1
To: Dr. Street
From: Tom Henderson, 2006/2007 Assessment Committee Chair
Date: 8/9/2007
Re: 2006/2007 Assessment Committee update
An overview of the CWU Assessment Committee's activities during the 2006/2007 academic year follows. The overview includes:
· List of committee members
· Executive summary of meetings / activities
· Projects that are likely to carry forward to the 2007/2008 academic year
· Appendix I - 2006/2007 committee minutes
· Appendix II - draft copy of a concept map of assessment at CWU
· Appendix III - a working copy of a General Education rubric still in development
Please let me know if you need any clarifications or further information.
Very respectfully;
Tom Henderson, Director of Testing and Assessment
8/9/2007 2006/2007 CWU Assessment Committee Summary p. 2 of 23
2
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
2006/2007 Academic Year
The Assessment Committee reorganized and began meeting during late fall, 2006. Committee minutes are included in Appendix 1 and they are online at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/avpminutes2.html.
I. Committee Members
The committee was organized to include: (see http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/avpcommittee2.html)
· each of CWU's four Associate Deans involved in educational assessment
· experts in each of the four, HEC-board mandated learning outcomes, i.e., critical thinking, writing, information literacy, and quantitative/symbolic reasoning
· representatives from Institutional Research, Testing and Assessment, and a CWU student
· the AVP of Undergraduate studies
· clerical support from the AVP US's office
· Dan Herman became involved with the committee working on General Education assessment. Dr. Herman was a member of the General Education committee of the Faculty Senate
2006/2007 Committee members included:
Member / Email / DepartmentLinda Beath / / AVP Undergraduate Studies
Kelley Cadman / / IR
Michael Chinn / / CAH
Tom Henderson, Chair / / Testing and Assessment
Dan Herman / / History, GenEd, Faculty Senate
Kirk Johnson / / COTS
Marcus Kieltkya / / Library/Information Literacy
Teresa Kramer / / UWC/Writing
Connie Lambert / / CoEPS
John Lasik, (now vacant) / / COB
Janis Orthmann / / AVP US clerical support
Mark Oursland / / Math/Q & S Reasoning
Ian Quitadamo / / Biology/Science Ed/Critical Think
Korri Shimizu / CWU student
II. Executive Summary of 2006/2007 Assessment Committee Activities
A. The committee considered two general topics during 2006/2007 meetings:
1. One of the main themes of our Assessment Committee meetings was "How could our committee improve the culture of assessment at CWU?"
· improve/increase the use of assessment to make data-driven decisions. This not only includes conducting new assessments but making better use of current assessment activities such as surveys, etc.
· help make assessment useful and easier to adopt in everyday faculty life, in other words, improve efficiency while improving effectiveness
· how can CWU improve the assessment of General Education learning outcomes?
2. One topic underlying all of our meetings was the upcoming NWCCU regional accreditation review. What could we do as a committee to help CWU prepare for the 2009 accreditation visit and continue that momentum to improve our processes to meet and exceed NWCCU standards in the future?
B. Projects Considered
The committee spent several meetings considering projects that it should pursue during the year. Some of the projects that were considered include (in no particular order):
· how best to communicate assessment issues to the university community?
· how to increase peer-peer conversations on assessment at CWU
· workshops on assessment
· survey of faculty regarding assessment issues
· improving/using assessment benchmarks
· how to create a sense of urgency at CWU on assessment issues
· better use of SEOI's
· spheres of distinction - should one be added for assessment?
· a "strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats" or SWOT analysis of assessment at CWU
· culture of assessment - where do we stand and how can we best improve it?
Marcus Kieltyka researched and the committee considered implementing ETS's "iSkills" exam at CWU. This exam was formerly called the "ICT literacy" exam and focuses on information literacy. The committee did not recommend the exam because: (a) it was fairly expensive, and (b) it focused on only one of the HEC board's learning outcomes.
See Appendix II for a draft copy of a concept map of assessment at CWU developed by Ian Quitadamo during these meetings.
C. Assessment Committee 2007 Focus
In early 2007 the Assessment Committee began developing a rubric and assessment plan to assess CWU General Education (GenEd) students' learning outcomes. The committee invited the CWU General Education committee to meet with us. Dr. Dan Herman, chair of the GenEd committee, joined most of our 2007 meetings.
Some advantages in developing a systematic, longitudinal assessment of general education learning outcomes include:
· the NWCCU has asked for more information on GenEd at CWU and the assessment of GenEd learning outcomes
· GenEd assessment at CWU has historically been on a fairly ad hoc basis
· a rubric used on a longitudinal basis has the ability to spot learning outcomes that need improvement and then track improvement over time
· the project has the potential to involve quite a few faculty and students at CWU
The rubric is still in development. The Assessment Committee needs to continue work on improving the rubric and make sure that it (a) it becomes part of GenEd, (b) and that data from the rubric is used to improve learning outcomes.
III. Possible Projects for the 2007/2008 Assessment Committee
A. Continue work on an assessment plan for CWU General Education
· simplify and clarify the current GenEd rubric
· map each of the four "HEC board" learning outcomes to each dimension of the rubric
· use the rubric to evaluate papers gathered from GenEd classes this summer and make improvements
· develop an assessment plan for GenEd at CWU with resources for faculty evaluators, a rotating schedule for assessing courses, etc.
B. Continue work with CWU's GenEd committee
C. Assist the NWCCU executive committee, Dr. Warren Street, the Standard Two chair, and CWU faculty and staff in preparing for the 2009 NWCCU accreditation review.
D. Consider expanding the focus of the Assessment Committee from just academic assessment to university-wide assessment and evaluation.
E. Elect a new committee chair
F. Other projects, e.g., for example the committee might be asked to review or help on a university-wide assessment Plan that is under development.
■
APPENDIX I
ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/avpminutes2.html
FALL 2006 through SPRING 2007
November 16, 2006 / pp. 5-6December 11, 2006 / pp. 7-8
January 16, 2007 / p. 9
February 13, 2007 / pp. 10-11
March 6, 2007 / pp. 12-13
April 10, 2007 / pp. 14-15
April 16, 2007 / pp. 16-17
Assessment Committee
November 16, 2006
Barge 304
1-2
Minutes
Members present: Kirk Johnson, John Lasik, Michael Chinn, Connie Lambert, Teresa Kramer, Ian Quitadamo, Mark Oursland, Kelley Cadman, Tom Henderson, Korri Shimizu
Members absent: Linda Beath, Marcus Kieltyka
Meeting called to order: Tom Henderson 1:06 p.m.
Introductions: Student Representative, Korri Shimizu and clerical support, Janis Orthmann
K. Johnson moved to dispel the minutes from the last meeting. M. Chinn seconded. Motion Passed.
Tom Henderson will arrange for the 2005-2006 assessment committee members not included in this year’s committee to be contacted. It was noted that this year’s membership consists of a smaller focus group.
C. Lambert motioned for equal voting rights for members of the committee, K. Cadman seconded. Motion passed. Tom Henderson will send memo regarding committee proposal.
Discussion touched upon written assessment for each Central Washington University class. T. Henderson suggested committee could assist with the upcoming NWCCU accreditation visit.
Possible Projects:
Ian distributed Volume IV: What works, what matters, what lasts, Project Kaleidoscope, which could be a valuable resource. May not want to reinvent the wheel, we can use NSF grant funded research of in the Assessment of Student Achievement program. We need to think about different programs. Despite our best efforts of teaching, students are not learning. We need to get real and we need to use resources. PKAL group is active and has a proven record.
Do we need better bench marks? What should be the model? We will we be communicating to people in our colleges. Peer conversation is valuable. Perhaps we can add assessment to the spheres of distinction. How to we get this out to people in the classroom? Departments are talking about using tools and effectiveness but how do we create a sense of urgency and show value and a variety of methods to choose from? A few years ago assessment workshops were presented on professional development day. This may be an effective catalyst to stimulate peer interest. Faculty need to see it as a tool to improve their time commitments. We need to show how to use assessment in such a way so that faculty will not view as yet another thing to add to the day. It would be nice to embed SEOIs into annual faculty review. How do we do this under collective bargaining? We need a game plan for Michael Jennings’ consideration. Faculty with low SEOIs should participate in workshops. Departments must think that the workshops were worthwhile for professional development. Change based on student learning outcomes is a given despite the quality of instruction. That is what they are asking for in accreditation that we assess and respond to it. Program review…data from bottom up is easier. Need to get faculty to do it at the lower level. Build it into program review. L. Beath’s office is at liberty to add assessment to program review. Need to look at guidelines. Math just did self evaluation and we could address right away. The disconnect seem to be budget support at the Deans level. It needs to be a shared value and culture.
Assessment incorporation:
1. Performance rated faculty
2. Program review only looked at every five years and it needs to be done more often if it is to be an assessment tool.
3. At a CWU faculty development day we could do workshop and have it added to the workload plan.
4. Spheres of distinction
5. Student evaluation questions should include defined learning outcomes for the course. Perhaps add if the faculty does teach to learning outcomes as a question. There is pressure for change to the SEOIs to rate learning and not instructor. Could do this on the SEOI allowing students to be active in process.
Ian will put to put together a concept plan.
Janis will send out email addresses.
Next meeting to be week of finals or December 11 or 12. Janis will email members.
Meeting adjourned at 1:50
Assessment Committee
Minutes, Monday, December 11, 2006
Barge 304 1:15 to 2:15
Members Present: Tom Henderson, Teresa Kramer, Marcus Kieltyka, Kirk Johnson, John Lasik, Kelley Cadman, Michael Chinn, Ian Quitadamo, Connie Lambert, Mark Oursland
Members Absent: Linda Beath, Korri Shimizu
Meeting called to order: 1:19
Approval of the minutes: T. Kramer moved to approve the November 16, 2006 minutes, K. Johnson seconded. Motion passed.
Agenda approved
1. Committee status update
Provost will present proposal to allow all Assessment Committee members equal voting privileges to Academic Affairs for approval. Provost suggested a representative from Faculty Senate be invited to join the committee.
2. Assessment workshops
Assessment workshops to the CWU community
Options for assessment workshops discussed
a) Fall faculty development day, University sponsored(held 12/4/06)
b) Winter faculty development day, College sponsored (March 19th)
c) Spring faculty development day, Department sponsored
d) Noon workshops (brown bag)
e) Departmental meetings
We need to complete a needs analysis of each department to provide solutions to their own problems, i.e., learning outcomes and accreditation needs. There is priority is to talk to chairs. This may best be accomplished by meeting with Deans.
Action plan:
a) Create survey (T. Henderson will draft and e-mail for suggestions)
Survey will provide an analysis of each department to provide solutions to their own needs and tailor workshops to individual departmental needs.
b) Identify swat team members
c) Set up college level meetings
d) Conduct interactive dialog at departmental level
e) Feedback assessment
3. Faculty work load plans
Template to implement
Workload plans are being developed for fall 2007 quarter now. It was agreed Tom will investigate being added to the Provost Council agenda to discuss with the Deans possible identification of faculty coordinators of assessment and accreditation and have work reflected on workload plan as the service component. I. Quitadamo has three workload units designated for assessment/accreditation research and he will send T. Henderson a representation of his workload proposal.
4. Culture of assessment at CWU
Discussion of web site for assessment.
a) Link from AVP UG Program Review page
b) Link from Testing page
c) Own web site
It was agreed that members will review the Portland State University web page dedicated to institutional assessment portfolio as a model. Discussion of PSU to be a future agenda item.
http://portfolio.pdx.edu/Portfolio/Teaching_Learning/UnderGrad_Learning_Goals/University_Studies/view?p=University_Studies_Assessment
Note: University Writing Center will have an assessment link on its faculty resource page.
5. eWAG December Newsletter
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/docs/education/assess/eWAG/2006december/ewagdecember06.html
No discussion
6. Schedule next meeting
Members will send schedules and J. Orthmann will schedule meeting week of January 15th. Committee will meet once a month unless there is a need to meet more often.
Agenda Item:
Concept map developed by I. Quitadamo
Meeting adjourned 2:01
Assessment Committee
Minutes, Tuesday, January 16, 2006
Barge 304 9:00-10:00
Members Present: Tom Henderson, Teresa Kramer, Marcus Kieltyka, Kirk Johnson, Michael Chinn, Ian Quitadamo, Connie Lambert, Mark Oursland
Members Absent: Linda Beath, John Lasik, Kelley Cadman, Korri Shimizu
Meeting called to order: 9:05 am
Minutes of December 11, 2006 were approved.
No formal agenda.
M. Kieltyka distributed information regarding information and communications technology literacy an ETS exam.