To Directors: Susie
Castillo–Robson (OR), Dennis Hengstler (OPA), Helen
Kelly(COIS), Maureen Morley (AS), and JR Schulden (SIS)
cc.
Assistant and Associate Directors Loris Davanzo (OPA),
Frank Muth (COIS), Rozanne
Largent (OR), Frank Muth (COIS), Walter Wong (OR)
From: Karen Denton, LaVern
Lazzereschi, Melisandra
Leonardos, Lenore Ralston (Chair), Linda Song, Silvia Soto,
Linda Wong
On
July 10, 2001, the offices of the Academic Senate, Computing Operations &
Information Systems, Planning and Analysis, Registrar, and Student Information
Systems scheduled a half day retreat to discuss shared concerns related to the
Class Schedule and Instructional Record (CSIR) re-write project and to begin
to address campus-wide issues related to Data Integration as expressed through
this particular effort.
Subsequent
to this large meeting, smaller working groups were formed. The instructional format working group was constituted
on February 1, 2002, and involved staff from the Academic Senate, Office of
the Registrar, COIS, and Planning and Analysis.
This
report is intended to update Directors on what has been accomplished to date,
and to lay out an outline of work we believe would benefit the campus in the
future. No immediate action is required
by recipients.
Our
initial goals and objectives were to:
1.
Discuss how the data element Instructional Format and/or Class
Type (UCB) functions in each of our
offices – share
our definitions of this element and how it works/impacts work we are engaged
in;
2.
Map the progress of this data element
from the time new courses are submitted by academic departments via the Intent
to Offer Course form to the Registrar’s Office and subsequently are confirmed
via Academic Senate Course Approval Forms submitted to Committee on Courses
of Instruction (COCI). Further down the
line, the end-results are reported to the Office of the President with potentially
significant budgetary and public relations implications;
3.
Reach a mutual understanding re. what kinds of quality controls are currently in place for this data element and what quality
controls might be introduced in the future.
4.
Determine the impact on policy, operational
and reporting functions if quality control for the instructor format element
is compromised.
During
the course of the past six months we have accomplished much of what we initially
set out to do.
1.
We have deepened our understanding of the nuts
and bolts of various administrative, operational, and reporting systems, how
our individual work affects one another, and what we might do through cooperative
efforts to support the university goals as a whole;
2.
We understand the “life” sequence of this data
element from beginning to end;
3.
Separately, OPA has been working with the Academic
Senate regarding policy(s) that define “what” constitutes an Independent Study
course;
4.
We have determined a point where quality
control could be introduced for new courses. A report could be generated out of COURSE after
the Office of the Registrar has completed the manual entry of the Instructional
Format information submitted by Departments via the INTENT TO OFFER COURSE form
(still to be reviewed by directors for possible implementation);
5.
We have fostered cooperative working
relationships among the various participating offices that could form the foundation
for a future quality control monitoring group, to meet regularly during the
course of the year;
6.
We have started the process of creating
administrative/operational flow charts;
In addition, separate
from our initial goals:
1.
We have identified and recommended a solution
for improving data quality for E-Grades and CSIR without increasing departments’
workload. OPA, COIS, and OR are currently working with
SIS to modify the CSIR data entry screen that informs both E-Grade processes
as well as CSIR reporting quality. This change involves: 1) not allowing the
use of instructor function “1” unless the GSI title code reflects 2550 – a newly
adopted title code (TC) policy by the Grad Division that coincides with the
granting of variances to graduate student instructors by the Committee on Courses
of Instruction (COCI; and 2) making it imperative that all instructor function
codes 2, typically assigned to GSI (teaching but not in charge), be accompanied
by a function code 3 (not teaching, but in charge).
Further, only instructor function codes 1 and 3 will be allowed to enter
grades;
2.
The Academic Senate and SIS have provided
OPA with a cumulative cross-listed course list (as of fall 2001) for those cross-listed
courses approved by COCI;
3.
The Academic Senate has provided OPA
with 5 semesters of GSI variances that COCI has approved and has agreed to provide
both OPA and the Registrar’s Office with like reports on a regular basis;
4.
OPA and COIS are in the process of
developing training materials to be administered department by each department,
targeting identified data entry problems. In
addition, OPA and COIS hope to coordinate new training efforts with already
existing training that has been regularly undertaken by AS and OR;
5.
We have started the process of sharing
and making recommendations for updating and tightening the data entry screen
instructions, user manuals, and associated dictionaries among the various offices;
6.
We have identified several anomaly
reports that we recommend become “standard” quality control tools. It should
be noted that this list is preliminary and subject to change. The units noted in parentheses would be consulted
for guidance before implementing these quality control tools. These tools currently
include the following:
·
Official cross-listed courses
and official room shares compared with unofficial room shares (AS);
·
Assignment of Independent Study
(IND) Instructional format (AS);
·
Use of non-academic title codes
(
·
Team-taught courses (AS);
·
GSI’s appearing with instructor function “1” – teaching and in charge (Depts);
·
Courses that do not meet the
Minimal Class Size Policy recommendations (OPA).
Note: The creation of new errors and omission reports
and the associated review may have resource implications for the offices involved
in the implementation and subsequent review process (still to be determined).
However, both the analysis and recommendations related to these quality
control recommendations are congruent with the recently published (
1.
Targeted education of departments and other central campus to improve data
entry (as necessary);
2.
Update/coordinate user manuals for departmental use and for all participating
central campus units (Office of the Registrar, Academic Senate, Planning and
Analysis/COIS);
3.
Complete creation of operational, systems, and administrative flow charts;
4.
Analyze current use of instructional format codes and associated definitions;
make recommendations for updates/changes (current coding dates back to 1980);
5.
Create ongoing quality control group (in future to include end-user representatives)
to meet at as yet to be specified times (chaired by OPA) to act as problem identifiers
and solution recommenders to participating directors – quality control and campus-wide
support for data integration.
| Home | UC Berkeley | VC-Administration | Budget & Resource Planning |
| © UC Regents | |||