From Les Wong to Margaret Dahlberg copies to APAC
9/28/00
Margaret,
Thank you for the suggestions. I've attached APAC to this email so that they can "write to" the questions as you
have them. I would like to underscore two key items to you for the benefit of Division Chairs:
1) The issue of identifying discreet indicators of assessment practices in your division is critical. And as you say,
we must address the "so what" question since much of our interim report is descriptive. I've noticed that this
emphasis is now being copied by most all other regional accreditors and is a key point in institutional self studies.
The NCA homepage is replete with this message.
2) The division chairs should also note that Karen K (our NCA liaison) also made repeated mention of our staking
the high ground as a notebook, web enhanced university (it is what makes us unique. Her answer to us was "so
what, how do you know it makes you unique with your students?"). We will need to support this claim with data by
identifying the extent of notebook use by faculty (individually and collectively, in ways chosen by division) perhaps
in courses, web material used to support classes use of Dr. Holleque's data, and so on (I will bet money that a site
team member WILL thoroughly examine our web site, including homepages and when on campus, the various
drives--NCA did so at my last campus). So my advice is that each division chair should convey to you the use of
technology by their division if they have not already done so. I would assume that many parts of the criterion
reports will allude to technology use as well. I know that Karen is sensitive to the IT issue.
Les
>>> Margaret Dahlberg 09/26/00 09:21AM >>>
Les,
If division chairs need more direction for their write-ups for NCA, here are some thoughts regarding
assessment/Criterion 3, which might be useful.
We would appreciate a descriptive section about each divisional program. In addition, we need information about
assessment in each divisional program.
I would think the program reviews would have some of this material already; our aim in the self study, however, is
evaluative, not merely descriptive (the last report was descriptive--this time we have to tell "so what" as well). In
addition, we must try not to make claims without supporting evidence (referenced, and therefore available in the
Resource room, not necessarily included in the write-up itself).
NCA wants us to relate assessment to improving student learning (show how we "document and improve student
learning")
NCA also wants to see assessment related to decision-making (its influence on Curriculum, faculty development,
and budgeting).
Here are some specific ideas...
1. What are the Divisional Abilites--how are they integrated into upper level courses, esp. relationship to Content.
A copy of your map (if available) would be appreciated.
2. We are all in process with the abilities, our majors, the portfolios, and assessment plans. Describe where your
division is in the process (what has been achieved, what you are doing, what is long range).
3. Explain how you use the information gathered through various assessment processes (for curriculum change,
budget, faculty training, improvement in student learning).
4. How do/can you demonstrate that your graduates have "mastery of level of knowledge appropriate to the
degree attained"?
Margaret.
Margaret,
Thank you for the suggestions. I've attached APAC to this email so that they can "write to" the questions as you
have them. I would like to underscore two key items to you for the benefit of Division Chairs:
1) The issue of identifying discreet indicators of assessment practices in your division is critical. And as you say,
we must address the "so what" question since much of our interim report is descriptive. I've noticed that this
emphasis is now being copied by most all other regional accreditors and is a key point in institutional self studies.
The NCA homepage is replete with this message.
2) The division chairs should also note that Karen K (our NCA liaison) also made repeated mention of our staking
the high ground as a notebook, web enhanced university (it is what makes us unique. Her answer to us was "so
what, how do you know it makes you unique with your students?"). We will need to support this claim with data by
identifying the extent of notebook use by faculty (individually and collectively, in ways chosen by division) perhaps
in courses, web material used to support classes use of Dr. Holleque's data, and so on (I will bet money that a site
team member WILL thoroughly examine our web site, including homepages and when on campus, the various
drives--NCA did so at my last campus). So my advice is that each division chair should convey to you the use of
technology by their division if they have not already done so. I would assume that many parts of the criterion
reports will allude to technology use as well. I know that Karen is sensitive to the IT issue.
Les
>>> Margaret Dahlberg 09/26/00 09:21AM >>>
Les,
If division chairs need more direction for their write-ups for NCA, here are some thoughts regarding
assessment/Criterion 3, which might be useful.
We would appreciate a descriptive section about each divisional program. In addition, we need information about
assessment in each divisional program.
I would think the program reviews would have some of this material already; our aim in the self study, however, is
evaluative, not merely descriptive (the last report was descriptive--this time we have to tell "so what" as well). In
addition, we must try not to make claims without supporting evidence (referenced, and therefore available in the
Resource room, not necessarily included in the write-up itself).
NCA wants us to relate assessment to improving student learning (show how we "document and improve student
learning")
NCA also wants to see assessment related to decision-making (its influence on Curriculum, faculty development,
and budgeting).
Here are some specific ideas...
1. What are the Divisional Abilites--how are they integrated into upper level courses, esp. relationship to Content.
A copy of your map (if available) would be appreciated.
2. We are all in process with the abilities, our majors, the portfolios, and assessment plans. Describe where your
division is in the process (what has been achieved, what you are doing, what is long range).
3. Explain how you use the information gathered through various assessment processes (for curriculum change,
budget, faculty training, improvement in student learning).
4. How do/can you demonstrate that your graduates have "mastery of level of knowledge appropriate to the
degree attained"?
Margaret.