-allowing smaller awards for some faculty who do not want 3 units of release time; perhaps one unit of release time, or some compensation, for focus on one course only;

-equipment costs will be allowed in the grants;

-student services professionals will also be included in the pool of those eligible to apply;

-how will distribution of funds among these separate areas be arranged? Distribution will be as equitable as possible, by including a wide range of folks on the award committee(s). Representation will be from assessment committee, GEGC, international education, service learning, academic computing, etc. This will help to spread the funds around, and if it is a more public process, everyone benefits.

-the first round of reviews may be in the substantive area of the proposal; and the second round of reviews may be from the more widely representative committee.

-should proposals be restricted to one area? Check one box on the application form? Or check multiple boxes; or show the priority or rank ordering of the areas touched by the proposal;

-Emphasize that every proposal will have to have an assessment component; include this in the RFP document

-there was some concern about the same people always getting grants; perhaps those requesting additional funding would have to show a higher level of impact; or there could be points awarded for experienced investigators who include newer or junior faculty on their proposals. There may also be a need for coaching first-time proposal writers, who could be identified in the two-step process. There may need to be a box to indicate whether they have gotten a previous award. If there is no final report from the previous award, they would not be eligible. In lean times, accountability is the key. Also, what was the substantive quality of the previous work, did it have an impact?

(Note from Michelle: Melissa Findlay has now organized all the previous assessment project and travel grant winners, so we know who has already gotten awards for assessment).

Should all awardees be required to attend an annual conference? An assessment retreat? Put their findings on a web site? The key is to have appropriate dissemination of findings, could be at the department or college level, or at a professional conference, or though a professional publication. There could be a dissemination report form that shows what the dissemination has been, and whether the requirements have been met. These forms could be distributed, and those who want more information could contact the P.I.

Mark Wiley suggested that each grant recipient be required to attend two face-to-face meetings with him, either individually or in groups. There was some discussion of whether awardees needed to submit regular progress reports, or just the final report. It was pointed out that the meetings help to document the issues and problems that people face. The first meeting would be mandatory, but the second meeting may be optional at Mark’s discretion. There should be a final presentation to the dean, department, or other targeted audience; this will keep the deans in the accountability loop.

In sum, the overall response of the assessment committee to the draft was positive.

-workshops are being set up to be available for colleges and departments, at three levels (beginning, intermediate, and advanced);

-the members of the assessment committee will be trained to do at least the beginning level workshops;

-it was suggested that the members of the assessment committee could function half the time in the field so to speak, doing the training, and meet only half as often;

-it was suggested that some web-based training modules be set up;

-it was suggested that there be a "quick assessment guide"

-there could be templates for statistical analysis