![[Case Western Reserve University -- Toolbar]](/pix/lowpro.gif)
Self-Study, Volume I, Chapter VI: Areas of Special Interest
In carrying out the self-study component of the re-accreditation review, four areas were selected for special emphasis: undergraduate education, the electronic learning environment, research, and continuing education. All four are clearly central to the university's mission of scholarship, teaching, and community involvement. Among them, they affect all facets of the university community: students, faculty, staff, and alumni; in addition, they reach beyond the confines of the university to the broader community in which it functions. They are also all areas in which important developments are taking place, both within the university and beyond.
Just as clearly, these areas are not autonomous. For example, the status of the university's electronic learning environment will continue to play an ever-greater role in the way undergraduate education is carried out. Similarly, the growth of the 'information superhighway' is dramatically affecting the tools available for modern research. Indeed, as the reports make quite clear, progress in any of these areas is linked to progress in all of them.
Nevertheless, by establishing separate subcommittees to examine each of these areas, the university was able to focus its self-study around those facets which reflect its goals most clearly. In addition, this allowed the Steering Committee to address issues raised during the previous re-accreditation self-study, and to explore the progress which has been made during the intervening period.
The charge to each of the subcommittees focussed on addressing the issues central to the re-accreditation process. The subcommittees were asked to explore not only the progress which has been made, but also the challenges for the future, and to make recommendations for action wherever appropriate. In addition, the subcommittees were asked to emphasize the issue of assessment, exploring both the manner in which assessment is currently conducted and making recommendations for how it may be carried out more effectively in the future.
Undergraduate education clearly plays a central role in the mission and activities of the university, and thus should be an ongoing area of self-study. In addition, the administrative structures which have undergone revision since the previous re-accreditation process, notably the reorganization in 1992 that created the College of Arts and Sciences and the Case School of Engineering, are particularly associated with undergraduate education. At the same time, both of these administrative units are undertaking comprehensive reviews of their curricula, with proposals expected to emerge by the end of this academic year. It thus seems to be a propitious moment to study the current status and prospects for the future at CWRU in this area.
Beginning in 1987 the university embarked on an ambitious program to establish an electronic learning environment. This not only was designed to restructure inter- and intra-university communication, but also was a topic discussed in the recommendations of the previous re-accreditation review committee. Tremendous strides have taken place since 1987, and CWRU now stands in the vanguard of universities taking advantage of modern networking and electronic learning resources. At the same time, we are currently encountering challenges and problems which were not perceived until the present infrastructure was in place. Serious consideration is necessary as we proceed to the next phase of exploiting electronic learning, particularly as it relates to plans for the new library system. The self-study process in this area, by initiating campus-wide discussions and investigations, was useful to help chart an informed course of action.
CWRU is proud of its pre-eminent role as a research university, and research by faculty, research associates, graduate students, and undergraduates is part of what gives the university its unique character and provides much of its strength. University-based research is currently undergoing several dramatic challenges, not the least of which is the constant threat of a reduction in support from both external government and private sources. How we meet these challenges now will influence strongly the type of institution we are a decade from now. In addition, CWRU has several characteristics which give it special strength in various research areas. It is important to target these strengths in devising our plans for the future. Both the challenges and opportunities which exist for CWRU motivated a comprehensive self-study of the research environment at the university.
Finally, continuing education is clearly an area of great importance for the next century. As the university struggles to find its proper place in an ever-changing work environment, how it meets the needs of a workforce which requires retraining and development will be an increasingly important measure of its overall institutional performance. While CWRU clearly already has in place a diverse array of continuing education programs, both a changing marketplace and stronger competition between academic institutions for students and programs suggest a need for a coherent strategy for the future.
While each of the four areas of special emphasis was chosen for unique reasons, as the self-study process has moved forward the Steering Committee has worked to nurture the recognition that these elements should have a certain coherence. In particular, all of these elements fit together within the context of the university's new mission statement to address a comprehensive agenda for learning. The areas to which we have given special emphasis touch learning in all its permutations at the university: by students, faculty, staff, alumni, and our neighbors in the surrounding community. At the same time, the infrastructure for learning, through our libraries and technological resources, figures prominently throughout the subcommittee reports.
Beyond this contextual coherence, various common themes began to appear which are reflected in each of the subcommittee reports to a greater or lesser extent. These issues clearly transcend the scope of any one committee report, and could just as easily have been selected as the special emphasis topics:
While the above issues cut across all of the self-study areas, each of the subcommittees which reported to the Steering Committee addressed separate problems and challenges, and made specific recommendations. Below are summaries of four key points raised in each area of special emphasis, followed by excerpts from the subcommittee reports.
The subcommittee began its report by reviewing the recent organizational changes in the structure for undergraduate programs. Subcommittee members concluded that the creation of the College of Arts and Sciences and the Case School of Engineering offers a rational and stable organizational structure for undergraduate education, enabling the faculty to focus fully on educational rather than structural issues.
'From 1967 to 1993, the strong Western Reserve tradition in the humanities and social sciences was overshadowed by the sciences and especially the engineering disciplines represented so powerfully in Case Institute of Technology. . . . [A] strong medical school . . . meant that CWRU was attractive not only to engineering students but also to pre-medical students. Whatever the actual reasons, for years high school students undecided about their future major or inclined towards the humanities and social sciences . . . have not chosen CWRU in numbers comparable to those at peer institutions. While two or three of the departments in the humanities and social sciences were weakened in the 1970s and 1980s, most have remained strong. It should therefore be a priority of the new College of Arts and Sciences to broaden its profile to the public so as to recruit an undergraduate student body better balanced by disciplinary interests.'
The subcommittee asked each undergraduate department and interdisciplinary major program to summarize its activities and goals, discuss any significant changes in curriculum during the last 10 years, and describe its assessment structure at the departmental level.
Changes Since 1985. 'Most departments have instituted changes since our last reaccreditation. Many of the alterations were simple updating and upgrading of curriculum, for the content and methodology of every subject is in constant flux. Changes in student and job-market demand also produce adjustments within fields, and even the elimination and creation of degree programs (for instance, we have eliminated a major in undesignated 'humanities,' but added new nursing, applied math, and aerospace engineering programs).
'Several departments have increasingly stressed computer skills and oral and written communication. Some have incorporated research, or more of it than hitherto, into their undergraduate curriculum, and most of the science and engineering departments stressed the upgrading of laboratories, instruments, and equipment. Art education and music education have developed a more rigorous and formal assessment structure, partly due to urging by the Ohio State Department of Education.
'Several humanities departments [such as English, history, and art history] stressed that they have developed their curricula to more fully reflect multicultural education, interdisciplinary approaches, and a global perspective. . . . Several new interdisciplinary studies programs have been instituted, such as women's studies, Asian studies, and . . . international studies.'
As discussed elsewhere in this self-study, students at CWRU have the choice of three different core curricula - the Western Reserve Core, the Case Core, and the Lambda Core. The subcommittee presented its evaluation of each, noting that all three are currently under review by the faculty.
Assessment of the Core Curricula. 'In the last decade there have been two serious proposals to revise the core curricula, neither of which has been adopted. . . . There is a general sense in the faculty (though not shared by all members) that the Western Reserve Core, instituted 15 years ago and adjusted at the margins ever since, needs a thorough overhaul. Most faculty agree that choice in distributional requirements is desirable, but some of the Western Reserve course menus have been so accreted over the years that they seem awkward and lacking in focus. Nor are the rationales for menu items always very clear. For instance, a course called Natural Philosophy, which consists of history and philosophy of science, satisfies either the natural philosophy requirement in the Lambda Core or the history and culture requirement in the Western Reserve Core. Similarly, a separate course in the history of science satisfies either humanities sequence credits for Case Core students, or science distributional requirements for Western Reserve Core students.
'The Lambda Core was designed to attract students interested in a quantitative, analytical framework for their liberal arts studies. Unfortunately, that expectation has not been realized, as only five students have elected this core in the five years of its existence. . . . It appears very likely that this core alternative will be abolished in the next systematic faculty review of undergraduate programs.'
'A systematic review of the core curriculum is in progress by the [College of Arts and Sciences] Committee on Educational Programs. . . . According to this proposal, CAS students would be required to take four courses in each of the three traditional curricular areas (arts and humanities, social and behavioral sciences, and natural sciences and mathematics), thus expanding the credit-hour requirement from 30 in the current Western Reserve Core to 39 . . . Although this draft proposal represents only the beginning of a long process, CAS faculty and administrators were encouraged by the positive reactions and fruitful discussion at a faculty forum on the proposal.'
Engineering Core. 'The needs of the engineering profession today require that [the Case School of Engineering] examine the purpose of its core program and recognize the limitations inherent in the highly structured approach to engineering education. A weakness of the present core is that it leaves little flexibility to develop comprehensive elective sequences within a major field. Furthermore, students are hardly ever properly introduced to interdisciplinary engineering. It is increasingly important for engineers to be cross-trained in a variety of disciplines, act effectively as members of a team, and consider social, environmental, market, and strategic factors in their professional work.
'To meet this challenge, CSE has joined with ten other universities to form the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition, part of a multimillion-dollar National Science Foundation program. An exciting alternative course to the traditional Case and Engineering Core curriculum has been developed for the freshman year. Students study principles underlying the various branches of engineering concurrently with the basic sciences. Laboratory experiments span several engineering disciplines and require cross-functional engineering practices. The fundamental differences and similarities between the sciences and engineering are emphasized by the use of mathematical, computational and experimental models to obtain quantitative problem solutions that yield predictive capability beyond the immediate problem solution.'
'The Engineering Core has many courses more detailed and specialized than needed by most engineering students. For instance, students should not have to choose between full courses in 'engineering mechanics - statics' and 'engineering mechanics - dynamics.' . . . The CSE curriculum committee is addressing these issues and recommending new cores. The major field core requirements and the ABET restrictions also need to be re-evaluated. There should be more room for technical electives within each major program.'
The report noted that CWRU enjoys distinctive contextual and structural advantages that provide enviable qualities in undergraduate education. CWRU is both a small, highly focused undergraduate institution and a sophisticated research university, with exceptional opportunities for undergraduates to participate directly in research. The university's close relationships with other institutions in University Circle also provide opportunities for research, internships, and cultural exposure that would be difficult to equal anywhere else.
Research. '[U]ndergraduates have the opportunity to engage in state-of-the-art research in a variety of environments provided by university faculty. Because most of these operations are small, undergraduates who join a research group are accepted as junior colleagues whose contributions to the total effort are highly valued. The undergraduate can become an integral member of the group, forming close personal and professional relationships with the faculty mentor and his or her graduate and postgraduate students. The student in this environment learns first-hand how to conduct research, an educational experience that may be among the most exciting that CWRU provides.'
Interactions with University Circle Institutions. 'By attending college on the CWRU campus, undergraduates have a unique opportunity to take advantage of the facilities and resources offered by the more than 40 educational, medical, scientific, cultural, and arts organizations that are federated into University Circle Incorporated (UCI). Concerts of the Cleveland Orchestra, the vast collections in the Cleveland Museum of Art, and the 2.5 million volumes housed in the various research libraries within the Circle, are world-class cultural and research opportunities found on few university campuses. . . . In addition, there are four areas in which the university has formal joint programs: (1) music with the Cleveland Institute of Music; (2) art education with the Cleveland Institute of Art; (3) art history and museum studies with the Cleveland Museum of Art; and (4) communication sciences with the Cleveland Hearing and Speech Center. While the degree of 'jointness' varies with each program, they all serve the needs of undergraduate education in creative ways and expand the opportunities available to students at CWRU.'
As part of its assessment of the larger context for undergraduate education, the subcommittee also evaluated the quality of academic support services and efforts to improve the total student experience at CWRU. While areas of concern remain, the university has made significant progress in this area since 1985.
Admissions, Educational Support, and Student Life. 'The arrival of President Pytte and his strong emphasis on undergraduate education are reflected in our enrollment and programs. Enrollment has grown steadily, 26 percent over the last seven years. A factor in this remarkable growth was the reinstitution of the B.S. in nursing program in 1990 after an absence of nearly two decades (the current full-time enrollment in that program is 336, about 10 percent of the undergraduates). Also significant has been the increase in minority student enrollment, up from 367 in 1986 to 669 in 1993. Our current undergraduate enrollment is drawn from all fifty states and nearly 40 countries. . . . In addition to improvements in quantity, the quality of our students has also been quite strong. The middle 50 percent of admitted students in 1985 had combined SAT scores of 1100-1290. For the 1994 admitted class (excluding nursing students for comparative purposes) those numbers had improved to 1150-1360. More than 70 percent of our admitted students rank in the top 10 percent of their high school class, and 90 percent are in the top 20 percent.
'In addition to recruiting able students, it is also important to retain them. We began the review period with 82 percent of our freshmen returning for the sophomore year, and a graduation rate of 62 percent. Those numbers have improved steadily, so that now over 90 percent return for the second year, and our graduation rate approaches 70 percent. This represents significant progress toward our goal of a graduation rate above 80 percent.'
Summary and Recommendations. 'It is clear from the above data, and it is just as clear to the campus community at large, that CWRU is on the whole healthy and moving in a positive direction. Indeed, it would be difficult to overstate the improvement in the campus mood between 1985 and today; a general sense of frustration and dissatisfaction has been replaced by widespread satisfaction.
'There is, however, a price to pay for health as well as illness. The last few years have seen a dramatic increase in student numbers, especially at the freshman/sophomore level, and consequently in demand for facilities and resources. We have not responded to that increase in demand to the extent necessary. In particular, the various student-intensive support functions - that is, the monitoring and counseling activities in such offices as collegiate affairs, student affairs, financial aid, admissions, educational support services, and university counseling services - are significantly overstretched. Consideration needs to be given to ways to alleviate this problem.
'More broadly, the Office of Student Affairs has undertaken a vigorous strategic planning process, from which emerged a set of strategic themes. We recommend that these themes and their related objectives continue to be pursued:
The subcommittee was charged with assessing the university's stated commitment to 'the design and development of a learning environment that does away with the traditional separation between library and computing services, capitalizes on resources for creating and sharing information, embeds these new resources in the curriculum, and delivers them to students throughout the campus - even in their residence halls' (Plan for CWRU 1990-1995). As background for its work, the subcommittee studied several previous reports on campus computing. Two documents from the mid-1980s lay the foundation for the development of the Electronic Learning Environment and provided a vision for computing on campus.
'In 1985, an ad hoc committee chaired by Vincent E. McHale assessed the state of computing in Western Reserve College. That committee was 'struck by the relative backwardness of CWRU in the area of computing applications when compared to peer institutions' and attributed this to 'a lack of coordination in computer policies across the university, equipment incompatibilities, and more specifically, not enough encouragement for the WRC faculty to integrate computer usage into their curricula.' This committee recommended: 1) a university-wide policy-making body for computing and the hiring of a director of information technology; 2) that existing and future computer laboratories become multifunctional and shared; 3) a central office to oversee hardware purchases, reducing the diversity of non-compatible equipment; 4) complimentary accounts on a mainframe and incentives for faculty to gain knowledge about computing; 5) the creation of a software library; and 6) the maintenance of computing workstations for users in WRC buildings. . . . The 'Klopman Report' noted the lack of university-wide direction and standards with the result that 'the campus is now an unplanned checkerboard of hardware and software without technical and logistic support . . . ' . Noting the trend toward campus local area networks, the committee urged action 'in the direction of providing an integrated, distributed information environment for scholars, researchers, and support staff.' This environment would include workstations available to every member of the university community, data communication links among all the workstations, and links to both campus and non-campus computing and information resources. This vision later emerged as the Electronic Learning Environment.'
Conceptually, the Electronic Learning Environment represents a learning milieu in which full advantage is taken of advanced technology. Practically, the ELE consists of the hardware, software, and personnel needed to create this milieu for the CWRU community.
The Electronic Learning Environment Infrastructure. 'Using fiber optic cable, [CWRUnet] handles all services involving data, voice, video, telemetry, and control signaling and connects all of CWRU's information resources, linking them to services throughout the world. The ELE includes all services provided through CWRUnet, e.g., servers that provide both general and course-specific software, CD-ROM libraries, e-mail and bulletin board services, cable television, and telephone use. Users have access to the ELE through microcomputers and in electronic classrooms.'
'A very visible component of the ELE is the Cleveland Free-Net, the world's largest free, open-access community computer system. For the CWRU community, the Free-Net provides an easy way to use mail and bulletin board services both on and off campus. Average weekly usage has passed 75,000 user sessions.'
One of the issues addressed by the subcommittee was the extent to which the CWRUnet infrastructure is used by the university's faculty, students, and staff. The available statistical data show that use of CWRUnet and computing is increasing significantly, a conclusion confirmed by the responses to the subcommittee's survey of computing on campus.
Impact of the Electronic Learning Environment. 'The commitment to the Electronic Learning Environment has made an impact on the academic community. Computer use has significantly increased in the period for which figures are available. The number of active CWRUnet accounts has increased; the number of departments using file servers, networked printers, and scanned notes has increased as well. . . . Three-quarters of the survey respondents use computing and CWRUnet, with e-mail, access to library catalogues, bulletin boards, and CD-ROMs the most popular activities.'
'External support has funded both the development of the infrastructure and the use of the ELE in education. Funds from the Cleveland Foundation, the Codrington Foundation, and the Consolidated Natural Gas Foundation have provided instructional technology specialists and other support for the integration of electronic resources with the academic program. This support has in turn been used by individual recipients of Lilly and Nord Endowment grants for specific curricular projects. A significant number of these projects involve the resources available in the ELE. All these efforts, and those of a new Cleveland Foundation grant for the social sciences, have created a group of faculty experienced with and enthusiastic about the educational possibilities of the Electronic Learning Environment. The Case School of Engineering's proposal for distance education through the ELE is also significant . . . It is expected that the ELE will have a significant impact upon research because sophisticated computer networking originated from the needs of the scientific disciplines.'
The subcommittee recognized that the university has made impressive progress toward creating the infrastructure to support its commitment to the Electronic Learning Environment. However, the report also identified a number of factors that have limited the impact of the ELE and that need attention if the ELE is to reach its full potential.
'The first issue is one of terminology. Those involved with the conception and development of the Electronic Learning Environment clearly define the ELE as the use of technology to enhance learning . . . The users must make a serious effort to understand the concept of the ELE and, if necessary, must redefine it in a way more consistent with their own definition of education. The definition of higher education is the real issue here; no discussion of the ELE can take place without a simultaneous discussion of what it means to learn and of how one becomes educated. Subcommittee members were also concerned about the integration of the ELE with other 'learning environments' of the university - the classrooms, the labs, the clinics, the libraries, the residence halls, student centers and lounges.'
'Part of the definitional gap is due to the lack of communication between the planners and the users of the ELE. . . . However the ELE is defined, it can be said that its conception and implementation are consistent with the priorities of the university. Electronic communication and information-gathering have become international priorities. Since students must become educated users of new technologies in order to become responsible professionals and citizens, the university has a duty to help them develop familiarity with and judgment about technological possibilities. In addition, the development of the infrastructure serves the research mission of the institution as it provides for the experimental testing of 'cutting edge' information delivery systems. . . . The university's role in the development of community computing, through the establishment and maintenance of the Cleveland Free-Net, has demonstrated its commitment to a public that extends far beyond the Greater Cleveland area.'
'With a few important exceptions, the CWRU community on campus has access to the software and hardware needed to use CWRUnet and implement the possibilities of the ELE. . . . The most important limitations in the use of the technology, however, are not technological. Effective use of the ELE requires time and effort on the part of faculty and students. . . . The university needs to make a commitment to the ongoing employment of educational support staff. Their existence, capabilities, and responsibilities also need to be communicated to the faculty members they are intended to help. Various grants have been effective in providing time and support for the integration of computing into courses. Now that these examples are in place, CWRU can develop a plan for expanding these efforts in a systematic way.'
The subcommittee concluded that it could not yet answer all the questions posed by the Steering Committee about the use, impact, and future of the ELE. For the Electronic Learning Environment to reach its full potential, the report argued, there must be a better understanding by the university community of the ELE's structure, goals, and potential applications. While issues and concerns remain, however, the subcommittee recognized that CWRUnet has become an accepted part of life at the university.
'[A]n infrastructure has been created to support the Electronic Learning Environment. It is not complete, but the rapid evolution of the technology ensures that it will always be in development. Currently, members of the university community seem to be taking advantage of the infrastructure for communication with each other and with the outside world. Software distribution has also become an important aspect of CWRUnet. . . . Thirty percent of all courses offered use electronic resources . . . The academic environment has changed as members of the university community have begun to realize what electronic resources can do for them. . . . We have all learned to view electronic resources and communication as an essential part of academic life.'
The subcommittee was also asked by the Steering Committee to examine the problems with the University Library that were identified in the 1985 NCA self-study, and to assess what progress has been made to resolve them.
'There is a clear recognition of the constraints on collections. Cross-institutional sharing is a major strategy adopted by the University Library to insure access to a broader collection through electronic catalogue links. The OhioLINK system provides full access for the CWRU community to the collections of other Ohio universities and to the catalogues of major universities around the world.'
'The Kelvin Smith Library, the 'Library of the Future,' will form the physical anchor of the Electronic Learning Environment. It was designed to resolve space deficiencies in the current library system; there is a careful balance of collection storage and sentry/meeting space. One million volumes will be kept at Smith; remaining volumes will be stored off-site and available to library staff. This facility will have more seating and meeting space than Freiberger and Sears Libraries combined.'
The report of the subcommittee on research built on previous evaluations of the research enterprise at CWRU, discussed earlier in this self-study. The report cites a few recent and noteworthy accomplishments of campus researchers, noting that the individual researcher, working alone or with others, is the single most important element of the research enterprise. Essential to the success of the individual researcher, however, is an environment that encourages and fosters research excellence. Administrative structures can sometimes be barriers to interdisciplinary research.
'Research at CWRU is primarily a department-based activity. All faculty members on campus in their teaching and research capacities are associated with an academic department where their responsibility and tenure lie. Research centers serve a special role by creating critical masses of researchers in interdisciplinary fields. Such centers foster collaborative investigations that can tackle broad-based research programs with meaningful depth. Successful interaction between centers and departments on this campus has been encouraged through the collegiality of department chairs and center directors, along with the centers' faculty participants. Because appointments and tenure are department-based, in fact, interdisciplinary research often depends upon the willingness of the department chair to support such initiatives.'
The research infrastructure includes both the general research climate on campus as well as the facilities, services, policies, and processes that support the research conducted by university faculty. Evaluations of the research enterprise at CWRU have identified important assets for research on campus. Two examples are:
The subcommittee report and the earlier self-evaluations also identified a number of concerns related to the research support structure. These include:
The subcommittee report makes a number of recommendations for initiatives to improve the research environment; two are discussed below. The first involves a recurring theme in the subcommittee's discussions: the need to move beyond quantitative indicators - particularly the amount of external research funding - in evaluating the vitality of research on campus. Another recommendation emphasizes the importance of making research an integral component of the undergraduate experience.
Research Performance. 'The subcommittee supports the [Faculty Senate Research Committee] White Paper recommendation that the Office of Research Administration conduct an annual review of research performance and infrastructure. This would also include the establishment of a data management system of research vitality indicators. It is recommended that the provost consult with the deans (who would in turn consult with their department chairs) on how best to do such an evaluation without putting departments in competition with each other. A mechanism of ongoing evaluation of research vitality must encompass all levels of the university (individual, department, school, institution) and must be distinct from the annual salary review. It should also be tied into overall institutional goals and planning.'
Undergraduate Research. 'The university needs a formal and sustained commitment to facilitate undergraduate research experiences and relationships with the professional schools. One option would be to recreate a structure similar to that of the former Office of Undergraduate Research, in order to provide formal support for the efforts of both students and faculty. Of course, funding is a major issue. The university must be proactive in identifying and taking advantage of the various sources of funding available for this purpose.'
Continuing education was identified as one of the university-wide priorities in the Plan for CWRU 1990-1995. The subcommittee assumed two specific tasks: to survey the university's existing continuing education programs, and to consider opportunities to enhance such efforts.
'The draft of the new university mission statement, discussed in the self-study report, asserts that the university's teaching, research, and service should be 'marked by a commitment to continuous learning.' This suggests a larger role for continuing education and lifelong learning, as well as a relationship with the university's students that continues beyond the awarding of a degree throughout the graduate's professional (and perhaps personal) life.'
In the process of surveying the constituent schools of the university to gather information on existing programs, it became obvious that a single definition of continuing education did not exist. Degree programs that are directed at part-time students and/or offered in non-traditional formats might be considered continuing education. For many, whether a course is considered continuing education is established by the intent of the student enrolled in the program.
'In considering the various options offered at the university, we came to the conclusion that continuing education must be seen on a continuum: from general-interest 'life enrichment' courses, to vocationally oriented courses taken for career enhancement, to courses for Continuing Education Units that meet requirements for re-licensure, to degree programs designed for part-time students and/or offered in alternative formats.'
The subcommittee developed a survey of non-degree course offerings in order to gather information about existing continuing education efforts and gain a better understanding of the issues and factors involved in developing such activities. The review of existing programs prompted subcommittee members to consider new opportunities within their own schools. Responses to the survey also helped the subcommittee to identify a variety of issues related to implementing new programs. Uncertain expectations about the faculty role in continuing education must be clarified, and incentives and rewards established, to fully exploit the opportunities available. Barriers to interdisciplinary programs should be minimized.
'A recurring issue in the subcommittee's discussions was that of expectations for faculty involvement in and responsibility for continuing education activities. Traditionally, faculty were not expected to participate in continuing education and did so only on their own initiative. . . . Given the professional orientation of most of the continuing education programs at CWRU, practitioners play an important role. All programs contract with outside experts to teach at least some of their offerings. If continuing education offerings are to expand, however, full-time faculty participation in planning and evaluation is essential to maintain quality.'
'The interdisciplinary nature of social problems and issues offers particular opportunities in continuing education. The flexibility of continuing education programs offers the ability to incorporate interdisciplinary collaborations more easily than do traditional university degree programs, which may encounter administrative obstacles in transcending the sometimes rigid discipline-based structure of the institution.'
The subcommittee noted that some central coordination of continuing education programs could reduce administrative costs and promote additional participation by faculty and students. There is also a central role in quality control, although it remains primarily the responsibility of the individual schools.
'The subcommittee recognizes that the existing decentralized structure of continuing education offerings at CWRU has been successful, leaving the planning of programs to those closest to the market and in the best position to understand the needs of practitioners in their profession. At the same time, there may be some role for central coordination and support within a structure that preserves the decentralized nature of existing programs. Some form of central coordination may make it easier for continuing education programs to take advantage of interdisciplinary opportunities, help avoid duplication of efforts, and provide greater awareness of opportunities, both locally and regionally. It might also provide greater access to these activities by faculty not presently involved or not closely associated with professional schools. There may also be a central role in providing appropriate logistical support for continuing education, including facilities, and in coordinating promotion and marketing efforts.'
'Because continuing education tends to be more market-driven than traditional curricula, it is important to establish appropriate quality control mechanisms at the school and institutional levels, and to assess how well programs address evolving educational needs. . . . Although primary responsibility for the quality of continuing education will continue to rest with individual schools, . . . there might also be a university role in quality control, with more uniform evaluation of instructors, format, and content of curriculum.'
With increasing specialization in many professions, a growing knowledge base, and an aging population that is viable and interested in learning for longer periods of time, the demand for continuing education is expected to grow. Additional information will be needed, however, on specific components of that demand, including the market considerations of cost, competition, employers' needs, students' objectives, and course delivery mechanisms. The report cautioned that any effort to respond to market needs and opportunities by expanding continuing education offerings must build on the core academic strengths of the institution.
The subcommittee saw many opportunities in the future for expanding the continuing education mission at CWRU, with potential benefits for both the university and the community. As noted earlier, however, a number of issues must be taken into consideration in any attempt to expand current programs.
'The subcommittee suggests that if the university views continuing education as simply a source of income - though it may in fact be profitable - it will fail. Continuing education is a service to alumni, practitioners, and the community.'
'The matter of compensation and other benefits for teaching courses not part of the regular curriculum remains a significant issue at this point . . . Access to university resources, such as the library, bookstore, and parking, would have to be resolved. Appropriate facilities and other resources will be primary considerations in moving toward the goal of offering a major continuing education program on the campus - or even at different sites in the community. . . . If there is to be any concerted effort in the direction of increasing opportunities for continuing education programs across various faculties and schools, some organizing mechanism should be put into place with full faculty and administrative support. In order to address the issues raised, we suggest the formation of a joint faculty-administration committee, perhaps under the auspices of the Faculty Senate, to explore future possibilities and options.'
Next Chapter - Assessment
Previous Chapter - Institutional Resources and Services
Table of Contents
![[Toolbar]](/pix/ribbon.gif){kind=small}