Assessment of Student
Learning


DATE: Friday, November 19, 1999

3:30 PM in the Prairie Lounge

SUBJECT: Assessment of Student Learning Committee Minutes

 

PRESENT: Engin Sungur, Stacey Parker Aronson, Jacqueline Edmondson, Dian Lopez, Jenny Nellis, Tim O'Keefe, Michael Jones, Nathan Thooft

ABSENT: Vicky Demos, Eric Klinger

 

The meeting was chaired by Engin Sungur. The agenda for the meeting was discussed and approved.

The minutes for 9/24/99 were approved.

I. Sub-committee Progress Reports

 

REPORT OF UNIT ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

The Unit sub-committee met and discussed the following issues:

• Discussion on the procedure for the Unit Plans

Outcome: The sub-committee found the following procedure acceptable.

(i) Send the old assessment plans to every faculty/staff in a unit

DATE: November 15, 1999

DUE DATE: February 18, 2000

(ii) Unit Assessment sub-committee meetings with the units November 15,1999-February 11, 2000

(iii) Unit Assessment sub-committee will comment on the plans and list possible actions that needs to be taken based on the plans as they come in February 11, 2000-March 3,

2000

(iv) The sub-committees report will be submitted to the Assessment of Student Learning Committee March 6, 2000

• Discussion on Alternative Model

Outcome: The sub-committee found the presentation of the alternative models to be sent to the units reasonable and feasible.

• Discussion on the Cover Memo

Outcome: The sub-committee found the draft memo to be sent to the units appropriate.

Action: Unit assessment materials were sent to the faculty/staff.

The sub-committee also agreed on the following agenda items for the rest of the academic year.

• Sub-committee will work on criteria for a "good" plan

Revision of Unit Assessment Evaluation Form

• Discussion on Learning Profile forms

Do we want to have a learning profile/portfolio?

What should be included in the learning profile/portfolio?

Who will assess the learning profile/portfolio?

When the students fill out the learning profile/portfolio?

What will the incentives be so that the students will keep the learning

profile/portfolio?

• Discussion of electronic learning profile/portfolio.

 

REPORT OF JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE ON GENERAL EDUCATION

The Unit sub-committee met and discussed the following issues:

• Discussion on the procedure for the General Education Assessment Plan

Outcome: The sub-committee discussed the following two procedures and agreed to follow a mixture of them. The procedures differ as follows: Procedure A. Development of the assessment plan, and implementation will be done by the disciplines which are teaching the courses that meet these requirements. Procedure B. Assessment plan will be developed by the Committee(s), and sent for input to the disciplines which are teaching the courses that meet these requirements.

PROCEDURE A

(i) Send the Assembly approved general education learning objective and standard assessment form to discipline faculty who are offering courses in that area.

DATE: November 22, 1999

DUE DATE: February 18, 2000

(ii)General Education Assessment sub-committee meetings with the units

November 8, 1999-February 11, 2000

(iii) General Education Assessment sub-committee will comment on the plans and attempt to unify the ones which require similar assessment methods and tools

February 11, 2000-March 3, 2000

(iv) The sub-committees report will be submitted to the Assessment of Student Learning Committee and Curriculum Committee for approval

March 6, 2000

PROCEDURE B.

(i) General Education Assessment Sub-committee develops a plan for all general education requirements including the Common Experience

DUE DATE: January 21, 2000

(ii)General Education Assessment sub-committee sends the plan to disciplines that are offering courses in relevant areas and asks for input and approval.

January 24, 2000

(iii) General Education Assessment sub-committee finalizes the plan and sends to the Assessment of Student Learning Committee & Curriculum Committee for approval

February 18, 2000

• Discussion on the General Models (Comprehensive versus

Hypothesis-based(problem oriented))

Outcome: The sub-committee found the second model more appropriate and

called it "focused assessment"

• Discussion on the Cover Memo

Outcome: The sub-committee will continue to discuss

The sub-committee also agreed on the following agenda items for the

rest of the academic year.

• Discussion on various models

• Discussion on electronic learning profile/portfolio

• Discussion on the General Education Assessment Survey

Do we want to continue to implement the survey? If yes, the changes need to be made.

• Analysis of 1997, 1998 , and 1999 General Education of Assessment Survey results.

 

REPORT OF THE PUBLICITY AND REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, November 17, 1999 at 4 PM

Present: Stacey Parker Aronson, Mike Jones, Dian Lopez

Absent: an outside committee member yet to be named

Our main objective is to change the culture of UMM towards acceptance of

assessment as a way of promoting the wonderful learning activities which

are happening every day in our community.

Some items discussed:

1) How do we reach faculty, staff and students with information needed for them to understand the assessment process?

Ideas included e-mails, forums, flyers. We need to distribute a one-page fact sheet near the time of the NCA visit which will prepare the UMM community to be able to better

understand ALL that has been accomplished.

2) How can we make assessment easier and more rewarding for everyone?

We must simplify and generalize the information, making it easy to understand and appreciate. We must make any memo, flyer, e-mail, etc. short and concise, perhaps concentrating on only one topic at a time.

We must advertise our accomplishments! Let the UMM community see some of the fruits of our labor. Give them information which can be gleaned from the assessment data.

3) How can we reach out and learn from other campuses?

Dian, with some of her colleagues from other universities, has had a panel on assessment accepted to SIGCSE, the International Computer Science Education conference. She will be able to seek and give information to many others at this conference.

4) How can we help the Assessment Committee?

We can make ourselves available to help them simplify and explain assessment information to students, staff and faculty.

5) What are our main concerns?

How do we obtain buy-in from the UMM community? How do we make assessment

both fun and productive? How do we let our colleagues know that assessment is helping us? How do we assess the assessment process

II. Issues of concern from the sub-committees

Unit Assessment Sub-committee

• Difference between course and major assessment. How is the assessment better than the course grade?

• If we are going to burden the Institution with new things, we should be able to demonstrate the validity and effectiveness of the assessment.

 

Joint Sub-committee for Assessment of General Education

• Ownership of the general education program.(Disciplines or all UMM community)

 

Publicity and Review Sub-committee

• How to reach faculty, staff, and students with information needed for them to understand the assessment process.

• How we can advertise our accomplishments?

III. OTHER

The committee discussed possible ways of promoting assessment at UMM. It was suggested to develop a "Did you know?" column in the Weekly Bulletin, The University Register, and also to make announcements at Assembly promoting Assessment in a positive view. To submit this information, Faculty and Staff will be directed to send their information to the Publicity and Review Sub-Committee.

The following people were added to the sub-committees, their names were not

listed in the September 24th minutes:

• Unit Assessment Sub-committee: Nathan Thooft

• Joint Sub-committee for Assessment of General Education: Michael Korth,

Christy Kolle

• Publicity and Review Sub-committee: Michael Jones, Tom Turner has been named to serve on this committee.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 PM.