 reported higher levels of satisfaction than was the case in 1992. The lowest percentages of satisfaction for 2001 occurred on questions where no comparable data from 1992 is available. These questions are primarily in the area of academic and career advising. Yet even here, more than half of the respondents viewed CSUSB advising efforts positively.

Regarding the second category of "General Attitudes," respondents in both 1992 and 2001 almost unanimously regarded themselves as ethical and moral and respecting of rights of others. 90% said most people at CSUSB respect and value other people and points of view. Significantly higher percentages of students in 2001 attributed CSUSB as strengthening their "resolve to respect and value other people" and noted a greater willingness to get involved in community service activities.

In "Educational Achievement to Date", graduates were asked to rate their current level of achievement in fourteen areas. These same questions were asked in 1992 with very little differences found 2001. Ratings continued to highest in "Personal Growth, Listening, Interpersonal Communication, Problem Solving and Reasoning Flexibility" and lowest in Scientific Reasoning, Aesthetic Growth, Vocational and Professional Growth. In 2001, students note a slightly greater quantitative competence, as well as crediting CSUSB with contributing to that competence. Similarly, students from 2001 note a slight increase in their "ability to speak clearly, correctly, and effectively in small and large groups."

In "Current Level of Achievement" and "CSUSB's Contribution to Your Achievement", there is a similar parity between 1992 and 2001 data. Generally 2001 graduates rated CSUSB's contribution to these general academic skill areas lower that their perceived level of personal achievement but somewhat higher in all categories than they rated in the campus in 1992. Given the relatively older age of our graduates and the fact that most of our students are transfers from other institutions, it is not surprising that they believe they gained most of these important intellectual and life skills elsewhere. Exceptions are in the areas of "interpersonal communications" and "speaking and presentations". In both instances, almost 10% more respondents register positive answers in 2001 than in 1992.

In the area of "Experience of Inappropriate Treatment," fewer student problems were recorded (17% in 2001 as compared to 21% in 1992). Gender (Sex), Race, and Religion are the areas within which inappropriate behaviors concentrate at CSUSB. Relatively low percentages note that "sexual orientation or preference" has been a cause of inappropriate treatment on campus. One piece of disturbing information in this area is that faculty members are identified as the source of inappropriate treatment in numbers equal to or greater than students, yet we have had very few formal sexual harassment allegations filed.

A number of general questions were posed regarding academic involvement and general academic development. (See pp. 27-28 of the report.) Most significantly, students in 2001 note a sharp decline in using the library, compared to respondents in 1992. There is no indication of percentage of students using library resources on-line, as the question is worded "How often did you typically go to the campus library?" In 1992, using on-line resources would not have been possible. In 2001, a question relating to this possibility was not asked. In the past nine years the University has made major improvements in availability of on-line research capabilities and dramatic increases in the number of full-text journals, on-line databases, and other reference material available to students off-campus. A question regarding on-line use of research and reference material was added to the NSSE in 2002 and needs to be added to our Graduating Student Survey.

Over 78 percent of our 2001 graduates indicated that they plan to pursue graduate or professional degrees. Only 8% of graduates said they attend academic or cultural events frequently or regularly. Likewise, a significant number (18%) indicated that they read no books other than textbooks. This may be related to the fact that 28% said that they work more than 30 hours a week and another 22% worked 20 hours a week or more.

In the area of "Satisfaction with Educational Experience", there were no dramatic differences between the 1992 and 2001 information. In both years, CSUSB's graduates were overwhelmingly positive about their experience at this institution. 84% said they would attend CSUSB again if they were starting over. 44% indicated that they were enthusiastic or liked attending CSUSB and only 2% said they did not like attending this institution.

In the "Supplemental Survey for Graduating Master's Students", respondents reported generally high levels of satisfaction with CSUSB's graduate programs. The most dramatic exception is in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, where only 52% noted satisfaction, in comparison with 100% of Arts and Letters graduate students being satisfied. Likewise, satisfaction with graduate advising was lowest in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (38%) as compared with an 84% level of satisfaction in the College of Education. Satisfaction with "availability of adequate classroom/lab equipment" was also lowest in the Social and Behavioral Sciences graduate programs (44%), compared to a 100% level of satisfaction in the Natural Sciences.

In a question posed as "There was strong leadership in my program" only 21% of Social and Behavioral Sciences grad students indicated positively. The next lowest score on this question was in Natural Sciences (50%).

In the category termed "Profession", Social and Behavioral Sciences graduate students indicated that they are overwhelmingly employed by state or local government (excluding education). This profile is radically different than that existing in other colleges, but is perhaps skewed by the fact that 24 of the 32 graduate students responding from the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences were in the Department of Social Work.

(See full report on Commencement Survey at http://ir.csusb.edu/commencement-2001.pdf )

Student Needs and Priorities Survey

The campus participated in spring 1999 in the CSU system's regular survey of student needs and attitudes, the Student Needs and Priorities Survey. (SNAPS) An ad hoc committee reviewed a summary of SNAPS data prepared by Institutional Research that compared results of the 1994 administration of SNAPS with the 1999 findings. In general, the campus has much to be proud of as 1999 SNAPS revealed a much higher level of satisfaction than found in 1994. In most categories, the approval rating had increased over 10%. In almost all areas, the campus was rated significantly higher than the average for the CSU system. Unfortunately, the Chancellor's Office did not provide individual ratings for each campus so we were unable to compare ourselves to CSU campuses of similar size, character, and demographics.

The earlier analysis by IR had identified 21 areas or topics that received relatively lower ratings. (See http://ir.csusb.edu/snaps99.pdf ) The ad hoc committee examined these and looked at whether action had been taken or was needed. The goal was to recommend areas for further follow up, monitoring or needed action. The committee found several patterns and clusters of related topics and areas of concern:

Parking and Transportation. Although CSUSB rated more highly than the CSU average, parking appears to be a serious issue for students but not a barrier to attendance. A long-range parking study and plan have been prepared. The situation has been alleviated somewhat, but the campus continues to grow more rapidly than available parking. We are now doing a study of the feasibility of building parking garages, so that student and faculty can park closer to the center of the campus.

Registration and Enrollment. Although improvements continue to be made, the committee noted ongoing concern regarding the timeliness of Transfer Credit Summaries and Graduation Checks. These have been addressed by wider availability of degree audit summary reports and further speeding up of student records analysis and better articulation of transfer courses.

Advising. Clearly, more orientation is needed for incoming students from Student Life, Academic Services and the academic departments. New students need assistance with their transition to Cal State San Bernardino. The Undergraduate Studies Office carried out a complete review of advising and developed in response the Student Transition, Advising, and Retention System (STARS).

Class Scheduling. Several surveys and needs assessments have called for more flexible and responsive scheduling of classes, including more evening classes, more compressed time schedules, five week long courses, weekend courses, and more convenient and appealing off-campus sites. It was recommended that we respond, where feasible, with class times and locations that are more convenient to students; that we judiciously but steadily increase the availability of non-traditional instruction, including more credit by exam for prior learning, compressed time frame courses, on-line courses, self-paced courses, televised courses, and off-campus courses in mixed mode of some live and some mediated instruction; that we plan and implement additional off-campus centers at community college sites and other sites where needed and feasible; and that that all off-campus and distance learning be provided with the additional enrollment, advising, and student support services needed. Already major strides have been made by the Office of Distributed Learning, more on-line courses are available, additional student services are being developed for off-campus sites, and expanded use of one day a week classes, five-week intensive courses, and weekend offerings.

Student Engagement. This is an area of concern because our results on comparative national studies show that our CSUSB students are less engaged than those at other regional public universities and involved much less than at liberal arts colleges, general colleges or even research institutions. In general the campus provides few settings and opportunities for students to engage in meaningful interaction with their peers or with faculty out-of-class. It was recommended that additional lounges and meeting rooms be provided in all buildings as space is reallocated and new facilities are constructed and that we improve the overall ambiance classrooms to make them more appealing in color schemes, use of carpet, drapes, etc. We need more areas for social aspects of education, clubs, and activities. As the campus grows we need to consider more decentralized student services, advising, and food services so that students can be tempted to use time between classes more fruitfully and stay on campus longer.

Career Services. Students are demanding more career planning services and placement. This comes across in all surveys. We also need more placement services at the point of graduation and for alumni. The following improvements were suggested: increased staffing in the Career Center, more advertisement and communication about existing services, more on-campus interviews with prospective employers and establishment of student placement files, closer connection of Career Services to the academic departments and the Alumni Office, more emphasis on making the transition to employment, more decentralized advising and career planning staff in the colleges and additional training and preparation of students for internships.

The ad hoc SNAPS committee report noted that substantial changes have been made in many areas since the SNAPS survey was administered in 1999, such as parking lot expansion and modifications; financial aids check processing, information availability, applications and status available on line; PAWS degree audit summary availability on the Web, much lower summer session cost; improvement in TRACS and WEB registration; job placement assistance; more career workshops and internship placements; more cultural events, sports activities, guest lectures, clubs, and alternative class scheduling.

Our review of SNAPS and other surveys found a good deal of misinformation and confusion by students on what was available, how things work on campus, and where to get assistance and information. It was recommended that we convey our actions and responses to concerns found in SNAPS and communicate better. Research findings from campus surveys have now been placed on our campus home page and conveyed to the community via the "Campus" listserv.

For the most part, the 1999 SNAPS results were gratifying and revealed many positive changes in campus life and operations since 1994, yet there many areas that would benefit from additional attention and improvements that will take additional time and funding. A special SNAPS Survey just to determine the needs of students at our Palm Desert Campus was administered to 269 additional PDC students in 2001, which revealed difference issues and priorities for these off-campus students. (See http://ir.csusb.edu/cvcsnaps2001report.pdf). Additional follow up analyses were carried out for Hispanic Students and separating out rating of undergraduates and post-baccalaureate students. In general, at both levels, Hispanic students at Cal State, San Bernardino tended to assign similar or slightly higher ratings to their institution than was typical of Hispanic students at other CSU's. Graduate students generally rated the quality of the institution, level of instruction, their satisfaction with educational programs higher than undergraduates, but rated student services and operations of the campus somewhat lower. Still, 71.9% of graduate students indicated they were pleased with their experience at CSUSB, and only 3.3% felt strongly negative.

Registration Surveys

Beginning in Spring 2000, CSUSB began a series of short surveys as part of our quarterly registration process via our touch tone (TRACS) system and the on-line WebReg systems. This methodology has yielded large samples and a body of opinions and attitudes from a large percentage of our student body. Also, we have used registration surveys to follow up on key issues identified in other surveys, and this allowed us to corroborate earlier findings on issues such as overall campus academic experiences, amount of student engagement in campus life, degree of academic challenge, use of computers and technology, etc. These surveys have proven very useful in gauging student sentiments and needs. This computer registration survey methodology allows us to easily separate and track responses by college, major, gender, ethnicity, class level, and native vs transfer student.

As noted in the past, a good number of our students come here with the intention of transferring and even more are not highly committed to completing their program. This finding has serious implications for our retention activities: 4.7% said they intend to transfer to another institution to complete their degree and another 8.4% said they were not sure if they would earn a degree at CSUSB.

Our questions about advising in Spring of 2000 revealed that a large number (47.5%) of students sampled were not availing themselves of faculty advising that term, 49.7% of those not advised, however 49.8% of those students did not want or feel the need for advising at that point in there college career. In addition, 12.6% of the students had decided to change their major but had not officially done so, which had serious implications for doing proper advising. Many of these students were discovered and encouraged to officially change their major as departments placed began to place registration holds until students had received advising. (See: http://thewasc.csusb.edu/data/reg_surv/2000sprt.pdf )

A fairly high percentage of students sampled in Fall 2000 indicated that they would like more courses offered off-campus. Of the seven suggested, the top three preferred off-campus locations were Upland/Ontario (25%), Moreno Valley (22.4%), and Corona (17.9 %.). 63.7% of students surveyed indicated an interest in taking courses on weekends. The difficulty, of course, is that the total number desiring a single major program is still rather small and would make most sites unfeasible, but even offering key core courses and upper-division capstone courses in General Education would assist the progress of many students.
( See: http://thewasc.csusb.edu/data/reg_surv/2000fall.pdf )

In fall 2001 we asked a number of question about computer access and usage. We found 87.1% of our student indicated that they owned a personal computer, but 55.9% said they still used campus computer labs. 82.5. % said they had internet access at home, 75.3% of our students appear to have off-campus internet connections but 68.9% never check their campus e-mail. As the campus moves more to on-line communication of basic information, such as applications and admissions processing, financial aid status, registration confirmation, grades, degree progress audits, etc., it is expected that more of our students will begin to use e-mail to stay in contact with the university, their professors, their colleagues, and their academic departments. (See: http://thewasc.csusb.edu/data/reg_surv/2001fall.pdf )

The Winter 2002 registration survey was the most extensive we have carried out. The findings of this extensive survey were overwhelmingly positive and gratifying. Students revealed a high degree of satisfaction with their course work, instruction, amount of academic and personal support, and with campus life and climate. There are clearly differing degrees of demand, however, between younger and older students, between majors, between full-time and part-time students for support services and, especially, for out-of-class activities and events.

The first two questions were global in nature and based on goals of the campus strategic plan. The responses were very gratifying and indicate a very supportive and positive student views of whether we are meeting our goals. Of the 7,365 students who responded, 60.3% indicated that the CSUSB campus environment "strongly supports and encourages student learning." Another 32.1% said that the campus "usually supported and encourages student learning." Of the 6,408 students who were asked if CSUSB is "a welcoming, safe university with an intellectual, physical, and social environment that engages them in the life of the University," 35.0% said "Yes, very much so", and another 42.8% said "Yes, for the most part." While recognizing that these broad questions wrap several aspects of university life into one question or call for a quick judgment on complicated issues, we were pleased with the findings. (See complete results at http://thewasc.csusb.edu/data/reg_surv/2002wint.pdf)

In winter 2002 we also asked a large number of questions regarding student interest and participating in activities, clubs, and organizations. This was followed up in Spring 2002 with questions regarding interest in intercollegiate athletics and in Fall 2002 with further probing of the degree of actual participation in out-of-class activities and factors preventing more participation in campus life.

New students clearly have higher expectations of out-of-class participation than continuing students report actually experiencing. Participation, both expected and actual, declined with class level. Among continuing Juniors and Seniors, students who completed most of their studies at CSUSB reported a higher level of participation. In general, we found that students desire more campus activities, would like to be able to participate, but are prevented from wider participate due to work, family obligations. Further, the reported degree of satisfaction with personal level of participation increased somewhat with level of the student, while overall, two thirds of students were satisfied with their current level of participation, but are overwhelming satisfied with their level of engagement and participation in campus life.

A good number of the students not participating in activities (25.3%) indicated that they were not interested in the types of activities available. Even with our large population of older, working students, a high percentage of the student body sees the importance of some key types of interaction and activities such as developing skills in career networking (60%); developing leadership and organizational skills (57%); social activities with students and faculty (38%); and community service experiences (37%). The Student Life and Student Development staff is working on programs to provide more clubs, events and activities to serve the needs of both the majority of younger full-time students and older, part-time students. (See full Fall 2002 survey data at: http://ir.csusb.edu/TTSurv/TT2002Fall.pdf ) Integrating more activities into the academic departments seems to be in order as well.

Academic Profile Test

During winter, spring and fall quarters of 2001, CSUSB administered the Educational Testing Service's Academic Profile to 1110 students in upper-division integrative capstone courses in our General Education program. This exam was designed to measure basic skills in college level Reading, college-level Writing, Critical Thinking, Mathematics and general knowledge in the subject matter areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences. This exam was chosen by the campus' General Education Assessment Committee after reviewing other available commercial tests, such as ACT's College Outcomes Measures Program, the ETS Tasks in Critical thinking, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test, and others.

The Academic Profile questions do not require specific information but focus on issues, themes, and ideas. Questions do not ask for recall of specific information but, instead, test a student's ability to read carefully, make judgments about clarity, correctness or organization of material, think critically about issues and arguments, and work effectively with mathematics. No specific courses or course patterns are assumed. Because this assessment focused on skill and not facts or content, it was hoped that this test could be used as a common measure for general education after the core curriculum is completed, regardless of the programs or specific course requirements.

The standard Academic Profile provides individual scores and can be used as part of a performance standards program to show progress over time if desired. Score reports include norm-referenced scores as well as criterion-referenced scores in three areas. Our campus elected to use an abbreviated "short form" version of the test, which provides only group data, in order to save time and costs. In retrospective, it would have been desirable to administer the longer version to provide more in depth analysis of our students' achievement level.

The Academic Profile was administered during class time with no incentive and little motivation for the students to perform well, which is typical of the manner in which the exam is administered at the norm group institutions. This is a serious problem with all such "low stakes" testing, both in K-12 and in higher education.

Although our target group was upper-division students who had completed the great majority of their lower-division general education program requirements, we do no restrict these "upper-division" capstone courses to students with more than 90 units completed. As a result, our test-taking group included 4% first year students, 12% sophomores and 84% upper-division students and 1% with class level omitted. This turned out to be useful as it allowed us to compare a small sample of our CSUSB lower-division students with incoming freshmen and community college students from the norm group of institutions. Freshmen students who have not had an opportunity to take all the lower division general education courses actually scored higher (at 51st percentile, which is about average for all freshmen students nationally) than did our upper-division students, who scored in the lowest 10th percentile when compared with juniors and seniors elsewhere. Scores for community college transfer students were a bit higher than for those who started at CSUSB.

Our campus' scores were below the mean in every category measured. It appears that our overall weighted average score for our 1110 CSUSB students was at the 16th percentile when compared to 69,059 students who took the exam at 140 other comprehensive colleges and universities. This is rather disappointing, but, the spread and range of scores on this test is not very great and a small increase of just 2 points in each subcategory of the test would have brought CSUSB student scores up to the mean for all comprehensive universities.

CSUSB scores were below the mean scores of the norm group of comprehensive universities for all ethnic groups except Whites. Scores were far below the overall mean for bilingual students, which may account for our overall lower scores since CSUSB has a much higher number of students for whom English is a second language than is typical elsewhere in the country. Males did somewhat better than females while full-time students better than part-time students.

Furthermore, there are a substantial number of students with very low proficiency levels that bring down the average score for the campus. We need to identify these weaker students earlier, provide diagnosis and assistance, and develop strategies for ensuring their progress, achievement, and success.

The low level of reading skill is a fundamental issue and problem in designing effective instruction and assessment measures for our CSUSB students. The Academic Profile scores we have obtained for our CSUSB students are the first real indication we have had of the reading proficiency of our incoming students.

The mean score for upper-division CSUSB students was lower than for any of the other types of institutions:

The range and grouping of scores also was revealing. We have a fair number of students who scored very well but the number of students with very low scores brought down the mean score.

Although the Academic Profile provides some interesting comparisons of the broad level of achievement of our students, it does not provide the campus with a clear direction for change or improvements. Clearly, it is not linked closely to the content, pedagogy, or desired results of our General Education Program. As we design more refined local measures of the effectiveness and outcomes of our General Education Program, fundamental questions need to be asked by the campus General Education Committee, Curriculum Committees, and the Educational Policy Committee about our methods of instruction, the effectiveness of required courses, and the expected level of student competency and achievement.

We should continue looking for another, more directly useful and comprehensive test of General Education knowledge and Skills. This was a very expensive test that did not give us the information needed to make improvement and we probably will not use it again. The Academic Profile exam has recently been revised in format, content, and norm groups, and, unfortunately, we will not be able to duplicate this particular test to get comparable results for our campus.

The issues raised by findings from the Academic Profile also need to be considered in light of the evidence of the low number of hours students spend on their studies, the lack of student involvement in academic study, and level overall effort found in the National Survey of Student Engagement. (See data for Academic Profile at : http://ir.csusb.edu/AcademicProfile.pdf