Introduction

Minutes

Members

Assessment Committee Minutes
Date: November 18, 1998

2:00 PM PC Conference Room

Committee members who were present: Kristin Anderson, Dave Gorman, Georgia Gudykunst, Yi Qin, Marian Gibney, Bill Roe, Marian Tadano, Billie Hughes, Brent Jameson, Betsy Frank

Chairperson Brent Jameson called the meeting to order. The agenda was distributed to members. Six items on the agenda were included (as well as notations regarding handouts from presenters) and appear as headings within the body of these minutes.

October 13 minutes The minutes from the October 13 meeting were accepted with no corrections.

Kristin Anderson: report of conference: As a follow-up to her A1 sent November 17th, Ms. Anderson reviewed the highlights of the assessment conference she recently attended. Themes that were consistently heard throughout the conference included: 1) assessment committee members must reach out and follow through with activities; 2) outcomes must be based on institutional mission and goals; 3) most institutions are struggling with assessment of general education; 4) resistance to the requirements of NCA; 5) grading that reflects outcomes assessment; 6) need for feedback and a need for a feedback loop; 7) a process that is faculty driven.

Another topic of discussion (brief) was the question of portfolio use. Various colleges and universities use portfolio to address the grade/NCA requirement issue. Some information regarding the English department's efforts in this was discussed.

Ms. Anderson has several handouts from the conference and will make those available to interested committee members.

David Gorman: report on checksheet (handout-Report on Checklist, use & Implementation): There was lengthy discussion regarding the 3-4 year history of checksheet use at Phoenix College. This history began in 1996 and continues today. 1996 saw the beginnings of checksheet development. In 1997, the checksheets were used again and tied to program evaluations where appropriate. Data from this year was collected, formed into graphs and distributed throughout the campus through the newsletter. In 1997-98, checksheets were also used. This data is currently in the raw form. Georgia Gudykunst will take the information and turn it into graph-form.

There followed a discussion regarding learner outcomes and their tie-in to institutional mission and goals. One problem area is that departmental mission and goals are often more in keeping with institutional effectiveness goals rather than learner outcome goals.

Another problem that surfaced during this meeting is the current Budget Committee funding process. The current process is formula-driven based on FTSE. This process is in conflict with the NCA requirement of tying budget processes to assessment, all of which should driven by the institutional mission and goals and learner outcome goals. Because this issue has great significance, two committee representatives, Marian Gibney and Brent Jameson, will meet with President Pepicello to share the concerns. Meanwhile, Dean Tadano has been working with departments to assist them in developing learner outcome goals as part of their deparmental mission and goals statement.

Billie Hughes: report on current status of assessment plan (handout-Student Outcomes Assessment): Dr. Hughes provided a handout that summarizes her November 5 a-1, Excerpts from the Report of the NCA Visit to Phoenix College. The handout specifically addresses student outcomes assessment, NCA goals for general education and a plan for assessing these goals. Dr. Hughes briefly explained the history of what has been done. She further explained the need to develop direct and indirect measures of learner outcomes as well as multiple measures of these outcomes. Essentially, two questions must be answered: 1) Did we measure learner outcomes according to NCA standards?; 2) How are we responding?

Dean Tadano, through the assistance of MCLI, has secured release time for Dr. Hughes so that she can help develop the response letter due to NCA. A major part this work will be to compile information regarding checksheets and what they are measuring. Because of the timelines PC is currently facing, the assessment plan needs to be implemented and efforts at implementation need to be documented. Dr. Hughes and Dr. Gudykunst will pull the data together for committee review hoping to have this information sometime in January of February. Two content areas of concern that need to be assessed are ESL and Developmental Education. Dean Tadano will discuss these needs with the appropriate faculty members and departments. Committee members suggested hosting a guest speaker who could talk to departments about the assessment process.

Georgia Gudykunst: NCA standards (handout-What NCA Considers 'Good Practices' and Concerns"
Dr. Gudykunst distributed a handout to committee members. Good practice includes a faculty owned and driven process. In addition, Dr. Gudykunst stressed the importance of a multi-pronged approach to assessment including the need to assess "above" the course evaluation level.

Dean Tadano: setting our priorities now: Dean Tadano will be calling Cecilia Lopez to discuss our progress. Dean Tadano expressed the concern that PC is not as far as NCA hoped we would be at this point. However, Dean Tadano was reassuring in that the college does have an approved assessment plan. Our priority is to identify where we are and then provide a strategy for how we are going to fulfill the entire assessment cycle.

The next week will be schedule sometime during the week of January 25th. Chairperson Jameson will notify members of exact date, time and location.

Respectfully submitted,

Betsy Frank