MEETING NOTES
SPNHA EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
26 September 2012
9:30-11:30 AM
Room 217C DeVos
Attending: Jelier, Alaimo, Kimboko, Downey, Cain, Hoffman
Elect chair
Sal Alaimo was chosen as chair
Learning Assessments
It appears that the MPA and undergraduate 2011 assessment reports were not successfully submitted
into WEAVE. The UAC has asked that the undergraduate report be submitted. (They seemed not to
notice the absence of a new MPA report.) The UAC has asked for revisions to all three of our assessment
plans.
Discussion:
 Davia thinks 307 is not the best source for the term paper that is evaluated.
 Exclusive use of term paper is inadequate.
 Pricilla thinks a research paper may not be the most appropriate student product to base
evaluation on, as our program is about management, not research.
 Student portfolios may be more appropriate student work to base learning assessment.
Action Steps:
1. Mark will submit the MPA and undergraduate plans into WEAVE.
2. Getting input from the program committees, Mark will modify the plans in WEAVE to address
the specific concerns expressed in the UAC memos.
3. Sal and Priscilla will get information about Chalk and Wire from Social Work.
4. Davia will investigate how peer institutions are handling learning assessments
5. Davia will see what guidance NASPAA can provide on Learning Assessments
Untenured Faculty Annual Performance Reviews
Following discussion at faculty meeting, mentors will be assigned to each new faculty member. Prior to a
faculty member’s contract renewal, the mentor will participate in the annual evaluation. Following the
contract renewal, all tenured faculty will anonymously participate in the review. An untenured faculty
member may request that a specific nontenured faculty member contribute to the annual review.
Action Step:
Draft a formal plan for faculty approval.
Adjunct Evaluation
Oversight of adjuncts has been unsystematic.
Discussion
 Sal wants program coordinators to be involved in choosing, vetting and evaluating adjunct
faculty. He wants to visit their classrooms and see their course evaluations.
 Sal wants an adjunct reception or lunch to show appreciation and create community.
 Mark wants Blackboard site that creates adjunct community by allowing them to see each
other’s syllabi and course evaluations. Rich opposed sharing evaluations.
 Rich wants to see an grade report by instructor
Action Steps:
1. Set up Blackboard site for adjuncts
2. Provide a grade report by instructor
Corse Evaluations
Response rates for student course evaluations are usually too low to be useful.
Discussion
 If they cannot be raised, course evaluations should be done in-person.
 Students need incentives to fill them out during the busy last week of class. Maybe tie
preference for closed class permits to record of completing evaluations.
 The evaluations should be left open as long as possible.
 Students should be reminded in announcements.
 Paper evaluations are slow because student comments are retyped (to prevent identifying
students by handwriting.) But this might not be a mandatory policy.
Action Steps:
1. Set acceptable response rate.
2. If response rate is not met, revert to paper in Winter 2013.
3. Sal will investigate current Siedman (paper) policy.