The History of Unit One

This document has four sections:

  1. A summary description of Unit One composed Fall, 1994
  2. A historical survey: 1971-1985
  3. A "transition statement" composed inthe mid-1980s
  4. The report of the Council on Program Evaluation(COPE), 1983--A campus level evaluation committee>

Evaluations

UNIT ONE was evaluated many times over the past nine years. I will review the six evaluations which were formally requested by the College of LAS and will also refer to other documents which contain evaluative data.

Smock and Terwilliger (1971-72) evaluated UNIT ONE during its initial year. (7) They based their conclusions on comparisons of objective date (e.g., entrance test scores) with academic outcomes and on interviews with students and staff.

They cited UNIT ONE as being successful for most participants with its strong points being tutorial studies, availability of academic staff, availability of educational and cultural opportunities, and facilities unique to Allen Hall. Weak points included constraints of the residence hall and "red tape." They also concluded that most of the successful UNIT ONE offerings could be exported to other residence halls (e.g., tutorial studies, classes in residence halls, special facilities, and artists-in-residence).

Smock and Goldstein (1971-72) (8) saw an overall positive feeling by students toward their UNIT ONE experience. They cited the strong points of the tutorial studies as being the uniquely close contact between freshmen and University faculty and the weak points as the absence of administrative supervision of these students. If UNIT ONE were to become a truly experimental laboratory for the University then more academic autonomy would be necessary.

Caully and Dawson (1976) (9) stated that the problems with LAS 110 courses and tutorial involved the lack of motivation due to the lack of grades (s/u grading), the sometimes absence of regular faculty as tutors, the sometimes lack of student/tutor initiative to generate a project, and the students' giving this course a lower priority. UNIT ONE students, however, performed above University averages in grade point and selection index. These evaluators suggested that the “academic community” has a strong educational impact on UNIT ONE students, but that the concept of UNIT ONE as a response to the “60's” may have to change to accommodate the students of the late 70's and 80's.

A committee chaired by Franz Hohn (Department of Mathematics) (1977) (10) found that structural differences between the Housing Division and the academic staff at UNIT ONE had caused friction for quite a while. They agreed that LAS 110 was a success, and that the artist-in-residence program had evolved well. UNIT ONE had not, however, met its originally planned goals of giving faculty a place to experiment. They recommended that UNIT ONE continue under the aegis of LAS, but with an advisory board from all colleges, that the program revolve around LAS 110 tutorials, that the UNIT be divorced from the Housing Division, and that Housing Division offer non-credit encroachment programs (such as A-I-R) in its residence halls.

The LAS Task Force on Resource Reallocation (1978) (11) recommended that UNIT ONE be discontinued since “its impact on LAS educational programs has not been sufficiently great to warrant its continuance” in the light of budgetary considerations. This report was countered by a response from UNIT ONE Acting Director Roland Holmes and Associate Director Howard Schein (1978) (12).

Two student evaluations (Meyerson, 1974 (13); Bonfiglio, 1978 (14)) addressed the residential aspects of community. They found it to exist more strongly in UNIT ONE than in other residence halls.

Pines et al (1979) (15) recommended the creation of a Center for University Education. Most of their proposed functions for this center already had been tested at UNIT ONE, but it appears that the committee did not consider using the UNIT ONE model as a testing ground.

In 1978 a committee chaired by Harry Broudy (Philosophy of Education) (16) recommended that the program be continued with some basic revisions.

In 1980, a UNIT ONE Steering Committee submitted a Preliminary Budget Request (17) to the University proposing the creation of a non-degree-granting undergraduate Residential College based on the UNIT ONE model but with much greater involvement of regular departmental faculty. This request was ranked 34 of 68 by the evaluating COPE committee (18): “There was a general antipathy to UNIT ONE in terms of its current image of life experiences, student-designed courses, and teaching assistants. There was general support of the concept of residential living with the involvement of full-time faculty. The major concern was whether the image of UNIT ONE would allow an evolution into a more academically oriented program or if it wouldn't be better to kill UNIT ONE and start over.”

UNIT ONE was given three years (1980-83) to answer criticisms with a redesigned program.

In 1983, the Council on Program Evaluation (COPE) issued its evaluation of UNIT ONE's three year reorganization. (19) The COPE report's Conclusions and Recommendations state that UNIT ONE has successfully reorganized along the Vice-Chancellor's guidelines, that the program's academic quality is acceptable to the campus, that students are satisfied with the program, that its current organizational report line under two vice-chancellors is appropriate, and the report “strongly urges that the UNIT continue to be supported.”

UNIT ONE currently offers about 25 courses/semester, has added an academic advisor to the staff, is redefining and reorganizing the In Residence Program, and is redefining its educational role in light of the stated needs of its current student population. The structure of the Unit has always been flexible enough to change in order to be responsible to students' requests. The UNIT ONE students of the 80s are more achievement oriented along academic and career pathways than their predecessors; new UNIT ONE offerings reflect this direction.