Sections
Personal tools
You are here: Home → Academics → Faculty Governance → Faculty Governance 2003-2004 → Assessment Committee Notes 2003-2004 → Assessment Committee Notes - October 27, 2003

Assessment Committee Notes - October 27, 2003

Assessment Meeting, 10/27/03

 

Present:  Kay Bailey, Nancy Gauss, Anne Ryter, Terry Schliesman, Don Seastrum, Terri Wenzlaff, and Richard Wilkens (Kim Brown, recorder)

Absent:  none

Terri Wenzlaff began the meeting when Chairperson Anne Ryter was delayed.  She shared with the committee that, of the 20 General Education faculty members, five attended the recent assessment workshops.  She then mentioned that the “next big thing” for the committee is continuing to work with departments and disciplines.  The suggestion was made that the group look at discipline assessment plans and give faculty feedback before discussing the next workshop. It was recommended that more workshops on the entire discipline assessment plan be offered to faculty early to mid-spring.

A question was raised about the “worst case scenario”—the result of minimal effort—regarding the assessment plan, and Wenzlaff replied that she’d been sending drafts back with comments, but that not all disciplines had responded.  She said, “We’ll organize them and distribute to committee members before meeting again in two weeks to discuss.”

Wenzlaff stated that there had been an attempt to make better use of IDEA items and that Richard Wilkens had provided drafts entitled “Assessment of the Skill Areas Using the IDEA Form” and “Using the IDEA Forms in Assessment of GE.”  Wilkens suggests that the first “… will use the IDEA form to test several hypotheses about the skill courses to determine [how] the students score these classes in line with the goals of each skills area.”  The GE Assessment form, he said, “is an attempt to use the data collected through the IDEA forms to provide a starting point … for [collecting] data in both assessment and evaluation of the GE program.” Wenzlaff asked the group to provide conclusions regarding the skill areas draft. 

Wilkens answered numerous questions posed by various members, and Wenzlaff suggested that this initial use of IDEA forms would create a baseline so that conclusions can be drawn in the future. 

Wenzlaff also mentioned that the GE Committee was recommending that upper division courses be removed from GE offerings.  The Assessment Committee’s conclusions, so far, after perusing the two drafts are as follows:

SKILLS AREAS:

Regarding Mathematics Skills:

·         Mathematics courses are not deficient in what is expected from them as skills courses.

·         Q14 and 15 reveal ‘no significant difference’ which could mean that students felt prepared and were interested in taking the courses.

·         The items that rated ‘Lower than Control’ seem appropriate.

Regarding English Skills:

·         The Assessment Committee was impressed with results coming from English 102! Ratings were either ‘Higher than Control’ or there was no significant difference; very positive baseline.

Regarding Speech Skills:

·         Q3 should be more than ‘no significant difference.’

·         Regarding Q6, the question was posed as to whether students’ making several speeches was perceived by students as creative.

·         Q9 should be more than ‘no significant difference’ but seems acceptable.

 GENERAL EDUCATION (AREAS I, II, & III):

 Assessment Committee Conclusions Regarding Area I

  • There needs to be more of a focus on faculty advising students about GE, more of a focus on taking GE courses as providing a breadth of background as opposed to taking the GE courses to get them out of the way so students can begin their majors.

Assessment Committee Conclusions Regarding Area II

  • Q1 and 2 should be higher.
  • Disciplines teaching in Area II should reexamine the alignment between courses and the goals areas
  • Asssessment Committee Conclusions Regarding Area III
  • Q 6, 7, 8 are as expected!
  • Q 10 and 11 should be higher.

It was agreed that the group would look over the goals on the “Using the IDEA Forms in Assessment of GE”  document again, including conclusions drawn from today’s discussion (which Terri mailed to committee members following the meeting and are repeated above), and discuss further conclusions at the next meeting on November 10.

 Terry Schliesman offered to loan an informative book he had obtained from the assessment workshop he and Heather Thiessen-Reily had attended over the summer.   

Wenzlaff then mentioned that Thiessen-Reily had agreed to replace Curt Gravis on the Assessment Committee, as he has been experiencing health problems.

The meeting adjourned at 5:16 p.m.