| DATE: | January 23, 1997 |
| SUBJECT: | Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the Task Force on
Assessment of Students' Learning |
| PRESENT: | Bert Ahern, Eric Bass, Jim
Cotter, Edith Borchardt, Nat Hart, Tom Johnson, Nancy Mooney,
Dean Sam Schuman, Engin Sungur |
| ABSENT: | Eric Bauer, Carol Marxen |
The Task Force on Assessment of Students' Learning met on January 23, 1997 in the Prairie Lounge.
The discussion centered around what people thought the committee should
be doing 4-5 years down the road. The point was made that since North
Central wants this committee in place, and since their next review will
be in 1998-99, the committee will be in place until then for sure. The
committee will be over seeing how other committees look at the
assessment data that is being gathered. The current thought is to have a
standing committee that will continue to advise other committees on the
use of assessment data, but this committee would not be approving or
rejecting assessment plans. One plan is to have the committee keep a
file plan of the goals and the results of the assessment, which would
help to make instruction practices more public. There was discussion on
whether or not the committee could be kept in place without changing the
by-laws and what kind of reaction the assembly and people in general
would have if the committee wasn't in the by-laws. Dean Schuman
suggested three possible ways to get the standing committee in place: 1)
amend the by-laws and get the committee in the constitution; 2) put the
committee in place, but don't change the by-laws; or 3) have Chancellor
Dave or Dean Schuman appoint the committee (as a last resort). The
advantage of a By-laws Amendment is that it assures Campus Assembly
ownership of and commitment to the process. A motion was made by Engin
Sungur to place the idea of the Standing Committee for the Assessment of
Student Learning on the Feb. 3 Campus Assembly agenda. Edith Borchardt
and Nat Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor with no opposed and
no one abstaining.
While Dr. Lopez's initial reaction to the plan that went before the
Campus Assembly in Nov. was positive, there was discussion about whether
the presentation of the plan could be simplified because some people had
a few concerns. Eric Bass and Dean Schuman, members of the Resources and
Planning Committee (CRPC), were asked how CRPC felt about the plan. CRPC
had questions and concerns about the plan: 1) felt this might interfere
with the conversion to the semester process (which they felt was more
important), 2) they wanted a more direct process with more examples they
could follow, 3) they wanted to know if "services", i.e. the library,
would be included. A Discipline Coordinator talked to Bert Ahern and had
questioned whether each class would be gone through during this process.
Two main concerns that need to be decided are whether the process should
be centralized or decentralized and whether or not the committee wants to
include some services in the assessment process; for example, the
library, computing services and advising. The goal is to strike a happy
medium between being decentralized, so no one is being told what to do,
and giving enough guidance and suggestions, so people have an idea of
what they are supposed to do. Another concern people have is how to keep
this assessment process from getting out of control and becoming added
paperwork that means nothing. Dean Schuman brought up the possibility of
bringing a faculty member from a school currently involved in the
assessment process to answer questions and give added information. This
idea was generally agreed with, although there were some concerns about
making sure the speaker did not try to impose their system on the Morris
campus. It was decided that the next step would be for everyone on the
TFASL to look at the surveys that have come in.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 PM.
Submitted by Julie Brotzler.