ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
January 30, 2004
2:00 p.m. Room 149-T
Members Present: Richard Birk, Terry Coleman, Pete Grant, Diane Hipsher, Ross Justice, Pat
Kent, Doug Kranch, Peg Moir, Kate Peresie, Paul Sukys, Anne Vinson, Gary Wood
Visitor: Mike Allen
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m.
Assessment Coordinator’s report:
 An assessment email group has been set up.
 The administration has given tentative approval for workshops on continuous

improvement in anticipation of possibly going to the AQIP assessment paradigm.
Bob McMann may lead the workshop.

A panel from Terra Community College is tentatively planned for the Spring faculty
development day. As a college farther along in the AQIP procedure than most, the panel
can give good insight into what AQIP’s impact on North Central would be.
We should send a group to the AQIP Champion’s workshop, perhaps one being held

in June.
Kate Peresie hopes for a decision regarding AQIP by June.
The revised writing rubric was handed out by Mike Allen. He pointed out the additional material
now added to the back of the rubric which gives guidelines on applying it to various
writing samples. The committee asked if an explanation of what a 1, 2, etc., mean be
added? A workshop on using the rubric was suggested as an alternative to additional
instructions. We must trust the reader to know what a “3” rating means. However, Mike
Allen said that a description of what 1, 2, 3, etc., mean for each writing element could be
added, but it could require 3 additional pages. It was suggested that each department
write its own definition for each value on the scale. The committee suggested that a
single uniform document could be used as a guide in training workshops on the use of the
rubric. Mike Allen will develop the additional materials.
Anne Vinson indicated that she will be using the writing rubric in her capstone course.
The committee discussed whether the rubric should use a 4- or 5-point scale. Arguments
in favor of both were presented. In the end, the 5-point scale was retained.
There should be training on the use of the rubric for those involved in the pilot study
during the professional development day, along with any other interested faculty. The
Deans should inform their faculty that they will be doing this writing assessment, and not
the English Department.
The committee discussed what the outcome goal for the writing assessment should be.
Noting that there will be a single summative number resulting from each assessment, the
committee settled on the outcome that 80% of the students being assessed should score at
the 80% level or better.
Kate Peresie brought to the committee’s attention that the “Outcomes Inventory” has
many general education outcomes, perhaps too many to be assessed. She suggested that
some of them could be combined to reduce the number of outcomes to assess to a more
reasonable number. The historical origins of the “Outcomes Inventory” was as a
document to aid in planning the curriculum, not in assessing outcomes from programs;
hence, the large number of goals. With this perspective, it was agreed that the general
education goals could be used to produce general education assessment outcomes without
altering the “Outcomes Inventory.”
The committee agreed on the following statement:
“The initial focus of cross-curricular assessment will be in the areas of writing, speaking,
critical thinking, and mathematics.”
The next meeting will be on February 6 at 1:00 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.