Shared Governance Assessment Committee
November 30, 2015 MEETING NOTES
3:00 pm in LBR362 (Marine Room)
=in attendance
Grunder, Doug - ESP representative, joined 9/2015, term expires 2018
 Jenkins-Ball, Marcia ESP representative term expires 2018
King, Sandi - Faculty, School of Health Sciences, term expires 2016 (Vice-Chair)
 Myton, Dave - Associate Provost for Assessment, Education and Graduate Studies (Secretary)
 Denger, George - Faculty, School of Arts and Letters, term expires 2018
 Hildebrand, Robert College of Business and Engineering, term expires 2016 (non-replacement position)
 Johnson, Steve - School of Physical Sciences, Term expires 2018
 McCready, Mindy - Faculty, Lukenda School of Business, Term expires 2018 – (excused)
Moening, Joe - Faculty, School of Engineering and Technology Term expires 2018
 Light, Barb - Faculty, School of Education, Term expires 2018
Olson-Pupek, Kristina – School of Public Safety, Community & Behavioral Sciences Term expires 2018
Rose, Jillena – School of Arts and Letters, Term expires 2017
Zimmerman, Greg - School of Biological Sciences, Term expires 2018
Wood, Sharmay - AP representative, Term expires 2017
 Schemm, Evan - Faculty, School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Term expires 2018 (Chair)
Schupp, Mari - AP representative, Term expires 2018
Vacant, School of Recreation Studies and Exercise Sciences (no term listed)
Vacant, Student
Vacant, Student
Guests: (none)
Part A: Committee Activity
1. Called to order at: 3:00 pm – 190 days to the Academy Results Forum
2. Approval of minutes from November 2, 2015 (Johnson/Hildebrand) unanimous.
Part B: Active Topics
1. Targeted Assessment Program – applications will be reviewed at next meeting, Myton will send it
2. Program Review.
a. The AC reviewed a draft revision of the Program Review template. Suggestions were made and
valuable discussion ensued. The role of Tracdat reports as supporting document was affirmed and
members agreed broadly on the concepts involved.
b. BJ Light will make revisions based on the discussion and send to the committee for the next meeting
3. Next meeting will be in the second week of January, Myton will send Doodle Poll in January
4. Myton will update the Academy for the Assessment of Student Learning – February update
5.
6. Adjourned at 15:52 (unanimous)
7. Next meeting dates: at 3 pm
Part C: Holding Area (*no action at this meeting)
1. University Assessment Plan – last updated November 2012
a. Process for review and update
2. Surveys.
a. Assessment Perceptions – Non-academic Co-Curricular
http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/documents/Assessment-perceptions-staff2.pdf
b. Assessment Perceptions – Academics
http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/documents/Assessment-perceptions-faculty2.pdf
3. HLC Academy Results Forum
a. Impact Report – revisions and edits needed
b. Poster – v.2 draft now available
c. Travel Team – selection delayed until session is confirmed
d. Swag for poster session
Page 1 of 5
4. University Assessment Plan
http://www.lssu.edu/president/strategicplanning.php
a. Review of charge http://www.lssu.edu/sharedgovernance/assessment/charge.php
5. Review of surveys
a. Spring 2012 Course Survey http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/documents/CourseAssessmentReportSpring2012.pdf
b. Draft spring 2016 follow-up survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CKN6BSG
6. Recommendation on release time
a. “The committee recommends that release time be made available to academic schools to carry out the
coordination of assessment and program review.”
7. Assessment in Program Review - “Memo to Chairs - Program Review. The University is committed to
delivering quality programs. Please submit a program review narrative that addresses program quality
through measures of external validation and program assessment. This may be an opportunity to additionally
define program needs. The program review narrative is expected to be less than five pages. Programs that are
externally accredited may provide an executive summary of their accreditation report with references to the
original document as their Review.”
8. The committee recommends that a definition on “the practice of assessment and validity of the assessment
process” be established and proposes the following: The formal standards for practice and validity of
assessment in a school shall be collaboratively established and approved by the faculty of that school.
9. Committee membership – changes at SGOC
10. Review of General Education assessment
a. General Education Courses report
b. General Education Outcomes report
11. Syllabus Review of Student Learning Outcomes
12. Program Assessment – review of the assessment sections of current program reviews
13. Co-curricular Assessment
14. Administrative Services and Support Assessment
15. Strategic Plan Assessment
16. Assessment Vocabulary
17. LSSU-specific name for assessment system (other than Tracdat), i.e. Anchor Access is really Banner INB
18. Other
Part D: Other matters Rising
1. Other
Page 2 of 5
Program Review Draft Document
Why do program review?
Program review is an evaluation of current curriculum, instruction, and assessment at an overall program level
with the goal of monitoring program evolution. Our LSSU vision statement begins with, “Our programs grow and
evolve in ways that keep our graduates at the cutting edge of technological and societal advances.” Every program
undergoes a process of maturation which ideally is managed by those most fully engaged in presenting the
program. Program review is the key step in program management and the following template is presented as a
tool that will assist in program review and allow for a standard format for presenting program review, which will
greatly help in the institutional level evaluation work structured by the HLC criterion.
The fourth HLC Criterion for Accreditation is entitled “Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement” and
the first core component of the criterion states that “the institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of
its educational programs”. The first point for that core component, which must be addressed in our assurance
argument to HLC states “the institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews.”
(http://policy.hlcommission.org/Policies/criteria-for-accreditation.html)
The Continuous Improvement Model
From: Michigan Department of Education http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-28753_38959---,00.html
Important dates related to program review:
April 1 – program review report due for each program scheduled for review
Page 3 of 5
Instructions:
Complete either section 1 (for programs with external accreditation) or section 2 (for programs without external
accreditation). Then complete sections 3, 4, and 5 (for ALL programs).
Section 1: Continuous Improvement for programs with external accreditation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
When was the most recent accreditation given?
What strengths did the external accreditors note?
What are you doing to maintain those strengths?
What were the most important items the external accreditors suggested for improvement?
What have you already done to make those improvements?
What further changes do you plan to make related to those suggestions?
Are you working on improvements that were not suggested in the external accreditation process? If so,
what are they and what progress has been made in each area?
8. How are you using data in your continuous improvement efforts?
Section 2: Continuous Improvement for programs without external accreditation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What are the strengths of the program? Please include data that showcases the strengths.
What are you doing to maintain those strengths?
What improvements are needed in the program? Please include data that indicates a need for change.
What have you already done to make those improvements?
What further changes do you plan to make related to the needs for improvement?
Section 3: Enrollment for all programs
1. Provide actual numbers for enrollment in the program for the past five years.
2. Are the enrollment numbers satisfactory? If not, how are you addressing the issue?
Section 4: Resources and Opportunities for all programs
3. Are sufficient resources (fiscal, classroom, lab, instructional staff, technology, operational staff, etc.)
currently allocated to the program?
4. If not, how could resources under your control be reallocated to meet the needs of the program?
5. Please provide an analysis of what would be gained and what would be lost in the proposed resource
reallocation.
Section 5: Mission (applies to all programs, but is OPTIONAL)
Why is this optional?
Having some text along these lines will help the team writing the assurance argument for HLC and certainly
recognizing how a program contributes to the mission can be validating for those in the program and may even
prompt discussion related to program improvement. However, if it is not of value at this time to those involved in
program review, please use the time in other ways.
The university mission statement is: Our mission at Lake Superior State University is to help students develop their
full potential. We launch students on paths to rewarding careers and productive, satisfying lives. We serve the
Page 4 of 5
regional, state, national and global communities by contributing to the growth, dissemination, and application of
knowledge.
1. Using either the university mission statement or your school or department mission statement, provide a
paragraph or two about how this program specifically contributes to achieving the mission.
Page 5 of 5