REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Meeting of the Assessment Committee Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, PS117 Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. Meeting Notes Members Present: Dave Bazard, Paul Chown, Erik Kramer, Clyde Johnson, Ruth Rhodes, Shannon Sullivan, Cheryl Tucker. Members Absent: Rachel Anderson, Peter Blakemore, Marla Gleave, Toby Green, Angelina Hill, Sally Urban. 1. Call to Order: 3:32 p.m. Discussion Items: 2. Institutional Learning Outcomes The SLO status report asks for specific Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs). The consultants from Santa Rosa said CR does not necessarily need separate ILOs and most institutions use their GE outcomes as their ILOs. The Assessment Committee has not gotten any direction from the Academic Senate on how to proceed. At the Academic Senate meeting, Erik Kramer suggested keeping the three GE outcomes and presented the options the Assessment Committee came up (professional development, student services, technology, and self‐enrichment). Erik Kramer would like to discuss this again when more members of the committee are present. 3. Writing Across the Curriculum Dave Bazard said an ad hoc committee has been formed. The Senate Co‐Presidents are contacting more people to serve on this committee. 4. Level of mastery in mapping CLOs to PLOs Erik Kramer said there is a precedent for setting levels of mastery in mapping course learning outcomes (CLOs) to Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). Currently the mapping documents just have “X’s”, but should it be changed to “B” (beginning), “I” (intermediate), and “M” (mastered). Clyde Johnson said he thinks this would complicate reporting and the quality of the reporting would go down, because people would be filling out the forms just to get it done. Dave Bazard thought switching would not show depth of thought. 5. Sheet 2 in the Mapping documents Erik Kramer went through the mapping documents to see what potential issues people might encounter while doing the mapping instructions for Sheet 2. He is fairly comfortable with the instruction so people can be referred to him for assistance. This is optional, the information is already on the first page, and Sheet 2 displays the same information in a different format. Clyde Johnson said these documents need to be seen as living documents, because as curriculum changes this form needs to change too. Erik Kramer said that it is important to remember that courses and programs were created separately and now that both have to mesh together, it will take some time to perfect this. He also reported that Utpal Goswami said that changes to mapping documents need to go through the Curriculum Committee but Erik is not sure of how difficult that will be. 6. Program Dialogue training and instructions Erik Kramer took the cheat sheet and condensed the information down into the Program Dialogue instructions. He asked committee members to review the document to see if anything needs to added or removed. Paul Chown suggested adding screen shot, which would make the document longer but could replace some of the explanation. Erik Kramer will refine the instruction documents. Erik Kramer said he wants to have a training session with program leaders. Shannon Sullivan suggested having the training be a part of the Spring Flex activities with smaller breakout sessions to get the forms completed. 7. Discussion Items for the next meeting a. There will be further discussion about an Assessment dialog session during Spring Flex. b. Cheryl Tucker will do a Student Services Assessment Activities report out. 8. Adjourn: 4:31 pm Next Meeting: To be determined.