Assessment Committee Minutes
Meeting of September 20, 2001
Members Present: Henriques (Science Education; Chair), Caveness (Student Services), Chen (Educational Psychology, Administration, & Counseling), Gilmore (Academic Computing Services), Lacourse (Kinesiology & Physical Education), Mulvaney (Testing & Evaluation), Novack (Institutional Research), Nummedal (Assessment Coordinator), Parentela (Civil Engineering), Reichard (Academic Affairs), Santhiveeran (Social Work), Whitney (Psychology)
1. The meeting was called to order at 12:05 p.m.
2. The minutes of the September 6, 2001 meeting were approved.
3. The agenda of the day was approved.
4. Report from College of Health & Human Services Assessment Retreat
- Lacourse ? The retreat, with Mary Allen as the facilitator and presenter, generated two main outcomes:
(a) Assessment is the priority of the year.
(b) A formal college-level assessment committee will be formed.
The White Paper was included in a packet distributed at the retreat.
- Lacourse suggested that the Committee see whether the assessment funds could only be used at the college level or at any division across the campus.
5. Discussion of the Assessment Committee Charge #2
- Reichard noted that this Committee as an appropriate governance body should direct campus assessment activity. Assessment should be embedded more thoroughly into GE as well as being subject specific. Relevant information on GE and assessment can be found within the educational effectiveness section at the WASC web site - http://www.csulb.edu/projects/wasc/.
- This Committee set program review as the priority of the year, and planned on learning from the colleges and departments about their charges and then see what assistance this body can offer. The Committee will also advise campus units about the prospect that, in the future, allocation of resources on campus will largely depend on program evaluation, which should not be an add-on, but a normal on-going activity.
- Whitney suggested that the Committee identify general assessment criteria that most departments would find useful. Workshops including methodology may also be beneficial. Reichard noted that we could first find out what criteria are already being used.
- The Committee also proposed to provide more consistent support other than workshops, and to hold an assessment retreat, in which the campus community may share best practices and coordinate resources.
6. Discussion of money issues
- Remaining budget: $20,000
- The Committee discussed commingling the assessment funds with innovations and GE money and the reshaping of the calls for proposals.
- The Committee would accept two types of proposals, (a) course-level projects, which deal with the development, modification, and assessment of courses, and (b) department- or program-level projects, which address programmatic types of issues.
- It is suggested that a mechanism be in place to ensure that the recipients of the assessment grants bring back reports on their activities. The service-learning grants, which require those receiving the grants to participate in a series of workshops, could be a model to follow.
- Certain amounts of money need to be set aside for the assessment retreat as well as for the development and maintenance of the assessment web site. The Committee discussed the estimated retreat cost.
- Regarding the announcement of funding travel to assessment-related conferences, the Committee in general puts up a call for proposals, one in Fall and the other in Spring. Ten thousand dollars of travel funds are available a year; five hundred dollars is available to each person. The Committee will screen the proposals and there will be money allocated for staff members.
- Novack volunteered to check with Sandy Hague about surveying what the IR office has done to facilitate program review.
- Nummedal noted the need for a better follow-up process that keeps track of the information involving assessment projects funded. The Committee may request that a copy on disk be submitted along with the project proposal.
7. Announcements
- Nummedal asked for student workers to help update the assessment web site, who can work for five flexible hours a week.
- The Student Services Division managers' meeting set top priorities, including setting up an assessment task force with five managers sitting on the team, and recommending guidelines and timelines to either improve or implement assessment activities.
8. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Next meeting: October 11, 2001 at 2:30 p.m.
Note: These minutes have been approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Teresa Chen
