Overview

Learning-Centered Tasks

I. Areas of focus/concern in supporting student learning and development

Student Preparation and Remediation

Retention

II. Analysis and Recommendations

Remediation

Recommendation

Conclusion

This section examines the academic and student support services and programs providing preparation and remediation and promoting the retention and academic success of Cal Poly Pomona students, attempting to create an integrated curricular and co-curricular environment responsive to our diverse students’ interests and needs. These programs and services are especially important as we seek to respond to the challenges and problems discussed in the introductory section.

<top of page

Responding to these challenges and problems, Cal Poly Pomona is tested by the central tasks of a learning-centered university:

• Adopting a focus on learning at all levels of institutional operation and educational practice, making the process and progress of student learning the clear, consequential core value and commitment of the institution.
• Renewing a corollary commitment to the student, declaring and demonstrating that determining and addressing students’ educational needs, and advancing student learning and development, are the central activities of university faculty and staff, improving support services such as academic advising and mentoring and providing programs designed around learning communities.

A. Student preparation and remediation:

Introduction

It is no secret that a large number of students enter the university under-prepared for college level courses. How to address this problem has been a subject of debate for many years. The definition of "at-risk" students has grown to include not only those who need to remediate academic skill deficiencies, but to include those students who have learning disabilities, physical disabilities and diverse cultural backgrounds. Returning students, minority students that have been traditionally under-represented, first generation students and English as a Second Language students are now included in the umbrella term of "at-risk". The approach to addressing the problems faced by at-risk students has evolved from that of just offering courses to remove academic deficiencies to addressing social and cultural issues that affect students’ performance. While remediation programs tend to identify academic deficiencies through test scores and address those deficiencies with coursework, developmental programs rely on the psychology of learning. Developmental programs try to identify and develop those psychological skills necessary to conceptual learning. Cal Poly Pomona’s approach to the problem of under-prepared students is a hybrid of the developmental and remedial philosophies. All first-time freshmen entering the California State University System are required to take two tests: the Entry Level Math Test (ELM) and the English Placement Test (EPT). Exemptions are granted for students with high enough scores on the ACT, the SAT I, the SAT II, or students with AP credit. Test scores place students in remedial courses designed to address academic deficiencies (the corrective approach to remediation). The design of the remedial program and courses address the developmental issues. Mandatory laboratories are co-requisite to enrollment in academic courses. The labs address issues such as study skills and cooperative learning. Individual tutoring is made available and students are encouraged to form study groups providing networking and support outside of class. Those students with the lowest scores on the ELM and the EPT are placed in the Intensive Learning Experience (ILE) where they are provided with counseling and more extensive supervision and instruction on the developmental side.

Where we are now

Over fifty percent of the freshmen entering the CSU need at least one remedial course in Math or English. With a 1999 freshman class numbering 31,187 students, the resources needed to administer remedial Math and English programs are very expensive. The CSU spent $10,000,000 on such programs system-wide. At Cal Poly Pomona the situation is reflective of system averages. In Fall of 1999 35.4% of the 2661 entering freshmen (943 students) required to take the ELM failed to score high enough to qualify for a college level Math class and were referred to the Preparatory Mathematics Program (PMP). These students required anywhere from one to three courses to prepare them for a college level General Education Math class. The numbers of students failing to score high enough on the EPT are even worse. Of those students required to take the EPT, 53.8% (1432 students) were subject to taking one to two remedial courses. Since each section of a remedial class usually has a restricted class size to allow for greater contact with the instructor, these figures translate into many sections that need to be offered. Each section requires an instructor. The associated labs are even more restricted in size and each lab employs at least one facilitator. In addition, tutors are hired for one-on-one work. The total cost for the 1999-2000 academic year for the PMP program is $422,780. The cost for the remedial English program for the 1998-1999 academic year was $564,396. With limited department budgets and limited classroom space the regular college level offerings are impacted in a negative way, although all colleges and schools support the remedial program financially.

In 1997, the Chancellor’s Office issued Executive Order 665 (EO 665) to address the problem of currently enrolled students needing remediation. EO 665 requires that students must take the ELM and the EPT prior to enrolling in any classes at the CSU. If a student fails to demonstrate proficiency on either of these tests, they are required to enroll in remedial programs their first quarter on campus. The students then have one calendar year to complete their remedial work or they are administratively disqualified. They must then take their remaining remedial work and general education Math and English classes elsewhere (such as a community college) before they are allowed back in to the CSU. EO 665 was mandated to begin at all campuses in the Fall term of 1999 but select campuses were asked to implement the program early and gather statistics. Cal Poly Pomona was one of the campuses to implement EO 665 in the 1998-1999 academic year. In Fall 1998, 872 students (40.2% of those tested) were referred to the PMP and 1120 students (51.6% of those tested) were required to take remedial English courses. At the end of the calendar year, 16% of the total 1326 students who required some kind of remediation were administratively disqualified as a result of not completing their coursework within the calendar year. Another 2% were given second chances due to extenuating circumstances. More detailed data on the extent to which students in need of remediation became proficient within one year, by system and by campus, can be reviewed at http://www.asd.calstate.edu/performance/remediation.htm. Although no follow up study has been done, the departments have observed over the last two academic years (1998-99 and 99-00) an increased enrollment in and successful completion of GE Math and English courses.

Students who are ELM-exempt or who score high enough on the ELM to qualify for a college level Math class often put off taking their general education Math requirement for as long as possible. During this time, they lose the skills needed for successful completion of a general education or entry-level Math course. In order to identify those students, the Mathematics Department requires that students take the Mathematics Diagnostic Placement Test (MDPT) prior to enrollment in such classes. If students fail to show mastery of skills necessary for the desired class, they are required to take the same remedial courses as EO 665 students in the PMP. The only difference is that they have no time limit and are not subject to dismissal. These students further inflate the number of sections needed to meet the demand for preparatory classes.

The English department reports assessment data in terms of average grades in English 102 and English 104 correlated to grades earned in the remedial classes. The data is broken down into two sets of statistics, native English speakers and English as a Second Language (ESL) students. Two tracks are offered in the English remedial program. Native speakers take a two-quarter sequence, ENG 095 and 096, which concentrates on developing writing skills. These students then take ENG 104 as the mandated English General Education course. ESL students take a two-quarter sequence, ENG 098, 099. These writing courses deal explicitly with the grammatical and rhetorical structures of the English language. ESL students then take a two-quarter sequence ENG 102, 103, which are deemed equivalent to ENG 104.

Most existing assessment data does not reflect the impact of EO 665. The last ten years’ worth of data is pretty consistent. The average grade of all students enrolled in ENG 104 remains steadily in the mid-C range. The average grade of students taking English 104 without taking the remedial courses is in the high-C range. The average grade for students taking one remedial course before taking ENG 104 stays in the mid-C range and not surprisingly the average ENG 104 GPA of students having taken two remedial courses is in the low-C range with some quarters in the high-D range. The results for ENG 102 in conjunction with ENG 098, 099 are a little worse. Overall grade is in the low-C range, with students who place directly into ENG 102 receiving an average grade of mid-C, students requiring one quarter of remediation receiving an average grade of low-C and students requiring two quarters of remediation receiving an average grade of low-C to high-D.

The Math department reports assessment data in terms of pass-fail rates of all students enrolled in the remedial program (to pass, a student needs to earn C or better). These pass-fail rates pertain only to the remedial courses themselves. For the last four years the pass rate for MAT 010, the lowest level course offered has steadily risen from 63% to 78%. MAT 011 has shown the same trend (thought not as dramatic) rising from 65% to 70%. The statistics for MAT 012 however reverse this trend. The pass rate for MAT 012 fell from 60% to 55% over this four-year period. The PMP did conduct one longitudinal study following students enrolled in fall classes in 1992, 1993, and 1994. The students followed were placed in PMP according to ELM scores and therefore would have been subject to EO 665 under today’s rules. Of those students who scored below 390 on the ELM (these are the students who are eligible for the ILE program), only 31% received a passing grade in a GE math course by fall 1998. This was after taking an average of 6.3 quarters of math (at least three of which had to be in the PMP). Of the students scoring between 390 and 550, only 30% had passed a GE math class after an average of 5.2 quarters of math at Cal Poly Pomona.

All students at Cal Poly Pomona are required to take the Graduation Writing Test (GWT) as a graduation requirement. This test measures competency in writing skills. Students may take the test as many times as they wish. Those that fail to pass five times may get a waiver provided they complete a list of supervised writing assignments and the GWT Appeal Committee approves their petitions. Sampling results from winter quarter test scores (the quarter when most students elect to take the test) reveal that the statistics have not changed much over the years. Of all students who took the test in winter quarter 1993, 1995, and 1997, the total pass rate was around 62% and the fail rate was 38%. These figures include scores for students who were repeating the test. The most interesting statistics deal with students that take the test more than once. The pass rate for students who are taking the test for the 6^th time remains pretty steady at about 26%. The most recent statistics for winter quarter 1999 show a pass rate of 87% of all students attempting the test. Also not surprising is that the pass rates for native English speakers are much higher than for ESL students. The number of years ESL students have spoken English is also a factor, those with more experience doing better than those with less. Statistical data is available upon request.

Where we should be and what we are doing about it

McGrath and Townsend propose five Principles of Best Practice with regard to strengthening the preparedness of at-risk students (IN Gaff and Ratcliff 1997):

1. Institutional commitment is a key factor.

At-risk students must be identified no matter how the institution decides to define them. "... it is vital that programmatic responses be proportionate to the magnitude of the problem, and that staff receive adequate resources, secure funding and consistent administrative support." At Cal Poly Pomona, at-risk students are broadly defined through testing (ELM and EPT) and by background (low income, minority, returning students and other traditionally under-represented groups). Cal Poly Pomona offers a variety of programs and services. New students are presented with freshman and transfer orientation. Each student is assigned an academic advisor and there is a new at-risk advising policy that is triggered by a low (2.2) GPA so special advisors can intervene before a student is subject to disqualification. The Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) offers tutoring, advising, and support. Several cultural centers exist on campus to provide peer support. The Learning Resource Center provides a university-wide student service offering individualized coursework in reading and math skills as well as study skills.

2. Programs should be as comprehensive as possible.

Programs need to offer more than just special sections and tutoring to meet the needs of students with wide diversity in their backgrounds and patterns of performance. The remedial programs at Cal Poly Pomona offer more than just special programs and tutoring. The associated labs concentrate on study skills necessary for success in the college classroom and the courses themselves encourage study groups and support groups. In addition, the university sponsors cultural centers as mentioned earlier to offer support. The African American Student Center (AASC), the Asian Pacific Islander Student Center (APISC), the Cesar E. Chavez Center for Higher Education, and the Pride Center (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Center) all offer support, services, and social opportunities for the constituencies they serve.

3. Programs should be proactive and be available early in a student’s academic career.

Programs should not rely on student-initiated contact. With regard to Cal Poly Pomona’s remedial programs, under-prepared students are identified before they are allowed to enroll in any courses and these students are required to take care of academic deficiencies in English and Math their first calendar year on campus due to EO 665. Advising is mandatory for students. Holds are placed on their registration if their GPA falls below 2.2 and are removed only after they sign an advising contract.

4. Cognitive skills training must be integrated into the broader academic preparations of students.

"...skills are best acquired when they are embedded in the context of more global tasks" rather than through drills and rote memorization. With regard to Cal Poly Pomona’s remedial programs, skills learned are reinforced in later courses. The university subscribes to the Writing Across the Disciplines philosophy. Each course proposed for the catalog must exhibit a significant writing component as instructed in the Curriculum Coordinator’s Guide. Many of the Math instructors also subscribe to the philosophy of collaborative group instruction, incorporating group activities and discussions into general education courses as well as more advanced mathematics courses.

5. The instruction of academically under-prepared students must be of high quality and must emphasize high-order skills.

Cal Poly Pomona’s remedial courses do focus on preparing students for college-level classes by emphasizing communication skills and developing problem-solving and synthetic reasoning abilities.

In the Near Future

Alexander Austin of UCLA stated in a speech given to the AACU (April 1999) that "all types of institutions must share some of the responsibility for meeting this challenge," the challenge of under-preparation. He further states that "...the secondary school people should be invited to join in the conversation, and that we higher education folk must eventually form much closer partnerships with the lower schools in the interests of enhancing the quality of pre-collegiate education." Addressing the issues of under-preparation at the secondary level seems most appropriate and most obvious. Cal Poly Pomona recently received a $716,668 grant from the CSU Chancellor’s Office to establish CSU-High School Faculty-to-Faculty Alliance and Learning Assistance programs. In the first year of this three-year grant Cal Poly Pomona has established partnerships with six local feeder high schools, three for Math and three for English. The program will test students early for proficiency in Math and English. Cal Poly Pomona and high school faculty will work together directly to design curriculum to correct deficiencies while the students are still in high school. Cal Poly Pomona students will tutor those students in need. This program will be expanded to other high schools in the future. By identifying students earlier in their high school careers and correcting the deficiencies before students enroll at the university, a successful program will reduce the need for remediation at the university level. The full grant proposal and supporting documentation are available for inspection in the Team Room. Another new support service on the horizon is the University Writing Center.

Introduction

Laura Rendón, in describing today’s current student body, points out the diversity in social background, ethnicity, gender and disability in contrast to the uniform white male, privileged background of the past (1994). This presents quite a challenge to the student trying to fit in, in an academy that was originally designed for a uniform culture, and it presents quite a challenge to the university in how to adjust to meet the needs of the current diverse student body. Rendón summarizes earlier works by Pascarella and Terenzini that found "...that informal, out-of-class interactions with peers and faculty members, and participation in extra-curricular activities played an important role in shaping student learning, attitudes, values, and orientation toward learning" (1991). Further, Rendón’s study showed "...that those students who became involved in the social and academic fabric of the institution appeared to be more excited about learning." The key to getting students actively involved appears to lie with external forces. Faculty members, student organizations and campus-sponsored programs that reach out to students seem to be most effective. Non-traditional students do not seem to seek out these activities on their own. Students who are actively involved in campus life devote more time to their studies and take more responsibility for their own education. The traditional approach to student involvement has been that it is initiated by the student, and that the university is a passive participant that offers programs that allow students to get involved. Rendón’s study found that the most effective approach for getting students involved was an active one where all involved (faculty, coaches, counselors and administrators) actively reach out to students "by designing activities that promote active learning and interpersonal growth among students, faculty and staff."

Rendón proposes four activities that would improve the prospects of students who traditionally drop out:

• Orient faculty and staff to the needs and strengths of culturally diverse student populations.
• Train faculty to validate students.
• Foster a validating classroom.
• Foster a therapeutic learning community both in and out of class.

Where we are

With regard to Rendón’s four activities, Cal Poly Pomona addresses the first issue quite well. Institutionalization of the Educational Equity initiative promises to enhance our focus on the last three issues. The community-building and validation recommendations of Theme One of this study, and the recommendations arising from this theme, support the need for attention to those issues.

Concerning the orientation of faculty and staff to the needs and strengths of culturally diverse student populations, we can mention three special efforts:

For the past twelve years the Cultural Centers and Office of Student Life have sponsored a Cross-Cultural Retreat usually offered in Winter Quarter. The goal of the retreat is to expand cultural awareness and to improve the acceptance of and appreciation for cultural diversity on campus. This year the retreat was held at the Highland Springs Resort in Beaumont and was attended by 160 people.

At Fall Conference 1999 Dr. Suzuki announced the formation of a task force, a thirty-member Educational Equity Board (EEB, now the Educational Equity and Retention Project) to study retention issues at Cal Poly Pomona, to research successful retention programs at like universities, and to compose a multi-year retention plan for submission for funding from the 2000-2001 Lottery Proposal cycle. The President’s Office, Associated Students, Inc. (ASI), Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs all participate in this initiative.

Each quarter a cultural/international theme is announced that provides a framework for luncheon talks and associated activities around campus.

With regard to fostering a learning therapeutic community both in- and out-of-class, we find:

There are three college-based programs that address retention issues. Two of the programs serve minority students: Maximizing Engineering Potential (MEP), housed in the College of Engineering, and Science Educational Enhancement Services (SEES), housed in the College of Science. Both programs are aimed at helping students connect with their peers, their teachers, and with the community in which they will be working. Both programs offer special workshops (known as academic excellence workshops) that complement academic classes and give students priority registration in class sections that have dedicated workshops. The College of Letters, Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) started a new advising center known as the Center for Students of CLASS. It offers general advice to all students and runs weekly workshops addressing issues pertaining to at-risk students.

Student Orientation Services offers orientation programs every quarter to students new to Cal Poly Pomona. The largest offerings are in the summer quarter for first time freshmen entering in the fall quarter.

The Learning Resource Center is the largest program that deals with retention issues. It provides several services among which are classes and workshops geared to improving study skills. The LRC also administers five TRIO grants awarded to the LRC by the United States Department of Education. These grants are intended to maintain programs to help students overcome class, social and cultural barriers.

The oldest program on campus is the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP). EOP offers academic advising, tutoring, peer mentoring, personal development services and student activities. The program also provides access for a limited number of students who do not qualify for regular admission. All special admit students are required to attend the Summer Bridge Program that offers help in the transition from high school to the university and also offers academic classes aimed at helping students improve their Math and English skills.

The University Advising Center acts as a back-up to colleges, schools and departments. The UAC specializes in working with undeclared students and students who are having academic difficulties. This year a new at-risk advising policy went into effect. It identifies students who appear to be headed toward academic difficulty by GPA. Some departments designate special advisors that deal solely with these students. The UAC and the Office of Academic Programs jointly publish a Handbook for Academic Advising known as The Quest. This publication is now available on-line. It is used by faculty and students alike to sort through academic regulations and graduation requirements. Information on advising can be obtained on the web at http://www.csupomona.edu/~advising/quest.html. Disabled Students Services deals with problems and issues regarding the special needs of those with physical and learning disabilities. Among the services offered are counseling and special testing services. There are six other student-oriented centers on campus.

 

The cost of remedial programs at Cal Poly Pomona runs close to $1,000,000 annually. The numbers and percentages of incoming freshmen that are under-prepared are staggering. Table A in Figure 20, presents the record of entering students in relation to college Math and English preparedness, while Table B shows their preparedness after a year at Cal Poly Pomona. These preliminary results indicate a high rate of advancement to college-level.

The Chancellor’s goal is to reduce the number of students needing remediation to 10% of the freshman class. We must continue and expand outreach efforts such as the partnerships with local high schools so the students can be identified early and deficiencies can be addressed at the secondary level. For those students that do come to us under-prepared, we must ensure that EO 665 is enforced consistently and fairly. The remedial programs in Math and English need to continue assessing the effectiveness of their programs. There are plans for follow-up studies that track remedial students through their GE course to see how long it takes them to successfully complete their GE Math and English requirements. The impact of EO 665 is being assessed by the EERP. Advising policies will be designed based on these follow-up studies to ensure that students will successfully complete their GE and GWT requirements.

B. Retention:

Of 1985 first-time freshmen entering Cal Poly Pomona, only 34% had graduated by their sixth year. This number is consistent with the 1991 first time freshmen statistics, 32% had graduated by their sixth year. Of the 1985 upper division transfer students, 49% had graduated by their sixth year and of the 1991 upper division transfer students, the number of graduates at the sixth year had increased to 58%. The chart in Figure 21 expresses the fall-to-fall continuation rate of the freshman cohort for the 1990s. While some students work on their degrees part-time and therefore take longer, many choose to leave the university for various reasons. McGrath and Townsend point out that some of these students move on to other universities trying to find one that fits their needs (op. cit.). Students who leave the university prior to graduation need to be surveyed to determine their reasons for departure. The results will be used to develop better retention efforts. In fact, many departments are beginning to conduct exit interviews of graduates; this could be extended to school-leavers, as well.

The IRP and other units routinely gather such statistics. The activities of the new Educational Equity Retention Project are supported by ASI, the administration and faculty. Rendón’s suggestions on how to create a validating environment in the classroom and on the campus are in harmony with what we are incorporating in the curriculum and in the campus environment. It is recognized that coordination of support programs and services with academic needs has to take place for both planning and operational purposes. Orientation for first-time freshmen and transfer students increasingly involves faculty, departments, and support services.

Graduation rates, a corollary of retention, have been studied by the Joint Commission on Accountability Reporting (JCAR). The JCAR methodology captures information about the pace at which students make progress to degree. Requirements of the degree program are taken into account, and students are categorized according to their course-load characteristics. Employing this approach, Figure 22 displays the graduation rates of Fall 1993 first-time regularly admitted freshmen at Cal Poly Pomona. The rate of 83% (82% for all "traditional" students, including special admits), out of which 76-77% graduated in six years or less, is a good rate for a public university, particularly given our polytechnic nature. Even more significantly, we find that 34% of the regular admits graduated within four years, another 43% during the following two, and 5-6% in another year or more. Of the "financial aid" category of students, 51% overall would eventually graduate, more than 70% of them completing their degrees in less than six years. This also compares favorably to the federal standard of 150 percent of "catalog" time to degree for this category of students, which constitutes the majority of freshmen at our university.

Figure 23 presents persistence to graduation rates for Fall 1987 first-time regularly-admitted freshmen and community-college transfer students. An interesting behavioral phenomenon presents itself in these statistics. Students seem to return to pursue their degrees seven years out for freshmen and five years out for transfers. The persistence rate for both bottoms around that time and then rebounds, while graduation rates continue to rise. We want to conduct longitudinal study of other cohorts to examine whether this phenomenon is related to characteristics of our student body or to the financial situation in California in the early ‘90s.

Academic advising at the department level has recently received increased attention and support. This is where faculty directly interact with students. With the implementation of EO 665 and the new at-risk advising policy, regulations and requirements can get confusing. Departments and colleges are making sure that those advising at-risk students are aware of university policy and all the help that is available on campus through special programs and services. Some departments such as Computer Science are overwhelmed with the ratio of majors to faculty. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Not only does support need to be given to faculty in developing academic advising, rewards should be a part of recognizing good faculty advisors, beyond the Advisor of the Year and other awards we currently have (and which are excellent). Finally, the Internet can be a valuable resource for disseminating information and contacting students and should therefore be promoted as an advising tool. The new Advising Initiative in Academic Affairs, and the enhanced cooperation between Academic Affairs and the Advising Center are excellent steps. We need to expand the very successful College-based academic mentoring and student support groups such as MEP and SEES. EOP programs and services need continued support. Collaboration with academic departments and faculty, such as occurs with the Summer Bridge Program, needs to be encouraged. The new Writing Center needs to be nurtured. Collaboration with the LRC will make both more effective and efficient. Workshops offered by LRC, the Writing Center, EOP and EES can be more finely tuned, so services are not unnecessarily duplicated.

We need to support co-curricular activities through providing resources and through faculty involvement. These activities include ASI, student clubs and service organizations. We need to support the efforts that celebrate diversity on campus, such as the cultural centers, the Cross-Cultural Retreat and the theme quarters. These activities need to be coordinated with curriculum and student activities and programs.

Conclusion

The exploration of teaching and learning conducted here is preliminary and suggestive. We find that the university has made progress in assembling a reasonable data base on which to base decisions regarding students and programs, but that this form of decision-making is not yet fully integrated into academic life. Problems arising from the mix of abilities and backgrounds among students are to a great degree off-set by the vitalizing potential of that same mix, if we can maintain and expand the co-curricular support system we feel provides students with the validation and tools they need for growth and intellectual adventure.

Cal Poly Pomona has made substantial progress in the assessment of student learning outcomes and experience and the coordination of learning outcomes and institutional effectiveness assessment, represented by and promoted/advanced through the WASC self-study report and process (see also Chapter III Methodology for a summary of all our assessment efforts). Our experience at Cal Poly Pomona demonstrates that an institutional commitment to outcomes assessment both represents and presupposes profound institutional, organizational, and cultural change. We must continue to strive for the ideals of educational effectiveness presented by WASC in Invitation to Dialogue II as the basis for a new process of accreditation and revitalized educational institution.

It seems clear to us that the majority of students attending Cal Poly Pomona receive at least adequate preparation for the job market (and superior, in many cases), that they are active participants in their own learning process, and that the relationships they forge with faculty, staff, and other students are important and advantageous to them in their future development and life. It is true that they often "feel like a number", an experience not unique to Cal Poly Pomona, unfortunately. The smaller departments are able to offer a more homelike environment for their majors that palliates the anonymity of admissions and evaluations offices. The first goal of the University Strategic Planning Guidelines is to improve the excellence of our academic programs. Our study shows that this is a widely shared and well understood goal of the university, and that there is general consensus on the position that supporting student learning is a principal means of attaining it. We are beginning to see the evolution of inter-disciplinary, inter-divisional, and horizontal collaborations that are preconditions for a concerted promotion of student learning. As the distinction between academic and co-curricular programs grows invidious, the university requires enhanced communication and cooperation between its different components. Departmental isolation, autocratic decision-making, separatism and elitism of all kinds, are inimical to the inter-dependence needed to enhance student learning. Our primary suggestion for action in the Teaching and Learning theme is to continue the bridging, unfolding, and linking processes of governance underway and focus them on educational issues.

The more specific findings and recommendations from this theme are reiterated in part in the Conclusion to this report. Most of them recapitulate and build on issues developed in the preceding and succeeding themes, since teaching and learning are inter-penetrated with institutional culture, resource management, and the new directions in which the university is growing. Additional data related to the issues developed here is to be found in Appendix C and Annex C, in the Team Room, or can be made available on request. The general recommendations of continuous self-study and communicative sensitivity will certainly serve the purpose of improving collaboration to enhance learning.