Division ID
Skip links
 
 
Print this pageAdd this page to your favoritesSelect a font sizeSmall fontMedium fontLarge font
 

Assessment Committee Meeting Minutes

April 26, 2001

Present: Coan, Lacourse (Chair), Till, Tewari, Relleve-Caveness, Weber, Henriques

  1. Approved minutes of March 29th.
  2. Assessment Coordinators search.
  • The Provost accepted our recommendation for a job description and our involvement for reviewing candidates. We will review candidates and list pros and cons but we will not be recommending candidates or interviewing them.
  • The call for applicants has already been sent to the community. We will review candidates on May 10.
  1. Assessment Grants announcement.
  • Discussed the call and made the following recommendations.
  • A maximum dollar amount should be listed. In the past it's been $7,500.
  • Mention that planning grants are available ($1,500 limit).
  • Include examples, with URL's, of previous funded programs.
  • Want to know if this project is receiving funding from other sources or if they have previously been awarded assessment grants.
  • Since the RFP is aligned with the white paper it might be worth mentioning the forthcoming assessment white paper. Reiterate the charges in the white paper.
  • Down play individual retreats as a use for the money.
  • Accountability: include a statement requiring participants to share their results with others in the CSULB community. [This might be in the form of an all univ. retreat with concurrent sessions or be college level activities.]
  • Change the deadline for submission to June 8. We will review proposals in the afternoon of June 18.
  1. White Paper
  • Draft recommendation #2 is too open-ended and nebulous. A discussion of what would be expected for that ensued. Should the focus of #2 be directed to unit/mission statements as opposed to university mission statements? If so, how do they align with accreditation statements and requirements?
  • Maybe departments need to revisit their mission statements to be student outcomes oriented. It is hoped that the mission of the discipline fields are included in this, not just department missions. This might mean using the money for retreats would be useful as a way to start the dialogue.
  • Title should be changed to Assessment of Student Outcomes
  • To encourage the discussion we want the white paper to generate we might need to visit targeted groups - Dean's Council, College Councils, etc. to get a reaction and actively seek feedback.
  • #2 should have the following words added to the end of the last sentence ". . . and the goals of the department/unit and the professional organizations with which they relate."
  • #3 should be reworded to say "We recommend that, third, each Division, College, Department, and other unit develop a plan for assessment for the objectives developed in #2."
  • Recommendation #3 is tied to #2 but there is no implementation implied. Add #4 "We recommend that the plan be implemented in academic year 2002-2003.
  • Dave Dowell is doing work on midrange goals. How does this paper relate to the institutional planning process?
  • Timing of paper distribution was discussed. General consensus was to distribute now, don’t' wait until fall. We realize that it may get lost at this point of the semester. One idea is to distribute now and re-distribute electronically next fall.

 

These minutes have not been approved.

Next meeting: May 10.

Respectfully submitted,

Laura Henriques