5.1 Overview and Policymaking

1. Responsibility for Curriculum Design, Approval, and Implementation

2. New Degrees, Majors, Programs, and Academic Units

3. Provisions for Periodic, Systematic Review

5.2 Undergraduate General Education Requirements: Core Curriculum

5.3 Undergraduate Degree Programs

5.4 Provisions for Special Populations of Students

5.4.A Honors Program

5.4.B Remedial Courses and Academic Tutoring

5.4.C Academic Services for Disabled Students

5.5 Facilities for Learning and Information Literacy

5.6 Teaching and Learning

5.5.A Teaching

1. Syllabi

2. Teaching Evaluations

3. Rewarding Good Teaching

4. Innovation in Teaching

5.6.B Learning

1. Advisement

2. Scheduling of Classes

3. Assessment

5.7 University College

5.8 Internal Academic Units

5.8.A Agriculture

5.8.B Arts & Science

5.8.C Business Administration

5.8.D Education

5.8.E Engineering

5.8.F Graduate Programs - Interdisciplinary

5.8.G Human & community Sciences

5.8.H Journalism

5.8.I Medicine

5.8.J Mines

5.8.K Vice President for Academic Affairs - Undergraduate Programs

5.9 Summary of Major Recommendations

The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) is one of only two doctoral-degree granting institutions in the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) and the leading research institution in the state. Its student body numbers 11,230 from all 50 states and more than 60 foreign countries.

UNR offers 30 Doctoral, 3 Educational Specialist, 58 Masters, and 69 Baccalaureate degree programs, through an administrative structure of 10 schools and colleges, including: Agriculture, Arts and Science, Business Administration, Continuing Education, Education, Engineering, Human and Community Sciences, Journalism, Medicine, and Mines. Of these degree programs, 9 are interdisciplinary programs administered by the Graduate School or the Office of Academic Affairs. Twenty-five degree programs, housed in the Colleges of Business Administration, Education, Engineering, Journalism, Medicine, Mines, Human and Community Sciences, and Arts and Science, are externally accredited. Appendix V-A shows regular graduate and undergraduate student enrollment by academic degree program, for Fall and Spring from 1991-92 to 1995-96.

UNR also offers a number of non-degree/certificate programs in the Colleges of Agriculture (Agriculture Certificate); Engineering (Mining Construction); Business Administration (Gaming Management); Education (Teacher Licensure); and Human and Community Sciences (Gerontology Certificate); and in Continuing Education (Not-for-profit Management, Public Management, Human Resources Management, Paralegal, Supervisory Management, and Heritage Resource Management). The Intensive English Language Center administers a non-credit English as a Second Language program to international students wishing to gain admission to UNR.

This standard deals with the undergraduate educational program and its effectiveness. An ongoing process of academic master planning began at UNR in the early 1990s; Standard I describes that process and its relationship to the institution’s mission and goals. The undergraduate program is central to several of those goals. Since the 1988 Self Study, UNR has initiated a Core Curriculum (described below) that places special value on a liberal arts foundation, seeks to develop students’ basic verbal, oral, computational, analytical, and computer skills, and includes a diversity requirement reflective of UNR’s newest goals. The overviews completed by individual colleges and schools (included as Standard V-C) and academic department and program self-studies (on file for the accreditation team) describe how those specific units seek to fulfill UNR’s stated missions. Graduate and continuing education programs are discussed in Standards XI and VI, respectively.

In fall 1995, 73% of the applicants to the university were admitted, and 60% of the admitted applicants enrolled. Slightly more than 20% of the students admitted were from out of state. The mean SAT combined score for students admitted in 1995 was 928, compared to 904 in 1992. The mean composite score on the ACT in 1992 was 22. This figure has not changed since then.

Annualized headcount enrollment has increased by 4.9% since 1991-92. The composition of the student body has changed over the past five years in the following ways:

1) minority enrollment has increased by 3%

2) transfer student enrollment has increased by 16.4%, the majority of these students transferring from out-of-state institutions

3) part-time enrollment of undergraduates has increased by 5.3%

4) full-time enrollment of graduate students has increased by 6.6%.

This trend points to an increasingly diverse student body, suggesting a need for diversification of services to support them. Several elements have changed little: international student enrollment is up by less than 1% over the reporting period. International students in fall, 1996, numbered 757, 6.74% of the student body (International students engaged in English training are full-time students and are reflected in figures on international students). Proportions of female (53%) and graduate (25%) students have also remained constant.

UNR s rate of growth is higher than most other institutions of higher learning in northern Nevada (i.e., TMCC, GBC, and WNCC). Table V-1 shows annualized headcount enrollment growth for the community colleges and universities in the UCCSN. At the same time, UNR is experiencing greater competition for students with community colleges now than five years ago. Contributing factors may include:

(1) Students may take courses at the community colleges for roughly half UNR’s per-credit cost due to an increased emphasis on articulation of classes across the UCCSN.

(2) Higher admission standards: In 1995, the university raised its undergraduate admissions standard from a GPA of 2.25 for high school graduates to 2.50. The Academic Master Plan for 1997-2001 proposes an additional increase from 2.50 to 2.75 for in-state students, and 3.0 for out-of-state students.

(3) Non-traditional and part time students may find course scheduling at community colleges more convenient than at UNR.

More detailed information on the student body can be found in the UNR Databook, which is available for the accreditation team.

The UNR 1996-97 General Catalog and the Fall 1996 Class Schedule accompany this report. The University General Catalog contains front matter on the university calendar, degrees offered and credits required, the university's mission and goals, admission and registration procedures, various academic policies and regulations, fee and expense details, services and activities for students, and student conduct information. The body of the Catalog provides information on the core curriculum, the various graduate and undergraduate degree programs offered, the organizational structure of the university, and the names and qualifications of the faculty. The Graduate School is currently preparing a separate catalog for graduate programs, which will be available by the fall of 1997. The General Catalog is distributed at no charge to all staff, and is sold for five dollars to students through the ASUN Book Store. The Class Schedule contains front matter on application for graduation, student orientation, enrollment procedures and policies, fees, registration procedures, and student services. The body of the schedule lists course offerings. The Class Schedule is available during the last month of the prior semester in the Admissions and Records Office and at the Cashier's Office.

The academic year consists of two semesters of 16 weeks each, with at least 14 full weeks of classroom instruction. The University also offers instruction over the summer. These offerings occur in one 3-week mini-term and two 5-week sessions.

Direct responsibility for the educational program rests with the core curriculum and with academic departments and programs. These are overseen by several wider boards and committees. In theory, departments have Action Plans, mandated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) in 1994. Colleges oversee curriculum through internal committees. The University Courses and Curriculum Committee reports to the Vice President for Instruction and Undergraduate Program (VPI) (under the VPAA). Many curricular issues related to the Core Curriculum also fall under the aegis of the Core Curriculum Board (described below, in section 5.2: General Education). The Academic Standards Committee, which reports to the Faculty Senate, also deals with issues of academic policy (for instance, policies on academic dishonesty and internships).

1. Responsibility for Curriculum Design, Approval & Implementation. The following procedures govern all curricular changes affecting the University General Catalog, including:

(1) addition of new courses

(2) changes to existing courses in course number, prerequisites, in title, credit hours, in distribution of hours between lecture and laboratory, in course descriptions

(3) deletion of courses

(4) changes in requirements for a degree, major, or program

(5) alteration of requirements for a minor

(6) establishment of any course as a requirement.

The above procedures also govern the establishment of minor programs of study. Any department offering an approved academic major or any organized interdisciplinary committee or board may propose an academic minor for consideration. All approved minors must specify their requirements in the General Catalog. All interdisciplinary minor programs must be submitted through the Interdisciplinary Programs Board.

2. New Degrees, Majors, Programs, and Academic Units. The process for adding or changing degrees, majors, programs, departments, schools, colleges or other structural organizations is as follows:

Changes in degrees, majors, and programs since 1991 are summarized in Table V-2.

In the institutional review process, proposals must specify:

The campus institutional process has been the subject of some discussion recently. The Board of Regents has required that all new proposals be anticipated in campus academic master plans, and has suggested that all campuses develop processes to consider and evaluate the relative merits of proposals in light of existing resource shortages. The 1997-2001 Academic Master Plan (AMP) calls for the establishment of such a process, which the Acting VPAA has designed (in consultation with the Faculty Senate Executive Board) and will initiate in spring 1997 (See also Standard I).

3. Provisions for Periodic, Systematic Review. Review and change to academic programs occurs for a variety of reasons: external demands of accrediting bodies, internal initiative by departments and programs, and directives and suggestions from the University Courses and Curriculum Committee (for instance, the recommendation in 1994-95 that departments reconsider, and if necessary delete, courses that had not been taught in several years).

The process of Program Review, initiated by mandate of the Board of Regents in 1993-94, establishes a regular, formal occasion for departments to evaluate their programs. Its purpose is to provide programs with an opportunity to revisit their aims and objectives, review their accomplishments, and plan for the future. The process involves a comprehensive self-study, a review by an external team of faculty peers, and report to the Board of Regents. The Office of University Assessment manages the program review process, under supervision from the VPI and the VPAA.

Although these reviews are not shared with the university at large, departments have commented on the process. On the positive side, departments have reported gaining a much better understanding of themselves, benefiting from the demand to set goals for the future, and finding external reviewers' reports very helpful. On the negative side, departments express concern over the work required to complete a self study, the non-responsiveness of administration to their self studies and needs assessments, and the potential consequences of exposing their weaknesses (See Standard I). In addition, programs subject to external disciplinary accreditation are reluctant to undergo another evaluative process, given the demands on their time and energy. Finally, the administration expresses frustration that these reviews often do not address ways of optimizing existing resources. The self-study guidelines for program review have been revised (effective, fall 1997) to require analyses of how existing resources might be used more effectively to achieve program goals. However, further revision of the guidelines may be necessary to achieve this outcome (See also Standard I and XI).

The original plan for program review called for a review of all academic programs on a 5-year cycle, including those accredited by external agencies. The cycle is lengthening, however. To date, only 15 programs have undergone this process. Another 17 programs are scheduled for 1996-97. It is strongly recommended that program review be continued at UNR, with increased support and commitment from the Office of Academic Affairs. In order for such review to be effective, however, results must be incorporated into on-going planning and budgeting activities (See Standard I).

D. Issues and Recommendations: Educational Policies. Four large issues have emerged for further discussion, either recently on campus or in the self-study process itself.

5.2. Undergraduate General Education Requirements: Core Curriculum

Discussions about the establishment of a core curriculum began in 1981, with the appointment of a task force to study the UNR curriculum and various national models of general education. This task force recommended retaining the English 102 and constitution requirements, as well as developing new courses in "Civilization" and "Science and Technology." By 1987, only one of these recommendations had led to action, namely a one-semester upper-division course entitled "Ideas, Values & Culture," which was taught on an experimental basis to approximately 200 students. Campus-wide discussions continued during the 1988 institutional self-study, and culminated in a task force to make specific recommendations for a core curriculum. The university implemented the core curriculum in the fall of 1989, and it has continued to evolve. Thanks to the initiative of faculty, for instance, a specific emphasis on diversity was added in 1994.

The creation of an integrated core curriculum has played an important role in reinvigorating the academic life of the campus. It has challenged faculty to rethink the way that they teach undergraduate courses and has produced a campus-wide discussion about the purpose of a college education and how best to achieve educational goals. Because the core cuts across disciplines, and includes all colleges in the university, it has created an unprecedented dialogue between faculty members who otherwise might not come into contact with each other . The majority of faculty are supportive of the goals of the core, and those who have been involved in it feel that student achievement has risen as a result of it. At the same time, while more students need to understand the thinking behind the core s design, senior exit interviews indicate that growing numbers of students are responding to the core s intellectual challenge. The fact that the president of the university has been highly supportive of the core curriculum has resonated throughout the culture of UNR and given a centrality to undergraduate education that did not exist before.

The university's commitment to the core curriculum is evident in its Mission and Goals statement (reprinted in Standard I). The university's commitment may also be seen in the fact that the core curriculum constitutes approximately one third of the credits required for an undergraduate degree.

The Dean of Arts and Science serves as the Director of the Core Curriculum and appoints a Coordinator, a faculty member holding a .5 administrative position, to manage it. The Core Curriculum Board, composed of faculty from UNR’s various colleges and schools and representatives from the regional community colleges, oversees the curriculum. Board members are appointed by the Director of the Core Curriculum for unlimited terms. The Board meets monthly to set policy, to approve and monitor the content of core classes for suitability and adequacy, and to evaluate the extent to which the core curriculum is achieving its purposes. The Board also supervises several content-area sub-committees, appointed by the Director and Coordinator, whose principal responsibilities are to evaluate course proposals for inclusion in the core and to assist faculty in developing such proposals.

A. Objectives of the Core Curriculum. The first objective of the core curriculum is to foster creative and disciplined thinking by teaching students: 1) to think, read, and write critically and effectively; 2) to engage in quantitative and logical analysis; 3) to use scientific methods and construct, test and apply theories; and 4) to understand the imaginative conception and expression of experience through literature and the fine arts. Second, the core is designed to enable students to understand themselves in relation to the ideas and values of western culture, American culture, and other cultures around the world. Finally, the core aims to provide students with an appreciation for the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary intellect. More specific aims of each of the content areas in the core curriculum are described below.

B. Content of the Core Curriculum. The core curriculum consists of 33-39 credits from the following areas: English (6 credits), mathematics (3 credits), natural sciences (6 credits), social sciences (3 credits), fine arts (3 credits), Western Traditions (9 credits), diversity courses (3 credits), and capstone courses (6 credits). It mixes conventional and innovative content: the three-semester Western Traditions sequence and the diversity and capstone courses offered in a variety of departments reflect the creativity and interdisciplinarity of faculty across the university. The curriculum is vertical, in that the mathematics courses must be completed before the natural science courses, the English courses are prerequisite to admission to the Western Traditions courses, and the diversity and capstone requirements are designed to build upon the groundwork established in Western Traditions. The curriculum is also horizontal, explicitly designed to foster quantitative skills, writing, and critical thinking across all content areas in the core.

English Courses aim to teach students to express their ideas about a topic to a given audience precisely and clearly. Students are introduced to critical analysis, imaginative expression, and academic writing. Students are also taught to analyze and evaluate ideas and to synthesize material from a wide variety of sources. Further, core English courses stress organization, structure, diction, mechanics, and grammar.

Mathematics Courses are designed to teach basic mathematical skills and concepts, and their application to other content areas.

Natural Science Courses have several guiding principles, including use of scientific method, application of appropriate mathematical techniques to analyze data, critical review of scientific literature, and scientific writing.

Social Science Courses aim to provide students with an understanding of human behavior in scientific perspective, and to enable students to appreciate the relevance of science to their own lives and to contemporary social issues and problems.

Fine Arts Courses emphasize the understanding and appreciation of visual art, drama, and music. These courses explore the interaction between the artist and the cultural milieu, provide direct experience with works of art, provide models and standards for analyzing and interpreting works of art, and expose students to artists' styles and works from different historical periods and cultures.

Western Traditions Courses seek to provide knowledge of major intellectual trends in the context of economic, political, and social developments through the study of primary philosophical and literary texts.

Diversity Courses are designed to help students understand and appreciate cultural and gender differences within our own society, value global perspectives, and understand the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Capstone Courses, which students take at the senior level, aim to broaden their perspectives beyond the major discipline and provide an opportunity to integrate previous work in the major and the core. These courses promote critical thinking through analyses of complex issues in substantial pieces of writing.

C. Academic Support Services for the Core Curriculum. The Mathematics Center, operated by the Department of Mathematics, provides instruction and mathematics placement testing services. The Writing Center, operated by the Department of English, provides tutoring in writing for students in the core curriculum as well as in other university courses (See also Standard IX).

D. Evaluation of the Core Curriculum. The Core Curriculum may be evaluated by a number of means. However, it is important to note that measures of evaluation, like the Core Curriculum itself, are still in their incipient stage.

Several substantial awards from federal and state agencies attest to the strength and quality of the Core Curriculum. Among them have been a grant from the National Science Foundation and two grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The NSF grant was to enhance mathematics proficiency by incorporating quantitative components into non-mathematics courses across the core curriculum. An outcome evaluation of this effort is underway. The first NEH grant was targeted at faculty preparation to develop and teach courses in Western Traditions. The second, a challenge grant for which UNR is currently in the process of raising its matching funds, will create distinguished professorships in Western Traditions, provide home departments with support, and endow distinguished teaching assistantships. The Nevada Humanities Committee and KNPB-TV also funded a series of Western Traditions lectures to be broadcast to the community.

Faculty involvement in the core curriculum has increased over time. This involvement has significantly affected the humanities faculty in particular, whose substantial responsibilities for Western Traditions have created new opportunities for collaboration and professional development. In addition, capstone and diversity courses are now offered by a variety of departments in many colleges. Support for the core curriculum is not uniform across the university, however. A survey of 149 faculty, conducted in the fall of 1996, revealed that 18.1% viewed the core curriculum negatively and another 20.8% had no opinion of its value. Possibly these responses reflect the views of faculty in colleges other than Arts & Science, although departmental self-studies from several colleges credit the core curriculum with improving students foundation for their major programs of study.

To this point, students’ learning gains in the core curriculum course have not been formally or specifically evaluated against those courses’ stated aims. Therefore, only more general sources are available to indicate perceptions of students’ learning in the general areas addressed by the core: a College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ) given in 1993; Alumni Survey data for 1993-94 graduates; a 1994 Employer Survey of Recent Graduates; and Senior Exit Interviews with 1995 graduates.

These instruments and methods were employed as follows: The CSEQ, a substantial inventory of students campus experiences, is used by many colleges and universities across the country. Using class lists as the sampling frame, the CSEQ was given to a random sample of 439 undergraduate students enrolled in classes in spring 1993--when many UNR students were still not required to take the core curriculum, having entered UNR before its inception. Alumni Surveys were sent to the last known addresses of all 1993-1994 graduates of undergraduate degree programs. Approximately 50% responded (N= 455 for 1994; N = 425 for 1993). Possible employers of UNR graduates were identified from job postings at the UNR Career Development Center and responses to a 1992 alumni survey. Usable responses were received from 94 employers. Finally, half of the graduating seniors (randomly selected) were invited to participate in Senior Exit Interviews in spring 1995. Forty-seven students, or approximately 4% of the graduating class, were interviewed by faculty members outside the students' programs.

Data from these sources should be interpreted with considerable caution for a number of reasons. First, except for the employer data, all are self-reported impressions of learning gain and satisfaction. Second, students may not appreciate the value of a general education until sometime after graduation, as these skills continue to be useful and important to career success. Third, these data reflect students’ experiences not only in the core curriculum (if they had been subject to the core curriculum), but also in their major programs. Fourth, all the respondents were self-selected. Finally, given the very small sample size, Senior Exit Interviews do not represent the student body.

A comparative analysis of learning outcomes of students who were and were not subject to the core curriculum based on earlier survey data is underway. Until this analysis is completed, we have only the limited data just described. The conclusions to be drawn from these data, whatever their limitations, might serve as baseline measures against which subsequent outcomes of the core curriculum may be assessed.

The following information is intended as a summary; the complete survey information is available to the accreditation team in the Office of University Assessment. More than two thirds of the students and alumni reported substantial learning gains in writing and critical thinking; graduates’ writing and critical thinking skills were rated excellent or good by over 80% of employers. Over half the students reported substantial gains in their understanding of history, values, and ethical standards. Although perceptions of learning gain in mathematics, science, and the fine arts were much lower, over 80% of employers rated graduates’ mathematical skills and quantitative reasoning as good or excellent. Graduates’ computing skills received lower marks from employers, however: just under three quarters rated them as excellent or good. Both surveys and exit interviews indicated concern over large class sizes, lack of choice in the core, and variation in quality from course to course. While not a specific aim of the core, several seniors also indicated inadequate preparation in oral communication. At the same time, most seniors responded positively to capstone courses, and all of the students interviewed at exit who had taken a diversity course viewed it as a valuable and positive experience.

E. Issues and Recommendations: Core Curriculum. Several large issues, identified by the Core Curriculum Board and/or in the self-study process, will confront the Core Curriculum in the next few years.

recruitment, retention, and timely graduation of their students. To this end, we recommend the following:

A. Honors Program

UNR established an honors program in 1962, requiring 18 credits including a senior thesis for an honors degree. The 1988 accreditation review team recommended that the program be significantly reshaped: it was too small, had very little impact on campus, and played no role in recruiting top students to the university. A new program was initiated in 1989, with a class of 50 students. 279 students were enrolled in fall 1996. The new program aims to provide an opportunity for Nevada's top students to achieve their full academic potential within the state, to enhance the quality of life in the state and the nation through the contributions of honors graduates, and to increase the academic standards and reputation of the university. The success of the new program can be seen in its recognition as one of the 55 best honors programs at state universities (Robert R. Sullivan and Karin R. Randolph, Ivy League Programs at State School Prices, 1994).

Applicants to the Honors Program must have a minimum GPA of 3.5, provide two letters of recommendation from teachers or professors, and write a short essay. For good standing in the program, students must complete at least six honors credits per year and maintain a 3.25 GPA. To graduate with an Honors degree, students must complete 30 credits of course work with an Honors designation, and complete and orally defend a senior thesis project. To receive Honors credit for a course, students must earn at least a B-.

There are two ways to complete Honors credits: taking Honors courses, and taking courses in the student’s major for Honors credit. Honors courses include small sections of core curriculum courses (such as Western Traditions) in the first two years--a feature that has been described as the hallmark of high-quality honors programs (Sullivan and Randolph)--and capstone and diversity courses specially designated as Honors courses. Honors credits in major courses (numbered 300 and above) may be earned upon the faculty member’s written agreement, filed in the Honors Program office.

The Honors Program’s success stems significantly from the sense of community among its students. The Program sponsors many activities for its students, such as pizza seminars with faculty members, retreats, symposia, attendance at fine-arts events, and community service. In addition, the Program’s home in Lincoln Hall provides a center for Honors activity: not just the program offices, but also dormitory space and generous, newly refurbished common rooms. There is an Honors web-page and gopher site, and all Honors students must acquire computer accounts and subscribe to a daily Honors message board and calendar. An Honors Student Council, elected by members of the program, acts as student representatives to program faculty and staff and the Honors Board.

The Program is managed by a faculty director with a .6 FTE administrative assignment, who reports to the VPI. Assisting the Director is an Honors Board of faculty from a variety of departments and colleges. The Honors Board decides which courses are designated as "honors courses" and reviews all applications to the program. The Honors Program is beginning to assess its effectiveness by tracking graduation and retention rates, and maintains information about its students placement in graduate and professional schools (including a web page about its alumni).

B. Remedial Courses and Academic Tutoring. For students ill-prepared in English and Mathematics, UNR offers courses through the Core Writing Program and Mathematics Department, respectively. English 1 and Math 1 cannot count toward baccalaureate degrees. Tutoring is available in several locations: the Writing Center, the Math Center, and the Academic Skills Center. In 1995-96, the Writing Center recorded a 54.5% increase over 1991-92; the Math Center, 3018 visits (no comparison with 1991-92 is possible, since the Math Center did not yet exist then). The Academic Skills Center, part of Student Services, provides small-group tutoring for over 180 courses, individual tutoring sessions for disabled students, walk-in tutoring labs in math and other highly requested subjects, and other forms of academic assistance (See also Standard IX).

C. Academic Services for Disabled Students. Through Student Support Services (a division of Academic Support Services, within Student Services), UNR provides academic assistance to students with learning and physical disabilities. These include adaptive equipment, alternative testing, note-taking and tape-recording in classes, priority seating in classrooms, and books on tape. In the core curriculum, the two-semester sequence of Math 19 and 119, designed for students with learning or physical disabilities, fulfills the math requirement.

A variety of computer facilities for general student use exist on campus. These are described in tableV-4.

Calculations by Information Resources and Technology (IRT) have revealed that there is currently one computer per 100 students on campus.

The quality of the educational program depends on the quality of teaching. Effective teaching takes many shapes. Different disciplines and different levels of instruction call for diverse methods. Therefore it is difficult to generalize about the nature of teaching at the university. This section addresses several wide-ranging issues; for discipline-specific examples and discussion, see the departmental self-studies (on file for the accreditation team).

1. Syllabi. In every course, students should know what is expected of them and what they can expect to learn. Ideally this is the function of the course syllabus. However, the university has no official policies with respect to syllabi, and indeed does not require them. As a result, syllabi are not distributed in some classes; where they are, they vary widely in content and completeness.

2. Teaching Evaluations. Teaching evaluations by students are required of all UNR courses and are necessary for a number of important purposes. Not all teaching practices are

equally effective in producing learning, and students’ evaluations can help instructors to assess the effectiveness of their teaching styles and methods. Student evaluations can also become one of the multiple indices needed to assess teaching for the purposes of annual evaluation, promotion, tenure, and teaching honors. At present, different departments and colleges use different evaluation forms, making comparative evaluations across departments and colleges difficult. Multiple indices of teaching effectiveness are required for tenure and promotion and are desirable for merit evaluations as well (See Standard VII).

3. Rewarding Good Teaching. The university and many of its colleges honor outstanding teaching through annual awards. The procedures for these awards vary, but usually include nomination by students and classroom observation by award committees. It is important that teaching honors--like all assessment and reward of teaching--consider multiple measures of success, including both the teaching process and evidence of students’ learning and commitment. It is equally important that the university honor its commitment to good teaching, by rewarding it in tangible ways besides awards to a select few each year.

4. Innovation in Teaching. Educational programs need fresh thinking and innovative teaching to remain vital. UNR encourages innovation through its Instructional Enhancement Grants program, which makes modest awards through a competitive process. This program has suffered financial cutbacks in the last few years. The VPI also sponsors workshops called Ideas for Professors, open to about two dozen faculty members each year and led by a teaching-award winner from the College of Education.

To understand our students’ learning, we must pay attention to more than just the quality or characteristics of our teaching. The increasingly diverse demographics of our student body require us to reevaluate how we advise students, schedule classes, and assess learning.

1. Advisement. Academic advisement at UNR occurs at several levels, and in theory throughout a student’s education. New students have access to advisement during New Student Orientation (See Standard IX). Newly admitted students without declared majors are assigned to a Student Services faculty member who attempts to help them select a major course of study. For students who are unable to determine a major, academic counseling is provided until they select a major, or at least a pre-major in a school or college. Transfer students are required to affiliate with a school or college. Once students declare majors, they are assigned to either faculty advisors or satellite advisement centers in their departments, schools, or colleges. Detailed information about program and degree requirements is available in academic departments. The College of Engineering and the School of Journalism require majors to see advisors every semester in order to register for classes.

Academic advising has been under study at UNR for several years, because student surveys, senior exit interviews, alumni surveys, and focus groups all identified advising as among the university s chief weaknesses. Academic Advising Surveys in 1993 and 1996 addressed:

1) the advising process across campus

2) students' experiences and expectations of advising

3) students' evaluation of advising effectiveness

4) specific advising issues important to students

5) student suggestions for improving advising.

Students in Western Traditions and capstone courses (including at least one capstone from each college) completed this survey (N = 994 in 1993, 637 in 1996). These courses were selected because their enrollments reflected a cross-section of university students; the absence of freshmen in this sample was not seen as a problem since they had little experience with academic advising.

These surveys revealed the following (not all students responded to all questions, hence numbers do not always add up to 100%):

1993 1996

Department faculty member 64% 54%

Self 24% 24%

Friends 1% 6%

Sufficient to address needs 74% 82%

Did not meet during school year 10% 8%

Less than 5 minutes 8% 9%

5 - 15 minutes 55% 48%

16 - 30 minutes 32% 32%

More than 30 minutes 4% 9%

Satisfied/very satisfied 76% 59%

Satisfied/very satisfied 67% 51%

Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied 15% 19%

Student-Advisor Communication: My advisor is approachable and easy to talk to.

Agree 75% 56%

Disagree 11% 15%

Effectiveness of Advising: would recommend my advisor to other students.

Agree/strongly agree 58% 50%

Effectiveness of Advising: would go see my advisor if I were thinking of quitting school.

Agree 51% 43%

While many students remain dissatisfied with various aspects of advisement--and while dissatisfaction may have increased, not diminished, since 1993--students clearly value good advisement. In a 1994 survey of 1015 students, 83% recommended that advisement be mandatory.

Good advisement requires conscientious effort by both faculty and students. Teaching faculty may not be readily accessible, have other professional priorities that conflict or compete with advising, and usually need training in the core curriculum as well as in areas outside their academic expertise. Little such training is now available. Meaningful evaluation of advisors, and rewards for both advisors and departments, are very limited. Few incentives exist to encourage advising relationships beyond the most clerical processes: scheduling, registration, application for graduation. A 1994 Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Advising, convened in response to the student dissatisfaction, recommended mandatory academic advisement in new-student orientation, departmental and institutional policies and rewards for advisors, and a statement about the importance of advisement in all relevant UNR publications. To date, implementation of these recommendations has fallen short. As part of their 1996 report on recruitment and retention, Noel Levitz Consultants noted the unevenness of advisement across campus (See Standard IX). A department-level analysis of data collected on advising is underway, as is a study of effective advising practices where they exist on campus.

Good advisement also requires clear information and adequate resources from the institution, both of which are now lacking. The Student Information System (See Standard IX) is deeply flawed. It neither produces useful lists of dual majors nor tracks minors. It cannot enforce prerequisites, a problem noted in many departmental self-studies. And handbooks for it are out of print and unavailable to advisors. Many departments do not have sufficient clerical staff to keep up-to-date student records. One promising development is the introduction of the computerized Degree Audit System (DARS). DARS will enable both advisors and students to monitor progress through degree programs. This system is presently in use in the School of Journalism and will be phased in for all students by 1998.

2. Scheduling of classes. The AMP calls for a greater emphasis on student-centered scheduling and planning to overcome schedule conflicts among required classes and inconvenient scheduling of lab sessions, and to accommodate an increasing number of non-traditional students.

Most instruction at UNR occurs on campus during the regular fall and spring semesters. The Databook shows the distribution of scheduled instructional activity during fall 1995 and spring 1996, including all regularly scheduled classes, labs, and discussion sessions. Eighty-one percent of the classes were scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. or earlier, with a peak at 2 p.m.. Only the College of Business Administration offered a substantial number of evening classes, with 35% of their offering occurring at 5 p.m. or later. Fewer classes were offered on Fridays than on any other day of the week.

Classes are also taught on campus during the summer, and on modified schedules to accommodate students who are working full time or are otherwise unable to take classes during the regular semesters. UNR’s summer sessions fall under the administrative control of Continuing Education, and receive no state funding. Faculty who choose to teach in summer session are paid per course, according to their rank. Departments receive no FTE credit for summer-school teaching, and thus have little or no incentive to offer courses toward their majors during the summer (See Standard VI).

UNR also offers instruction, mostly in Education and Business Administration, off-campus at a number of sites in Nevada. Distance education program is described in more detail in Standard IV and VI.

3. Assessment. Much of the work of the Office of University Assessment, since its establishment in 1990, has concerned student learning. While limited measures of learning are now available, each has certain interpretive pitfalls. Class grades do not constitute an adequate, objective measure of learning gain for several reasons:

(a) Many factors affect a student’s grade in a course, including course difficulty, variation in grading practices, and learning gain.

(b) Within a major program of study, a student’s grade in any single course does not measure learning gain across the program. Similarly, the vertical nature of the core curriculum suggests that learning gain should occur--and be evaluated--over the course of a student’s university education.

(c) UNR, like many other universities, has experienced a pattern of grade inflation over time as a result of many different variables.

Self-reported measures of satisfaction with learning gains are available from a variety of sources, including student surveys, alumni surveys, employer surveys, and senior exit interviews. However, these data too cannot adequately measure learning gain. Student satisfaction with learning gain is not necessarily the same as learning, for various reasons. Sometimes students do not fully understand the depth or nature of what they have learned until they use their acquired knowledge and skills in subsequent courses, graduate study, or employment. Senior exit interviews and alumni surveys, in particular, can help address this problem. To date, university-wide assessment of learning gain has concentrated primarily on the core curriculum, not on specific major programs of study. Some programs are assessing learning in the major; however, coordination of these efforts with university-wide assessment efforts remains a challenge.

A 1996 survey of departments concerning internal assessment measures (N=39) indicated that approximately 25% collected data on learning gain in their majors. Some track their graduates’ scores on professional exams and placement; others conduct exit interviews with some or all of their graduating seniors. The nature or adequacy of these measures is not known. Standardized test scores of UNR graduates may provide one means of measuring learning gain. A comparison of pre- and post-major standardized test scores of a particular cohort of students may add valuable information, and a pilot study of this sort is being developed. In addition, an analysis of GRE (advanced subject scores) and MCAT by degree program is also underway. Many departments report that they would be willing to conduct other forms of assessment but lack the staff, resources, or software to do so.

Since the last accreditation, UNR has made progress in freshman retention. At the same time, the freshman experience--academic, extracurricular, cultural--has not received adequate attention as an integrated whole. All freshmen take introductory courses in the core curriculum (English, math); generally their other courses are also introductory, often in large lectures. Many sections of freshman courses are taught by graduate students and letter-of-appointment faculty, thus distancing freshmen from regular faculty in their earliest academic experiences. Connections between academics and student services for freshman exist for only a fraction of the incoming class: those in the Freshman Forums (clusters of courses including study groups and introduction to the university, described in Standard IX); and those who participate in a pre-freshman, remedial summer program for about 25 students annually. All new students need a more coordinated program, one that introduces them to the university's culture and expectations, integrates their classroom and out-of-class experiences, and assists them in progressing from general requirements into programs and majors.

Recent discussions about retaining undergraduates, including the self-study process, the fall 1996 Noel Levitz report, and informal evidence from faculty, all point to the end of the sophomore year as a time when significant number of students drop out or simply get lost (See Standard IX, and college and departmental self-studies). As discussed in Standard IX, several factors may contribute to this. The academic factors include (a) progressing from the freshman year courses in the Core Curriculum through the Western Traditions sequence and (b) entering a major program of study.

The design of the core curriculum, including prerequisites (English 101/102 prior to Western Traditions) and recommended sequences (Western Traditions 201, 202, 203), reflects its purposes and works to accomplish them through a coherent progression of courses. Inconsistency in following the curriculum, of course, challenges this coherence. As noted in section 5.5 above, the university's computerized registration system cannot enforce prerequisites, and advisement--both on the part of the university, which should provide it, and the students, who should seek it--often falls short. Better advisement practices across campus should take care of this. More importantly, substantial discussion of the relationship between freshman and sophomore years is necessary: in designing the new core curriculum, faculty and administration understandably focused attention on its new, post-freshman components (Western Traditions, capstone courses).

Successfully entering a major program of study can be complicated. Students must: (a) determine their primary area of intellectual interest, generally in conjunction with developing professional goals, (b) obtain advisement regarding entrance into the major and meeting major program requirements, (c) meet--in several disciplines--strict criteria for admission to the major (a minimum GPA and/or successful completion of prerequisite courses), (d) apply to enter the major, and (e) upon acceptance into the major develop a sense of affiliation with the department and discipline. At each step in this process, which typically occurs during the sophomore year, some students get lost. Some students do not understand all that is expected of them in this process; some do, but do not accomplish it; others make the transition into a major very smoothly.

At present the university does not have a cohesive means of advising students about how to enter majors and integrate their major program of study with their work in the core curriculum. Nor has it addressed what happens as more departments and colleges adopt stricter criteria for admission to majors than the university has for remaining in good academic standing. As a result, some students informally decide upon a major--one not requiring application--but do not formally declare it until they must in order to graduate. Others apply to a major with strict admission criteria and are denied admission. These students often become floaters, upper-division students without an academic home, many of whom end up taking courses outside a program of study until they have accumulated enough credits for a BGS degree.

We strongly recommend campus discussion of a University College at the University of Nevada, Reno. Such a college could provide a university-wide structure to address many of the issues discussed in the self-study process, particularly in department and college self-studies and in Standards V, and IX. Central among these are the issues discussed above: advisement, retention, coherence of the entering student experience, and successful entrance into majors. Our present limited success in these areas comes in no small part because means of addressing problems are not consistent from department to department, college to college; are not coordinated; and seriously lack sufficient resources. A University College could lead and coordinate such efforts across campus. Its establishment--with adequate resources and a clear mandate--would demonstrate the University's commitment to fundamentally improving the quality of undergraduate education.

In particular, a University College could provide (a) a university-wide center specifically charged with improving the quality and cohesiveness of students’ experience in the freshman and sophomore years and (b) a university-wide home for the Core Curriculum, an important step in further integrating the Core with major programs of study as an integral part of the university's culture. A University College could also provide a natural, unifying home for various other university-wide programs that link academics to student-support services and that are currently scattered elsewhere (some in Student Services, some reporting to the VPI, some reporting to Continuing Education). Possible examples include University Seminars, Freshman Forums, the Honors Program, Study Abroad, the Internship Center, programs for transfer students, the BGS degree program, and others.

Establishing a University College must begin with campus-wide planning. This planning should include both academic and student-services faculty, as well as administration and students.

Educational Policies.

1. Bring budget planning and resource allocation together with academic master planning and assessment.

2. In program reviews of low-enrollment programs, assess frankly the advisability of maintaining them.

3. Implement and enforce policy with respect to dual-credit courses.

1. Design and carry out program review of the core curriculum.

2. Consider whether university-wide general education should now exist in a distinct, university-wide administrative home.

3. Develop a more comprehensive and operational picture of core funding, through which to track its allocation and evaluate whether it is sufficient to accomplish the objectives of the core curriculum.

1. Survey all departments to learn about what opportunities for undergraduate research, internships, and access to graduate-level instruction currently exist, and encourage departments to design more such opportunities and provide them with the resources necessary to do so.

2. Continue the cycle of program review and support the process by promptly and effectively addressing the recommendations made by both the departments and the external evaluators.

1. Require complete and adequate course syllabi for all classes. Develop guidelines about the components of an adequate syllabus and promulgate them to all faculty through workshops and relevant campus publications.

2. Use multiple indices in evaluating teaching. Create a standard university-wide teaching evaluation form, to be coupled with specialized evaluation criteria for particular types of instruction or content areas.

3. Implement the recommendations of the 1994 Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Advising.

4. Determine what student-centered scheduling would mean, given a diverse population of students. Investigate and experiment with various scheduling options, considered in relation to the requirements and expectations of the core curriculum and different major programs of study.

5. Develop and implement practices to collect measures of learning gain at all levels of instruction.

6. Develop more refined and better integrated data bases to track process and outcome measures relevant to the educational program.

1. Improve the entering student’s academic experience at UNR.

2. Engage the campus community in a discussion of the advisability of establishing a University College.

College of Agriculture.

Department of Agricultural Economics:

Applied Statistics and Economics

Agricultural Education

Textile Apparel Merchandising

Department of Environmental Resource Sciences:

Environmental Science Forestry; Range; and Wildlife

College of Arts and Science

Department of Art:

Art History and Painting

English Department:

English Language and Linguistics

English Secondary Teaching

Foreign Language and Literatures:

German

Department of Music:

Applied Music

Department of Sociology:

Social Psychology

College of Business Administration

Department of Accounting:

Computer Information Systems

Department of Managerial Sciences:

Human Resources Management and General Management

Department of Curriculum and Instruction:

Elementary Education Physical Education

English Physical Sciences

French Political Science

German Recreation

General Science Social Studies

Health Education Spanish

Home Economics Education Speech Communication

Industrial Education Theater

Journalism Trade & Industrial Education

Mathematics

College of Engineering

Department of Electrical Engineering:

Engineering Physics

College of Human and Community Sciences

Department of Community Health Sciences:

Pre-dental

Department of Health Sciences:

Pre-optometry

Department of Nutrition:

Clinical Dietetics

Nutritional Science

Department of Recreation, Physical Education and Dance:

Fitness Management

School of Journalism

Department of Journalism:

Journalism

School of Mines

Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering:

Metallurgical Engineering

Department of Geology:

Geophysics