PBA Home >
Institutional Research & Analysis >
Outcomes Assessment > AOC meeting notes 02/25/08
Minutes of the February 25, 2008 AOC meeting
Submitted by Deborah Viles
Action items in bold.
Attending: Guests: Jeff Cox, Andre Grothe; members: Ken Wilson, Mike Grant, Jane Curtis, Deborah Viles, Steve Jones, Lou McClelland, Perry Sailor, Terry Mayes, Sam Fitch, John Stevenson, Keith Maskus
Absent: Rolf Norgaard, Merrill Lessley, Ronald Melicher, Lisa Severy
- Update on the new program review process from Jeff Cox and Andre Grothe:
Two years ago, acting Provost Susan Avery asked for a PRP review. Under the new process aggregate units will be
reviewed together. Next year, all of Arts and Humanities and some Centers will be reviewed. The idea behind this
model is to allow units to think collectively and collaboratively and to set up an opportunity for relevant comparisons.
Part of the change is to increase accountability for the recommendations that come out of the PRP process. The deans and
provost will now be required to respond to the reports. The hope is that this will tie the PRP more closely to the budget
process, among other things. Another significant change is that some of the work of the self-study will be pre-supplied
to units by PBA in order to standardize the reporting of some information. The self-study will now focus primarily on
Work is already underway for the review process that begins this spring. Units may choose to operate under the old
system. External reviewers will review the division as a whole.
Outcomes assessment: The AOC will have an opportunity to pose questions to the aggregate units regarding assessment.
The committee agreed to begin planning the question set for the arts and humanities units under review in the fall.
We will let Jeff’s office know as soon as we have questions ready. We will plan for the future “clusters” as well:
social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, everyone else.
- Update from Lou on the Voluntary System of Accountability, in which CU has now agreed to participate. We haven’t
signed on yet, but Lou will do that when we are ready to provide the necessary text and data. Lou provided several
detailed handouts, which will be sent to members unable to attend today’s meeting. The AOC will have primary
responsibility for determining some of the text and deciding what information to provide for certain sections.
Refer to the VSA handout for background information. The AOC will be responsible for the following items on the
“State University” sample pages (about six pages into the handout). On page four of the template, we will need to
write the text for “Student Experiences and Perceptions,” and decide what goes behind the “Click Here for examples
of how we evaluate the experiences of our students.”
On the next page, we will be responsible for the “Student Learning Outcomes” section and its “Click Here.”
We have four years to comply with the requirement to use one of the three standardized tests, CAAP, CLA, or MAPP.
- Overview from Lou about our accreditation process. Refer to the Accreditation 2/25/08 handout. Our site visit is
in 2009-10. The recommended preparation time is two years—we have less than a year. The committee will need to decide
soon how to divide responsibility for the tasks at hand. The committee should be familiar with the accreditation
section on the PBA site, paying particular attention to the “Schematic of the HLC process,” our previous self-study,
the visit report, and the chancellor’s report and response to the 2000 visit. The AOC will have primary responsibility
for Criterion 2c, and all of Criteria 3 and 4. We need to come up with some models of good assessment practice, and
some changes that have occurred as a result of assessment since 2000. To begin our thinking each AOC member should
provide for the committee the assessment documents for their own units.
Some of the things we might think about using as evidence for accreditation:
- what are we doing at the level of courses and how our curriculum fits together.
- FCQ revision and data
- our success in developing learning goals for all units
- the “CU 101” assessment effort
- the restructuring of the Writing Program as an example of “closing the loop”
- finding “model” departments for assessment
Next meeting: Wednesday, March 19, 9-10:30 a.m., UMC 382