CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
(PEAC)
Agenda
March 25, 2016
8:30-10:00 a.m.
EHS 413
Present: Susan Griffith (English-Chair); Deb Linton (Biology-Chair Elect); Maggie Cosgrove (Student Rep); Ray Allen (PES); Kevin Cunningham (TEPD); Laura Frey (SPED)
Ex-officio members present: Mike Carson (Academic Effectiveness); Betty Kirby (CEHS /Unit Head)
Absent: Ren Hullender (Art); Mary Senter (CARRS/SASW); Patrick Graham (Global Campus); Jennifer Klemm (CEHS/Designee)
Guests: Kamaria Taylor (CEHS-Recorder); Yenpin Su-Ritzler (Academic Effectiveness)
I. Welcome, Call to Order
a. Susan Griffith called the meeting to order at 8:35 am.
II. Approval of Minutes
a. Review of the agenda.
b. Call for revisions of minutes. None given.
MOTION: Deb Linton moved for the acceptance of the minutes with corrections, if necessary. Seconded by Ray Allen. Motion passes. MOTION PASSED (Vote: yes-6, no-0)
1. Betty Kirby noted a correction in attendance record – Jennifer Klemm was not present, should be listed, because she is a designee.
III. Announcements
a. Maggie Cosgrove shared her experience on the student panel for the CAEP site visit. She noted there being a diverse group of students, at varying levels in the program, who all shared positive comments about the program. They asked about leadership opportunities and Maggie was glad to be able to speak on her experience with PEAC as well as her role as president of a student organization. She also mentioned the conversation about field experiences, and how many students shared that CMU does a good job of placing students in environments they are interested in as well as pushing their limits to explore other opportunities.
b. Some members shared they thought the faculty forum was going to be a more intense discussion. Betty Kirby confirmed that the meeting was in fact to discuss and verify information already provided versus a deep analysis or judgment.
IV. Unfinished Business
A. Review of PEAC Committee Charge (Susan Griffith)
i. Griffith recollected that at the January executive board meeting the committee reviewed the committee charges and that currently all academic senate committees are being reviewed. The committees were established nearly 14 years ago and with CAEP some doors have been opened for discussion and it seems like a good time to review how shared governance is working. Over the course of the past four weeks, the executive board, PEEB, has devoted time to creating a plan, with first priority going to technical changes of charges. A full review with be a project that will span the course of the upcoming academic school year.
ii. Griffith called for any technical changes to the charge (charge was accessed via Blackboard during discussion). Committee members shared the following edits:
1. Change NCATE references to CAEP
a. In Part B, change from CAEP Standard 2 to read the CAEP Standards, Accrediting Body, or Michigan Department of Education and National Accrediting Body, in case the accrediting body changes again – “satisfies the standards of the national accrediting body”
2. Membership
a. Update colleges to reflect new names
i. College of Science and Technology > College of Science and Engineering
ii. College of Extended Learning > Global Campus
iii. The substance of the charges and how the charges interrelate will be the subject of the executive board who will provide guidance during the process. Floor was opened for responses. Questions, concerns, and comments are noted as follows:
1. What exactly do D and E mean? Have those things ever been done by this committee? What does “the reappointment of PEU faculty” and “review of applications” mean in practice? If so, what have been the circumstances surrounding it? How has that occurred?
a. Griffith confirmed the process has been done in past as she periodically submitted a simple application. Betty Kirby noted she hasn’t heard of the process being completed since Karen Adams was in the college. The process needs to be examined.
2. Since the committee is charged with leadership and guidance regarding assessment and particularly tied to evaluating and improving the PEU, shouldn’t we have people who are knowledgeable in assessment to reference when providing leadership and guidance? Also, if we are to provide guidance, it is important that our recommendations should be being informed by research and be backed with meaningful substance.
a. Griffith suggested proposing a policy to guide the committee should help this.
3. Do changed assessment plans for PEU programs ever come through the committee? Mike Carson noted changed plans currently go to the Assessment Council and are approved if they follow university expectations but with only a few people on the council they aren’t reviewed for alignment with CAEP or other accreditation standards.
a. Griffith noted the work of the committee doesn’t currently align with PECC, which is now a part of the chain of curricular work. Do we want to parallel procedure for assessment plans? What do ongoing quality assurance procedures mean?
b. Laura Frey supported consideration of bringing assessment plans through PEAC, not for more work but for more effectiveness. CAEP desires that we review existing infrastructures and make them systematic and effective; assessment plans can be an integral part of that infrastructure.
4. Kevin Cunningham asked should we also be concerned with is the quality of instruction given to our students within the unit? In regards to assessment and gathering of data, and whether or not it is research based, the policy, or practice, of evaluating instructors almost entirely rests on student opinion surveys; this is something that needs to be more closely examined. This practice, not to say student opinions should not be considered, is an example of something that is not well-supported by research. Student opinion surveys should just be one part of a more comprehensive means of evaluating instruction.
a. Griffith recounted that if D is in fact a part of PEAC’s charge, there needs to be a way to evaluate the quality of instruction given to PEU students.
b. Cunningham added “and a reconsideration of how it is currently being done.”
iv. Maggie Cosgrove asked what do student SOS forms do for faculty?
1. Griffith recounted to her understanding that she submits her SOS scores with reappointment and tenure promotion materials. Those are part of the data to be used to see if they are promoted or reappointed for tenure. They have influence. The range of influence they have depends on the way a department processes things and they way the dean approves them. They carry weight and they are serious. They are more seriously than we might think.
2. Frey commented that there is a general interest to get good student feedback. There is no accountability when students circle at that moment. Each department has bylaws that outline the extent to use of SOS in teaching.
v. Cunningham noted again they should be research based. CMU is a division 2 research based institution. Should be based on good practice, research based practices. This case is a good example of where he does not believe that is being done.
1. Carson noted we (curriculum and assessment team) haven’t been as active in program review, especially regarding assessment, but based on the new cycle we have started to do that. Where does PEAC play into that, especially related to BS in Ed programs? How are they progressing? What are the recommendations? Looking for the connection to this group.
2. Yenpin Su-Ritzler noted the curriculum and assessment team assists programs with assessment plans. They decide on their own measures and data collection methods but what can PEAC do to encourage programs to adopt the data packs, which the team considers very valuable and easily accessible.
a. Griffith this piece hasn’t emerged prior to the curriculum and assessment team’s efforts as no one would know if a program is or is not using the data pack information. Now the question is can this, would this, and should this now be in the purview of PEAC?
b. Ray Allen said this will take major deliberation. What is our role in this? Are we sifting through reports? Are we a policy-governing body? This, and other comments, is very important and we need to figure out our role in it all.
3. Allen noted that regarding membership, for example, if PEAC begins to dictate to programs which faculty can and cannot be in PEU there may be bylaws and other things that affect it. We have a long, thoughtful process to go through.
4. Cunningham what Carson and Su-Ritzler commented on is very much related to closing the gap. We have so much data collected and what are we to do with it now and how is it impacting decisions and recommendations? Our focus should not just be meeting CAEP standards but also progressing our programs.
5. Kirby noted that another piece to consider while moving into next year is waiting for feedback from CAEP that will tell us where we stand in relation to the standards. We will probably get AFIs (areas for improvement) because early adopters fall under another set of rules than others adopters. Early adopters will also receive a list of stipulations, red flags, and other guidelines that haven’t been evaluated on to improve on so that upon next review they won’t be behind regular adopters. Something we have to do is to not wait until the next review and follow this continuous improvement model. The state and accrediting bodies aren’t allowing this anymore.
a. Cunningham we have to then also not wait for six to twelve months or longer to act. CAEP is making it up as they go and as instructors we understand create and adjust, but we need to get ahead of the CAEP changes and make decisions that are the best for our program, our students, our university, and the future of the profession.
6. Frey commented that perhaps a discussion gets started sooner than later with stakeholders who are a part of other university-wide entities. Those individuals can hear and we can have a broad discussion and perhaps liaisons from the committee can attend university-wide infrastructure meetings instead PEAC taking on new responsibilities.
7. MOTION: Deb Linton moved to approve the editorial changes to the PEAC charge (changing the CAEP Standard 2 statement to read “current national accrediting body” and correcting the college names). Seconded by Kevin Cunningham. Motion passes. MOTION PASSED (Vote: yes-6, no-0)
V. Sub-Committee Reports
a. N/A
VI. New Business
a. Update on E-Portfolio as Assessment Tool (Deb Linton)
i. Linton gave an overview of the e-portfolio. It is comprised of the six CLEAR standards: subject matter, assessment, pedagogy, diversity, professionalism, and technology and requires students to submit two artifacts, one prior to student teaching and one during. For each category they are asked to provide a rationale, using guided questions, for each category. Her task has been to develop an e-portfolio evaluation tool and in doing so met with Ray Francis and Jennifer Quick to work on the effort. Initially major changes were going to be made, but they discovered making minor changes to the questions could provide more focused answers from students providing more specific data for collection. Linton referenced the revised e-portfolio assessment sheet, to share examples of the revised questions and their revisions to ask the same target area with a focus specifically on CAEP standards. Question two in each category reflects CAEP Standard 1.2, an area not previously focused on. There also is an additional question added for student teaching submissions only, to see growth between the artifacts – evidence of progress.
ii. Linton then gave a brief overview of the new rubric, similar to Student Teaching and Pre-Student Teaching assessments, developed because there is not currently one. Asks about appropriateness, reflection, and quality for each category. Ray Francis took to another group and tried it and the group gave people the highest marks, which is an issue to discuss at a later time. The greatest feedback was the concern shared from the group regarding the increased workload with the rubric, but they thought the rubric was useable.
1. Cunningham asked would it be possible to share the portfolio that was used to evaluate. Linton noted she could get further clarity from Ray Francis regarding the trial run with the group, regarding how many portfolios were evaluated, questions, how group split what was evaluated.
2. Cosgrove asked which questions students used when preparing portfolios. Linton confirmed the original questions, not the revised presented at the meeting.
3. Frey noted this type of work was in fact a pilot and we need the assessment data from the pilot. Linton confirmed the data was provided on Blackboard. Frey desired some clarity on the implementation of the pilot, for fidelity, to ensure there aren’t any gaps in the information needed.
a. Linton didn’t want this to be labeled as the pilot, but that the next steps would be to have a true pilot. It has been sent to Tamil Periyaswamy and Jennifer Klemm and has since been out into the pipeline for pilot implementation.
4. Griffith confirmed what PEAC is looking at now is whether or not to “endorse the way of incorporating the CAEP standards into the assessment” per the conclusion of the informal sub-committee, not whether to add anything to the questions but to send it through the system as is