ACTION ITEMS & MEETING NOTES Academic Assessment Council ...
ACTION ITEMS & MEETING NOTES Academic Assessment Council 2016-17 October 26, 2016 10:10 am to 11:00 am (Fisher Science 33-358) Membership Richard Cavaletto (CAFES), Michael Lucas (CAED), Greg Starzyk, Jason Hailer (CAED); Kevin Lertwachara (OCOB), Fred DePiero (CENG), Debra Valencia-Laver (CLA), Brenda Helmbrecht (CLA); Kellie Green Hall (CSM), Katherine O’Clair (Library), Tim Archie (Student Affairs), Patrick O’Sullivan (CTLT), Melinda Rojo (ITS), Mauricio Saavedra (IR), Mary Pedersen, Bruno Giberti (A), Brenda Helmbrecht (GE), ASI (open(CAED), Solina Lindahl, Beena Khurana (OCOB), Linda Vanasupa (CENG), Matthew Moore (CLA), Beth Chance (CSM), (PCS/open), Jack Phelan (Assessment); Amy Robbins (APP); Dawn Janke (Writing Center) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MEETING NOTES 1. Review Meeting Notes from September 28, 2016 a. Meeting notes are approved. 2. Announcements & Updates
AAC Membership – Faculty Vacancies o
CAED – new member introduction, Jason Hailer (Construction Management) CAFES - open CENG - open Student Affairs – open PCS – Connor Rudolph appointed
Senior Project Review APP is engaged in a review of Senior Project reports included in the self-study sections of Program Review from the prior University Theme and will be presenting findings to the Academic Senate. We will also present these findings back to the AAC at a future meeting Oral Communication Assessment The OCLC is working with upper division programs to collect speeches Fall quarter, which are currently comprised of team presentations. The community is seeking the opportunity to also capture individual presentations. College Assessment Councils – still updating 2016-17 rosters. Please send updates to Jack Phelan.
3. Discussion: Assessment of Student Learning and Program Review
Template Changes o Updated Student Learning Section (Section IV) (PDF) o (Debra Valencia-Laver) There are resource issues surrounding program assessment. Are there indications of institutional support? o (Bruno Giberti) The third question (1c.) articulates how to address this. “What improvements need to be made to your process or methods (if any) to improve your ability to obtain meaningful results?” o (Debra V.) The current frustration is that there are lot of questions that require answering in the assessment report. The feeling is the programs are bound to answer all of the questions. o (Brenda Helmbrecht) In past assessment reports there was quite a bit of redundancy of information. The report that was generated from English department had this issue. o (Debra V.) Again, the university is asking the programs to run the assessment process without providing enough resources.
o From the GE perspective, there is a disconnect between GE and program level assessment. o (Bruno G.) We have tried to make the template comprehensive. I think the messaging is not clear. There is a misunderstanding about the motive of the template. I think that template has been developed to ensure that the programs do not have a blank page to start from. We need to make sure that message gets out. WASC has changed their focus from Program assessment to more kind of inquiry. We are trying to structure it that way. Message needs to be clear that the template should be viewed as a support and not as a constraint. o (Jack Phelan.) How can we communicate that? o (Bruno G.) Maybe we can include a preamble. This council meeting is what we are doing to communicate that. Everything is connected. o (Greg Starzyk) Preamble will be a good idea. How about outreach? o (Amy Robbins) They are doing all the outreaches through the learning communities. o (Debra V.) There is so much a department can do. What can the college or university do to support the programs to assist in the assessment process? We have to have clear guidance on what it is that we want to achieve and how do we achieve that. o (Bruno G.) The current assessment process helps the programs to track their position in the assessment effort. o Updated Capacity Section (Section V)(PDF) – no updates in this draft o University Themes: (Section VI) (PDF) o (Bruno G.) – We never asked to provide demographics of the departments before. This time we want to look at the graduation gaps between female and male students. Mauricio Saavedra is working on that. o (Jack P.) The programs can be proactive. It is difficult to get everyone engaged. Robin Parent’s Diversity and Inclusivity scoping project dissected every course description on campus. While incomplete, her work surely raises awareness. o Updated Assessment Plans – Looking Ahead (Appendix L) (PDF) o (Jack P.) Appendix L is updated to pair with our long term assessment plan. This section should include a draft program assessment plan for the next six years, drawing on the PLOs and their mapping to the curriculum in section III.A. If you don’t have a current plan, you may use the simplified template that is provided. The template requires you to specify, when the assessment is going to take place? (e.g., academic year); which PLO(s) will the assessment address? Where will the assessment take place? (e.g., in a course); what form will the assessment take? (e.g., an evaluation of a student artifact); o How many people are responding that they don’t have the assessment map? o (Bruno G.) This is exactly the problem that we have here. This is a bare bounce kind of planning. As a program develops its assessment plan, a mature version of the map can be submitted. Departments can add more columns and make it more comprehensive if they want. o (Jack P.) We could include some examples. o (Amy R.) if you see any assessment plan which you think is a good example, feel free to send it to me. please email me. o (Kellie Hall) Chemistry does not have a clear assessment plan. So the question that arose in the departmental meeting is, is the current year, year 6 or year 1. o (Bruno g.) It’s a term of art. The current year is Year 5. Program review tends to be backward looking. You might not have data from year 6. It’s the year of the visit. o Brenda H. objects to use of the term ‘freshmen’. She proposes the word ‘first-year student’ to
be used instead. o (Debra V.) To differentiate between Transfer students who are first time in Cal Poly from first time first-year students ‘New first-year student’ should be used. 4. Future Topics
Assessment of Learn by Doing
CLA+ Results (2016-17) o (Jack p.) Looking at future topics, we want to look at CLA plus result. We want to look at progress over time. If you have some topics that you want to discuss let me know.
Oral Communication & Information Literacy Assessments o (jack P.) Again, we are collecting artifacts for Oral Communication. Computer Engineering and Statistics department have generously offered their speeches to be used as artifacts. If any program has Oral communication as part of their focus, I would invite you to share your speeches. We have many willing participations but too many team presentations. Our current focus is to collect Upper division individual presentations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fall 2016 Schedule Wednesday 09/28; 10:10 to 11:00am Bldg 1-301 Wednesday 10/26; 10:10 to 11:00am BIO 33-358 Wednesday 11/30; 10:10 to 10:00 am Bldg 10-241
AAC Membership – Faculty Vacancies o
CAED – new member introduction, Jason Hailer (Construction Management) CAFES - open CENG - open Student Affairs – open PCS – Connor Rudolph appointed
Senior Project Review APP is engaged in a review of Senior Project reports included in the self-study sections of Program Review from the prior University Theme and will be presenting findings to the Academic Senate. We will also present these findings back to the AAC at a future meeting Oral Communication Assessment The OCLC is working with upper division programs to collect speeches Fall quarter, which are currently comprised of team presentations. The community is seeking the opportunity to also capture individual presentations. College Assessment Councils – still updating 2016-17 rosters. Please send updates to Jack Phelan.
3. Discussion: Assessment of Student Learning and Program Review
Template Changes o Updated Student Learning Section (Section IV) (PDF) o (Debra Valencia-Laver) There are resource issues surrounding program assessment. Are there indications of institutional support? o (Bruno Giberti) The third question (1c.) articulates how to address this. “What improvements need to be made to your process or methods (if any) to improve your ability to obtain meaningful results?” o (Debra V.) The current frustration is that there are lot of questions that require answering in the assessment report. The feeling is the programs are bound to answer all of the questions. o (Brenda Helmbrecht) In past assessment reports there was quite a bit of redundancy of information. The report that was generated from English department had this issue. o (Debra V.) Again, the university is asking the programs to run the assessment process without providing enough resources.
o From the GE perspective, there is a disconnect between GE and program level assessment. o (Bruno G.) We have tried to make the template comprehensive. I think the messaging is not clear. There is a misunderstanding about the motive of the template. I think that template has been developed to ensure that the programs do not have a blank page to start from. We need to make sure that message gets out. WASC has changed their focus from Program assessment to more kind of inquiry. We are trying to structure it that way. Message needs to be clear that the template should be viewed as a support and not as a constraint. o (Jack Phelan.) How can we communicate that? o (Bruno G.) Maybe we can include a preamble. This council meeting is what we are doing to communicate that. Everything is connected. o (Greg Starzyk) Preamble will be a good idea. How about outreach? o (Amy Robbins) They are doing all the outreaches through the learning communities. o (Debra V.) There is so much a department can do. What can the college or university do to support the programs to assist in the assessment process? We have to have clear guidance on what it is that we want to achieve and how do we achieve that. o (Bruno G.) The current assessment process helps the programs to track their position in the assessment effort. o Updated Capacity Section (Section V)(PDF) – no updates in this draft o University Themes: (Section VI) (PDF) o (Bruno G.) – We never asked to provide demographics of the departments before. This time we want to look at the graduation gaps between female and male students. Mauricio Saavedra is working on that. o (Jack P.) The programs can be proactive. It is difficult to get everyone engaged. Robin Parent’s Diversity and Inclusivity scoping project dissected every course description on campus. While incomplete, her work surely raises awareness. o Updated Assessment Plans – Looking Ahead (Appendix L) (PDF) o (Jack P.) Appendix L is updated to pair with our long term assessment plan. This section should include a draft program assessment plan for the next six years, drawing on the PLOs and their mapping to the curriculum in section III.A. If you don’t have a current plan, you may use the simplified template that is provided. The template requires you to specify, when the assessment is going to take place? (e.g., academic year); which PLO(s) will the assessment address? Where will the assessment take place? (e.g., in a course); what form will the assessment take? (e.g., an evaluation of a student artifact); o How many people are responding that they don’t have the assessment map? o (Bruno G.) This is exactly the problem that we have here. This is a bare bounce kind of planning. As a program develops its assessment plan, a mature version of the map can be submitted. Departments can add more columns and make it more comprehensive if they want. o (Jack P.) We could include some examples. o (Amy R.) if you see any assessment plan which you think is a good example, feel free to send it to me. please email me. o (Kellie Hall) Chemistry does not have a clear assessment plan. So the question that arose in the departmental meeting is, is the current year, year 6 or year 1. o (Bruno g.) It’s a term of art. The current year is Year 5. Program review tends to be backward looking. You might not have data from year 6. It’s the year of the visit. o Brenda H. objects to use of the term ‘freshmen’. She proposes the word ‘first-year student’ to
be used instead. o (Debra V.) To differentiate between Transfer students who are first time in Cal Poly from first time first-year students ‘New first-year student’ should be used. 4. Future Topics
Assessment of Learn by Doing
CLA+ Results (2016-17) o (Jack p.) Looking at future topics, we want to look at CLA plus result. We want to look at progress over time. If you have some topics that you want to discuss let me know.
Oral Communication & Information Literacy Assessments o (jack P.) Again, we are collecting artifacts for Oral Communication. Computer Engineering and Statistics department have generously offered their speeches to be used as artifacts. If any program has Oral communication as part of their focus, I would invite you to share your speeches. We have many willing participations but too many team presentations. Our current focus is to collect Upper division individual presentations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fall 2016 Schedule Wednesday 09/28; 10:10 to 11:00am Bldg 1-301 Wednesday 10/26; 10:10 to 11:00am BIO 33-358 Wednesday 11/30; 10:10 to 10:00 am Bldg 10-241
