|
Assessment
Committee Minutes
Date: January 11, 2000
10:00 AM E-221
Committee members who were present: Billie Hughes, Dave Gorman, Jan
Eygendaal, Edlyn Soderman, Judy Boschult, Marsha Hopkins, Bill Coppola,
Marian Gibney, Georgia Gudykunst, Marian Tadano, Judy Haberman, Brent
Jameson, Betsy Frank
Chairman Jameson called the meeting to order. Handouts included 1)
the agenda, 2) Schedule for 2000 NCA Annual Meeting, 3) Proposed Outline
for January 31, 2000 Report.
The agenda included four items which appear as headings within the
body of
these minutes.
1. January report (handout)
Chairman Jameson and Dr. Hughes reviewed the elements that should
be contained in the report due to NCA on January 31. The proposed
outline includes a brief history of assessment planning from 1996
which also discusses the primary assessment of general education used
at that time, an explanation of administrative changes and the effect
on assessment efforts, the re-evaluation of assessment planning (beginning
in October 1998), and a timeline that includes responsibilities for
developing a redesigned assessment plan (to be included in the October,
2000 report).
To begin the process of developing the report, Dr. Hughes asked the
committee to review the packet sent through the mail. The committee
was asked to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the 1996 plan.
2. Review of the former plan
The committee reviewed the former plan listing strengths and weaknesses.
The following information is the data that Dr. Hughes collected of
the review discussion.
We have data from checklists. This data were not useful to us and
did not lead
to information that was useful in improving student learning. As a
result of
reviewing the plan and data, we have made a number of observations
and taken a number of steps to lead us to the development of a redesigned
plan.
Our original plan was a point of departure. Our discussion and activities
have
led us to a greater understanding. We are focusing our efforts now
on a
framework.
Observation on the Plan and Process
* The plan was comprehensive
* Decentralized for no mechanism for moving recommendations
* Difficult for us to close the loop and use findings for improvement
of
student learning.
* In some departments, findings were used to improve instruction.
* Findings were not fed back into the budget process
* Checklists did do a very good job and did not re-evaluate the instrument
* Instruments evaluated very informally
* We rushed into doing it.
* A core of people understood assessment but not the larger community
* The first plan helped us clarify where we want to go with this plan-the
plan
and the process helped us understand assessment
* The administration was not as involved in the assessment process
* Less resistance/resentment to assessment because we have been involved
with assessment for a number of years.
* Focus was on developing instruments. We now have the results of
these
assessment to help guide the development of the re-designed plan.
* We are more sophisticated regarding assessment than we were in 1996.
* We are not throwing out what we learned in earlier assessment efforts.
* We are looking more to other institutions to develop our understanding.
* PC faculty were very supportive of assessment.
What have we done about what we have learned?
* Developed a realistic timeline. It better to take it slowly and
have the results be meaningful
* Keep constantly in mind that we need to close the loop and use the
assessment data
* Now realistic to discuss the work budget and the work assessment
together.
* Instructional budget has $15,000 to $20,000 to support assessment.
This supports travel and workshops.
* Convened the ESL and Developmental Education Committees to address
assessment issues.
* Developed a department liaison structure to enhance communication
with faculty. This also disseminated the responsibility for assessment
to a larger community. This also invited broader participation in
assessment.
* Presentations and workshop
o Harold C. helped us learn about the process
o Spring workshop to involve many faculty in looking at the connections
between their disciplines and college assessment areas
o Hotel workshop-focused on the possible outcomes areas for redesigned
plan. Selected numeracy and writing.
o Continued board presentations to help the board understand our process
o Continued to have presentations to PCPC to enhance the integration
of assessment in the planning and budgeting processes
o Presentation to new faculty
o Cindy Lynch
+ Began to target faculty to participate in workshops.
+ Administration supported faculty-wide participation.
+ Workshop provided a framework for looking more broadly at assessment.
+ Began to see connection numeracy and writing in many different disciplines
* Realized that institutional effectiveness includes college-wide
assessment
* Restructured the assessment committee and received administrative
support to provide re-assigned time chairs of numeracy and writing
committees.
* Also provided reassigned time beginning in fall 1998 for the chair
of the assessment committee.
* Created steering committee in the fall of 1998 with strong faculty
and administrative involvement. This committee met weekly to address
assessment issues.
* Fall 1999 assessment committee began to meet twice a month.
* Included student services personnel on the general assessment committee.
* Improved communication with the college community with newsletters
and expansion of the web site.
* Qualitative changes in our thinking about assessment. Assessment
has become part of the culture of the college.
What we need to be sure to consider as we develop our re-designed
plan:
* Need to return to our plan and data to verify what we did complete.
We need to come to closure on our plan. This review should justify
the new developments and changes we are making.
* Developing the framework is a critical first step in developing
the assessment process.
* Continue a very participative process with lots of feedback.
* Assessment drives the budget.
* Both faculty and administration need to continue to work together
and make assessment a priority.
* Assessment is part of the larger college planning and effectiveness
process.
* We need to continue to promote processes that lead to qualitative
discussions among faculty across disciplines.\
* Assessment needs to be approached as a continuous process with a
constant reflection and refining of what and how we are teaching.
* We need to be realistic about our timelines and be thoughtful about
what we are doing.
3. Sharing of responsibility for redesigned assessment plan
Chairman Jameson has asked that all assessment committee members
participate in the development of the plan. He asked that each member
volunteer to attend the subcommittees and be ready to give input for
the plan. The subcommittees are: General education, ESL, Developmental
education, and Occupational education. There will be a need for faculty
participation on Student Services in the future. Chairman Jameson
asked that committee members send him an A1 of their subcommittee
choice.
4. Future meeting schedule
Chairman Jameson asked that each committee member send their most
preferred meeting times to him. He needs that information by next
week.
Dean Tadano also announced that she would like 5-6 faculty members
to attend the NCA Annual Meeting held April 1-4 in Chicago. Contact
her if interested.
Meeting adjourned @11:30 am.
Respectfully submitted,
Betsy Frank
|
