This summary is a unified discussion of evidence related to Criteria 2.1-2.7. There are also sidebar summaries at 2.2 and 2.5.

The Teaching and Learning standards 2.1-2.7 cover a number of related topics. The central elements in the discussion are the course requirements for students. Are the course requirements well-documented and readily available? Are the courses and teaching programs that deliver the required instruction reviewed? Do the requirements and related courses reflect the educational objectives of the institution? Is the campus of a community on the purpose of the requirements and the courses? Do the faculty have ownership of this area? Are the courses delivered so that students engage the material and learn to an extent that the goals are met?

The highest level of aspiration for our students is described in the recently adopted Educational Objectives. We are in the beginning stages of propagating the effects of this new approach through the institution. A central role in the process will be played by the new Undergraduate Council, which was established by the Academic Senate Representative Assembly in June 2002. With these two elements, we expect to develop a more coherent approach to undergraduate education policy.

The present requirements for graduation implicitly state the expectations for student learning. There are four levels of requirements. All of them are described in detail in the General Catalog, which is taken by students and faculty as the highest authority on requirements. The University requirements are minimal and not particularly relevant to the present discussion. The Campus requirement is General Education. It includes the components of topical breadth, writing experience, and social-cultural diversity. At the college level, there are additional writing requirements. The general education requirement will be discussed in more detail in the essay as a response to our previous reaccreditation review. At Criterion 2.2, there are several items related to general education including a discussion of data on student course breadth that is relevant to the WASC general education guideline. These requirements are the operational form of the faculty consensus on expectations for students in GE, breadth, and English composition.

As preparation for university study, elaborate admission requirements are carefully described in the catalog. In addition, for transfer students, there are articulation agreements with the community colleges that facilitate the transfer process.

Admissions requirements, graduation requirements, and course approval are all matters within the purview of the faculty as represented in the various committees of the Academic Senate. Often a topic from one or more of these areas may become a subject of active discussion on campus. For example, admissions requirements received a lot of attention in the last year. Writing requirements and the delivery of English composition instruction are matters of current debate.

The undergraduate courses and degree programs are described in detail in the General Catalog.

There are formal review processes by which the appropriate standards are maintained for courses and programs. Procedures for the review of proposed new programs can be seen here.

Proposals for new courses and for changes to existing courses are reviewed by college and campus courses committees according to documented procedures. It is worth noting that these are by no means pro forma reviews. Complaints about the pickiness and the strictness of these reviews are often heard.

Existing teaching programs are reviewed on a regular schedule according to general campus guidelines. The major effort in review takes place at the college level. (Letters and Science, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences) Recent examples: History and Classics. Reviews with their recommendations eventually find their way to the Academic Senate Committee on Educational Policy and to the appropriate dean.

The guidelines for the program reviews are currently being revised. The goals are to connect the reviews more closely to the new Educational Objectives and to improve the post-review follow through.

Review of graduate programs is handled in a similar manner. Graduate program reviews include a review committee member from another institution.

The College of Engineering has an assessment-based program review process that is conducted in collaboration with their national accrediting body, the Accredition Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). A recent example is the report from the Chemical Engineering review. The accreditation for engineering programs is done in conjunction with professional societies, as the societies define criteria specific to each discipline and they provide the program evaluators who visit the campus. The College of Engineering and several of its departments have industrial advisory boards that review and provide advice and guidance on undergraduate programs.

Courses at UC Davis engage students in learning and provide them with feedback in ways typical of research universities. Students receive feedback throughout the quarter in many ways. There are grades associated with problem sets, labs write-ups, quizzes, papers, and midterms. In addition, discussion sections and discussions with faculty members give more informal but very valuable feedback. While many courses are structured in these traditional ways, there are also some more innovative approaches. One example is Physics 7. It is based on the idea that intensive discussion and immediate feedback are a more effective way to help students internalize the concepts of introductory physics. This restructured version of physics for biological science majors has moved the center of learning from the large lecture to the discussion/labs.

Although some departments are adopting a capstone experience for their majors, there is still little systematic, campuswide effort to directly measure the extent to which the overall, general learning of graduates meets our goals and expectations. The indirect measures of their development come from the statistics of their impressive successes in securing desirable employment and positions in graduate or professional schools.

Please see the Criterion 2.3 links for a varied sample of course descriptions and course websites.