CASL/Program Review Committee Agenda

November 9, 2016

HASLEY 233 1:30-4:30

Faculty Attendees
(Voting members) / Miriam Golbert, Simon Kern, Deborah Klein, Diane Solomon, Erin Delaney, Kelly Burke, Jason Burgdorfer, Rebecca Eikey, Dilek Sanver-Wang, Nicole Faudree.
Other Attendees / Daylene Meuschke, Micah Young, Omar Torres, Barry Gribbons, Audrey Green, Melisa Kibrick
Topic / Discussion/Conclusion / Recommendations/Actions/
Follow-up / Status
1. Approval of CASL/PR Minutes from Oct. 26, 2016 / Name and coma separation correction and item to add more detail to item 5 regarding Denee Pescarmona’s template for the minutes. / With the notation to fix the two items: Miriam Golbert motioned and Simon Kern seconded the motion to approve minutes. / Approved
Additional agenda item proposed
By Nicole Faudree / The Committee members had questions and answers about Dr. Jerry Buckley’s Activity form which has been modified to address how to approach requests when considering forced costs vs. PR budgeted cost.
Dean Omar Torres stated that he has revised the sheet so that now there is a drop-down menu to select strategic goals and program objectives.
There was clarification provided by Dr. Barry Gribbons regarding the importance of differentiating between program objectives and department objectives.
He further explained the connection and importance of not modifying College Goals –strategic goals and program objectives in Program Review and form.
It was suggested that the department objectives could be typed in, whereas the program objectives would be selected from the drop down menu.
The committee members discussed input and access roles. / On going
2. eLumen update / Melisa Kibrick with eLumen presented an overview
of eLumen menus and their locations as well as the different roles: Faculty, Coordinator, custom roles assigned to other staff.
The presentation focused on the SLO and Assessment module.
The Committee Members were asked to make selections to shape the options on the SLO and Assessment module scales and rubrics as summarized below:
1. The committee members were asked to make a preliminary decision on what language, terms, to use in qualifying a successful assessment. There was discussion about the benefit of details in measuring success and how the details gathered would be used in disaggregating the data.
2. The Committee members were asked to consider the type of scale to apply to the assessment whether it would be decimal or rating’s scale.
3. The Committee members considered options regarding assessment options:
-GE and Subject Specific ISLOs
4. The committee members considered who would eventually be making/creating assessments using eLumen
5. The committee members discussed the base percentage of student participation needed and the percentage needed to pass the assessment.
The committee also discussed issues that dealt with privacy of data and access granted to faculty to see percentages set for passing assessments.
6. The committee considered how eLumen helps in SLO mapping and whether or not to apply the eLumen split or hierarchy model.
7. The committee considered the rubric types (Activity or Outcomes oriented) options presented by eLumen
8. The committee members discussed the options available in sending and receiving eLumen email notification.
9. The presentation touched on the integration with canvas, as well as student services outcomes.
It was mentioned that Student Services area outcomes are not meant to be assessed for the SLO And Assessment module.
10. There were questions and answers regarding the timeline and actions of training and implementation of eLumen / 1.The committee members decided that CSLOs would use
“Meet” and “Does Not Meet Standards”
3.Committee members decided that GE and subject specific SLOs would be assessed together
4. It was agreed that faculty members who are Course-Coordinators could be making assessments on behalf of the faculty.
It was decided that faculty members would have access to inputting the data in eLumen and enter their own scores.
5. As the default, it was decided that 70% of students would have to participate and earn 70% of the grade in order to pass the assessment.
The committee decided that faculty should have access to the base measurement information
The Committee decided not to turn on the ”faculty proxy” option.
Also, the committee decided that the faculty only should see the section level scores of assessment
6. The committee decided to use the split model allowing for more freedom and matching the institution’s current model.
7. Most committee members who spoke were in favor of the activity instead of the outcomes oriented rubrics.
8. It was decided that automatic emails would be preferable
10. Melissa will work with Audrey regarding the data load (pending data from MIS)
-Training to follow up mid-late November after data is available.
-3 consecutive training sessions to follow
-Data Steward and Course Coordinator training- Early December 2016
-Course-Coordinator training on assessment creation
-Faculty training (workshops and videos)-Early Spring 2017 / 1.Approved
2. In progress

.

4