Agenda

February 12, 2015

Assessment Taskforce

3pm – IA Meeting Room

X Howard Walters, Chair x Margaret Puckett, faculty rep

X Tom Prendergast, Dir IR_____Gregg Busch, AC Rep

X Bev Walker, PDx Sam Renfroe, grant writer

  1. Identify key data areas and collection points – Howard introduced himself and talked about the grant and key points and data collection . Margaret shared the 0050/0060 syllabi with him.
  2. Surveys? – Yes there will be surveys, only when needed. May need focus groups to get viewpoints of advising from the students. We should only survey when absolutely necessary, not after every event (like training). Tom. P. noted we do Gardner Shaw very soon and could add questions about advising that could be used a s a baseline. He felt it would get better response than a survey sent out by Howard. We also use CCSSE that has questions about advising. Each are given every three years.
  3. Timeline – Howard offered to work with Bev to create a logic model so we would see when certain activities are to be completed.
  4. p. 44 – External Evaluator – “Train all project personnel on the importance of cohesive, systematic, and comprehensive data sets, and a collaborative effort to identify and solve challenges to ensuring this in project and college systems, such that all training events, planning events, and implementation activities are addressed in a reasonable and logical manner to contribute to project success and to allow careful documentation, description, and dissemination of project results to contribute to successful institutionalization of the lessons learned and best-practices obtained. “
  5. Who are to be included in training? – Howard saw the first group to be trained as the 10 faculty are involved in professional development. He did not see the “entire college” getting this . Margaret noted in April we have Faculty and Staff day and maybe in the afternoon could have a break-out session for this and Howard could review key points. It would also be a good time to share the logic model.
  6. What does “reviewed each fall” mean? – not answered
  7. Questions
  8. Do we need to track # appointments met, those missed vs . Walk-ins? – Yes. This would be a good way to track “intrusive” advising vs. walk-in or group.
  9. Nalini suggested we track “reasons for non-persistence” like “family obligations, funding, discouraged, etc. “ so we can create interventions to increase retention- did not get a chance to discuss this. Maybe we need to add this to the Mediated Course Intervention Strategy???

Tasks:

Tom P. –

  1. will check with Gina to see if we can add a few questions to the Gardner-Shaw survey and the cost.
  2. Will send Howard the CCSSEE information and the aggregated questions on advising.

Sam –

  1. Will send Howard my resume.
  2. Will continue to work with Howard and the AG office on Howard’s contract.

Margaret –

  1. Will talk to the April Faculty/Staff planning day to see if we can get added into an afternoon session.

Howard –

  1. Will get with Bev to set a date to create a logic model.