Learning Assessment Committee
Harford Community College
March 1, 2013
MINUTES
PRESENT: Miriam Huddleston, Supawan King, Judy Grimm, Nicole Hoke-Wilson, David Mack,
Sheila Allen, Chris Jones, Avery Ward, Rob Frank, Gina Calia-Lotz, Bill Ekey, Valerie Swain
Action items in BOLD.
Approval of January minutes.
Deleted one unclear sentence; approved as amended.
I.
II.
Academic Affairs & Instruction Webpages: Sharing Assessment Projects. AA will have new
webpage that could contain links to assessment projects. David Mack will manage page and gave an
overview of planning for the page. David discussed potential overlap between AA and LAC pages.
There will likely be a link to learning outcomes that will be internal. Questions: Assessment
newsletter on both pages? Will assessments be internal only or external? He's had discussion with
Annette about internal/external and mechanics of accomplishing. David also raised the possibility of
linking LAC/assessment content under Governance. LAC discussed the possibility of consolidating
information that is already publicly available from multiple sources. Discussed how all of this
information might be displayed and accessed. Most model sites have either matrix with cyclical
assessment or listing of divisions with links. Having matrix might help with accountability. There
might be value in starting private with plans to move to public. Discussed resources and who will
maintain online assessment information? (Probably Valerie.) Technical considerations regarding
password protected areas--also perception of requiring password for information. Valerie to find out
hits on LAC webpage and report back.
III.
MSCHE Workshop information (Philadelphia – May 10) Valerie to send link to MSCHE
workshop to LAC. Decision about LAC attendees by end of March, then open up to others.
IV.
Assessment Newsletter: Public vs. Private Sharing
What will be public? If faculty opt to keep assessments internal--possible g drive? Transparency
question needs larger discussion. LAC should continue to explore ways to share data at least within
campus. Could selectively decide what is public. We need to determine who are our stakeholders,
what information they would use, and how would they use it? For example, parents examining options
for students would be able to see goals of program and success. Briefly discussed Self Study report
being public and whether other external accrediting reports also are public. A good start would be
sharing internally via newsletter. This could be posted on g drive or OwlNet. Sheila and Chris to
solicit from faculty for first newsletter. Newsletters will be sent from LAC email with archive on g
drive and links to archives within emails. We’ll also use News and Whooos to share links.
Rob shared table 14.1 from SS which includes assessments as of time of SS report. This could form
the basis of a first attempt at making information at least internally public.
V.
Assessment Transparency webinar—Valerie to send out to LAC invitation to March 19
webinar in SC 251.
VI.
Academic Outcomes - Moved and seconded for LAC to recommend that HCC abandon the
Academic Outcomes. Discussion followed motion: To what would SLO's link? Answer is to
Program Goals or to Gen Ed as appropriate and to Strategic Plan if appropriate. Avery reports that
3AT is open to revisiting issue of eliminating AO as institutional goals. LAC vote was unanimous to
make recommendation to eliminate AO. Chris and Sheila to send recommendation to Dr.
Haggray. Discussion continued with effect of change on divisional assessment plans. Focus would be
on Program Goals and Gen Ed goals. There was some additional discussion about whether additional
courses would be considered for Gen Ed status.
VII. Timeline Review and Update. Subcommittee will meet prior to April meeting and will write
draft goals for review by full LAC.
VIII.
TK20 presentation (Avery and Chris)
Avery gave overview. Impetus was beginning Gen Ed assessment while continuing program-level
assessment. Advantage of TK 20 is ability to aggregate discrete bits of data and combine in
meaningful ways to produce understandable reporting. Goals are assessed at assignment level using
rubrics. One assignment may support several different goals. Approach would require common
assessments and a clear cycle/schedule. It is possible to find balance between creativity and
individuality of teaching styles and institutional assessment goals. This approach also would require
common rubrics/scoring for assignments. TK 20 Campuswide includes rubric tool. TK20 would
perform initial data entry. Faculty score online, students access directly (for additional fee.). LAC
discussed use of common rubrics and accessibility by students. To what degree would instructors be
required to use common assignment and rubric? Not necessary for all, just for those assignments being
used for the focus assessment. Need for plan/cycle to assure coverage of all goals. Coordination
needed for Gen Ed assessment. For consideration: in order for this kind of approach to be effective,
there needs to be a high degree of certainty that there is faculty buy-in. Also, there needs to be clear
commitment on the part of academic leadership on making clear what expectation there will be and on
accountability. Faculty buy-in for TK20 could be the leverage needed to change tools. TK20 may
promote faculty collaboration. TK20 will accommodate non-academic units.
LAC discussed cost--$50k plus $25k annual fee—and training for end users. This cost does not
include per-student cost for student access.
Should LAC members discuss TK20 at division meetings or faculty assembly? Should first be
presented to Faculty Council, then divisions. Avery will assist with presentation to FC.
IX. Assessment Expo--Valerie distributed flyers and asked for feedback via email.
Adjournment at 1:35
Committee Members
Sheila Allen
Bill Ekey
Miriam Huddleston
David Mack
Gina Calia-Lotz
Rob Frank
Chris Jones
Gene Popiolek
Madelyn Danner
Judy Grimm
Kenneth Jones
Valerie Swain
Nicole Hoke-Wilson
Supawan King
Avery Ward