General Education Assessment Committee
October 6, 2014
Student Union Building, Room 323
Present: Krista Prock (at-large non-teaching faculty), Varsha Pandya (CLAS), Mary Eicholtz (at-large teaching
faculty), Randy Schaeffer (Gen Ed Committee), Stephen Hensler (COB), George Sirrakos (COE), William Donner
(Rep from SPRC), William Dempsey (Academic Dean), Valerie Trollinger (VPA), Kim Shively (at-large teaching
faculty), Danielle Hendricks (Student Representative).
Absent: Gil Clary (Office of Assessment), Janice Gasker (at-large teaching faculty), Brent Penny (Admin. &
Finance).
Prock called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm.
Minutes: Prock announced the Minutes for the September 29, 2014 meeting will be introduced for approval at
our next meeting along with the Minutes for this meeting.
Announcements: Prock opened the meeting and updated the committee about communication within the
campus community. She met with Clary about the information we want to share with the campus community
about the assessment process. What items do we want to highlight – 1) assessment process by defining
benchmarks; 2) general education. It is noted this committee uses benchmarks as a goal. They also talked about
the co-curricular process. We hope to meet with the college assessment leaders first and then the Senate. The
Provost wants this committee to communicate with the campus about assessment processes and general
education. We need to discuss the communication plan. Discussion followed. We need to determine how we
can move past some of the obstacles in general education and act proactively. We observe that given the large
number of domains, students are not given sufficient opportunities to gain proficiency in certain domains by
taking certain courses. If we have a universal assignment for assessment, we would be able to measure certain
domains, such as decision making. It was suggested that we get the Student Government Board on board to
have more student participation. Clary, Pandya and Prock plan to meet again to discuss the communication
plan.
Year 3 report: Prock will follow the style of the Year 1 and 2 reports – introduction, methods and asked the
committee to give her some information about the methods and then recommendations in order to utilize this
information in the Year 3 report. It was decided that for Group I – domain 3.1 Donner will be the point
person; Group II – domain 3.2 Pandya; Group III – domain 3.3 Sirrakos; and Group IV – domain 3.4 Eicholtz.
These findings should be submitted as a group.
Domains: Prock asked the members to meet in groups to discuss their domains.
Meeting adjourned at 2:50 pm.
/km
10/9/2014