Minutes of the Assessment Committee
Thursday, November 1, 2001
Members Present: Chen (Educational Psychology, Administration & Counseling), Daugherty (Journalism), Henriques (Science Education and Chair) Lacourse (Kinesiology & Physical Education), Novack (Institutional Research), Nummedal (Assessment Coordinator), Relleve-Caveness (Student Services), Santhiveeran (Social Work), Whitney (Psychology)
- The meeting was called to order at 2:35 p.m. by Henriques, committee chair.
- David Dowell, director of strategic planning at CSULB, gave a report on the CSU Accountability Process. He began with a historical overview by discussing the cornerstones conference in Monterey that was initiated by former Chancellor Munitz. Chancellor Reed later charged David Spence, executive vice chancellor and chief academic officer, with Principle 9 — Accountability, which includes nine fundamental areas of core indicators. The first indicator is the "quality of baccalaureate degree programs," which Dowell said is really assessment. "In a nutshell, we’ve been asked to make sure every academic unit on campus has established learning goals," Dowell said. "…and to ensure that assessment is taking place…and is using that assessment information."
Dowell explained that in his role as coordinator of this process, he draws on the expertise and resources of others when developing his game plan and expects to contact the Assessment Committee chair or assessment coordinator to help make contributions. The next report is due to the Chancellor’s Office on October 15, 2002, so he expects to contact the Assessment Committee for input in the spring.
When asked about the role of the Assessment Committee in this process, Dowell said it would be useful for the committee to encourage deans to reach out to departments to develop those goals. Dowell also added that "developing an inventory — identifying the hot spots — would be helpful."
- The rest of the meeting was spent discussing the draft of the Assessment and Program
Review Needs Assessment document.
The following were some suggestions made by the committee:
- Include the purpose, contact, and due date
- Take "needs" out of the title
- Include a preface for departments with accrediting bodies
- Distinguish between undergraduate and graduate programs
- Replace subheads with new copy ("if undergoing program review this year" and "if not undergoing program review this year, tell us about your most recent review")
The committee also discussed offering choices instead of asking open-ended questions, dividing the copy into two separate documents, and first conducting focus groups to get a sense of the issues so that the committee can frame some follow-up questions. The committee briefly talked about a spring retreat where department needs could be addressed. Respectfully submitted,
Emma Daugherty
