Part 1 of this report contains the Executive Summary and Introduction, including a statement of goals.

Part 2 contains Preliminary Conclusions from some of the working groups.

This third part contains the remainder of the Preliminary Conclusions, including sections on Technology and Assessment, as well as an account of Next Steps and a Final Word.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON PRODUCTIVITY PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT

December, 1993

TECHNOLOGY

The role of technology in supporting academic productivity is complex. Technology, broadly construed, will play a significant role in supporting educational innovation both directly in the development and delivery of programs and indirectly through increased infrastructure efficiencies. Its wide applicability matches a number of productivity objectives, including virtually all of our operational goals. But technology should not be thought of as a simple or low cost solution to productivity issues. Technology may be less likely to produce easy cost-cutting efficiencies than to enhance the overall scholarly enterprise for the students to whom we provide quality education.

The Technological Innovations and Facilities working group has produced a thoughtful preliminary analysis of the opportunities and the constraints associated with the use of technology, both on and off the campus. Their report rewards careful reading. Its chief recommendations emphasize the importance of the University's technological infrastructure, urging both its preservation and its expansion.

"Infrastructure" in this context includes not only the hardware and software necessary to deliver or enhance instruction, but also the knowledge base needed to enable users to take advantage of what is available. In one of its most significant conclusions, the working group recommends the creation of an Electronic Instructional Media Lab and Network to provide technological and human support for the use of technology in teaching, the development of novel (and possibly marketable) courseware and learning tools, and research into yet further innovation in technology-based instruction. The working group also recommends providing initial and ongoing training for faculty to use technology where it might be appropriate and to develop technology-based innovations where they might make a difference.

The key technical concept of the Electronic Instructional Media Lab and Network is the integration of research and development with the use and production of electronic media. This arrangement is ideal for generating the required technical support for the users and producers of electronic media as well as for providing the in-house end-user test bed for researchers and developers of electronic media technology. Once operational, the Electronic Instructional Media Lab will host a number of pilot programs developing and evaluating electronic media applications in the humanities, social sciences, architecture, biology, journalism, computer science and other fields. It will both consolidate our current efforts and invest with high returns in technologies we cannot afford to ignore.

While the costs for technology are not easy to estimate, they will clearly be substantial. Maintaining the existing hardware and software base (much of it purchased with outside funds) is obviously essential. Not to move forward in this field, however, is to fall behind and to be unable to compete for students. It is not clear that the University can find enough resources by internal reallocation; external funding seems essential. It may also be necessary to institute resource fees for technology, especially in professional areas.

The working group also calls attention to two home truths about technology:

•  o No current purchases will offer permanent solutions to productivity problems. Today's purchases deal with current issues. The life span of an innovation or solution is tied to the technology's replacement cycle.
•  o It is essential to remember and preserve quality while increasing quantity. Consideration of technological innovations for teaching larger numbers of students, either by increasing class sizes or by providing courses at a distance, must err on the side of caution whenever quality seems at risk. The more distant the student is from real interaction with faculty, the greater the chance of confusing exposure to knowledge with engagement of ideas in learning. The more innovative the ideas one considers implementing, the more careful one must be to provide tough-minded evaluation of whether the innovation results in a loss of quality education for the students.

Assessment and measurement are key components of planning in general, and most especially of productivity planning. The preliminary report of the working group on Assessment and Productivity Measurement presents an overall view of quantitative and qualitative measures that might be applied to assess outcomes or to determine goals for the University. The list is enormous, and includes gross figures, such as numbers of graduates per year or average time to degree, as well as measures that get to questions of quality of program or service to the State.

Universities, by their very nature, are continuously assessing performance--of their students, of their faculty, and of their programs. Although there are some notable exceptions, in most productivity areas that one might want to assess, the means have long since been developed and are available for use. They also cost money and time to administer. A key element in devising the assessment component of a productivity plan is the determination of what to measure, given the limited resources available for the purpose.

The University proposes to meet part of the assessment requirement for its Productivity Plan by submitting to OSSHE each year a portfolio of productivity measures. The "University of Oregon Portfolio" would contain multiple measures of University achievements, including tables and graphs, vignettes of faculty members in teaching and research, photo essays of individual students and living groups, video and audio tapes of dance, drama and musical performances, sketches of labs, institutes and departments, samples of University consultation in business, industry, and government, etc. The portfolio would be appropriate to the University of Oregon's multiple audiences, containing 20-30 items in varying levels of complexity. Some items could be considered "social indicators," to be charted every year (e.g., number of students, number of graduates, pie charts of funding sources), while other items would be reported on a semiannual basis and still others would be unique each year.

The University of Oregon Portfolio would be intended to meet the needs of OSSHE, but assessment also serves the needs of planners on campus as well. A number of the measures proposed by the working group, while not normally included in the portfolio, will be used by the University in determining the effectiveness of planning decisions and the quality and productivity of individuals and programs.

QUALITY CONTROL

Major changes of the sort proposed above will require oversight to ensure the continued high quality of an education from the University of Oregon. Programs that give students an increased share of the responsibility for their own learning, such as participatory learning activities, offer the potential for abuse as well as student growth. The University's standing faculty governance committees will need to play a prominent role in setting guidelines for academic content and faculty oversight and in seeing that the guidelines are evenly applied. At the same time, the rules must be sufficiently flexible to encourage innovative approaches to instruction.

EMPHASIS ON LEARNING--THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE FACULTY The University's academic productivity planning has concentrated on student learning as an outcome, rather than on faculty teaching as an input. Teaching, learning and knowing are distinct, but related, activities. By emphasizing learning as a means to knowing, we hope to provide our students with the tools to succeed in a world for which we cannot give them all the knowledge they will need. Learning how to learn is at least as important as mastering subject matter. The programs we propose will help students practice learning at all stages of their development, from the freshman year onward.

CULTURAL CHANGES

Increased stress on student responsibility for learning will mean changes in the way faculty teach. Different instructional models will require different allocations of faculty instructional time, in some cases to activities not now part of the typical faculty day. The University must provide support and guidance to faculty members who lack experience with new teaching methods or technology. In addition, the University's reward structure must take account of the substantial amount of energy that goes into redesigning courses and revising teaching strategies. Proper recognition of faculty contributions is also essential for the success of the participatory learning programs.

Changes in instructional activities will help to draw a clear distinction between the concept of instructional load and such measures as classroom hours or courses taught. Teaching load already means different things in different academic disciplines, so that a typical assignment of instructional responsibility in one department may involve much more scheduled teaching that a typical assignment in another. As teaching activities change, the institution and departments must adapt their measures of teaching effort to provide realistic and fair assignments and to assess performance.

The student culture also will have to change to accommodate the increasing student share of responsibility for learning. The shift may be difficult, since many students have been educated in a system that emphasizes knowing and teaching more than the process of acquiring knowledge. The advantages of changing behavior must be made clear. Along with the challenge must come the offer of help to succeed at a higher level.

TWO PROPOSALS THAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT

2-Tier Faculty

Some universities have proposed hiring permanent faculty members to positions emphasizing teaching at the expense of scholarship. Such a scheme would not work at the University of Oregon, for a number of reasons, and we cannot support it. At the same time, the University must be prepared to encourage and reward those faculty members already on its staff who, for sound professional reasons, choose to devote more of their energies to teaching. A specially appointed Commission on Promotion, Tenure and Career Development is currently considering these and related issues. We will also continue our practice of hiring instructors and adjunct faculty to meet special teaching needs in our regular programs and in courses offered through continuing education.

3-Year Degrees

Some institutions of higher education are looking to the creation of three-year degree programs, to move more students through the program with a given level of resources and as a means to attract students. We do not believe the University of Oregon should institute a three-year baccalaureate program. Several of the proposals mentioned above, such as credit by examination and the 3+2 master's program, would allow exceptional students to proceed to the bachelor's degree in less than four years from freshman admission, but in each case the student's degree would be based on performance, not elapsed time. We are committed to reducing roadblocks, and we expect, as a consequence, that the number of students who graduate within four years of admission will go up substantially.

For many of our students the years in residence at the University of Oregon are a time for growing up and shaping their adult identities. Academic studies are only a part of that process. While we recognize the financial considerations, we also see the educational value of encouraging such a student not to hurry through, but to profit from a developmental opportunity that will never come again. The advantage of the 3+2 program that we propose is that it offers the best of both: academic acceleration combined with an extended opportunity for maturation.

A REALISTIC AGENDA

We have been working with demographic enrollment projections to quantify the necessary increases in recruitment, retention and graduation rates to achieve our productivity goals. We will present a detailed projection with our final productivity plan. Our main conclusions from the models to date can be summarized as follows:

•  1. Between 1993-94 and 1997-98 we will need to maintain the current level of recruitment and enrollment of nonresident undergraduates, and increase the enrollment of resident undergraduates at approximately the rate of increase in high school graduates. Enrollments of graduate and other students will remain approximately constant.
•  2. These rate increases will result in total enrollment increases of about 1200 students by 1997-98, 2000 students by 1999-2000, and 3000 students by 2004. Total on-campus head-count enrollment in 2004 will be approximately 19,500 students. In our models we assume that all of the increase will be in undergraduates, with nonresident undergraduate enrollment stabilizing at about 5,600 students by 2001.
• 3. We will need to increase the percentage of entering freshman who remain to the junior year by 1 percentage point per year through 2004, from the current retention rate of 68% to 78%.
•  4. By the year 2004 we will need to increase the percentage of our students who have graduated after six years from the current 50% to about 65%. Related to this improvement will be a decrease in average enrolled time to degree by about two terms. If we do not achieve this decrease in time to degree, enrollments will be larger than described here, but the same number of students will be served.
•  5. To achieve financial stability, and thus program stability, we will need to limit the net budget reduction (general fund reduction less resident tuition increases) for the 1995-97 biennium to about 8%. This limit can be achieved, for example, by a general fund reduction of about 20%, offset by resident and graduate tuition increases of about 15% per year, depending on enrollment. Similar considerations hold for future years.

We believe these goals are all achievable based on the "multiple methods" approach we will propose. We will have three very clear benchmarks that will guide us in implementing and evaluating the productivity measures: an increase in enrollment, an increase in retention, and an increase in graduation rates. Our plans to reach these targets are realistic, but only if they are coupled with a plan for financial stability. If we are forced into further program cuts, quality decreases, or decreased services to students, it is unlikely that we will be able to reach the enrollment goals laid out here.

NEXT STEPS

During the remainder of this academic year we will continue to develop strategies and policies for moving toward the goals we have stated above. Discussions with students and faculty, as well as continued refinement of the working group recommendations, will lead to the final productivity plan submitted to OSSHE in March and will form the basis for the University's continuing program of productivity improvement and educational reform.

In addition, we will be preparing and submitting the University's budget for the next biennium. The budget process will develop the operational targets that result from turning productivity principles and goals into functional programs. It will serve as a check on the feasibility of proposals for enhancing productivity and will help us determine priorities for implementation.

A FINAL WORD

This account emphasizes instruction, especially at the undergraduate level, since the Chancellor's directive to prepare a productivity plan stresses instruction. It would be a fundamental and irretrievable error, however, to judge the University's productivity and value to the State on the sole basis of enrollment in its instructional programs. The whole character of the institution, illustrated every day in its classrooms, arises from the scholarship of the faculty. That scholarship must survive and flourish for the University to remain productive.

[Submitted by: Charley Wright
Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:47:10 PST] [Copyright 1993, University of Oregon]