Division ID
Skip links
 
 
Print this pageAdd this page to your favoritesSelect a font sizeSmall fontMedium fontLarge font
 
Minutes of the Assessment Committee

Thursday, October 25, 2001

Present: Chen, (Educational Psychology, Administration & Counseling), Henriques (Science Education; Chair), Novack (Institutional Research), Nummedal (Psychology; Assessment Coordinator); Parentela (Civil Engineering); Reichard (Academic Affairs); Whitney (Psychology)

  1. Approved the agenda of the meeting.
  2. Coordinator’s Report
    1. Nummedal announced that Peggy Maki, Director of Assessment for AAHE will be available to come to campus either February 21st & 22ndor 22nd & 23rd. A proposed schedule for an earlier visitation in a different location was distributed for input from the committee.
    2. Dr. David Dowell, Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, will visit the Assessment Committee at our next meeting to discuss the campus Accountability Goals. Given our work this year, this should be a very important visit!
    3. The Assessment Committee’s Call for Travel Grant applications should be distributed later this week/beginning of next.
    4. Nummedal received an inquiry from Lori Roth of the Chancellor’s Office regarding the role of the IRB in on-campus assessment practices. Nummedal will discuss the role of the IRB in assessment with the Chair of the IRB.
  3. Lengthy discussion of the Assessment Committee’s White Paper, the WASC report, and Accountability Goals.
    • The WASC steering committee raised the issue that our White Paper seemingly fails to recognize that many units within the University have already embraced assessment and have already made significant progress. Further, it was suggested that the White Paper be re-titled a Position Paper.
    • There seem to be somewhat conflicting messages over the degree to which the White Paper requires revision, ranging from minor alterations to complete re-writing.
    • Daugherty (Journalism) submitted a written contribution on the definition of a Position Paper. The current White Paper is not consistent with the definition of a Position Paper.
    • Nummedal suggested that we should examine where the University is today, as opposed to where it was 1+ years ago.
    • Novack suggested that as a committee, we should emphasize our expertise in offering assistance in Methodology. Further, though idealistic, it might be beneficial for the Assessment Committee to provide some review of assessment-related activities that occur on campus.
    • Reichard emphasized the continuing need to de-mystify the concept of Assessment to faculty. Many faculty still view Assessment as some new requirement, when in many cases they have always implemented assessment practices in their own work.
    • The lack of coordination and shared knowledge from various campus assessment efforts was lamented. With the graphical assistance of Henriques and Nummedal, the following major assessment efforts on campus were identified: Accreditations, WASC (Institutional self-study), Accountability Goals, Program Review (Program self-study), General Education Implementation, and Mid-range goals.
    • Nummedal offered the following diagrams to help organize the Committee’s thought process:
Strategic Planning
Down Arrow
Down Arrow

Accountability Goals Mid-range Goals

 
 
 
 
 
GOALS (outcomes)
How do you know? 
Right Arrow
 
 
 
 
 

Right Arrow
Arrow Up-Down
 
Where is it happening? 

Who is doing it? 

To what degree is it happening?

 
 
 
 
 
    • Nummedal and Henriques will meet this week to further clarify these issues.
    • Nummedal suggested that each committee member should talk with colleagues to determine how the Assessment Committee could best benefit the campus community. Specific open-ended questions will be developed.
    • Chen and Parentela both may have very good examples of assessment activities from recent experience with program review and accreditation.
Next meeting: Thursday, November 1st from 2:30 ? 4:00
 
 

Respectfully submitted,

Dave Whitney