
| DATE: | February 19, 1997 |
| SUBJECT: | Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the Task Force on
Assessment of Students' Learning |
| PRESENT: | Bert Ahern, Edith Borchardt, Jim
Cotter, Carol
Marxen, Dean Sam Schuman, Engin Sungur |
| ABSENT: | Eric Bass, Tom Johnson, Nat Hart |
The Task Force on Assessment of Students' Learning met on February 19, 1997 at 4 pm. in Education 211.
Approval of Minutes: The minutes for meeting # 7 approved as is.
Carol
Marxen motioned to approve the minutes and Jim Cotter seconded it. The
vote was all in favor, no opposed, and no abstentions.
Discussion: General Education Assessment
Two things to be aware of when discussing General Education Assessment is
the approach and timing. The task force wants to make sure that the
decisions made and implemented in the General Education Assessment are
ideas coming from people who will be dealing with General Education and
not from administrators and others further up the chain of command. One
way to do this would be to give the General Education objectives to
either the individual units or to the faculty in charge of teaching
General Education classes for reviewing. After some discussion, the
consensus was to give the objectives to the individual units and ask them
to pass the appropriate data along to the faculty teaching the General
Education classes. The task force would then follow up by talking to the
faculty in charge of General Education classes to make sure they received
and understood the objectives. Since the entire University is in the
process of switching to semesters in the fall of 1999, objectives that
are not currently in place (but will eventually be implemented) will be
included in the list of General Education objectives.
The other concern was the timing of the General Education Assessment.
Because units are currently working on converting to semesters, it does
not make sense to do assessment on General Education when the entire
system will be changing in a couple of years. It was suggested that the
TFASL talk to the General Education Committee and send NCA the plan for
General Education Assessment but wait to do the assessment until after
the plan has been implemented.
Dean Schuman made a motion to give an outlined proposal of the General
Education outcomes to the General Education Committee and have them
forward the proposal to the individual units. The units could then
forward the proposal to the individual faculty members in charge of
General Education classes. NCA would get a copy of the final proposal
with an explanation telling them the assessment would wait until the
semester conversion has occurred.
Edith Borchardt seconded the motion and the vote was all in favor, no
opposed, and no abstentions.
Another vote was taken on whether the task force should deal, in
principle, with the Honors objectives in the same way they decided to
deal with the General Education objectives. The vote was all in favor,
no opposed, no abstentions.
There was also discussion about the Common Course. The TFASL decided
there were still too many undecided factors with how and what the Common
Course will include to decide on a general plan for assessment or
objectives. Engin Sungur will talk informally to Jooinn Lee, the Chair
of Common Experiences Task Force, to get some more information. The task
force felt the Common Course must have a clear statement of exactly what
students need to get from the course. The task force is interested in
helping with the assessment on the course and eventually having control
over the Common Course.
Feedback to Programs
A statement will be sent out to the individual units stating the
following information:
1) Thank you for the surveys.
2) Assessment on this campus is being performed by the majority of
the units.
3) Any questions the units have asked the TFASL, or if the TFASL has
questions for the units, they will be included in that unit's individual
letter.
Each of the task force members will be going through the surveys and will
look for any questions they have regarding that unit's assessment
process. At the next meeting, the task force will discuss these
questions and include them in the informational statement given to each
unit. One question that will be asked of each of the units is how they
plan on using the assessment data gathered in the future. Information on
how to reach the web page for the assessment process will be given to
each of the units so they can keep track of what is going on.
Request for Funding
Dean Schuman talked to the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor about the
possibility of getting some money set aside for the assessment process
and a budget. They both agreed that money is needed, and it will be
included in the next budget cycle (next summer). Some of the expenses
incurred this year may be carried into next year's budget.
Behmler Representative
Dean Schuman made the announcement that he would have Nancy Mooney
replace him as the Behmler representative on the Student Assessment
Committee. Since Nancy Mooney worked in Institutional Research, he felt
she would be more valuable to the committee then he would. After some
discussion as to whose particular field of knowledge would be most
valuable to the committee in the long run, the task force decided to
discuss the issue in greater depth at the next TFASL meeting (which
neither Nancy Mooney nor Dean Schuman will attend).
To be discussed at the next TFASL meeting:
1) Discuss whether Nancy Mooney of Dean Schuman should be the
permanent
Behmler representative on the Assessment of Student Learning Committee.
2) Bring questions about unit's surveys and their assessment
practices to discuss with the rest of the task force.
submitted by Julie Brotzler