PBA Home >
Institutional Research & Analysis >
Outcomes Assessment > AOC meeting notes 11/17/08
AOC Minutes, November 17, 2008
Submitted by Deborah Viles
Action Items in bold
Present: Darna Dufour, Sam Fitch, Lou McClelland, Perry Sailor, John Stevenson, Michael Grant, Ron Melicher, Greg Carey, Terry Mayes, Deborah Viles
Absent: Rolf Norgaard, Merrill Lessley, Steve Jones, Ken Wilson, Jane Curtis
- Introductions—new member, Greg Carey, representing the BFA, and Darna Dufour, Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences.
- Accreditation update: Mike reported that Pauline Hale would like to have a revision of our Criterion 3 report by the first week of December. The self-study is likely to be a fairly short document, 30-50 pages, so much of the information we present in Criterion 3 will be summarized briefly and then referred to by a web-link. Lou suggested that we might consider overhauling the Outcomes Assessment page on the PBA site to include pertinent information from the report, and also to increase its readability and usefulness. The complete self-study will be sent to the accreditation team in fall of 2009, and our site visit is scheduled for February of 2010.
- Issue with new PRP, now ARP: Deborah noticed that the packet of information going to units undergoing review this year had some inconsistencies regarding assessment. Assessment appears on the mandatory reporting page, though the instructions to units seem to suggest it’s not required. The wording of the assessment questions differ from the version the AOC approved and requested. The committee agreed we should approach Faculty Affairs and ask that these issues be resolved. Mike will contact Jeff Cox. NB: Mike learned from Jeff that assessment is intended to be mandatory, and that the instructions were in error, but had not been distributed to units; and that it’s too late to revise the questions for this cycle, but we can change them for the next reporting year.
- VSA update: Mike reported that he spoke with David Shulenburger of NASULGC about the possibility of including the CAT as one of the standardized testing options for College Portrait. David indicated it was not likely in the short term. The committee suggested that perhaps we could call upon other AAU publics to support the use of CAT in the College Portrait; if many voices called for its use, NASULGC might change its stance. Mike will query Phil about this idea. NB: Phil agreed that we could draft a letter to AAU peers to suggest this strategy. Mike will write the draft and circulate it to the AOC. Deborah will find a contact list from the University of MN conference and we will start with letters to these universities.
Lou provided handouts and an update on other items in the College Portrait. She noted that the standardized test feature is really a very small proportion of the template. She said that the cost calculator is nearly ready to go, and she’s developed pages that summarize how CU evaluates its undergraduates and how CU improves undergraduate learning and outcomes. She also showed some of the information available about individual departments that can be linked from the template. The AOC suggested that departments/units might find this feature to be an incentive to keep their assessment results current so as to create a more impressive profile for their units.
- CAT discussion: Mike is proposing that we select a few critical thinking courses on our campus to participate in a round of CAT testing. Mike suggests that we use a pre- post-test model. The AOC agreed that we should go forward with CAT testing in the spring semester. This will give us some additional direct experience with the test, and will provide an opportunity to train more faculty as scorers (including members of the AOC if they wish). As the CAT involves faculty as scorers, we anticipate the test will stimulate conversation about critical thinking among faculty, which we believe will be more beneficial than a machine-scored test like the CLA. More information about the CAT can be found at: http://www.tntech.edu/cat/. Mike will initiate the process for a spring test.
- Annual reports from departments/units: Tabled until next meeting.
- MN conference update and next steps: Tabled until next meeting.