Assessment Committee Meeting Report for February 6, 2012
Attendees: Kate Peresie, Lynn Jones, Randy Storms, Gina Kamwithi, Janny Nauman, Ellen Johnson, Tom Prendergast (guest)
Kate called and conducted the meeting.
TOPIC
CLOs
DISCUSSION
ACTION STEPS
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
Tom
TIMELINE

CCSSE/CLO Report: Tom reported that he found an error in the CCSSE/CLO
report and will be re-doing. He also will work on program department level
feedback.
Present revised and
additional CCSSE/CLO
reports next meeting.

Employer and Graduate Surveys for CLOs: Tom shared the new Employer
Survey that includes CLO evaluation. Graduate Survey return rate was paltry.
(This is the survey that the Committee worked on with Troy Shutler a couple
of years ago – to include CLO assessment.)
No action required

New Computation CLO: The Committee approved further revision to the
new/proposed Computation CLO definition.
Incorporate revision
Kate
By
next
mtg.

Pilot volunteers: Volunteer to pilot the Intercultural and Information Lit CLOs
and their rubrics are still needed. Committee members will share the message
(“script” sent out by Kate) at March division meetings. It’s on the agendas for
HS and BIT divisions.
Recruit volunteers
Assess.
Committee
March
divsn
mtgs.

CLO new definitions changeover in course syllabi: The Committee agreed that
piloting the process for changing CLO definitions after semester conversion
(next fall? later?) is a good way to start. The Committee recommends that the
Curriculum Committee decide how they would to proceed and on what
schedule, including a possible pilot.
Communicate with
Curriculum
Committee/Cindy
Freeman
Kate
By
next
mtg.
By
next
mtg.
Goals
Curriculum
Handbook
Next
Meeting
The Committee reviewed their goals for the year, noting that most are in-progress
including tying CT with the CT strategic initiative, working with Curriculum
Committee to convert to revised CLOs, revising the Computation CLO, generating a
CCSSE/CLO report, keeping current and providing feedback for PARs, and piloting
the CAR/PAR process. There is little to no progress in these areas: Getting volunteers
to pilot the Intercultural and Information Lit CLOs and their rubrics is a struggle – we
need more; No progress on PAR development for the AA and AS degrees. Also, the
long-term goal, improving the use of technology, is definitely not happening until the
college budget improves.
No action required
Further discussion: The Committee members (Department Chairs) decided to invite
Program Directors/Coordinators to join the Committee – particularly to help with
improving PARs. Lynn indicated that he shared the Committee’s PAR feedback with
Jen Adkins and that she seemed to find it helpful.
Cindy Freeman, Gina, and Dr. Reed are working on a curriculum procedures
(approving course syllabi) handbook that would include guidelines for learning
outcomes and their assessment. They ask whether the Assessment Committee should
be part of the approval process.
Invite Program
Directors/Coordinators
Dept.
Chairs
By
next
mtg.
The Committee agreed on the following:
 The Committee should not be a step in the approval process because:
o Our focus and expertise is more at the program level, not the course
level.
o The process should be as simple/streamlined as possible so faculty
should be accountable to one committee.
o We would prefer to function as a resource, along with the Curriculum
Committee, for faculty that need assistance.
 We would like to collaborate in writing the Handbook. The Handbook should
include guidelines for learning outcomes and their assessment (measurable,
total number, level [Bloom’s, etc.], appropriateness of assessment method) as
well as examples and definitions of terms.
 Training/workshops are needed for developing good learning outcomes and
assessment strategies.
 We would be willing to participate in evaluating a random sample of course
syllabi to see if the meet the to-be-developed guidelines.
Next meeting is Monday February 20th, 3:30 in 149F.
Communicate to Cindy
Freeman and Dr. Reed
Kate and
Gina
By
end of
week