|
The meeting started at 3:05pm. Motion was made by Gordon to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Maskey. Motion passed.
Motion was made by Broderick to approve the September 27, 2011 minutes as presented. Motion was seconded by Allen and approved.
Assessment Beats – Hosseinali passed out a handout on the concept of Validity and Reliability. These words are often used interchangeably, which is wrong. She explained the difference between the two and gave examples.
Bergeron thanked Hosseinali for sharing this information and asked if this information was shared with the entire faculty. Hosseinali informed her that individual emails with this information are not sent out, but that this information was on CELT’s website. Bergeron suggested putting this information in Assessment’s newsletter and possibly making a notation in the LincLetter to let faculty know this information is available on CELT’S website. It was agreed that Allen would put together another newsletter sometime in the spring 2012 semester.
Standardized Testing Workgroup Report – Kujawa reported that the Standardized Testing Workgroup attended a webinar. Their group stayed after for discussion. Kujawa shared that in 2008, nine community colleges were involved in the CCLA cohort and now only three community colleges are participating. She and her workgroup may contact some of the colleges who have dropped the cohort and learn their reasons for dropping and also speak to some of the community colleges that are still part of the cohort. They want to determine whether or not two years is enough time for students to learn the skills they are hoping to gain. Further investigation will continue by Kujawa and the Standardized Testing Workgroup into different types of standardized testing.
Data Review Workgroup Report – Nichols reported that the Data Review Workgroup met and modified their workgroup mission statement after last Academic Assessment Team members gave their input. She noted they are focusing on data that has been collected under the auspices of the Academic Assessment Team, in addition to CAAP and CSSE. Nichols also noted that the workgroup generated a more specific list of characteristics that they are going to examine for each of the databases. She noted that the workgroup made the request that a representative from the Academic Assessment Team acquire the data itself and/or any summaries or analyses that have been accumulated. Workgroup members felt the physical handling of the data needed to be done in a controlled fashion and go through the proper lines of authority. Nichols noted they are waiting to receive the summaries and data in order to start working on the project. Broderick added there were two specific tweaks worked out comparing PASR and CASR. They decided that program assessment is something that has a lot of opportunities to investigate, but CASR was faculty owned and section specific making it difficult to aggregate and felt it was inappropriate to go into the content. A question was brought up as to whether Noel Levitz constituted academic assessment. Some members of the workgroup felt it didn’t belong. Taiebeh suggested getting some results and review in order to make that decision. Bergeron noted that the workgroup has created a worksheet listing criteria in order to be consistent of what criteria they will look at for each database. Regarding CASR from a group perspective, Bergeron asked if there is some way or has the team ever considered some type of general report in the aggregate to list what improvements have been made as a result of any type of remedy? She noted that this report could list type of themes seen or list any changes that were made to curriculum or the way the instructors teach because of this assessment. She felt this report would prove that this type of assessment was doing what it was set up to do which was help the instructors improve their teaching in the classrooms which in turn help make the students become more successful. Gordon suggested that only courses that have several courses being taught during a semester be used. Allen noted that it is the Department Assessment Coordinator’s responsibility to create a summary and that there is a specific question on the form as to whether or not any changes/improvements have been made from this assessment for this specific course. Therefore such a report can be created, although she was not sure how long it would take. Allen suggested that the aggregate report be done for the entire department, not for specific courses to help ensure privacy of content for each instructor’s course assessment. Hosseinali asked that the Data Review Workgroup make a priority list of what information they would work on first, but Nichols stated they needed the data first. Discussion on the CASR report was tabled for further discussion.
Steering Workgroup Report – Hosseinali noted that the Steering Workgroup has not started yet because the HLC Academy has not ended. The last meeting of HLC is November 2-4th when we will hear about LLCC’s performance report and they will let us know how they want us to proceed. If everything goes along as expected, they will want us to continue with a sustainability plan. If they feel like we’ve done terribly wrong, they could give us a list of items they want us to complete. Bergeron asked if this report was available for people to review. Hosseinali noted that it was on the HLC’s website, but that it is not available to everyone because of security passwords. Hosseinali did note that it could be available to others by specific request. Hosseinali noted that GEAR Information Fluency assignments collected last spring were scored this past Institutional Improvement Day by a group of hard-working faculty. She communicated what GEAR projects have been completed and what GEAR projects still need to be completed. She also noted that these GEAR projects are going to be on-going, and will be part of the Sustainability Team’s plan for continued assessment. There will be opportunities to re-evaluate the GEAR projects over time.
Workgroup Outcomes/Responsibilities – Frank stated the changes of the work groups’ mission statements would be emailed to all members to vote on to be accepted.
Indianapolis Assessment Conference – Marsaglia noted that there was an Assessment Conference being held in Indianapolis, IN starting October 30th with a pre-workshop and Monday, October 31-November 1st, the actual conference. Marsaglia noted that no one has committed to attend this conference, but wanted to give another opportunity for anyone interested to let him know.
Motion was made by Bergeron to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Cheek and passed unanimously at 4:07pm.
NEXT MEETING: November 29, 2011, Trutter Center, 3pm
|