|DATE:||April 2, 2002|
|SUBJECT:||Assessment of Student Learning Committee Minutes|
|PRESENT:||Dian Lopez (Chair), Edith Borchardt, Stephen Burks, Tim O'Keefe, Nancy Mooney, Tim Soderberg, and Nick Maxwell.|
|ABSENT:||Tom Johnson, John Schwaller, Michelle Page, and Grant Noland.|
Lopez called the meeting to order at 8:15 AM. Copies, which included the Policy on Evaluation of Teaching Contributions, Required Questions for the Student Opinion Survey, and the Additional questions for Inclusion on Student Evaluation Forms were distributed to the committee members.
Lopez said she had contacted Gary Engstrand, and was told that re-ordering the questions on the Student Evaluation of Teaching Survey could be done. Bert Ahern gave the committee some background and history of the Student Evaluation Forms. Ahern said that the Senate adopted the policy, which applies to all campuses. He said that the policy does allow some open-ended questions that can be different from campus to campus.Discussion included:
The committee discussed the required questions on the Student Opinion Survey, and how they would best be re-ordered. The questions that are currently numbered 5, 2, 3, 1, 4 will be re-numbered to 1,2,3,4, 5. Pederson will update the change to the survey.
O'Keefe proposed that the web-based Student Opinion of Teaching survey be administered again. His suggestions included:
O'Keefe made a motion that a formal recommendation for the Student Opinion Survey be written up and submitted to John Schwaller, seconded by Burks, unanimously approved.
The Additional Questions for Inclusion on Student Evaluation Forms was discussed. Lopez said that 1) the additional questions can be changed but need to be asked, 2) it can be done electronically, 3) the faculty has the choice if they want it published, and 4) it is optional if faculty want to release their results. Other ques-tions were discussed, noting that the wording in question #6 is vague, and question #10 could be misinter-preted. It was suggested that the wording should be changed on the questions. Burks suggested adding 3 additional questions to the survey. Mooney said that an appeal could be made to SCEP for a different mechanism and different questions for the survey. Soderberg said that the questions should be more specific, indicating such items as time spent on lecture, discussion, and etc. Maxwell suggested writing a set of questions and appeal to SCEP, he also said that there are interested students who are willing to serve on a sub-committee.
Maxwell proposed to form a sub-committee to write the questions for the survey, and to have campus wide participation, not limiting it to the ASL committee, and that students should be involved. Burks said that this is something we should propose for next year, he suggested having a cross-community working group to work on the survey. The working group would include 6 people, 2 representatives from the ASL Committee, 2 representatives from the FDC committee, and 2 student representatives; all Divisions would be represented. Lopez said that the ASL could oversee the working group, but that an endorsement from the FDC committee would be requested. Lopez said that Page had discussed with the FDC committee on March 26 the Student Opinion Survey, and had received a good response from the committee.
O'Keefe said that the Assembly would need information for the docket. It was decided that this informa-tion should include:
It was decided to cancel the April 9th meeting, a later meeting date will be scheduled, probably at 8 am on a Thursday.
Meeting adjourned at 9:32 AM.