Introduction

Minutes

Members

Assessment Steering Team
Date: November 18, 2004
1:00 - 2:00 in HC-3

Present: Mike, Brent, Phil, Karen, Jan, Ann, Kory, Pam, Gerry, Camilla

Assessments last meeting was in September. At this meeting everyone was asked to submit brief reports; Brent put all the reports together and passed around an example of the final project.

Kristen gave a synopsis of the open house and how assessment was rolled into that. She noticed a lot of students and that they were actually interested in what was going on. We had more students this time though there were less people at the open house.

Assessment survey was done last May. In September all the answers were received and compiled. Brent handed out the compilation that was made from the responses received. It was agreed that this would be done again.

Outcome reports

Kristin – had 2 day Occupational Assessment in October. They had a great turnout with about 20 people. She noted that she has received most of the matrices for outcomes 1 and 2. There are more being turned in this year than last year. She also noticed that people are interested in the matrices and in adapting them to their programs and finding different uses for them.

Gerry – rubric is really good in covering all kinds of presentations. Still has tapes from last year and the committee is looking for a way to close the loop and get feedback to people quicker. Rating is above what was looked at on the rubric. Might be at the point where can just look at what they have already collected and not solicit anymore faculty. This would allow them to work on the turnaround.

Pam – spending time evaluating data from last Spring. Compiled a report that explains all that they have done to this point. They have started posting information on the assessment webpage. Also, they are changing textbooks and the focus from just filling in the blanks to more open ended questions. These changes are made based on the information they are gathering.

Camilla – last meeting was in September, where they were looking at data. Looking at the results from the survey she can see that there is mainly math, but think that is because they haven’t really handed out information. Need to evaluate the data they have, evaluating it in Math, English and Reading and seeing if it can be divided into three or just keep it together.

Kory – have a good rubric, can assess samples easily and quickly as well as train people easily enough in how to assess the samples. Also, it is easy enough to expand these questions so that they can be expanded and changed to best fit each individual. The committee is collecting samples from as many people as possible. In order to do so she has created a chart and keeps track of who she has received samples from, who she has contacted for samples and who she still needs to ask.

Phil – continuing the analysis of the stats from last years pilot, they are making progress on it and are doing some comparisons between the rubric and standardized tests. Looking at how they can promote critical thinking on campus, broke into sub groups each looking at a different way to do this. From this information they are working on a report and a set of recommendations. Needs help with getting some institutional research to see how the students have done compared to other tests and if they are ESL students. Broke down the information based on gender, number of years at PC, ethnicity and has noticed a big difference between the ethnicity groups. Jan will run these reports for them in order to see which students are ESL. This year they are just looking at all the data and are not collecting anymore.

Ann – went through the first round of testing (330 students) in September and October; they had 15 faculty participate. These were beginning English classes. In the spring they want to test more people in different areas, not just English and also people who may have more exposure to information literacy. By making this comparison they hope to see if PC has had an impact. She is creating a map that identifies which classes expose students to this area. When the map is posted then need to send out an email informing people about this map.

Mike – had a bit of a revolt, looking at how to analyze the portfolios. Evaluations done were reflecting the same as the last years. Committee decided to table this years portfolios, and is just focusing on the data and conclusions already collected. They are looking at how to make a difference, especially looking at the grammatical aspect. Focus of this is to try to see how to better disperse this information so that grammar can improve, as it does not appear to be based on the last two assessments. Now something needs to be done to remedy this. They are making some recommendations. It is time to reevaluate.

From listening to everyone, it appears that the theme of closing the loop is prevalent in all the committees.

Mike and Darrell gave a presentation at the assessment conference in Indianapolis. Mike gave a brief synopsis of their presentation, and the results they felt they received, which were positive.

Meeting adjourned.