----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE: January 23, 2001

SUBJECT: Assessment of Student Learning Committee Minutes

 

PRESENT: Dian Lopez (CHAIR), Edith Borchardt, Stephen Burks, Eric Klinger, Tim O'Keefe,

Engin Sungur, Nancy Mooney, Andy Uttke, Kevin Ely

 

ABSENT: none

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lopez called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM in the Prairie Lounge. Copies of the minutes for November 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000 were distributed to the committee members for review. The minutes were unanimously approved. Lopez stated the agenda for the meeting was to discuss what each sub-committee has accomplished, what each sub-committee would like to accomplish realistically this semester, and how we can help each other with our tasks.

UNIT ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

(Stephen Burks (Chair), Eric Klinger, Andy Uttke)

Burks said that the main issue would be the report from Nancy Mooney concerning the information she obtained regarding scores on standardized tests of graduates and also the survey of graduates done by Gary Donovan (Career Center).

The committee discussed the e-mail that Lopez drafted the end of last semester discussing the effort to streamline the process of assessment. Lopez asked that the committee members review the survey questions and make any changes or suggestions and submit them to her. Lopez stated that the survey would be resent for the convenience of the committee members. Mooney distributed the Former Student Survey to committee members for review. She stated she had met with Gary Donovan and Lynn Schulz and discussed the survey. Mooney said that the survey had been done in March 1999, but the information has not been compiled. Mooney said that if the committee wants this information analyzed in a specific way, this request should be made now. Mooney noted she had with her the Table of Contents of the breakdown of Former Student Survey from 1992. Mooney will have a more detailed report of the breakdown for the next ASL meeting. Mooney stated that Donovan and Schulz have agreed to attend an ASL meeting to discuss the survey and answer questions for the committee. To process a complete survey costs between $8-9000.

Members discussed what data should be included in the survey. Sungur said that raw data will help to formulate questions. Klinger said that the values of graduates, activities, politics, and community affairs are certainly relevant. We decided that all questions seemed relevant at this time and if we could have access to the raw data, it would be easier to formulate our own queries and thereby learn more from the survey. Questions could be added to the survey to link incoming freshmen questions to those on the graduate survey to determine how students have changed. The committee also discussed the GEN ED survey that is given to graduating students.

The Unit Assessment Sub-committee will look at the Former Student Survey (contents page) and give feedback on what should be included for assessment. Klinger said that a simple description of each variable should be included, statistics should be broken out by discipline, remembering that different majors produce different outcomes.

Burks made a proposal that three (3) complete copies of the Former Student Survey Tables of Contents be sent to the Unit Assessment Sub-committee members (Stephen Burks (Chair), Eric Klinger, Andy Uttke) for review and that Mooney, Schulz, and Donovan may be asked to attend the Unit Assessment Sub-committee meeting.

O'Keefe asked what would be done with the survey results after they are compiled? He said after viewing the outcome, the next step would be what to do with it.

Mooney discussed meeting with Kill (Counseling) about the GRE scores. Kill said that GRE scores are only good for (5) years and reports can be purchased (relatively inexpensively). It was suggested that specific questions be directed to Kill on what GRE information is needed, and what the cost of producing a comprehensive report is including information for each unit, if possible.

GEN ED SUB-COMMITTEE

(Tim O'Keefe (Chair), Nancy Mooney, Engin Sungur)

O'Keefe said that the December 6 minutes states what the sub-committee has accomplished thus far. It was agreed to do the exit survey of seniors to get data. Questions would be modified or added to the exit survey to obtain the needed information. O'Keefe suggested:

The committee discussed the in-depth approach and the amount of time and effort involved to formulate and generate the report. The committee discussed Progress Report III, page 177 - GEN ED Pilot Survey. The

committee said this had valuable questions and should be matched with the Former Student Survey.

PORTFOLIO SUB-COMMITTEE

(Dian Lopez (Chair), Edith Borchardt, Kevin Ely

Lopez said that she had discussed the Electronic Portfolio with the lst Year Seminar as an assessment tool, some thought it might be good. She said some things can be done differently to make the Portfolio use easier. Lopez said she talked with Matt Connor (Library) and he said he would be willing to present the electronic portfolio to the lst year students. Lopez stated that the University of Minnesota is encouraging the use of Electronic Portfolios, it has been promoted for all Universities in Minnesota. The committee discussed if it should be used as part of our plan, or on a voluntary basis. Burks questioned what kind of time and effort would be required to use it for assessment, it was noted that it is time consuming and that would be the stumbling block. Lopez stated that the Electronic Portfolio is a good way for students to keep papers, and is worth the investment for the students. We as a committee, however, must decide if we want to use the information for assessment purposes. O'Keefe said that if we encourage students to use the electronic portfolio, he doesn't see a need at this time to develop an assessment tool. Sungur suggested we use the Portfolio as a direct way of assessing student learning and encourage faculty to look at their students' portfolios. Further discussion recommended a pilot program to explore what can be done with maybe three (3) faculty members. Lopez said that there may be disciplines that would want to do this, and that it should be reported in such a manner that we can use it as direct assessment. Klinger suggested a uniform quality scale on which elements of the electronic portfolio could be rated. This information could be added to the discipline assessment in formation after the faculty members have rated the work in the electronic portfolio.

Mooney said that Chancellor Schumann has agreed to send ASL Committee Members and herself to conferences pertaining to assessment. Lopez asked Mooney to send information on Assessment Conferences to the ASL committee members.

Meeting adjourned at 5:37 PM.

The next meeting will be Monday, February 26th 3:30 PM- 5:00 PM in the Moccasin Flower Room.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Pederson