VCAA Academic Council
Minutes of Meeting
January 25, 2005
1:30-3:30 pm
UCB 307 (Dean’s Conference Room)
Present:
Dan Brown, Kelly Burke (Co-chair of Congress Assessment Committee), Jerry Calton,
Margaret Haig, Randy Hirokawa, Steve Hora, April Komenaka, Chrisopher Lu, Ann
Miser, Bill Sakai, Marcia Sakai, Kalena Silva, Lynne Stamoulis, Cathy Zenz.
Minutes of December VCAA Academic Council were approved.
Item 1. Academic Assessment
Request was submitted by Kelly Burke to have Academic Council prioritize four
categories of assessment activities which were identified as the following:
1. Program Review
2. General Education Assessment
3. Setting up programs of assessment with each department to match department
goals and strategic plans
4. Working with individual faculty members to develop assessments
Discussion ensued regarding philosophy, purpose, alignment, and integration of
assessment in the academic life of the campus. Some major points of discussion follow:
 General education is undergoing changes currently, so that is not a good
place to begin with assessment activities.
 Some thought was expressed that the top priority should be facilitating the
gathering and analyzing of data from students, student performance,
employers, and other stakeholders regarding the program’s effectiveness
and helping faculty use the data to improve program outcomes.
 Maybe there are two questions: “WHAT do we assess?” and “WHEN do
we assess?”
 Sometimes it is hard to know which comes first, external review or
internal review.
 Nursing is an example of a department which undergoes internal review,
external review through national exams, and program change based on
both reviews.
 Major goal for academic assessment must be the integration of campuswide assessment with alumni relations and institutional goals.
 Internal assessment is good, but to be effective assessment cannot require
lots of extra work on the part of faculty.
 We must be able to use the data from assessment to improve programs, or
else why bother to assess?
 What roles do Assessment Committee members, deans, department heads,
vice chancellor play in the assessment process? What should be the roles
in order to have the most effective assessment system in place?



We must remember that current program reviews with memoranda of
understanding is a relatively new concept to our campus AND that
program reviews comment on program direction as well as program
activities.
The institution of external reviewers in the program review process has
been very positive in terms of our accreditation process and evaluation.
There currently is a matrix of assessment activities on the accreditation
web site which might be useful to the Assessment Committee.
Item 2. Proposal to Accommodate Unclassified Student Status
Cathy Zenz presented a proposal to change the way unclassified students matriculate at
the university. Academic Council gave support to the following proposal requests:
 Unclassified students still will be able to register for classes without going
through the admissions process typical of classified students.
 Unclassified students will be held to the same academic standards of performance
as classified students with the same university supports and consequences in
place.
 Unclassified students will have a “home” in CCECS to address academic needs
brought about by these changes.
Jerry Calton will shepherd this proposal for change through the Congress for comment.
Item 3. General Education Program Report
April Komenaka reported that the General Education Committee has concluded that the
GE program must be based not only on the expectations of accrediting agencies, but also
on the distinctive mission and goals of each of the colleges and on broad participation of
the faculty in each college to design such a program. Accordingly the committee will ask
each of the four colleges to review current GE goals, the GE program of basic and area
requirements, and UH Hilo graduation requirements. Each college then will propose a
set of GE goals and courses and graduation requirements that will contribute more
directly to the mission and goals of its own college. Draft programs must be completed
by May 15, 2005. The GE Committee and other representatives of the four colleges will
review drafts in light of accreditation guidelines and formulate next steps based on results
of the review and subsequent discussion.
Item 4. General Education and General University Requirement Approval Mechanism.
Currently there is no mechanism in place to approve courses that will count for General
Education requirements. A suggestion was made that possibly the GE Committee could
address this issue through its hallmarks.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.