|DATE/TIME:||Wednesday, October 22, 1997
3:00 PM in the Prairie Lounge
|SUBJECT:||Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Committee on Assessment of Student Learning|
|PRESENT:||Bert Ahern (Chair), Mary Elizabeth Bezanson, Jim Cotter, Mario French, Tom Johnson, Erica Rosch, Sam Schuman (Dean), Engin Sungur (Coordinator of Assessment)|
|ABSENT:||Carol Marxen, Aaron O'Leary|
Members were asked to send schedules of absolute commitments so
a regular meeting time for the committee could be arranged.
Committee looked at memo to Campus Resources and Planning Committee.
This memo is requesting statement to include attention to student
learning. Mission statement is printed in catalogue; some not
enthused about changing mission statement. It was proposed to
include the word relevant in the second paragraph"all
proposals." After further discussion, the committee agreed
to send memo with corrections.
Discussion about memo to Curriculum Committee (General Education
Committee) centered on whether the Gen Ed Committee should come
up with objectives, outcomes, and methods of assessment or whether
the faculty who teach the courses should decide this and the Gen
Ed Committee then distill and analyze their answers.
The following questions and concerns arose:
- Objective same as outcome?
- Can you ask for detailed outcomes from each course when 600 courses meet Gen Ed requirements?
- Faculty need to agree with rather than propose outcomes. Gen Ed needs to decide outcomes and globalize.
- Don't need a comprehensive list of outcomes but suggestions and get faculty to react to this.
- Those teaching (grass roots), not Gen Ed Committee, need control over assessment.
- Assessing courses different than assessing Gen Ed.
- Need methods of assessment for these objectives. Who do we want to ask to do this?
- Look at models from other institutions or invent
a new way. Need an assessment model for faculty to start with.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.