Meeting Minutes
Assessment Committee
September 20, 2013
Action Items:







Meeting minutes will be revised and redistributed to committee members as well
as posted with corrections on the Assessment Committee website.
Anne Strouth will update the Bloom’s Taxonomy list in regards to spelling and
capitalization issues and send list to Gina Kamwithi. (members present were
asked to spell check and review their list and give to Anne at the end of the
meeting).
Linda Jagielo will send the citation to add to the Bloom’s Taxonomy list to Gina
Kamwithi to add
Gina will add citation and title to the Bloom’s Taxonomy list that Anne forwards
as well as post same to the Assessment and Curriculum Committee websites and
email to full-time faculty, etc.
Anne will send her guide (last page to be removed) for use of taxonomy verbs to
Gina Kamwithi to post and distribute with Current Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs list.
Dr. Reed will send an email to the Deans to share with the Assistant Deans
regarding full-time faculty emailing them their course name, section and
assignment title and that the Assistant Deans will then forward that email to the
DL Department for follow-up that at least one rubric was launched as requested.
Anne will send a cheat sheet to committee for their review to be used for
upcoming Division meetings. After committee members have reviewed and
returned their comments, Anne will forwarded revised document to Gina to post
to the Assessment Committee website as the same time the final document is
forwarded to committee members by email to Anne.
Members Present: Bob Lewis, Randy Storms, Dr. Reed, Dean Jim Hull, Gina
Kamwithi, Linda Jagielo, Jen Adkins, Richard Birk, Ellen Johnson and Anne
Strouth.
* Anne Strouth opened the meeting confirming that members present had reviewed the
September 13 Meeting Minutes.
Randy Storms asked for clarification regarding who to record in the meeting minutes as
the initiator regarding the recommended number of program outcomes for faculty to use.
In the September 13th meeting minutes it was indicated that ‘Discussion followed
regarding if there was a concern that some programs included too few or too many
program outcomes. The recommendation was that 2 are too few and that 12 are too many.
The general consensus was that 4-7 program outcomes should be recommended.’
Discussion followed that the recommendation is coming from the Assessment
Committee, with Dr. Reed in agreement, as a recommendation for best practices but there
is always room for exceptions due to program accreditation requirements, etc.
Randy Storms also asked for clarification of page 3, paragraph 4: ‘discussion regarding a
previous charge to look at other College’s programs and compare their utilization of
verbs at Faculty Convocation’. Randy indicated he believed the sentence should be
reworded to indicate ‘that faculty were to look at other College’s programs to compare
their program outcomes but at the same time also look at the level of Bloom’s verbs
being utilized for current or future utilization.
Randy also asked for a reference to program outcomes be changed to course outcomes.
Randy Storms made a motion to accept the meeting minutes with the 3 suggested
changes, Anne Strouth seconded the motion. Motion passed. Meeting minutes will be
revised and redistributed to committee members as well as posted with corrections on the
Assessment Committee website.
* Anne asked if members present had reviewed the Assessment Timeline. Gina
Kamwithi also advised that it is already on the Assessment Committee website.
Discussion followed regarding whether or not both program and course outcomes should
be included in the master syllabi. The decision was “no, the program outcomes added to
the syllabi at this time might be too confusing to both faculty and students. I was also
shared that if the assessment timeline is pulled off, NCSC will be ahead of 90% of four
year institutions; discussion regarding a comparison to two year institutions was also
provided indicating that we are making headway with OBR/CEMS submissions. Dr.
Reed shared that the key is to keep the momentum going, to help others when possible
with requests/requirements but to keep reminding others that this is a pilot program and
input is always welcome to initiate changes as needed.
* Anne shared the updated Bloom’s Taxonomy list with members and acknowledged
that Janny Nauman provided input for and assistance with the list. Discussion followed to
include: A note expressing that this list of verbs on this sheet is not an
exhaustive/complete list; several spelling and capitalization items need revised as well as
the recommendation to remove Introduce, Reinforce, and Master as headings on the list.
Gina Kamwithi made the motion to accept the distributed list as the list that the
Assessment Committee is moving forward with but to include the recommendations
made above by committee members. Randy Storms seconded the motion. Gina included
that as the Current Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs list it will be posted on the Assessment
Committee and Curriculum Committee’s website as well as emailed to all after the
recommended changes/additions are made.
Discussion followed: Linda Jagielo will provide a citation to be included on the list
clarifying that “no these are not the ONLY verbs we can use, but they are a guide’, Dr.
Reed recommended adding a revision date to the list and a recommendation was made to
add ‘Current” to the title of the list.
Further Discussion regarding the Bloom’s Taxonomy list included what level (introduce,
reinforce, master) program outcomes should meet, that program outcomes should match
your program expectations when completing the program. Additionally,it should be
noted that flexibility is needed but that absolutely some outcomes should be upper level
even if we are a two year college. It was also discussed whether there should be an
official statement made that outcomes should include some mastery or not or should this
be left to academic flexibility. The question was also asked,” where is mastery tested”,
also “what is the difference between meeting mastery or just assessing for mastery,” and
“it is okay have action verbs within your outcome sentences that reflect multiple levels
of the taxonomy list. It was reiterated to keep in mind that the list is only a guide for
faculty to use.
Anne shared that she also has a guide list she uses that provides clarification for the use
of taxonomy verbs with examples that could be distributed to faculty. Committee
members present were in consensus to distribute the guide to faculty. Anne will send the
guide to Gina Kamwithi to post with Current Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs list and
distribute as part of the previous motion. A final call to vote on the previous motion that
was made by Gina Kamwithi and seconded by Randy Storms was made with the addition
of including the guide (but removing its last page). Motion passed with all amendments.
* The question of how the College is tracking whether or not 62 full-time faculty have
deployed a rubric this semester was raised. Discussion followed to include how do we
know they’re all complete, that not all full-time faculty will submit a rubric (some
departments are team teaching in health sciences), the recommendation was made to have
full-time faculty email their assistant dean - identifying in the email the course name,
section and the assignment title that includes the rubric as documentation of completion,
the suggestion was then to have the assistant deans forward the email to the Distance
Learning Department to confirm the rubric was launched. But, to assure anonymity of
the results, DL will have the list, not Academic Services. Thus, the final report will be
aggregated by Gina Kamwithi who requests not to have access to the course
names/numbers/faculty members tied to those courses. Dr. Reed will send a follow up
email to the Deans to share with the Assistant Deans to have them track and forward fulltime faculty members compliance and completion of the request (note: the requirement
for each full-time faculty member to launch a rubric for 1 section of 1 course in 1
assignment as previously been announced and in the Assessment Timeline)
The motion was made to require full-time faculty to send an accountability email to their
assistant dean, which will then be forwarded to the DL Department. The motion was
made by Gina Kamwithi, seconded by Randy Storms (the email is to include course
name, section and assignment title confirming and identifying that they have launched a
rubric as they had previously decided). Part 1 - A call for a vote in regards to
accountability was made – all in favor. Part 2 - A call for a vote in regards to
communication of the information to the DL Department was made – all in favor. Motion
passed.
* Anne shared that she has a list of notes that team members could use for training
purposes and as speaking notes for upcoming Division meetings. To expedite use and
distribution Anne will clean up the list and email it to committee members for their
review to use as a cheat sheet.
Anne asked for suggestions for future agenda items. Discussion followed.
Meeting Adjourned at 12:19 p.m.
Next Meeting 11a.m. October 4th, room 149F
First Draft submitted, Friday, September 20, 2013
By Terry Miller