Louisiana State University
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN
Fulfilling the LSU Flagship Agenda:
Enhancing Students’ Academic Experiences through Scholarly and Creative Activity
Contents
In spring 2003, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College announced its National Flagship Agenda 2003-2010, a 7-year plan to bring LSU to a new level of excellence. The Flagship Agenda focuses LSU’s efforts on increasing research and scholarly productivity and the quality and competitiveness of graduate and undergraduate students. LSU’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is designed to help achieve the objectives of the Flagship Agenda relevant to student learning. In particular, the QEP facilitates achievement of selected elements of Objective 2--“ increase number and quality of graduate students and programs” and Objective 3—“ increase quality of undergraduate students and programs.”
LSU faculty, staff, and students, including the LSU Reaffirmation of Accreditation Leadership Team and the Flagship Agenda Study Groups, have been instrumental in designing the QEP. They have relied on literature about excellence in higher education and findings from multiple institutional assessments such as internal program reviews, national and in-house surveys, admissions figures, and various institutional studies to understand the current status of student learning. From this understanding, areas have been identified where changes might generate the greatest improvements.
Enhancing Undergraduate Education
For undergraduate education, two primary action themes emerge: (1)describing student scholars and (2)designing learning environments. As a result of selective admissions, students arrive at LSU better prepared to succeed in college-level courses than ever before and have higher expectations of their university. Yet, assessment data suggest that faculty may need to adjust courses, curricula, and pedagogies to increase the level of academic challenge, involve students in more active and collaborative learning, foster more student-faculty interaction, and enrich the educational experience. Thus, we propose to identify university-wide student learning outcomes which will articulate what LSU students should know and be able to do upon graduation, giving the University and its stakeholders a clearer description of our student scholars. Students will attain these learning outcomes through multiple paths including their chosen degree programs, their general education courses, and their participation in co-curricular activities.
We also propose to design learning environments, in the broadest sense, in which student scholars have ample opportunity for success. Under this Plan, primary emphasis on enhancing the learning environment will occur through the 1st-Year Initiative, where a model for integrated pathways will be developed and piloted. Faculty will incorporate knowledge of how students learn based on recent research in the science of learning. First-year initiatives such as the Summer Reading Program, Residential Colleges, Mobile Computing, and Student Engagement in Research will be designed to emphasize research, effective communication, critical thinking, problem solving, collaborative learning, leadership, civic engagement and formulation of a career plan. Furthermore, we propose to continue to develop students’ abilities to communicate effectively throughout their curricula, recognizing that different programs may follow different paths while applying discipline-specific knowledge of the communication skills students need to be successful in their careers. We propose to expand the Communication Across the Curriculum program now underway for selected curricula to serve all degree programs. In tandem with these undergraduate initiatives, we will develop plans to assess students’ learning in the various first-year programs and their communication skills throughout their studies.
Certain proposed changes for undergraduate education will require modifications in how some courses are delivered, especially in faculty’s and students’ use of information technology or their engagement with the community through service-learning. Faculty can also employ “best practices” teaching techniques to stimulate and improve student learning. Furthermore, students will have opportunities for learning and leadership development outside the classroom through participation in student organizations, internships and other work experiences, career development programs, and by taking advantage of other co-curricular activities offered. Fortunately, LSU has well-established support services and staff in various Centers on campus who can contribute to the planning and implementation of these new undergraduate programs. Plans are also underway to create an Academy of Distinguished Educators to provide a forum for members to forge important links within the LSU community by serving as mentors, advisors and spokespersons for the University’s teaching mission.
Enhancing Graduate Education
Two primary action themes are guiding our Plan to improve graduate education: (1) pursuing quality students and (2)enriching the academic environment. While pursing quality graduate students, LSU recognizes the complex interplay between the quality of students and the size of enrollment. To educate graduate students for the marketplace of the future, the essential ingredient must be quality in all aspects of graduate education. The University will seek the ‘right-size’ in the numbers of undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty and will focus on recruiting high quality graduate students. Several initiatives have already begun to facilitate the recruitment of high quality students, mostly involving decreases in tuition paid, increases in financial support of various kinds for masters and doctoral students, and increases in travel funds to professional meetings. However, graduate students still need higher stipends and health benefits, more travel money, and more research support. Funding will likely be needed for recruiting as well. Other initiatives currently in the planning stages include developing strong master’s programs, central to expanding a knowledgeable work force to grow the State’s economy.
Plans for enriching the academic environment are based on the belief that the success of graduate students during their studies and following graduation is often directly related to the overall academic environment of their graduate school experience. Thus, our QEP calls for supporting and increasing library resources and recruiting and retaining productive faculty through rigorous performance reviews, appropriate rewards, and active mentoring programs. We have also identified several actions to be taken to help graduate students succeed by fostering cross-disciplinary education, examining and removing barriers to students’ timely completion of degree programs, promoting graduate students’ efforts to disseminate their research, encouraging graduate student participation in the intellectual life of campus, and preparing graduate students to teach. To monitor achievement of these goals, we will require a record of graduates’ professional experiences and job-placement following graduation. Finally, to enrich the academic environment, administrators and faculty will work to remove bureaucratic barriers to research activities through such actions as streamlining the grant proposal submission process, improving access to financial and human resource data, and increasing financial resources available to researchers.
Implementing the Quality Enhancement Plan
We view the creation of a QEP as a catalyst for change and believe it is integral to achieving the Flagship Agenda. But, our intended actions and assessments will not happen without human and financial resources. Therefore, our Plan also includes structures and mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring the continued development and implementation of the QEP. The primary responsibility for oversight will reside with the Office of Academic Affairs working jointly with the Office of Research and Graduate Studies, the Faculty Senate, and the QEP Task Force, a standing committee to be appointed by the Provost. The QEP includes a proposed “Timeline to Action.” Faculty members are critical to the accomplishment of all of these endeavors. Without recognition of the importance of faculty in the form of incentives, support, and development opportunities, achievement of these plans will not be possible. Furthermore, some proposed actions require new or reallocated funds. Thus, the QEP also includes “Resources Committed to the Quality Enhancement Plan.”
As shown in the Action Plan Timeline, the QEP began in fall 2003 and will run concurrently with the Flagship Agenda to 2010. Implementation of the QEP will continue to evolve with dialogue and discussion and with input from members of the SACSCOC On-Site Review Team who will visit the LSU campus April 27 – 29, 2004. Because the QEP is a plan and not a static document, it will be flexible and subject to modifications.In spring 2003, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College announced its National Flagship Agenda 2003-2010, a 7-year plan to bring LSU to a new level of excellence. The Flagship Agenda focuses LSU’s efforts on increasing research and scholarly productivity and the quality and competitiveness of graduate and undergraduate students. Achieving the desired objectives of the Flagship Agenda will put LSU on par with the finest public universities in the country.
LSU is proposing a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) to help achieve Objectives 2 and 3 of the Flagship Agenda. The QEP is a requirement for reaffirmation of LSU's accreditation under the new Principles of Accreditation of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). These broad Objectives with their action statements and desired outcomes are intended to address multiple areas of improvement in undergraduate and graduate education. As quoted from the Flagship Agenda, they are:
Objective 2. Increase number and quality
of graduate students and programs
Actions:
Outcomes:
Objective 3. Increase quality of undergraduate students and programs
Actions:
Outcomes:
The LSU faculty, staff, and students have crafted the QEP to facilitate achievement
of selected elements of Objectives 2 and 3 central to student learning.
The University began campus-wide discussions about the Flagship Agenda in early fall 2002 and continued the dialogue into spring 2003. (See the Flagship Agenda website for more information.) The LSU Reaffirmation of Accreditation Leadership Team actively participated in these discussions. As the Agenda evolved, the Leadership Team was also meeting regularly to brainstorm about possible topics for LSU’s QEP. With the determination of the Flagship Agenda in March 2003, the Team agreed that a QEP designed to help satisfy the Flagship Agenda would be the most effective and efficient use of resources to enhance student learning and would contribute to advancement of the University. Thus, the decision was made to select the objectives of the Flagship Agenda centered on student learning and the overall university experience as the core of LSU’s Quality Enhancement Plan. The minutes of the Leadership Team meetings reflect these discussions. Dialogue and discussions to develop the QEP more fully continued throughout the fall semester.
In August 2003, the Chancellor and Provost created two Flagship Agenda Study Groups, one focusing on undergraduate education and one focusing on graduate education. The goal of the Study Groups was to provide recommendations that would inform LSU’s implementation of the Flagship Action Agenda 2003-2010 and also serve as the basis of LSU’s QEP. These groups of about 30 individuals each were made up of faculty from across the campus who were serving on or chairing key Faculty Senate committees, members of the LSU Leadership Team, or serving as graduate coordinators, and professional staff who work with students and faculty in learning initiatives. Representative from Student Government also participated. The two Groups met throughout the fall semester and read and discussed literature related to excellence in higher education in the context of LSU’s student assessment data. A list of Study Group participants and a bibliography of the readings are included in Appendix A. As stated in the Chancellor and Provost’s original letter of invitation to participants, “Working concurrently and with some overlap, the two groups will provide recommendations on new directions for teaching and learning at LSU.” The dialogue format provided opportunities for rich discussions and a shared knowledge base for achieving the Flagship Agenda. The activities of the Study Groups are documented on the Groups’ joint Blackboard website. (See Appendix A for information on how to access the site.) The Study Groups presented their recommendations to the Chancellor, Provost, and invited guests on December 17, 2003. The slides from this presentation are posted on the QEP Course Documents page on the Groups’ Blackboard website.
Recommendations for action in the QEP are based on dialogue from the initial development of the Flagship Agenda, discussions of the Leadership Team, and the work of the Flagship Study Groups. Input will continue to be sought from all areas of the LSU community including alumni and members of the LSU Board of Supervisors. The QEP will be submitted to the SACSCOC On-Site Team in March 2004. As shown in the Action Plan Timeline, the QEP began in fall 2003 and will run concurrently with the Flagship Agenda to 2010. Implementation of the QEP will continue to evolve with dialogue and discussion and with input from members of the SACSCOC On-Site Review Team who will visit the LSU campus April 27 – 29, 2004. Because the QEP is a plan and not a static document, it will be flexible and subject to modifications.
Rationale for Enhancing Undergraduate Student Learning at LSU
As faculty, administrators, staff, and students worked to create the Flagship Agenda with its overall goal of moving the University forward by 2010, they realized the importance of assessing the current status of the institution and also at looking back on what had already transpired. Recommendations for change in undergraduate education, especially in the first-year experience, at LSU are supported by the results of significant changes in admission standards since 1988 and the current status of student learning reflected in the findings of institutional assessment.
Selective Admissions
LSU moved from an open-enrollment model to selective enrollment in 1988 when the first admission standards were implemented. As shown in Appendix B, admission standards have increased on a regular basis, and in 2005 incoming freshmen must have a 3.0 high school grade point average on a specified group of college-preparatory courses and a minimum 1030 SAT/22 ACT score. These changes in admission standards have resulted in positive changes in the students now enrolling at LSU. Students arrive at LSU better prepared to succeed in college-level courses than ever before and have higher expectations of their university experience.
LSU’s 6-year graduation rate has increased steadily in response to these changes in undergraduate admission standards and is now at 58%. In addition, retention rates for enrolled students have increased. The freshman- to sophomore-year rate is now at about 85%. Less understood, however, is the decline in retention rates between the sophomore to junior and junior to senior year. The University is using student assessment data collected from freshmen, sophomores, and seniors to better understand these enrollment losses.
Assessment of Student Learning
The University regularly surveys students, assesses student achievement of learning outcomes, and conducts internal reviews of academic programs. Results from these institutional assessment measures indicate we need to make changes in the way we approach undergraduate education to serve our students better.
Program Review. A central component of assessment and evaluation at LSU is internal Program Review. Program Review was implemented as a means to improve programs through a systematic, cyclical process. To ensure usefulness but maintain manageability, programs are reviewed at least once within a 10-year period. Programs designated as Foundations of Excellence are reviewed on a 5-year basis. Program Review was piloted in 1996-1997, with the review of degree programs offered by the Departments of Chemical Engineering, Speech Communication, Chemistry, and the School of Social Work. Since that pilot year, approximately 25 degree programs have been scheduled for review on a yearly basis which will facilitate completion of the first 10-year cycle by 2006-2007. The schedule of reviews is noted on the Program Review website.
Program Review results, measured in terms of faculty, students, library resources, curriculum, facilities, and reputation, answer the following questions:
The answers to these questions provide critical internal data about size and stability of the program, current and future resource needs, market demand, equipment and space needs, strengths and weaknesses, and how the program contributes to the mission of the institution. Recommendations that result from reviews are used in strategic planning, programmatic planning, and the institutional budgeting process. To ensure that the internal reviews result in continuing improvement, an agreement for future unit development in response to recommendations is created. Such future action is identified in a Memorandum of Agreement, which is developed by the department, college, and provost at the conclusion of each review. Recommendations that have been mentioned in many reviews that are relevant to undergraduate degree programs include the following:
In addition to institutional assessment and review, many degree programs at LSU are reviewed and/or accredited by professional associations, government agencies, or external accrediting bodies as noted in the University Planning & Assessment Chart.
In June 2003, the University initiated an on-line assessment matrix, and all units were encouraged to submit their outcomes, assessment measures, and ways in which they had used assessment data to improve their programs. Prior to the implementation of this on-line repository, learning outcomes and assessment information for academic programs was physically housed in the department or unit. By having an easily accessible on-line record of learning outcomes for each program and the improvements made in programs as a result of assessment activities, faculty can monitor activities over time that best support student learning. Information in the Matrix can be conveniently and regularly updated by each department. In addition, the same information presented in the Academic Programs Assessment Matrix is required in the University’s internal Program Review Self-Study Document. Thus, a side benefit to participation is automatic completion of an integral part of the Self-Study document.
The Center for Assessment and Evaluation, part of the Centers for Excellence in Learning & Teaching, and the University Assessment Committee assist departmental assessment coordinators and faculty in conducting assessment and refining student learning outcomes. Individual and group ‘Help-Sessions’ have been regularly offered to faculty and assessment coordinators to assist in completion of entries in the Matrix. Almost all programs are now represented in the on-line Academic Programs Assessment Matrix. The Matrix has been password-protected during this initial phase of operation but will become public later in 2004.
Surveys and Assessment. In addition to internal program review and assessment, findings from LSU’s participation in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP), the Your First College Year (YFCY) Survey, the annual LSU Undergraduate Graduating Student Survey (UGGS), and assessments undertaken during the Longitudinal Panel Study of General Education from 1996 to 2001 provide insight into undergraduate students’ needs, degrees of achievement, and perspectives. Summary reports of the surveys and the other methodologies are found on the Assessment part of the University’s Planning & Review website.
LSU participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) for the first time in 2003. NSSE is designed to assess the extent to which university students are participating in educational practices that are associated with “high levels of learning and personal development” and is administered to representative samples of freshmen and seniors. Survey items are clustered under five benchmarks of effective educational practice:
For instance, under the NSSE benchmark Level of Academic Challenge, for which the doctoral-extensive percentile ranking of LSU freshmen was 14, 78% of respondents indicated they had written fewer than five papers between 5 – 19 pages, 60% said they spent less than 10 hours per week preparing for class, and 45% indicated they were working more than 11 hours per week. A large percentage of LSU seniors (71%) also wrote fewer than five papers in the 5–19 page range. These data correspond to findings from three other surveys, two administered to freshmen and one to seniors.
In summer 2002 more than 4300 (about 84%) of LSU’s incoming freshmen completed the Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP) survey. During their second semester, these same students were invited to complete the Your First College Year Survey (YFCY), the counterpart to CIRP. A total of 531 students who had completed the CIRP also completed the YFCY. While the samples are not perfect matches, the longitudinal data provide insight into how attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of freshmen change during their first year. For example, in comparing freshman responses on the 2002 CIRP and YFCY to the question “During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week studying?”, the percentage of students who studied 5 hours a week or less decreased (from 64% to 48%) and the percentage of students who studied 6 hours a week or more increased at every breakdown level, with the largest increases in the 6- to10-hour (7.3%--from 22% to 29% of students) and 11- to 15-hour (6.3%--from 7% to 13%) levels. Even so, 77% of students said they studied 10 hours or less per week by the end of their freshman year.
An objective test of students’ reading, math, writing, and critical thinking (the ACT-owned Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency or CAAP) was administered to various samples of LSU students for three years each spring, beginning in 1989. For this assessment, the mean scores for the writing module increased from the point of entry to the end of the freshman year, held steady during the sophomore year, then declined in each of the junior and senior years. A panel study of students’ writing in work assigned in courses from 1996 through 2000 found that, in general, writing of students in the sample did not improve over the course of their undergraduate studies. After their first-year writing classes, these students seldom received writing instruction or comments on graded written assignments that would lead to improved writing, and unless they were majoring in a writing-intensive discipline, students typically wrote few formal assignments (e.g., research papers, out-of-class essays, reports) beyond their first year. At the end of the study, with 67% of the original sample having remained at LSU, 58% were rated as effective writers, 32% were not, and not enough writing was available to evaluate an additional 10%. These findings have informed our intention, as described later, to substantially strengthen and expand communication across the undergraduate curriculum.
Additional evidence about the general “Level of Academic Challenge” for LSU freshmen can be found in the results of a study using the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. A random sample of freshmen entering in Fall Semester 1997 took the Appraisal at the point of entry, again at the end of their first semester, and also at the end of the freshman year. Having earned a mean score at the 65th percentile of freshmen in four-year colleges at their point of entry in August, the 41 students who re-took the test in early December did not earn a mean score that was significantly different from their earlier score. Although a t-test showed that these students’ mean score at the 70th percentile at the end of the freshman year was significantly different from their score at the beginning of the year, among the five aspects of critical thinking the test purports to measure (inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments), the only gain for which significance could be shown was in recognition of assumptions. These findings suggest areas for improvement. Research on critical thinking indicates students experience the largest gains in this ability during the freshman year of their undergraduate careers (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
The LSU freshman percentile score of 31 on NSSE benchmark “Enriching Educational Experiences” further indicates that not only is our proposed strategy for enhancing the academic experience of freshmen a well-considered one, but also that the experimentation in innovative undergraduate programs we have undertaken for several years in such areas as service-learning, residential colleges, collaborative learning, and integrated disciplinary learning has moved us in the right direction. NSSE approaches student learning under this benchmark by asking students whether they “have done or plan to do” certain things before they graduate. For three items—(1) Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment, (2) Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together, and (3) Work on a research project with a faculty outside of course or program requirements—the mean score for our freshmen differed significantly (positive) from the score of our comparison group (p<.001, 2-tailed). Less than 2% of respondents to the YFCY indicated they had been involved in a “field experience or internship,” and only 5.8% said they had done service-learning.
About 85% of graduating students who completed the UGGS between 1996 and 2002 agreed that LSU faculty have “high expectations” of them. Nearly 80% are satisfied with faculty feedback on assignments, and 82% “agree” or “strongly agree” that “the quality of instruction is excellent.” By the time they were seniors, 65% said that “formal practices, internships or cooperative arrangements” had been made available so that they could practice what they were learning in disciplinary courses.
While we have much assessment data that indicate many areas of strength in LSU’s undergraduate program, our purpose here has been to examine programmatic reviews, studies, and surveys that identify areas where change is needed in order to improve the undergraduate experience. The first principle of the American Association for Higher Education’s (AAHE) Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning is that “The assessment of student learning begins with educational values. Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for educational improvement”. Principle 8 set by the AAHE is that “Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change” (Banta et al., 1996, p. 2-3). Thus, in response to our assessment findings, we believe the actions that show the greatest potential for enhancing undergraduate education at LSU are 1) the clear articulation of university-wide learning outcomes, 2) a more effective first-year experience for students, and 3) a broader Communication across the Curriculum effort. We view the creation of a QEP as integral to a process that motivates change and propose the following actions.
PROPOSED ACTIONS TO IMPROVE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT LEARNING
Four broad, interrelated goals are guiding our improvements to undergraduate education:
To help satisfy these four broad interrelated goals, we propose two primary action themes:
I. Describing Student Scholars;
II. Designing Learning Environments.
As we craft university-wide student learning outcomes, we will articulate what LSU students should know and be able to do upon graduation and, thus, describe our student scholars. The remaining three broad goals all contribute to designing learning environments in which student scholars have ample opportunity for success. Faculty are critical to the accomplishment of all of these endeavors. Without recognition of the importance of faculty in the form of incentives, support, and development opportunities, the achievement of these action themes will not be possible.
Because of the scope of this project, we will focus our initial efforts on strengthening undergraduate students’ first year at LSU through a 1st-Year Initiative. Changes in the first year will be designed to emphasize effective communication, critical thinking, problem solving, collaborative learning, leadership, civic engagement and formulation of a career plan. These changes are intended to impact students positively throughout their remaining academic careers.
A general discussion of the two action themes follows. The suggested timeline for implementation is presented in the Action Plan Section.
I. Describing Student Scholars: Articulating University-Wide Learning Outcomes
The first broad goal to enhance undergraduate student learning will be satisfied as we describe and define what an LSU undergraduate will know and be able to do upon graduation by identifying university-wide student learning outcomes that are clear, comprehensive, and assessable. Students will attain these outcomes through multiple paths including their chosen degree programs, their general education courses, and their participation in co-curricular and extracurricular activities. By articulating university-wide learning outcomes for all undergraduates, we state more clearly the value of completing an undergraduate degree at LSU. LSU will actively promote what all graduates will know and be able to do upon graduation, thus informing prospective and currently enrolled students, their parents, employers, legislators, and others interested in the unique contributions of the state’s flagship university about the value of an LSU degree. Furthermore, by stating university-wide learning outcomes, we improve the process of programmatic assessment through a clear statement of purposes.
At present, each degree program has clearly defined learning outcomes, and faculty assess students’ accomplishment of these outcomes on a regular basis as previously noted in the discussion of the On-Line Assessment Matrix. However, there is no recognized set of university-wide learning outcomes for all undergraduate students at LSU. Rather there are competing versions. For example, broad learning goals are noted in the introductory section of the chapter on “General Education” in the General Catalog. Other general learning outcomes are found in the Preamble of the Flagship Agenda as part of the desired results of the Agenda, “As a national flagship institution, LSU will … produce enlightened citizens by fostering critical thinking, ethical reflection, historical understanding, and cultural appreciation;…” Further on in the Agenda, learning outcomes are mentioned in the expected Outcomes of Objective 3, “Students will satisfy key learning outcomes of being able to communicate ideas and information; plan, organize and evaluate projects; work in teams and with diverse populations and constituencies; apply mathematical concepts and problem solving techniques; and use technology appropriate to their fields.”
Members of the Flagship Agenda Undergraduate Education Study Group drew on these general references to learning outcomes and on their readings and discussions during the Fall 2003 semester and developed a working draft of Proposed University-Wide Student Learning Outcomes as follows:
LSU graduates will be able to
For example, a capstone course could be required within a student's chosen major where s/he would be asked to demonstrate expertise in his or her field of study during the last year of the program of study. Building on the research and communication experiences of 1st-Year Initiatives, as well as specific content and writing/communication courses in the major, the capstone would ask students to apply what they have learned to problems with specific historical, cultural, scientific, mathematical, planning, or civic engagement issues in order to solve them. As an example, students might be expected to identify and define a problem, discover ways to solve the problem, and then come to some understanding about how the problem might best be solved. The student would be asked to do a formal presentation of the project to faculty and students within his or her field of study as well as to community members who are stakeholders in the identified problem. The presentation would serve as the capstone for the student's portfolio, demonstrating expertise as a scholar, researcher, and communicator. Such a course would allow faculty to assess how well the student scholar has achieved the ideals described by the university-wide learning outcomes.
Capstone courses are already found within many degree programs at LSU and could be used to pilot test this suggested mode of assessment. Other academically-related strategies such as involving undergraduates in research and in the Communication Across the Curricula program, integrating service-learning into more courses, promoting internships and cooperative education, and creating more learning communities with well-defined learning objectives could provide additional avenues for achievement of desired learning outcomes and ensure that students practice the skills they will need to demonstrate at a sophisticated level in their senior capstone courses.
Proposed Actions:
The remaining three broad goals related to enhancing undergraduate student learning will be satisfied as we design learning environments, in the broadest sense of the word, for our student scholars. Faculty and professional staff must create multiple pathways that students can follow to be successful in achieving the university-wide learning outcomes. These pathways are charted by academic degree programs that include coursework in the major, General Education course requirements, and other academically related opportunities and campus-life experiences that encompass co-curricular activities. We will also strive to give greater attention to how students learn and to improving our assessment practices.
Proposed Actions:
We have identified the first year as the place for significant changes in the LSU undergraduate experience for several reasons. First, as explained above, assessment data suggest that students would benefit from first-year curricula that challenge them more academically, involve them in more active and collaborative learning, increase the student-faculty interaction, and enrich the educational experience. Second, as detailed below, the 1st -Year Initiative provides a broad opportunity to integrate several successful learning strategies (such as service-learning, learning communities, involvement in research, and residential college programs) while drawing more effectively upon existing campus resources e.g., Center for Community Engagement, Learning, and Leadership (CCELL); Centers for Excellence in Learning & Teaching (CELT); Center for Academic Success (CAS); and Career Services. As part of the QEP, we propose to develop or further expand four key programs as part of our 1st-Year Initiative: a Summer Reading Program, Mobile Computing, Engagement in the Research Mission, and the Residential College Program.
A. Summer Reading Program
LSU will initiate its first Summer Reading Program (SRP) in fall 2004. All incoming freshmen will read a specified book prior to arriving on campus for the fall semester. Multiple, related events will reinforce the SRP including a seminar by the author, dedicated website, tie-ins with required courses, and small group discussions led by faculty. This program is designed to emphasize the academic nature of attending a flagship institution and encourage incoming students to begin to think critically about interrelated issues.
B. Mobile Computing
LSU is currently considering the implementation of a requirement that all future incoming students purchase a mobile computing device. If this requirement is adopted, coupled with the completion of significant expansion of wireless capability on the campus, the use of information technology by faculty and students could be greatly expanded. Student learning outcomes will be defined in relation to information technology and information literacy at the university level and also within each academic program. Furthermore, technology will be increasingly used for formative and summative assessment of student learning and course evaluations.
C. Engagement in the Research Mission of LSU
Research is a major component of LSU's mission. Thus, it is highly desirable that all undergraduate students at LSU have the opportunity to participate in research activities during their academic careers. The University currently offers a number of research opportunities for undergraduates that allow students to participate actively in state-of-the-art research ranging from literature to basic science. As shown on the Research Opportunities for Undergraduates website, these programs include campus-wide offerings such as the Chancellor’s Future Leaders in Research, programs supported through the Office of Strategic Initiatives, as well as specific offerings within colleges and departments. More formal and informal opportunities for students, particularly for freshmen, to participate in research will be investigated and implemented as part of our QEP. One such research opportunity for students that we will explore as part of the 1st-Year Initiative is the implementation of freshman seminars.
Freshman Seminars. We propose to pilot freshman seminars as a way to strengthen the intellectual climate of the University for students by introducing them to the idea of active research in their first year. Freshman seminars would be taught as special topics courses by professorial faculty in the area of their research expertise. Faculty would act as research mentors to first-year students with the goal of engaging students in critical thinking in the process of defining and analyzing specific research problems. Faculty could also model effective communication and writing skills while working with students so that students would begin to create and construct a portfolio of their work, which would be used to evaluate their progress as apprentice scholars. Such communication activities would also help freshmen begin the transition from the kinds of general reading and writing they have done in secondary schools to the more specialized language and discourse of the academy. These seminars would further serve to engage students with their research and career interests by integrating service-learning projects that provide community-based encounters with challenging systemic social, environmental, and economic issues. While it is unlikely because of limited resources that we can offer freshman seminars for all students, we want to pilot them as one of our “multiple paths” to achieving the university-wide learning outcomes.
D. Residential College Program
Initiatives to enhance academic focus, support student development and elevate the quality of student life are underway in on-campus residential communities. The undergraduate experience will be supported by the continued development of the residential college program. Residential college programs currently provide increased opportunities for student-student interaction and faculty-student interaction. However, the direct support these colleges provide to the achievement of undergraduate learning goals will be strengthened in the future through several design elements. First, faculty and staff are working together to focus residential college curricula as well as teaching methodologies and strategies on learning goals. Second, staff members in Residential Life are implementing a new competency model for paraprofessionals working in residential colleges. This competency model will center their training and education on strategies and expectations for fostering student learning and linking hall programs, activities and initiatives to learning goals. Finally, implementation of the campus housing master plan (developed in 2002) will construct new residential facilities while renovating all existing facilities. Overall, the goal is to enhance the quality of the living experience while also developing spaces to support learning initiatives. As a result, all new residence hall construction and renovation will include classroom space, faculty office space, state-of-the-art technology and more small-group meeting space for students. Upgraded facilities will also include spaces for the development of a faculty-in-residence program.
Capitalizing on Changes in Residence Requirements. LSU is now considering a 1-year mandatory residency requirement for all incoming freshmen. Research has shown that students who live on campus for at least part of their academic career tend to graduate in higher numbers and express greater satisfaction with their college experience. In addition, students who have been involved in interdisciplinary learning communities reap both social and academic benefits. They gain the deep understanding that comes with the integration of content and the interaction of faculty from different disciplines.
Establishing Residential College Learning Communities. Extending the successes of our current residential colleges, we will plan and implement a series of Residential College Learning Communities that appeal to a variety of student interests and that require concurrent enrollment in linked courses and curriculum integration. Learning communities employ linked or clustered, or team-taught courses centered around an interdisciplinary theme and enroll a common cohort of students. In order to foster more explicit intellectual connections between students, faculty and content, learning communities employ a variety of models but share common characteristics: 1) curriculum integration, 2) academic and social support networks, 3) faculty collaborative planning and problem solving, and 4) student interaction related to interdisciplinary issues or problems. Learning communities go beyond simply block scheduling students into common sections to an intentional restructuring of the curriculum to achieve intended learning outcomes.
A number of LSU faculty have designed and implemented learning communities through the Learning Communities Incentive Grant Program, funded by Academic Affairs and administered by the Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. These communities will serve as models for the Residential College Learning Communities. Faculty from different disciplines will jointly redesign and implement the interdisciplinary linked courses. In addition, we will enhance the exposure of first-year students in the residential learning communities to faculty through collaborative review sessions, special interest discussions, cultural events, and a variety of other faculty-student activities.
Building on our experience with learning communities, LSU will also support and enhance the freshman year through the development of a special type of learning community, Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs). Our goals are to support learning through integrated learning experiences; enhanced interaction with faculty, staff and peers; and service-learning; and to ease the transition to college for new freshmen. FIGs will be both residentially- and non-residentially-based; we will place students in small groups based on themes or majors. FIGs may be centered on one to four shared courses, including one course that focuses on essential skills related to university-wide student learning outcomes.
Residential college programs will be tied to the university-wide learning outcomes. Each residence hall will have a companion residential college with a unique academic focus. LSU has already begun to experiment with this concept in a pilot residential program focused on information technology. Students will request residence hall assignments based on their academic interests. While not required, all students will be strongly encouraged to participate in Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs), which may involve service-learning.
Creating a Model for the 1st-Year Initiative. A model for the 1st-Year Initiative might include the following elements:
- A cadre of first-year students in Honors College, all residing in the same residence hall, is enrolled concurrently in two or three general education courses, including composition, for the purpose of beginning their development of designated university-wide learning outcomes. These courses will form the basis for a learning community as described above.
- With particular attention to how students learn, participating faculty teaching the courses—working with the Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT), the Center for Community Engagement, Learning, and Leadership (CCELL), and the Center for Academic Success (CAS)—will develop and implement the integrated curriculum, and assess students’ achievement of the designated learning goals.
- In each of the courses, students will explore a common theme through the disciplinary lens--for example, “The Nature of Community” or “Literacy in Louisiana” through the lens of sociology, political science, and composition--as well as through examining questions and problems that arise when the theme is considered across disciplines.
- Students will explore these themes through active learning strategies (such as service-learning, inquiry-based learning, or problem solving) that support their development toward the university-wide learning outcomes--for instance, traditional inquiries into some aspect of the subject that involve reflection, information-gathering, thinking critically about the subject, and representing the conclusion of their research in writing.
LSU has had great success in establishing service-learning courses across campus. As defined by the Service-Learning Faculty Advisory Council, service-learning classes are credit-bearing, educational experiences in which students participate in organized service activities that meet identified community needs and then reflect on the service activities in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, broader appreciation of the academic disciplines, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). Dr. Edward Zlotkowski, Senior Associate at the American Association of Higher Education and national expert on service-learning, noted in a flyer promoting the 1999 AAHE Series on Service-Learning in the Disciplines, “For students to learn effectively, they first need to be engaged. Service-learning helps promote both intellectual and civic engagement by linking the work students do in the classroom to real-world problems and real-world needs.” After a visit to LSU, Zlotkowski wrote in a letter to LSU Chancellor Mark Emmert dated January 16, 2003, “LSU is on the verge of developing a truly outstanding program in the scholarship of engagement, one that would have significant regional significance, and could help raise the university’s national profile….This represents a strategic opening for LSU to position itself as the first flagship university in the Deep South to assume such an important public role.” Thus, by incorporating service-learning into the Residential College Learning Communities, we will both advance students’ learning and enhance LSU’s state and national reputation in the area of civic engagement
2. Communicating Across the Curriculum
Another way to help LSU undergraduates achieve the desired learning outcomes is to broaden the scope of the new Communication Across the Curriculum (CxC) program to serve all academic programs. Currently first-year students take required General Education writing courses, but we want to identify ways for instruction and practice in oral and written communication to continue throughout the students’ curricula. The CxC was initially funded by a large gift specifically to enhance communication skills of students majoring in the sciences and engineering. A new Director, Professor Lillian Bridwell-Bowles, has been appointed to coordinate the efforts of the CxC and joined the LSU faculty in January 2004. She will be implementing the program for students in the designated colleges. This initial effort could serve as a model for expansion of the program to all students across the University.
In its early stages, the CxC program will focus on enhancing students' skills in existing courses that contain intensive writing and speaking in the College of Engineering. Professor Bridwell-Bowles has proposed a certification program that would allow engineering students to demonstrate their advanced skills in writing, speaking, and communication technologies. Students will demonstrate their skills through a portfolio of writing samples, capstone speeches in senior design courses, and a personal statement on the future of communications technologies in their fields. Any department or college that chooses to participate could adopt a similar system for certification, tailored to meet the demands of various disciplines. LSU may also consider a "communications-intensive" requirement for all students.
The activities of the CxC program, which should be formally up and running by fall 2004 when office space becomes available, will include a website to support faculty and students, expansion of the LSU Writing Center to serve more students through on-site tutorial support as needed, faculty development workshops, consulting with individual faculty members and administrative groups on course design and assessment, a faculty consultant program to develop faculty leadership in departments across the University, a summer institute for faculty, and research grants that would allow scholars to connect communications activities to research agendas.
3. Using More Creative Ways To Assess Student Learning And Undergraduate Programs
Students’ achievement of university-wide learning outcomes will be assessed on a regular basis as part of ongoing assessments currently in use. Assessment data can help the University assist students in attaining the outcomes. As previously noted, LSU currently participates in several national student assessment programs including the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP), and the Your First College Year (YFCY). In addition, the University Assessment Committee regularly conducts surveys of incoming freshmen and graduating seniors. These measures will need to be crafted to include clear assessment of newly created university-wide learning outcomes.
Departmental faculty regularly assess their students’ achievement of the learning outcomes in each of their academic programs and post this information in the on-line Academic Programs Assessment Matrix. The advent of university-wide learning outcomes will create new possibilities for improved student learning as departments engage in ongoing consideration of pedagogies and co-curricular strategies for aligning the learning outcomes of academic degree programs with these macro-learning outcomes. Through the reading and discussions of the Flagship Study groups, we have begun the process of increasing general faculty awareness of recent literature detailing advances in the knowledge of cognitive psychology which suggest increased emphasis on the importance of assessment in the design of effective learning strategies (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001). We anticipate that by carefully considering the role of assessment in how people learn as we think about improving our degree programs and as we design new integrated learning experiences for such programs as the first-year residential experiences, we will take an important step in improving the learning environment for LSU undergraduates.
UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT SERVICES INSTRUMENTAL IN ENHANCING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Some of the ways we plan to enhance undergraduate education will require changes in pedagogy. For example, information technology is a powerful tool that faculty can use in these initiatives. Faculty can also employ ‘best practices’ teaching techniques to stimulate student learning. In addition, faculty can assist students in discovering their own learning styles and improving their learning skills. Students also have opportunities for learning outside the classroom through participation in student organizations, internships and other work experiences, career development activities, and by taking advantage of the many other co-curricular activities offered.
Incentive grants, awards, support to attend workshops, and invited speakers are already offered on a limited basis to help motivate faculty to redesign courses to enhance student learning. If possible, additional funds will be allocated for these development activities to encourage faculty to incorporate innovative technology into their courses, to use more active learning through writing and speaking assignments, to develop multidisciplinary learning communities, to create service-learning courses, and to use other “best practice” techniques.
In the spring of 2004, the University began an aggressive campaign to increase the number of faculty in the professorial ranks as part of the Flagship Agenda. In some departments non-tenured instructor positions are being converted into tenure-track positions. The result will be increased numbers of students in some lecture sections, while at the same time increasing the opportunities for undergraduates to interact with faculty who are leaders in their academic fields. With larger numbers of research-active faculty, there will be greater opportunities for undergraduate research, for instance. University faculty, students, administrators, and staff will use technology to respond to and manage change in positive ways. Innovative uses of technology will require the University to encourage and empower faculty to use existing information technology resources and to provide additional physical resources as well as ongoing professional development, to redesign courses and strategies for teaching and learning, to expand the University’s technology infrastructure, and to adopt emerging technologies.
The faculty’s innovative use of technology to improve student learning in and beyond the traditional classroom will be encouraged and supported. Each semester, the Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) and the Office of Computing Services (OCS) deliver scores of workshops and seminars that focus on faculty understanding of new learning environments and effective uses of technology for instruction. These and other opportunities for professional development will be provided in order to empower faculty to use technology in ways that are grounded in an understanding of student learning and the nature of technology. The University will also ensure that teaching and learning goals drive technology development and implementation.
The Student Technical Application and Resource Training Program (START) offers students support in the effective use of technology. The START program enhances student learning on various levels and provides students with the technical skills necessary to optimally perform in their classes and future careers.
Support will be provided to design courses and curricula in ways that incorporate current knowledge about learning and cognition into instructional design practices, teaching methods, and strategies for incorporating technology for student learning via multiple modes and at different times and places. The CELT, in collaboration with other campus units, will provide resources and support to achieve this objective. An example of the University’s efforts to infuse technology into the curricula is the LSU I.T. Residential College which was established to enhance students' technological skills, help students obtain technology-based jobs on and off campus, while pursuing an undergraduate degree, develop students' ability to use technology in a variety of career fields and research settings, and provide a distinct advantage for students upon entering the work force. This is consistent with the Educause call to “encourage development of new collegiate learning environments that harness the power of information technology to improve the quality of teaching and learning, contain or reduce rising costs, and provide greater access to higher education.”
The University will continue to expand and refine its information technology infrastructure. Since 1998, LSU has invested over $21 million in funding from the Student Technology Fee program in information technology initiatives for the purposes of supporting and enhancing student life and learning and of preparing graduates for the workplace, new systems for information retrieval, and communication tools of the twenty-first century. The current instructional technology environment includes over 150 technology-equipped classrooms and lecture halls, 10 public access computing labs that contain over 800 computers, a 1000-seat high technology auditorium, an online course management platform, and a rapidly expanding wireless access “footprint.” Additionally, the University will attend to emerging technologies that may have potential for facilitating student learning in new ways that are scalable and replicable. Some applications of emerging technologies at LSU are the eMerging Technologies: Tablet PCs in the Classroom project and an initiative to establish Visionary Classrooms that provide advanced technology environments in which faculty can experiment with emerging classroom technologies and develop appropriate instructional strategies and materials. The Student Technology Fee program offers a continuing source of revenue for new initiatives.
‘Best Practices’ Teaching Techniques
All faculty will be encouraged to strengthen their use of academic best practices in their teaching. Such practices range from increasing student engagement in large lecture classes to the involvement of students in multidisciplinary learning communities and various experiential learning formats. The Center for Community Engagement, Learning, and Leadership (CCELL), the Center for Academic Success (CAS), and the Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) offer a wide assortment of programs to enhance instruction as well as individual assistance to faculty that can be designed to fit university, college, department and faculty needs. Faculty will be supported in their improvement efforts through multiple avenues including the proposed Academy of Distinguished Educators, competitive development incentives, support for conference and workshop participation, and presentations on campus by recognized experts in learning.
Center for Community Engagement, Learning, and Leadership (CCELL). The Center, which houses the service-learning initiative at LSU, will provide the support structure to advance learning objectives and student leadership development through community engagement. This approach will reaffirm LSU’s historic mission as a Land Grant and Sea Grant University by engaging faculty and students in the processes of community development and public problem solving for the benefit of the citizens of Louisiana, the Gulf South Region, and the Caribbean Basin. Specifically, CCELL will provide structure and coherence for programs and initiatives already established at LSU in the following manner:
Center for Academic Success. Most students enter LSU as passive learners, with their past learning based primarily on memorizing facts and formulas to be recalled during examinations. The Center for Academic Success (CAS) provides services that transform these passive learners into active learners who know their individual learning styles, understand the learning process, and have confidence in their ability to implement higher order thinking skills. The CAS works with all students, freshman through graduate level, to help them maximize their learning potential.
The CAS currently offers students opportunities for small-group collaborative learning through the Supplemental Instruction program; tutorial assistance in historically difficult courses such as mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, and computer science; study strategies and computer applications workshops; individual consultations with a study strategies consultant; and a nationally recognized website that provides on-line learning assessments and learning strategies workshops. Additionally, the CAS provides workshops for faculty on how to incorporate cognitive science-based learning principles and strategies into their courses. Offerings such as these will be increased, and students and faculty will be strongly encouraged to utilize the resources.
Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. The LSU Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) annually host multiple workshops and presentations to assist the faculty in a wide-range of development areas. The Center for Faculty Development’s Teaching Enhancement Fund provides travel funds to faculty to attend conferences related to teaching; and faculty in turn conduct workshops for other faculty to share what they learned. The CFD also provides seed money for teaching innovations such as Learning Communities. Links with other units, such as the Service Learning office, allow the CFD to multiply its resources. CELT provides coordination and support for annual orientation programs for new faculty and graduate teaching assistants, as well as the Faculty Teaching Awards program sponsored by the Office of Academic Affairs. The Center for Electronic Learning provides professional development activities and training in the use of technology through workshops and consultations. Each semester over 50 training events are conducted with the specific goal of developing or improving faculty use of new tools and strategies to aid in the use of technology to enhance the teaching and learning process.
Academy of Distinguished Educators. LSU will consider ways to create an Academy of Distinguished Educators to provide a forum for members to forge important links within the University community by serving as mentors, advisors and spokespersons for the University’s teaching mission. An existing group of faculty, the “Alumni Professors”, can serve as senior mentors or leaders within such an Academy. Selection as an Alumni Professor is based on reputation for excellence in instruction, especially in undergraduate teaching; record of active and continuing interest and participation in areas of professor-student relations; dedication to an academic field; and outstanding professional relationships with other faculty and staff members. The Academy would be coordinated by the Office of Academic Affairs with support from the Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT).
CELT currently involves Alumni Professors and other faculty in presenting workshops and in collaborative efforts such as learning communities, service-learning, and online course design and/or redesign. Working with CELT, members of the Academy could share exemplary teaching-learning practices with others in the University community. Teachers could learn from other teachers through special seminars and teaching-learning centered events. Members of the Academy could take the lead on seeking external grant funding for special teaching-learning related projects in collaboration with other faculty – both new faculty and seasoned educators – to enhance student learning.
Conferences and Workshops. In 1998, LSU began hosting the Teaching in Higher Education (THE) Forum, a yearly conference for faculty and staff that specifically addresses innovative ways to improve teaching and learning and includes technological innovations. Participation in THE Forum, coordinated by the Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT), has grown from a few dozen attendees primarily from Louisiana to hundreds of individuals from across the United States and abroad. THE Forum could serve an even more pivotal role in the QEP as a venue for introducing faculty to new practices and reinforcing well-established techniques.
In addition to hosting workshops and conferences on campus, LSU will support faculty to attend workshops. For example, LSU sent a small team of faculty and administrators to the American Association of Higher Education Workshop on “What Faculty and Administrators Need to Know about Learning,” held on February 20-22, 2004. The Team’s project focused on the undergraduate 1st-Year Initiative. The Team shared information from the Workshop with members of the Undergraduate Education Study Group.
Campus Life Experiences – The ‘Other’ Classroom
Campus life includes a wide range of experiences from the academic focus in residential halls to Greek life to career services to lifetime fitness and health. Co-curricular activities also contribute to a student’s realm of college life experiences.
Center for Student Leadership and Involvement. Involvement in student organizations provides a forum for students to discern their opinions, values and world-views while developing into a potential leader. Contributing positively to the campus community is the mission of many student organizations. The Center for Student Leadership and Involvement (CSLI) plays an integral role in providing students with a sense of place and belonging through programs and opportunities that foster the development of leadership and life skills and a sense of responsibility as part of a larger community. CSLI promotes student involvement, leadership development, a responsible and respectful campus community, and promotes students’ long-term success through their offerings. CSLI serves as the primary campus resource for registered student organizations by assisting with more than 300 registered student organizations. Improvements in campus life are part of Objective 4 of the Flagship Agenda.
Internships and Cooperative Education. The Ford Foundation’s Fund for the Advancement of Education financed a 2-year study on the value of work-study college programs. The study concluded that by coordinating work experience with the campus educational program, theory and practice are more closely related and students find greater meaning in their studies. In addition, employment experiences contribute to student understanding and appreciation of the nature of the working world and the development of mature judgments.
Changes in the world of work have necessitated the need for work-related experience prior to graduation in order for students to achieve success in the job search process. In addition to success in the job search at the time of graduation, internships and cooperative education allow the student to “try out” a career choice and thus confirm the effectiveness of the career decision. Career Services offers students opportunities for internships, summer employment, and cooperative education employment.
Focus on Career Development. The undergraduate experience will be further enhanced by a focus on career development. Through the services offered by Career Services, students will be led through a process of exploration of interests, abilities, and values as a foundation for effective career decision-making. The Experiential Education services provide opportunities for work-related experience, particularly internships, cooperative education, part-time jobs, and volunteer work. Job search skills have become life skills as the world of work has dramatically changed over the past years. Focus will be on assisting students in developing strong job search skills, including learning how to write effective resumes and cover letters, interview skills, etc. Finally, through an active on-campus recruitment program, students’ chances of obtaining competitive full-time jobs upon graduation will be enhanced. By approaching career planning as a process and offering services to accommodate students at each stage in the process, an important pathway to reaching desired university-wide outcomes will be developed.
Clearly, LSU has many strong programs and support services already in place with highly-skilled staff available to assist faculty in enhancing the undergraduate program in ways described previously. However, as new programs such as Residential Colleges develop, support services will need additional funding to expand their operations. Furthermore, the mechanisms needed to initiate change such as incentive grants for faculty and workshops will also require resources.
FOCUS ON ENHANCEMENT OF GRADUATE EDUCATION
Rationale for Enhancing Graduate Student Learning at LSU
The purpose of Flagship Agenda Objective 2 is to provide guidance to departments and colleges relative to graduate students and graduate education. Many members of the University community believe that LSU has a disproportional enrollment of undergraduate students. LSU enrolls about 16% of undergraduates in Louisiana, which is the SREB average for undergraduate enrollment at Research-Extensive universities. One way to change the proportion and maintain adequate service to the state is to increase the number of graduate students. This growth is consistent with the University’s mission as the state’s flagship research university and helps LSU better fulfill its role within the state higher education scheme. To monitor LSU’s growth, the University will measure the following benchmarks: Percentage of Graduate Enrollment to Overall Enrollment and Number of Graduate Students.
Several guiding questions have been used in exploration and discussions of desired changes in graduate education at LSU:
PROPOSED ACTIONS TO IMPROVE GRADUATE STUDENT LEARNING
Four broad, interrelated goals are guiding our improvements to graduate education:
To help satisfy the four broad interrelated goals to enhance graduate student learning, two primary action themes are proposed:
I. Pursuing Quality Students;
II. Enriching the Academic Environment.
The first action theme will satisfy the first broad goal. The second action theme will address the three remaining broad goals and will contribute to helping graduate students be successful. A general discussion of these two action themes follows along with proposed recommendations. Suggestions for implementation are shown in the Time-Line in the Action Plan Section.
LSU recognizes the complex interplay between the quality of students and the size of enrollment. To educate graduate students for the marketplace of the future, the essential ingredient must be quality in all aspects of graduate education. The University will seek the ‘right-size’ in the numbers of undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty and will focus on recruiting high quality graduate students. A number of initiatives have already begun to facilitate the recruitment of high quality students.
To maximize the quality of graduate education, LSU must excel in facilitating students’ career goals. The University will continue its efforts to offer financial support that meets or exceeds that of our competitor universities, to provide students the opportunity to work with world-class faculty, and to place our graduate students with top employers. In addition to increased efforts to strengthen Ph.D. programs, LSU will continue to develop strong master’s degree programs. An increase in master’s programs is consistent with the need identified by the LA Board of Regents and central to expanding a knowledgeable work force to grow the state’s economy. These programs' efforts will be closely related to the main graduate programs of a department, as quality master’s programs are just one element of superior graduate departments. Analysis has shown that the production of master’s degree students is program specific, and some programs already have large numbers of students.
The University has recently taken multiple steps to increase support of graduate students including:
- Initiating a tuition phase-out for students receiving graduate assistantships, making those positions more nationally competitive and more financially viable for students;
- Significantly increasing the number of $3000 supplements and $5000 enhancements available to eligible nominated students, such that the Graduate School can now make awards to nearly as many students as are nominated by their programs;
- Extending the $3000 supplements, previously available only to Ph.D. students, to include master’s students;
- Almost doubling the number of dissertation year fellowships available to doctoral students;
- Establishing new Economic Development Assistantships - $25,000 per year assistantships for four years of doctoral level study, 11 available competitively per year, open to all disciplines and departments on campus to recruit top students into Ph.D. programs at LSU;
- Offering on-going tuition awards – approximately 200 full tuition awards available annually to entering African-American students and entering students from other under-represented groups and nationalities at LSU;
- Increasing the amount of travel funds available to graduate students presenting papers at professional conference.
These initiatives are a welcome start, but graduate students need higher stipends and health benefits, more travel money, and more research support. In addition, to increased enrollment, funding will likely be needed for recruiting. LSU is asking for a $4 million annual budget increase in scholarships and student support funds (split between graduate and undergraduate students). The University recognizes the significant challenges in trying to improve graduate education without increased resources.We must actively explore ways to provide increased access to graduate students from across the state and region to our faculty and our graduate courses. We will explore increasing the remote delivery of courses and expertise using the many telecommunication resources of our campus. Currently, these resources are under-utilized in most academic areas (with the exception of Agriculture). We have the experts who can provide needed expertise across the state.
Proposed Actions:
In addition to the efforts to increase funding noted above, the following action items are proposed to increase the number of quality graduate students from extramural sources.
- Initiate the active and regular submission of extramural training grants from departments and intra-departmental research groups. This would be facilitated by the Office of Research and Graduate Studies (ORGS).
- Promote an increase in the application of individual graduate fellowships through specific federal agencies and foundations.
- As an additional incentive, encourage Deans and Directors to enhance support to academic programs that are successful in obtaining extramural training grants.
- Increase the numbers of Ph.D. and M.S. graduate stipends requested from the Board of Regents on an annual basis from departments where this has been identified to be strategically important.
- Explore the options of remote delivery of courses and expertise to state and region using campus telecommunication resources.
II.
Enriching the Academic Environment
The success of graduate students during their studies and following graduation is often directly related to the overall academic environment of their graduate school experience. Key components of this environment are the scholarly activities of students’ faculty mentors and the infrastructure supporting research within the University. In as much as the intellectual underpinnings of enriching the academic environment are dependent on faculty, the recruitment and retention of the best scholars is of paramount importance. It is equally important that research resources, particularly the library, not only do not fall behind but also grow in stature. Finally, the administrative structure and policies, which support the intellectual activities of research and graduate studies, must be innovative and enabling and not obstructive. These points are addressed in this section with some specific action items proposed to enrich the academic environment.
1. Supporting and Increasing Library Resources
LSU recognizes that it will not be a great university without a great library and library resources. Rankings like those of the National Research Council are particularly sensitive to the rise and fall of library resources, and LSU has dropped in these rankings. The Flagship Agenda Financial Plan includes $6 million in increased funding for the LSU Libraries as one of the priorities. The first Chancellor’s Flagship Fund campaign, launched in fall 2003, may also lead to some supplementary funding for the Libraries. LSU has had an Academic Excellence fee in place for several years and in fall 2003, the Libraries was awarded $230,000 in supplementary one-time funding from the fee to assist with collection expenditures for FY 2004. The Libraries received additional permanent funding from the fee of $200,000 beginning with the FY 2005 collections budget. The university administration recognizes the need for additional funding for the Libraries and also understands that the Libraries staff have been creative and innovative in working within the budget while addressing increasing costs. A modern research library is a core requirement for successful graduate education.
Proposed Actions:
To improve the LSU Libraries standing relative to our peers we must:
2. Recruiting and Retaining Faculty
Quality graduate programs can only exist if there is also a productive, well-supported graduate faculty. Such faculty can be described as “conspicuously productive,” which is evident from publications, funding, research presentations at national and international meetings, and the production of graduate students who go on to prominent positions after graduation. Such productivity requires resources to support research and graduate students, but not just financial resources. The University recognizes the need for support persons in the form of grant writers and IT staff. Flagship Agenda Objective 1, Action 1 demonstrates LSU commitment to add 150 new faculty members. The introduction of new research faculty increases the faculty-student interaction time, as is prized in the master-apprentice model. The increases in faculty will also represent a broader range of study within programs and a breadth of research projects. (LSU is requesting $15 million more annually to add the faculty.) The overarching theme of the Flagship Agenda is to have highly talented people in an enabling environment. Quality faculty members are both talented people sharing ideas and are also part of the environment that nurtures intellectual discovery among graduate students. (LSU is requesting $9 million annually to provide competitive salary enhancements.)
Retention of faculty is an issue as well. Experiences of faculty members, in particular, newly recruited junior faculty, need to be enhanced and incentives provided to encourage them to stay at LSU. Faculty retention is largely based on their success in teaching and research. Mentoring of junior faculty in career development is an essential to this success, and some departments are already successful in these efforts. However, active, well-defined mentoring programs are not in place throughout the University and could be encouraged.
If we are to retain a larger number of faculty, we also will need changes in the reward system for faculty. We get what we reward. Change will not be systemic without a reward program for the outcomes we choose to target. Those targets must be consistent with the Flagship Agenda and national prominence as a Research University. LSU has already made progress in strengthening faculty salaries. For the last 5 years (FY 99-00 through FY 03-04), LSU has provided its faculty, staff and administrators with an annual merit pay plan. Over this time, the faculty have received an average annual increase of approximately 20% and the staff have averaged 17%. During this period, the State funded only two faculty pay raises (FY 99-00 and FY 00-01). All other raises were funded through tuition increases and/or internal budget reallocations. To continue to move forward, the University must strive to maintain this momentum in faculty compensation.
Proposed Actions:
- We must make sure that desired performance criteria and proper rewards are clearly established within PS-36, Criteria for Evaluating Academic Performance, and Policy and Procedures on Faculty Appointment, Performance Evaluation, Reappointment/Non-reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, Appeal Procedures.
- We must continue to seek ways to return more of the indirect cost charges from grants and contracts to the faculty principal investigators. If these funds can be returned with fewer restrictions, faculty can use the additional flexibility to advance their research agendas and further the success of their graduate students.
- We will survey the departmental units through the Program Review process to ensure that active faculty mentoring programs are in place. Further, the University will support the development of mentoring workshops for senior faculty and unit leaders.
3. Helping Graduate Students Succeed
A. Foster Cross-Disciplinary Education for Graduate Students
Multidisciplinary work is a must if we are to grow quality graduate programs for the marketplace of the future. This is also the reality of the “marketplace” of competitive grant funding at the highest levels. We propose to expose graduate students to broader, more multi-disciplinary educational experiences and increase the number of cooperative graduate degree programs across established department boundaries.
At present, LSU is not well positioned for multidisciplinary work. To better support and encourage multidisciplinary efforts, changes are needed in the faculty reward structure including promotion and tenure issues, recognition and distribution of overhead returns, and even how we count student credit hours. There are administrative, structural, and financial barriers that must be removed. In addition, students must have the opportunity to participate in multidisciplinary work.Proposed Actions:
The following actions are proposed to encourage multidisciplinary research and graduate training activities:
- Establish a university-wide committee to identify priority areas of multidisciplinary focus with emphasis on those that currently exist or should be created based on program strength.
- Those multidisciplinary areas already functioning will be examined through the existing internal Program Review process to determine if they should continue or be modified.
- Reexamine the existing Foundations of Excellence departments and consider if these should be reconfigured outside the existing departmental structure to be more inclusive as suggested by their disciplinary designations.
- Once the multidisciplinary programs considered to be important to the University and the state are identified, requests to establish and/or expand these programs would be submitted to the Faculty Senate Courses and Curricula Committee and other appropriate bodies of review for approval.
- A procedure will be developed to quickly establish new programs and eliminate nonfunctional programs by the ORGS with input from the Graduate Council, Council on Research, and Program Review Council.
B. Examine and Remove Barriers to Students’ Timely Completion of Degree Programs
Issues of limited resources; limited class offerings; competing demands of scheduling undergraduate classes; and limited faculty time must be addressed. LSU also needs to reconsider how graduate student advising is factored into faculty “load” calculations, particularly for faculty who are on 9-month appointments. Other options should be explored of how to provide instruction in alternative forms, such as distributed learning via Internet connections with other campuses and with experts in other locations.
A new initiative to help graduate students achieve early success in their graduate studies is the development of a “Stat Camp” summer statistics program. This program is designed to equip entering and first year social science students with statistical research skills critical to completion of their programs of study.
Proposed Actions:
The following suggestions are intended to decrease the time to degree:
- Explore ways to encourage departments to increase graduate course offerings to meet increased graduate student demands.
- Departments will be encouraged to consolidate courses offered and concentrate on offering required courses to allow students to complete their programs in a timely manner.
- Explore option to provide instruction in alternative forms, such as distributed learning via Internet connections
C. Promote Graduate Students’ Research Dissemination Efforts
The image of the University will be enhanced through more active public relations campaigns. Our reputation grows in part due to word of mouth among our peers, so we benefit from increased exposure in the national and international media. We also benefit enormously from increased exposure at professional meetings for faculty and graduate students. Recently, travel funds available to graduate students making presentations at professional conferences have been increased. Such funding increases are a good first step, but expanded support of research and travel is essential. Some colleges already have research days in which graduate student research is highlighted and rewarded.
The recent change in the way in which graduate students submit their theses and dissertations is contributing to the successful dissemination of our students’ research. The Graduate School’s Electronic Theses and Dissertations Project has now cataloged more than 1000 documents submitted electronically. At least four workshops are held each year to assist students with their documents, and an always-available, on-line tutorial provides instructions for submitting documents.
Proposed Actions:
The following proposals should aid in disseminating graduate student research:
- Explore ways to increase funding of graduate student travel to meetings to present research.
- Promote more college "research day" programs in which graduate students present their latest work to the campus and the community.
- Institute graduate student research awards that highlight exceptional publications. This would be in addition to the dissertation awards currently given.
D. Encourage Graduate Student Participation in Intellectual Life of Campus
The purpose of doctoral education involves more than just educating our graduate students to do research. We need to prepare them in other aspects important for their future careers including how to communicate effectively, how to work together with others, as well as showing their ability to work autonomously. Breadth of education and exposure to “big ideas” is also seen as being important. Activities like the Chancellor’s Distinguished Lecture (CDL) Series provide opportunities for such exposure, and we could do a better job of encouraging our graduate students to attend lectures outside their own areas. Such breadth is especially important before a student begins the process of narrowing her or his work in the dissertation. Naturally, this breadth involves training that reaches across traditional department lines.
Proposed Actions:
The following items would help graduate students become more involved in the intellectual activities of the University:
- Publicize major academic events such as Chancellor’s Distinguished Lectures to all graduate students.
- Actively promote the University Events Calendar to graduate students via email and faculty advisors to increase their awareness of intellectual and cultural opportunities.
E. Teach Graduate Students to Teach
Graduate students can also increase the worth of their education by receiving training to teach. A number of departments on campus, including Mathematics, English, Biology, and Human Resource Education and Workforce Development, now provide students with training to become better teachers. Researchers note the best such programs have both university-wide and departmental-specific components. Some programs also cover more than one year and include various aspects from portfolio generation to instructional design, setting instructional goals, use of instructional technology, communicating with and motivating students properly, as well as instruction in the art of teaching the discipline (Kwiram, 2003; Pruitt-Logan, Gaff, & Jentoft, 2002). Offering a limited number of credit hours and formal certification in teaching could reward participation in such training. A record of such training and certification might be useful to graduate students when entering the job market.
Proposed Actions:
- Establishment of a task force is proposed to explore how a university-wide program could be created and offered on a regular basis to prepare graduate students to become Teaching Assistants. Such a course could also help prepare students to become professors and members of the academy upon graduation.
F. Ongoing Assessment
To educate graduate students for the marketplace of the future, the essential ingredients must be quality in all aspects of graduate education. To monitor achievement of these goals will require a record of their professional experiences, and job-placement following graduation.
Proposed Actions:
The progress of our students will be monitored and fostered by an ongoing assessment process utilizing the on-line LSU Academic Programs Assessment Matrix. In addition, the Matrix will be slightly modified to accommodate additional documentation as follows.
- The Graduates Career Record (GCaR) will be created as a way to record for each graduate degree program of the University at least the first post-doctoral job in which each graduate is placed. To the extent known, subsequent career-developments and achievements will be recorded as well.
- The Professional Experience Transcript (PET) documenting any non-academic duties performed will be created and maintained by each department for each graduate student each semester. University Policy requires that assistantship duties must provide suitable professional experience for the graduate assistant because graduate assistants are primarily students, not employees. Teaching experiences as well as additional "training-to-teach experiences" could be recorded here as well.
4. Removing Bureaucratic Barriers
Faculty have expressed concerns that certain procedures currently in place at LSU may actually be unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to the implementation of research activities. Some faculty perceive these barriers to be major impediments of the expansion of research endeavors at LSU. In 2002, Chancellor Emmert formed the Task Force on Administrative Procedures to investigate barriers to an expansion of the research enterprise. The Task Force began meeting in October of that year. The overall purpose of their investigation was to make recommendations for improvements that would enable innovation in the research enterprise and to create a “Culture of Innovation” on campus. In their Final Report issued in June 2003, the Task Force made seven specific recommendations with accompanying detailed actions necessary for implementation “in the sprit of advancing the Culture of Innovation and furthering the National Flagship Agenda”. These recommendations are incorporated into actions we propose as part of the QEP.
Proposed Actions:
- Build an environment that fosters collaboration and teamwork.
- Streamline the grant proposal submission process.
- Improve access to financial and human resource data.
- Enhance research-related administrative staffing and training levels.
- Expand strategic research-related resources.
- Increase financial resources available to researchers.
- Streamline travel, purchasing, property management, and contracting policies.
- Support the Standing Committee formed in spring 2004 to monitor progress of these recommendations.
To develop fully the goals and objectives of the Quality Enhancement Plan and the means to accomplish these goals and objectives, faculty, staff, and students from across the campus must be engaged in the dialogue and discussion. The QEP is posted on the University’s SACSCOC website, and all interested faculty, staff, and students are invited to provide feedback.
The QEP proposes actions that can be implemented by administrative fiat, e.g., the Summer Reading Program. The Plan also includes much more ambitious changes that will require input and actions from many constituencies within the University. An example in the latter category is the proposal to establish residential colleges in conjunction with the mandated residency requirement for all freshmen. Not only would such actions require physical facilities, but would also mandate many programmatic changes if the residence halls are to become real learning communities.
The primary responsibility for monitoring and insuring the continued development and implementation of the QEP will reside with the Office of Academic Affairs working jointly with the Office of Research and Graduate Studies, the Faculty Senate, and the QEP Task Force, a standing committee to be appointed by the Provost. The Provost already meets regularly with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. Some aspects of the QEP involve academic matters that are clearly within the purview of the faculty as represented by the Faculty Senate, others are mainly administrative, and still others are complex mixtures of the two. Thus, some standing committees of the Faculty Senate will play a major role in implementation of the QEP, as will ad hoc committees that include University staff with special expertise. Several of these ad hoc committees are identified in the Action Plan, and other, or modified ones, will no doubt be required as the Plan develops. The Flagship Agenda Study Groups described in the first section of this document have already begun consideration of many aspects of the initiatives described herein. It is highly likely that members of these Groups will be asked to serve on the QEP Task Force and the various ad hoc committees.
The following Timeline to Action is presented based on our best efforts to project the evolution of the QEP. With many of the proposed initiatives in their initial stages of development, predicting their progress and the specific actions that will be needed in the future is challenging. The first charge to each new group to be created under the QEP will be to develop a timeline to completion of their activities by 2010. Each group will report their progress on a regular basis to the QEP Task Force which will carefully track the overall progress of the QEP and make adjustments in the overall Timeline accordingly.
2003
Spring:
Fall:
2004
Spring:
Fall:
2005
Spring:
Fall:
2006
Spring
Fall
2007
Spring
Fall
2008
Spring
Fall
2009
Spring
Fall
2010
Spring
Fall
Banta, T., Lund, J., Black, K. & Oblander, F. (1996). Assessment in Practice: Putting Principles to Work on College Campuses, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R. R., (Eds). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Publication of the Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning with additional material from the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice; Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., and Pellegrino, J. W., (Eds). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council,
National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
Bringle, R. & Hatcher, J. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2(3) 112-122.
Kwiram, A. L. (2003). Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate: Reflections of Doctoral Education in Chemistry. Online: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/cid.
MacGregor, J., Smith, B.L., Tinto, V., & Levine, J.H. (April 19, 1999). Learning about learning communities: Taking student learning seriously. Unpublished materials prepared for the National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition Teleconference, Columbia, South Carolina.
Pascarella, Ernest T., & Terenzini, Patrick T. (1991). How College Affects Students, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, National Research Council, National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
Pruitt-Logan, A. S., Gaff, J. G., & Jentoft, J. E. (2002). Preparing Future Faculty in the Sciences and Mathematics: A Guide for Change. A publication of Association of American Colleges and Universities, ISBN/ISSN 0-9702680-1-7.
Shapiro, N.S. & Levine, J.H. (1999). Creating Learning Communities, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
RESOURCES COMMITTED TO THE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN
ENHANCEMENT OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Designing Learning Environments: LSU will initiate its Summer Reading Program (SRP) in fall 2004. The projected cost of the program is estimated at $75,000 - $100,000 annually. This projection includes the expenses necessary to bring in the selected book’s author, cost of the books (5,700 already ordered), shipping, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with this program. These funds are a permanent commitment from the University but the funding source may vary.
Engagement in the Research Mission of LSU: The Chancellor’s Future Leaders in Research program currently has 250 students participating with a total available funding level of $387,500.
Residential Life: Investments in Learning Outcomes (2004-2017)
I. Facility Upgrades-over the 13-year period the entire LSU housing system will be upgraded through renovation and new construction. All such upgrades will include enhancements to infrastructure and finishes but will also reconfigure buildings to include space for classrooms, faculty offices, faculty in residence and small group study space. These upgrades will allow facilities to better house and support living/learning initiatives such as residential colleges and/or first year experience programs.
The following is a list of renovations/new construction in date order (ready for occupancy). The only halls included are those which will receive the upgrades noted above:
| 2004 | Broussard | $3,442,000 |
|
| 2006 | New (Graham) Residential College I | $40,984,000 |
|
| 2007 | East Laville (Honors) | $11,567,000 |
|
| 2007 | Blake Hall | $8,508,000 |
|
| 2008 | West Laville (Honores) | $10,645,000 |
|
| 2009 | Kirby-Smith I | $10,566,000 |
|
| 2010 | Kirby-Smith II | $10,864,000 |
|
| 2011 | Annie Boyd | $5,246,000 |
|
| 2012 | New Residential College II | $31,284,000 |
|
| 2012 | Acadian | $8,276,000 |
|
| 2013 | Miller | $17,891,000 |
|
| 2014 | Evangeline | $9,247,000 |
|
| 2014 | Highland | $5,739,000 |
|
| 2014 | Louise Garig | $2,249,000 |
|
| 2015 | Herget | $18,863,000 |
|
| 2016 | McVoy | $7,631,000 |
|
| Total | $203,002,000 |
These costs will be funded through the auxiliary funds generated by the Department of Residential Life.
II. Residential College Program Costs
Operating costs for the residential college program in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 are estimated at $550,000. These costs are funded from the following resources:
| Department of Residential Life (faculty stipends/salaries, faculty buy-outs, administrative support, student staff, training, programming, and marketing) | ||
$512,838 |
||
| Ctr. for Excellence in Learning & Teaching (assessment) | $ 13,262 |
|
| LSU Ctr. for Applied Info. Tech. & Learning (IT ISDA faculty buy-out) |
$23,900 |
|
Total |
$550,000 |
|
Effective 2006-2007, the costs are estimated to increase in the range of $60,000-$100,000 plus general increases for salary increases, cost of living, etc.
Students in the residential college program in Honors pay an additional $100 per semester as a part of their housing rate. Students in Herget, IT and Vision Louisiana residential colleges pay an additional $200 per semester as a part of their housing rate.
Communicating Across the Curriculum (CxC): The CxC program is funded by a $2,000,000 donation to the University. A new Director has been appointed and will use these funds to expand this program.
Creative Ways to Assess Student Learning and Undergraduate Programs: The University has committed approximately $54,000 for the cost associated with conducting and analyzing the National Survey of Student Engagement, the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, the Cooperative Institutional Research Project, the Your First College Year, and other miscellaneous assessment methodologies.
Information Technology: In fiscal year 1998-1999 LSU instituted a Technology Fee of $5 per credit hour up to a max of $75 per student. This fee generates over $4,000,000 annually that is used for technological advances and upgrades across the campus. These funds are distributed by a committee comprised primarily of students.
Best Practices Teaching Techniques: The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching currently has a budget of approximately $1.48 million in state funding. The Centers for Community Engagement, Learning, and Leadership (CCELL) and the Center for Academic Success (CAS) are both part of the University College. The current funding for each are $103,467 and $66,000 respectively.
Conferences and Workshops: The Teaching in Higher Education (THE) Forum costs $61,000 annually. The $8,000 expense to send the LSU team of faculty and administrators to the American Association of Higher Education Workshop was funded by the University.
Career Services: The Office of Career Services is funded annually at approximately $514,000 in state funding and $95,000 in self generated funds. Additional revenues are generated from donations and grant funding. This is not inclusive of all career services activities across the University. Some academic departments commit their own resources to career services. For instance, the College of Business Administration has a person dedicated entirely to providing MBA internships.
The Career Decision and Experiential Education component of Career Services are funded as follows:
Career Decision Making:
| Staff Salaries: | $ 62,785 |
||
| (Include salaries for one full-time counselor; 75% of a second full-time counselor; and 25% of a third full-time counselor. Career Services also utilizes 2-3 unpaid counseling interns throughout the year. There is also support from 2-4 student workers) | |||
| Nonsalaried Expenses: | |||
| Test Materials (from vendor): | $ 11,800 |
||
| Test Scoring Fees by MEC for COPS: | $ 900 |
(charged $3/test graded) | |
| Miscellaneous (Handouts, etc.): | $ 2,200 |
||
| Total: | $ 77,685 |
||
| Fees charged to those to whom the COPS and MBTI career assessments are administered offset a portion of the expenses incurred in this area. | |||
| Experiential Education: | |||
| Staff Salaries: | $ 91,225 |
||
| Student Worker Wage (on budget): | $ 2,400 |
||
| (Include salaries for one assistant director and one Clerk Chief II, and salaries and benefits for one coordinator (funded on the Job Location and Development (JLD) grant). Student worker wages include one student worker funded on JLD grant. An additional 8-10 student workers work in this area during the year, but are funded on Chancellor's Aide and Work Study.) | |||
| Nonsalaried Expenses: | |||
| Program: Summer Jobs Fair: | $ 970 |
(paid for out of JLD Grant) | |
| Program: Student Volunteer Fair: | $ 1,900 |
||
| Programs: Recruitment Days: | $ 5,400 |
(a primary vehicle for internship recruiting, so 50% of expenses reflected here; excluded Teacher Day) | |
| Programs: Career Panels: | $ 4,185 |
(paid for from grant from Halliburton supporting Experiential Education) | |
| Miscellaneous (supplies, copies, etc.) | $ 1,650 |
(most paid for out of JLD Grant) | |
| Travel (for coordinator): | $ 1,000 |
(most paid for out of JLD Grant) | |
| Telecommunications: | $ 850 |
(paid for out of JLD Grant) | |
$109,580 |
|||
ENHANCEMENT OF GRADUATE EDUCATION
Steps to Increase Support of Graduate Students:
Graduate Assistantship Tuition Phase Out - The University has initiated a tuition phase out over three years that will be funded by a permanent $3 million commitment. An additional $190,000 is budgeted for the summer tuition for graduate assistants that are appointed in the fall and spring semesters but are not appointed during the summer term.
Increases in Supplements, Enhancements, and Dissertation Year Doctoral Fellows - The Graduate School has a $3,059,500 annual budget available to be paid out as assistantships or fellowships to support these programs. The $3,000 supplement is now available to Ph.D. and master’s students.
Economic Development Assistantships - The University has approximately $1.23 million available annually to fund the Economic Development Assistantships program.
Tuition Awards for Minorities from Underrepresented Groups and Nationalities - The 200 full tuition awards for these groups are funded by the University. These awards cover tuition and non-resident fees for two years including the fall, spring, and summer semesters. The amount of funding provided by the University annually ranges from $785,000 to $2,110,000 depending on the mix of resident and non-resident students receiving these awards.
Travel Funds Available to Graduate Students - Each year graduate students are assessed a fee for an Organizational Relief Fund that is used to fund travel of graduate students presenting papers at professional conferences. This fee generates approximately $38,000 per fiscal year and any fees remaining at the end of each fiscal year carry forward to the next year. Currently there is $127,000 available from this revenue source to fund graduate student travel. The Graduate School awards $150 in travel expenses from this source to any qualifying graduate student. In addition to these travel funds, the Vice Chancellor of Research’s Office distributes a $300 travel award to qualifying graduate students. The amount awarded from this source in FY 02-03 was $15,600 and $22,800 has been awarded to date for FY 03-04.
Library Resources: The University is evaluating office space that has been recently acquired to determine the feasibility of providing additional storage space for the Library. The Library’s current operating budget is $6,114,000. The funds generated from the library component of the campus’s federal indirect cost rate are rebated directly to the Library. The funds generated from this rebate for the current fiscal year are $417,812, and this should continue to increase as the University’s research awards increase. In addition to these recurring funds the Library has been appropriated $2,200,000 in one-time funds for the acquisition of serials and periodicals for FY 2003-2004.
Recruiting and Retaining Faculty: The Louisiana Legislature approved a $120/semester increase in the Academic Excellence Fee charged to students for FY 2003-2004. The University used a portion of the additional revenue generated from this increase to fund a 3% faculty salary increase for FY 03-04 in the amount of $3,244,731. An additional $1.8 million generated from this increase has been committed to fund up to 18 new faculty positions in FY 2004-2005.
Increase Indirect Cost Rebate to Faculty: The University increased the indirect cost rebate from grants and contracts from 10% to 15% in FY 2003-2004. This rebate goes back to the academic college of the faculty member awarded the grant or contract. These funds should be used solely for the purpose of assisting faculty in the performance of research and scholarly activities. In addition to the increase in the rebate rate, a new $1 million research pool was created in FY 2003-2004 from the indirect cost return funds. This new pool will be used to stimulate new grant proposals and support essential research and scholarly travel of faculty. Requests for these funds are reviewed and ranked by the University’s Council on Research.
Summer “Stat Camp”: The Summer “Stat Camp” is part of the University’s Graduate School’s Program. The funding for this project comes from the $3,059,500 annual budget previously mentioned above for assistantships and fellowships.
Fall 2003 Flagship Study Groups
Access to Flagship Study Groups Blackboard Website:
The site can be accessed as follows:
Click on "LSU National Flagship Agenda Study Groups."
Undergraduate Education Study Group Members:
Sarah Liggett, Co-Chair; Professor of English;University Assessment Committee; Honors College Board
Teresa Summers, Co-Chair; Spanier Alumni Professor of Human Ecology; Director, Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness; University Planning Council; University Assessment Committee
Claire Advokat, Professor of Psychology; VicePresident, Faculty Senate
Granger Babcock, Assistant to Vice Chancellor, Student Life and Academic Services
James Babin, Director of Residential Colleges; Associate Professor of English
Debora Baker, Director of Residential Life
John Baker, Professor of Philosophy; Director, Interdisciplinary Studies; Chair, Faculty Senate Courses and Curricula Committee
Frank Cartledge, Professor of Chemistry; Associate Dean, College of Basic Sciences; PK-16 Teacher Education Redesign Committee
Nancy Clark, Dean, Honors College
David Cronrath, Director, School of Architecture; SACSCOC Leadership Team
William Demastes, Professor of English; Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Karen Denby, Dean of Enrollment Management; Retention Study
Michael El Koubi, undergraduate, Political Science
Claudia Eppert, Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Instruction; Faculty Senate Committee on Improvement of Instruction
Lynn Evans, Director, Center for Faculty Development; Learning Communities Council; University Assessment Committee
Joe Hutchinson, Executive Director, Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching; Assistant Professor, ELRC; Academic Technology Advisory Committee
Paul Ivey, Associate Dean, University College
Barrett Kennedy, Professor of Architecture; Associate Dean, College of Design; Chair, Service-Learning Council
Robert Lafayette, Chair, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction; Learning Communities Council; PK-16 Teacher Redesign Committee
Amelia Lee, Chair, Dept. of Kinesiology; SACSCOC Leadership Team
Bobby Matthews, Director, Center for Assessment and Evaluation; Learning Communities Council; Chair, University Assessment Committee; SACSCOC Leadership Team
Saundra McGuire, Director, Center for Academic Success; Adjunct Professor of Chemistry; Learning Communities Council
Carol O'Neil, Associate Professor of Human Ecology; Faculty Senate Improvement of Instruction Committee; Faculty Senate General Education Committee; ServiceLearning Fellow
Irvin Peckham, Assoc. Professor of English; Director, First-Year Writing Program; Improvement of Instruction Committee
Robert Perlis, H.S. Butts Professor of Mathematics; Faculty Senate Committee on Admissions, Standards, and Honors
Karl Roider, Professor of History; Chair, Learning Communities Council
Jan Shoemaker, Director, Center for Community Engagement, Learning, and Leadership
Jimmy Vermaelen, SGA, Director of Academic Affairs; undergraduate, BASC
Saundra Walker, Director of Institutional Research
Vincent Wilson, Professor of Environmental Studies; University Planning Council
Barbara Wittkopf, Librarian; Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and Improvement of Instruction Committee
Steering Committee:
Sarah Liggett, Co-Chair
Teresa Summers, Co-Chair
Lynn Evans
Bobby Matthews
Jan Shoemaker
Committee on Student Learning Outcomes:
David Cronrath, Chair
John Baker
Sarah Liggett
Bobby Matthews
Teresa Summers
Barbara Wittkopf
Technology Committee:
Joe Hutchinson, Chair
Melissa Brocato
Michael El Koubi
Barrett Kennedy
Irvin Peckham
Undergraduate Group Facilitators:
Claire Advocate
David Cronrath
Amelia Lee
Barrett Kennedy
Carol O’Neil
Graduate Education Study Group Members
Pam Monroe, Chair; Carville Professor of Human Ecology; Associate Dean, Graduate School
Teresa Summers, Co-Chair; Spanier Alumni Professor of Human Ecology; Director, Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness; University Planning Council; University Assessment Committee
Jorge Aravena, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Sadik C. Artunc, Professor of Landscape Architecture
Michael Burnett, J.C. Floyd Endowed Professor of Agriculture; Professor of Vocational Education; Director, School of Human Resource, Education, and Workforce Development
Lui-Hueng Chan, Charles L. Jones Endowed Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Arthur Crawley, Coordinator, Center for Faculty Development; Instructor in School of Human Resource, Education, and Workforce Development
Rita Culross, Professor of Education (Curriculum and Instruction); Associate Dean, College of Education
James Garand, Emogene Pliner Professor of Political Science
Mary Elizabeth Garrison, Associate Professor of Human Ecology
William F. Grimes, White Alumni Professor of Music
Ralph Izard, Sig Mickelson/CBS Professor of Mass Communication; Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research, Manship School of Mass Communication
Neil Kestner, Charles H. Barre Endowed Professor of Chemistry; SACSCOC Leadership Team
Thomas Klei, Boyd Professor of Veterinary Microbiology and Parasitology (Pathobzological Sciences); Professor of Veterinary Science; Associate Dean for Research and Advanced Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine; SACSCOC Leadership Team
John W. Lynn, George C. Kent Endowed Professor of Biological Sciences
Richard A. McGill, Helen "Bessie" Silverberg Pliner Professor of Kinesiology
Michelle A. Masse, Professor of English; Director of Graduate Studies
Janet McDonald , Professor of Psychology
James E. Miller Professor of Epidemiology and Community Health (Department of Pathobiological Sciences); Adjunct Professor of Animal Science (Department of Animal Sciences)
Thomas S. Moore, Jr., Professor of Biological Science ; Associate Chair, Department of Biological Sciences; Coordinator, Interdepartmental Studies in Plant Physiology
A. Ravi Rau, Professor of Physics and Astronomy; SACSCOC Leadership Team
Leonard F. Richardson, Professor of Mathematics; Director of Graduate Studies
P. David Shields, James C. Florez Endowed Chair of MBA Studies; Director, MBA Program
Wesley M. Shrum, Jr., Professor of Sociology
Mehmet T. Tumay, Georgia Gulf Distinguished Professor of Engineering; Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, College of Engineering
Leslie A. Wade, Billy J. Harbin Professor of Theater
Steven F. Watkins, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Hector Zapata, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness
Group Facilitators:
Michael Burnett
Neil Kestner
Thomas Klei
Michelle Masse
Mehmet Tumay
Fall 2003 Flagship Study Groups Bibliography
Boyte, H. & Hollander, E. "Wingspread Declaration on Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University." Racine, Wisconsin, 1999.
This document is a product of the 1998 Wingspread conference, which involved higher education administrators and faculty as well as representatives of professional associations, private foundations and civic organizations. The purpose of the conference was two-fold: to engage faculty in developing and using knowledge for the benefit of society, and to prepare students to be responsible citizens in a democracy.
Checkoway, B. "Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 72, No. 2. The Ohio State University, March-.April 2001.
This article Is based upon the 1998 Wingspread Declaration on Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University (1999) and discusses strategies for achieving the civic mission of the research university.
Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education; Faculty Inventory." Washington, DC, American Association of Higher Education, 1987.
This is an inventory related to the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education published by the American Association of Higher Education in 1987. Good Practices include student-faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning, feedback, time on task, high expectations, and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning.
Guskin, A. & Marcy, M. "Dealing with the Future Now: Principles for Creating a Vital Campus in a Climate of Restricted Resources." Change. Washington, DC, Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation/Heldref Publications, July/August, 2003.
Faced with dire financial circumstances, higher education must restructure or lose promising innovations in teaching -and learning. This article offers three organizational principles and seven transformative actions that can lead to improvements in the quality of student learning and the nature of faculty work.
Kuh, G. "Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement." Change. Washington, DC, Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation/Heldref Publications, May/June 2001.
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) surveys freshmen and seniors by institution and provides comparative information to institutions to help focus efforts to improve the undergraduate experience. This article explains the history and origins of NSSE, issues related to the design and implementation of NSSE, and policy questions about ways that NSSE data can be used for improvement.
Leskes, A. Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. National Panel Report. Washington, DC, Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002.
This report proposes a dramatic reorganization of undergraduate education to ensure a quality education, one that prepares students for emerging challenges in the workplace, in a diverse democracy, and in a global society. It proposes specific actions to enhance the quality of student learning.
"Louisiana State University National Flagship Action Agenda: 2003-2010." Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 2003.
The LSU National Flagship Action Agenda: 2003-2010 is available on the LSU website under Planning and Review. It contains six objectives related to research productivity, quality of graduate students and programs, quality of undergraduate students and programs, quality of campus life, assessment of progress, and funding sources. Actions and outcomes are identified for each objective,
National Research Council of the National Academies. Preparing for the Revolution: information Technology and the Future of the Research University. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 2002.
This report examines the implications of rapidly emerging technological innovations for the teaching, research, service and outreach activities of the research university. It also suggests issues that need to be discussed and strategies to address them, including new forms of communication and collaboration.
Shapiro, N. & Levine, J. Creating Learning Communities: A Practical Guide for Winning Support, Organizing Change and Implementing Programs. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.
This book explains the theory behind the use of learning communities and describes various types and models of learning communities. It also addresses some of the issues that must be addressed in implementing learning communities.
Smith. B.L. "The Challenge of Learning Communities as a Growing National Movement," Peer Review, Summer/Fall 2001, Vol. 3, No. 4/Vol. 4, No 1. Washington, DC, Association of American Colleges & Universities, 2001.
This article provides a brief history of learning communities and examines some of the challenges and promises related to learning communities as innovations.
The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New York: State University of New York, Stony Brook, 1998.
This report calls for dramatic changes in undergraduate education in research universities. It maintains that undergraduates should benefit from unique opportunities and resources available in research universities and that graduates should be articulate and adept in the techniques and methods in their fields, ready to enter either professional roles or advanced graduate study.
Twigg, C. "Improving Quality and Reducing Cost: Designing for Effective Learning." Change. Washington, DC, Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation/Heldref Publications, July/August 2003.
This article proposes that course redesign using technology and active learning principles can improve student learning and reduce institutional costs. A variety of strategies are offered for moving good pedagogical practice to scale through the use of technology.
Web Links
Study Group Survey http://www.cae.lsu.edu/survey
LSU Flagship Agenda http://www.lsu.edu/flagship
LSU SACSCOC http://www.lsu.edu/sacscoc
LSU Planning and Review http://www.lsu.edu/planning
Sample learning outcomes from Greater Expectations
http://www.greaterexpectations.org/briefing_papers/GoalsForLiberalLearning.html
Greater Expectations http://www.greaterexpectations.org
Final Report of the General Education Learning Outcomes Assessment
Committee 1996-2000 http://report.cae.lsu.edu/geloacreport1b.1-16-01.htm
Example of LSU Architecture Students in Civic Engagement
Here's an example of civic engagement on LSU's
campus, http://www.lsu.edu/highlights/033/index.html
Service-Learning Example
Here's a link to some Service-Learning Work being done on LSU's campus, http://www.lsu.edu/highlights/031/play.html
Campus Compact
A national coalition (of which Chancellor Emmert is a member) committed to the civic
purposes of higher education. http://www.compact.org/
The Carnegie Foundation Launched an Initiative on the Doctorate called
“Re-envisioning the PhD,” stating “that it is timely to return to first principles, and ask "What
is the purpose of doctoral education?" Taken broadly, we believe the answer to be, to educate
and prepare those to whom we can entrust the vigor, quality, and integrity of the field. We
call such a person a “steward of the discipline”.” TTTThttp://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CID/
LSU ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS CHRONOLOGY
1. January 20, 1984 The Board of Supervisors approved a proposal establishing a requirement of 172 specific high school units for admission to the University, effective Fall 1988. No minimum grade point average (gpa) or ACT score was mentioned.
2. July 28, 1989 The Board of Supervisors approved an LSU Faculty Senate proposal requiring a minimum 2.00 gpa on the 172 units, effective Fall 1990.
3. June 28, 1991 Vice Chancellor Carolyn Hargrave wrote members of the Board of Supervisors summarizing discussions of her April 1991 meeting with them about the impact of a 2.3 gpa on student success at LSU.
4. April 21, 1992 A document, Comparison of Entrance Requirements at Selected Universities, was distributed at the meeting of the ad hoc committee of selected LSU faculty and members of the Board of Supervisors which had been formed to discuss proposed changes in admission requirements.
5. April 23, 1992 Ms. Elaine Abell, a member of the ad hoc committee, wrote other committee members who were on the Board of Supervisors supporting the proposed enhancement of admission requirements.
6. May 8, 1992 The Board of Supervisors approved revised admission requirements utilizing three standards. Included in the third standard was a 2.3 gpa effective Fall1995.
7. June 4, 1992 In a memo to Lisa Harris, Director of LSU Admissions, Vice Chancellor Haden advised the following concerning the three standards:
8. May 5, 1997 Chancellor Jenkins asked that the Faculty Senate consider raising the admission standards again for new freshmen.
9. May 6, 1998 The Faculty Senate approved the proposal made by the Admissions, Standards, and Honors (ASH) Committee to raise the admission standards for new freshmen with the goal of increasing success at LSU as demonstrated by increased retention and accelerated and improved graduation rates. A minimum ACT score of 20 and a 2.5 gpa on the required 172 units were approved along with alternative paths for admission that predicted similar levels of academic success. The proposed standards were approved for implementation in Fall 2000 with the intent of raising the requirements again in 2002 to a minimum 21 ACT and 2.8 gpa on the required academic units.
10. July 10, 1998 The new admission standards for Fall 2000 were presented to and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
11. February 9, 2000 Changes in admission standards for transfer students proposed by the ASH Committee were approved by the Faculty Senate. These changes made the admission criteria for transfer students comparable to the criteria for first-time students entering LSU. Students with previous college or university work from regionally accredited institutions would be considered for admission if they have an overall 2.50 gpa or better on all college work attempted, including a college-level course in English and in mathematics (above remedial). Transfer applicants who have earned fewer than 30 hours of college-level work (above remedial) must also meet the requirements for freshman admission. Applicants who have earned more than 60 semester hours of college-level work must also be accepted by their intended senior college.
12. April 4, 2000 The Faculty Senate approved, with amendments, proposed changes in admission standards for Fall 2002 recommended by the ASH Committee . A 20 ACT and a 2.8 gpa on the required 172 academic units along with alternative paths for entry that predicted similar level of success were approved. In addition, rank in class combined with a minimum ACT score was included as an admission option. The approved changes also included the stipulation that students admitted to the University must be eligible to enroll in college-level English and mathematics courses. The next change in standards was suggested to be made for Fall 2004 with the intent of raising the requirements to a minimum 1000 SAT/21 ACT and 3.0 grade point average on the academic requirements.
13. July 14, 2000 Changes in admission standards to become effective in Fall 2002 were approved by the Board of Supervisors.
14. December 3, 2001 ASH recommended to the Faculty Senate that the next change in Admission Standards should become effective in Fall 2005 instead of Fall 2004. The Committee felt that more time was needed to determine the impact of the changes in Fall 2000 admission standards before moving forward with the next change.
15. May 8, 2002 The ASH Committee proposed to the Faculty Senate changes in admission standards to become effective Fall 2005. These changes included a score of 1000 SAT/21 ACT and a 3.0 gpa on18 required academic units (instead of 172) along with alternative paths for admission that predicted a similar level of success. Rank in class was combined with a minimum academic gpa on the 18 required units instead of SAT/ACT as a better predictor of success and offered an alternate admission path to students. The stipulation that students be eligible for college-level coursework continued.
16. October 2, 2002 The Faculty Senate approved the changes in admission standards to become effective Fall 2005 as proposed by the ASH Committee.
17. March 12, 2003 The Faculty Senate approved increasing the minimum required SAT/ACT score from 1000/21 to 1030/22 for all incoming freshmen effective Fall 2005.