Assessment Committee Minutes

September 25, 2003, Jones 366, 10:30-11:30 am

Members Present: Betty Larson, Mary F.D. Larson, Kathie Leeper, Ruth Lumb, Viann Pederson de Castaneda, Kay Schneider, Michael Wohlfeil (Chair).

Announcements:

October 2, 2003 there will be a workshop on assessment from 12:00-1:00 (lunch provided) in Brown Lounge. Individuals planning to attend should RSVP to Kay so the correct number of lunches can be ordered. Several departments have been asked to consider sharing how they use their assessment results within their department. Chemistry has agreed to participate and several other departments have been contacted and are considering the opportunity to share their programs. Mary F.D. Larson agreed to present results on the orientation program at a future workshop but could present the goals and core objectives of orientation from national data at this workshop if needed.

October 9, 2003 from 12:00-1:00 (lunch provided) in Brown Lounge Mike will present a workshop on chapter six of the assessment report.

November 18, 2003 the workshop will concentrate on focus groups.

Mini-Grants

Committee members discussed the grant application from the French Department. Kathy Leeper moved we approve the application, second by Ruth Lumb, motion carried. Kay will encourage the French Department faculty to discuss the process of assessing foreign language skill with Viann and Pedro since they have been doing the type of assessment French is proposing for several years and could help the French faculty streamline the process.

Committee members were encouraged to “reply to all” when they send comments back to Kay on grants that are sent via email.

Task Force Report “Toward the Next Curriculum”

Committee members discussed what type of response on assessment might be sent to the task force that is working on the new curriculum. The following suggestions were presented:

1. The goals appear to be input driven rather than recognizing the outcome that is desired. Our current evaluation system perpetuates the idea of input rather than output since we are required to submit the number of students, number of advisees, etc. We need to consider a paradigm shift to focus on the desired outcome with measurable objectives. The goals need some clarification about what the student is expected to know, do or how they are expected to behave as a result of their Concordia education. Perhaps measurable objectives could be identified under each goal. How can we measure whether a student loves learning? Would surveys assessing participation in continuing education qualify? Another example that was cited was on page 6 of the task force report. How can we know if a graduate is “open to change.” How will we know if students have achieved that goal?

2. Where can we be sure that students from each major demonstrate or accomplish the goals? The attached grid was used in the past to demonstrate how each department met the goals from Agenda.

3. There is no goal that incorporates faith and learning or the Lutheran perspective of vocation.

4. When are the learning goals to be achieved? Are there certain goals that should be achieved by the end of the first year, the second year, etc? Who is responsible of measuring whether the goals have been attained at the end of certain years?

5. Which goals should be addressed within the core courses and which goals should be addressed within courses for the major? What is the department role in achieving these goals?

6. What is the student perception of whether the goals are met? Perhaps a grid for faculty and a second for students?

7. The committee discussed goal five (responsible participation in the world) as another example that the goals need further clarification. How does responsible participation in the world occur (service learning, co-op, residence life)? In what context does this occur? How do we build it in and make it part of the college? Where? Outside of class? Would the advisor be responsible for making sure that the goal is accomplished?

8. What does intercultural learning and living mean? Where does it occur? How can it be measured?

9. If we are going to be accountable, what priority are we going to place on assessment as a college? If we propose “grand goals” we need to have a plan for how we will show in ten years that we have accomplished these goals. Will we demonstrate our success with electronic portfolios, examinations, advisor completing a check-list or how?

Future Meeting

Mike asked that everyone review the minutes and provide additional suggestions of what might be included in the recommendation that we send to the task force of curriculum revision.

The next meeting is October 9 at 10:30 in room 126 of Old Main. The agenda will include planning for review of department assessment reports.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Larson