Introduction

Minutes

Members

Members present:
Kristin Anderson, Georgia Gudykunst, Marian Tadano, Billie Hughes, Brent Jameson, Betsy Frank, Geoff Eroe, Bill Coppola

Chairperson Brent Jameson called the meeting to order. The agenda was distributed to members. Seven items on the agenda were included and appear as headings within the body of these minutes.
1. January 27 minutes
The minutes from the January 27th meeting were accepted with no corrections.
2. Update on letter to NCA
Dr. Hughes, Dr. Gudykunst, Ms. Anderson, and Dean Tadano are going to the District Office on Wednesday, February 24th to work with Dr. Story and the MCLI group at the District Office. The purpose of this visit is to obtain assistance in identifying a time line of assessment implementation efforts which will be attached to the letter to NCA. This time line will help to reassure NCA that PC has a working plan to address assessment issues.

Dr. Hughes is working on an evaluation of the minutes from past assessment committee meetings as well as checklist development to see if that previous work can be culled into further evidence of our assessment efforts. The only piece that is missing from PC's past assessment efforts is administrative. Further research by Dr. Hughes should give more ideas regarding institutional progress and lead to the identification of course goals.
3. Update on bringing in consultants
Judy Boschult has been working on this item with MCLI. This event will probably be held during the first week of accountability in the fall. Upon completion of the workshop, intensive work on assessment can begin. Ideas regarding what the workshop will include are 1) how to measure education, and 2) how this assessment is tied to departments.

There has been a suggestion that Dean Tadano write a Lodestar grant to help fund the consultants. If received, this workshop would be open to Maricopa. However, Dean Tadano will discuss further with the consultant team, tentatively from Penn State, so that the needs of Phoenix College are met. Dean Tadano, in tentative negotiations with Penn State, has requested a 2-day workshop conducted in early April that could accommodate 60-80 people. This workshop is approximately $10,000.00.

A training workshop will be conducted even if grant monies are not available. The number of people able to attend the training would be effected, however, if grant monies are not available.

Penn State has tentatively been chosen as the institution supplying the consultants. This university has a Center for Assessment on campus and is considered advanced in their assessment efforts. Penn State has conducted other workshops where they send a team into an institution and also supply materials.

Dr. Hughes has posted a list of references on the assessment web page as well as information from Alverno Community College.

Dean Tadano distributed copies of the EMCC, Rio and Mesa CC assessment plans. The plan from EMCC is considered easy to understand and clearly stated. Dean Tadano also reports that all colleges have had further discussions with NCA regarding their assessment plans. Most of the colleges are still working on bringing faculty departments into the assessment loop. Phoenix College is moving toward an implementation cycle. Revisions need to be made and a process established. The process that is established must be one that works for our college. NCA, as well, needs to know that we understand our own process.
4. Liaisons
Dean Tadano has requested that all departments identify an assessment liaison. These liaisons, as well as members of the assessment committee, should be the first people to be involved in the assessment workshop. After this training, these people will act as resources to the departments and provide direction and assistance to them. Dorothy Sisneros and Judy Haberman have been suggested as additional members to the assessment committee.
5. Dental Hygiene Model (Kristin)
Ms. Anderson provided a handout that could be used as the basis for departmental assessment efforts. The handout was in a matrix format that clearly identified a goal (student learning outcome) that was based on a course competency. Evaluation methods, courses where evaluation occurred, responsible persons, and resources also were included. This handout was seen as a tool that could be further refined to use for assessment of general education. Dean Tadano requested that Ms. Anderson use the matrix on a student learning outcome that was general education.
6. Status of Mission and Goals Revision
The revised mission and goals statement has been on the web and available for review. Dean Tadano will look to see if there are any issues or problems before forwarding that information to Maria. It was suggested that the goals be checked for wording changes. The question was asked whether there is a goal specific to assessment. Or, were the goals written to identify institutional effectiveness? Dean Tadano explained the hierarchy of the assessment process--

Development of institutional effective policies ----> lead to identification of learner outcomes---> which lead to institutional outcomes.

These elements are interrelated and drive each other. Dean Tadano used page 10 of the PC Planning Document to illustrate her answer. In order to further explain the assessment process, Dean Tadano has ordered and will distribute a booklet which defines the assessment process well.

7. General Education Sub-committee Formation
Marsha Hopkins has been asked to chair this sub-committee, with volunteers Dr. Hughes, Dr. Gudykunst, Dr. Eroe as committee members. Suggestions for other committee members were: Judy Haberman, Liz O'Brien and/or Sara Soller, David Gorman, and Alan Haffa. Ms. Hopkins will begin meeting with the assessment steering committee.
8. Other
There followed a lengthy discussion on other assessment issues. The immediate issue is the Governing Board End's Statement, NCA and the conflict that arises between these two governing bodies and the colleges and faculty. The Governing Board End Statements base assessment on: degree completion, retention, employer assessment, and success in subsequent courses. This narrow view of assessment is in direct opposition to the NCA assessment of student learner outcomes where data and statistics play a minor role. Other concerns regarding the Board's assessment was that this is not based on learner outcomes, is not measurable, and that the colleges cannot be compared "apples to oranges" because of the differences between students, programs and expectations.

Another issue that was a concern was one of standardization. The Board is moving toward policies that standardize the curriculum across the District similar to the standardization of the health occupation areas. Dean Tadano urged faculty members to attend the Board meeting on March 9 (strategic conversation) where these issues will be discussed.

The next assessment committee meeting will be on Wednesday, March 10 at 2:30 pm in the PC Conference Center (Learning Center).

Respectfully submitted,

Betsy Frank