University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
University Assessment Committee
Minutes September 11, 2013
Called to order on 8:04 by Jennifer Fager
Present: S. Swanson, M. Stadler, J. Pollitz, S. Hill, T. Vaughan, C.Brandt, J. Prunishriek, K. Pierson, L.
Huntington, C. Manning, R. Battalio, S. Pehler
Presiding: J. Fager, Director of University Assessment
Agenda Item
Minutes of 5/15/2013 approved
as submitted
Nicole Kraft developing
Assessment website.
Thank you to the summer
workgroups as they developed
the rubrics. They did an
exceptional job.
Rubric Discussion/Feedback
Discussion
All of the Learning Outcomes are
loaded on the Assessment
website.
Carmen, Steve, Lynn Marie, John
Cheryl from this committee
worked on the summer
workgroups.
2 Phase Implementation
 Pre-Pilot in selected classes
(Fall and Spring, 2013-2014)
 Pilot Fall and Spring, 20142015
Concerns about who is doing the
pre-pilot trial—want to include
classes from people who
developed as well as those who
did not develop the rubrics.
K4-- disagreement on what
outcome meant
work—is this right to do? Would
it be a better fit in the major?
R1 Are the elements aligned with
the intentions of the outcome?
R3— how to deal with service
learning—---is it imbedded?
Requirement?
General concerns about the
elements--some are too dense,
which narrows the courses that
could meet that outcome. Are
the rubrics designed to meet
outcome---or less compact so
more inclusive. Challenge is
Action
Informational Only
Jennifer is working with the
Deans on expanding the number
of classes in the pre-pilot phase
to include faculty who were not
involved in rubric development.
Jennifer is meeting with the Title
III Grant Activity Director and the
Chair of ULEC to share concerns.
R1D---is being deleted due to its
behavioral nature, could not
measure in a course.
Agenda Item
Discussion
moving from a single assignment
to an entire course, to a liberal
education program.
Additional
discussion/suggestions from UAC
members
Suggestion---provide a template
on SharePoint for anyone trying
the rubrics to report their data.
Action
Jennifer will share with Chair of
ULEC
Need systematic way to also
share ideas. An Open Forum to
allow faculty ability to provide
feedback.
Assignment:
Provide feedback on each of the
rubrics from a University
Assessment perspective.
No other way for another
College to submit courses for
consideration for Liberal
Education core.
Think of it through the lens, if I
am teaching a course using this
rubric, what questions do I have?
Are the elements clear? What
questions do I have? In addition
to questions or concerns, what is
good about the rubric?
Respectfully Submitted: Shelley-Rae Pehler
Jennifer will work with Chair of
ULEC to develop a form so
faculty can provide the feedback
based on a public forum on the
rubrics.
Members are asked to submit
their comments about the
rubrics on this feedback form to
help start the discussion.
Attachment
From: Rieck, Alan J.
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:43 AM
To: Goulet, Marc R.; Fager, Jennifer J.
Cc: Baker, David A.; Cassidy, Margaret L.
Subject: Rubric Development
Marc and Jennifer,
Thank you for your diligent work on the implementation of the new LE program and the development of rubrics
that will assist us in making these experiences all that they are intended to be. I also appreciate the opportunity to
participate in the process of rubric development for the K4 outcome. It was an enjoyable task and working with
Chris and Max was a great experience.
Having been involved in rubric development for many years as an educator and teaching these concepts to many
of our students I feel that I must express concerns about some of the rubrics that are currently being
proposed. Many, in fact most, are quite serviceable for our purposes. There are some general concerns as well as
one specific concern that I would like to share.
General concerns:
1.
The use of quantifiable language in some of the rubrics is not a practice with which I feel very
comfortable. The development of rubrics is intended to make qualitative distinctions quantifiable
through the assignment of a valued label or number. The strongest rubrics therefore are those that avoid
terms such as mostly, generally, some, and frequent. Instead they focus on levels of experience and
depth of understanding terms such are present in Bloom’s taxonomy.
2.
The “Benchmark not met” category is of little help within the rubrics as they currently are
constructed. Essentially we have used the first column as a means to say that the second column has not
been achieved—this should be obvious by the progressive nature of the columns. It would be more
helpful to have things listed in that column that others might assume would satisfy the benchmark goal,
but in fact do not.
3.
In some of the rubrics the definition of the benchmark being met could bring about very negative
response from those outside of the university. In my understanding this column defined our bottom line
in terms of whether an experience has accomplished the goal of the outcome. To say to the public,
parents, or students that our goal is to have things “mostly correct” or “some original thought” suggests
some things that could be very problematic.
Specific concern:
The language of the S3 rubric is a serious problem. It seems that we have attempted to bring a great deal
of knowledge into this outcome. It is true that the knowledge and skills areas are ultimately connected in an
intricate manner, but they are also values that may be developed in very different and unique ways. It is essential
that we maintain the S3 outcome because the development of skills in this area are essential, however the rubric
does not value that type of development. This rubric should define a commitment to providing opportunities for
our students to participate in the creative process through a variety of means. I know that there has been
discussion about dropping row D in this rubric (necessary in my opinion) but there are also issues with the other
rows because they do not express the importance skills other than application of knowledge. Members of my
department are deeply concerned about these omissions. Ultimately this will have a serious impact on the ability
to provide meaningful experiences in this area because it does not reflect the values that we have for the
development of skills that are associated with artistic process.
In regard to the S3 concerns, I do have a few faculty members who would be very interested in participating in a
process of revising this to better represent important values. Please let me know if you have a means for their
participation at this point (taking Vanissa’s place potentially). I am also available to assist in whatever ways are
necessary to move the process further with these important rubrics.
Please know that the majority of the work here is quite commendable. It has been time consuming and thought
intensive and your efforts are greatly appreciated. We cannot have meaningful dialog about these items without
the first steps, so thanks again.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan
*****************************************************************
Alan J. Rieck, PhD.
Professor and Interim Chair
Department of Music and Theatre Arts
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
156 Haas Fine Arts
Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004
office phone: 715-836-3634
e-mail: rieckaj@uwec.edu