CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH
Minutes of the Assessment Committee
Meeting of March 4, 1999
Members Present: Gary Reichard (Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs), Susan Mulvaney (Director, Testing and Evaluation Services), Margaret Merryfield (Chemistry and Biochemistry), Rose M. Martin (Accountancy), Michael Lacourse (Kinesiology and Physical Education), Don Coan (Director, Institutional Research), Gerry Hanley (Director of Center for Faculty Development), Sandra Cynar (Computer Engineering and Computer Science), Kathy Ducharme (Teacher Education), Mamdouh Fayek (Design), Deb Tuttle, Cynthia Parish (Adult Learning Coordinator, University College & Extension Services), and Arlene Lazarowitz (History).
* The Committee has not approved these minutes.
1. The meeting convened at 12:15 p.m. Michael Lacourse served as Chair for the meeting.
2. The Committee approved the agenda for the meeting.
3. The Committee approved the minutes of the February 18, 1999 meeting.
4. The Committee passed a motion (MSP) to recommend (to the Academic Senate) that the position of Assessment Coordinator be formalized on campus. The need for this position was discussed at the Feb. 4 meeting and was originally stated as follows:
The Committee discussed the need for a University Coordinator of Assessment.
Other CSUs have developed similar positions. Although CSULB has been reluctant to establish an administrative Assessment position, the Committee feels that the need exists and the Campus Community would be well served by an Assessment administrator.
5. Main Discussion ItemReview of Assessment Retreat and Workshop:
a. The first area of review concerned the format and content of the Assessment Retreat Evaluation form. Committee members were encouraged to add and revise questions. Key points of discussion included the following:
1. What do we do after the retreat? What ongoing support do faculty need to develop (and implement) assessment projects?
2. Would a telephone survey be helpful in increasing the response rate to the evaluation? Should the form be emailed to recipients as well as snail mailed?
3. Should general questions be added concerning the philosophy of assessment? Is the faculty convinced that assessment is an important issue that they must research? Did the retreat persuade participants of this importance?
4. Inquiry should be added concerning demographicsis the respondent staff, faculty (tenured or untenured), chair, etc.
5. For maximum response, the form should be constrained to one page.
a. After completing review of the evaluation form, the Committee continued to general comments about the mechanics and organization of the retreat.
1. We should give participants blank note paper.
2. We should include handouts from case presentations in the participant booklet.
3. We could tailor the case presentations to address the language barriers that can occur between Colleges. We could organize presentation by subject. Assessment strategies and tools are presented in a general session. Case presentation follows, using an audience of a faculty (and case) from a given discipline. Presentations could be done for each department within a College. We may conduct several workshops during the semester.
4. Given progress that we achieved at the retreat (and the need to effect cultural change at the grass roots level), the timing could be good for the Committee to conduct workshops with Department Chairs. (Reichard)
6. Gary Reichard distributed a redraft of item 9 of Cornerstones for the Committee's review.
7. The new deadline for the Assessment Grant application forms is March 26, 1999.
8. The next meeting will take place on April 8 from 122 p.m. The major task of this meeting will be to review and evaluate Assessment Grant Proposals. The Committee will also receive a presentation from Dave Hood and Kip Polakoff on WASC at an upcoming meeting.
9. The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
I respectfully submit these minutes,
Rose M. Martin
Recording Secretary