PBA Home >
Institutional Research & Analysis >
Outcomes Assessment >
Meeting notes 11/1/09
AOC Minutes, November 1, 2009
Submitted by Deborah Viles
Action items in bold
Attending: Ron Melicher, Jim Davis Rosenthal, Perry Sailor, Lour McClelland, Rolf Norgarrd, Lonni Pearce (guest), Steve Jones, Terry Mayes, Darna Dufour, Michael Grant, Deborah Viles, Gardiner Tucker
Absent: John Stevenson, Ken Wilson, Alphonse Keasley, Greg Carey
- I. Updates: Mike reported that the Teagle project is well underway, with a lower than expected turnout rate. The largest participation came from students in courses in the control category. Students were offered $20 to take the pre-test, and will be awarded an additional $30 if they complete the post-test at the end of the term.
Deborah reported that the CLA testing for fall has been completed successfully, with 105 total students taking the exam. The committee confirmed that we will administer the CLA every 3 years as required by the VSA. Suggestions for recruiting seniors for the spring administration included targeting specific departments that offer senior seminars and capstone courses. Steve Jones offered his course as a possible population if we can administer before spring break. The committee consensus is that administering the CLA before spring break will likely yield the best results. We can use the list of students who have filed intent to graduate as our sample population.
(Agenda order revised during the meeting)
- IV. Other business: Lou suggested we should be working with departments undergoing ARP to develop their assessment reports. The committee pointed out that the deadline has either passed or is very near, so we may want to begin work with next year’s group. We do want to be sure that all departments look at their skill and knowledge goals to verify their current applicability. The committee agreed that it would be useful to give departments feedback on the reviews as soon as they are available, paying particular attention to the skill and knowledge goals, and asking for revision or updates as necessary. Mike agreed that we would comment on the reviews already completed, and offer assistance to departments undergoing review next year. Deborah and Mike will draft a review and the committee will have a chance to suggest revision. We have some suggestions for questions that might help chairs or directors think about their assessment and results from Terry and will use those as a starting template.
- V. PWR portfolios: Lonni Pearce of the Program for Writing and Rhetoric informed the committee about the work the PWR is doing with portfolios. She would like to explore how that work can support the work of the AOC. She noted that some campuses are moving toward a portfolio system for a student’s academic career because students can use them to showcase their work for jobs or graduate school, and it can help students set goals and see how they’re progressing to meet them. Portfolios also give students a chance to reflect on their own work. The PWR sees portfolios as being useful for program assessment and for teacher development as well. Lonni noted that there are other large research universities using a portfolio system—the University of Minnesota, for example. PWR is piloting the use of portfolios in their courses now, and if there’s broader discussion about using portfolios campus wide, Lonni invites us to look at the PWR’s work. It would be helpful if everyone using portfolios used the same platform for ease of transfer. Tuck noted that Student Affairs might be interested in using portfolios to track co-curricular activities like leadership and service. Mike sees portfolios as a trend that would fit the 2030 goal of individual learning.
II., III., and IV. Tabled until next meeting. Anyone with feedback about the AOC annual report or the learning outcomes draft should contact Deborah. Deborah will send a revised draft of each prior to the January meeting.
Committee members should review the self-study for accreditation at http://www.colorado.edu/accreditation/
in advance of the next meeting. In particular, Lou suggests we be familiar with:
- pp 56-63, progress in assessment since 2000 - a summary
- chapter 6, pp 174 - 202, is the longer version of assessment and improvement of student learning activity
- the remainder of chapter 6 about learning resources
- pp 275-291 on curriculum and graduate/professional education