PBA Home > Institutional Research & Analysis > Outcomes Assessment > AOC meeting notes 9/24/01

Assessment Oversight Committee (AOC) meeting notes 9/24/01

Handouts

1. Draft Initial Checklist for Departments.
2. Updated draft of assessment guide for units.
3. Draft letters to department chairs, those active and attentive to assessment and those not.
4. Summary of presentation on 2001 Senior Survey presented to IA Advisory Board on Sept. 12, 2001, by Carol Bormann. See the complete results at http://www.colorado.edu/pba/surveys/senior/01/index.htm

Introduction of new member, Kathy King, student representing Undergraduate Academy.

Agenda Item: Discussion of accreditation procedures in professional schools (i.e. journalism, engineering, music) and their possible relationship to our campus assessment process.

• Music - juried performance, plus they've happily adopted the MFT. [Editorial comment: The performance aspect is surely authentic assessment, but music is somewhat of a unique animal and what works for them may not apply elsewhere.]
• Journalism - Distributed two pages from their 2002-03 Self-Study Report of Accreditation, that listed several questions and pieces of required information bearing on assessment, e.g., "Discuss evidence of student achievement revealed in exit interviews with graduating seniors, if available," and "Describe the program used to track graduates to determine th e extent to which the unit's objectives are realized. How has information gathered contributed to changes in the unit's curriculum or other aspects?" Merrill said, problem with this is it looks only at practical outcomes, doesn't really meet spirit of assessment. Need more than just this. Debate on this issue.
• Engineering - ABET (accred. agency) has new criteria beginning 2000. In past, based on headcount info: admits, grads, retention by year, student satisfaction. Now 8 criteria. Most relevant: Program outcomes and assessment. Now required to publish objectives of specific programs - training, education - in catalog. Then measure against these. "Continuous Process Improvement." Must have criteria in effect, continuous evaluation against criteria. Also must show use of evaluation info. Computer Science, Applied Math, Env. Engineering not electing to go through ABET accreditation, other depts. are. Each department independent. All of this is undergrad only.
• Business - AACSB is accrediting agency. Every 7 years. Moving towards objectives-based evaluation, like engineering. One accreditation for whole college (unlike engineering, which is dept. by dept.). No exit exam now, none planned. Some exit interviews. Experimented with exam some years ago, nothing came of it.
• Decisions: In general, proceed as committee with no distinctions between professional schools (business, engineering, journalism, music) and other, liberal arts, units. Journalism: involve in campus-wide comparisons such as student surveys, allow them to submit material that was prepared for professional accreditation. Accred. applies to both grad and undergrad journalism programs.

Agenda Item: Where do Dean's offices fit in? What about BFA, ASC, etc.?

Decision: Dean's offices: Need to ask them individually what role they want. BFA: Ask them to appoint member of committee. ASC: Ditto.

Agenda Item: Budget process - interim procedures? Critique draft of application instructions (not done).

• Current budget $50,000 total. To buy exams, send faculty to conferences, TA to do reports, etc. How to divide? Per student? Merrill: No - different models in use, require different amounts of $$.

Decision: Ask units to justify budget request in paragraph or so. How have you used past money, how will you use present money.

Agenda Item: Critique drafts of cover letters for departmental chairs.

• How do we approach departments? How much detail? Do we point out if they haven't reported in some time?
• Letters: Kenney suggested need to add something to letters that imparts sense of urgency. Make them see need to get on this. Could establish deadline, could point out NCA report due from CU on assessment exclusively, needs to address undergrad degree programs, grad. level assessment, and general ed.

Decision: Post schedule on web site of when each unit is due to report. We'll keep requirement of assessment every year, report every other year. Mike will revise letters to dept. heads per comments from committee members (those made at present meeting plus those to be submitted).

Agenda Item: Critique of draft checklist and accompanying "handbook" to be provided to all departments.

• Checklist - many revisions suggested. Mike will incorporate. Motivation to participate in assessment, especially taking exams, discussed. Make exam into a one-credit course? Impractical - units will scream. Incorporate into existing course? No decision reached.

Agenda Item: Specific tasks for AOC: (a) Should individual committee members take responsibility for working with a group of departments? (b) Regularized process of budget approval? (c) Other?

Decision: Mike will do rewrites on draft docs (letters to depts., handbook, checklist), will also approach Deans regarding their preferred roles, will also approach BFA, ASC about appointing members to AOC.

Issue Raised: Graduate level assessment.

Decision: Mike, Lou will meet with Candice Miller and Rodney Taylor of the graduate school. Need to make clear in everything committee does whether undergrad, grad, both.

Issue Raised: Assessment of general education curriculum.

Decision: Do regard general education as under committee's purview. Mike will talk to representative of Arts and Sciences curriculum committee.

PBA: PS-- L:\IR\OUTCOMES\aoc\notes010924.doc

Last revision 06/04/04