University Assessment Committee Meeting
Minutes
March 10, 2016 9:00-10:00 a.m.
Gillham Park Room, Administrative Center
-
-
Attending – Ruth Cain, Caitlin Horsmon, Sabrina Madison-Cannon, Ken Mitchell, Jennifer
Quaintance, Margaret Mullally-Quijas, Maqual Graham, Larry Bunce, Aaron Reed, Rhiannon
Dickerson, Jennifer Waddell, Wanda Temm, Peggy Ward Smith, Jeff Barbee, Carol Sargent and
Dan Stroud.
Not Present – Marion Stone, Crystal Doss, Laverne Berkel, Chris Van Ness, Jennifer Friend, Dave
Cornell, Josh Wallace, Da-Ming Zhu, Devon Cancilla, Kit Smith, and Greg Vonnahme.
1. Welcome – Ruth Cain, Director of Assessment welcomed everyone to the meeting.
2. Approval of Minutes
- Sabrina Madison-Cannon made a motion to approve the February meeting minutes as written.
Wanda Temm seconded the motion. Motion carried.
3. Curriculum Maps
-
Ruth Cain discussed the new curriculum map expectations with regard to new proposals for
courses. She stated that the intent is to get programs to think more about Student Learning
Outcomes and support each course’s contribution to the degree program.
4. Fall 2016 FaCET Conference
-
-
-
-
Conference will be held August 18, 2016.
Caitlin Horsmon discussed the proposed agenda. David Chase, Vice Dean for Academic Affairs
at the American Film Institute Conservatory in Los Angeles, California, will be the keynote
speaker workshop facilitator. In addition to the FaCET Conference, Dr. Chase will lead an all-day
workshop for faculty from the Conservatory and other creative and performing arts disciplines
on Friday, August 19.
Peggy Ward-Smith spoke about the need to expend funds for the event prior to the end of the
fiscal year. FaCET will send the check for Dr. Chase’s fees and travel and others that have
pledged to help with funding will reimburse the department.
Ruth spoke to her understanding that support for Dr. Chase’s fees and expenses would be
coming from the (1) Conservatory, (2) College of Arts and Sciences, and (3) the Office of
Assessment.
Peggy Ward-Smith indicated that we will be opening the conference to other schools just as we
did in January. She stated that having such an event and including other institutions strengthens
UMKC’s desire to be “The Place for Faculty Development.”
5. Annual Assessment Report
-
-
-
Ruth mentioned that the committee had held two meetings. She said that a form had been
drafted and was under review at present. She pointed out that there were some very good
questions and considerations in the committee’s discussions.
The approximate schedule for release of the form will be as follows:
1. Form to be rolled out in mid-April.
2. Training to be set for spring and fall 2016.
3. The intent is to place the report form in each program’s folder in the UMKC Box
application, which will be shared with assessment coordinators/program
directors/department chairs they put together the 2015-16 assessment cycle report.
Each program’s assessment information from WEAVE (including the detailed assessment reports
and supporting documents) has been archived in the program’s assessment folder in UMKC Box.
6. Assessment of the GECC Core
-
Jennifer Waddell offered the following information about the future plans for General Education
Assessment:
o It was determined by the faculty that the initial round of course assessment was
unsustainable.
o Currently the initiative suggests that every student in every course was to be assessed
every year. A recommendation was made to stagger that approach so that 1/3 of
courses be assessed each year rather than all, and then a sample of that work would be
assessed.
o If the new plan is passed by the faculty, each year, one Anchor course classification and
its connected Discourse class, and one focus course classification would be assessed
each cycle. Approximately 100 student artifacts from each of these course types would
then be selected randomly by the Director of Assessment.
-
Jennifer Waddell next pointed out that the committee had heard from instructors that the effort
to assess all of their courses was simply too great. Further there was a lack of standardization
among assessment projects in the courses.
If recommendation is passed by the faculty it would do the following:
a. Create a panel that does assessment (similar to NIH study section), which would
meet in the summer.
b. The GECC in collaboration with the Office of Assessment would create a rubric to
assess each gen ed outcomes.
c. The panel members would be trained on apply the shared rubrics for each General
Education SLO.
d. Instructors would perform and return a self-assessment/proposed change
evaluation.
e. Results will go back to instructors and division/dept. heads.
-
-
-
Further things to understand include:
1. SLO reports would also be forwarded to the Faculty Senate, and to the Provost.
2. The reports would then be disseminated back to Deans, Dept/Div heads, and
instructors.
3. Faculty will fill out a three–item survey asking them to reflect on what worked, what
didn’t work, and ways the learning experience could be improved.
4. The Office of Assessment will archive the results of the assessment and the surveys
to centralize support for campus-wide assessment efforts.
5. If courses are not meeting General Education SLOs and improvements are not
proposed and followed up, Faculty Senate and Provost would follow up with regard
to professional development and possible suspension of a course from the General
Education Core.
Ruth spoke to her excitement about the possibilities that may come out of this assessment
process.
She also was interested in the possibility of building a strong library of artifacts as evidence for
university assessment.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 AM.
Next Meeting: April 14, 2016. 9:00 – 10:00 AM in Gillham Park Room.