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

October 10, 2002

Present:

Aguinaga (University Library), Chen (Educational Psychology, Administration & Counseling), Henriques (Science Education, Chair), Naimpally (Educational Policies rep.), Parentela (Civil Engineering), Saint-Germain (Assessment Coordinator), Santhiveeran (Social Work), Wiley (Faculty Center for Professional Development), Whitney (Psychology)

  1. Agenda for the day was approved
  2. Minutes from the Sept. 26, 2002 meeting were approved
  3. Announcements:
    1. A new student representative was assigned to the committee
    2. Last year the Assessment Committee agreed to participate in a FIPSE grant proposal. That proposal was funded. Discussion of what our role might be ensued.
  4. Re-opening of discussion re: Academic Senate questions
    • The reorganization of Academic Affairs provides an opportunity for consideration of how the Assessment Committee fits within the University hierarchy.
    • A newly created permanent position is charged with responsibility for Assessment & Program Evaluation.
    • Deans have expressed considerable interest in assessment, and how it can be used to improve existing programs.
    • Concern was expressed about duplication of assessment responsibilities and lack of coordination on campus
    • The Committee considered the possibility of re-assigning Assessment Committee duties across several existing campus entities:
      • Persons with expertise in assessment could be useful to PRAP and Grad Council during program review
      • The Faculty Center for Professional Development could be responsible for educating faculty about assessment, and facilitating involvement in assessment
      • Is there need for the Assessment Committee in providing independent recommendations regarding University assessment policies?
    • Reiterated the importance of representation of College assessment coordinators in campus-wide assessment planning.
    • Considered the importance of using collected assessment data to make informed, reasoned decisions.
    • The Assessment Committee believes that the following aspects of its charge must continue on campus:
      • Educate faculty about assessment, and facilitate in the adoption of quality assessment activities
      • Involve individuals with assessment expertise in the program review process
      • Establish a central assessment "command" to make policy recommendations and serve as a campus focal point re: assessment
    • The challenge is to determine what entity(ies) should accomplish these activities. Possibilities include the Assessment committee in its present membership formulation, the Assessment committee in a revision of representatives, or through the new position of Assessment & Program Evaluation.
    • The Committee also discussed obstacles to achievement of the committee’s charge:
      • Acting too much in a vacuum
      • Redundancy in assessment activities on campus (lack of coordination)
  1. Coordinator’s Report
    • The Assessment Coordinator now has an office located in within the Faculty Center for Professional Development
    • Perhaps the Assessment Committee can provide travel funds for newly appointed departmental assessment coordinators to receive training. Example might be the Fullerton Assessment conference.
    • Saint-Germain will develop three levels of workshops on assessment. Assessment committee members will be trained, and then these individuals will provide these workshops to departments/colleges/units upon request. Deans have expressed significant interest in such workshops.
    • Saint-Germain is a representative on the GE Assessment Taskforce, which is responsible for recommending a set of student learning outcomes for General Education.
  1. PRAP council has requested the involvement of Assessment Committee members in upcoming program evaluations. This is likely a good example of increased coordination between PRAP and the Assessment Committee. Henriques will meet with PRAP representatives to discuss the possible involvement of Assessment Committee members in program evaluation, including the level of such involvement. Priorities for the council in program review will also be elicited
  2. Old Business: Revisiting E3/Assessment Grants Program
    • Based on consideration of input from multiple sources, Wiley proposed several major changes:
      • an annual review cycle
      • $10,000 maximum award per proposal
      • increased accountability
    • Wiley will provide a draft of the call for proposals by the next meeting.
Next meeting: Thursday, October 24, 2002 at 2:00 p.m.

These minutes have not been approved.

Respectfully submitted,

Dave Whitney